The General Court of the European Union has found that the European Commission was wrong to restrict access to COVID-19 vaccine purchase contracts from the public. Between 2020 and 2023, the Ursula von der Leyen Commission signed agreements with pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca to procure COVID-19 vaccine doses.
In January 2021, five Green MEPs, including Margrete Auken, Tilly Metz, Jutta Paulus, Kim van Sparrentak, and the late Michèle Rivasi, requested access to these contracts in the public interest. However, the Commission released the contracts only in redacted form, leading the MEPs to take the case to the Luxembourg-based court.
On July 17, the court ruled that the Commission did not provide sufficient public access to the contracts for the purchase of COVID-19 vaccines. The court criticized the Commission for its “partial” refusal to disclose details about the members of the negotiating team on grounds of privacy. The court noted that revealing the names, surnames, and professional roles of the team members was necessary to determine whether any conflicts of interest existed.
Vaccine Contract Secrecy Criticized by MEPs Amid Pfizergate Scandal
French MEP Manon Aubry criticized the Commission’s lack of transparency, emphasizing the importance of proper justifications for any claims regarding commercial confidentiality. MEP Tilly Metz remarked that the ruling is significant for the future, as the EU Commission is expected to undertake more joint procurements in areas like health and potentially defense. Metz also highlighted that the new European Commission would need to adapt its handling of document access requests to align with the court’s ruling.
Amidst these developments, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) is investigating the “Pfizergate” scandal, where von der Leyen is suspected of having negotiated a contract for a billion doses of COVID-19 vaccines directly via SMS with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla. Olivier Hoedeman of Corporate Europe Observatory hailed the ruling as a victory for democracy, noting that the Commission had chosen extensive secrecy to avoid accountability over its handling of the EU vaccine strategy. Hoedeman mentioned that it took almost two years and repeated involvement of the European Ombudsman before the Commission published a significant number of documents, many of which were heavily redacted.
The European Commission, in its statement, acknowledged the court’s judgment but welcomed the fact that some of the redactions protecting commercial interests were upheld. These redactions included information on the location of production sites, intellectual property rights, delivery schedules, and down payments or advance payments.
Court Ruling Highlights Need for Transparency in EU Vaccine Contracts
Commission Spokesperson Stefan de Keersmaeker stated that the court had upheld 90% of the Commission’s redactions. However, the court found that the Commission had failed to adequately explain the definitions of ‘wilful misconduct’ or ‘best reasonable efforts’ and that information on indemnification agreements, already in the public domain, should have been shared.
The ruling underscores the need for greater transparency in EU procurement processes, particularly as the Commission prepares for more joint procurements in the future. The outcome of this case highlights the importance of ensuring public access to information to maintain accountability and trust in governmental actions, especially in areas critical to public health and safety.
As the Constitutional Court prepares to review the case, the future handling of access to documents by the European Commission will be closely scrutinized. The decision will likely influence how the Commission approaches transparency and public access to information in its future dealings, particularly in high-stakes areas such as health and defense.
Resource: Euractiv, July 17, 2024
This article has been prepared with the assistance of AI and reviewed by an editor. For more details, please refer to our Terms and Conditions. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author.
