Skip to main content
DeepRoots Network
PoliticsEuropean Union

New York Times Tackles European Commission Over Vaccine Deal Transparency

The newspaper advocates for greater access to government documents regarding COVID-19 vaccine negotiations.

By Jenny GrossSource: nytimes.com1 min read
New York Times Tackles European Commission Over Vaccine Deal Transparency
Image via nytimes.com

In brief

A legal battle in Luxembourg could redefine transparency in the EU regarding communications about public health contracts.

In a significant legal challenge, The New York Times has initiated a lawsuit against the European Commission in Luxembourg, demanding the release of text messages exchanged during the negotiation of a substantial COVID-19 vaccine contract with Pfizer. The case centers on whether these messages should be classified as official documents under EU transparency laws, potentially setting a precedent for future governance and public access to such communications.The argument underscores the essential nature of transparency in democratic institutions, with the newspaper’s lawyer, Bondine Kloostra, emphasizing the importance of public access to governmental documents. "This case highlights a critical issue: the need for accountability in government dealings, particularly when it involves life-saving agreements," she stated, urging the court to recognize the gravity of communications that might circumvent traditional documentation protocols.The lawsuit was filed following a freedom of information request for messages between Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, and Pfizer's CEO Albert Bourla. However, the Commission claimed it was unable to locate the requested messages, citing their transitory nature and asserting they did not require formal registration. There is a contentious aspect regarding whether an adequate search was conducted to retrieve these communications from Ms. von der Leyen's mobile device.Defending the Commission, lawyer Paolo Stancanelli argued that if substantive messages had existed, they would have been categorized as documents. He contended that there was no negotiation via text and that formal records had been maintained throughout the process.The outcome of this case could reshape the understanding of what constitutes an official document within the European Union, influencing future public inquiries into governmental potency and the negotiations behind significant contracts affecting public health.

Topics

More on this story