A senior adviser to the European Court of Justice has delivered a damning opinion stating that the European Commission did not grant the public sufficiently broad access to the controversial COVID-19 vaccine purchase agreements, dealing another blow to the Commission’s long-standing secrecy around the deals.
In his opinion delivered on June 12, Advocate General Athanasios Rantos recommended that the Court reject the Commission’s appeal against a 2024 General Court ruling and uphold the finding that the executive failed to justify heavy redactions in the contracts.
The opinion focuses on two key areas: The names and declarations of no conflict of interest of members of the Commission’s joint negotiation team, and the contractual clauses relating to indemnification (liability protection) for pharmaceutical companies.
Rantos stated that transparency in the negotiation process for COVID-19 vaccines constitutes a specific public interest under EU law.
He argued that simply publishing anonymised versions of conflict-of-interest declarations was not enough for the public to properly assess the impartiality of those involved.
On the indemnification clauses, he found that the Commission had not sufficiently demonstrated that their disclosure would harm the commercial interests of the companies or increase liability risks.
#ECJ #AG Rantos: the @EU_Commission did not grant the public sufficiently broad access to agreements for the purchase of #COVID19 vaccines 👉 https://t.co/CBm0NG2NK2
— EU Court of Justice (@EUCourtPress) June 11, 2026
The case stems from requests by several Members of the European Parliament and citizens who sought fuller access to the agreements signed between the Commission and companies such as Pfizer, BioNTech, Moderna and AstraZeneca during the height of the pandemic.
The Commission had released only heavily redacted versions, citing commercial confidentiality and personal data protection.
This latest opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice, but Advocate General opinions are followed in the vast majority of cases.
A final judgment is expected later this year.
The ruling comes amid ongoing public scepticism and criticism over the lack of transparency surrounding the EU’s €71 billion vaccine procurement programme, one of the largest joint purchases in the bloc’s history.
Critics, including transparency campaigners and numerous MEPs, have long argued that excessive secrecy has damaged public trust in EU institutions and prevented proper scrutiny of liability deals, pricing, and potential conflicts of interest.
The lawsuit against the European Commission regarding access to the COVID-19 vaccine contracts was initiated by five MEPs from the Greens/EFA group in April 2022.
Brussels Signal reached out to the party for a reaction, but did not receive a reaction at the time of publication.
The Commission has consistently defended its position, arguing that full disclosure could harm negotiations with pharmaceutical companies and expose sensitive commercial information.
However, this latest EUCJ opinion reinforces the General Court’s earlier view that the Commission failed to strike the right balance between commercial interests and the public’s right to transparency.
The case highlights a broader and recurring problem for the von der Leyen Commission: Repeated accusations of insufficient openness, particularly on high-stakes issues involving big industry and public funds.
Transparency advocates see today’s development as an important victory for accountability, even if years after the vaccines were rolled out.
In 2021, Italian outlet RAI released unredacted parts of the contracts, which can be found online.
The European General Court has criticised European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen for refusing to disclose text messages exchanged with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla. https://t.co/xIupk8oKY8
— Brussels Signal (@brusselssignal) May 14, 2025
