Bundeswehr Vaccine Case

Re: The Legality of Vaccine Mandates for Germany’s Armed Forces


Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: Complaint filed Dec 2021
  • Location: Leipzig, Germany
  • Court: Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG)
  • Case #: BVerwG 1 WB 5.22 und BVerwG 1 W-VR 3.22 & AZ. BVerwG 1 WB 2.22 und BVerwG 1 W-VR 1.22
  • Plaintiffs: 2 Air Force officers
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer: Wilfried Schmitz
  • Defendant: German Federal Ministry of Defense
  • Trial Type: military complaints procedure
  • Witnesses: Prof Bhakdi, Prof Burkhardt, Tom Lausen
  • Judge: 3 Judges & 2 lay judges from the Air Force
  • Status: Decided (July 7, 2022)
  • Verdict: TBD

*updated July 10, 2022


In November 24, 2021 the German Federal Ministry of Defense introduced a vaccine mandate for all army personnel numbering over 200,000. Already by Nov 2021 the German lawyer Wilfried Schmitz was supporting two Air Force Officers who had rejected the obligation to be vaccinated as prescribed by this order. The basis for refusal was their own research which led them to realise that the Covid vaccine is not a conventional vaccine but a genetic concoction which clearly:

  • does not stop the transfer of disease from one individual to another and also,
  • does not fight disease

These soldiers were vilified by their superiors and labelled as ‘Querdenker’ (lateral thinkers) as commented by RA Schmitz in an interview during the Corona Ausschuss Session# 99 [1]

Application for annulment of the orders were filed on 6 December 2021 and 12 December 2021

According to army legal protocol (para #21 of military law), any challenge to such an order has to be dealt with in the highest Federal courts. [1] Accordingly, in March 2022, RA Schmitz assembled a team of qualified lawyers to prepare the case for the plaintiffs. The team comprised the following legal experts:

Beate Bahner, Dr. Brigtte Röhrig, Prof. Dr. Martin Schwab, Sven Lausen,  Göran Thoms

Documentation to support the plaintiff’s case amounted to 500 pages of evidence and legal argument. [2]

The first Hearing was set for May 2 2022 (see summary below)

A second Hearing will be on June 7, 2022 (see summary below)

A third Hearing will be on July 6 and 7, 2022

(See more under Proceedings below)

Relevant Statistics
In the German armed forces, there were just under 60,000 cumulative cases of Corona (positive test) from March 2020 to the end of April 2022. On 29 April 2022, 6,950 soldiers were Corona positive. With 180,000 soldiers, this is a fairly high incidence, about five times higher than in the (civilian) population. And this with a higher vaccination rate in the troops (94 percent) than in the population as a whole. [6]

Just two soldiers have died with or from Corona in the German Armed Forces in two years of pandemic. And this despite the fact that it is part of the military’s DNA to frequently move in condensed groups. [6]
47 cases of vaccination side effects have so far been reported by the Bundeswehr to the Paul Ehrlich Institute. Among them 5 x myocarditis, several thromboses, skin diseases, allergy outbreaks, etc. [6]
A soldier, over 50 years old, died in connection with the Corona vaccination after atrial fibrillation. [6]



First legal challenge to a military vaccine mandate in Germany.


Plaintiff’s Argument

A key point in lawyer Schmitz’s legal argument is that according to Article17a of the military law, the soldier has to do everything to maintain his/her physical integrity so if they submitted to the vaccine in full knowledge of its known adverse effects, they would be risking impairment of their own health which is a contradiction to Art. 17a


Defendant’s Argument

(From the Court Hearing Announcement)

