article- German Deaths Analysis 2022

article- German Deaths Analysis 2022

Article: German Deaths Data Analysis 2022

Re: the alarming increase in deaths since the covid injection rollout in Germany & the failure of the PEI & RKI to do this analysis


Back to All Cases

Re-post of original article: (as reported on Dec 13, 2022)

German Data Analyst Reveals Data from Health Insurance Shows 4 Times Increase in Sudden Deaths Following COVID Vaccine Rollouts

by Jim Hoft

German data analyst Tom Lausen held a conference on Monday in the Bundestag to discuss the massive rise in people who died “suddenly and unexpectedly” after the Covid vaccine rollout.

Only one mainstream journalist was present during the press conference.

The National Association for Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (NASHIP) provided the data covering over 72 million insured Germans.

NASHIP or “Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung (KBV),” is the coordinating body of all 17 State Associations of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians in Germany. As of 2018, it represented about 175,000 office-based physicians and psychotherapists.

“The association is also actively involved in negotiations on the range of services provided by statutory health insurance companies and the remuneration of doctors. Furthermore, the KBV carries out a “security mandate” in accordance with Section 75 (1) SGB V, which is intended to ensure that all legally insured patients can receive adequate outpatient care.”

The government agency responsible with assessing the risks of vaccination apparently did not inquire about this information, as stated during the news conference.

According to Section 13 of the Infection Protection Act, the Robert Koch Institute and the Paul Ehrlich Institute have to evaluate diagnosis codes from the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (KBV) at reqular intervals in order to determine vaccination effects. But since the beginning of the corona vaccinations, this data has neither been requested nor evaluated.”

“After numerous inquiries in recent months, the KBV data (period: 2016 to the first quarter of 2022) are available to our health policy spokesman, Martin Sichert,” according to the website.

More from

Since the beginning of the corona vaccination, there have been drastic changes in the number of diseases and deaths in the population. This is based on data from the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians, which Martin Sichert was able to evaluate exclusively together with data expert Tom Lausen and which will be presented at the press conference.

Patient data from the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (KBV) on the side effects of corona vaccinations provide frightening insights: With the start of mass corona vaccinations, the number of people who died “suddenly and unexpectedly” skyrocketed compared to previous years, more than fourfold. In every quarter, starting with the first quarter of 2021, more sudden and unexpected deaths were identified by panel doctors than in every year from 2016 to 2020 as a whole.

Using coded data covering 72 million Germans available from the health insurers, the number of people who died “suddenly and unexpectedly” skyrocketed compared to previous years.

“It was found that in 2021 not only were 2,487,526 patients with vaccination side effects seen by the doctor, but that there were also drastic changes in clinical pictures and deaths since the start of the corona vaccination.”

The following diagnostic keys were evaluated in order to analyze the rise in sudden deaths:

  • R96.0 Sudden death
  • R96.1 Death occurring within less than 24 hours of onset of symptoms, unless otherwise stated
  • R98 Death without others present
  • R99 Other imprecise or unspecified causes of death
  • I46.1 Sudden cardiac death

Report24 reported:

The following graphic illustrates the sharp increase in diagnoses R96 to R99 since the first quarter of 2021:

According to KBV data, in 2021 there was an increase in diagnoses of “sudden death” (R96) of +1,082 percent:

With diagnostic key R96.1, the increase is even +1,673 percent:

If you look at the figures per quarter, a first slight increase can already be seen at the end of 2020:

The diagnosis of “sudden cardiac death” has also been made significantly more frequently since 2021:

Lausen presented the following overview of the increase in deaths by quarter for ICD I46 and R96 to R99 at the press conference:

The team of analysts demanded that:

  1. Immediate suspension of vaccination with the corona vaccines until it can be ruled out that the massive increase in deaths is due to the vaccination
  2. Autopsies on all those who died suddenly and unexpectedly to determine where they came from massive increase coming
  3. Mandatory recording of the vaccination status of the corona vaccinations and the used vaccine in all deceased and regular publication of this data
  4. Immediate evaluation of the KB data by the PEI and RKI and information of the population and doctors about the increase in diseases
  5. Linking of the KBV data with the vaccination data by PEI and RKI and publication

The German PDF data is available to download here.

