Berlin – German authorities have dropped a criminal investigation into former Health Minister Jens Spahn regarding the procurement of face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. The decision, announced on Monday, March 9, 2026, by the Berlin Public Prosecutor’s Office, comes after a review of more than 170 criminal complaints filed against Spahn, primarily alleging acceptance of advantages and breach of trust. The investigation found “no sufficient factual evidence of a criminal offense,” according to officials.
The case centered on concerns surrounding billions of euros spent on procuring protective masks at the onset of the pandemic. Critics questioned the speed and transparency of the procurement process, alleging inflated prices and preferential treatment for certain companies. Spahn, currently the leader of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, defended his actions during testimony before a parliamentary inquiry committee in December 2025, stating decisions were made under immense pressure to secure vital supplies.
The investigation was initially hampered by Spahn’s parliamentary immunity, which required the complaints to be initially processed as preliminary inquiries. Prosecutors examined reports from special investigator Margaretha Sudhof, as well as reports from the Federal Audit Office, to assess the allegations. The Federal Audit Office had previously criticized the “massive over-procurement” of masks, highlighting a lack of adequate follow-up, and accountability.
During the height of the pandemic, the German federal government purchased approximately 5.7 billion coronavirus protective masks for nearly 6 billion euros. However, only 2 billion masks were ultimately distributed to the public, with the remainder being destroyed or left in storage, raising questions about the efficiency and necessity of the massive procurement effort. The financial burden of storing, transporting, and ultimately disposing of the surplus masks added to the controversy.
Investigation Focused on Allegations of Improper Conduct
The complaints against Spahn specifically alleged that he favored companies with close ties to his ministry, bypassed necessary due diligence procedures, and approved overpriced contracts. Sudhof’s report reportedly detailed these accusations, examining the awarding of large contracts, the engagement of logistics companies, and the so-called “open-house” procedure used by the Federal Ministry of Health. However, the Public Prosecutor’s Office determined that the evidence did not meet the threshold for criminal prosecution.
Scale of Mask Procurement and Subsequent Waste
The sheer scale of the mask procurement program has been a subject of intense scrutiny. The initial rush to secure supplies led to a situation where the government significantly overbought, anticipating a much higher demand than ultimately materialized. The subsequent disposal of billions of masks represented a substantial financial loss for taxpayers. The German government’s handling of the mask procurement has become a case study in the challenges of emergency procurement during a public health crisis.
The decision to close the investigation does not necessarily absolve Spahn of all criticism. The parliamentary inquiry committee continues to examine the circumstances surrounding the mask procurement, seeking to learn lessons for future pandemic preparedness. The findings of the inquiry could still lead to political consequences, even in the absence of criminal charges.
Looking ahead, the focus will likely shift to improving transparency and accountability in emergency procurement procedures. The German government is expected to review its pandemic preparedness plans and implement measures to prevent similar situations from occurring in the future. The debate over the effectiveness and efficiency of the mask procurement program is likely to continue, serving as a reminder of the complexities and challenges of responding to a global health crisis.
What are your thoughts on the outcome of this investigation? Share your comments below. Please also share this article with your network to keep the conversation going.
Disclaimer: This article provides information for general knowledge and informational purposes only, and does not constitute medical or legal advice.
