Germany’s Federal Court of Justice last week ruled that federal or state authorities, not healthcare providers, are responsible for compensating people injured by COVID-19 vaccines. The ruling aligns Germany’s system more closely with the U.S., where vaccine manufacturers and administrators are shielded from liability.
Source: Dr. Michael Nevradakis Ph.D., Children’s Health Defense, 15th October 2025
Germany’s Federal Court of Justice last week ruled that doctors who administered COVID-19 vaccinescannot be held legally liable for injuries related to the vaccines — a “precedent-setting” decision, according to TrialSite News.
The court found that federal or state authorities, not healthcare providers, are responsible for compensating people injured by state-sanctioned vaccinations during a pandemic.
The ruling brings Germany’s COVID-19 vaccine injury compensation system more in line with the U.S. system, which shields COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers and those who administer the vaccines from legal liability for injury claims.
Christof Plothe, D.O., a member of the World Council for Health steering committee, said the German federal court’s ruling “creates a functional equivalent to the U.S. liability shield, albeit through a different legal mechanism.”
Both systems “remove liability from the immediate point of care (the physician) and the point of production (the manufacturer, as is the case in Germany) and place the financial and legal responsibility on the state,” Plothe said.
However, in Germany, “the injured party must now navigate the general legal framework for claims against the state, which may be less streamlined and more adversarial than a specialized compensation program,” Plothe added.
Attorney Ray Flores, an expert on vaccine injury compensation programs, said that before the federal court’s ruling, Germany hadn’t codified blanket immunity like the U.S. did under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) of 2005.
“Germany’s highest court’s ruling is significant in that it confirms immunity for doctors,” Flores said.
Man who developed heart injury at center of German court case
Last week’s ruling stems from a case filed in 2021 by a German man, unidentified in press reports, who developed a heart injury after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.
The man alleged that his physician failed to inform him about possible adverse events and that the vaccination was improperly administered, The Munich Eye reported.
The man, who said the injury left him unable to work, causing significant psychological distress, sought 800,000 euros (approximately $930,000) in damages, including for pain and suffering.
Germany’s Federal Court of Justice upheld a lower court’s decision that, because the man received a vaccine administered under a state-led campaign, the physician who administered the shot acted as a public servant. As a result, liability lies with government authorities.
The federal court’s decision didn’t address whether the vaccine directly caused the plaintiff’s injury, focusing instead on who is the responsible party for handling compensation claims, TrialSite News reported.
The ruling “may protect medical personnel from a wave of individual lawsuits, while simultaneously shifting potential liability — and political accountability — squarely onto the government,” according to TrialSite News.
1 in 6 Germans reported experiencing side effects after COVID vaccine
Plothe called the ruling “critically flawed” — one which will “have a chilling effect on vaccine injury claims.”
“By designating doctors as state officials, the court has effectively redirected plaintiffs into a labyrinthine bureaucratic battle against the state. … This creates a significant power imbalance, potentially delaying justice and compensation for those suffering from genuine vaccine injuries,” Plothe said.
For Harald Walach, Ph.D., founder and director of the Change Health Science Institute in Germany and professorial research fellow at Kazimieras Simonavicius University in Lithuania, the ruling alters the doctor-patient relationship. He said:
“Up to now, it was clear that the physician is the final gatekeeper of a patient’s health … the physician was responsible, if a vaccine or other physician caused injury that harmed his or her patient. The state could not tell the physician what to do.
“In a way, this power of the state has now returned with this ruling. If the state is responsible for the vaccine injuries, and no longer the doctor, the doctor can also hide behind the state’s mandates, and in the future, the state can mandate physicians about whatever aspect of health, at least in principle.”
Italian attorney Renate Holzeisen said the ruling violates a 2001 European Union law, which states that “Persons qualified to prescribe or supply medicinal products must have access to a neutral, objective source of information about products available on the market.”
A nationwide survey last year found that 1 in 6 Germans reported experiencing side effects after receiving a COVID-19 shot. In 2023, Karl Lauterbach, at the time Germany’s health minister, admitted that COVID-19 vaccine adverse events were prevalent and that those suffering from severe vaccine injuries were being ignored.