You can watch the conference below:

Press Conference Extract (English Subs) -Dec 12 2022

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids

Full Conference (Deutsch) -Dec 12 2022

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids

Delivery of Data Analysis to Paul Erlich Institute -Dec 12 2022 (Deutsch)

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids

Related Videos

Prof Fukushima “Stop the Vax – You’re Killing People!” -Nov 29 2022

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids

UK Cardiologist Dr Malhotra on Vax Dangers -Oct 19 2022

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids

Florida Gov DeSantis Announces Vaccine Grand Jury -Dec 14 2022

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids

Vaccine Injuries in Australia -Dec 6 2022

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids

2 US Army Flight Surgeon Vaccine Whistleblowers -Nov 21 2022

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids

Massive Birthrate Reductions as Jabs Increase -Oct 29 2022

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids

US Lawyer Shows All Vaccines are Harmful -Oct 21 2022

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids

2 US Army Flight Surgeon Vaccine Whistleblowers -Nov 21 2022

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids

Science Summit Uncensored: Dutch Excess Mortality Data -Aug 15, 2022

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids

Science Summit Uncensored: 2nd Experiment -Aug 15, 2022

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids

Scottish Govt “Repeat Experiments” Show Vaccine Harm Causality

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids

German Pathologists say NO to Vaccine Mandate


“We’re Coming For You!”: Aussi Sen Roberts on Vaccine Crimes

source: Odysee\Kenan SonofEnos

NZ Scientist Examines Pfizer Jab Under The Microscope -Apr 2022

source: Odysee/ drSamBailey

NHS Doctor confronts Sajid Javid -Jan 2022

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids

related articles


accounting, Afd, article, Autopsies, Data, deaths, evaluation, German Infection Protection Act, germany, Großenbach, Health Insurance, INEK, Infection Protection Act, Insurance, Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung, KBV, Lausen, myocarditis, NASHIP, National Association for Statutory Health Insurance Physicians, Paul Ehrlich Institute, PE, Plötzlich, press conference, risks, RKI, Robert Koch Institute, Safety, Sichert, side effects, Sudden death, underreporting, Unerwartet, Vaccination, Vaccine

Back to All Cases


Swissmedic mRNA Injury Case

Swissmedic mRNA Injury Case

mRNA Injury Case

Re: The Legality of 1) Authorisation of Covid Vaccines by Swissmedic & 2) Vaccination by Swiss doctors of substances for which Safety was Unknown


Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: July 14, 2022 (filed)
  • Location: Switzerland
  • Court: TBD
  • Case #: TBD
  • Plaintiff: 6 Injection Victims
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer: Philipp Kruse
  • Defendant: 3 individuals at Swissmedic, 5 vaccinating doctors at Univ. Hospital Bern
  • Trial Type: criminal complaint
  • Judge: TBD
  • Status: Ongoing
  • Verdict: TBD

*updated Nov 16, 2022



This case involves a criminal complaint made by Swiss lawyer Philipp Kruse on behalf of six people who were injured after taking the m-RNA vaccines. Kruse and his colleagues are not only initiating an action against the drugs regulator, Swissmedic but also against doctors who vaccinated these people knowing that the products were not properly tested.

The complaint was filed in July 2022 and the public announcement of this case made on Nov 14 2022 with a press conference held that same day. At the conference Kruse was supported by 3 vaccine victims telling their stories, 5 medical experts and 2 other lawyers, one of these being a former cantonal public prosecutor.



This case may be the first in Europe to be prosecuted relating to the Covid injections and where a national medicines regulator stands accused of criminal negligence in allowing products to be marketed which are demonstrably causing injuries and deaths on a massive scale.


Plaintiff’s Argument

Against Swissmedic

Lawyer Kruse states (1,2):

37 complainants and six private claimants directly harmed by mRNA «vaccinations» (all of whom are specified in the recitals) are filing the present criminal claim to protect their own health and out of legitimate concern for the health of their fellow human beings.

