PFIZERGATE decision shocks European Commission
The General Court of the European Union has canceled the decision of a European Commission, which has denied access to a New York Times journalist daily, which was exchanged between the Commission Chairman of the Commission Ursula von Der Leyen and CEO Albert Borla, CEO of Pharmaceutical Company Fizar. The verdict is an important legal and political blow to the Executive Branch of the European Union, which creates fresh doubts about dealing with von deer lery’s leadership style and transparency obligations.Olivier Hodman of Brucel -based Watchdog said, “Von Der Leyen has collected more power than any other president, led the Commission with a centralized and secret approach – and it has clearly backfilled.”The controversial PFIZERGATE case includes messages that were allegedly exchanged during the European Union’s conversation of a multibilian-euro covid-19 vaccine contract with Fizer during the coronvirus epidemics. The existence of private communication was first indicated in the 2021 interview, which is a widespread concern over the European Union’s heart making opaque decisions.Later that year, New York Times journalist Matina Steveis-Gridnef presented a request to reach messages, according to the transparency laws of the European Union, which the commission rejected by the Commission, claiming that it did not have it. That refusal inspired the US daily to challenge the decision before the General Court.
Any ‘admirable explanation’
The European Union court has now concluded that the Commission failed to justify its claim that it did not have reliably – and did not demonstrate that it had made enough efforts to find or preserve them. The judges also ruled that the text messages sent in terms of public procurement should be considered as documents of the official European Union.In an interview with DW, Sheri Hinds of Transparency International stated that the decision was “a real victory for transparency,” saying that it represents a step towards restoring public trust and institutional accountability.In response to the ruling, the European Commission stated that it would focus on the decision of the General Court and acknowledged the need to provide more detailed descriptions as to why it was not able to provide requested text messages. However, it was underlined that the court did not challenge the overall document registration policy of the Commission, and that, therefore, there was no change in these rules. The Commission said in a statement, “Transparency has always been important.”The Chief Executive Body of the European Union can now appeal to the ruling or compliance by releasing messages – if they still exist – or providing a wide account for their absence, including information about whether they were removed and if so.
‘Humiliation and brilliant necklace’
“The Commission keeps repeating its commitment to transparency, but when it comes to implementing those principles, it is decreasing,” it is decreasing, “Pivi Leino-Sandberg, Professor of Transnational European Law at Helsinki University, told DW that the body did not accept the problem. , Many members of the European Parliament also reacted fast. Martin Shordevan, the co-chairman of the Left Group, called the ruling “an insult and again” to the Commission. He accused Von Der Leyen of damaging democracy through his privacy and demanded that he immediately publish the message. Anything less, he warned, will be irresponsible – and the basis for him to step down.Hodman argued that under the chairmanship of the institution to enforce the European Union law and oversee the vaccine negotiations, von Der Leyen played a dual role, which “created a clear conflict of interests.” He said that thus this ruling was not only a scam for the European Commission, but also for its President.He said that when an institution responsible for implementing transparency failed to keep its own leadership in mind, the public’s confidence eventually made a hit, especially if the leadership was benefited by the lack of investigation. “This has damaged confidence in both the Commission and the European Union,” he explained.In addition, he said that while the Commission had defended its view, citing the urgency of the epidemic, the situation of the crisis could not correct the lack of transparency. “The Commission should begin to see as something to embrace transparency.
‘Need accountability and oversite’
Transparency watchdogs and legal experts stated that the court’s verdict called for a significant turn in the operation of Executive Communication of Brussels. “Decisions affecting millions should not be made through private texts,” the Hinds said. “They need to be in formal settings with accountability and inspection.”The message of critics is clear: policy formulation, especially when it comes to public health and finance, should not be done in the shadow.The dispute arrives at a sensitive time for the European Union. As far as correct, nationalist forces receive traction in many member states and many citizens grow rapidly from Brussels, institutional trust is an important property.The European Parliament can now demand an independent inquiry, and the Citizen Society Group is calling on strict rules to ensure all the official communications and accessible.Whether von dera leyen’s season may be falling uncertain. But with a legal investigation and with public confidence in the line, its chaired now faces one of his most serious tests.
