EU Court: ‘Commission failed to ensure sufficient information on contracts for anti-COVID vaccines’

Brussels – The European Commission lacked transparency in the health crisis and the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The EU General Court called to rule on the management of the spread of Coronavirus has no doubts: “The Commission did not give the public sufficiently wide access to the purchase agreements for COVID-19 vaccines.“ More specifically, “that infringement concerns those agreements’ provisions on indemnification, and concerns the declarations that there was no conflict of interest on the part of the members of the team who negotiated the purchase of the vaccines,” the Luxembourg Court points out in the judgment.

The story of not being given access to the papers is not new and has only moved from Parliament to the Court. Europeans, as early as January 2021, had expressed discontent over the lack of transparency for contracts entered into by the von der Leyen team with pharmaceutical companies between 2020 and 2021. Contracts worth about €2.7 billion. Members of Parliament requested access to the documents, complaining about the partial availability of the papers.

Today, on the eve of a very sensitive vote for the re-election of von der Leyen to the head of the EU Executive, the General Court issued a ruling that is bound to be controversial, as the appeal against the European Commission is partially upheld. Reasons are recognized on one side as well as the other. Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, which purchased the anti-Covid vaccines on behalf of the 27 Member States, is being challenged with the fact that she ” did not take sufficient account of all the relevant circumstances in order to weigh up correctly the interests at issue, related to the absence of a conflict of interests and a risk that the right of privacy of the persons concerned might be infringed.”

The European Commission takes note and takes its time to study the ruling and its implications. Nonetheless, it attempts an initial explanation and defense of its reasons. “In general, the Commission grants the widest possible public access to documents, in line with the principles of openness and transparency,” it said in a statement. However, the EU Executive notes that in this specific case, ” the Commission needed to strike a difficult balance between the right of the public, including MEPs, to information, and the legal requirements emanating from the COVID-19 contracts themselves, which could result in claims for damages at the cost of taxpayers’ money.” The situation was not simple, and, given the emergency, the Commission had to handle it in a hurry.

 In any case, Brussels points out how the Commission “full information on the COVID-19 vaccine contracts.” Last but not least, it notes that the Commission “is responsible to ensure the absence of any conflict of interest, and also has the duty to protect the privacy and personal data of the individuals concerned.”

 The Commission is therefore pulling straight, but not accepting criticism or accusations, and is ready to stand up for itself: “At this stage, the Commission reserves its legal options.”