What we are dealing with here is the greatest threat to human health caused by medicinal products and the greatest injury to human health that Switzerland has ever seen: The authorization and administration of the largely ineffective mRNA «vaccines» represent a far greater danger than the SARS-CoV-2 pathogen against which these «vaccines» are supposed to provide protection.

Swissmedic is primarily responsible for this threat: By law, it has the central function of protecting the health of the Swiss population. To this end, it must ensure, on the one hand, that only high quality, safe, and effective therapeutic products are placed on the market. On the other hand, it must protect consumers of therapeutic products against fraud (Art. 1 TPA). The notifying parties acting on behalf of Swissmedic failed to comply with these guarantee obligations on several occasions and to a significant extent, which is why they have been under strong suspicion, since December 2020 and up to the present day,

• of having repeatedly violated the due diligence obligations under therapeutic product law (Art. 86(1a) TPA, in conjunction with. Art. 3 TPA [general due diligence] and Art. 7 TPA [due diligence requirement of the manufacturer]) in the course of marketing authorization and batch testing which, according to federal court rulings, is deemed to be manufacturing, in that

• they granted «temporary» authorization for the mRNA «vaccines» within the meaning of Art. 9a TPA despite the lack of sufficient evidence of efficacy and safety and despite massive risk signals,

• they massively undercut the already very low safety precautions that are decisive for the procedure according to Art. 9a TPA and have thus created risks for public health that had never been posed by a medicinal product before,

• they not only permanently withheld elementary information on the minimal to complete lack of protective effect of the mRNA «vaccines» and the actual risk of side effects from the population and the medical community, but also systematically conveyed this information in a misleading manner,

  • • of not having fulfilled the duty of post-marketing surveillance (so-called «pharmacovigi-lance») in a risk-adequate manner, but rather having permanently violated the obligation to notify under therapeutic product law (Art. 87(1c) TPA) in a serious manner,

  • • of having seriously violated the prohibition on the advertising of therapeutic products (Art. 87(1b) TPA),

  • • of having satisfied the corresponding elements of an offense under the Criminal Code when death/ bodily injury has occurred.

  • • On December 19, 2020, Swissmedic announced the following regarding the authorization of Comirnaty:

«This represents the world’s first authorization in the ordinary proce-dure».

This statement is simply false and represents a misleading lie, which many people still mistakenly believe to be true to this day – after all, this announcement can still be viewed on the Swissmedic homepage.


  • • In the information for healthcare professionals for Comirnaty, Swissmedic published in December 2020 that «no vaccine-related effects on female fertility, pregnancy, embryo-fetal development, or the development of offspring have been observed». This is in stark contrast to study results and warnings from the manufacturer and expert committees, which were available to Swissmedic.

  • • At the end of 2020, Swissmedic had already posted on its own website an «FAQ» ad-dressed to the public, which contained countless misleading details that Swissmedic could have recognized as clear misinformation based on the data already available in-ternally at the end of 2020.

  • …..

  • According to the information provided above, Swissmedic has approved a highly experimental and dangerous medicinal product against a disease that posed and poses no greater threat to the general population than influenza. As a last «lifeline», Swissmedic would have to prove that the somewhat higher-risk target population of elderly people and those with pre-existing illnesses would have been at least somewhat effectively protected against SARS-CoV-2. However, this is also absolutely not the case. The «vaccination» obviously fails to achieve the necessary «large-scale» efficacy:

  • As a result, this «temporary» authorization in the sense of Art. 9a, TPA means nothing more than the fact that the entire Swiss population unknowingly participated and continues to participate in the largest clinical experiment ever conducted in Switzerland (and indeed the world).

Against vaccinating physicians at the “Insel Group” Hospital
  • The breaches of due diligence obligations complained of here essentially consist in the fact that the notifying parties acting on behalf of Swissmedic (and, in principle, also the notified physicians) were already aware of countless risk factors from December 2020 onwards, each of which, when assessed in isolation, would have prevented the granting of the «tem-porary» authorization (and the administration of the corresponding mRNA injections) until the corresponding risk factors had been clarified in detail and eliminated under normal cir-cumstances. …

  • If the “Insel Group” has used COVID “vaccines” on humans in breach of the duty of care under the law on therapeutic products, has reported side effects to Swissmedic in an in-adequate manner and if the “Insel Group” has endangered or already injured the health of a large number of people in the careless use of the mRNA “vaccines”, the offences of defendants 4-8 in this regard are deemed to have been committed in 3010 Bern and/or at Friedbühlstrasse 15 in 3008 Bern (location of the Inselspital vaccination centre).



