Pharmaceuticals producer BioNTech is facing compensation claims in Germany after two law firms claimed clients suffered lasting health problems as a result of the company’s coronavirus jab.
BioNTech, which is based in Mainz, entered court this week in its first German hearing.
The case has been brought against the German biotechnology company on behalf of a middle-aged medical worker.
A woman is seeking €150,000 in damages after suffering from heart arrhythmia and brain fog following her vaccination.
A medical technical assistant prepares a syringe with a children's dose of Comirnaty, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine against the coronavirus disease
The case is being heard in a regional court in Hamburg.
Her case is one of several hundred brought against the company.
The total cost of compensation being pursued by two law firms has topped €1million.
Dusseldorf-based Rogert & Ulbrich and Wiesbaden-based Casar-Preller are heading the claims.
Christmas shoppers wear mask and fill Cologne's main shopping street Hohe Strasse (High Street) during the spread of the coronavirus
Tobias Ulbrich controversially claimed American billionaire Bill Gates wanted to use Covid jabs to reduce the German population to 27 million.
A spokesperson from Gates’ foundation said the suggestion was “false”.
BioNTech produced around 75 per cent of the 224 million vaccine doses administered across Germany in collaboration with US firm Pfizer.
Despite legal pressure, BioNTech is confident the cases will be dismissed.
It suggested that it has decided not to set aside provisions to cover possible compensation claims.
BioNTech headquarters in An der Goldgrube street, Mainz
Wikimedia Commons Licences
BioNTech said: “Continuous monitoring of the vaccine’s safety profile and after more than 2.6 billion doses of [the Covid-19 jab] administered worldwide has to date not identified potential side effects other than those already listed in the respective product information.”
The pharmaceutical company also warned the Hamburg case demonstrated a failure from the plaintiff and lawyers to highlight a “causal relationship between the adverse events and the vaccine”.
It instead suggested the relationship was merely coincidental as it lamented the lawsuit as being “without merit”.