Ne
ws

For pilots, flight attendants, and other airport personnel, the initiation of criminal tax proceedings poses a significant additional risk regarding their reliability status under the Aviation Security Act.

I. Reliability under Aviation Security Law

Under the Aviation Security Act (LuftSiG), reliability is assessed based on an overall evaluation of the individual case; a person is considered reliable only if they consistently do everything within their power to protect aviation security and demonstrate a high level of responsibility and self-control. Case law applies a strict standard, denying reliability even where there are only minor doubts.

II. Tax Evasion as a Presumptive Case

Pursuant to Section 7 (1a) sentence 2 no. 1 of the Aviation Security Act, reliability is generally deemed lacking if the individual concerned has been convicted of an intentional criminal offense resulting in a fine of at least 60 daily rates, and less than five years have elapsed since the conviction became final.

The provision is based solely on the severity of the offense and the penalty imposed, not on the specific legal interest protected; an explicit link to aviation security is not required.

III. Consequences for Established or Pending Reliability Status

If a conviction for tax evasion involving a fine of at least 60 daily rates occurs within the five-year period, this generally results in the refusal of an application for a reliability determination under Section 7 of the Aviation Security Act or the revocation of a determination already made.

IV. No Requirement for a Specific Link to Aviation

Case law is consistent in this regard: a specific link between the tax evasion and aviation operations is not required. Intentional criminal offenses of significant gravity call aviation security reliability into question to a particular degree, regardless of whether they are related to the individual's work at the airport.

V. Possibility of Rebuttal

A finding of unreliability can only be rebutted through an overall assessment. In atypical cases involving special mitigating circumstances, it may be possible to deviate from the general rule regarding unreliability.

VI. Further Risks: Investigation Proceedings and Discontinuance under Section 153a of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO)

Not only final convictions but also ongoing or discontinued investigation proceedings concerning tax evasion may be taken into account as "other findings" pursuant to Section 7 (1a) sentence 4 no. 1 of the Aviation Security Act (LuftSiG) and give rise to doubts regarding reliability. Even a discontinuance of criminal tax proceedings under Section 153a StPO is included as an incriminating factor in the overall assessment, as it indicates conduct relevant under criminal law.

VII. Practical consequences for individuals involved in tax evasion

For an individual convicted of tax evasion under Section 370 of the Fiscal Code (AO) and sentenced to a fine of at least 60 daily rates, this generally entails the following:

• Refusal of any new application for a reliability clearance under Section 7 of the Aviation Security Act (LuftSiG) within five years of the conviction becoming final.
• Revocation of a previously granted reliability clearance, resulting in the withdrawal of airport ID cards, access rights, and pilot licenses, or the loss of access to security-sensitive areas contingent upon such clearance.
• Regaining reliability status prior to the expiration of the standard waiting period is possible only in rare, atypical cases characterized by significant mitigating circumstances that must be substantiated in detail.

If you have questions, please contact us at: kanzlei@wild.legal