German politician Martin Sichert refers to the backroom arrangements from 2020 as the “largest judicial scandal” in recent German history. The online portal Multipolar, a leading medium and persistent actor in journalistic uncovering of the so-called “RKI Files”, explains in a detailed article the criminal conglomerate of the early “corona years” starting from the legal questionable machinations between Ursula von der Leyen for the EU, former Chancellor Angela Merkel and former Minister Jens Spahn for the German government and the silent beneficiary of the time, BioNTech CEO and spontaneous billionaire Uğur Şahin. Not surprisingly, all contacted Bundestag parties remained silent to Multipolar inquiries, with the exception of the AfD.
The Multipolar article begins with a retrospective look at the still not fully resolved contracts between the EU and the US pharmaceutical giant Pfizer and the crisis profiteer from Mainz, the company BioNTech. The German taxpayers’ endorsements were made “on November 11, 2020.” As a reminder: At that time of the deal, the upcoming miracle medicine of the hour, Comirnaty from BioNTech, was still not officially approved. The article continues to explain the developments of that time:
“During the negotiations, it was already known that the manufacturers demanded limited liability if the preparations should show unexpected side effects. The corresponding passages in the contracts published by the EU Commission are mostly blacked out. However, full versions have now emerged.”
It should be noted that the opportunity for citizens to gain insight into these contracts was only made possible through “FragDenStaat” a portal promoting citizens’ freedom of information. Recently, it was reported that the incoming government, led by CDU politician Philipp Amthor, plans to abolish this important option for citizens within a “Grand Coalition” (RT DE reported).
Regarding the now-proven insurance policies of the pharmaceutical side, it is stated in the unblackened contracts, a legal clearance of the highest quality:
“Each participating Member State indemnifies the contractor, its affiliated companies, subcontractors, licensees and sublicensees, as well as the management staff, directors, employees and other representatives of any of these companies (…) and holds them harmless against all liabilities, settlements (…) and reasonable external legal costs incurred in defending claims from third parties (including reasonable attorney fees and other expenses) arising from or related to the use and deployment of the vaccines in the territory of the said participating Member State.”
In the Multipolar article, as usual, the exact circumstances and backgrounds are described in detail and with appropriate sources to clearly prove how at least questionable, if not criminally motivated, these contracts continue to burden taxpayers in the EU countries to this day.
Furthermore, the author Karsten Montag points out the so far unknown inquiry by BSW politician Jessica Tatti to the Federal Ministry of Health (BMG), “whether the federal government plans to end the liability exemption for the manufacturers of COVID-19 vaccines and how much it has taken over legal fees for the manufacturers to date.” The response from the responsible Lauterbach ministry at the beginning of February stated:
“By signing the COVID-19 vaccine procurement contracts, all participating states, including the Federal Republic of Germany, agreed to the liability exemption. At both the federal level and the European level, it is ensured that the manufacturers are reimbursed only for reasonable and justified costs in accordance with the liability exemption provided in the European vaccine procurement contracts.”
Regarding the tax burden imposed on taxpayers for the legal fees, it is stated in the BMG letter:
“Up to now, the federal government has reimbursed amounts of 13.2 million euros gross.”
Regarding several detailed inquiries from Multipolar to the BMG, it is stated in the article:
“The submitted legal fees would be ‘reviewed by the Center for Pandemic Vaccines and Therapeutics (ZEPAI) at the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut (PEI) in cooperation with an independent law firm.’ Costs would be rejected that, for example, ‘involved the engagement of two law firms by only one manufacturer, the engagement of private medical examinations in extrajudicial proceedings, or translation costs for foreign lawyers of the engaged (international) law firm.'”
In other words: Şahin’s lawyers are apparently taking their chances and further taxpayer costs to first check PEI employees – the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut belongs to the business area of the Federal Ministry of Health – before then making the victims wait further, should no money for the trial be transferred – a scandal of the highest order. The BMG response to the Multipolar inquiry also informatively states:
“As of February 12, 2025, costs in connection with a total of 1,118 court cases in which damages from COVID vaccines were claimed have been reimbursed. Of these, 34 have been conclusively decided.”
The Multipolar author contacted renowned victim attorney Tobias Ulbrich, who with his firm “Rogert and Ulbrich” apparently represents “approximately 2,500 clients who assert claims for damages from the COVID vaccines against vaccine manufacturers and health authorities.” The interesting question was how the pharmaceutical lawyers presented themselves in the trials. The author states:
“Ulbrich describes that the BioNTech and Moderna representatives usually arrive at court hearings with two lawyers. The opposing side is generally not willing to settle. Ulbrich points out that, based on the minimum fee regulation in the Legal Fee Act (RVG), the legal fees would amount to approximately two to three million euros, not 13 million. He therefore assumes that the lawyers of the manufacturers are paid by the hour.”
Shockingly, Ulbrich explains in his response to the editorial