Case Summary and Outcome

The General Court of the EU annulled the EU Commission’s refusal to grant access to text messages exchanged between its President and the CEO of Pfizer during early COVID-19 vaccine negotiations. The case, commonly known as “Pfizergate”, arose after New York Times journalist Stefania Stevi, invoking EU transparency laws, challenged the Commission’s refusal to grant her access to undisclosed communications between the Commission President and Pfizer CEO regarding a €35 billion vaccine deal. This followed allegations of insufficient transparency in the EU’s COVID-19 vaccine procurement. The Court ruled that the right to access EU institution documents extends beyond formal records to include informal communications, such as text messages, if they relate to institutional activities or decision-making. The Court reaffirmed that transparency is a foundational principle of EU law and that access to documents is essential to ensure public accountability, especially in high-stakes matters such as vaccine procurement. The Court also held that institutions cannot avoid scrutiny by failing to register or retain relevant communications. The judgment underscored the obligation of EU bodies to adapt their transparency practices to modern communication tools.

---

Facts

The “Pfizergate case” emerged from growing public and media scrutiny over the transparency of COVID-19 vaccine procurement by the European Union. In the wake of the pandemic, the European Commission played a central role in negotiating contracts with pharmaceutical companies to secure vaccine doses for all Member States. Among the most high-profile of these negotiations involved direct communications between European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO, Albert Bourla. In April 2021, The New York Times reported that a private exchange—reportedly involving phone calls and text messages—preceded the EU’s largest vaccine deal to date: a €35 billion agreement for up to 1.8 billion Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine doses.

Against this backdrop, on May 11, 2022, New York Times journalist Stefania Stevi submitted a request to the European Commission pursuant to Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 on public access to European Parliament, Council, and Commission documents (“Regulation 1049/2001”). She specifically requested access to all text messages exchanged between President von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla between January and May 2021—the period during which vaccine negotiations were at their peak.

The Commission failed to respond within the statutory timeframe. Upon issuing its reply on July 20, 2022, it asserted that no documents matching the request were held and, accordingly, denied access. Ms. Stevi lodged a confirmatory application—an internal appeal under the Regulation—but the Commission again rejected the application on November 16, 2022, maintaining that no such documents were held and thus access could not be granted.

Alleging an unlawful refusal to conduct a proper document search and a breach of transparency obligations, Ms. Stevi and The New York Times filed an application for annulment before the General Court of the European Union.

---

Decision Overview

The President of the Court, Judge M. Van der Woude, delivered the judgment. The main issues before the Court were whether the European Commission violated (1) Article 3(a) of Regulation 1049/2001 and Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (“the Charter”); (2) Article 2(3) of Regulation 1049/2001; and (3) the principle of good administration under Article 41 of the Charter. The Court chose to prioritize the third issue, concerning the principle of good administration.

Ms. Stevi argued that the Commission’s rejection of the request on the grounds that the documents did not exist was procedurally flawed. She contended that the Commission failed to demonstrate meaningful efforts to locate the messages, and that a blanket denial, without detail or explanation, was insufficient, particularly given evidence from The New York Times suggesting their existence.

In her appeal, Ms. Stevi further argued that the Commission’s vague statement claiming to have conducted a “renewed, thorough search” failed to clarify whether that search extended beyond its formal records management system to include non-registered communications. The contested decision also did not specify which storage locations had been consulted, whether the Commission President’s mobile phone(s) had been searched, or why no text messages had been found.

The Commission defended its position, asserting that the applicants had not provided sufficient evidence to disprove its claim that the messages were unavailable. The only evidence mentioned was a statement about texts between the Commission President and the Pfizer CEO, which the Commission argued was not relevant to their talks. The Commission maintained that it had provided sufficient reasoning: it had conducted a new search, which yielded no results, and argued that if any such messages had existed, they would have been registered—unless they were short-lived or failed to trigger internal follow-up.

The Court reaffirmed that Regulation 1049/2001 enshrines the principle of maximum disclosure, which provides that “in principle, all documents of the institutions should be accessible to the public.” As such, refusals of access must be reasoned and are subject to judicial review. Importantly, the mere assertion that a document does not exist is not enough to sidestep scrutiny. The institution concerned must not only inform the requester but, if necessary, justify its refusal before the courts.

The Court stressed that the burden of proof lies with the institution to demonstrate that the requested documents do not exist or are not in its possession. It is not the requester’s responsibility to prove the contrary. This obligation is part of a broader duty to enable the effective exercise of the right of access to information—requiring institutions, wherever possible, to document their activities in a consistent, predictable, and non-arbitrary manner.

The Court also noted that the Commission neither confirmed nor denied that text messages were exchanged between the President of the Commission and the Pfizer CEO, only speculating that it might have happened. The Commission added that, given the busy schedules of its President and the Pfizer CEO—and with usual meeting planning disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic—they may have used text messages to coordinate their discussions. In this case, the Court found that the Commission’s responses were based either on assumptions or on shifting and imprecise information about whether the text messages had ever existed or been held.

The Court further clarified that the term “holding” cannot be interpreted to mean only documents currently in the institution’s possession at the time of response. Otherwise, institutions could evade transparency simply by failing to retain or record relevant communications.

The Court identified several indicators supporting the probable existence of the requested messages. The New York Times article of 28 April 2021, based on Ms. Stevi’s interviews with the Commission President and the Pfizer CEO, described private communications during vaccine negotiations. These interviews themselves supported the claim that such text messages existed. The interview transcripts show that the Pfizer CEO acknowledged exchanging text messages with the EU Commission President to discuss urgent matters during the pandemic, including sharing phone numbers for direct communication. When questioned by journalist Stevi, the Commission President also confirmed having substantive contacts with the Pfizer CEO, praising his hands-on approach during the crisis. These statements indicate direct, informal communication between the two leaders regarding vaccine negotiations.

Additionally, a special report from the European Court of Auditors confirmed that preliminary vaccine contract negotiations took place informally, with no documentary records disclosed by the Commission concerning the content, timing, or terms of those exchanges.

In contrast, the Commission failed to specify: (1) which document storage systems were searched; (2) whether locations outside the official records management system were reviewed; (3) whether the Commission President’s mobile phone(s) were included in the search or if those devices had been replaced during the period in question; and (4) whether any effort had been made to preserve or retrieve relevant data from those devices.

During the hearing, the Commission confirmed that Commissioners’ mobile phones are routinely replaced for security reasons, but it could not say when the President’s phone had been changed or whether the contents had been transferred. It merely “assumed” that the phone used in April 2021 had since been replaced but was unable to confirm whether the new device contained the relevant data. The Court held that such explanations, grounded in assumptions rather than verifiable facts, did not meet the standard of plausibility required under EU transparency rules.

The Court reiterated that institutions cannot undermine the right of access to documents by simply failing to register or retain information relating to their official activities. It emphasized that communications between the Commission President and a pharmaceutical company CEO—especially in the context of multibillion-euro vaccine contracts during a public health crisis—could not be dismissed as short-lived or insignificant. The Commission failed to explain why such communications had not been deemed important enough to document, preserve, or register.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that the Commission had failed to provide any credible or adequate explanation for its inability to locate the requested documents. The explanations submitted during the proceedings and at the hearing fell short of what is required to demonstrate compliance with its transparency obligations. As a result, the Court found that the Commission had breached the principle of good administration under Article 41 of the Charter.

The Court therefore upheld the applicants’ requests, annulled the contested decision, and ordered the Commission to pay the costs. Given this outcome, the Court found it unnecessary to examine the remaining two issues or the applicants’ request for further measures of inquiry.

---