The Federal Ministry of Defense considers the application already inadmissible because the amendment of the administrative regulations does not yet encroach on the soldier’s legal sphere. Moreover, the inclusion of the Covid 19 vaccination in the list of basic vaccinations to be generally carried out was lawful. The soldier’s fundamental right to physical integrity was effectively restricted by § 17a para. 2 sentence 1 no. 1 SG. The provision permitted the ordering of a protective vaccination against the coronavirus Sars-Cov-2. The vaccination served to prevent a transmissible disease, even if it did not offer complete protection. It was sufficient that it reduced the probability of infection and the risk of severe courses of the disease. This was proven on the basis of current scientific studies and according to the surveys of the Robert Koch Institute. There are also no disproportionately high vaccination risks associated with vaccination. The use of the vaccine is continuously monitored by the competent European authorities and the Paul Ehrlich Institute. In its safety report, the PEI comes to the conclusion that serious side effects occur very rarely and do not change the positive risk-benefit ratio of the vaccination. The vaccination also does not violate national or international regulations. [3]


The Proceedings

Hearing: May 2, 2022

A first hearing took place on 2nd May in the Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig

The soldiers’ complaints were heard in detail by the 1st Military Service Senate of the Federal Administrative Court. The court has jurisdiction in the first and last instance. The presiding judge emphasised that a decision would only apply to the two officers because of the special features of the law on military service appeals. In total, the court had received about ten complaints from soldiers from different areas. [4]

The applicants were represented by Beate Bahner, a lawyer specialising in medical law, and by Göran Thoms, a lawyer. Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi, the data analyst Tom Lausen and the pathologist Prof. Arne Burkhardt were among the witnesses who were very well prepared. The lawyers and representatives of the opposing side, on the other hand, were unable to adequately answer specific questions about robust figures, data and facts. The lawyers for the plaintiffs have requested the release of further data concerning the Corona situation and the side effects of vaccination from the Federal Armed Forces. Further motions for evidence are being filed. [5]

The court no longer had to make a decision in the summary proceedings, as the Federal Ministry of Defence (BMVg) has undertaken not to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the complainants as long as these proceedings have not been concluded; a decision on the merits has not yet been made. [5]


Witness for the BundesWehr

The Bundeswehr lawyers and doctors…did not deviate one millimeter from their opinion during the trial that only the supposedly super-effective vaccination could reduce the number of infections.When asked by the plaintiff side how many Corona cases there had been in 2020, 2021 and in 2022, ideally broken down by before vaccination and since vaccination, the Bundeswehr side could not provide any information.One of the Bundeswehr doctors interviewed stated that in the case of minor complications following Corona vaccination, a delay of up to two years in reporting to the PEI was assumed. However, the 47 serious cases (see above) were reported immediately. [6]
Witness for the Plaintiffs: Data analyst Tom Lausen
reported on the data of the German company health insurance funds of 10 million insured persons on vaccination side effects. These had increased disproportionately in 2021. According to the analyst, this was proven by the figures he had seen. [6]
Last year, 4.2 times more vaccinations were given than in the previous year, there were 16 times more reported serious side effects and, according to hospital calculations, 282 deaths. Lausen’s conclusion from this: the Bundeswehr data are under-reported. [6]
Lausen continues: With a ratio of 383,000 to 373,000 days, the dependent part of the German population had been on sick leave from 1.1.22 until today more often because of the vaccination and its reactions and consequences than because of Corona.  [6]
Witness for the Plaintiffs: Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi
He had learned in his studies what the Nuremberg Code is. According to it, medical experiments must always be voluntary. In the case of harmful effects, termination is mandatory. Prof. Bhakdi explained the essence of a meaningful and protective, vaccination. The Covid vaccination does not fulfil these requirements. [6]
He described how Pfizer had cheated in the registration trial. PCR-positive patients in the unvaccinated control group were listed as “sick”. In addition, no side effects were observed in 20,000 vaccinated patients in the registration trial. Prof. Bhakdi considers this to be falsified. He says it is known that humans have natural immune cells that protect them against the Coronavirus. [6]
Two people knew this at that time in Germany and now we are both sitting here next to each other,” said Prof. Bhakdi, addressing directly the Bundeswehr infectiologist Dr. Roman Wölfel, who was also present, and who had said exactly this in an interview a few months ago. [6]
Prof. Bhakdi explained in his questioning that a brand new study from the Charité in Berlin, in which Prof. Drosten participated and which was published in the internationally renowned medical journal‘The Lancet’, would show the ineffectiveness of the Covid vaccination against Corona. [6]
From Prof. Bhakdi’s point of view, people are being poisoned with these untested substances. Autoimmune diseases in unprecedented numbers will be the result, so-called killer lymphocytes threaten to destroy various body organs of the “vaccinated”. The scientist’s appeal is clearly and directly addressed to the Bundeswehr representatives: They could do the country a great service by dropping compulsory vaccination in the armed forces, Prof Bhakdi said. “Corona vaccination is a cardinal crime against humanity” [6]
Witness for the Plaintiffs: Prof Arne Burkhardt
a pathologist who has diagnosed the Corona vaccination as the cause of death in 80 per cent of those he has autopsied, was due to speak afterwards. [6]
Hearing: June 7, 2022

