Netherlands - District Court Haarlem, 25 May 2011, AWB 10/44949
| Country of Decision: | Netherlands |
| Country of applicant: | Iran |
| Court name: | District Court Haarlem |
| Date of decision: | 25-05-2011 |
| Citation: | AWB 10/44949 |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Persecution Grounds/Reasons
Description
Per Article 1A ofthe1951 Refugee Convention, one element of the refugee definition is that the persecution feared is “for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion“. Member States must take a number of elements into account when assessing the reasons for persecution as per Article 10 of the Qualification Directive. |
|
Religion
Description
One of the grounds of persecution specified in the refugee definition under Article 1A ofthe1951 Refugee Convention. According to the Qualification Directive, the concept of religion includes in particular the holding of theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, the participation in, or abstention from, formal worship in private or in public, either alone or in community with others, other religious acts or expressions of view, or forms of personal or communal conduct based on or mandated by any religious belief. |
Headnote:
Restriction of the right to attend church is an act of persecution and therefore a violation of Art 10 of the Qualification Directive.
Facts:
The applicant converted to Christianity in the Netherlands and feared practicing his religion on return to Iran. He claimed, inter alia, that it would be a violation of Art 10 of the Qualification Directive if he was expected to exercise restraint over his religious conversion. The applicant felt an inner urge to convert others to Christianity. The applicant also claimed that it would be a violation of the Qualification Directive if he were expected not to visit churches for worship service.
Decision & reasoning:
The District Court held that the applicant’s claim that he feels an inner urge to convert others to Christianity was not a violation of Art 10 of the Qualification Directive or Art 9 of the ECHR, because the applicant explained that the converting activities were not inherent to his specific religious belief or the church he joined in the Netherlands, but that he himself has this inner urge to tell his close friends and relatives about Christianity. This inner urge is also not substantiated by the applicant’s statements or other facts or circumstances. The respondent was therefore able to conclude that the applicant would not perform converting activities.
The District Court further held that the country of origin report compiled by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of October 2010 stated that the "new churches" in Iran, the only church of which the applicant can be a member of as a converted Christian, is regarded negatively by the Iranian authorities. Also, that these churches and its visitors are monitored by the authorities and meetings outside the church-building are forbidden. The country of origin report further stated that during the report period converted Christians were regularly arrested after raids on in house churches and that some of them are still in detention. The report of Christian Solidarity Worldwide of January 2011 states that Christians who were arrested after a raid in one of the house churches were released only after they signed a statement that they will not visit any (house) churches. The decision of the Minister is therefore insufficiently reasoned.
The reference of the respondent to the case of Z & T v United Kingdom (Application no. 27034/05, 28 February 2006) claiming that member states are not bound to guarantee that persons can exercise their religious beliefs, failed because that judgment concerned the scope of Art 9 of the ECHR, the applicant in this case claimed to have fear for persecution by the Iranian authorities as defined in the Refugee Convention and the implemented law regarding Art 10 of the Qualification Directive.
Outcome:
The applicant's appeal was dismissed.
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Cited Cases:
| Cited Cases |
| ECtHR - Z & T v United Kingdom (Application no. 27034/05) |