EU court rules Ursula von der Leyen not transparent enough on COVID-19 contracts
European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen handed major blow as she seeks second term
A top EU court has ruled European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen was not transparent enough with the public on COVID-19 vaccine contracts.
The decision is a major blow to von der Leyen’s bid to become European Commission President for a second term.
The General Court of the European Union ruled against the Commission’s decision to redact large parts of the contracts before making them available.
The ruling came just over 24 hours before von der Leyen’s political future will be decided by members of the European Parliament. She needs 361 of the 720 EU lawmakers to back her in a secret vote that is expected to be close.
One of the groups that von der Leyen has been seeking support from is the Greens, members of which brought this vaccine court case.
They filed requests to access the vaccine contracts and certain related documents to understand the agreement between the Commission and Covid-19 vaccine manufacturers in 2021.
The Commission only agreed to give partial access to certain contracts, arguing that some sections had been redacted to protect commercial interests or for privacy matters. The Green MEPs then took the Commission to court over the refusal.
The General Court on Wednesday partially upheld the MEPs’ lawsuit and annulled the Commission’s decision to redact parts of the contracts.
It pushed against the Commission’s decision to conceal provisions on indemnification, arguing that the Commission failed to prove how those clauses would undermine the commercial interests of the pharmaceutical companies.
The Commission had also refused to disclose personal details of the officials who negotiated the purchase of the vaccines over privacy concerns. But the court found that the MEPs demonstrated the “public interest” in identifying that team, in order to ascertain if they had any conflicts of interest.
Tilly Metz, one of the Green MEPs who filed the lawsuit, said the ruling is “significant for the future” as the Commission is expected to perform more joint procurements — in health, but potentially also in defense.
“It is important that the court has confirmed the importance of proper justifications for protecting commercial interests,” she said in a statement.
“The new European Commission must now adapt their handling of access to documents requests to be in line with today’s ruling,” she added.
eter Liese, an MEP from the European People’s Party (the same political group as von der Leyen), played down the court ruling. He considers it “justifiable” that the Commission agreed to some of the pharmaceutical companies’ demands — including redacting certain clauses — to ensure quick access to vaccines for Europe.
“It is good that the Commission’s lawyers now analyse the judgment in detail and draw conclusions from it, but the conclusion that the Commission got everything wrong can already be disproved at first glance at the judgment,” he added.
The Commission pointed out how the court agreed that certain clauses of the contracts were covered by protection of commercial interest, thus only partially upholding the claims in the lawsuit.
“In these cases, the Commission needed to strike a difficult balance between the right of the public, including MEPs, to information, and the legal requirements emanating from the COVID-19 contracts themselves, which could result in claims for damages at the cost of taxpayers’ money,” the Commission said in a statement.
The executive continued that it will “carefully study the Court’s judgments and their implications” and that it “reserves its legal options.”
Related
![[WATCH] Robert Abela tells Tripoli meeting better strategy needed to address immigration](https://europe.easybranches.com/images/2024/07/450x250/6589547.jpg)
Share this page
Guest Posts by Easy Branches