Defendant’s Argument

…More information is needed…


Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

…More information is needed…





Press Conference -Nov 14, 2022

source: Odysee/ longXXvids

Swiss Vaccine Victim #1


Swiss Vaccine Victim #2


Science Summit Uncensored: Dutch Excess Mortality Data -Aug 15, 2022

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids

Philipp Kruse speaking at rally in Bern -June 16 2022

source: Odysee/ longXXvids

Philipp Kruse Appeal to the Swiss Public -June 7 2022   

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids



  1. Criminal complaint (300 pages) in original German and (translated) English, French, Italian languages   

  2. Criminal complaint Summary (10 pages) – 4 languages



Adverse, Criminal Complaint, Criminal Negligence, Homicide, Injury, Kruse, mRNA, mRNA Vaccine, Negligent Homicide, Philipp Kruse, Side Effects, Swissmedic, Switzerland, Vaccinating doctors, Vaccine Deaths, Vaccine Injury, Vaccine Victims

Back to All Cases


Pilot Mandate Case

Pilot Mandate Case

Pilot Mandate Case

Re: the Legality for KLM (Dutch Royal Airlines) to mandate Corona injections against the will & consent of its employees


Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: April 26, 2022 (filed)
  • Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Court: Amsterdam Civil Court
  • Case #: 9827224 KK EXPL 22-246
  • Plaintiff: VNV (Dutch Pilot’s Union)
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer: A. Stege
  • Defendant: KLM Airlines
  • Defendant’s Lawyers: J.M. van Slooten & T.O. Boot
  • Trial Type: Expedited
  • Judge:
  • Status: Ongoing
  • Verdict: for the Plaintiff (June 2, 2022)

*updated June 5, 2022



The core of the dispute is whether KLM is allowed to ask new pilots whether they have been vaccinated against corona and, if their answer is negative or non-existent, to exclude the new pilot from the recruitment procedure. [1]

On 10 March 2022, a candidate pilot sent an e-mail to VNV (the Pilot Union) with the title ‘vaccination requirement for future KLM pilots’. In this email, the candidate pilot informed VNV that KLM is asking about the vaccination status of the candidates, and that the candidate pilot feels forced to get the vaccinations to secure himself a job, which he is very upset about and causes him mental complaints. [1]

Subsequent correspondence between the parties shows, among other things, that KLM takes the position that the agreements made between VNV and KLM only apply to KLM employees and not to prospective employees, and that KLM (even before corona) set as an assumption requirement that an applicant for the position of pilot must be employable at all destinations of the KLM network. Furthermore, KLM did not comply with VNV’s request to confirm that it would refrain from inquiring into the corona vaccination status of candidate pilots. [1]

VNV is a trade union that promotes the interests of pilots employed by KLM. It also promotes the interests of members who are candidates for employment with, for instance, KLM. [1]

KLM currently employs more than 3,000 pilots. These can be divided into the categories of captain, first officer and second officer. There are also differences within these positions, namely which pilot may fly which type of aircraft (e.g. Boeing 737 or Airbus A330). Retraining to another aircraft type generally takes 3 months. [1]


During the corona pandemic KLM did not take on new pilots for some time. Now there are about 50 vacancies again and KLM has started to approach future pilots again. The Flight Crew Recruitment Coordinator with focus on Flight Operations, Ms. [name 9] , is responsible for the recruitment of cockpit personnel together with the Pilot Recruitment Manager. She stated the following about the “let’s connect” interviews with these potential pilots: [1]

These conversations were intended, after the influx of new pilots had stopped for a long time, to reconnect with the waiting list candidates and inform them of the fact that KLM expects the influx of new pilots again. Matters such as notice period, validity of licences/medical examinations, availability, what a candidate had done during the Corona period etc. were discussed. It was also discussed that one should be able to fly the entire network of KLM. In most of the interviews, the candidates immediately indicated themselves that they were fully vaccinated. In one interview, the question was actually asked whether a candidate was fully vaccinated. No candidate indicated that they were not fully vaccinated or unwilling to do so. There were no candidates who did not want to answer the question asked. [1]

