Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Union Athanasios Rantos proposes that the European Commission's appeals against decisions of the General Court of the EU in the case on access to contracts for the purchase of COVID-19 vaccines be dismissed. This is clear from a statement by the Court's press service, News.bg reports.
In his conclusion, he points out that the European Commission has not ensured sufficiently wide public access to information related to vaccine contracts concluded during the pandemic.
During the health crisis, the EU created a centralized system for negotiating and purchasing vaccines, through which member states would be guaranteed rapid and equal access to the preparations. In this process, the European Commission worked through a joint negotiating team, including its staff and representatives of the Member States, which led the talks with the pharmaceutical companies.
In 2021, MEPs and citizens requested access to the contracts and related documents. However, the Commission provided only partial information, redacting the names of the participants in the negotiation process and certain clauses related to compensation for the pharmaceutical companies.
In July 2024, the General Court of the EU ruled that this limited access was insufficient and that the Commission had not sufficiently justified its refusal to disclose some of the documents. The European Commission subsequently appealed the decision to the Court of Justice of the EU.
Advocate General Rantos now accepts that transparency in the vaccine negotiation process constitutes a matter of significant public interest. According to him, citizens have a right to receive more complete information, including about the participants in the negotiations and the way in which decisions were made.
He also points out that providing only anonymized declarations of absence of conflict of interest does not allow sufficient public control over the impartiality of the negotiating teams.
The Advocate General also rejects the Commission's arguments that the disclosure of the indemnity clauses would harm the commercial interests of pharmaceutical companies, stating that no real harm or increased risk of legal claims has been proven.
The Advocate General's opinions are not binding on the court, but are usually taken into account in the final decision to be issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union.