In the purchase agreements for the coronavirus mRNA preparations, the German government has agreed to indemnify the manufacturers: If injured parties sue in court, the state pays the costs of the pharmaceutical lawyers. In over 1,000 court cases, a sum in the tens of millions has been paid to Biontech & Co. to date. In their decisions, the courts rely on experts who are dependent on the government – a serious conflict of interest that is ignored by the judges. The AfD speaks of the “biggest judicial scandal” in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany. KARSTEN MONTAG, 9 April 2025, 2 Comments, PDF
Source: Multipolar, Karsten Montag, 09 April 2025
On 11 November 2020, the EU Commission concluded contracts with Pfizer and Biontech for the purchase of the coronavirus mRNA preparations that had not yet been approved at that time. Similar contracts were also signed with the other manufacturers during the same period. It had already become known during the negotiations that the manufacturers were demanding limited liability in the event that the preparations should show unexpected side effects. In the contracts published by the EU Commission, the relevant passages are largely blacked out. However, complete versions have now emerged. For example, the contract with Biontech/Pfizer states under point I.12:
“The Commission declares on behalf of the participating Member States that the use of the (…) vaccines is carried out under epidemic conditions (…) and (…) therefore under the sole responsibility of the participating Member States. Therefore, each participating Member State shall indemnify and hold harmless the contractor, its affiliates, subcontractors, licensors and sublicensees and the officers, directors, employees and other agents and representatives of each such entity (…) against all liabilities incurred, settlements (…) and reasonable direct external legal costs incurred, (…).) and reasonable direct external legal costs incurred in the defence of third party claims (including reasonable attorneys’ fees and other expenses) relating to damages and losses (…) arising out of or in connection with the use and deployment of the vaccines in the territory of the participating Member State concerned.”
Exemption from liability for manufacturers is only excluded if vaccine damage was caused by “wilful and knowing unlawful acts with intent to cause adverse effects” or by a “material breach of good manufacturing practice”, in accordance with the EU requirements under Title IV of Directive 2001/83/EC. Affected parties can still claim compensation from manufacturers on the basis of strict liability in accordance with Section 84 of the German Medicinal Products Act. However, the EU member states have largely assumed liability for this. However, the same governments are also responsible for the authorisation of the preparations. This has created a serious conflict of interest. The state has no incentive whatsoever to scrutinise the risks of the products, on the contrary.
13.2 million euros for lawyers in 1,118 court proceedings
At the beginning of February, the Federal Ministry of Health (BMG) responded to an enquiry by BSW politician Jessica Tatti asking whether the German government was planning to end the exemption from liability for the manufacturers of COVID-19 vaccines and to what extent it had so far covered the manufacturers’ legal costs:
“By signing the COVID-19 vaccine procurement contracts, all participating states, including the Federal Republic of Germany, have agreed to the respective indemnification. Both at federal and European level, it is ensured that manufacturers are only reimbursed for permissible and reasonable costs in accordance with the indemnity in the European vaccine procurement contracts. To date, the federal government has made corresponding payments totalling 13.2 million euros gross.”
Multipolar then wanted to know from the BMG what criteria were used to assess the admissibility and justifiability of the costs, in which cases the costs to be covered were not admissible and justifiable, whether all requested costs had been covered to date and whether national agreements on indemnification had also been reached. The minister’s spokesperson replied that the latter was not the case. The legal fees submitted would be reviewed “by the Centre for Pandemic Vaccines and Therapeutics (ZEPAI) at the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI) in cooperation with an independent law firm”. Costs incurred, for example, “by the commissioning of two law firms by just one manufacturer, the commissioning of private medical expert opinions in out-of-court proceedings or translation costs for foreign lawyers of the commissioned (international) law firm” would be rejected. And further:
“As at 12 February 2025, costs in connection with a total of 1,118 court proceedings in which compensation for vaccination damage is claimed have been assumed. Of these, 34 have been finalised.”
