Pfizergate, Ursula von der Leyen, vaccinuri anti-covid, Pfizer, transparenţă, Tribunalul UE

The Pfizergate case has reached a decisive stage: on Wednesday, in Luxembourg, the 15 judges of the Grand Chamber of the General Court of the European Union are to rule on the case in which the main defendant is Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission. At the heart of the scandal are a series of text messages that the President of the European Commission allegedly exchanged with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla during negotiations for the acquisition of 1.8 billion doses of the anti-COVID-19 vaccine. Although apparently just a bureaucratic matter, the question of whether these messages constitute "documents" under European law has triggered a legal war with profound implications for institutional transparency in the EU.

The story began in 2021, when the American daily The New York Times revealed that von der Leyen negotiated the contract with Pfizer via phone and SMS. But the European Commission refused to provide access to the messages, citing their "ephemeral" nature, arguing that they did not fall under institutional transparency rules. The same American publication subsequently sued the Commission at the EU General Court. The lack of clarity was compounded by the Commission's refusal to say whether the messages had been deleted or even if they had ever existed.

In an interview with Follow the Money late last week, Finnish European law professor Paivi Leino-Sandberg, an expert on EU transparency who has already defeated European institutions in court, explained that this case is more than a dispute about the messages: it is a direct confrontation with the Commission's tendency to make things more opaque.

Leino-Sandberg, a former legal adviser to the Finnish government, argues that the European institutions want to reserve the right to control what information reaches the public domain, when and under what conditions.

During the November hearings, the Commission's lawyers argued, in a "circular" argument, that the messages were not in the institution's possession, even though they referred to the work of the Commission President. Furthermore, they stated that the SMS messages were "insignificant", but could not confirm either their existence or their possible deletion. This ambiguity was met with visible irritation from the judges, which could decisively influence the verdict.

Leino-Sandberg stressed that the Commission's weak defense is not just the result of a wrong strategy, but a reflection of an institutional culture that ignores the role of the judiciary in controlling the executive branch.

Even if the messages no longer exist, the court is called upon to decide on Wednesday, May 14, on substantive issues: what constitutes an official document, what obligations the Commission has regarding archiving and what the impact is on the possibility of legal review. According to previous rulings, EU institutions must create and preserve documents relevant to their work, not circumvent transparency obligations by actively destroying evidence.

Current rules require that text messages be used only in exceptional cases, provided that the apps used comply with the Commission's policy on the automatic disappearance of messages. However, Leino-Sandberg told the source that these policies are opaque and practically exclude the possibility for citizens to request such documents in the future.

The Pfizergate case is not the only legal battle Leino-Sandberg has fought. This year, together with former EU official Emilio de Capitani and the NGO Access Info Europe, the Finnish professor challenged in court new rules adopted by the Commission, which restrict the types of documents that can be requested publicly and limit the definition of an official document. They argue that the regulations contravene the EU treaties, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and international law on access to information of public interest.

When asked why she thinks the EU Executive is limiting access to information, Leino-Sandberg told the quoted source: "They don't want to complicate their lives by allowing public debate and surveillance. They don't want to be held accountable for the decisions they make." She stresses that the refusal to publish internal legal opinions reflects a fear that these opinions may prove uncomfortable in the face of a policy change. According to the Finnish expert, transparency is not an option, but a legal obligation, and the European Commission is not above the law.

In her opinion, Ursula von der Leyen has not shown any sympathy for the principles of transparency in her first term. "A strong public reaction is needed. Given the determination with which this Commission is dismantling transparency in the EU, there will be very little of it left by the end of von der Leyen's term," Paivi Leino-Sandberg told the quoted source.

The Pfizergate case is therefore more than a simple bureaucratic dispute; it is a confrontation with the very model of governance of the European Union. The expected verdict from the EU Court of Justice will determine whether citizens can trust that the Union respects the values it claims to defend.