The German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) set aside a judgment that had dismissed a woman’s claims against the vaccine manufacturer for alleged injuries caused by her COVID‑19 vaccination. On Monday the BGH referred the case back to the appellate court for a new hearing, finding that the appellate court had applied too narrow a standard for an entitlement to information under drug‑regulatory law.
The plaintiff, who received the vaccine in March 2021, alleges that she suffered health problems-including a total loss of hearing in one ear. She has demanded that the manufacturer disclose all known effects and side effects of the vaccine and seeks damages. The district court had rejected her claim, and the higher regional court later dismissed her appeal.
In its decision, the BGH clarified that the plausibility of the drug’s causal link to the damage does not have to be overwhelmingly likely. Even when the evidence leans more toward other causes, an information claim can still be valid. The incorrect denial of this claim by the appellate court also affected how the plaintiff’s liability claims were assessed. The court noted that, if the defendant were found liable, the plaintiff might be able to introduce additional facts to support her damages request (Judgment of 9 March 2026 – VI ZR 335/24).
