NGOs and others affected by the issue of transparency praised the general court of the EU Court of Justice on Wednesday for not providing a plausible explanation for the European Commission’s lack of documents related to the purchase agreement for the Covid-19 vaccine.
Following the revelation by the New York Times, the publication submitted a request for access to the message regarding the existence of a text message between Commissioner Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Brula.
At the time, the committee rejected the request, claiming that text messages were inherently short-lived and did not meet the criteria for inclusion in the institution’s document management system.
“Today’s decision is a victory over transparency and accountability in the European Union, which sends a strong message that temporary communication does not exceed the scope of public scrutiny,” a spokesman for the New York Times said in a post-ruling statement.
The publication added that what the ruling clarified was that it had an obligation to handle text messages like any other record, and admitted that it was incorrect in the Commission’s request.
According to the court, the committee cannot simply argue that it does not own the requested document. This should provide a reliable explanation that will allow both the public and the court to understand why the document cannot be placed.
It’s not the only one to challenge the committee
“Today’s ruling clearly shows that transparency and democratic accountability should not be exercised in closed rooms in the European Union,” said MEP Tilly Metz (Luxembourg/Green).
She added that there is a risk that commercial interests could take precedence over public goods if significant decisions and transactions are made secret.
Metz was also involved in another trial released in 2021 against Von Der Leyen on vaccine contract transparency.
In that case, the committee published a heavily compiled document. This was a move later condemned by the EU Court of Justice, finding that the enforcement decision to publish only the censored version of the contract was related to procedural irregularities.
In 2022, the EU Ombudsman also criticized the committee for handling the New York Times’ demands, describing it as a “walk-up call” to EU accountability, supporting the discovery of maladomination in the matter.
In response to today’s ruling, the Ombudsman said: “The court has once again emphasized that, like the Ombudsman, the right to access the document requires the relevant institutions to always prepare and retain documents relating to their activities, as much as possible and in any non-optional way.”
She added that if the agency cannot register and retain such documents, the right to access them becomes meaningless. The Ombudsman also urged the committee to draw necessary conclusions from today’s judgment and ensure that the right to access the document is fully supported.
“This decision reminds us that the EU is governed by the rules of law that are subject to constant scrutiny of free media and independent courts,” said Alberto Alemanno, founder of Good Lobby.
He added that the NYT victory is a “win for everyone as this judgment is set to lead to greater accountability for the actions of EU leaders.”
“There should still be a lot of uncertainty and transparency as to what happened,” Shari Hins, policy officer for the Transparent International EU, told Euroneuz.
She argued that full transparency and accountability are essential when it comes to public health decisions, such as these contracts, which affect millions of people.
“We should restore public trust, and we think it’s time for the committee to show our commitment to upload public accountability,” she added.
The Commission says it will closely examine the General Court’s decision before deciding on the next step. The committee will have two months to file an appeal. They also announced plans to adopt a new decision that will provide a more detailed explanation in response to the original request of the New York Times.
“Transparency has always been paramount to the Committee and President Von der Leyen. We will continue to strictly adhere to a solid legal framework for enforcing our obligations,” the committee said.