The ZEPAI mentioned in the response was established at the PEI in September 2021 and has been responsible for “managing the supply of pandemic vaccines to the population” since May 2022. One of ZEPAI’s tasks is to maintain “available vaccine production capacities (facilities, personnel, raw materials, technical consumables)” at all times and to ensure “the supply chains for all critical supplier products”. Furthermore, the authority assumes an “operational and supervisory function” in the nationwide distribution of mRNA preparations in Germany and monitors “the procurement, storage and, if necessary, distribution of pandemic-relevant therapeutics”. For this purpose, so-called pandemic preparedness contracts with a maximum term of eight years were concluded with the manufacturers Biontech, IDT Biologika and Wacker/Corden Pharma in 2022. The contracts cover annual manufacturing capacities in the three-digit million range.
The authority did not respond to an enquiry from Multipolar as to which tasks ZEPAI assumes in the review of legal fees in the context of the manufacturers’ indemnification, which law firm is involved in the review and under which budget item the reimbursements and costs of this law firm are recorded.
Lawyers’ fees: double the minimum rate
Multipolar then contacted lawyer Tobias Ulbrich, who with his law firm “Rogert und Ulbrich” represents around 2,500 clients who are asserting legal claims against vaccine manufacturers and pension offices for damage caused by COVID preparations. When asked whether the manufacturers’ lawyers are acting differently due to the state funding than would have been expected without indemnification, Ulbrich explains that the lawyers from Biontech and Moderna usually travel to court hearings with two lawyers. The other side is generally not prepared to settle.
Ulbrich points out that 1,118 cases according to the minimum remuneration regulated in the German Lawyers’ Fees Act (RVG) would have resulted in lawyers’ fees of an estimated two to three million euros, not 13 million. He therefore assumes that the manufacturers’ lawyers are paid according to hourly rates. A random sample of the judgements handed down so far shows that the lawyers’ fees, if they were billed according to the RVG, would be between 2,800 and 8,600 euros per case and not – as financed by the Federal Ministry of Health – just under 12,000 euros per case. When asked by Multipolar about the high legal fees, the BMG did not respond.
Almost all claims dismissed, only three partial judgements in favour of the injured parties
Ulbrich also explains that not a single case has yet ended in favour of the plaintiffs. In around 210 cases, the claims have been dismissed. Only three cases have resulted in a partial judgement: the Ravensburg Regional Court, the Dresden Higher Regional Court and the Bamberg Higher Regional Court. All three judgements oblige the manufacturers to disclose their pharmacovigilance data with regard to the vaccine damage they are accused of and to explain how the damage occurred.
From Ulbrich’s point of view, the partial judgements are already the preliminary stage of the final judgement in favour of the injured parties, as he assumes that the manufacturers will not comply with the claim for information. Specifically, he mentions a presentation on the harmful potential of Biontech’s preparation Comirnaty, on which the manufacturer is to comment on the basis of its data. As in the emissions scandal, in which Volkswagen did not disclose the data on its alleged defeat device, the judges are therefore likely to rule in favour of the plaintiffs in the damages claims against the vaccine manufacturers if no information is provided, according to the lawyer.
However, only in around 30 per cent of proceedings do the courts even take evidence, Ulbrich continues. These evidentiary hearings are “more or less dependent on the expert witnesses”. The judges at the regional courts tend to call pharmacologists to assess the causality of the vaccine damage and the risk-benefit ratio of the preparations. As examples of such experts, he cited Julia Stingl, Vice President of the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM), Klaus Mörike, Head of the Department of Clinical Pharmacology at the University Hospital in Tübingen, and Gunther Hartmann, Professor of Clinical Pharmacology at the University Hospital of the University of Bonn and founder of the biopharmaceutical company Rigontec.
In Germany, the BfArM is responsible for the authorisation and registration of medicinal products, including vaccines, and reports directly to the Federal Ministry of Health. The Institute is also represented on the Committee of the European Medicines Agency for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). The CHMP prepares the assessments of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and deals with the authorisation and risk assessment of medicinal products. Klaus Mörike campaigned for the COVID-19 vaccination of pregnant women during the coronavirus pandemic. And Rigontec was acquired by Biontech supplier Merck for over 400 million euros in 2017. Hartmann also contributed to articles in which Pfizer played a role, as Ulbrich explains.
