MOZOM-analyse

What does Brussels have to hide? Still no full openness about vaccine contracts

European Ombudsman, General Court of the EU, European Court of Auditors, European Commission and European Parliament Europa

Type: Analyse Author: Paul Giezen Report a correction

Caricature of nervous Brussels administrators who keep shielded contract documents and telephone messages out of the sight of journalists.

Source: European Ombudsman, General Court of the EU, European Court of Auditors, European Commission and European Parliament
MOZOM headline: What does Brussels have to hide? Still no full openness about vaccine contracts
Original headline: European Ombudsman opens new case over lack of access to documents surrounding COVID-19 vaccine contracts
Author: Paul Giezen
Subject: The ongoing battle for public access to European COVID-19 vaccine contracts, negotiating documents and communications.

Summary of the original report

European institutions rely on commercial interests, privacy and crisis circumstances. On the other hand, there are statements in which the European Commission provided insufficient access, improperly searched for text messages or did not offer a plausible explanation. MOZOM compares the verifiable facts, counterarguments and unproven suspicions.

Timeline of request, denial and legal correction

The table distinguishes completed determinations from ongoing procedures. A conclusion of an Advocate General is an advice and the Ombudsman case from September 2026 has not yet produced a substantive outcome.

MOMENT / SETTING	WHAT HAPPENED?	OFFICIAL RESPONSE OR STATUS	MOZOM EXPLANATION
2021-2022 · European Ombudsman	Investigation into the request for text messages between Von der Leyen and the Pfizer CEO.	The Commission only searched registered documents; the Ombudsman found maladministration.	An archive rule cannot be an excuse for not looking for relevant unregistered messages.
September 2022 · European Court of Auditors	Control over the EU purchase of vaccines worth approximately 71 billion euros.	The Court of Auditors received no information about the preparatory negotiations of the largest contract.	The financial controller was unable to reconstruct a crucial negotiation phase.
July 2024 · General Court of the EU	MEPs and citizens contested the partial disclosure of contracts.	The General Court annulled parts of the Commission decisions due to insufficient access and reasoning.	Commercial confidentiality is not unlimited and must be substantiated per passage.
May 2025 · General Court of the EU	The New York Times challenged the denial of access to text messages.	The General Court found the Commission's varying explanation not plausible enough and annulled the refusal.	The judgment does not prove what was stated in the messages; However, the explanation for its absence was inadequate.
June 2025 · European Commission	The Commission defended the procedure as transparent and carried out jointly with Member States.	She pointed to published redacted contracts, privacy and commercial interests.	Involvement of Member States is not the same as full public or parliamentary access.
March-April 2026 · Commission and Parliament	The Commission reiterated that important messages should be recorded.	MEPs asked about investigation, consequences and control when messages disappear.	A formal retention obligation is only effective if compliance is verifiable and enforceable.
June 2026 · Solicitor General	Advice in appeals on access to contracts.	Advocate General Rantos recommended dismissing the Commission's appeals.	Compelling legal advice, but at that time no final judgment from the Court.
August-September 2026 · European Ombudsman	New request for documents on negotiation, conclusion and modification of contracts remained unanswered.	The Ombudsman opened case 1839/2026/AGU for failure to properly handle the request.	The transparency issue is not a closed historical file but an ongoing governance problem.

Own source research: six years of struggle for the same openness

The European Court of Auditors calculated that the Commission concluded contracts on behalf of Member States worth approximately 71 billion euros for up to 4.6 billion doses. For the largest contract, the Court received no information on the preparatory negotiations. In July 2024, the General Court annulled parts of Commission decisions because insufficient access had been given to purchasing agreements, including around indemnification and conflict of interest declarations. In May 2025, the General Court also annulled the refusal regarding messages between Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and the CEO of Pfizer: according to the Court, the explanation about the existence and recovery of the messages was not plausible enough. On June 11, 2026, Advocate General Rantos recommended dismissing the Commission's appeals in the contract cases. That is legal advice, not yet a final judgment. A new Ombudsman case followed on September 2, 2026, this time about the failure to process a new document request.

From crisis urgency to permanent demand for trust

During an acute health crisis, speed may be justified. But the frame of constant crisis urgency loses force when fundamental documents still have to be fought for through the Ombudsman and the courts years later. Conversely, the headline question is not proof that there is a scandal behind every blackened passage. The journalistically relevant point is that lack of openness creates room for such suspicions and the Commission itself is responsible for restoring verifiable trust.

Post-decision publicity is weak democratic control

Transparency has the most value before and during major public expenditure, when parliaments can still influence conditions. Years later, a judicial victory may be important in principle, but doses have been delivered, budgets spent and responsible administrators may have left. Moreover, the contracts did not only concern prices. Delivery conditions, division of liability, amendment agreements, declarations of interests and the way in which exceptions to publicity have been applied are also relevant to public scrutiny. Indemnification does not automatically mean that manufacturers had no product liability towards injured parties; the legal constructions must be read per provision.

Possible message behind the news

When citizens can only partially view documents after years of litigation, the message arises that European administrators are not bound by the same openness standards that they themselves promote. That effect is visible. It cannot be established from public sources that this was also the deliberate goal.

Neutral conclusion

Brussels has demonstrably not always provided timely, complete and convincing openness about the COVID-19 vaccine contracts and the associated messaging. That is not an isolated allegation: Ombudsman, Court of Audit and Court each documented concrete shortcomings based on their own authority. The Commission can rightly rely on certain commercial and personal interests, but those exceptions do not justify an inadequate search, general reasoning or a lack of response for years. What this cannot yet prove: that the protected documents contain corruption, secret medical risks or criminal agreements. What is certain: in a purchasing program of approximately 71 billion euros, openness was too often only enforced after the most important decisions had already been irreversible. Only full, verifiably motivated disclosure can make it clear whether behind the closed doors there was only confidentiality or also politically damaging information.