In brief
A landmark ruling by the European Court has challenged the European Commission's refusal to disclose text messages related to vaccine negotiations.
The European Commission's decision to deny the release of text messages sent by President Ursula von der Leyen to Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla during crucial Covid-19 vaccine negotiations has been deemed incorrect by the EU's General Court. Rejecting the Commission's argument for confidentiality, the court highlighted the lack of a credible explanation for withholding these communications made during the pivotal 2021 vaccine contracts, which included a significant deal for 1.8 billion doses.This ruling follows a request by an investigative journalist in 2021, who sought clarity on a series of exchanges that have since incited controversy in what has become known as "Pfizergate." The court's decision has been welcomed by Transparency International as a vital step toward greater transparency within the European Union, asserting that it should act as a driving force against restrictive attitudes towards freedom of information.Since assuming the presidency of the Commission in 2019, von der Leyen has navigated numerous challenges, but this controversy could tarnish her reputation, given her central role in negotiating the vaccine contracts. Following the ruling, the Commission expressed its intention to reassess its approach but reiterated its commitment to transparency.The issue gained traction after a New York Times article by journalist Matina Stevis unveiled von der Leyen's private negotiations with Bourla shortly after BioNTech received approval for its Covid vaccine. Investigative journalist Alexander Fanta subsequently submitted a Freedom of Information request, only for the Commission to deny possession of the documents due to the unarchivable nature of SMS messages. This gray area regarding mobile communications has been a point of contention, with EU officials contending that SMS are not automatically classified as public documents. Fanta escalated the matter to the European Ombudsman, which affirmed that the Commission's failure to pursue the text records constituted maladministration.The court's latest ruling found that the EU executive's justifications were based on either unfounded assumptions or inconsistent claims, mandating that the burden of proof rests with the Commission to demonstrate whether the messages existed or were destroyed. Notably, the ruling also raised questions about whether von der Leyen had intentionally deleted messages or simply changed devices.
