The European Commission was wrong to refuse to release text messages sent by Ursula von der Leyen to the head of Pfizer during negotiations to secure Covid-19 vaccines, the EU's top court has ruled. The General Court saidthe commission had not given a plausible explanation as to why the exchanges between its president and Pfizer's Albert Bourla could not be made public when an investigative journalist requested them in 2021. That year, Pfizer signed billions of euros in vaccine contracts with the EU, including a deal for 1.8bn extra doses. The content of the messages between von der Leyen and Mr Bourla remains secret, in a simmering case that has become known in Brussels as Pfizergate. Anti-corruption group Transparency International has hailed the European Court's ruling asa "landmark victory for transparency in the EU", adding that it should serve as a catalyst to put an end to a "restrictive attitude to freedom of information". Von der Leyen became Commission president in 2019, and within a year faced the task of leading the EU's response to the Covid pandemic. She won a second five-year term late last year. Wednesday's ruling threatens to damage her reputation, because of the apparent lack of transparency surrounding the Pfizer vaccine deal, in which she played such a significant role. The Commission said it would closely study the ruling and consider its next steps, but it insisted thattransparency had "always been of paramount importance". The controversy erupted in April 2021, when New York Times journalist Matina Stevis revealed how Ursula von der Leyen had negotiated privately with the Pfizer boss after his German partner BioNTech won regulatory approval for its Covid drug. The article spurred investigative journalist Alexander Fanta, who worked for a German publication, to use a Freedom of Information request to see the exchange of messages between January 2021 and May 2022. But the European Commission turned him down, saying it did not have the documents. Under the Commission's transparency rules, all staff including the president, have to archive their documents. However, mobile text messages are a grey area, and the case has largely hinged on whether or not they should be considered as important records. One EU official argued this week that SMS messages were not "systematically considered public documents" and not recorded as such. Fanta took the case to the European Ombudsman in 2021, where an inquiryfound that the Commission's failure to look for the text messagesbeyond its usual record-keeping amounted to maladministration. Stevis and the New York Times followed up, and when the messages were still not released, they took the European Commission to court. Ruling on Stevis's challenge, the court said on Wednesday that the EU's executive had relied "either on assumptions or on changing or imprecise information", while the journalist and the New York Times had succeeded in rebutting their claims. The court said that if a presumption was rebutted then it was up to the Commission to prove that documents either did not exist or it did not possess them. The Commission had not clarified whether or not the text messages had been deleted, the court ruled, and if they had been deleted, whether that was done deliberately or whether von der Leyen had since changed her mobile phone.
European Commission wrong to deny release of von der Leyen messages, court says
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"EU Court Rules Against Commission's Refusal to Release Von der Leyen's Pfizer Messages"
Bbc News
8.0
TruthLens AI Summary
The European Commission has been ruled against by the EU's top court regarding its refusal to disclose text messages exchanged between Ursula von der Leyen, the Commission's president, and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla. The General Court stated that the Commission failed to provide a credible explanation for withholding these communications, which were sought by an investigative journalist in 2021. This request was made during a critical period when Pfizer secured significant vaccine contracts with the EU, including a deal for 1.8 billion additional doses. The case, referred to as 'Pfizergate', has raised serious questions about transparency in the Commission's dealings, particularly given von der Leyen's prominent role in negotiating these contracts. Anti-corruption organization Transparency International has welcomed the court's decision as a pivotal victory for transparency within the EU and has called it a vital step towards combating the restrictive nature of information access within the institution.
The controversy began in April 2021 when a report by New York Times journalist Matina Stevis highlighted von der Leyen's private negotiations with Bourla after BioNTech, Pfizer's German partner, received approval for its Covid vaccine. Following this revelation, journalist Alexander Fanta filed a Freedom of Information request to obtain the messages exchanged between January 2021 and May 2022. The Commission's denial of this request, citing a lack of available documents, led to further scrutiny. The case escalated, with Fanta appealing to the European Ombudsman, which found that the Commission's failure to search for the messages beyond standard record-keeping constituted maladministration. The court's ruling emphasized that the Commission had relied on unsubstantiated claims in its defense. It was determined that the burden of proof lies with the Commission to demonstrate the non-existence or unavailability of the requested documents. The ruling poses a potential threat to von der Leyen's reputation, as it highlights the opaque nature of the negotiations surrounding the Pfizer vaccine, and the Commission is now evaluating its next steps while asserting its commitment to transparency.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The recent ruling by the European Court regarding the European Commission's refusal to release text messages between Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer's CEO, Albert Bourla, has raised significant questions about transparency and accountability in the EU's handling of the Covid-19 vaccine negotiations. This development appears to challenge the Commission's stance on information sharing and could have repercussions for von der Leyen's reputation.
Transparency and Accountability Implications
The court's decision underscores the importance of transparency, particularly when public health decisions are made under unprecedented circumstances. The ruling serves as a push against the European Commission’s previous refusal to disclose communications that could shed light on the negotiation processes. Anti-corruption advocates view this as a victory, suggesting that it may encourage broader reforms in how information is disseminated within EU institutions.
Public Perception and Trust
This ruling might lead to a public perception that the EU is not fully open about its dealings, especially those involving substantial financial contracts for vaccines. The secrecy surrounding these negotiations can erode trust in the Commission, particularly during a time when public confidence in health authorities is crucial. The term "Pfizergate" reflects an ongoing narrative that could shape public discourse around government transparency and accountability.
Potential Motives for Concealment
There might be underlying motives for the Commission's resistance to disclosure. Speculations could arise that sensitive information or negotiations may have included terms or conditions that could be politically or financially damaging if made public. The refusal to release these texts raises questions about what the Commission might be trying to protect, potentially indicating deeper issues regarding the vaccine procurement process.
Analysis of Reliability and Manipulation
The reliability of this news can be considered high, given that it is based on a judicial ruling from a reputable institution. However, the framing of the issue—focusing on the implications of the ruling and the secrecy surrounding the negotiations—could lead to manipulation of public sentiment. The language used in reporting may evoke feelings of distrust towards governmental processes, which could be seen as a form of persuasion to invoke a reaction from the public.
Connection to Broader Themes
This case connects to broader themes of governance, ethical decision-making, and the role of transparency in democratic societies. News surrounding the EU's vaccine strategy could also influence public opinion about ongoing health measures and government responses to crises. The implications could extend to various sectors, including political discourse and public health policy.
Impact on Financial Markets
While the immediate impact on stock markets may be limited, the ruling could affect investor confidence in companies involved in vaccine production and distribution. Shares of Pfizer and similar firms may experience volatility based on public sentiment and political repercussions stemming from this ruling.
In conclusion, the ruling against the European Commission reflects a pivotal moment for transparency in EU governance. It raises essential questions about the balance between confidentiality in negotiations and the public's right to know, especially regarding health matters that affect millions. The overall reliability of the news is bolstered by the judicial nature of the ruling, but the framing and potential implications suggest it could be used to shape public opinion and trust in governmental institutions.