In the event that a candidate had indicated that he or she was not fully vaccinated or prepared to be vaccinated, or did not want to answer the question whether the candidate had been fully vaccinated, this would have been a reason not to offer the candidate concerned an appointment as a pilot with KLM because the candidate would not be able to fly to every destination. This is in accordance with KLM’s always applicable policy. In such a case, we do not record anything about this and the candidate is simply removed from the waiting list. However, this has not been an issue. [1]

Nothing is recorded and/or registered regarding the vaccination status of candidates. [1]


During the corona pandemic the number of pilots with a travel restriction has so far increased by 30% to 800. A travel restriction means that a pilot is not allowed to fly to a destination or, for example, not at night. The (medical) travel restrictions are administered through the company doctor, KLM Health Services (KHS). [1]

Pilots who cannot fly to a destination where corona restrictions apply because they have not been vaccinated or do not (wish to) undergo testing may apply for such a travel restriction through KHS. KLM then only sees during the planning that there is a restriction and not whether the pilot has been vaccinated or not. [1]

KLM does not require its current pilots to have a corona vaccination. [1]

KLM Vademecum Vliegend Personeel (Guide to Flight Personnel) policy on vaccinations:

Crew are vaccinated against yellow fever, typhoid fever, diphtheria, tetanus & poliomyelitis (DTP) and hepatitis A at KLM Health Services free of charge. It is not allowed to fly within 24 hours after a vaccination. For cockpit crew there is the possibility to get the vaccinations on the day of the medical examination. There are countries that make certain vaccinations mandatory. Crew must carry the vaccination booklet with them every flight. [1]

A protocol to the collective bargaining agreement contains agreements on coronary restrictions:

f. KLM and the VNV will closely monitor developments regarding corona, corona testing and the corona vaccine. Both testing and vaccination will be on a voluntary basis only. If this is to the detriment of the total deployability of the KLM flying corps and/or the ability to carry out the KLM network, KLM and the VNV will consult each other. [1]

Message from the Global Aviation Advocacy Coalition

This is an international alliance of thousands of pilots, including the Dutch Aviation Collective supported by 17,000 doctors and medical scientists. [2]

The coalition warns that the side effects of corona vaccinations lead to dangerous situations. The Dutch Aviation Collective with 1400 members has also joined the action. Chairman and experienced pilot Mark Juch: [2]

“A number of colleagues have reported to us with vaccine damage, such as heart problems. When something like that happens in flight, it’s very dangerous. It’s just a matter of time before it goes wrong”. [2]

Coalition participants regularly receive reports of pilots suffering vaccine damage, including heart problems, blood clots, and neurological and hearing disorders, they say in their statement. Pilots working for KLM have also reported vaccine damage. According to the cry for help, affected pilots are not supported or taken seriously. They often lose their medical certification, which means they can no longer fly. The unions do not stand up for these pilots enough or simply do not know, as many incidents are deliberately kept quiet. [2]

Our Flight Safety Manual states that you may not use medical drugs or undergo medical procedures whose effects on your functioning during your work are uncertain,” says pilot Mark Juch. [2]

“That certainly applies to the corona vaccines, which have a temporary approval and are actually still in the experimental phase. The motto in aviation has always been: safety above all else. We have very strict medical examinations. If there is something wrong with you, you are grounded. But now all of a sudden that doesn’t apply anymore?” [2]



This case  challenged the notion whether or not a company may force a novel medical procedure onto its employees or risk termination.