In the continuation hearing of 7.6.22, an expert from the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI) was scheduled to be heard and to explain how the PEI works and in particular how it collects data on Covid-19 vaccine side effects.(5)

The PEI is the government funded organisation charged with the task to evaluate vaccine safety. [6]

An expert witness from the Paul Ehrlich Institute told the court that the PEI does not receive the data concerning vaccine adverse reactions from the Krankenärztlichen Vereinigung (the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians). This confirms the statement made by the lawyers of the plaintiff. [6]

Based on this new finding, and very early into the second day, the court decided to adjourn the hearing and has set dates of 6th & 7th July for the continuation of the process. [6]

Aftermath & Media from the Hearing of June 7, 2022

On June 22, 2022, German Health Minister Lauterbach admits in tweets and on video admits that there were “very serious side effects” & even deaths. [7]

In the Berliner Zeitung article of June 21, 2022 which reports on German Health Minister Lauterbach’s statements admitting covid vaccine side effects and deaths: Professor Bernhard Schieffer, MD, is Director of the Clinic for Cardiology, Angiology and Internal Intensive Care Medicine at the University Hospital in Marburg. He looks after patients with post-vac syndrome in a special outpatient clinic. Schieffer comments on Karl Lauterbach’s statements as follows: [8]

“Unfortunately, your statements on the severity of Post-Vac, which is supposed to be lower than Long-Covid, do not correspond to our clinical experience. I would recommend that such statements be guarded as sufferers of any disease entity will be blindsided.” [8]


Lawyer Großenbach reports on the hearing -June 19 2022

source: shortXXvids.com

German lawyer Großenbach Speech outside the PEI on June 14, 2022

source: longXXvids.com

Statement from Expert Witness Tom Lausen (Data analyst)

source: Lawyer B Bahner & shortXXvids

Epoch Times Reports on 2nd Hearing -June 9, 2022

source: Epoch Times

Epoch Times Report on 2nd Hearing -June 7, 2022

source: Epoch Times


Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

A very interesting prior decision is the Verdict from June 21, 2005 – BVerwG 2 WD 12.04.

In this trial, a soldier was vindicated who had disobeyed orders, the execution of which would have made him a knowing participant in the war of aggression against Iraq instigated by the United States and Great Britain.



The Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig today rejected as unfounded the petitions of two Air Force officers against the obligation to tolerate Covid-19 vaccination. [9]

In a court Press release it was stated:

the General Regulation was found to be formally and substantively lawful. The Federal Ministry of Defense issued the regulation in a proper procedure and, in particular, involved the soldiers’ representatives. Within the scope of its authority to issue directives under Section 10 (4) of the General Regulations, it was entitled to determine the group of necessary protective vaccinations by administrative regulation at its own discretion. This is because the Soldiers’ Act contains an explicit provision in § 17a SG* that every soldier is obligated to keep himself healthy in the interest of fulfilling his military mission and to tolerate medical measures to prevent communicable diseases against his will. The reason for this is that military service has always entailed a particular risk of spreading communicable diseases due to working together in confined spaces (vehicles, ships, aircraft), exercises and deployments in special natural hazards, and communal life in barracks. The law expects every soldier to contribute to his personal operational capability and thus to the overall functioning of the Bundeswehr (Article 87a of the Basic Law) by tolerating protective vaccinations. The maintenance of one’s own operational capability is a central duty in the soldier’s sovereign service and loyalty relationship (Art. 33 Para. 4 GG). [9]

The Federal Ministry of Defense did not exceed the discretion granted to it when it introduced the toleration requirement in November 2021. At that time, the delta variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus posed a significant threat. While existing vaccines could only reduce the risk of infection and transmission, they reduced the risk of severe courses by 90%. In its decision on the facility-based vaccination requirement, the Federal Constitutional Court confirmed the existence of a worsening pandemic situation in the winter of 2021 and explained in more detail that, according to the prevailing expert assessment at the time, a significant reduction in the risk of infection and transmission was assumed as a result of the Covid-19 vaccination (BVerfG, decision of April 27, 2022 – 1 BvR 2649/21 – paras. 157 ff., 173 f.). [9]

The Federal Ministry of Defense was justified to rely on the safety reports of the Paul Ehrlich Institute in its assessment of vaccination risks, even though this specialized authority has not yet received the data from the associations of statutory health insurance physicians, contrary to Section 13 (5) IfSG. The persuasiveness of the official information provided by the two specialist authorities has not been thoroughly shaken by the numerous objections raised by the applicants. [9]

However, the Federal Ministry of Defense is obliged to evaluate and monitor the maintenance of the Covid 19 vaccination. This is because standing orders must always be reviewed to determine whether they remain proportionate and discretionary in light of changed circumstances. The waning of the threat posed by the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the reduction in the effectiveness of currently available vaccines are circumstances that make a renewed discretionary decision to order further booster vaccinations appropriate. In addition, an evaluation of the decision has been promised to the full Board of Trustees in the conciliation process. [9]



Court witness, Dr. Hans-Joachim Kremer (who has decades of experience in clinical research and works as a freelance medical writer) wrote an opinion: [10]

A political verdict that makes a mockery of all evidence and logic.

It was probably already the case that some of the mainstream narratives were refuted. At least the one about the overloading of the intensive care units.

In any case, the presiding judge was already more restrictive in June and allowed only a few arguments from the complainants’ experts. Thus, Prof Kämmerer was the last from this side to be allowed to give a presentation. All further presentations were rejected. The experts could only ask questions to the experts of RKI and PEI. And even there the presiding judge kept a strict time management. And my impression was: The trickier the questions to the government representatives, the more the questions were hindered or prevented.

Dr. Mentzer from the PEI, for example, only knew how to stammer in response to the question of how many 2500 by 2500 was that one would have to ask a statistician about this, and that he was only a medical doctor. The representative of the RKI, Dr. Wichmann, could at least at one point make the claim that the vaccination effectiveness against severe courses was 99%. If I remember correctly, this statement remained more or less uncommented in a jumble of many others.

At the July 7 hearing, PEI statistician Dr. Dr. Oberle was to be questioned about the safety analyses, first and foremost the OvE and SMR (more details in these TKP articles from May and June). Because Dr. Oberle had reported a positive PCR test, the questioning took place by video link. Prof. Kuhbandner had taken on the task of teasing out a number from her as to when her SMR analysis would show a signal in terms of deaths. After much back and forth, she admitted that this would only be true at a number well above 70,000 for one vaccine alone, i.e., when a medium-sized city was wiped out. .. And she vehemently defended the per-dose analysis, but that increases the denominator by about three times, so reduces the signal even further.

