Setback for Ursula von der Leyen’s second term: EU Court rules sms ban with Pfizer CEO was unlawful.

The “Pfizergate” scandal, once buried along with the many controversies that have rocked Brussels during the last two EU mandates, is once again shaking the upper echelons of the Union. The EU General Court has upheld a legal challenge brought by The New York Times, overturning the European Commission’s decision to deny access to 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 concerns the period from January 1, 2021, to May 11, 2022 — a critical window during which negotiations over major vaccine procurement contracts took place.

According to the judges in Luxembourg, the Commission offered “vague, shifting, and hypothetical” responses, failing to credibly demonstrate that it had diligently searched for the messages or explained whether they had been archived or deleted — and if deleted, whether this was done automatically or deliberately.

While the ruling does not force the publication of the text messages, it delivers a strong rebuke to the conduct of the European Executive and marks a new milestone in the development of EU case law on institutional transparency. It challenges the self-congratulatory narrative often promoted by Brussels, at a time when the European Union is increasingly viewed with skepticism by its own citizens.

The Court also reaffirmed that, under the EU Regulation on public access to documents, citizens are entitled to “the widest possible access,” even to informal communications such as text messages. The New York Times’ argument — supported by Bourla’s own acknowledgment of a direct and personal exchange with von der Leyen — was deemed sufficient to override any presumption that the messages do not exist.

Now, the ruling obliges the Commission — which frequently proclaims its commitment to media pluralism while simultaneously distributing millions in subsidies to European outlets to ensure friendly coverage — to fill the legal vacuum and reconsider the press’s request.

Parliamentary questions on the matter are expected, and the political fallout from the verdict could ripple through the EU trilogue process and, in particular, the workings of the Commission itself.

Beyond the immediate media storm, the judicial intervention threatens to cast a long shadow over von der Leyen’s second term — especially at a time when she is attempting to regain political traction after the controversial “ReArm Europe” initiative and waning credibility in the context of EU diplomacy on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, an issue on which she has invested heavily in recent years.

Predictably, the ruling triggered strong reactions from opposition parties. Hungary’s government was quick to respond, declaring on social media platform X that, as always in Europe, “the fish rots from the head down.” Meanwhile, unaffiliated MEPs and members of the Patriots for Europe group have slammed von der Leyen’s leadership as “opaque and undemocratic.”

Adding fuel to the fire, the Commission’s legal service director was reassigned to Madrid on the very day of the ruling — a move that many observers found anything but coincidental.

While a possible appeal can still be lodged within two months and ten days, the Commission is now under pressure to provide concrete answers. For Ursula von der Leyen, the challenge is no longer merely legal — it is deeply political: to prove that even in times of crisis, transparency remains a democratic obligation. Even via SMS.

Photo: Philippe Stirnweiss | © European Union 2024 – Source: EP