EU Council validates controversy: prosecutor in "Pfizergate", promoted to European Public Prosecutor's Office

The Council of the European Union on Wednesday validated Jennifer Vanderputten as a full-fledged European prosecutor from Belgium at the European Public Prosecutor's Office, according to a press release sent to the Editorial Office by the institution in question.

The appointment of Jennifer Vanderputten as a full-fledged European prosecutor is not just a dry administrative piece of news, but a moment that forces a critical, cold and uncomfortable look at a professional trajectory already fraught with controversies, suspicions and unanswered questions in the European public space, especially in the context of the case that has become symbolic of the European Union's lack of institutional transparency, Pfizergate. In theory, such a promotion should reflect excellence, legal rigor and impeccable integrity; In practice, however, for observers who have followed the tense episodes reported in the European press and analyzed in the pages of the BURSA newspaper, this decision risks being perceived as a defiance of the need for clarification, an ignoring of controversies and, more seriously, as a consolidation of an institutional culture in which legitimate questions are treated as disturbances, not as normal exercises of democratic control.

Jennifer Vanderputten is not a name that emerged from bureaucratic nothingness. Her constant appearance in reporting on legal disputes regarding the EPPO's competence in investigations related to the acquisition of anti-Covid vaccines has transformed her into a recognizable figure in a sensitive debate: where does the mandate of the European Public Prosecutor's Office end and where does the sovereignty of national jurisdictions begin? In the articles published by the BURSA newspaper in April-May 2024, which took over and analyzed information from Western journalistic investigations, Vanderputten was explicitly mentioned as a European Delegated Prosecutor involved in the steps to take over the file processed in Liege, in a case in which private plaintiffs and even member states invoked alleged violations of Belgian national legislation.

The stakes were not marginal, but deeply structural: whether or not the EPPO, an institution created to protect the financial interests of the European Union, could extend its jurisdiction in a case in which the claimed damage concerned, according to the arguments advanced in the public space, national budgets and not the EU budget.

The criticisms recorded at the time were harsh and came from several directions: lawyers who invoked the restriction of the right to defense, journalists who complained about procedural opacity, plaintiffs who accused a "jurisdictional monopolization” with the potential effect of blocking civil actions. Beyond the inevitably polemical rhetoric, an essential issue for the European rule of law remained: the perceived legitimacy of the EPPO intervention. Instead of a clear, technical, legally argued and transparently communicated response, the official reactions cited at that time suggested rather a defensive closure - the standard formula "we do not comment on ongoing investigations”, repeated mechanically, even when the questions concerned not the substance of the investigation, but the procedural principles and the rights of the parties involved.

This tension between institutional power and individual rights became all the more visible in the episode reported extensively in the pages of our newspaper regarding the attempt of lawyer Diane Protat to obtain access to the Pfizer file in Brussels. The fact that a lawyer invokes the obstruction of the exercise of the right to defence and that the police are called in such a circumstance represents, regardless of the legal outcome, a serious alarm signal at the level of public perception. Justice, especially European justice, does not live only on the letter of the regulations, but also on the trust of citizens that the procedures are fair, proportionate and transparent. Any situation in which a lawyer claims institutional obstacles to access to essential documents inevitably fuels the suspicion that the balance between prosecution and defence risks being unbalanced. In this context, the recent promotion of Jennifer Vanderputten to the European Public Prosecutor's Office takes on a symbolic charge that is impossible to ignore. Not because there was a formal conviction or sanction, which were not recorded, but because the Council's decision comes without the major public questions related to the Pfizergate episodes having received exhaustive and convincing clarifications in the eyes of public opinion. When a European institution promotes a media-affiliated magistrate with a major controversy, without further communication on the assessment of integrity, performance and the context of the criticism, the perception of institutional self-sufficiency inevitably arises: the system validates itself, regardless of the surrounding noise.

The problem is not personal, but systemic. The EPPO was conceived as a pillar of the fight against fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union. Its legitimacy depends vitally on the rigor of the delimitation of competences. Any impression that the institution is extending its scope into legal grey areas, where competence can be reasonably challenged, erodes the trust capital built with difficulty. In the case of Pfizergate, the public debate was not limited to spectacular accusations, but targeted precisely this delicate border between European and national criminal law, between the protection of the EU budget and the autonomy of the Member States.

Moreover, the political context in which these discussions evolved cannot be dissociated from the European electoral calendar. Any temporal coincidence between procedural movements, institutional decisions and sensitive political moments generates interpretations, and the lack of proactive communication quickly transforms them into persistent suspicions. It is not the role of the press to establish the guilty, but it is the obligation of critical journalism to observe when transparency becomes insufficient and when official responses, although legally correct, are democratically inadequate through minimalism.

The appointment announced by the Council thus brings to the fore a broader dilemma: how do the European institutions manage their own controversies? The culture of defensive reflex, procedural silence and standardized formulas may be legally justified, but politically and societally it is counterproductive. European Union citizens do not demand operational details from ongoing investigations, but clear explanations about principles, powers, procedural rights and criteria for evaluating promoted magistrates. In their absence, the space is inevitably occupied by speculation, theories and distrust. For Jennifer Vanderputten, this promotion represents, without a doubt, a professional consecration. For the EPPO, however, it is a test of credibility. The institution has the opportunity and the responsibility to demonstrate that legal excellence and democratic transparency are not antagonistic concepts. A broad, reasoned and open communication on the lessons of past controversies could transform a moment perceived as critical into an exercise in building trust. Persistence in opaque minimalism, on the contrary, risks reinforcing the very perception that the EPPO should combat: that European justice is becoming a self-referential space, immune to the uncomfortable questions of the society it claims to defend.

Pfizergate was not and is not just a case. It has become a barometer of transparency, of the relationship between power and control, between institutions and citizens. Any major decision involving actors associated with this story will inevitably be read through this lens. And if the European Union truly wants to protect its project from the erosion of trust, the answer cannot be procedural silence, but the cold light of full explanations.