German court reopens BioNTech case over Covid vaccine compensation

The Higher Regional Court in Hamm (Oberlandesgericht Hamm) in western Germany ruled on April 21, 2026, that the Lower Regional Court in Arnsberg (Landgericht Arnsberg) must reconsider the case of a man who had sought information from BioNTech because he suspected that two vaccine doses could be associated with multiple health problems.

The plaintiff received his Covid-19 vaccinations in July 2021 and March 2022, after already having a coronavirus infection. He subsequently claimed that he suffered from deep vein thrombosis, dizziness, headaches and numbness in his feet, and is demanding 150,000 euros in damages as well as information about the potential risks of the product.

Comirnaty was developed by BioNTech together with the American pharmaceutical manufacturer Pfizer, but BioNTech has the marketing authorization in Germany and is therefore the only defendant in this case.

Initially, the Arnsberg court heard the plaintiff, but dismissed the case without ordering medical testimony. The court ruled that he had not demonstrated with sufficient probability a link between the vaccination and his ailments, Apollo News reported.

The Hamm court rejected this approach and ordered the case to be reopened, citing procedural errors. In order to obtain information from the manufacturer under Section 84a of the German Medicines Act (Arzneimittelgesetz), it is not necessary to prove a highly probable causal link from the outset. A plausible suspicion of vaccine-related damage is sufficient.

This interpretation follows the line established by the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) in a ruling of March 9, 2026. The BGH ruled that plausibility does not require that the vaccine be the most likely cause of the damage and that it can exist even where more factors argue against such a causal link.

In this case, the Arnsberg judges had rejected the possible connection, citing the time between the first dose and the thrombosis diagnosis. According to medical records, the deep vein thrombosis was diagnosed four months after the first vaccination, while the dizziness had occurred shortly before.

The Hamm court found that the first-instance judges could not attribute these ailments to an orthopedic history without first consulting medical experts. In other words, the lower court could not dismiss the case on grounds of lack of probability without proper evidence.

The ruling does not mean that BioNTech has been found liable or that the court has acknowledged that the vaccine caused the alleged damage. It states that the plaintiff has the right to have his case retried under a less restrictive evidentiary threshold to request information from the manufacturer.

The ruling could have implications for other similar cases, Apollo News noted. If German courts find that a plausible suspicion is sufficient to require disclosure, more plaintiffs could gain access to internal data on risks, side effects and safety assessments of vaccines.