124 Towards the Effective Protection of LGBTI Persons Deprived of Liberty the basis that each applicant had failed to prove his same-sex sexual orientation. According to the Court, the assessment must examine the applicant’s individual situation and should not be based on stereotyped notions. Questions concerning details of an applicant’s sexual practices are to be considered contrary to fundamental rights. The Court also found that the applicant’s credibility could not be questioned “merely because he did not rely on his declared sexual orientation on the first occasion he was given to set out the ground for persecution”. The Court’s ruling ultimately aims at putting an end to humiliating and degrading practices like submitting applicants to “tests” in order to demonstrate their sexual orientation, or even demanding the production of “evidence” such as films of their intimate acts, because such evidence by “its nature infringe[s] human dignity.” Case law (2) Court of Justice of the European Union, F v. Bevandorlasi és Allampolgarsagi Hivatal, 2018 Asked by a Hungarian administrative and labour court whether the authorities could assess an asylum seeker’s statements about his sexual orientation on the basis of a psychologist’s expert report, the Court of Justice of the European Union held that recourse to such a report, for the purpose of assessing the veracity of a claim made by an asylum seeker about his sexual orientation, would not be consistent with the 2011/95/ EU Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In this case, in which a Nigerian national claimed to be fleeing persecution on the grounds of his homosexuality, the Court found that recourse to a expert psychological report for such purposes constitutes an interference with the individual’s right to respect for his private life (Art. 7 of the Charter, “Respect for private and family life”). Importantly, the Court noted that consent for such psychological tests is not necessarily given freely, because it is imposed under the pressure of the circumstances in which an asylum seeker finds himself. Furthermore, the Court observed that such interference is particularly serious because it is intended to give an insight into the most intimate aspect of the asylum seeker’s life. A psychologist’s expert report seeking to determine an asylum seeker’s sexual orientation was deemed