In brief
The EU's General Court has ruled against the European Commission's refusal to disclose text messages between Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer's CEO, demanding transparency and accountability amidst the ongoing vaccine negotiation scrutiny.
In a significant ruling, the European Court has determined that the European Commission erred in its denial to release text messages exchanged between Ursula von der Leyen, the Commission's president, and Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer, during critical negotiations for Covid-19 vaccines. The General Court criticized the Commission for failing to provide a valid reason for withholding these communications after an investigative journalist's request in 2021, a year when the pharmaceutical giant secured vaccine contracts worth billions with the EU, including a monumental deal for 1.8 billion doses.The court's decision comes amidst growing concerns over transparency in EU governance, particularly surrounding vaccine deals. Transparency International has praised the court's ruling as a "landmark victory for transparency in the EU," urging the Commission to reform its restrictive stance on freedom of information. The ongoing controversy, dubbed 'Pfizergate' in Brussels, remains fueled by the fact that details of the messages exchanged have not been revealed, which may pose a reputational risk for von der Leyen herself, especially as she navigated the EU's pandemic response following her appointment in 2019.The situation first gained traction in April 2021, when an article by New York Times journalist Matina Stevis uncovered the private negotiations between von der Leyen and Bourla following BioNTech's approval for its Covid treatment. Subsequently, journalist Alexander Fanta initiated a Freedom of Information request to access the messages from January 2021 to May 2022, which the Commission initially denied. While the Commission maintains that transparency is crucial, it faces criticism for its apparent failure to archive text messages properly—a gray area in its transparency rules. This led to the involvement of the European Ombudsman in reviewing the Commission's actions, declaring that the lack of thorough search for the text messages constituted maladministration. Following a rigorous legal battle, the court found that the Commission's reliance on vague information and unsubstantiated assumptions was insufficient. The ruling requires the Commission to demonstrate whether the text messages exist, if they were deleted, and under what circumstances.As the Commission reflects on the court's decision, it raises pressing questions about the future of transparency within the EU and the public's right to access crucial information on significant governmental negotiations and decisions.
