Please support THE CITIZEN'S VOICE with a donation HERE!
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
| Home About Contact | ||
|
||
Please support THE CITIZEN'S VOICE with a donation HERE! | ||
|
|
||
Corona Sensation Ruling: The Dam Has Broken! Vaccine-Injured Can Enforce Claims Against BioNTechFirst the Federal Court of Justice ruled – and the Aurich Regional Court was the first to follow the BGH ruling! 
It is news that is shaking the German legal landscape like an earthquake: vaccine manufacturers can no longer hide behind approval notices and regulatory assessments. What seemed unthinkable just a few months ago is now supreme court reality. On March 9, 2026, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) issued a landmark ruling (Case No. VI ZR 335/24) that significantly strengthened the rights of vaccine-injured individuals – putting the pharmaceutical industry on the defensive. But the true pioneer of this turning point is not sitting in Karlsruhe. He is in East Frisia. Aurich: Where the Courage BeganOn January 13, 2026, the 5th Civil Chamber of the Aurich Regional Court, chaired by Judge Raap, issued a partial ruling (Case No. 5 O 1106/24) that caused a stir in the legal community. In a case brought by a woman against BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, the court ruled: BioNTech must provide comprehensive information – on side effects, manufacturing processes, toxicity of ingredients, and much more.The plaintiff had been vaccinated twice with Comirnaty in the summer of 2021. What followed was a nightmare: autoimmune disease, circulatory disorders, heart rhythm disturbances, nerve disorders, chronic fatigue (ME/CFS), tinnitus, POTS, and a long list of other complaints. A previously healthy woman became dependent on care, with care level 2. The Aurich Regional Court did what many courts had previously feared: It took the case seriously, examined the medical records – and found that severe health problems had occurred in close temporal connection with the vaccination, for which there were no indications of pre-existing conditions. That was enough for the court to fully uphold the right to information under § 84a AMG. The catalog of questions that BioNTech must now answer is extensive: From the toxicity of lipid nanoparticles to HIV sequences in the spike protein, to DNA contamination in the manufacturing process – a total of over 30 detailed question complexes. BioNTech will also have to disclose whether company CEO Uğur Şahin was vaccinated himself – and whether there were differences between "employee batches" and batches for the general population. Before the Aurich ruling, the VI Civil Senate of the BGH had already set the tone – in style. In its March 9, 2026 ruling, it overturned a decision by the Koblenz Higher Regional Court, which had completely dismissed a dentist's claim against the manufacturer of the Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca) vaccine. The woman had become deaf in her right ear after vaccination and suffered from tinnitus, gait instability, and numbness. Revolutionary Core Messages of the BGHThe core messages of the BGH can be summarized in three revolutionary principles:1. Plausibility over proof: For the right to information against the manufacturer, it is sufficient if the causation by the vaccine appears plausible. It does not even have to be more likely than not that the vaccine caused the damage. Even if more evidence speaks against the vaccine as the cause, a right to information can exist. 2. Comprehensive disclosure – not limited to the individual’s illness: The manufacturer must provide information about all known effects and side effects – not just those relevant to the plaintiff’s specific condition. The question of whether a vaccine has an overall negative risk-benefit ratio is a matter of general assessment. 3. "Idiopathic" is no free pass: If doctors classify a disease as "idiopathic" – i.e., without a recognizable cause – the manufacturer cannot use this to refute the statutory presumption of causation. The mere abstract possibility of unknown causes is not enough. A concrete alternative cause is required. What This Means for Millions of Vaccinated IndividualsThe significance of these decisions cannot be overstated. For years, vaccine-injured individuals failed in German courts against an apparently insurmountable wall: The approval proves that everything is fine. The risk-benefit ratio is positive – experts have confirmed this. And individuals could not prove that their illness was caused by the vaccine.The BGH has dismantled this argument piece by piece: Approval? Not a free pass. The BGH raised serious doubts about whether the EU Commission’s approval decision has any binding "factual effect" for civil courts. The matter was explicitly marked as a potential reference case to the CJEU. At any rate, approval does not protect the manufacturer from new findings. Expert panels? Not a substitute for a court-appointed expert. The Koblenz Higher Regional Court had suggested that assessments from EMA, PRAC, and the Paul-Ehrlich-Institute were practically equivalent to an expert report. The BGH clearly disagreed: The assessments were from 2022 – outdated for a 2024 case. A judicial expert report on the current state of science is mandatory. Causality? Much easier to establish. If a health damage occurs in close temporal connection with vaccination, the vaccine is generally capable of causing such damage, and no concrete alternative causes can be identified – then the statutory presumption favors the injured party. For BioNTech, AstraZeneca, and other manufacturers, this means: The era of stonewalling is over. They will have to be transparent – about their manufacturing processes, internal knowledge of side effects, and whether they concealed known risks. For the injured, it means: Finally, they are being heard. Overview of the DecisionsLG Aurich, Partial Ruling from 13.01.2026 – 5 O 1106/24 – First comprehensive order for BioNTech to provide information under § 84a AMG in a Comirnaty case. Extensive questionnaire with over 30 items on manufacturing, ingredients, and side effects.BGH, Ruling from 09.03.2026 – VI ZR 335/24 – Landmark decision on pharmaceutical liability for COVID vaccines. Lowered plausibility threshold for information claims. Comprehensive disclosure not limited to individual illness. Concrete alternative cause required to refute presumption of causation. Reversal and remand to Koblenz Higher Regional Court. By Katharina Koenig – Vaccine-Injured by BioNTech/Pfizer Batch EX8679 FD9234 Author: AI-Translation - Katharina Koenig | |
|
| Other articles: |
 | Court Hearing at Merseburg District Court: Termination of Membership at Raiffeisenbank under Questionable PretextsOn October 10, 2024, at 12:30 PM, a hearing will take place at the Merseburg District Court (Geusaer Straße 88, Room 4) to review the termination of a membership of a Raiffeisenba... zum Artikel |
 | How should the education system and schools move forward? Christine Beutler in an interview with Tasja about founding free learning spacesLocal elections are coming up in a week. Education and schools are always a topic before elections. But has anything really improved in recent years and decades as a result?... zum Artikel |
 | Reiner Haseloff (CDU) and the Saxony-Anhalt Experiment: No Cuddly Coalition – But a State in DeclineIn 2021, Reiner Haseloff (CDU) spoke of “no cuddly coalition” and “good development.” Fifteen years after the start of his term in office (since 2011), Saxony-Anhalt in 202... zum Artikel |
|
Support the operation of this website with voluntary contributions: via PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/evovi/12 or via bank transfer IBAN: IE55SUMU99036510275719 BIC: SUMUIE22XXX Account holder: Michael Thurm Shorts / Reels / Kurz-Clips Imprint / Disclaimer |