Plaintiff’s Argument

VNV claimed by way of a judgment, as far as possible provisionally enforceable:

  • prohibit KLM with immediate effect from inquiring in any way into and/or using information from candidate pilots about their anti-corona vaccination status and/or from rejecting candidates because they have indicated that they are not vaccinated and/or do not wish to take the vaccination; [1]
  • To order KLM to pay a penalty of €100,000 for each violation of this prohibition; [1]
  • To order KLM to unconditionally reinstate the applications of those candidates they have rejected because they have not confirmed to be vaccinated against corona within 2 days after service of this judgment and to inform them within that term, and to disregard the vaccination status completely in the further application process; [1]
  • To order KLM to pay a penalty of €100,000 for each violation of this order; [1]
  • To order KLM to pay the costs of the proceedings. [1]


Defendant’s Argument

  • KLM argues that it is entitled to ask whether pilots can be deployed to all destinations. … if it does not do so, its business operations will be in serious trouble. KLM cannot afford to hire candidates who have limited employability due to the lack of corona vaccination. [1]
  • Furthermore, asking about deployability is not a violation of the fundamental rights of candidate pilots since there is no question of any kind of vaccination compulsion. As an employer, KLM is entitled to impose employability requirements in its hiring policy in order to assess whether a candidate is suitable. The candidate is free to decide whether to agree to those requirements. A candidate pilot can simply take up employment with another airline, even if the candidate has undergone training at the KFA. KLM respects that pilots who were already employed before Covid are questioning this new vaccine but that should not apply to new pilots. [1]
  • Moreover, according to KLM there is no unequal treatment of candidate pilots and pilots. All candidate pilots are treated equally and candidate pilots are not equal to pilots that are already employed by KLM. [1]


Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

…More information is needed…



In a summons dated 26 April 2022, VNV demanded a provision. This summons was not issued because KLM indicated that it would appear voluntarily, which it did. [1]

The oral hearing took place on 19 May 2022. Appearing for VNV were [name 1] , [name 2] , [name 3] and [name 4] , accompanied by the authorized representative. For KLM, [name 5] , [name 6] , [name 7] and [name 8] , also accompanied by the agents, appeared. KLM and VNV brought (further) documents into the proceedings beforehand. At the hearing the parties explained their positions and answered questions from the Subdistrict Court. [1]

After further debate, judgment was requested and a date for judgment was set. [1]



The Subdistrict Court:

Prohibits KLM with immediate effect from inquiring into and/or using information of candidates for vacancies for the position of airline pilot about their COVID-19 vaccination status and/or from rejecting candidates because they indicate that they have not been vaccinated and/or do not wish to take the vaccination, on pain of a penalty payment of €100,000 per violation; [1]

The Court’s Reasoning:

KLM argued that it only asks whether the pilots are fully deployable, of which, according to KLM, a vaccination against corona is a part. Quite apart from the fact that KLM asks directly about vaccination status, by asking about full deployability KLM is in fact also asking about vaccination status. By terminating the job application with immediate effect if the answer to the question of whether the candidate pilot has been vaccinated or wishes to be vaccinated is not forthcoming or is negative, KLM may be putting candidate pilots under pressure to (still) vaccinate. After all, without vaccination there is no job at KLM, for which the candidate pilots have all been trained. [1]

