The European Union’s General Court has annulled a European Commission decision that denied a journalist from The New York Times daily access to text messages exchanged between Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and pharmaceutical company Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla. The verdict marks a significant legal and political blow to the EU’s executive arm, raising fresh doubts about von der Leyen’s leadership style and her handling of transparency obligations.
“Von der Leyen has gathered more power than any other president before her, leading the Commission with a centralized and secretive approach — and this has clearly backfired,” Olivier Hoedeman of Corporate Europe Observatory, a Brussel’s based watchdog, told DW.
The controversial Pfizergate case involves messages that were reportedly exchanged during the EU’s negotiation of a multibillion-euro COVID-19 vaccine contract with Pfizer during the coronavirus pandemic. The existence of the private communication was first hinted at in a 2021 interview, sparking widespread concern over opaque decision-making at the heart of the EU.
Later that year, New York Times journalist Matina Stevis-Gridneff submitted a request to access the messages, according to EU transparency laws, which the Commission rejected, claiming it did not possess them. That refusal prompted the US daily to challenge the decision before the General Court.
No ‘plausible explanation’
The EU court has now concluded that the Commission failed to justify its claim that it did not possess the requested documents credibly — and that it did not demonstrate it had made adequate efforts to locate or preserve them. The judges also ruled that text messages sent in the context of public procurement should be treated as official EU documents.
In an interview with DW, Transparency International’s Shari Hinds said the decision was “a real victory for transparency,” adding that it represented a step toward restoring public trust and institutional accountability.
In response to the ruling, the European Commission said it would take note of the General Court’s decision and acknowledged the need to provide a more detailed explanation as to why it was not able to provide the requested text messages. However, it underlined that the Court had not challenged the Commission’s overall document registration policy, and said that, therefore, no change to these rules was foreseen. “Transparency has always been of paramount importance,” the Commission said in a statement, reaffirming its commitment to openness and accountability under the existing legal framework.
The EU’s main executive body can now appeal the ruling or comply by either releasing the messages — if they still exist — or providing a detailed account for their absence, including information about whether they were deleted and if so under what circumstances.
‘Humilitation and resounding defeat’
“The Commission keeps repeating its commitment to transparency, but when it comes to implementing those principles, it’s falling short,” Päivi Leino-Sandberg, Professor of Transnational European Law at the University of Helsinki, told DW, adding that the body did not “even acknowledge the problem.”
Many members of the European Parliament also reacted sharply. Martin Schirdewan, co-chair of The Left Group called the ruling “a humiliation and resounding defeat” for the Commission. He accused von der Leyen of damaging democracy through her secrecy and demanded that she publish the messages immediately. Anything less, he warned, would be irresponsible — and grounds for her to step down.
Hoedeman argued that by presiding over the very institution tasked with enforcing EU law and overseeing the vaccine negotiations directly, von der Leyen had played a dual role that had “created a clear conflict of interest.” He said that the ruling was thus not only a scandal for the European Commission but for its president herself.
He said that when an institution responsible for enforcing transparency failed to hold its own leadership to account, public confidence eventually took a hit, particularly if the leadership appeared to benefit from a lack of scrutiny. “This has damaged trust in both the Commission and the EU as a whole,” he explained.
Furthermore, he added that while the Commission had defended its approach by citing the urgency of the pandemic, crisis conditions could not justify a lack of transparency. “The Commission must start seeing transparency as something to embrace, not fear. Otherwise, it fuels conspiracy theories instead of trust.”
‘Accountability and oversight’ needed
Transparency watchdogs and legal experts said the court’s decision called for a turning point in Brussels’ handling of executive communications. “Decisions affecting millions shouldn’t be made through private texts,” Hinds said. “They need to happen in formal settings, with accountability and oversight.”
The message from critics is clear: Policymaking, especially when it comes to public health and finance, should not be done in the shadows.
The controversy comes at a sensitive time for the EU. As far-right, nationalist forces gain traction in several member states and many citizens grow increasingly skeptical of Brussels, institutional trust is a critical asset.
The European Parliament might now demand an independent inquiry, and civil society groups are calling for stricter regulations to ensure all official communications are archived and accessible.
Whether von der Leyen can weather the fallout remains uncertain. But with legal scrutiny intensifying and public trust on the line, her presidency now faces one of its most serious tests yet.
Edited by: A. Thomas
