The EU Court of Justice has accused the European Commission of withholding details of COVID-19 vaccine contracts
The European Commission may have unlawfully withheld information about contracts for the procurement of COVID-19 vaccines during the pandemic. This is the conclusion reached by the Advocate General of the EU’s highest court ahead of a final ruling in a case concerning the transparency of actions by Brussels officials.
In 2020–2021, a team of European Commission representatives and EU experts, acting on behalf of member states, negotiated with pharmaceutical companies regarding the supply of coronavirus vaccines.
A total of €2.7 billion was allocated to place orders for over 1 billion doses of vaccines.
In 2021, Members of the European Parliament and citizens submitted requests for access to the contracts that had been signed. The European Commission agreed to release the documents only partially, withholding:
- the names of the members of the negotiating team;
- specific provisions of the contracts regarding compensation for pharmaceutical companies.
Brussels explained this by the need to protect privacy and commercial interests.
MEPs and citizens who disagreed with this approach challenged the decision in court. In 2024, a lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and found the European Commission’s arguments insufficient.
Following this, the European Commission filed an appeal with the European Court of Justice.
However, the court’s Advocate General, Afanasios Rantos, recommended leaving the previous decision unchanged.
In his opinion, Rantos emphasized the particular importance of transparency during negotiations on vaccine procurement.
According to him, the publication of only anonymous declarations of potential conflicts of interest does not allow for a proper verification of the impartiality of those who participated in the negotiations.
He also criticized the European Commission’s reasoning regarding the concealment of contract provisions on compensation to pharmaceutical companies.
In the lawyer’s opinion, the claims regarding potential harm to the companies’ commercial interests were not sufficiently substantiated.
The Advocate General’s conclusions are not binding on the judges, but practice shows that the court often takes such recommendations into account when rendering its final decision.
A verdict in the case is expected within the coming months.
The issue of transparency in vaccine procurement is not the first time it has created problems for the European Commission.
In 2025, the EU Court ruled that the European Commission had unlawfully refused to disclose text messages between President Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla regarding negotiations on vaccine supply.
This decision caused a political stir in the European Parliament and even led to an attempt to pass a motion of no confidence against von der Leyen, though the initiative failed to gain the necessary support.
mRNA technology, which gained worldwide recognition during the COVID-19 pandemic, is showing promising results in the fight against cancer. New research shows that personalized vaccines can help the immune system recognize tumors and suppress the progression of the disease for many years.
