In a judgment that could help shape how transparent European Union must be in matters of public interest, the judges said on Wednesday that the block should not have refused to the request of a journalist of text messages exchanged as a senior official negotiated for access to the coronavirus vaccine.
The decision was rendered by the second highest court in the European Union, the General Court, in Luxembourg, in a case filed by the New York Times against the European Commission in 2023.
The case was focused on the committee’s decision not to publish SMS between Ursula von der Leyen, the chairman of the commission, and the general manager of Pfizer, Albert Bourla, whom the two had exchanged in 2021 while concluding an agreement for the COVVI-19 vaccines.
The legal question at the heart of the case was whether these text messages were considered documents under European Union law, and in which cases they should have been preserved and disclosed. The Commission argued that text messages were “short -lived” and were therefore not covered by the transparency requirements of the block.
“The Commission can only say that it does not hold the requested documents but must provide credible explanations allowing the public and the court to understand why these documents cannot be found,” said judges in their decision.
“The Commission also did not explain in a plausibly why it considered that text messages exchanged in the context of the purchase of COVVI-19 vaccines did not contain important information,” they added.
The European Commission can call on the verdict.
The case has raised questions about the quantity of information that the public should obtain on negotiations that cost taxpayers and shape public policies, and this could also establish a legal precedent on what is considered an official document in the European Union.
It could also have implications for the reputation of disclosure of the European Commission at an important time. Ms. von der Leyen began her second five -year term as head of the commission, the executive branch of the block, at the end of last year, and she defended fundamental values such as democracy and transparency of her image.
“This is a case on transparency, but in the end, this is a case of responsibility,” said Nick Aiossa, director of the Transparency International EU group, an anti -corruption group.
The decision is the culmination of back and forth years.
The Times reported in April 2021 that Mrs. Von Der Leyen and Dr. Bourla exchanged SMS and calls for a month while they were negotiating on EU access to vaccines.
After reading this article, Alexander Fanta, then a journalist in a German media, filed a request for freedom of information from the commission asking for the SMS. They were not given to them. The EU mediator criticized this decision, arguing that the Commission had engaged in bad administration by not adequately looking for text messages in response to Mr. Fanta’s request.
But the commission did not decide.
The Times and his former head of the Brussels office, Matina Stevis-Gridneff, followed a similar request for messages. When access to messages was refused, the Times brought the committee before the courts, lodging a complaint in early 2023.
Throughout the trial, the Commission argued that text messages did not have to be saved and disclosed, arguing that, because these messages are short -lived, they are not subject to the rules of retention and transparency of the European Union.
The representatives of the block did not say if someone in the commission other than Mrs. Von der Leyen at any time examined the content of the messages. At one point, he said he couldn’t find the relevant messages.
And Paolo Stancanelli, a lawyer representing the commission, said during an audience in November: “I am unable to tell you until they existed, or if they still exist.”
When the two parties presented their affairs in Luxembourg at this hearing last year, the Times lawyers argued that the European Commission actively encouraged its staff members to use text messages in communication.
The messages drew attention partly because they concerned a subject of great public interest – the agreement for hairstyle vaccines.
The agreement with Pfizer was one of the largest supply contracts in the history of the European Union. He has been praised by many as a success: through it, the block managed to guarantee 1.8 billion doses, enough fire to increase vaccination rates across the European Union.
However, the Commission was plagued by complaints of transparency surrounding negotiations for the agreement.
The commission has published expurgated purchase agreements but did not disclose the complete terms of the contracts it has obtained for the wearing vaccines. He said he had to find a balance between making information public and meet the legal requirements of vaccine contracts.
Text message problems are only to deepen concerns about disclosure.
“Transparency and public access to government documents play a vital role in democratic surveillance,” said Bondine Kloostra, Times lawyer, in her first argument at the hearing in 2024.
