A deepening political row has erupted in Germany over the ongoing financial fallout from the controversial procurement of face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic, with accusations leveled against Health Minister Nina Warken (CDU) regarding a lack of transparency and budgetary planning. Green Party parliamentarian Paula Piechotta has publicly criticized Minister Warken’s handling of the “Annexkosten” – the follow-on costs associated with storing, transporting and ultimately destroying millions of masks deemed surplus and unnecessarily ordered by former Health Minister Jens Spahn.
Piechotta’s critique centers specifically on the ministry’s reported methods for disclosing these costs. According to Piechotta, the ministry’s practice of accounting for only a fraction (around one percent) of foreseeable and contractually obligated expenses upfront, while only revealing the remaining 99 percent upon direct inquiry, demonstrates a fundamental lack of budgetary clarity and a deliberate obfuscation of the true scale of the financial burden.
During recent discussions surrounding the draft budget for 2026, Piechotta questioned Minister Warken about the anticipated expenses related to these problematic mask orders. The ministry currently estimates “Annexkosten” to reach up to €44.5 million. Separate logistics contributions are estimated at €18.5 million, with legal fees potentially reaching €26 million. Furthermore, the ministry states that an anticipated €480 million will be required in 2026 alone to settle outstanding payments to mask suppliers following the conclusion of ongoing legal proceedings.
The allocation within Minister Warken’s health budget for these critical payouts, however, is markedly insufficient, totaling just €5.4 million. Minister Warken intends to cover any overages utilizing remaining budgetary allocations, a strategy Piechotta deems insufficient and strategically evasive.
Piechotta emphasized the importance of governmental transparency for a functioning democracy, arguing that the presentation of a seemingly balanced budget while acknowledging the imminent need for nearly half a billion euros solely for next year’s mask-related consequences, represents a deliberate attempt to conceal the magnitude of the financial debacle originating from Spahn’s mask procurement deals. The accusations heighten scrutiny on the government’s responsibility for the ongoing costs and underscore the continued political ramifications of the pandemic-era procurement decisions.
