The case before the Kalisz territory Court shakes public opinion – it concerns an 18-year-old girl who after receiving the vaccine against Covid-19 suffered permanent neurological complications and reaches PLN 201 1000 of compensation from the State Treasury. The state that previously promoted mass vaccinations present defends itself in court... by claiming that vaccinations were not mandatory, and the work for side effects should remainder on the medicinal entity or the manufacturer.
This is an example of unprecedented evasion in the state's legal system, which, by media and political coercion, present washes its hands from the effects of the vaccination run – even though it organised, promoted and supervised it itself.
You withdraw: vaccinations were voluntary?
According to the lawyer General of the Republic of Poland, representing the Treasury – the Minister of Health, the vaccination against Covid-19 was “a completely voluntary certificate”:
"National Vaccination Programme was adopted by a resolution of the Council of Ministers, which is not the origin of universally binding law, is only interior in nature and there are organisational units subject to the Council of Ministers", stressed in consequence to the suit.
This is simply a amazing position, given that at the time of the “pandemic” the authorities utilized social, organization and administrative pressures, resulting in a regulation of civilian liberties for unvaccinated persons. Closure of admissions to universities, hospitals, premises, threats of occupation failure or social exclusion – all of this was marked by actual coercion, although without formal legal obligation.
Process without experts and closed doors
The civilian process is behind closed doors, which besides creates controversy in the light of the social interest. Since December 2024, the court has not appointed an expert who could find the link between vaccination and neurological diseases referred to by the plaintiff:
"The court applied to the designated institute, but it was refused, so there are inactive no established stakeholders issuing opinions," said neo-Judge Urbaniak.
The party's representatives did not identify the candidate as an expert, although, in accordance with Article 278(1) of the Code, the court may request peculiar information only by means of an expert. In the judgement of the court, the case is of a "great character" and requires expertise, including from neurology. The product characteristics of Pfizer, which the court refers to, have 730 pages – and this besides serves as an argument to postpone decisions.
Judicial Sanitary Strategy: No causal link
The Treasury indicates that:
“There is no causal link between administration of the vaccine and the plaintiff’s disease”.
This is simply a typical line of defence, known for many medical cases – procrastination by deficiency of expert opinion or questioning the reliability of neurological complications. However, it is worth recalling that according to the case law of the ultimate Court:
"In the event of harm resulting from medical activities, a causal link does not request to be demonstrated with absolute certainty – it is adequate to be likened within the limits of reason" — (cf. judgement of 17 February 2006, II CSK 121/05).
The plaintiff's indicated change in intellectual status, anxiety, withdrawal from social life and another symptoms may be considered as long word harm to intellectual health, which, in accordance with Article 445(1) k.c., entitles to redress.
Responsibility for the National Vaccination Programme – who truly is responsible?
The National Vaccination Programme was coordinated by the Ministry of wellness and the Government safety Centre, with the participation of local governments, troops and uniformed services. Although the formal resolution of the Council of Ministers does not have universal power, it cannot be denied that it was the state authorities that launched the vaccination logistics and granted themselves the right to manage the medical strategy during the period of the "pandemic".
The doctrine of civilian law has repeatedly stressed that:
"Voluntary benefit does not exclude work for its harmful effects if they were a consequence of negligence or defect in the organization or performance of the benefit" — (cf. M. Nesterowicz, Medical Law, p. 420).
Force without coercion – i.e. how strategy force worked
Although formally there was no vaccination obligation, many citizens were under real social and economical pressure. Government restrictions on unvaccinated persons, rules of isolation and segregation in public spaces were in practice a form of coercion:
- the prohibition of participation in classes at the university,
- loss of work or transfer to free leave,
- lack of access to medical services or offices.
The case law of the Constitutional Court stressed that:
"The actions of state authorities must not lead to a situation where a citizen has no choice in practice" — (cf. judgement of the Constitutional Tribunal of 7.10.2008, K 20/07).
Final comment
This judicial procedure is an example of a systemic evasion of state work for the effects of the vaccination campaign, which was promoted as a collective civic obligation. Current attempts to pass the blame on 3rd parties and to indicate that vaccinations were ‘voluntary’ are a manifestation of unprecedented insolence of Sanitaryians and the state.
Where a causal link is established, the liability of the State Treasury should be expressly determined on the basis of Article 417(1) k.c. as liability for damage to the exercise of public authority.
Continued here:
Treasury in Kalisz Court: ‘The vaccinations on Covid-19 were not compulsory’