Medicinal Products Act “turned on its head”
The lawyer, who represents a large number of alleged vaccination victims in Germany in court, is of the opinion that the courts, which assume a positive risk-benefit ratio on the basis of authorisation decisions or information from committees in the authorisation procedure and do not allow arguments to the contrary, would turn the legal text of the Medicinal Products Act into its opposite. However, the diverging legal opinions have not yet been clarified by the highest courts and most of the higher regional courts have not yet taken a position on this either.
The compensation claims of vaccination victims are set out in two key sections of the German Medicinal Products Act. Section 25, paragraph 10 states: “The authorisation does not affect the civil and criminal liability of the pharmaceutical company”. And in section 84, paragraph 1: “The obligation to pay compensation exists only if 1. the medicinal product has harmful effects when used as intended that go beyond what is justifiable according to the findings of medical science or 2. the damage has occurred as a result of labelling, specialist information or instructions for use that do not correspond to the findings of medical science.” [Emphasis added by the author]
According to Ulbrich, the courts would argue that although the conditional and unconditional marketing authorisations of the vaccines do not mention a positive risk-benefit ratio at all, according to Section 25 (2) sentence 5 of the German Medicines Act, a positive risk-benefit ratio must exist, otherwise there would have been no marketing authorisation. According to the lawyer, this is the first “legal fiction”. It is not the actual examination that is made the subject of the proceedings, but it is replaced by a legal fiction.
This is increased by a further fiction. This is because the judges would elevate the EMA subcommittees such as the CHMP and the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) as well as the PEI, which reports to the BMG, to the status of “scientific Olympians” in order to consider the positive risk-benefit ratio of COVID-19 vaccines as proven. Ulbrich uses the example of a judgement by the Koblenz Higher Regional Court to illustrate how, in his view, the legal text is being twisted into its opposite. The judgement states:
“The assessments of the aforementioned medical-pharmaceutical and thus scientific expert committees on drug safety are equivalent to an expert assessment, since the legal requirements for their composition already qualify them as expert bodies. (…) Against the background of the maximum expertise in the expert committees as explained above, it is not to be expected that the assessment by an individual virologist, pharmacologist or other scientist as an expert in the individual case here would lead to different findings (…). It would be unrealistic to assume that a single expert could have more sources, a larger database and more extensive knowledge than the above-mentioned expert committees, each consisting of at least 27 people.”
However, almost all members of the CHMP are subject to the authority of the governments of their countries – which are also the distribution partners of the vaccine manufacturers and are ultimately liable for the damage. As all contracting states jointly order vaccines for tens of billions of euros, this procurement decision and payment entails a predetermination of the test result, argues Ulbrich.
An independent review of the assessments of these institutions, which are in a conflict of interest, would not be taken into account in the judgement, although this is stipulated in the Medicinal Products Act. This is because the “findings of science” refer to the entire peer-reviewed literature on this topic and “precisely not” to the expertise of the authorisation bodies. This turns the law “180 degrees into its opposite” – and, according to the lawyer, “with absolute shamelessness” towards all injured parties. All regional courts that have dismissed the claims of injured parties in this way are going along with this “madness” – an approach that contradicts the standard set by the Higher Regional Court of Schleswig-Holstein in a judgement handed down in 2013.
Intent on the part of the manufacturer?
According to Ulbrich, there are considerable doubts as to whether the preparations have a positive risk-benefit ratio at all. For example, a peer-reviewed article in the “International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research” attests to a negative ratio. It also refers to a re-analysis of the published data from the manufacturers’ authorisation studies. The analysis is explained in more detail by one of the authors – Robert Rockenfeller from the University of Koblenz-Landau – in a presentation. It shows that 25 times more severe side effects occurred with the Biontech preparation than severe COVID-19 disease progressions were prevented. The risk-benefit ratio is therefore clearly negative. With Moderna, the ratio is one. According to Rockenfeller, this means that approximately the same number of severe side effects occurred as severe disease progression was prevented.
