Newsroom
The European Union’s top court has overturned a decision by the European Commission to withhold text messages between Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, ruling Wednesday that no “plausible explanation” was given for denying access.
The European Court of Justice found the Commission had failed to comply with EU transparency laws when it rejected a Freedom of Information request from The New York Times in 2022. The texts were believed to relate to negotiations over a key vaccine deal during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The ruling marks a major blow to von der Leyen, who is early in her second term as Commission president and has faced growing scrutiny over her leadership style and transparency.
While the Commission still has the right to appeal, it said it would “closely study” the decision and issue a new response. It signaled continued resistance to disclosing the texts, stating it would adopt a revised decision offering a “more detailed explanation.”
The messages were reportedly part of von der Leyen’s personal outreach to secure 1.8 billion doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, as the EU lagged behind other nations in vaccine procurement. Critics later alleged the EU overpaid, with the price per dose rising from €15.50 to €19.50.
The case began after journalist Alexander Fanta and The New York Times separately sought the texts under EU access laws. The Commission argued the texts were about scheduling meetings and claimed not to have the messages, admitting in court it could not confirm whether they still existed.
The court questioned this explanation, citing a lack of clarity over whether the texts had been deleted or if von der Leyen’s phone had been replaced.
Transparency advocates hailed the ruling as a milestone. “This judgment provides a fresh reminder that the EU is governed by the rule of law,” said Alberto Alemanno, EU law professor at HEC Paris. Transparency International called it a “landmark ruling,” and The New York Times said the decision affirms that “ephemeral communications are not beyond the reach of public scrutiny.”
With information from The Guardian.
