One of the many spats about this between the EU and the UK was when an EU functionary incorrectly claimed the UK had export controls and they had to back track[1].
As far as I know, the EU gambled on a French vaccine that unfortunately failed, then ordered other vaccines much later than everyone else.
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/6d28903d-3723-45cc-878a-21e1f2d39...
There's no export restriction, it's more subtle.
UK has funded Oxford vaccine development on condition that UK gets preference for doses produced in UK (if not elsewhere too).
This has exactly the same practical effect as an export ban, but it technically isn't an export ban, hence the recent grandstanding from UK politicians.
I don't think this is particularly to the detriment of Germany. Wasn't Israel vaccinating people before Germany had approved any vaccination?
[1] (https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-said-to-be-paying-avera...)
"Two factories in Britain run by Oxford Biomedica and Cobra Biologics are also listed as suppliers to the EU in the contract with AstraZeneca, but no vaccine has so far been shipped from Britain to the EU, despite Brussels' earlier requests."
"AstraZeneca told EU officials that the UK is using a clause in its supply contract that prevents export of its vaccines until the British market is fully served, EU officials said."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-eu-uk-...
That's a commercial clause, AZ took funding for vaccine development with that clause in it.
That's not an export ban, that was paid for.
Do you expect the EU to watch how AZ fails to deliver on its contract, exports vaccines made on EU soil to the UK and then talk about commercial clauses, in a pandemic?