Information icon.svg MediaWiki[wp] is hostile to Men, see T323956.
Information icon.svg For the first time in 80 years, German tanks will roll against Russia.

Germany has been a party to the war since 727 days by supplying weapons of war.

German Foreign Minster Annalena Baerbock: "We are fighting a war against Russia" (January 25, 2023)

Cologne circumcision court judgment

From WikiMANNia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Main PageHealthCircumcision → Cologne circumcision court judgment
Main PageStateRightJurisprudence → Cologne circumcision court judgment

The so-called Cologne circumcision court judgment means a judgment[1] issued by the regional court of Cologne (Germany) on May 07, 2012 in the second instance. The court considered circumcision a bodily injury, which will not be justified by a religious motivation and the desire of the parents and is not in the best interests of the child.

Underlaying the following case: On November 4, 2010 a Muslim doctor circumcised an at the time four years old boy of Muslim parents at their request on the rules of medical art in his practice. Strong haemorrhage resulted in that the mother brought the boy on November 6, 2010, in the University Hospital of Cologne, where the bleeding could be stopped. The Süddeutsche Zeitung reported that the treatment after the circumcision was carried out "in general anesthesia". The boy had come for several days in a children's ward. Three dressing changes have also taken place in anesthesia. The doctor's letter also states the exposed penis surface and the glans were "uneven, corroded and fibrinous". The boy had been for ten days in clinical treatment over all.[2]

Although the offense of assault was found, the doctor was acquitted due to lack of case law on the subject of the present circumcision, because he had acted in an unavoidable mistake and therefore without guilt (§ 17 sentence 1 Criminal Code).

Since subsequent cases of circumcision would be no longer protected by 'unavoidable mistake' on the basis of this judgment, the judgment attracted more attention and initiated a change of direction in the legal opinion on the subject Circumcision of Boys in Germany.

The Cologne Regional Court mainly related to earlier publications[3] of Holm Putzke on the topic and found that neither the parental authority nor the religious freedom of parents would be sufficient grounds to justify the irreversible circumcision of genitals.

"Anyway, Article 2 paragraph 2 sentence 1 GG (Basic Law) is an intrinsic constitutional limit for the fundamental rights of parents. On balancing the affected fundamental rights, the principle of proportionality has to be observed. Circumcision for religious education is a violation of the physical integrity and, if it is required at all, in any case inappropriate. This follows from the classification of § 1631 subsection 2 sentence 1 BGB (Civil Law Code). Also, the body of the child is changed permanently and irreparably by circumcision. This change is against the interest of the child to be able to decide himself about his religious affiliation later.
Vice versa, the education right of parents is not unreasonably impaired if they are to be seen whether the boy decides later when he is mature, himself for the circumcision as a visible sign of belonging to Islam."[4]

The Cologne circumcision court judgment was the catalyst of the so far most violent and longest circumcision debate[iw] in Germany. Especially religion representatives of the cutting religions put the policy under pressure to prevent as soon as possible in legal ways, that this judgment would endure universal. After today's state of knowledge, the public debate was sparked especially by statements from the European Rabbis Conference in July 2012. While the judgment had been related to a boy with Muslim parents, the Muslims in Germany did neither at the beginning nor in the course of the debate argue with such harsh accusations like the Jewish religious leaders did. The Cologne circumcision court judgment has since been repeatedly cited internationally as a change of direction, whenever circumcision proponents, intactivists and lawyers discuss about circumcision.


  1. Rechtsprechung - LG Köln, 07.05.2012 - 151 Ns 169/11,
  2. Beschneidungs-Urteil des Landgerichts Köln: Vierjähriger Junge war mehrfach in Narkose, Süddeutsche Zeitung am 14. Juli 2012 (Die Beschneidung eines Vierjährigen, die zum umstrittenen Urteil des Landgerichts Köln führte, zog einem Medienbericht zufolge schwere medizinische Komplikationen nach sich. So musste das Kind mehrere Tage im Krankenhaus verbringen und weitere Behandlungen erdulden.)
  3. Holm Putzke: Religiöse Beschneidung - Literature references at Holm Putzke (chronological)
  4. Landgericht Köln: Urteil vom 07.05.2012 - 151 Ns 169/11, IWW-Institut am 10. Juli 2012 (Diese Entscheidung enthält keinen zur Veröffentlichung bestimmten Leitsatz.)

External links

This article based on an article Cologne circumcision court judgment (21 April 2015) from the free Encyklopedia IntactiWiki. The IntactiWiki article is published under GNU-License for free Documentation. In IntactiWiki is a List of Authors available those who worked on the text before being incorporated in WikiMANNia.