Vaccine-injured in Germany face an uphill battle following ruling
The German federal court’s ruling “echoes a global legal trend,” in which governments are assuming liability for vaccine injury claims — shielding physicians administering vaccines, and vaccine manufacturers themselves.
In Germany, vaccine injury compensation claims are administered under a no-fault compensation system. This includes vaccines issued under emergency use provisions, such as COVID-19 vaccines early during the pandemic.
Under this system, compensation claims are filed with German Social Affairs Offices and assigned to the state or federal government. Claimants cannot sue a third party, such as a physician or the manufacturer. Each German state maintains a fund for paying successful compensation claims.
However, claims that are not covered by existing law, such as for vaccines that are not publicly recommended or administered under a state-led program, and claims that exceed the compensation coverage provided by German law, can still be filed in court against third parties.
There is no statute of limitations for filing a claim. The system’s standard of proof is based on the “balance of probabilities,” under which claims may be compensated even if there is “scientific uncertainty” about the cause of the applicant’s injury.
Vaccine injury claims will face uphill battle after German court ruling
According to The Munich Eye, the German federal court’s ruling “brings legal clarity to affected individuals and healthcare providers alike.”
But according to TrialSite News, the mainstream media news reports about the ruling glossed over questions as to whether COVID-19 vaccination was, in fact, responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries.
“The omission of discussion on causality — while legally justified — may leave readers with the impression that adverse-event claims themselves lack merit,” TrialSite News reported.
Walach said that the German federal court’s ruling provides claimants with some clarity, in terms of addressing “the right institution from the beginning.”
However, Walach said claimants will likely face an uphill battle following the federal court’s ruling, because “the state has resources that a victim will never have” and because it’s challenging to prove vaccines directly caused an injury.
Walach said:
“I doubt that it will be easier to win a case against the state compared with a case against a doctor who has performed with negligence or in an obviously unprofessional way.
“Thus, the plaintiff is forced to attack the state, which will be a lost case from the very beginning, because it is currently quite difficult to prove that it was the vaccine and not the virus (long COVID) which are at the origin of the victim’s complaints. The reason is that the symptoms of long COVID and of post-COVID vaccine syndrome are almost identical, because most of the pathologies are due to the so-called spike protein.”
Will Germany’s federal court ruling affect other EU countries?
Wayne Rohde, an expert in vaccine injury compensation and author of “The Vaccine Court: The Dark Truth of America’s Vaccine Injury Compensation Program” and “The Vaccine Court 2.0,” said it “remains to be seen” if Germany’s federal court ruling will influence other European countries.
The ruling came during the same week that another court, the German Federal Administrative Court, ruled that unvaccinated people who lost earnings because they were required to quarantine are not eligible for financial compensation.
According to Austrian science & politics blog tkp.at, a self-employed insurance broker who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in October 2021, was required to self-isolate for 14 days because he hadn’t received a COVID-19 vaccine. The man filed a compensation request with the German government, claiming the mandated quarantine resulted in a loss of earnings.
The court found that those who could have avoided self-isolation by receiving a publicly recommended vaccine are not eligible for financial compensation.
Pandemic-related lawsuits continue to play out in EU courts
Recent court cases in Europe have raised issues relating to COVID-19 vaccine injuries and pandemic-related restrictions and countermeasures.
Earlier this month, Spain’s Constitutional Court declared several sections of the country’s pandemic-related state of emergency unconstitutional. The ruling revoked over 92,000 fines levied against people who violated pandemic-related restrictions.
Last month, a German judge who was convicted for issuing a ruling that temporarily lifted the mask requirement for students in two schools filed an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights, challenging his conviction.
German government documents leaked last year revealed that government officials implemented mandates despite a lack of scientific evidence.
In Greece, several COVID-19 vaccine injury victims have recently sued the manufacturers of those shots, including a “mammoth” 422-page lawsuit which cites “defective research and studies in the design and production of the vaccines.”
And in June, Holzeisen petitioned the General Court of the European Union to annul its approval of Kostaive, a self-amplifying mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.
