The European Union’s top court has reversed its earlier decision to block access to a text message from Ursula von der Leyen related to drug enforcement during the pandemic, marking a significant setback for the committee president.
On Wednesday, the European Court of Justice annulled a November 2022 ruling by the European Commission, which had denied the New York Times access following requests for information.
The court determined that the committee failed to adhere to EU regulations regarding transparency. In its assessment, it criticized the committee for not providing a convincing justification for withholding the requested documents.
It’s still uncertain whether the committee will choose to release the message, although it retains the option to appeal. EU officials mentioned they may look to block access to the texts by implementing a new decision that offers a more detailed rationale for their position.
This ruling is pivotal for Von der Leyen, especially as she approaches the end of her five-year term as head of the EU’s executive branch. Although she has been recognized as an effective Crisis Manager, she has also consistently faced criticism for a management style that some perceive as lacking transparency.
Earlier this year, a challenge led by the New York Times and its Brussels director, Matina Stevis Gridneff, brought attention to the committee’s refusal to publish specific text messages.
The existence of a text between Von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla came to light through the newspaper, which prompted interviews with both parties.
It was claimed that Von der Leyen’s personal diplomacy facilitated the acquisition of 1.8 billion Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines, especially when the EU lagged behind the UK and Israel in obtaining supplies. However, critics later pointed out that the committee may have overpaid for the vaccine after it was disclosed that Pfizer had raised its price.
In May 2021, investigative journalist Alexander Fanta requested the publication of these texts under EU freedom of information laws. After the Commission declined, he escalated the matter to the European Ombudsman.
Fanta noted that access to Von der Leyen’s text could clarify whether the EU had essentially become Pfizer’s biggest customer, citing reports of significant price increases.
The New York Times sought judicial intervention in May 2022 to examine the text messages and contest the committee’s earlier denial. The court’s rejection of that request was anticipated, as the judge had previously offered critical feedback on the committee’s legal arguments.
The committee had claimed that the message was merely to coordinate a meeting; however, a lawyer admitted they had not seen the message and couldn’t confirm its current status.
On Wednesday, the court emphasized that the committee had not sufficiently clarified whether the message had been deleted, nor if that deletion was intentional or automatic, or whether there had been a phone exchange during that period.
Alberto Alemanno, a professor of EU law at HEC Paris Business School, expressed that this ruling could lead to enhanced accountability from EU leaders. He remarked that the judgment reinforces the notion that the EU must comply with the rule of law under constant watch from the media and independent courts.
Transparency International praised the ruling as a milestone, highlighting that the committee’s inconsistent approach to transparency was unacceptable.
A spokesperson for the New York Times stated that the court’s decision represents a victory for transparency and accountability in the EU, stressing that temporary communications should remain subject to public scrutiny.
