On May 14th, the General Court of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) made a bold ruling against the European Commission, declaring that it had unjustly denied access to private text messages between European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla.
These texts were part of negotiations for the EU’s controversial and massive COVID-19 vaccine procurement deal, which saw the purchase of up to 1.8 billion doses—at taxpayers’ expense.
Though this decision represents a win for transparency, don’t hold your breath for a quick resolution. The European Commission could still appeal, and with such high stakes, that’s a likely scenario. If that happens, European taxpayers might have to wait even longer to find out if the “Pfizergate” scandal really is the biggest corruption disaster in modern history. (For a deep dive into this saga, check out our full analysis here.)
But make no mistake, this ruling is about much more than just vaccine contracts. It represents a fundamental challenge to the EU’s opaque and anti-democratic culture—a push to finally hold Brussels accountable to its own transparency rules.
In its ruling, the ECJ pointed out that all documents related to EU decision-making should be available to the public. This simple but powerful statement struck at the heart of the Commission’s repeated failures to comply with freedom of information (FOI) requests. From delays to outright refusals, the Commission has long been criticized by the EU Ombudsman and Court of Auditors for dodging its transparency obligations.
The case itself started back in 2021, when von der Leyen bragged about her “impressive” negotiation skills in securing the vaccine deal for the EU, inadvertently revealing her private exchanges with Bourla. This led to an FOI request from The New York Times and a subsequent lawsuit after the Commission first denied the texts even existed—then claimed they had been lost or deleted by mistake.
The ECJ wasn’t buying it. The Court described the Commission’s defense as “based either on assumptions or on changing or imprecise information.” On the other hand, the NYT and journalist Stevi had provided “consistent evidence” proving the texts were real and should not be dismissed so easily.
The Commission failed to convincingly explain why it couldn’t locate the texts or prove that they were deleted accidentally rather than intentionally. The Court found that the texts were of public interest, given they dealt with negotiations that resulted in massive EU-wide spending on vaccines, and thus should be made public.
This ruling doesn’t just affect the EU. The text messages could potentially reveal key details of how the EU handled one of its most significant expenditures—how it negotiated on behalf of taxpayers for billions of vaccine doses, some of which were never used and ended up being discarded. Meanwhile, the Commission’s attempts to stonewall transparency efforts have raised alarms about whether such practices could influence global standards for transparency, including in the U.S.
This case is part of a broader effort to pry open the inner workings of Brussels, where secrecy and backroom deals have often been the norm. Even before this ruling, the ECJ had sided with the public over secrecy when it ordered the Commission to release the contracts signed by von der Leyen for up to 4.6 billion vaccine doses at an estimated cost of €71 billion—though much of this vaccine stockpiling ultimately went to waste.
But von der Leyen’s troubles don’t end here. A separate lawsuit in Belgium aimed at uncovering the same text messages was dismissed earlier this year. Despite the involvement of over 1,000 individuals and transparency watchdogs, the court ruled that the claimants had failed to demonstrate “personal harm.” Critics argue that political pressure may have influenced that decision, and there’s growing concern that similar pressures will be brought to bear in the Commission’s appeal to the highest EU court.
For now, this ECJ ruling represents a rare victory in the ongoing battle for greater transparency in the EU’s decision-making processes. But the fight is far from over. Von der Leyen and her allies in Brussels won’t give up without a fight. If the Commission moves forward with an appeal, it would have two months to convince the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) that the General Court misinterpreted EU law.
Whatever happens, however, von der Leyen will be forever linked to the scandal, known as “Pfizergate,” no matter the legal outcome. It’s become more than just a fight over a few texts—it’s become a symbol of the persistent lack of accountability in Brussels. The transparency battle is far from finished, but this court decision has set an important precedent. The EU elites may try to cover up their mistakes, but as this case proves, the public won’t stop demanding answers.
