Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, is set to confront a no-confidence vote in the European Parliament this Thursday. While the initiative is unlikely to succeed, it presents a symbolic test of the European Union’s leadership at a tumultuous moment. In a recent appearance before Parliament, von der Leyen addressed accusations of inadequate transparency linked to a lawsuit from The New York Times. The lawsuit sought records of her communications with Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer, pertaining to the procurement of COVID-19 vaccines.
The challenge is spearheaded by Gheorghe Piperea, a far-right member from Romania, who has charged von der Leyen's commission with failing to maintain transparency standards. He cited instances of what he described as “opacity,” especially in relation to joint defense procurement strategies and the implementation of digital laws. The discontent echoes growing skepticism from far-right factions that question the EU's operational integrity and accountability.
A ruling from the General Court in Luxembourg earlier this year favored The Times, stating that the Commission's refusal to disclose von der Leyen's text messages lacked sufficient justification. As the vote looms, it serves not only as a platform for criticism but also reflects wider sentiments about the European project’s direction and the commission's governance ethos.
The challenge is spearheaded by Gheorghe Piperea, a far-right member from Romania, who has charged von der Leyen's commission with failing to maintain transparency standards. He cited instances of what he described as “opacity,” especially in relation to joint defense procurement strategies and the implementation of digital laws. The discontent echoes growing skepticism from far-right factions that question the EU's operational integrity and accountability.
A ruling from the General Court in Luxembourg earlier this year favored The Times, stating that the Commission's refusal to disclose von der Leyen's text messages lacked sufficient justification. As the vote looms, it serves not only as a platform for criticism but also reflects wider sentiments about the European project’s direction and the commission's governance ethos.
