The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has annulled a judgment that had rejected a woman’s claims of vaccine‑related injury against the manufacturer of a coronavirus vaccine. The BGH referred the case back to the appellate court for a fresh hearing, stating that the appellate court had applied too narrow criteria for a statutory right to information under pharmaceutical law.
The plaintiff, who was vaccinated in March 2021, reports that she has suffered health impairments afterward, including complete hearing loss in one ear. She is seeking information from the manufacturer about any known effects and side effects of the vaccine, and is also claiming compensation for the damage.
The district court had dismissed her lawsuit, and the higher regional court subsequently rejected her appeal. In its ruling (decision dated 9 March 2026, case VI ZR 335/24), the BGH noted that the plausibility of the drug’s role as the causal agent does not have to be overwhelmingly probable; even when more evidence points against the vaccine as the cause, a right to information may still exist. The BGH further observed that the erroneous denial of the informational claim by the appellate court also affects the evaluation of the plaintiff’s liability claims. It is therefore possible that, if the defendant is convicted, the plaintiff could present additional facts to support her compensation claim.