Conditions, scope and significance of the right to information according to the BGH ruling 2026
Anyone who becomes chronically ill after a vaccination faces a fundamental problem: the crucial information – which side effects were known to the manufacturer, how many suspected cases were reported, how the risk-benefit ratio of the vaccine was assessed – is not with the affected individual. It lies with the manufacturer. The German Medicines Act provides affected individuals with a legal tool in this situation: the right to information under Section 84a of the Act.
What exactly is Section 84a of the German Medicines Act (AMG)?
The German Medicines Act (AMG) contains a specific liability rule for pharmaceutical companies in Section 84. Anyone harmed by a medicinal product can, under certain conditions, claim damages. Section 84a AMG serves as a supplementary provision: This right to information is intended to provide affected individuals with the information they need to substantiate a claim for damages under Section 84 AMG.
The background is simple: In most cases, the burden of proof for a drug-related injury lies with the injured party. However, this party typically has no access to the manufacturer's product data, study results, and internal reporting systems. Section 84a of the German Medicines Act (AMG) is intended to partially compensate for this structural information imbalance.
If you would like to know whether Section 84a of the German Medicines Act (AMG) could be relevant in your case, please contact Rogert & Ulbrich.
Who can request information?
Anyone who can demonstrate that there are facts justifying the assumption that a drug caused the damage incurred is entitled to claim compensation. Full proof is not required; it is sufficient if a connection appears plausible.
In its ruling of March 9, 2026, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) clarified what plausibility means in this context: It does not require that the causal link between the drug and the damage be overwhelmingly probable. Plausibility can also exist if there are more reasons against than for the drug as the cause of the damage. The following circumstances, in particular, can be relevant to the question of plausibility: the close temporal connection between vaccination and the onset of damage, a vaccination injury already officially recognized, and expert medical assessments.
What information is included?
Section 84a paragraph 1 of the German Medicines Act (AMG) defines the subject matter of the information: The claim is directed at effects, side effects and interactions known to the pharmaceutical company, as well as suspected cases that have come to its attention. Furthermore, it extends to all other findings that may be relevant for assessing the acceptability of harmful effects.
In an earlier case, the Higher Regional Court of Koblenz had limited the claim to information relating to the specific medical condition of the injured party. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) expressly rejected this limitation: The claim is comprehensive. To assess the risk-benefit ratio of a vaccine, all known side effects must be considered, not just the symptoms of the individual plaintiff.
In practice, this means that affected individuals may, under certain circumstances, demand that the manufacturer provide information on the entire spectrum of reported suspected cases, including thrombosis, myocarditis, or nerve problems that have been documented in other cases.
The hurdle: plausibility instead of probability.
The distinction between plausibility and probability established by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) is the core of the ruling. In practice, the requirement of preponderance of probability had effectively excluded many affected individuals: those who do not have access to the manufacturer's internal data can rarely prove that the vaccination was predominantly the cause of their injury. This led to a paradoxical result – the information was needed to establish the right to access it.
The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has broken up this circularity: Plausibility is sufficient for obtaining information. Further requirements must then be met for damages – based on the information obtained.
Why manufacturers don't provide this information voluntarily
Even though the right to information is enshrined in law under Section 84a of the German Medicines Act (AMG), one should not expect pharmaceutical companies to readily release this information. The companies in question have significant legal and economic interests in not disclosing internal data. Experience shows that legal enforcement of this right is often necessary.
Section 84a of the German Medicines Act (AMG) provides an exception in paragraph 1, sentence 4: There is no right to information if information must be kept secret by law or if confidentiality serves an overriding interest of the pharmaceutical company or a third party. This exception clause gives manufacturers some leeway in their arguments. Whether invoking it is justified in a specific case must be clarified in court if a dispute arises.
If you believe you have a right to information, you should not rely on voluntary disclosure. Get in touch.
When is it worth hiring a lawyer?
The right to information under Section 84a of the German Medicines Act (AMG) is a technically demanding approach that requires precise legal knowledge. Formulating the request for information, arguing its plausibility, and pursuing it in court are not easily accomplished without legal assistance. At the same time, you should be aware that statutes of limitations may apply. If you have legal expenses insurance, you should check whether your insurance will cover the costs before retaining legal counsel.
Conclusion
Section 84a of the German Medicines Act (AMG) grants those injured by vaccines an important right: access to information held by the manufacturer that is essential for a proper assessment of their own situation. The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruling of March 9, 2026, significantly strengthened this right. However, each case remains subject to individual review: the right to information is not an automatic path to compensation, but rather a necessary first step to gaining transparency about one's own situation.
