The court did not reach any conclusion as to whether GN had been raped or not. The court record says:
For the sake of clarity, it is noted that the majority has no opinion on whether GN has actually been the victim of a rape within the meaning of the Criminal Code. Whether a possible rape was committed intentionally, neither can nor should the majority consider. These questions also affect the legal security of the man in question.
... in the minority's view, it would be contrary to basic legal security standards for the protection of the man to find it proven that she had been raped by him.
Not only that, but according to the court record GN has not reported the alleged rape to the police, and did not want to involve the man in either of her committee cases or in the case before the courts.
If she did not want to involve the man in the case or report it to the police, then why did she make the claim of rape? The congregation claimed in their court statement:
The argument of GN that she has been disfellowshipped because of rape, is an attempt to avoid dismissal of the case before the court. The purpose is to make a case that the court can consider. In connection with this, it must be pointed out that there is agreement that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not disfellowship members because of rape, and the evidence shows that the committees have not disfellowshipped GN because of rape. The congregation has disfellowshipped GN because of a religious sin, that is related to the biblical concept “porneia.” This is a religious evaluation of the facts that were known by the elders at the time the decision was made.