Will we see the messages sent by Ursula von der Leyen to the boss Pfizer? What follows after the stinging defeat of the European Commission in the “Pfizergate” file

The European Commission was wrong when it blocked the access to the messages sent by Ursula von der Leyen to the head of Pfizer, before the acquisition of Covid vaccines, an EU court decided. While the decision represents a victory for transparency and a political blow to Ursula von der Leyen, it is currently if we find out the content of the messages. The European Prosecutor's Office could help us in this regard, writes Politico.

In a long-awaited decision, with huge political and legal implications, the EU Court was pronounced against the European Commission, on its refusal to publish the text messages between Ursula von Der Leyen and the general director of Pfizer, Albert Bourla, at the Covid-19 vaccine negotiations in 2021.

The essence of the judged problem was whether text messages were to be classified as documents and, therefore, eligible to be published in the name of transparency.

The decision represents a blow to the president of the European Executive and may be a turning point for the EU transparency rules

What is next now?

What was the Pfizergate file

The decision given by the EU General Court, a specialized court within the Court of Justice of the European Union, has established that the decision of the Commission to reject a journalist for access to messages between Von Der Leyen and Bourla violated the principle of good administration, enshrined in the EU.

The case came from an application for access to documents submitted in 2022 by journalist Matina Stevis-Gridneff at the New York Times, who asked to see communications-including text messages-between Von Der Leyen and Bourla, after their existence was revealed in an interview.

Initially, the Commission argued that messages do not qualify as “documents” in accordance with its internal norms, because of their ephemeral nature, and that such texts could not be found in its archives.

The European executive has maintained the ambiguity on the existence of messages and, at the same time, denied their importance – without truly clarifying how the request treated.

This has led to suspicions that he simply did not really seek them-despite the norms that apply to the EU administrations on transparency obligations, the court decision is shown.

“The Commission violated the principle of good administration, limiting itself to invoke the non-existence of the requested documents, without providing any explanation regarding the reason why the requested documents could not be found,” the court said.

Why is the Pfizergate file important?

Wednesday's decision is a historical legal decision – as well as a political blow to von der Leyen, writes Polito.

“The cases related to access to documents from European institutions are often extremely political, because if the problem comes to a judge, it is usually because the commission or another institution refuses to disclose information that could cause political damage,” said Vincent Couronne, a European law researcher at the Paris-Saclay University.

The decision does not just say that the commission was wrong – he says he should have known better.

The judges blamed the Commission that he actually asked the applicant to prove the existence of texts, which is an “impossible” standard for ordinary citizens.

The decision is also particularly harmful due to the profile of the actors involved. Von Der Leyen is the most powerful EU official and EU treaties. And Bourla is one of the most powerful directors of pharmaceutical companies in the world. It is the largest contract ever signed by the EU, the European Court of Accounts said.

The supporters of transparency, who claim that the commission should establish the standards in terms of transparency, not to avoid them, enjoy a major victory.

“This decision is more than transparency: it is about restoring the institutional responsibility of the European Commission, which was completely lacking,” said Shari Hinds, responsible for political integrity policies for the Transparency International NGO.

What does the decision for the future activity of EU officials mean

The case highlights a major gray area in the EU Norms on transparency: Are text messages official documents?

“The documents represent any content, regardless of support, regarding the policy of the European Union, so from this point of view … it is difficult to claim that SMS messages are not documents,” said Couronne.

“This decision could encourage European elected officials and officials to prefer voice exchanges instead of SMS. In the current ecosystem of business communications, the border between SMS, e-mail, WhatsApp, Slack and the like have become very thin,” he said.

The court did not say that every SMS is a public record. But he confirmed that messages can be subject to transparency legislation if they refer to official business.

It is an alarm signal for EU institutions and for all those trying to influence them: digital messages are not automatically outside the law and you cannot completely avoid control by using them.

In practice, it remains to be seen to what extent any text can be accessed.

Will Ursula von der Leyen have problems?

Probably yes, I think the observers.

Critics in the whole spectrum – especially green and extreme right – have long held the living subject. Now, however, important political personalities have begun to intervene, qualifying the decision as a great shame for the commission.

Dutch MEP Raquel García Hermida-Van der Walle, from the Centrist Renew group, cataloged the decision as “a victory for transparency”.

Finally, however, the true EU power is still in the national capitals, and after this decision, there were not too many protests on their part.

What will the commission now do before?

The Commission will probably have to re -examine the initial access request, do adequate investigations and provide a new legal motivation if it does not disclose the respective documents again.

The judges also decided that the European Executive will have to pay the costs for the New York Times.

The Court observed that the interpretation of the commission regarding what qualifies as a document – and the period when it must be kept – does not deprive anyone of his right to request a document or the obligation of the commission to seek.

Internal practices could now be under examination and the commission may have to clarify its own internal norms.

The Commission also has two months to decide if it will appeal against the Court's decision.

Will we eventually see messages?

Maybe – but it is not clear if it will happen.

The decision admits that the recovery of messages could be difficult. The phones may have been changed. The data may have disappeared.

“When asked about this in the hearing, the Commission said he assumed that the president's mobile phone has been replaced” since the New York Times submitted the case, “because it was a mandatory rule for security,” the decision shows.

However, the decision increases the pressure on the commission for it to carry out at least now appropriate research and provide a suitable legal reasoning if it states that it cannot recover the documents.

From his statement on Wednesday morning, after pronouncement, it seems that the Commission is inclined to provide a new motivation about why he cannot fulfill his transparency obligations, stating that he will “adopt a new decision to provide a more detailed explanation.”

But there is another way. The European Prosecutor's Office is already conducting a criminal investigation into the purchase of vaccines. This means that investigators could, theoretically, access telecommunications providers or app servers to recover deleted messages – depending on local data keeping.