faq
Two courts in Germany are today hearing lawsuits against manufacturers of Covid-19 vaccines for suspected vaccine damage. But when is vaccination damage present at all? And how promising are these lawsuits?
How many lawsuits are there?
More than 192 million doses of vaccine against Covid-19 have been administered in Germany since the start of the vaccination campaign. At the time, the federal government explicitly promoted the vaccine. Critics, on the other hand, feared that there would be mass vaccination damage in the population.
Measured by the number of vaccinations administered, the number of cases that have ended up in court so far is manageable. There are two law firms in particular that, according to their own statements, represent the majority of clients who are claiming damages for possible vaccination damage. According to the dpa news agency, they had filed a total of around 350 lawsuits by June.
What exactly is the Rottweil District Court negotiating?
One of the plaintiffs is Dietmar S. He is demanding EUR 150,000 in damages from the Mainz-based company BioNTech. The regional court in Rottweil, Swabia, is now negotiating this case orally. S. has lost almost all vision in one eye. He sees the reason for this in the recent vaccination with the BioNTech vaccine “Comirnaty”.
The company itself sees it differently: “We have carefully examined the health impairments described by the plaintiff on the basis of all the information provided and have come to the conclusion that the lawsuit is unfounded,” said a spokeswoman.
What are the legal sticking points when it comes to lawsuits against manufacturers?
In court, these lawsuits will essentially deal with two points: First, whether the damage claimed by the plaintiffs is more than the side effects that are already known. Only if this is the case and this damage can actually be attributed to the Covid vaccinations would it be “real” vaccination damage.
What would not be vaccine damage?
According to Paragraph 84 of the Medicines Act (AMG), the manufacturer is obliged to pay compensation if the drug (or the vaccine) when used as intended has harmful effects that “exceed a level that is acceptable according to the findings of medical science”.
However, case law recognizes that known side effects are acceptable if the medicinal product is authorized. “Therefore, injuries that are classified as socially adequate according to the benefit-risk assessment because and to the extent that they are tolerated when using medicines by traffic cannot be compensated for,” the Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court decided.
The vaccine damage claimed would have to be “more” than just a known side effect that was pointed out in advance. The Karlsruhe case was not about a Covid 19 vaccination, but these standards also apply to such cases.
Munich lawyer Thomas Klindt, a specialist in product liability law, explains: “Most medications and vaccines can have side effects, but we accept that because the benefits of these drugs outweigh the risk of side effects.” But if one of the known possible side effects then materializes, the manufacturer cannot be held liable.
To what extent must the damage be due to the vaccination?
In a second step, it would then have to be clarified: Is this damage due to the vaccination? At this point, the second paragraph of paragraph 84 AMG makes things easier for plaintiffs: “If the drug used is suitable for causing the damage according to the circumstances of the individual case, it is assumed that the damage was caused by this drug,” it says there.
The law initially assumes the causality between the occurrence of damage and vaccination. The prerequisite for this, however, is that the vaccine must be pharmacologically suitable in the first place to cause the corresponding damage. However, this assumption can be refuted. Because it does not apply if another circumstance is likely to cause the damage in the specific case. “At this point, these proceedings will probably not go without complex medical reports,” suspects lawyer Klindt. “Because at this point, the plaintiff and the defendant will argue about whether there are other causes for the specific damage.”
Are other claims also possible?
In addition to the lawsuits against the manufacturers of the vaccines, victims of vaccine damage could also demand money from the state. The current civil proceedings expressly do not deal with such claims.
But: The legislator has expressly stipulated a claim for compensation against the state in the Infection Protection Act (IfSG). According to paragraph 60 IfSG, the state pays for vaccination damage caused by the Covid 19 vaccination for medical and medical treatments and possibly also a pension.
This is also called a “sacrifice claim”. The thought behind it: People do not vaccinate themselves just for their own protection, but also in the interest of the state to protect others. That’s why they should be taken care of if something happens to them. The prerequisite is that the vaccination was recommended by a competent state authority.
“Vaccine damage” means that the consequences go beyond the usual extent of a vaccination reaction. Normal vaccination reactions such as rashes, fever and headaches are not included. Whether there is vaccination damage must then be clarified in each individual case. Even for people who have already had to deal with severe side effects.
In the case of a claim for benefits against the state, however, it does not matter whether the side effect was known beforehand. Even after correct information and consent, you do not lose your claim. However, there is no possibility of compensation payments here, as they are the subject of the current lawsuits against the manufacturers.