This week, Ursula von der Leyen will face a significant challenge during her presidency of the European Commission as the EU’s General Court is set to announce its decision regarding her communications with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla. This correspondence took place amid negotiations for a contract to supply up to 1.8 billion COVID-19 vaccine doses.
The case, commonly referred to as “Pfizergate,” has escalated into a major political and institutional issue. The Court will determine whether the Commission breached transparency principles by withholding the contents of these emails, which have not been officially stored. Central to the case is the question of whether written communications related to political decisions should be classified as official documents and therefore accessible to the public.
According to Politico, the case traces back to an April 2021 interview with Bourla in the New York Times, where he disclosed a personal text exchange with von der Leyen that fostered significant trust. The deal, finalized in May 2021, included an initial order of 900 million doses with the option for additional purchases.
The New York Times formally requested to release these messages, but the request was denied. European Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly criticized the denial as “maladministration” and a significant indicator of institutional transparency issues, accusing von der Leyen of fostering a “culture of cover-up” and missing the only related hearing thus far. “It was the elephant that was not in the room,” he remarked.
While the Commission has refrained from public comments due to ongoing litigation, during a court hearing in Luxembourg last November, Commission legal representatives first acknowledged the existence of the messages, eliciting humor from attendees and displeasure from the judges. The judges condemned the vague responses and the lack of “sufficient and diligent action” in locating the text messages. There was uncertainty surrounding whether von der Leyen was questioned, if her phone was investigated, or whether any data accounts were examined.
New York Times lawyer Bodine Clustra described the Commission’s preparation as “disappointing,” highlighting the lack of clarity regarding the president’s cellphone and whether apps like Signal were utilized, along with the specifics of the search conducted.
This case holds even greater significance as von der Leyen leads the body responsible for upholding EU regulations, including transparency standards. The Court’s ruling may undermine the institutional credibility of the Commission, especially as the president commenced her second term recently, focusing on integrity and the modernization of governance.
Simultaneously, the European Public Prosecutor (EPPO) is examining vaccine procurement, with chief Laura Contrutta Covesi confirming that Commission officials have been summoned to discuss the negotiations for these contracts.
There is also increasing pressure from the European Parliament. Green MEP Tilly Metz, who has raised concerns about the Commission’s secrecy regarding contracts with pharmaceutical companies, stated that von der Leyen is “either misguided or intentionally obscuring transparency for political reasons.” She emphasized that public trust cannot flourish without transparency, particularly concerning public health and major financial agreements.
Ultimately, the General Court’s ruling will have implications beyond individual political figures. Observers suggest it will serve as a landmark decision for institutional transparency in the EU, determining whether top officials are held to the same accountability standards as everyone else.
Ask me anything
Explore related questions
