15.05.2025
Major scandals have become almost routine in the daily lives of politicians. This time, we take a closer look at the so-called “Pfizergate” scandal.
- On 14 May 2025, the EU Court ruled that text messages between officials and Pfizer’s CEO related to vaccine deals must be public documents, rejecting the Commission’s refusal to disclose them.
- The “Pfizergate” scandal centres on texts between EU Commission President von der Leyen and Pfizer’s CEO before major COVID-19 vaccine contracts.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, decisions around vaccine procurement involved massive emergency transactions that impacted the health of millions across Europe as well as the budgets of member states.
Undoubtedly, swift action was essential—there was simply no time for prolonged deliberations at every stage, given the intense global competition for securing vaccines.
However, in the aftermath of the pandemic, emerging evidence suggests that these deals were not always conducted in line with the principles of good governance and transparency.
Among the most significant controversies is the “Pfizergate” scandal, which exposes serious concerns about the influence exerted by pharmaceutical companies over EU decision-makers.
The heart of the scandal: Disappearing correspondence
At the centre of the “Pfizergate” scandal is the private communication between European Commission President von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, which took place just before the record-breaking contract for more than 1.8 billion doses of the Pfizer vaccine was concluded.
This communication occurred in the form of text messages, and later, both the public – as well as the European Parliament and journalists – requested access to these messages under the EU documents transparency regulation.
The European Commission refused to release them, arguing that the texts “are not being retained” and that they are not official documents. This stance sparked widespread criticism and suspicions of a breach of legal requirements. Following requests from journalists and non-governmental organizations, the matter was taken to the General Court of the European Union.
The Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine was the first to receive EU approval in December 2020 after an initial pre-purchase agreement for 200 million doses. Subsequently, in March and May 2021, additional contracts were signed for €2.4 billion, with an option to purchase another 900 million doses.
Journalists from The New York Times, in 2021 during interviews with a Pfizer executive, learned of the existence of this text message correspondence.
However, when officially asked for access to these messages, the Commission maintained that it could not provide them since the texts “are not recorded as official documents.” This refusal became the central point in the ensuing litigation.
The court ruling and its precedent
On 14 May 2025, the General Court dismissed the Commission’s arguments and ruled in favour of The New York Times, stating that text messages related to decision-making at the EU level should be considered documents that must be made available to the public.
The court emphasized:
- that the Commission should document such communication even if it occurs in the form of text messages,
- that the lack of transparency in this case jeopardizes trust in EU institutions,
- that the deletion or non-retention of documents is not an acceptable pretext for the lack of information availability.
This ruling sets a precedent, requiring the Commission to operate with far greater transparency in the future, especially considering that we are living in the digital age.
Von der Leyen under scrutiny
This case has unfortunately cast a shadow of suspicion over von der Leyen. Both Members of the European Parliament and public organizations have demanded that she explain what happened and allow the publication of the text message contents. Politically, this spells major headaches for crisis consultants.
Transparency International, Corporate Europe Observatory, and other advocates of “transparent politics” have repeatedly criticized the Commission for its unwillingness to provide the public with access to the documents in question. They warn that such practices reinforce the public’s perception that decisions are made behind closed doors – perhaps even in the interests of the pharmaceutical lobby.
“Today’s ruling affirms our position that the Commission was wrong in denying access to these text messages. This ruling is about more than transparency: it is about reinstating the institutional accountability the European Commission has been sorely lacking. This should serve as a catalyst for the Commission to finally change its restrictive attitude to freedom of information,”
said Shari Hinds, a policy expert for Transparency International EU.
The loss of trust
Public confidence in the political decisions made during the pandemic had already been shaken – especially in light of the organization of vaccination campaigns and restrictions. The “Pfizergate” scandal deepens this rift. Many now ask: Did the Commission act in the public interest, or were the actions ultimately taken in the interests of the pharmaceutical giant?
European policy analysts argue that the scandal does not bode well for the reputation of EU institutions, especially at a time when political polarization in Europe is on the rise and populist forces are seizing on such incidents in their rhetoric.
Last year, Investigate Europe published an extensive report on the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and its conflicts of interest – noting that several of its top officials have both professional and financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. The EMA has also been criticized for approving medications too rapidly, which may endanger patients.
EMA Funding – Dominated by Novartis and Pfizer
An EMA spokesperson explained that the agency’s funding and fee structure are defined by EU law – fees pertain to the procedure rather than its outcome, similar to a driving school test: payment is required, but there is no guarantee of “passing.” However, in 2022, almost 86% of the EMA’s €417 million budget came from industry fees.
Even more strikingly, just 21 pharmaceutical companies accounted for half of this revenue. The biggest contributors were Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Roche, and GSK.
Illustration: Investigate Europe
The need for transparency and regulatory mechanisms
“Pfizergate” is a warning that even in emergency situations, governance must be transparent. The public demands:
- a documented decision-making process;
- independent oversight of large-scale procurements;
- restrictions on private communication between top officials and commercial enterprises.
There is no doubt that the pharmaceutical lobby plays a crucial role in shaping health policy – precisely why it is so important that this influence be regulated and made transparent.
SOURCES
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/05/14/eu-commission-loses-on-all-counts-in-pfizergate-legal-case https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/coronavirus-response/public-health/eu-vaccines-strategy_en
https://transparency.eu/pfizergate-eu-court-upholds-transparency-standards/ https://www.investigate-europe.eu/posts/deadly-prices-big-pharma-influence-hangs-over-europes-medicines-regulator https://apnews.com/article/europe-commission-court-text-message-leyen-pfizer-1b43a00297ddf33272d3acb7e7f7e198
Image: Urzula von der Leyen at the plenary session of the European Parliament in 2021, where the EU’s COVID19 vaccine strategy was discussed.
Author: Alexis HAULOT © European Union 2021
