Germany's highest court has ruled: Anyone who became ill after a Corona vaccination now has a stronger right to information.
Becoming suddenly ill after a COVID-19 vaccination – and then not even being able to find out what the manufacturer knew about potential risks. For many affected individuals, this was the reality for a long time. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) – the highest court for civil matters in Germany – changed this on March 9, 2026. The ruling means that the hurdle to obtaining information from the vaccine manufacturer is now significantly lower. Rogert & Ulbrich explains what this means in concrete terms – and what it doesn't mean.
What exactly happened?
Pia Aksoy is a dentist from Mainz. On March 5, 2021, she was vaccinated with the then-new AstraZeneca vaccine. Vaxzevria She got vaccinated against Corona. Three days later, she was permanently deaf in one ear.
The employers' liability insurance association – a state authority – officially recognized the vaccine injury. Nevertheless, her lawsuit against AstraZeneca failed: neither the Mainz Regional Court nor the Koblenz Higher Regional Court ruled in her favor. The courts demanded too much. She was required to prove that the vaccination was the cause – even though she needed precisely the information that AstraZeneca refused to provide.
The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has now resolved this paradox.
What did the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) decide?
The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has overturned the ruling of the Higher Regional Court of Koblenz and sent the case back to that court (case number: VI ZR 335/24). This means that the Higher Regional Court of Koblenz must now decide the case anew – with lower standards.
The most important ruling by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) is that for the right to information to be valid, it is sufficient if a connection between the vaccination and the damage is plausible. Plausible means: It could have been the case. Not: It was certainly or most likely the case.
To illustrate: Someone drinks a glass of water and becomes ill shortly afterward. That alone isn't enough. But if the water was known to be contaminated and similar illnesses occurred in others, a connection is plausible. The right to information works on a similar principle.
Have you experienced health problems after receiving a COVID-19 vaccination? Talk to Rogert & Ulbrich before deadlines expire.
What does "right to information" mean?„
The German Medicines Act (AMG) contains a rule that many people are unaware of. It is called the right to information and is found in Section 84a of the Act.
It essentially states: If someone has potentially suffered harm from a medication or vaccine, they can request information from the manufacturer. For example: What did the manufacturer know about possible side effects? How many people have reported similar complaints? What internal findings exist regarding the product's risks?
This information is not an end in itself. It is the first step. Only when one knows what the manufacturer knew internally can one assess whether a claim for damages is warranted.
Until now, many affected individuals failed precisely at this point: The courts demanded proof of a connection before providing the information. But for that, the information itself was needed. A vicious cycle that has now been broken.
What information must the manufacturer now release?
According to the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), the right to information is comprehensive. Specifically, this means that the manufacturer must not only disclose information about the complaint that the affected person possesses. They must disclose all known side effects and suspected cases – in other words, the complete picture.
Why this is so important: To determine whether a vaccine had a poor overall benefit-risk ratio, all available data is needed. A selection is not enough.
In the case of Ms. Aksoy, for example, this means that AstraZeneca must not only release information on sudden hearing loss, but also on thrombosis, cerebral venous thrombosis and other reported damages with Vaxzevria.
What this verdict does not mean
This is an important point that needs to be clearly stated: The Federal Court of Justice ruling does not mean that vaccine manufacturers now have to pay damages. Nor does it mean that all those affected will automatically receive money.
The ruling only addresses the issue of disclosure. Whether damages are actually payable is a completely separate question. This would require, among other things, proof that the vaccine had a poor overall benefit-risk ratio at the time of vaccination. This is legally difficult and demanding.
In summary: The verdict opens a door. What lies behind it must then be discovered on a case-by-case basis.
Who could benefit from this?
According to experts, around 5,000 lawsuits concerning potential COVID-19 vaccine injuries were pending nationwide. This ruling could open up new avenues for some of these cases.
However, there is an important caveat: In some cases, lawsuits were filed only for damages, not for disclosure. Whether a claim for disclosure can still be enforced then depends on whether the statute of limitations has expired. Anyone who hasn't yet taken action should therefore not wait any longer.
When should I consult a lawyer?
If you became chronically ill after a COVID-19 vaccination and suspect a connection, now is a good time to seek legal advice. This is especially true if an authority has already recognized your vaccination injury, as the plausibility of a connection may be well-founded.
Deadlines are approaching. The longer you wait, the greater the risk that your claims will expire. If you have legal expenses insurance, you should clarify beforehand whether your insurance will cover the costs.
Further information on the right to information in cases of COVID-19 vaccination injuries can be found here.
Conclusion: An important step – but not a sure thing
The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruling of March 9, 2026, represents a genuine change for people who became ill after receiving a COVID-19 vaccination. Authorities or courts no longer need to demand almost conclusive proof before providing information. It is sufficient if a connection appears plausible.
This changes the initial situation. However, it is neither a guarantee of compensation nor a free pass. It is the first step towards greater transparency – and thus towards the possibility of having one's own situation properly assessed in the first place.
