BVerwG - Az. 1 WRB 1.25

Summary

The Federal Administrative Court of Germany ruled that ordering a soldier to present their COVID-19 vaccination certificate was an unlawful processing of health data under GDPR. The court found no legal basis for the order and that none of the exceptions in Article 9(2) GDPR applied, as the disciplinary superior was not authorized to process such health data.

Full text

Help BVerwG - Az. 1 WRB 1.25: Difference between revisions From GDPRhub Jump to:navigation, search ← Older editVisualWikitext Revision as of 08:44, 9 June 2026 view sourceAv (talk | contribs)Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, noContributionReport, Administrators17 editsmTag: Visual edit← Older edit Latest revision as of 09:22, 10 June 2026 view source Av (talk | contribs)Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, noContributionReport, Administrators17 editsTag: Visual edit Line 62: Line 62: }}}} The Federal Administrative Court held ordering a data subject serving in the military to present their COVID-19 vaccination certificate constituted processing of health data. The processing was unlawful as none of the exceptions in [[Article 9 GDPR#2|Article 9(2) GDPR]] were applicable.The Federal Administrative Court held that a disciplinary superior unlawfully ordered a data subject serving in the military to present their COVID-19 vaccination certificate since none of the exceptions in [[Article 9 GDPR#2|Article 9(2) GDPR]] were applicable. == English Summary ==== English Summary == Latest revision as of 09:22, 10 June 2026 BVerwG - Az. 1 WRB 1.25 Court: BVerwG (Germany) Jurisdiction: Germany Relevant Law: Article 9(1) GDPR Article 9(2) GDPR Decided: 26.03.2026 Published: 03.06.2026 Parties: National Case Number/Name: Az. 1 WRB 1.25 European Case Law Identifier: Appeal from: Truppendienstgericht Süd (Germany) Appeal to: Unknown Original Language(s): German Original Source: REWIS (in German) Initial Contributor: av The Federal Administrative Court held that a disciplinary superior unlawfully ordered a data subject serving in the military to present their COVID-19 vaccination certificate since none of the exceptions in Article 9(2) GDPR were applicable. Contents 1 English Summary 1.1 Facts 1.2 Holding 2 Comment 3 Further Resources 4 English Machine Translation of the Decision English Summary Facts A disciplinary superior ordered a soldier (the data subject) to provide proof of her COVID-19 vaccination by presenting her vaccination certificate to the disciplinary superior in March 2023. She refused and lodged a complaint against the order in May 2023. The complaint was rejected in a decision in June 2023. The data subject appealed this decision. A military court rejected the data subject’s appeal and held that the order to provide proof of coronavirus vaccination was lawful and binding. The data subject appealed the case further to the Federal Administrative Court and contested the lawfulness of the order. Holding The Federal Administrative Court held that there was no legal basis for the order to present the vaccination certificate in national law. In addition, the order was unlawful under the GDPR. The court considered the inspection of a vaccination certificate and its evaluation for the decision on a vaccination order to be processing of personal data. According to the court, a vaccination certificate contains information on the vaccination status of an individual and other health data that can only be processed if one of the narrowly defined exceptions in Article 9(2) GDPR is applicable. The court pointed out that German national law allows the personnel of the the medical service of the German Armed Forces to process health data of soldiers for the purposes of preventive medicine within the meaning of Article 9(2)(h) GDPR. However, the disciplinary superior was not part of the medical service and therefore not authorised to process health data. The exceptions in Articles 9(2)(b), (g) and (i) were not applicable to the present case either as the necessity requirement was not fulfilled. The court held that the data subject’s vaccination status could have been verified in a procedure less intrusive to the rights and freedoms of the data subject. Comment Share your comments here! Further Resources Share blogs or news articles here! English Machine Translation of the Decision The decision below is a machine translation of the German original. Please refer to the German original for more details. Federal Administrative Court 1 WRB 1.25 of March 26, 2026 Declaration of the illegality of an order to submit a vaccination certificate to the disciplinary superior REWIS: LEGAL TECHNOLOGY URL: https://rewis.io/s/u/RYuv/ Database for case law Federal Administrative Court Information provided without guarantee 1st Military Service Senate © REWIS UG (limited liability) 2 1 WRB 1.25 of March 26, 2026 | rewis.io 1 WRB 1.25 of March 26, 2026 Decision | Federal Administrative Court | 1st Military Service Senate Principle There is no sufficient legal basis for an order by a disciplinary superior to submit a private vaccination certificate. ... Ruling The appeal on points of law filed by the applicant is granted, and the decision of the 5th Chamber of the Southern Military Court of November 19, 2024, is set aside. It is determined that the order issued to the applicant by her disciplinary superior to present her vaccination certificate was unlawful. The applicant's costs incurred in the proceedings before the Federal Administrative Court and the Military Court, including necessary expenses incurred in the pre-trial proceedings, are to be borne by the Federal Government. Facts 1. The appeal on points of law concerns the question of whether a disciplinary superior may order a soldier to present her vaccination certificate. 2. The applicant, who has since left the service, was a staff sergeant and a member of the ... in ... 3. On March 20, 2023, her disciplinary superior requested that the applicant provide proof of her COVID-19 vaccination. Based on a notification from the Federal Office for Military Counterintelligence (BAMAD), he suspected that she had provided false information about her vaccination status and still needed to receive the COVID-19 vaccination. Information about her vaccination status was also not evident from her re-registration form ("pendulum form"). She also did not submit proof of vaccination from a civilian authority. 4 On April 20, 2023, the applicant's disciplinary superior verbally ordered her to present her vaccination record to him by the end of her shift that same day. 3 1 WRB 1.25 of March 26, 2026 | rewis.io as proof that she had received the mandatory COVID-19 vaccination. She then informed him that she could not find her vaccination record at home. 5 The applicant filed a complaint against the order by letter dated May 17, 2023. The disciplinary superior is not legally entitled from any perspective to demand information about her immunizations against specific infectious diseases and to inspect her vaccination record. 6 By decision of June 6, 2023, the appeal was rejected. Since soldiers are obligated to maintain a certain vaccination status, the disciplinary superior can verify at any time whether this has actually been done. 7 The applicant filed a further appeal against this decision by letter dated June 9, 2023. Access to her health data should be restricted to the medical personnel with the relevant expertise and supervisory authority. Furthermore, the vaccination record is her private property. The disciplinary superior has no right to present evidence. The further appeal was rejected by decision of July 6, 2023. 8 By decision of November 19, 2024, the Southern Military Court dismissed the application and granted leave to appeal on points of law. The order issued by the applicant's disciplinary superior to her to submit her vaccination record as proof of COVID-19 vaccination was lawful and binding. 9 The order served an official purpose and did not violate any rules of international law, statutes, or service regulations. The applicant was obligated to be vaccinated against COVID-19. An official necessity for verifying the vaccination status existed because the disciplinary superiors were required to monitor the operational readiness of their soldiers and, if necessary, ensure the completion of the vaccination status by issuing appropri

Entities