Court ruling pressures EU Commission to justify missing vaccine deal messages

In response to a recent ruling by the European Union’s General Court, the European Commission has committed to revising its document management protocols, following criticism over its insufficient justification for withholding text message exchanges between Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla concerning vaccine procurement contracts worth several billion euros.

In a written statement issued following the decision by the General Court of the European Union, the Commission acknowledged the ruling and indicated its intention to adopt a new, more detailed explanation in response, Caliber.Az reports.

“The Commission is taking note of today's decision by the General Court on an access to documents request,” the statement read.

“The General Court finds that the Commission should have provided a more detailed explanation in its decision that it does not hold documents of the requested type.”

The case originated from a lawsuit filed in 2023 by The New York Times, which accused the Commission of unlawfully denying access to SMS exchanges between von der Leyen and Bourla that reportedly played a role in negotiating COVID-19 vaccine contracts worth over €30 billion. The messages, sent in 2021, pertained to agreements valid through 2023.

While the General Court's ruling does not establish legal or disciplinary responsibility for President von der Leyen, it highlights shortcomings in the Commission’s justification for withholding the messages. The Commission had previously claimed that the texts had been “mistakenly destroyed” and could therefore not be released—a stance the court found insufficiently explained.

“The General Court does not put into question the Commission's registration policy regarding access to documents,” the statement clarified. “These rules aim to ensure the integrity of the Commission's records and full transparency by making sure that important documents drafted or received by the Commission are easily made accessible to interested EU citizens.”

The Commission assured that it would carefully study the court’s findings before determining its next steps. “To this effect, the Commission will adopt a new decision providing a more detailed explanation.”

The case has reignited debates over transparency and accountability at the highest levels of EU governance. Although the court's decision stops short of mandating disciplinary action against von der Leyen, legal analysts suggest it may pave the way for further challenges. It also follows the dismissal in January 2025 of a separate case filed in Belgium, in which over 1,000 plaintiffs accused von der Leyen of corruption and abuse of office related to untested vaccines. That case was closed on the grounds of presidential immunity, as upheld by the EU Public Prosecutor’s Office—an entity that reports directly to the European Commission.

In its closing remarks, the Commission reaffirmed its dedication to transparency and open governance:

“Transparency has always been of paramount importance for the Commission and President von der Leyen. We will continue to strictly abide by the solid legal framework in place to enforce our obligations. We remain fully committed to maintaining openness, accountability, and clear communication with all stakeholders, including EU institutions, civil society, and interest representatives.”

The European Commission’s legal service still has the option to challenge the ruling. Meanwhile, public and legal scrutiny over the bloc’s pandemic-era procurement practices is expected to intensify.

By Vafa Guliyeva