Dhe Frankfurt regional court has dismissed a woman's claim for damages against the Mainz company Biontech due to alleged vaccine damage. The plaintiff had demanded at least 150,000 euros and justified this by saying that she had suffered heart damage as a result of the vaccination, could no longer concentrate well and could no longer perform the same as before the vaccination. She previously did endurance sports, but now she can barely run two kilometers. Immediately after the first vaccination, she had severe migraine attacks for weeks. Her questioning by the court during the oral hearing at the end of January took place behind closed doors after the plaintiff had requested this.
The woman was vaccinated with the Comirnaty vaccine developed by Biontech in March, April and November 2021. The European Commission initially approved it conditionally in December 2020 after the European Medicines Agency (EMA) reviewed it. The woman's lawyers argued in court that Biontech had not properly explained all the risks. There were “major problems” in development and production and the vaccine “should never have been approved”. Biontech deliberately claimed false facts or at least did not refute these claims. According to studies, the vaccine no longer has any effect after just a few months.
Balancing of benefits and risks was positive
According to the presiding judge, the court based its decision on two key considerations. On the one hand, the initially conditional and later unconditional approval of the vaccine after examination by the EMA: The weighing of benefits and risks was positive, which means that the manufacturer is not liable under the Medicines Act. In such a case, liability can only arise if harmful effects become known after approval. But this did not happen.
The vaccine was also confirmed by the EMA in the following years as it adapted to new variants of the corona virus, most recently in August 2023. The European Commission approved this adapted vaccine. This made it bindingly established that it did not have an unfavorable risk-benefit ratio. “Harmful effects do not have to be proven,” said the judges in their decision. “But mere speculation is not enough.”
Given a temporal context?
The presiding judge stated that the second relevant reason for dismissing the lawsuit was that the plaintiff had not adequately demonstrated that she was healthy before the vaccination and only felt bad afterwards. “She should have done that.” The woman would have had to explain in detail that there was a temporal connection between the vaccination and the damage and that she had not previously suffered from the alleged complaints. But according to the court, she did not present any meaningful medical documents during the proceedings. “Investigation reports on the plaintiff’s health before the vaccination are completely missing.”
The Frankfurt decision was similar to most previous regional courts in Germany. It is not legally binding; an appeal to the Higher Regional Court is possible.
#Frankfurt #Regional #Court #Lawsuit #Biontech #due #alleged #vaccine #damage #dismissed
