AmtsDeutschland
0%
Skip to main content
Authorities Most popular Guides
FAQ Contact
Find an official procedure

Notification of an infectious disease under the IfSG

Gesundheitsamt · Notification system

Usually electronicLegal obligationTwo deadlines

The Infection Protection Act does not work with one notification list, but with three — and whoever uses the wrong one notifies the wrong body. § 6 lists diseases subject to notification, from botulism through measles and rabies to the orthopoxviruses. § 7 Abs. 1 lists something different: proof of pathogens subject to notification — not the disease, but the laboratory finding. And § 7 Abs. 3 carries a third, short list that appears almost nowhere: Treponema pallidum, HIV, Echinococcus, Toxoplasma gondii, Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Chlamydia trachomatis of serotypes L1 to L3.

This third list is the point at which most accounts stop — yet it has its own rules for everything. Under § 10 IfSG, the notification under § 7 Abs. 3 goes not to the Gesundheitsamt, but directly to the Robert Koch Institute. The deadline is two weeks instead of 24 hours. And no name is transmitted: gender, month and year of birth, the first three digits of the postcode and a pseudonym, formed from the third letter and the number of letters of the first and last names. The reason becomes obvious as soon as one reads the list: these are the diagnoses where naming the person would deter people from getting tested. Anyone who notifies the Gesundheitsamt of an HIV diagnosis is therefore not only notifying the wrong body — they are breaching the anonymity that the law deliberately builds in here.

For the named notification under § 6 and § 7 Abs. 1, § 9 Abs. 3 IfSG applies: without delay, at the latest within 24 hours after the notifying party became aware. The competent body is the Gesundheitsamt in whose district the affected person is staying — not the one where the doctor or the laboratory is based. Anyone who swaps the deadlines of the two lists either notifies three weeks too late or sends an anonymous notification to a body that does not accept it at all.

Who must notify is set out in § 8 IfSG, and that too is not a uniform group. For the diseases of § 6, the doctor making the diagnosis is primarily obliged, together with, depending on the circumstances, members of other healthcare professions, heads of facilities and persons responsible in communal accommodation. For the pathogen findings of § 7, by contrast, it is the head of the laboratory. This separation explains the most common double notification: the practice and the laboratory notify the same case — which is correct, because they are notifying two different facts.

Last updated28 August 2026
Legal basis§§ 6 to 10 IfSG
VerificationChecked against IfSG, TrinkwV, LFGB and Regulation (EC) 852/2004
Written and reviewed byAndrés Sánchez Botta
Independent information website: we are not the Gesundheitsamt, not an authority and not a paid advice service – we do not submit applications on your behalf. All information comes from official sources and is explained here in plain language; binding information always comes from the competent body. No legal advice and not an official authority. We are neither lawyers nor tax consultants: we document official procedures and check the information against the official source – this is information, not legal or tax advice.
Named24 hours§ 9 Abs. 3 IfSG
Not namedTwo weeks§ 10 IfSG
Recipient § 7 Abs. 3RKINot the Gesundheitsamt
Maximum regulatory fineUp to €25,000§ 73 Abs. 2 IfSG
Required documents

What you need

The particulars of the affected person

For the named notification under § 9: name, date of birth, address, gender as well as the particulars of the diagnosis and the probable route of infection. The scope is set out in the law and is not negotiable — incomplete notifications trigger queries and delay the investigation.

The finding or the diagnosis

At the laboratory, the pathogen finding under § 7; at the practice, the clinical diagnosis or suspicion under § 6. These are two different facts requiring notification, even if they concern the same case — and both must be fulfilled.

For the unnamed notification: the pseudonym

Instead of the name: the third letter of the first given name together with the number of letters in the given name, the same for the surname, plus gender, month and year of birth and the first three digits of the postcode. This lets the RKI recognise duplicate notifications without knowing the person.

The electronic notification route

Notification today regularly takes place via the Electronic Notification and Information System (DEMIS). Whether and how your notification route is connected is something you clarify with the competent Gesundheitsamt — on the paper route, the deadline remains the same.

At facilities: internal responsibility

In clinics, care homes and communal accommodation, the obligation falls on the management. Who exercises it in-house should be established beforehand — the 24-hour deadline runs from the moment of awareness, not from the start of duty of the responsible person.

Step by step

How to proceed

  1. 1

    Establish which list applies

    Disease or suspicion under § 6, pathogen finding under § 7 Abs. 1, or one of the six diagnoses of § 7 Abs. 3. The recipient, the deadline and the scope of the notification depend on this classification — it is not a formality, but decides everything that follows.

  2. 2

    Determine the correct recipient

    Named notifications go to the Gesundheitsamt in whose district the affected person is staying. The unnamed notifications under § 7 Abs. 3 go, under § 10 IfSG, directly to the Robert Koch Institute — not to the Gesundheitsamt.

  3. 3

    Meet the deadline

    Named: without delay, at the latest within 24 hours of becoming aware. Unnamed: within two weeks. The deadline begins with the awareness of the notifying party, not with the date of the finding.

  4. 4

    Notify completely

    The data set under § 9 is determined by law. Gaps lead to queries and delay the identification of contact persons — precisely what the short deadline is meant to serve.

  5. 5

    At communal facilities, also observe § 34

    Alongside the duty to notify, there is a ban on entering premises, which also covers staff, and the duty of parents to inform under § 34 Abs. 5. Both run alongside the notification under §§ 6 and 7 and do not replace it.

