EU Court's Ruling on Von der Leyen's Text Messages Marks Victory for Transparency
The European Union's highest court has delivered a significant blow to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen by annulling the European Commission's previous decision to deny the New York Times access to her text messages with a pharmaceutical executive during the pandemic. This ruling, handed down on Wednesday, highlights the ongoing tensions between governmental transparency and privacy within the EU.
The European Court of Justice determined that the Commission failed to comply with EU regulations on access to documents when it opted to withhold von der Leyen’s communications from May 2021. At the heart of the matter were text messages exchanged between von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla that reportedly played a crucial role in securing the delivery of vaccines during a critical phase of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The case originated in January 2023 when the New York Times, along with its Brussels bureau chief Matina Stevis-Gridneff, filed a freedom of information request regarding these messages. The court's ruling emphasized that the Commission's refusal was inadequately justified and lacked plausible explanations regarding the non-availability of the requested documents.
While the Commission has the right to appeal the ruling, its current stance suggests a willingness to continue blocking access to the texts. The EU executive indicated it would reassess the situation and issue a new decision regarding the freedom of information request, aiming to provide a clearer rationale for its stance.
This legal battle occurred amidst ongoing discussions about von der Leyen’s leadership style and her approach to transparency. As she navigates through her second five-year term, critics have pointed to her management style as overly centralized and lacking openness. The court ruling affirms the necessity for accountability, particularly as von der Leyen has been hailed as a crisis manager but simultaneously criticized for her decisions during the vaccine procurement process.
In the presented case, an investigative journalist named Alexander Fanta initially sought the release of these text messages in May 2021. After the Commission rejected his request, he turned to the European Ombudsman, which subsequently found the Commission guilty of maladministration in this specific context.
The contention revolves around allegations that the EU might have overpaid for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, with prices reportedly increased from €15.50 to €19.50 per dose, raising questions about procurement decisions and value for public spending.
During hearings, the Commission maintained that the text messages were solely for coordinating meetings. However, judges criticized the responses from Commission lawyers, particularly when they admitted to not having seen the texts themselves, directing questions about their existence and potential deletion.
Alberto Alemanno, a law professor at HEC Paris, stated that the court's decision serves as a potent reminder that EU governance operates under the rule of law, with leaders expected to be transparent and accountable to the public and the judiciary. This perspective was echoed by Transparency International, which called the ruling a landmark decision that challenges the Commission's inconsistent approach to transparency.
A spokesperson for the New York Times welcomed the court's ruling, deeming it a triumph for transparency and accountability in the EU, underscoring that brief communications are still subject to public oversight. This landmark decision may pave the way for greater scrutiny of governmental processes and encourage further inquiries into similar matters across the European Union, galvanizing the public’s right to know in the face of opaque dealings.
Related Sources: