Bundeswehr Vaccine Case
Re: The Legality of Vaccine Mandates for Germany’s Armed Forces
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
source: Lawyer B Bahner & shortXXvids
source: Epoch Times
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. 
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). 
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.). 
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. 
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. 
Court witness, Dr. Hans-Joachim Kremer (who has decades of experience in clinical research and works as a freelance medical writer) wrote an opinion: 
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: 
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.
- Read the Final Court Ruling – BVerwG 1 WB 2.22 – Beschluss vom 07. Juli 2022 (Deutsch)
- Read the Final Court Ruling – BVerwG 1 WB 5.22 – Beschluss vom 07. Juli 2022 (Deutsch)
- Read the Court Ruling following the First Hearing (Deutsch)
- RA W Schmitz Website
In the news:
- The Federal Minister of Health admits that the Corona vaccination can have severe side effects. The unabridged text of Karl Lauterbach’s statements -June 21, 2022
- The Health Minister attacks unvaccinated nurses in Magdeburg: “Their work has made no contribution.” (Deutsch)+ Video (June 23, 2022)
- 180° turnaround: Lauterbach finally admits Vaccine “very serious side effects” & even deaths (Deutsch) + video (June 22, 2022)
- Bill Gates now says Covid is Not dangerous (video) -June 8, 2022
- Berlin Doctor practice overrun by Vaccine Injured
- Lawyers for Enlightenment Press Release -May 3 2022
- Berliner Zeitung Article -May 2 2022
on Corona Cases