In front of a huge challenge this week is the leader of the Commission, Ursula von der Layenas the EU Court of Justice will rule on the secret messages it exchanged with the head of Pfizer, Albert Bourlafor the vaccines Many billion euros worth purchased by the EU in the pandemic.

The EU Court of Justice will decide whether, refusing to disclose the content of its conversation with its Pfizer CEO, the Commission has violated the rules of transparency.

Wednesday’s decision on the so -called Pfizergate will not only have a sweeping impact on how top European officials make agreements behind closed doors, but could also shade the second term of von der Laien, which began on December 1st.

The head of the European Commission is already criticizing its tendency to gather powers and back up with environmentally friendly commitments.

At the heart of the case is set if the messages must be described as documents and therefore must be published in the name of transparency. While many argue that they should be treated just like any other means of formal communication when related to policy -related, the Commission says no.

Great embarrassment

The case is legally complicated for von der Layen, because on the one hand he personally signed the EU’s largest vaccines in the EU vaccines, on the other hand, on the other hand, the institution responsible for the enforcement of EU law, which includes the principles of transparency and accountability. If the court rules against her, this will give political weapons to many critics.

“This court ruling could signal a turning point for transparency in the EU,” said Shari Hinds of the NGO Transparency International. “When it comes to basic decisions, especially those that affect public health, secrecy should be avoided.”

The case was launched by a New York Times report and the former head of the newspaper in Brussels, who filed a lawsuit against the committee’s decision not to publish messages with Bourla in 2022.

The existence of the messages was revealed in an interview with the New York Times in April 2021, when Bourla described their exchange as reinforcing “deep confidence” and facilitating the negotiation for a substantial vaccine agreement. This agreement, concluded in May 2021, included the EU’s commitment to buy up to 1.8 billion doses of the Pfizer-Biontech vaccine for Covid-19, the largest farm of all the agreements signed by Brussels.

It provided for the original purchase of 900 million tranches, with an option for another 900 million, with a tradition in 2022 and 2023.

Call

The European Ombudsman found in 2022 that the committee’s omission to search for these text messages was equivalent to malevolence.

Emily O’Reilly, a mediator from 2013 to 2025, described it as a “awakening cover” for the EU institutions.

He said that the transparency had receded during the term of Ursula von der Laeen.

And she targeted von der Layen herself, accusing her of an interview with Politico last year of creating a culture of “concealment” for political reasons.

He also criticized the absence of von der Laen from the only judicial hearing that has been made so far in the case. “The elephant who wasn’t in the room,” he said. “One person who could tell us everything was not there.”

In a statement to Politico, the Commission said that “it never refused to exchange written messages with Pfizer’s chief executive. At that time, when people were going through a heavy pandemic, many leaders were in regular contact with CEO of Pharmaceutical Companies. “

The exchange of written messages “does not mean that the contracts were negotiated at this level or even through the exchange of written messages,” he added.

The Commission said that “transparency is of the utmost importance for the Commission and President von der Laen” and that “significant progress has been made in recent years” in terms of “opening, accountability and clear communication”.

Tilly Metz, one of the five members of the European Parliament that brought the case to the General Court, asked the question of who or what was behind the reluctance of von der Laieni to disclose information. “It has bad advisers,” he said. “If you want citizens to have confidence in politicians and what they do – and in their contacts with industry – you have to emphasize transparency.”

While acknowledging that the pandemic was a “very new situation”, she believes von der Lien failed to take the right lessons.

As part of the case to be tried on Wednesday, the Court had a hearing in Luxembourg in November, which implied that it was cautious about the Commission’s refusal to publish the text messages.

After years of ambiguity even about the existence of messages, the committee’s lawyers eventually admitted that they existed. This caused laughter among those present, but also impatience between judges.

“We do not deny that the messages exist,” said Commission lawyer Paulo Stankanelli during the hearing.

The committee’s lawyer denied their importance, saying that they would have kept them – and possibly allocated – if they were related to the contract with the Pfizer.

The judges showed signs of annoyance because the committee repeatedly did not explain how it decided what was important or not. Did they ask questions in which the committee official could not answer: Did they ask von der Laien about messages directly? Did they check her phone or her invoices? Did they challenge her head of office?

After more than three hours of discussion, the judges criticized the committee’s stance.

Judge José Martín Y Pérez de Nanclares said the executive had not sufficiently explained why he could not share the messages. Another judge, Paul Nihoul, criticized the “confused envelope”.

Bondine Kloostra, a New York Times lawyer, said it was “very disappointing how unprepared” the committee spokesman was at the hearing.

“We still don’t know what happened on von der Liean’s phone, what kind of messages were exchanged and whether they were exchanged via a laptop or any other device. We do not know yet where the committee has been looking for, “he said.

Pressure in von der Laen is increasing beyond this decision. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office, which has undertaken the investigation of serious financial crimes against EU financial interests, has confirmed that it is conducting an investigation against the Commission on the handling of vaccines.

In March, the head of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, Laura Codruța Kövesi, confirmed that her office recently interviewed the committee officials on how to take vaccine negotiations, but said she would not comment on an investigation.