Luxembourg (Brussels Morning Newspaper) – The European Commission failed to offer credible justifications for denying a request from the New York Times for text messages exchanged between its president and the CEO of Pfizer concerning COVID-19 vaccine contracts, as ruled by the General Court in Luxembourg – Europe’s second-highest court on Wednesday.
Some EU lawmakers have criticised the Commission’s handling of the deals signed at the height of the pandemic, while good governance activists accuse the EU’s executive body of a lack of transparency that could undermine trust in Europe’s institutions.
Why did the EU withhold Pfizer text messages?
The New York Times sought access to text messages exchanged between Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer’s Albert Bourla from January 1, 2021, to May 11, 2022, to clarify details surrounding the multi-billion-euro vaccine agreement.
The Commission turned down the request, stating that von der Leyen had not retained the messages. It further noted that these messages did not meet the criteria to be considered EU documents subject to freedom of information requests according to transparency regulations. “The commission never denied the existence of text message exchanges,” an EU official said ahead of the verdict. “What it was argued (…) is that these exchanges did not contain important information.”
What did the court say about Commission secrecy?
In a ruling concerning a challenge from the newspaper, the General Court in Luxembourg – Europe’s second-highest court – annulled the decision, stating that the Commission failed to provide a credible explanation for withholding the documents.
“The Commission has not explained in detail the type of searches that it carried out to find those documents or the identity of the places where those searches took place,”
it wrote in its ruling.
The New York Times praised the ruling.
“Today’s decision is a victory for transparency and accountability in the European Union, and it sends a powerful message that ephemeral communications are not beyond the reach of public scrutiny,”
it said in a statement.
How has the Commission responded to the ruling?
The European Commission said it would
“closely study the General Court’s decision”
before deciding on its next steps.
“To this effect, the Commission will adopt a new decision providing a more detailed explanation,”
it said.
