Search
Contact
29.06.2021 | KPMG Law Insights

Admissibility of tattoos in civil service law

Admissibility of tattoos in civil service law

For many people, tattoos are an expression of their personal experiences and personality. Often, the colorful motifs also decorate the body of its wearer only as a fashion accessory. A 2019 survey shows that every fifth person in Germany has a tattoo. Especially among young people between 20 and 29 years tattoos are becoming more and more popular. However, especially large tattoos, which are often reluctantly hidden as body jewelry, can be a hindrance in the job search, since many people and especially employers are critical of tattoos.

Thus, visible tattoos can also be a problem in civil service law. Against the background of the duty of neutrality and the representative function of civil servants, German courts have often had to deal with the question of whether and to what extent tattoos are permitted on civil servants. For example, it was not a hindrance to hiring a police officer that he had a large lion’s head with bared teeth tattooed on his chest. In another case, a police officer was banned from having the words “Aloha” tattooed on his forearm as a reminder of his honeymoon in Hawaii. Often, judicial decisions have been based on whether the tattoos are visible while wearing the summer uniform or disappear under the service uniform.

However, there is no general ban on tattoos for civil servants. In the Federal Government and in some of the Länder, the appearance of civil servants has hitherto been regulated by administrative regulations or circulars based on the authority to regulate official uniforms. For federal civil servants, such a tattoo ban was based on § 74 BBG. § Section 74 of the BBG provides that the Federal President or a body designated by him shall make regulations concerning the official dress customary or necessary in the performance of the office.

The Federal Constitutional Court objected in a decision that these circulars and administrative regulations do not constitute a sufficient enabling basis for a tattoo ban, since such a ban would infringe on the general right of personality of civil servants under Article 2 (2) of the Basic Law. 1 GG in conjunction with Art. 1 para. 1 GG is interfered with. Such a ban would also be an intrusion into the private lives of civil servants.

On the basis of this, the Bundestag adopted the new version of Section 61 para. 2 BBG and of § 34 para. 2 BeamtStG resolved. In terms of content, § 61 para. 2 BBG and § 34 para. 2 BeamtStG with identical wording. They regulate that the visible wearing of certain items of clothing, jewelry, symbols and tattoos may be restricted or prohibited by the highest service authority. Such restriction or prohibition is possible if it is required by the functioning of the administration or by the duty of respectful and trustworthy behavior. This is assumed to be the case in particular if the tattooing goes beyond the usual extent and the official function of the civil servant is thereby pushed into the background.

With the amendment, however, not only tattoos, piercings and other types of body jewelry can be banned in public service, but also features with religious and ideological connotations, such as the headscarf or the yarmulke. However, such a prohibition is only possible if these features or symbols are objectively capable of impairing confidence in the neutral conduct of official duties.

The new version of the regulations creates enabling legislation to regulate the appearance of civil servants. The new regulation also empowers the Federal Ministry of the Interior, for Building and the Homeland to regulate details of the external appearance by statutory order.

Furthermore, both in § 7 para. 1 No. 4 BBG as well as in Section 7 para. 1 No. 4 BeamtStG that a person may not be appointed as a civil servant if he or she has unchangeable features of appearance that are incompatible with the fulfillment of duties pursuant to Section 61 (1) of the Civil Service Act (BeamtStG). 2 BBG are not compatible.

The approval of the Bundesrat thus created a basis for authorization that enables the employer to prohibit tattoos and other body adornment and thus to regulate the external appearance of civil servants. How this will be implemented in practice remains to be seen.

Explore #more

11.09.2026 | KPMG Law Insights

The Procurement Acceleration Act and Sustainable Procurement: What Is Permitted and What Is Required?

The Public Procurement Acceleration Act took effect on July 1, 2026. The Act implements the reform of public procurement law that has been under discussion…

08.09.2026 | Deal Notifications

KPMG Law advises the shareholders and management of KODIAK on the sale of shares and the strategic partnership with Bencis

KPMG Law Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH (KPMG Law) advised the shareholders and management of KODIAK GmbH (KODIAK) on the sale of shares to Bencis and the establishment…

07.09.2026 | In the media

KPMG Law advises Bosch Rexroth on the sale of its Active Shuttle product business to Neura Robotics

KPMG Law Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH (KPMG Law) has provided legal counsel to Bosch Rexroth AG (Bosch Rexroth) in the sale of its product business related to…

31.08.2026 | In the media

Op-Ed in the Börsen-Zeitung – Interim Assessment of the European Crypto Regulation MiCAR

A year and a half after MiCAR took effect, it is clear that, despite European guidelines, there are still misunderstandings regarding the requirements. KPMG Law…

19.08.2026 | In the media

KPMG Law Interview in HAUFE: Even If AI Makes a Mistake, the Board of Directors Is Still Liable

AI analyzes, makes recommendations, and helps make decisions. But who bears the consequences if it makes a mistake? KPMG Law experts Vincent Manthey and Sabrina

19.08.2026 | In the media

KPMG Law Article in Bloomberg Tax: Germany’s Tax Crime Action Plan Pushes the Boundaries of the Constitution

The new 26-point action plan against tax and financial crime, issued by Germany’s finance and justice ministries, signals a shift toward tougher sanctions, closer interagency…

13.08.2026 | KPMG Law Insights

Federal Ministry of Finance Presents Draft Bill on Mandatory Use of Electronic Cash Registers and Combating Tax Evasion

In July 2026, the Federal Ministry of Finance (BMF) and the Federal Ministry of Justice (BMJV) presented an action plan to combat tax and financial

11.08.2026 | In the media

Guest article in *Versicherungsmonitor* on the topic of cyber claims regulation

Cyberattacks—particularly ransomware campaigns—pose challenges for insurers when it comes to claims settlement. When entire IT infrastructures at insured companies come to a standstill and the…

11.08.2026 | KPMG Law Insights

Transparency Requirements Under Article 50 of the AI Act: Companies Should Address These Questions Now

The transparency requirements of the EU AI Act have been in effect since August 2, 2026. These obligations apply to chatbots, AI assistants, avatars, synthetic…

10.08.2026 | In the media

Op-Ed on the Procurement Acceleration Act and Sustainable Public Procurement

On April 23, 2026, the Bundestag passed the Act on Accelerating the Award of Public Contracts. After the Act was published in the Federal Law…

Contact

Private: Kristina Knauber

Senior Manager

Luise-Straus-Ernst-Straße 2
50679 Köln

Tel.: +49 221 271 689 1498
kknauber@kpmg-law.com

© 2026 KPMG Law Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH, associated with KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a public limited company under German law and a member of the global KPMG organisation of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a Private English Company Limited by Guarantee. All rights reserved. For more details on the structure of KPMG’s global organisation, please visit https://home.kpmg/governance.

KPMG International does not provide services to clients. No member firm is authorised to bind or contract KPMG International or any other member firm to any third party, just as KPMG International is not authorised to bind or contract any other member firm.

Scroll