Imagine you're footing the bill for a €35 billion deal, our hard-earned taxes buying 1.8 billion Covid vaccine doses, only to find out the details are locked away, whispered in private texts between a top EU official and a Big Pharma bigwig. Sounds shady, right? That's the heart of "Pfizergate," the scandal rocking Brussels after the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled on May 14, 2025, that the European Commission, led by Ursula von der Leyen, wrongly hid text messages with Pfizer's CEO Albert Bourla. The Guardian reports this as a "significant defeat" for von der Leyen, and it's a wake-up call for anyone who values transparency. If the Pfizer vaccine was humanity's saviour, why hide the deal like it's a state secret?
The ECJ's ruling is a middle finger to the EU's "trust us, we've got this" vibe. The Guardian notes the court annulled a 2022 Commission decision to block the New York Times from accessing von der Leyen's texts with Bourla, calling out the Commission for failing to give a "plausible explanation" for not having the messages. Translation: the EU got caught dodging freedom of information laws. The New York Times, sparked by journalist Matina Stevis-Gridneff's 2021 scoop on these texts, fought for access, and the court agreed: the public has a right to know what their leaders are texting about when billions are on the line.
Why's this a big deal? First, it sets a precedent. The ECJ ruled that text messages tied to public business, like a €35 billion vaccine deal, are official documents under EU law, not private chats you can delete like a Tinder conversation. This could force the EU to archive texts, emails, or even WhatsApp messages, making it harder for officials to hide behind "oops, I lost my phone." Transparency International called it a "landmark ruling" that slams the Commission's "contradictory approach to transparency." EU law professor Alberto Alemanno told the Guardian it's a reminder that leaders face "constant scrutiny" from media and courts, not just their own egos.
Second, it's a trust gut-punch. The EU's been preaching "rule of law" while von der Leyen, per DW, runs a "centralised and secretive" ship. When the Commission claims it "doesn't have" texts or that they're just about scheduling meetings (as their lawyers weakly argued), it smells like a cover-up. If the vaccine's so great, why not shout the deal from the rooftops? The secrecy fuels suspicion, as EU Ombudsman Emily O'Reilly warned in 2023, giving "anti-vax" folks and EU sceptics like myself ammo to cry conspiracy. We are.
So, what's in these contracts and texts that's worth hiding? The Pfizer deal, finalised in May 2021, was massive: 1.8 billion doses, making the EU Pfizer's biggest customer. But the Financial Times revealed a price hike from €15.50 to €19.50 per dose, costing taxpayers billions extra. Investigative journalist Alexander Fanta, quoted in the Guardian, says the texts could reveal why the EU paid a "steeper price" and why it overcommitted to doses, some of which, per Politico, went unused, with Germany and Austria tossing millions. Was von der Leyen's "personal diplomacy" a masterstroke or a taxpayer rip-off?
The public deserves answers. These contracts weren't just about vaccines; they were about power. Von der Leyen's texts, as Politico notes, show her bypassing formal channels, negotiating directly with Bourla while the EU lagged behind the UK and Israel in the vaccine race. That hustle got 1.8 billion doses, sure, but at what cost? If the vaccine was a slam dunk, why not show the receipts? What's there to hide?
Then there's accountability. The ECJ ruling exposes a flaw in EU governance: officials can dodge scrutiny by claiming texts "don't exist" or aren't "important." The court wasn't buying it, noting the Commission didn't clarify if the texts were deleted deliberately or if von der Leyen's phone was swapped for "security reasons." Euractiv reports the Commission must now prove texts don't contain "important information" to withhold them. This could spill into other scandals, imagine if texts about trade deals or climate policies vanish too. The public's right to know isn't just about vaccines; it's about ensuring leaders don't play fast and loose with power.
If the Pfizer vaccine was the hero of the pandemic, why hide the playbook? The Commission's excuses, texts are "ephemeral," not official documents, don't hold water. Euronews cites EU law defining documents as any content tied to policy, including texts. The Commission's own lawyers admitted they hadn't seen the messages, relying on von der Leyen's team to say they're irrelevant. That's like letting a fox guard the henhouse. DW quotes Transparency International's Shari Hinds: "Decisions affecting millions shouldn't be made through private texts." Yet von der Leyen's team doubled down, saying they'll issue a "new decision" to explain the missing texts, hinting they'll keep stonewalling.
