EU Court Adviser: Commission Hid COVID Vaccine Contract Details
A senior legal adviser to the European Court of Justice has ruled that the European Commission failed to justify extensive redactions in COVID-19 vaccine contracts concerning negotiator identities and liability clauses.
Advocate General Athanasios Rantos delivered his opinion on June 12, recommending that the Court reject the Commission’s appeal against a 2024 General Court ruling, according to Brussels Signal. The opinion upholds earlier findings that the executive branch failed to justify the extensive redactions made to the contracts.
The legal opinion targets two critical areas of concern: the identities and conflict-of-interest declarations of members on the Commission’s joint negotiation team, and the contractual provisions granting indemnification—essentially liability protection—to pharmaceutical companies.
Rantos argued that transparency in the COVID-19 vaccine negotiation process represents a specific public interest under European Union law. He determined that the Commission’s publication of anonymized conflict-of-interest declarations was insufficient for citizens to properly evaluate the impartiality of negotiators.
Regarding the indemnification clauses, the Advocate General found that the Commission had not adequately proven that disclosure would damage the commercial interests of pharmaceutical companies or heighten their liability exposure.
Litigation Stems From Parliamentary Access Requests
The legal battle originated from access requests filed by multiple Members of the European Parliament and private citizens seeking complete versions of agreements signed between the Commission and companies including Pfizer, BioNTech, Moderna, and AstraZeneca during the pandemic emergency.
The Commission released only heavily redacted contract versions, invoking commercial confidentiality and personal data protection as justification for the blackouts.
While the Advocate General’s opinion is not legally binding, the Court of Justice follows such recommendations in the overwhelming majority of cases. A final judgment is anticipated later this year.
€71 Billion Programme Shrouded in Secrecy
The opinion arrives amid persistent public skepticism surrounding the lack of transparency in the EU’s €71 billion vaccine procurement programme, one of the largest joint purchases in the bloc’s history.
Transparency advocates and numerous MEPs have consistently maintained that excessive secrecy has eroded public confidence in EU institutions and prevented proper oversight of liability arrangements, pricing structures, and potential conflicts of interest.
Five MEPs from the Greens/EFA group initiated the lawsuit against the European Commission in April 2022. Brussels Signal reports that the party did not provide comment by publication time.
Von der Leyen Commission Under Fire
The Commission has steadfastly defended its secrecy stance, contending that full disclosure could undermine negotiations with pharmaceutical corporations and expose sensitive commercial information.
However, this latest Court opinion reinforces the General Court’s previous determination that the Commission failed to properly balance commercial interests against the public’s fundamental right to transparency.
The case underscores a persistent pattern for the von der Leyen Commission: repeated accusations of inadequate openness, particularly on high-stakes matters involving major industry players and public expenditure.
Transparency advocates view the development as a meaningful victory for accountability, despite arriving years after the vaccines were deployed across the continent.
The European General Court has previously criticized Commission President Ursula von der Leyen for refusing to disclose text messages exchanged with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, adding to mounting concerns about the administration’s commitment to open governance on pandemic-related contracts.
With information from Brussels Signal
