Must a committed pacifist drive a streetcar displaying Bundeswehr advertisements? The Munich Labor Court has ruled in the affirmative. In the court’s view, the employer’s right to issue instructions takes precedence in this specific case because the driver’s freedom of conscience is only marginally affected and granting an exception could entail significant organizational effort.

Conscientious objector refuses to work on promotional tram

Since August 2024, a tram featuring the Bundeswehr’s distinctive livery has been operating in Munich as part of an advertising contract. A driver recognized as a conscientious objector refused to operate this tram. He justified his refusal by stating that, as a pacifist, he fundamentally opposes war and the promotion of military readiness. Driving the tram, he argued, was therefore incompatible with his conscience.

When the driver was assigned to the tram route, the dispatch center arranged for a vehicle swap. He subsequently received a warning and filed a lawsuit against it. For its part, the transit company sought a court ruling that the employee is, in principle, obligated to drive even trams bearing Bundeswehr advertising. The dispute over the warning was settled through a compromise, leaving the court to rule only on this fundamental obligation.

What does the employer’s right to direct employees mean?

Employers generally have the right, based on their authority to direct and issue instructions, to determine when, where, and how employees perform their contractually agreed-upon work. The legal basis for this is found in Section 106 of the Trade Regulation Act. However, this right is not unlimited. Employees’ personal interests and fundamental rights must be taken into account when making such decisions.

In the Munich case, two protected interests were pitted against each other: On the one hand, the driver invoked his freedom of conscience under Article 4 of the Basic Law. On the other hand, the transit company asserted its freedom of enterprise and its interest in a workable schedule. The court had to balance these interests against one another.

Freedom of conscience is only marginally affected

The labor court generally acknowledged the driver’s moral dilemma. However, in the court’s view, the mere act of driving the tram only marginally affected his freedom of conscience. The driver was neither required to perform military service himself nor to participate directly in military operations.

Furthermore, he had been assigned to the tram in question only once in the course of about one year and nine months. Given the large number of vehicles and drivers, such an assignment is unlikely to occur frequently in the future either. The transit company, on the other hand, would have to continuously monitor to ensure that the plaintiff is not assigned to that route. If other employees were to cite similar conflicts of conscience, the organizational burden could increase further.

Is it permissible to refuse to work on grounds of conscience?

The ruling does not mean that conscientious objections must always take a back seat in an employment relationship. Employers must examine serious conflicts and give appropriate consideration to the interests of both sides. Key factors include, among others, the extent to which the work relates to the content the employee objects to, the frequency of the conflict, and the availability of reasonable alternative employment. We address additional questions regarding the right to issue instructions and termination in our section on employment law.

In this specific case, the court deemed the interference to be relatively minor and the effort required to grant a permanent exemption to be disproportionate. Therefore, the driver must, in principle, be permitted to operate the advertising tram or follow the relevant instructions.

A decision with an uncertain outcome

The ruling of May 20, 2026, shows that even a credible conflict of conscience does not automatically justify a refusal to work. The decisive factor remains a case-by-case assessment. The decision of the Munich Labor Court, under case number 4 Ca 15395/25, is not yet final. An appeal has been filed against it with the Munich Regional Labor Court (Case No.: 10 SLa 318/26).

Are you a law firm outside Germany? We act as German and European counsel for foreign firms in trade mark, copyright and unfair competition matters, and the client relationship stays on your side. How we work with foreign law firms.