The secrecy suggests something to hide. Maybe it's just embarrassment, overpaying for doses or signing for too many. Maybe it's worse: conflicts of interest or pressure from Pfizer. Politico notes the European Public Prosecutor's Office is probing vaccine procurement, and a Belgian lawsuit accuses von der Leyen of corruption and destroying documents. Even if it's just sloppy record-keeping, the refusal to come clean looks like cockroaches fleeing the light. Why not release redacted texts to prove it's all above board? The longer they hide, the more it feels like they're protecting Pfizer, or themselves.
This ruling isn't just Brussels drama, it's our money, our trust, our future. Taxpayers funded a deal that may have overpaid by billions, and secrecy blocks you from knowing why. Le Monde says the ruling gives "credence to critics" of von der Leyen's opaque style, which could weaken the EU, one good thing. The ECJ's decision empowers you to demand answers, whether you're a vaccine fan or a sceptic. As Politico puts it, it's a "slam dunk for transparency" that could reshape how the EU operates.
But don't hold your breath for the texts. The Commission can appeal to the ECJ's top court, and The Guardian says they're already planning a new excuse to block access. Still, the pressure's on, MEPs like Martin Schirdewan, per DW, call it a "humiliation" and demand the texts now. If von der Leyen wants to rebuild trust, she'll need to open the vault, not just preach "transparency" while dodging questions.
The ECJ ruling is a win for sunlight over shadows. Learning what's in the Pfizer contracts and von der Leyen's texts matters because it's about our money, our health, and our right to hold power accountable.
"The EU's highest court has cancelled a decision to withhold Ursula von der Leyen's text messages with a pharmaceutical executive during the pandemic, in a significant defeat for the commission president.
The European court of justice on Wednesday annulled a decision taken by the European Commission in November 2022 to deny the New York Times access to the messages, after a freedom of information request by the paper.
The court said that, in its refusal, the commission did not respect the EU's access to documents law. In a withering assessment it said the commission had "not given a plausible explanation to justify the non-possession of the requested documents".
It was not immediately clear if the commission, which still has the right to appeal, would release the messages. In a statement that it would "closely study" the ruling, the EU executive suggested it still intended to block access to the texts, saying it would "adopt a new decision [on the FoI request] providing a more detailed explanation".
Despite those questions, the decision is a defining moment for von der Leyen, who is a few months into a second five-year term as head of the EU executive. While praised as a crisis manager, von der Leyen has also faced frequent criticism for her top-down management style and been accused of lacking transparency.
In January 2023, the New York Times and its then Brussels bureau chief, Matina Stevis-Gridneff, started the case to challenge a commission decision not to release the text messages.
The paper had reported the existence of the text messages exchanged between von der Leyen and the Pfizer chief executive, Albert Bourla, in an article that included interviews with both.
Von der Leyen's personal diplomacy was said to have unlocked 1.8bn doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine at a moment when the EU was falling behind the UK and Israel in the race to secure jabs. Critics later alleged the commission had overpaid for the vaccines after it emerged that Pfizer had increased its prices to €19.50 a shot, compared with €15.50.
An investigative journalist, Alexander Fanta, asked the commission in May 2021 to release the text messages under the EU's freedom of information rules. After the commission refused, he took the case to the European Ombudsman, who found the commission guilty of maladministration.
Von der Leyen's texts, Fanta wrotein the Guardian, might "help to answer questions such as why the EU became Pfizer's single biggest customer but reportedly paid a much steeper price".
The New York Times applied to see the text messages in May 2022 and went to court to challenge the commission's refusal. The court's negative verdict was not unexpected, as judges had criticised commission lawyers' responses during hearings last year.
The commission had claimed the texts were sent only to coordinate meetings, but its lawyers admitted they had not seen the messages and could not say whether they still existed.
On Wednesday, the court said the commission had "not sufficiently clarified" whether the messages had been deleted and, if so, whether that "was done deliberately or automatically", or whether the president's phone had been replaced in the meantime.
Alberto Alemanno, an EU law professor at HEC Paris Business School, said the result would promote greater accountability of EU leaders. "This judgment provides a fresh reminder that the EU is governed by the rule of law, with its leaders subject to the constant scrutiny of free media and of an independent court."
Transparency International said it was a landmark ruling that "makes clear that the commission's contradictory approach to transparency cannot stand".
A New York Times spokesperson said: "Today's decision is a victory for transparency and accountability in the European Union, and it sends a powerful message that ephemeral communications are not beyond the reach of public scrutiny."