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.

Der Beitrag Auskunftsanspruch – Wie Impfgeschädigte an die Daten des Herstellers kommen erschien zuerst auf R&U.

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.

Der Beitrag BGH-Urteil zu Corona-Impfschäden – Was das für Betroffene bedeutet erschien zuerst auf R&U.