The court allowed the attorneys to question the relevant expert from PEI, Dr. Wagner. In fact, the judge allowed a longer questioning here, as long as they did not specifically go into the nitty-gritty. But when Prof. Matysik asked concrete questions, the judge started pushing again. At least Prof. Matysik was able to tease out a few surprising points:

  • The allowed pH range for Comirnaty is 6.9 to 7.9, which is surprisingly wide, since the final product is buffered and should therefore be set to point. The wide range indicates significant quality issues in the manufacturing process.
  • PEI does not have a Raman microscope that would allow detection of graphene or graphene hydroxide.
  • In general, PEI does not pay attention to any external reports such as the findings on graphene or graphene hydroxide or the “how bad is my batch” page.
  • No “next generation sequencing” is done.

Unfortunately, the question was lost as to whether PEI also checks peptide expression of modRNA or DANN. Such an analysis would be important to determine the quality of action of the vaccine. Even then, however, “next generation sequencing” would have been more than appropriate. It is possible that the PEI can refer back to the licensed specification, which does not provide for this. But then one has to ask: Why did PEI, as an essential EMA member, not insist on such analyses? Without them, neither the identity nor the integrity of the modRNA or DNA sequences can really be assessed.

It was also important to note that although PEI receives information on batches in addition to the adverse reaction reports, it has not yet evaluated them. Also a significant deficiency.

The court criticized the quality of the data collection, but said the PEI’s signal finding, despite some question marks, could not be faulted on the whole.

It ordered the Federal Ministry of Defense to present a benefit-risk analysis before further booster vaccinations and to introduce a vaccination evaluation within the Bundeswehr.


The Berliner Zeitung reports: [11]

According to Presiding Judge Richard Häußler, in November, when the decree came, the coronalage was “very serious.” Incidences had risen, he said, and there had been an increase in the compared to even more dangerous delta variant prevailed, and there was concern that hospital capacity would be insufficient. There had also been a warning signal to politicians through the recommendations of experts and scientists, so that they had seen the need for vaccination of soldiers.

The court also agrees with the Federal Constitutional Court when it declared mandatory vaccination in nursing and medicine to be constitutional at the end of April.

“We agreed with this assessment,” Häußler said. According to the court, vaccination could only reduce the risk of infection and transmission, but at the same time reduce the risk of a severe course by 90 percent.

The Court agreed with the assessment that the vaccination still had a relevant protective effect even against the omicron variant. The positive effect clearly outweighs the risk. According to the current recommendation of the Robert Koch Institute, this also applies to younger adults under 60 years of age.

However, the ministry must evaluate and monitor the vaccination requirement, the court demanded. Standing orders must always be reviewed to determine whether they continue to be proportionate and discretionary in light of changed circumstances. Therefore, before ordering further booster vaccinations, the findings must be re-evaluated, because the dangerousness of the virus is decreasing and the currently available vaccines are becoming less effective.

Häußler said at the announcement of the verdict that side effects could occur and that there were gaps in the data collection – but that the court concluded in its evaluation that the benefits of the vaccination outweighed the disadvantages. He had already made it clear at the start of the hearing in May that the decision in the present case concerned only the two officers who had filed the lawsuit. Other cases involving soldiers from different units are pending before the Federal Administrative Court.

After the ruling, one of the two plaintiffs, Marcus B., said he had to “acknowledge” it.

The other plaintiff, Christian B., left open whether he would now be vaccinated. “I need a summons for a vaccination,” he said, and did not rule out dismissal.



German MSM reports on Hearing 1 of Armed forces Vaccine Case -May 4 2022

source: shortXXvids.com

German MSM reports on Vaccine Injuries

source: shortXXvids.com

German Pathologists Say Vaccines Kill

source: mwgfd

Mark Steyn Talks to Widows of Vaccine Victims : Thursday 5th May

source: GBN

German Insurance Companies Sound Alarm on Vaccine Injury

source: shortXXvids.com

Geman MPs Punishable for Vaccine Deaths if Mandate

source: shortXXvids.com

Back to All Cases