A second mandate for Ursula von der Leyen

Translated by Alessandra Fumagalli 

Ursula von der Leyen, current European Commission’s President, faced a crucial moment in her political career, while trying to obtain a second mandate. Her attempt was hindered by a EU General Court’s sentence that criticized the lack of transparency of the Commission as far as the Covid-19’s vaccines contracts are concerned. The EU General Court canceled the Commission’s decision to hinder wide parts of vaccines contracts, saying that explanations given to protect pharmaceutical companies’ business interests weren’t enough. This decision, that has come in a delicate moment a day before the European Parliament’s elections, hasn’t negatively determined the results, giving her the possibility to obtain the absolute majority of the Europarlementariers' votes for the reelection.

This transparency’s issues became a crucial point, when the members of the parliamentary group of the Green, who initially praised von der Leyen for a rapid access to the vaccines, brought the Commission to court. Greens asked for total access to the contracts, in order to totally understand the terms and conditions of the agreements between the Commission and the vaccines’ suppliers. However, the Commission gave only censured contracts, stating that some information had to be obscured in order to protect negotiators’ business interests and privacy. Tilly Metz, being part of the Greens, underlined the importance of the sentence for the future.

“

The new European Commission must now adapt their handling of access to documents requests to be in line with today’s ruling.

”
- Tilly Metz

This sentence is extremely significant, since it establishes that the Commission will continue to jointly purchase, not only in the health sphere, but also in the defense one. 

The European Commission defended its actions, stating that it has to balance the people’s right of information, with legal needs, that come from vaccines contracts, that should imply some compensation’s requests, supported by taxpayers. “The Commission will study the implications of the ruling”, stated the Commission, which now has two months to appeal the case.  

Despite the blow suffered, some members of the European People’s Party, the same as von der Leyen, minimized the impact of the sentence. Particularly, Peter Liese, a member of the EPP, stated that it was justifiable that the Commission accepted some requests of pharmaceutical companies to guarantee a rapid access to the vaccines. Moreover, the Commission underlined that the court considered some clauses covered by the protection of business interests. 

In a wider contest, this isn’t the only controversy that von der Leyen has to face regarding the vaccines contracts. The New York Times started a legal procedure (still ongoing), asking the President of the Commission to divulge her messages with Albert Bourla, Pfizer’s CEO, during the negotiations. Moreover, the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) started an investigation about the purchase of vaccines in the EU during the pandemic. This case, started from a criminal report and supported by Hungary and Poland’s governments, raised some doubts about the competences of the EPPO to evaluate any possible offenses made by the European Commission. 

Not only does this issue challenge the Commission's transparency, but it also raises some fundamental issues about the balance between the public access to the information and the protection of business interests. Despite these recent juridical developments, the President of the European Commission Ursula Von Der Leyen managed to convince the Parliament for a second mandate, avoiding the court’s sentence to play a crucial role. 

Mondo Internazionale APS - Riproduzione Riservata ® 2024