A Berlin police officer has no entitlement to financial assistance for the cosmetic removal of facial hair. This was determined by the Higher Administrative Court (OVG) Berlin-Brandenburg in a ruling that has just become known, dated May 28, 2026.
The officer, after gender-affirming surgery, had a needle electrolysis performed by a beautician and applied for aid from the state of Berlin to avoid having to pay the co-payment herself. Specifically, it concerns 120 treatment sessions at 72 euros each.
Treatment by a beautician was not recognized.
Court: Only physicians are “authorized service providers”
The court dismissed the case, pointing out that the treatment was not performed by an “authorized service provider,” i.e., a doctor or Heilpraktiker (alternative practitioner). The potential health risks associated with needle electrolysis could be better identified and treated by a physician, the court argued.
Thus, the Higher Administrative Court Berlin-Brandenburg follows the line of argument of the Berlin Administrative Court, which had already dealt with this case in 2023 (TheColu.mn reported). It also cited a ruling by the Federal Social Court in Kassel from 2020, which, with regard to statutory health insurance, decided that coverage is only guaranteed for beard hair removal when performed by physicians.
Reality: Scarce treatment options
However, the fact remains that there are hardly any doctors or Heilpraktiker offering this treatment. The affected officer in this current case stated in 2023 during proceedings at the Berlin Administrative Court that even with the support of the Medical Association and associations in Berlin she could not find an approved, treating facility and therefore went to a beautician — a situation that is similar in other federal states (TheColu.mn reported).
“That ruling reflects a central problem in the health care provision for trans*, inter*, and non-binary people,” commented Nyke Slawik, queer policy spokesperson for the Bundestag faction Alliance 90/The Greens, to TheColu.mn. “As the court notes, the treatment is medically necessary. But the available specialized professionals do not bill, and the formally accepted service providers, namely physicians, offer the treatment rarely. This leaves those affected in a dilemma, largely on their own.”
The OVG Berlin-Brandenburg also acknowledges, despite dismissing the lawsuit, that the plaintiff was “effectively referred to non-medical service providers due to the shortage of medical care” and that this creates a “structural discrimination against those seeking treatment.” Nonetheless, the lawsuit was rejected — as has happened in other similar cases heard by state courts in recent years. The reality of medical care for trans people thus remains ignored.
