Greek Administrative Court rules state liable for Covid-19 vaccine side effects due to "excessive sacrifice"

Greece: The Administrative Court of First Instance of Athens, in its decision no. 4202/2025, has ruled that the Greek State is liable for damages sustained by an individual due to side effects following a preventive "COVID-19" vaccination. This landmark decision was issued in a compensation lawsuit filed against the Hellenic Republic.

The Case: Seeking Compensation for Vaccine-Related Harm

The lawsuit was brought by a plaintiff seeking compensation for material damage and moral harm (non-pecuniary damage), alleging that they suffered severe side effects after their preventive COVID-19 vaccination with a specific vaccine. The initial claim was for €461,835.26, but this amount was subsequently restricted during the proceedings.

The plaintiff based their claim on two legal grounds:

  1. Article 105 of the Introductory Law of the Civil Code (EισNAK): This article concerns the State's liability for compensation arising from illegal acts or omissions of its organs in the exercise of public authority.
  2. Article 4, par. 5 of the Constitution: This article relates to the State's liability for lawful acts that cause an excessive sacrifice to citizens, based on the principle of equality in public burdens and social solidarity.

The Court's Ruling on the Primary Ground (Article 105 EισNAK – Unlawful Act/Omission):

The plaintiff argued that the National Vaccination Committee acted unlawfully by allowing the vaccination of individuals with their specific medical condition using the vaccine in question, despite limited medical data and without a fully confirmed list of side effects. They also claimed an unlawful omission to guide them towards a safer vaccine and a failure by the doctor to adequately inform them or discourage the vaccination.

The Court rejected this primary ground of the lawsuit as unfounded, ruling that:

  • The vaccine held a central marketing authorization from the European Commission, following a rigorous review by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and was was not experimental. Conditional marketing authorizations were not temporary or emergency approvals but granted under strict conditions.
  • It was not proven that another vaccine would have been safer for the plaintiff's specific case.
  • No unlawful omission by the vaccinating physician or inadequate information provided to the plaintiff was proven, due to a lack of supporting evidence (such as the medical order).
  • Since none of the alleged unlawful acts or omissions were substantiated, the conditions for compensatory liability under Article 105 EisNAK were not met.

The Court's Ruling on the Ancillary Ground (Article 4, par. 5 of the Constitution – Liability from Lawful Acts):

The Court accepted the ancillary ground of the lawsuit, invoking the Greek State's liability for damages arising from its lawful actions when these constitute an excessive sacrifice for the aggrieved party, exceeding the reasonable threshold of tolerance and social solidarity.

  • In this specific case, the plaintiff's development of Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (ADEM) was deemed a unique and significant harm that exceeded this threshold.
  • The National Organization for Medicines (EOΦ), based on a re-evaluation of the incident's "yellow card" report, assessed the probability of correlation between the adverse event and the vaccination as "Probable", according to World Health Organization criteria.
  • No other intervening unlawful act or omission (e.g., a defective preparation or deficiencies during vaccination) was identified.
  • Consequently, the liability of the Greek State was directly established under Article 4, par. 5 of the Constitution.

Decision:

The Court ruled that the plaintiff should be awarded, by analogous application of Article 932 of the Civil Code, only reasonable monetary satisfaction for their moral harm (non-pecuniary damage) amounting to €50,000. 

(photo: freepik.com)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ombudsman inquiry on Commission President’s text messages is a wake-up call for EU

Image
The European Ombudsman inquiry into the Commission’s handling of a request for text messages between its President and the CEO of a pharmaceutical company is a wake-up call for all EU institutions about ensuring accountability in an era of instant messaging. One year after the initial request by a journalist, the Commission has still not clarified whether messages reported to concern major vaccine procurement deals exist and whether the public is entitled to see them. The Ombudsman had asked the Commission, in a finding of maladministration in January, to conduct a more thorough search for the text messages. The Commission’s recent response failed to say whether it had looked directly and correctly for the text messages and if not, why not. While the response recognised that work-related text messages can be EU documents, it reiterated that the Commission’s internal policy is, in effect, not to register text messages. The Ombudsman has closed  the inquiry  and upheld...
Read more

Access to documents: the Commission decision refusing a journalist of The New York Times access to the text messages exchanged between President von der Leyen and the CEO of Pfizer is annulled (CJEU)

Image
In its Judgment dated 14/5/2025 in Case T-36/23 (Stevi and The New York Times v Commission), the General Court ruled that the Commission decision refusing a journalist of The New York Times access to the text messages exchanged between President von der Leyen and the CEO of Pfizer is annulled. By an application based on the Access to Documents Regulation, [1], Matina Stevi, a journalist working for the daily newspaper The New York Times, requested the European Commission to provide access to all text messages exchanged between President Ursula von der Leyen and Albert Bourla, the chief executive officer of Pfizer, between 1 January 2021 and 11 May 2022.  The Commission rejected that application on the ground that it did not hold the documents covered by it. Ms Stevi and The New York Times requested the General Court of the European Union to annul the Commission’s decision.  In its judgment, the General Court upholds the action and annuls the Commission’s decision. The Court re...
Read more

An overview of the regulatory framework on Gambling Services in the European Union

Image
written by Efi Thoma * The European Union (EU) does not have a harmonized, single regulatory framework for betting companies. Instead, the regulation of gambling services, including betting, remains largely within the competence of individual Member States.  This results in a diverse and often fragmented legal framework across the EU. While the EU facilitates some level of cooperation and sets overarching principles, the specifics of licensing, operational requirements, and consumer protection measures vary significantly from country to country. Despite the lack of a unified framework, several key principles and EU-level instruments influence the national regulations of betting companies. More specifically, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) guarantees the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services within the EU. These fundamental freedoms mean that Member States cannot unjustifiably restrict betting companies legally established in ano...
Read more

New President of the European Court of Human Rights

Image
The European Court of Human Rights has elected on 28.4.2025 Mattias Guyomar, Judge elected in respect of France, as its new President.  Mattias Guyomar succeeds Marko Bošnjak, Judge elected in respect of Slovenia. He will take up office on 30 May 2025. Read his bio here Furthermore, the Judge elected in respect of Armenia, Vahe Grigoryan, was formally sworn in in the Court's Main Hearing Room on 28.4.2025. Read as well:  Interventions in Justice System and the role of Artificial Intelligence / article by Giorgos Kazoleas, Lawyer in Cyprus
Read more

Imposition of a fine on a bank in Greece for an incident of personal data breach

Image
The Greek Data Protection Supervisory Authority imposed on a Bank, as Data Controller, an administrative fine of EUR 100,000 for violating the principles of accuracy, integrity, and confidentiality of data, and the principles of data protection by design and by default, in conjunction with Articles 32, 33, and 34 of the GDPR, as well as an administrative fine of EUR 20,000 for violating the complainants' right of access. Complaints were submitted to the Supervisory Authority of Greece against the National Bank of Greece for the incorrect linking of a complainant's bank account with the mobile phone number of another complainant in the “i-bank Pay application”, which resulted in money transfers, via “IRIS online payments service”, which were made to the first complainant's account instead of the second's.  In the context of the administrative audit conducted by the Authority, the Bank eventually identified that the issue was due to incorrect configuration during the ...
Read more