Legal "bombshell" for AstraZeneca in Greece: 300,000 euros in compensation for woman's death after Covid-19 vaccination

The judicial treatment of the consequences of vaccination, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic, is entering a new explosive phase, where the question ceases to be purely medical and evolves into a profound constitutional and social issue... where the courts now speak out for the shocking side effects.
More specifically, a crucial question arises at the heart of the relevant case law: when the citizen consciously contributes to the protection of public health, but suffers a rare and serious side effect that may have led to death, who ultimately bears the burden of the damage?
The answer now given by the courts is clear and particularly resounding.
Serious side effects are not treated as a simple individual risk, but as a "public burden" that cannot be borne solely by the sufferer.
Responsibility is shifted to the State, which is obliged to repair the damage within the framework of its constitutional task... in short, the State must pay. The decision - station after the death of a patient - 300,000 euros in compensation to relatives

In particular, decision No. 11407/2025 of the three-member Administrative Court of First Instance in Athens marks a critical turning point in the case law on State liability in cases of health damage following vaccination in the context of public order.
The court recognised the liability of the Greek State for the death of a woman who died as a result of a thrombotic episode, which was causally linked to the administration of the AstraZeneca vaccine. Of decisive importance was the rejection of the State's main argument that the vaccination was purely voluntary and that therefore no liability arises. The court held that the vaccination, regardless of its formal characterisation, was part of a broader framework of a State-organised and intensively promoted health strategy that served objectives of general interest and therefore triggered the State's obligation to compensate for the damage suffered by citizens in this context. The causal link between the vaccination and the fatal outcome was not established with absolute scientific certainty - which is not required by established case law - but with a high degree of probability, based on a coherent framework of evidence. Specifically, the close temporal proximity between the administration of the vaccine and the occurrence of the episode, the absence of alternative risk factors in the medical history of the deceased, and the documentation from the international scientific literature recognizing this specific rare adverse event were taken into account. The compensation. Based on the above, the court awarded a total compensation of 300,000 euros, of which 120,000 euros were distributed to the husband and 90,000 euros to each of the two daughters. This judgment is based on the recognition of the moral damage and the irreparable loss suffered by the family, reflecting the case law approach to the restoration of the "irreparable gap". Of particular importance is the clarification of who is liable for compensation. The court ruled that neither the regions nor the individual health authorities are liable, as they act in accordance with central directives. Reasons for the decision

Likewise, the liability of the pharmaceutical company was not established in the absence of evidence of a product defect. On the contrary, liability was attributed to the Greek State as the body responsible for planning, organising and implementing the national vaccination strategy and as guarantor of public health.
The crucial legal question of proving causation once again emerges at the heart of such disputes. The administrative courts adopt a realistic and functional approach, recognising that absolute certainty is often unattainable in medical science. It is therefore sufficient to establish a high degree of probability through expert opinions, temporal correlation, exclusion of other causes and the use of international scientific data. The rarity of the adverse reaction
is not a deterrent; on the contrary, it reinforces the exceptional nature of the damage and the need to remedy it. This decision does not undermine the importance of vaccination as a public health tool. On the contrary, it strengthens the institutional credibility of the system, as it confirms that the State assumes responsibility for the rare but serious consequences that may arise from collective protection policies. The constitutional principle of equality of public burdens thus acquires a substantive content, transforming it from an abstract imperative into a concrete mechanism of redress and social solidarity.