Military appeal proceedings at the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) regarding the obligation to tolerate the COVID-19 vaccination of all soldiers in the Bundeswehr

Soldiers' trial lost in Leipzig:
Federal Administrative Court rejects applications, 
obligation to tolerate is lawful

The eliminated lawyers Beate Bahner, Dr Brigitte Röhrig, Göran Thoms as well as the lawyer Sven Lausen, who was involved in the background, and the expert witness Tom Lausen had feared this decision. They had therefore objected to the arbitrary decision of lawyer Schmitz to declare essential questions "clarified" and not to make any further motions for evidence or to withdraw motions for evidence that had been made.

However, after the third day of the trial, the team was blown up by lawyer Wilfried Schmitz with bizarre reasons, which was unfortunately supported by the two clients. They had been promised 100% success in court by lawyer Schmitz.

Serious lawyers would never make such statements.

Nevertheless, we continue to fight – even if the decision of the Federal Administrative Court is another fundamental disappointment and proves that the courts are unfortunately no longer fulfilling their mandate.

Beate Bahner
Specialist lawyer for medical law

News on the Covid vaccination trial for soldiers at the Federal Administrative Court

Lawyer Schmitz smashes competent defence team, arbitrarily withdraws motions for evidence, declares so far open questions as "clarified", alienates expert witness Tom Lausen and promises his clients one hundred percent success in the trial! (see also telegram message)

After weeks of dedicated work by the lawyers and the expert witness Tom Lausen for the famous "soldiers' trial", lawyer Beate Bahner's mandate was withdrawn on the recommendation of the "lead" lawyer Wilfried Schmitz by the officer she represents.

Attorney Schmitz's accusation was that the experienced lawyer was endangering the success of the trial through her legal arguments, her motions for evidence and her persistence, and that she had "incurred the scorn, anger and hatred of the court".


The "lead" lawyer Schmitz obviously has a fundamentally different understanding of his legal work than most colleagues with experience here. For us, legal representation means:

  • Clear and structured legal presentation,
  • ️Putting forward evidence until all essential questions have been clarified without contradiction,
  • ️the persistent and unflinching pointing out of contradictions to experts and the opposing side.

👉 and thus a one hundred percent commitment to the clients - and especially to the cause!

At any rate, the colleagues Bahner, Thoms, Röhrig and Lausen have done this in hundreds of hours of dedication, always keeping in mind that the court (despite a trial that has been conducted correctly up to now) could very well hold that the Covid vaccination is condoned - as the Federal Constitutional Court has already done.

Serious lawyers will therefore never promise one hundred percent success in court - all the more so in this trial, where the court has not given a single oral or written indication to this effect.

  • Lawyer Dr. Brigitte Röhrig has resigned her mandate after this high-handed decision by lawyer Schmitz.
  • Tom Lausen has withdrawn because of the high-handed actions regarding the lawyer's dismissals and the internal mail exchange which was inappropriate for the matter.
  • Other colleagues in the background have terminated their cooperation with RA Schmitz.

Lawyer Göran Thoms was also terminated from the mandate

Now the complainant has also withdrawn the mandate of the committed lawyer Göran Thoms.

Thoms has also written excellent pleadings, which can be found under his business card here on this homepage.

Thoms has also worked hard on the "Appeal to Soldiers" and has registered all those soldiers who have suffered side effects after the Covid vaccination. Lawyer Thoms has also been involved in this matter without the usual lawyer's fee.

👉 All previous pleadings of all procedural representatives – except for the pleadings of Wilfried Schmitz, who explicitly demanded the deletion of his pleadings – can still be found on the homepage

This homepage remains upright and will be continued for the further proceedings of other soldiers at the Federal Administrative Court.

We retired lawyers and experts will continue to fight for the cause as a committed, honest and collegial team - and will keep a cool head in the future as well - I promise!

There will be further exciting trials!

Thank you very much for your interest and your trust!

We sincerely wish the remaining team of lawyers the promised success in court - no one would be more pleased about this than we are!

Beate Bahner

Member of the Lawyers for Enlightenment

Author of the book "Corona vaccination: What doctors and patients should absolutely know" also available free of charge as an eBook!


What are these procedures about?

Two Bundeswehr officers have lodged a defence appeal against the acquiescence of the Covid-19 vaccination. The Federal Minister of Defence had ordered its inclusion in the basic vaccination scheme of the Bundeswehr on 24 November 2021. The appeal was submitted by the Federal Ministry of Defence (BMVg) to the Federal Administrative Court for a decision. 

The Federal Administrative Court decides on this in the first and last instance. 

The first hearing of the administrative disputes Federal Administrative Court 1 WB 2.22 and 1 WB 5.22 took place on 2 May 2022. (

The continuation of the trial is scheduled for 7 & 8 June 2022. (

Further information can be found on Telegram.


Call to all soldiers!

If you want to be available to us as a witness in court because you suspect or can provide concrete evidence that your health was damaged by the Covid mRNA injections, that the cases with vaccination complications in the Bundeswehr were not recorded correctly or were not passed on correctly, then please contact us. Your messages will of course be treated confidentially.

Please contact our team under the mail account of lawyer Göran Thoms involved in the proceedings: