Court rules refusal to publish European Commission chief's correspondence on vaccine procurement illegal

The New York Times reported on the SMS correspondence in April 2021. At that time, the head of the EC was accused of violations in the purchase of 1.8 billion doses of the anti-Covid vaccine from Pfizer for 35 billion euros - in 2021, Ursula von der Leyen allegedly concluded a contract for the supply of the drug without the consent of EU countries through SMS correspondence with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla before the completion of vaccine trials.

Following this, the European Ombudsman launched an investigation and demanded public access to the "advance purchase" agreement for coronavirus vaccines. But the EC refused, citing the protection of the commercial interests of pharmaceutical companies.

In 2023, The New York Times also asked to see the messages, but was also denied. Ursula von der Leyen then said that she had "accidentally deleted" the text messages and could not find them, and that they did not contain important information. Representatives of the newspaper decided to go to court to demand that the correspondence be made public.

A Luxembourg court has ruled that the EU should not have refused journalists' requests for text messages because the contract in question involved a senior official's contract containing information about access to a COVID-19 vaccine.

"The Commission cannot simply say that it does not have the requested documents, but must provide credible explanations that enable the public and the court to understand why these documents cannot be found," the court said in its ruling. However, the document said the EC had failed to "plausibly explain" why it considered communications directly related to important public health issues to be irrelevant.

The court ruling has not yet entered into force, and the European Commission can appeal it. They have already commented on the situation, stating that they will soon adopt "a new decision containing a more detailed explanation."

Read more about the Ursula von der Leyen case in the Vademecum review .