Fee information

Costs and payment

Costs, deadlines and scopeThe notification itself is free of charge for the notifying party
ReportNo fee
Deadline, named24 hours
Deadline, unnamedTwo weeks
Recipient § 6, § 7 Abs. 1Gesundheitsamt of the place of stay
Recipient § 7 Abs. 3Robert Koch Institute
Maximum regulatory fineUp to €25,000

The duty to notify falls on doctors, laboratories and heads of facilities — not on the affected person themselves. For them, no cost risk follows from the notification.

Good to know

Important notes

A whole list is missing from almost every overview, although it affects millions of families: § 34 IfSG sets out the diseases for which a person must not enter a communal facility — Kita, school, after-school club, residential home, holiday camp. These include measles, whooping cough, mumps, chickenpox, scarlet fever, head lice infestation, infectious pulmonary tuberculosis and diarrhoeal diseases. Two points on this are regularly overlooked. First, the ban applies not only to children: anyone who teaches, educates, cares for or supervises there falls under it just the same. And second, there is the group of excretors under subsection 2 — anyone excreting cholera, diphtheria, typhoid, shigella or EHEC pathogens without being ill may re-enter the facility only with the approval of the Gesundheitsamt. Parents and staff must, under subsection 5, notify the facility without delay.

For those affected, the most important point is the one least known: for the six diagnoses of § 7 Abs. 3, the Gesundheitsamt does not learn your name. These notifications go pseudonymised to the Robert Koch Institute. The concern that an HIV or syphilis diagnosis might reach the local authority by name is therefore unfounded — the law has deliberately built this route differently.

The double notification by the practice and the laboratory is not an error. § 6 and § 7 describe two different facts — the disease and the pathogen finding — and § 8 assigns them to two different persons. Whoever relies on the other's notification breaches their own duty.

The maximum regulatory fines under the Infection Protection Act are set out in § 73 Abs. 2 IfSG, and there are two of them. The general maximum extends to €25,000. For a specifically named group of infringements, however — numbers 7a to 7d of Abs. 1a, that is precisely the proof obligations surrounding measles vaccination under § 20 — the lower maximum of €2,500 applies. Higher amounts that are in circulation come from food law and thus from a different statute and a different authority.

Avoid these mistakes

Common mistakes

Notifying the list of § 7 Abs. 3 to the Gesundheitsamt. It goes, under § 10 IfSG, directly to the RKI — and pseudonymised, not by name.

Applying the 24-hour deadline to all notifications. For the unnamed notification, two weeks apply.

Relying on the laboratory's notification. § 6 and § 7 are separate facts with separate obliged parties.

Choosing the Gesundheitsamt at the practice's location. The competent body is, in principle, the office at the affected person's place of stay.

Notifying at the Kita or school and leaving it there. § 34 IfSG additionally requires compliance with the ban on entering premises — also for staff.

Frequently asked questions

Questions and answers

What is the difference between § 6 and § 7 IfSG?

§ 6 IfSG lists the diseases subject to notification — what is notified is the diagnosis or the suspicion, as a rule by the doctor making the finding. § 7 IfSG lists the proof of pathogens subject to notification — what is notified is the laboratory finding, by the head of the laboratory. The same case can therefore trigger two notifications, and that is correct.

Does the Gesundheitsamt learn my name in the case of an HIV diagnosis?

No. HIV is listed in § 7 Abs. 3 IfSG, and for this list § 10 IfSG orders the unnamed notification: it goes directly to the Robert Koch Institute, not to the Gesundheitsamt, and instead of the name contains a pseudonym formed from letters and the number of letters, plus gender, month and year of birth and the first three digits of the postcode. The same applies to syphilis, Echinococcus, Toxoplasma gondii, gonococci and certain chlamydia.

How quickly must notification be made?

Named notifications under § 6 and § 7 Abs. 1 must, under § 9 Abs. 3 IfSG, be made without delay, at the latest within 24 hours after the notifying party became aware. For the unnamed notification under § 7 Abs. 3, by contrast, a deadline of two weeks applies. Both deadlines run from awareness, not from the date of the finding.

Which Gesundheitsamt is competent?

Under § 9 Abs. 4 IfSG, the Gesundheitsamt in whose district the affected person is staying — not the one at the practice's location. If the person is accommodated in a facility, the office at the facility's location is competent. For laboratory notifications, a substitute rule applies if the home address is not known.

Must I, as the person affected, notify myself?

No. The duty to notify under § 8 IfSG falls on doctors, laboratory managements, heads of facilities and other persons named there — not on the affected person. Something different applies in communal facilities: there, § 34 Abs. 5 IfSG obliges parents and guardians to notify the facility without delay.

What are the consequences of failing to notify?

A regulatory fine. § 73 Abs. 2 IfSG provides for two ranges: up to €25,000 in general and up to €2,500 for an expressly listed group of infringements concerning the measles proof under § 20. A breach of the duty to notify does not fall within this small group.

Related official procedures

Instruction under § 43 IfSG
Instruction instead of a medical examination — no health certificate
One-off, with no expiry
Hygiene monitoring
Who really carries out inspections — and who does not
Without registration
Vaccination advice
Duty to advise and duty to provide proof kept apart
Free of charge

Cannot find the official procedure you are looking for?

Tell us what information you need.

Send a request