  • It is ruled that asking for and demanding a corona vaccination constitutes an unjustified infringement of the fundamental rights of the candidate pilots, in particular it violates the privacy of Article 8 of the ECHR. To this end, the following is considered. [1]
  • By requiring vaccination against corona, KLM infringes the privacy (Article 8 ECHR) of the candidate pilots. After all, the decision whether or not to be vaccinated is something that belongs pre-eminently to this private sphere. Requiring candidate pilots to have been vaccinated and to answer the question about vaccination status in the affirmative therefore constitutes a breach of this privacy. KLM thus leaves candidate pilots who wish to take up employment with KLM no choice in the matter. [1]
  • Such a breach may be justified under certain circumstances. … “In answering the question of whether such an infringement is justified, it must be examined whether the infringing act serves a legitimate purpose and whether it is an appropriate means of achieving that purpose (the necessity criterion); furthermore, it must be examined whether the infringement of the employee’s privacy is proportionate to the employer’s interest in achieving the intended purpose (the proportionality criterion), and whether the employer could reasonably achieve that purpose in a less intrusive manner (the subsidiarity criterion).” (ECLI:NL:HR:2007:BA5802, [party] ) [1]
  • In brief, the purpose that KLM wishes to achieve by requiring candidate pilots to undergo a corona vaccination is that KLM, with due observance of the CAO agreements and taking into account the travel restrictions of the pilots already in service, can continue to manage the planning of the pilots. For the time being, the Subdistrict Court is of the opinion that this could be regarded as a legitimate objective. That objective could possibly also be achieved with the measure applied by KLM, namely by requiring the future pilots to be vaccinated. However, this measure does not prevent the prospective pilots from being subject to a travel restriction at some point after entering service. This may be for an entirely different (medical) reason or because the corona measures change, but also a pilot’s view of corona vaccinations may change after they enter service and the pilot may still forgo new necessary vaccinations against corona. Even if the remedy is suitable to achieve KLM’s intended purpose, which has in no way become plausible in this dispute, in the preliminary opinion it has not become sufficiently plausible that the remedy is proportionate, nor has it become plausible that the subsidiarity requirement has been met. To this end, the following is considered. [1]
  • It is evident that the interests of the candidate pilots in the present case are substantial, since they involve a violation of their personal privacy. KLM’s interest in arranging its schedule in accordance with the collective labour agreement and in organising its business operations in the best possible way is also present, but does not carry as much weight as these rights of the candidate pilots. This is all the more true since VNV has argued that there are alternatives to which the candidate pilots and many of the pilots already employed by KLM are willing to participate, such as (PCR) tests, which would also achieve the objective of effective planning. VNV also adequately explained during the hearing that the way in which KLM has currently defined the travel restrictions for existing pilots can also be improved considerably in consultation with VNV, which would make it possible to solve the identified planning problem. In view of the foregoing KLM has insufficiently substantiated that, if it takes on a few candidate pilots who have not been vaccinated, it will encounter such problems in a staff of over 3,000 pilots that it will no longer be able to complete the planning. In addition, as already considered above, the vaccination requirement does not mean that candidate pilots will not still be subject to a travel restriction because of corona in the future, both because the pilots may change their minds after they enter service or there may be reasons not to take possible future vaccinations after all, and because future measures are uncertain. [1]

  • The foregoing leads to the conclusion that for the time being it has become insufficiently plausible for the Court to rule on the merits that the measure taken by KLM is proportionate and that the purpose intended by KLM cannot be achieved in another manner. KLM therefore unjustly infringed upon the rights of the candidate pilots. This means that VNV’s claim to – in brief – prohibit KLM from asking candidate pilots about their vaccination status is allowable, as well as the penalty payment claimed in that respect. [1]

  • In view of the foregoing, VNV’s other claims regarding the AVG and the WMK need not be discussed. [1]

  • The claim to order KLM to still approach the rejected candidates will be dismissed. KLM has argued that it did not reject any candidate because he did not have or did not want to take the corona vaccinations, which VNV has not disputed (stating reasons). Accordingly, VNV has no interest in this part of its claims. [1]

  • KLM should be ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings as the party largely found against. [1]



…More information is needed…


Further Research

Court Documents:
In the news:



Pilot cardiac arrest in cockpit, vaccine cited

source: Odysee/AlsionMorrow

Court Hearing on KLM Court Jab Mandate Case -May 25, 2022 (Dutch)

source: Odysee/Potkaars Podcast

Pilot reports on Heart Attack on Plane after Jab -Apr 19, 2022

source: Pilot Bob Snow

USMC pilot forced out over Covid Jab, says they’re “guinea pigs” -May 26 2022

source: Odysee/AlsionMorrow

Pilot Vaccine Victim -Nov 2 2021

source: shortXXvids

PIlot Suing Over Vaccine Mandates -Jan 14 2022

source: Real America’s Voice

US Freedom Flyers – Pilots Fight Vaccine Mandates

source: Odysee/CitizenDave

Qantas Pilot on Jab Mandate –Sept 2021

source: Humanity’s Vault

Airline Employees Fight Back Against Mandates -Oct 2021

source: TomWoodsTV



  1. The Court Ruling
  2. Pilots’ emergency cry: vaccinations make flying unsafe (in Dutch)



Discrimination, Employment, KLM, Mandate, Netherlands, Pilot, Recruitment, Side Effects, Union, Vaccine, VNV 

Back to All Cases