A European court has ruled the European Commission erred in refusing to release text messages exchanged between Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. The case, dubbed “Pfizergate,” started to unfold in 2021, when Ursula von der Leyen revealed the existence of text messages in an interview with the New York Times.
Later, reporters had requested access to the confidential messages, which were reportedly sent before a multibillion-euro vaccine deal was struck between Pfizer and the European Union. The New York Times had previously reported that messages sent between January 1, 2021, and May 11, 2022—during the critical phase of the pandemic—could shed light on the massive vaccine procurement agreements.
In a statement, the EU’s General Court said the Commission had “failed to explain in a plausible manner why it considered that the text messages exchanged in the context of the procurement of Covid-19 vaccines did not contain important information … the retention of which must be ensured.”
During the hearing last year in Luxembourg about “Pfizergate,” the European Commission argued that the content of the texts was not significant enough to be classified as official documents and therefore had not been registered or made available to journalists.
In early 2023, a Belgian court opened a probe in the city of Liège in early 2023 after a criminal complaint was lodged by local lobbyist Frédéric Baldan.
Baldan alleged in his complaint that Pfizer CEO Bourla had exchanged personal text messages at the height of the pandemic with the European Commission president before the largest vaccine deal for the EU.
The European Public Prosecutor’s Office investigation will now focus on the role of the Commission President in the massive €20 billion deal with Pfizer, expected to come under intense scrutiny.
In its statement, the court added, “The Commission cannot simply claim that it does not possess the requested documents but must provide credible explanations that allow the public and the Court to understand why these documents cannot be found.”
