Advocate General Athanasios Rantos advises the Court of Justice to reject an appeal filed by the European Commission. In doing so, he supports an earlier ruling by the General Court, which found that the European Commission had not provided sufficient access to documents regarding vaccine purchases.
Pharmaceutical Companies
The case centers on contracts the European Commission signed in 2020 and 2021 with various pharmaceutical companies for delivering vaccines to EU countries. Members of the European Parliament and citizens requested access to documents that should clarify how these agreements were made.
According to the EU Commissioners, certain data could not be made public due to privacy reasons and the protection of commercial interests. Therefore, some documents were partially released, with the names of involved negotiators and parts of contracts redacted.
Promotion
Not Secret
The advocate general, however, believes the European Commission has not sufficiently demonstrated why this information needed to remain confidential. According to the legal adviser, the limited disclosure makes it difficult to verify how the negotiations proceeded and whether possible conflicts of interest were involved.
An important point of discussion concerns the identities of employees who represented the European Union in contract negotiations. The Commission argued that revealing their names could pose risks. Opponents, however, contend that transparency is necessary to strengthen public trust.
Vague
Several contractual provisions also remained hidden from the public. According to the advocate general, the Commission inadequately substantiated why releasing those passages would harm the commercial interests of pharmaceutical companies.
Pfitzergate
The case is not isolated. The debate about transparency around vaccine purchases also occurred in another legal procedure in which the General Court ruled last year that the European Commission should not have disregarded text messages between Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and the CEO of Pfizer without further consideration.
That case, known as Pfizergate, also revolved around the question of how much public insight should be granted into the formation of European vaccine purchases during the coronavirus pandemic.
Non-Binding
The advocate general’s advice is non-binding but is often followed by the Court of Justice. A final ruling is still pending. If the Court adopts the advice, it would constitute another setback for the European Commission in a case concerning transparency and public oversight of European vaccine purchases during the coronavirus pandemic.