What the EU Doesn’t Want You to Know
While 2,089 European citizens have successfully sued to force the disclosure of contracts worth 71 billion euros, the European Commission is attempting on March 4 to overturn this victory on appeal. The backdrop: alleged conflicts of interest, obstruction, and a lack of transparency that smacks of corruption.
Attorney Arnaud Durand represents the 2,089 plaintiffs who prevailed at the first instance in a ruling[1] issued by the General Court of the European Union on July 17, 2024, following two and a half years of proceedings. This decision granted their request for disclosure of the indemnity clauses as well as the identities of all negotiators involved in contracts for the procurement of COVID-19 vaccines, totaling 71 billion euros[2].
Class Action: A Fifth Branch of Government
This successful appeal was based on Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)[3] and Regulation 1049/2001[4] regarding public access to documents of the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission. On this basis, the applicants were able to challenge an administrative decision denying access to documents of which they were the direct addressees or to which they were individually concerned. The General Court ruled that this class-action lawsuit was admissible and found that the refusal to disclose the documents did not fully meet the transparency requirements under EU law.
The Commission is appealing to the Court
This Wednesday, March 4, at 9:00 a.m. in Kirchberg (Luxembourg), a hearing will be held regarding the Commission’s appeal to the Court of Justice of the European Union against this decision. It appears likely to get bogged down in conspiracy-theory-style quibbles. Although the contracts have already been leaked, they have still not been officially made public and remain inadmissible in courts and tribunals.
Potential forgery and use of forged documents?
Elements that could indicate conflicts of interest have also emerged. In particular, it has been established that Heiko Von Der Leyen, the spouse of the Commission President, heads the company Orgenesis[5], which is active notably in the field of COVID-19 messenger RNA, and that she subsequently acquired 14,168 stock options for shares in this company. Furthermore, the European Court of Auditors has acknowledged her role as a “preliminary” negotiator in connection with the most significant of the disputed contracts.
In this context, the applicants intend to uphold the victory obtained at first instance against the Commission.
They argue that the Commission claims to uphold the principle of transparency while stubbornly refusing scrutiny by the citizens who have joined this case as legitimate plaintiffs to denounce an organized lack of transparency contrary to the EU Treaties and the very limited scope[6] of trade secret protection recognized by the Union.
Beyond the law, a fundamental democratic principle is at stake: opacity in the management of public funds is, by its very nature, a breeding ground for corruption. And when an institution goes to great lengths to prevent the disclosure of lucrative contracts and the behind-the-scenes dealings surrounding them, it is no longer merely a matter of opacity—it is an admission.
Réginald de Potesta de Waleffe, for BAM!
[1] Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of July 17, 2024
[2] Were Pfizer’s 30 billion in superprofits from “COVID vaccines” taxed in Europe? | E-001479/2023 | European Parliament
[3] Official Journal of the European Union
[4] Regulation - 1049/2001 - EN - EUR-Lex
[6] Trade secrets in the EU: what information is protected? - Your Europe