Attorney Ulbrich therefore assumes that Biontech was already aware of the negative risk-benefit ratio before the mass administration. This would mean “conditional intent”. Biontech was also the only manufacturer to exclude liability for intent in the pre-purchase agreement with the EU. The company was only liable in the event of wilful intent to cause harmful effects (see point I.12.3 of the pre-emption agreement).
The so-called public policy, which exists in all European countries, would speak against the exemption from liability for intentional acts. Ultimately, this would be the same as including a clause in a general terms and conditions stating that there is no right to compensation even in the event of immoral damage, according to Ulbrich. Due to the negotiated exemption from liability for intent, the manufacturer Biontech could be assumed to have known about the potential for damage.
Ulbrich also points out that a general exemption from liability contradicts Articles 1 and 12 of EU Directive 85/374/EEC. This was also made clear in a ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CFI). It states in paragraph 151:
“It should be noted at the outset that Articles 1 and 12 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (…) provide that the producer of a product is liable for damage caused by a defect in that product and that his liability towards the injured party cannot be limited or excluded by a clause limiting or exempting him from liability. Therefore, as the Commission recognised at the hearing, neither the Commission nor the Member States could derogate from the provisions of Directive 85/374 in the absence of an amendment thereto.”
What do the parties in the Bundestag (German Federal Parliament) say?
Multipolar asked the parties in the Bundestag whether they consider the exemption from liability to be correct, how they assess the conflict of interest of the federal government and what they specifically want to do to support vaccine victims. As the previous health policy spokespersons of the SPD and the Left Party are no longer represented in the Bundestag in the current legislative period, Multipolar asked the two parties for a new contact person. Only the Left Party parliamentary group replied that a new spokesperson had not yet been chosen. Of the other parliamentary groups, only the AfD’s health policy spokesperson, Martin Sichert, responded.
Sichert believes that the exemption from liability should never have been contractually agreed. The fact that the state is liable for damage caused by an experimental drug is “highly problematic” because government agencies have a particular interest in “covering up or downplaying damage”. As the state examines the authorisation and at the same time has to pay for damages, this should actually have meant that no government agency should be heard in proceedings concerning vaccine damage, as they are “affected by the outcome and therefore biased”. The fact that authorisation and distribution come from a single source means “that there is no longer any protection for patients”. This urgently needs to be changed by making the “review bodies independent of the government”.
The payments to the lawyers were high, but that was in keeping with the coronavirus era. Vaccination doctors were able to earn a “golden nose” just like operators of test centres. Biontech made a profit of over ten billion euros in 2021 and 2022 – at the taxpayer’s expense. According to Sichert, the government’s message behind this is clear: anyone who complies and supports the government will “get rich with taxpayers’ money”. Furthermore, the AfD politician sees the main problem with the courts, which know that the RKI and PEI are subject to the instructions of the Minister of Health, but act as if they were independent authorities. It is “probably the biggest judicial scandal” in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany that hundreds of courts have made their judgements based on politically motivated assessments by the PEI and RKI or government experts without considering them to be one-sidedly biased.
In view of the “hundreds of thousands of people injured by the coronavirus vaccinations”, Sichert called for a reversal of the burden of proof so that, in case of doubt, it must be proven that there is no vaccine damage. This would be the only way for vaccination victims to quickly receive compensation. In addition, the costs of treatment for vaccine victims would have to be covered by the state. According to the politician, the state has massively coerced people into being injected with the vaccines by banning them from their professions or imposing regulations such as 2G and 3G.
The CDU, SPD and Greens did not comment when asked by Multipolar.
About the author: Karsten Montag, born in 1968, studied mechanical engineering at RWTH Aachen University, philosophy, history and physics at the University of Cologne and educational science in Hagen. He worked for many years for a trade union-affiliated management consultancy, most recently as a department and project manager in a software company that produced and sold an energy data management and billing system for energy trading. His researchpublished by Multipolar on the billing data ofhealth insurance companies with regard to COVID-19 was picked up by various media – and subsequently also appeared in the International Journal of Epidemiology.
Cover photo: Biontech CEO Ugur Sahin, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Biontech CEO Özlem Türeci (2023) | Image: picture alliance/dpa / Hannes P. Albert
