Ursula von der Leyen was already under scrutiny for allegedly keeping secret and deleting text messages with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla over vaccine purchases in a controversy dubbed “Deletegate.” Wednesday’s court ruling is separate to that case.
Apart from the obvious negative impact this is likely to have on von der Leyen’s bid for a second term as the President of the European Commission, the Court also stated that Pfizer is liable for damages if its covid vaccine is defective.
Ursula von der Leyen’s bid for a second term as European Commission chief has been dealt a major blow after a top EU court ruled she was not transparent enough with the public about covid-19 vaccine contracts.
The General Court of the European Union ruled against the Commission’s decision to redact large parts of the contracts before making them available.
The General Court on Wednesday partially upheld the MEPs’ lawsuit and annulled the Commission’s decision to redact parts of the contracts.
It pushed against the Commission’s decision to conceal provisions on indemnification, arguing that the Commission failed to prove how those clauses would undermine the commercial interests of the pharmaceutical companies.
“The new European Commission must now adapt their handling of access to documents requests to be in line with today’s ruling,” [Tilly Metz, one of the Green MEPs who filed the lawsuit, said].
The Commission can appeal the ruling within two months and 10 days of the decision.
Politico noted that other cases regarding the Pfizer contracts and communication between von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla are also pending in different EU jurisdictions.
In 2023, a Belgian lobbyist, Frédéric Baldan, filed a complaint against von der Leyen personally, alleging that she and Bourla directly negotiated a €1.8 billion contract extension via text messages, undermining public trust and Belgium’s public finances. The Belgian authorities initiated the case in early 2023. Subsequently, the governments of Hungary and Poland joined the lawsuit.
1 comment:
Vaccination has been redefined. For what purpose? What happened to natural immunity? Why the push to mass vaccination when there is no defined risk? What exactly are the MRNA programmed to protect against? Programmed artificially with what information? What is included with these so called vaccines? There has been a push to redefine humanity. Why? For what purpose? Who decides? Who benefits? What is the end game? Why choose or mention those in the poorest countries as the first or most important to receive the so called vaccines? What are the side affects? Does it affect fertility? There is a known eugenics aspect with in those that are associated with these so called vaccines what is the paradoxical thinking of those that push this agenda? Help or hurt?
Post a Comment