Conflits d'intérêts avec Pfizer : l'UE refuse de donner les noms ! - Arnaud Durand

Summary

In this interview, Arnaud Durand, a lawyer from the Paris Bar, discusses his victory against the European Commission in July 2024, where the court ordered the Commission to disclose key documents related to COVID-19 vaccine contracts, including indemnity clauses and conflict-of-interest declarations. The case, which began in 2021, reveals a push for transparency regarding negotiations and accountability. Despite a legal battle involving appeals, Durand emphasizes the need for transparency in public health decisions. He highlights the ongoing legal process, the Commission's reluctance to comply with the ruling, and the significant public interest in revealing the details of these contracts.

Takeaways

• 😀 The European Commission was condemned by the European Court for failing to disclose key documents, including contracts and conflict of interest declarations related to COVID-19 vaccine negotiations.
• 😀 A group of 2089 citizens filed a lawsuit against the European Commission for withholding documents that could reveal potential conflicts of interest among negotiators.
• 😀 The court ruled that the Commission must release non-redacted documents, including contracts and negotiators' names, which had been previously concealed.
• 😀 The Commission argues that redacted conflict-of-interest declarations are sufficient, but this has been rejected by the court.
• 😀 The European Commission has appealed the decision and requested that the release of negotiators' names be suspended during the appeal process.
• 😀 The Commission's legal team made an unusual argument, comparing the case to a shooting in the U.S., to justify withholding certain information, which raised concerns about the Commission's reasoning.
• 😀 The European Court of Justice dismissed some of the Commission's legal arguments but considered the balance of interests involved in the case.
• 😀 The Commission has not yet complied with the ruling to release the contracts, raising concerns about its commitment to transparency.
• 😀 Despite an ongoing appeal, the Commission is legally obligated to comply with the court's ruling, although there is an argument about the timing of compliance.
• 😀 Arnaud Durand, the lawyer leading the case, has emphasized the importance of transparency, especially regarding the contracts that affected nearly the entire European population.

Q & A

What was the main legal issue discussed in the interview?

The main issue was the legal action taken by Arnaud Durand, a lawyer at the Paris Bar, against the European Commission for its refusal to disclose certain documents related to the purchase of COVID-19 vaccines. The documents included contracts, declarations of conflicts of interest, and correspondence with health ministers.

How did the European Commission initially respond to the request for documents?

The European Commission initially refused to disclose 66 documents, including 13 contracts and 22 conflict-of-interest declarations from negotiators involved in the COVID-19 vaccine contracts. This led to a legal challenge by 2089 citizens.

What was the ruling of the European Court on July 17, 2024?

On July 17, 2024, the European Court ruled that the European Commission must disclose the requested documents, including non-redacted contracts and the names of negotiators, in order to ensure transparency, especially regarding conflicts of interest.

What did the European Commission do after the ruling in favor of transparency?

After the court's ruling, the European Commission appealed the decision to the European Court of Justice. Additionally, they filed for an injunction to suspend the disclosure of negotiators' names until the appeal was resolved.

What arguments did the European Commission present in its appeal?

The European Commission argued that it was sufficient to provide redacted conflict-of-interest declarations and that revealing the names of negotiators was unnecessary. They also claimed that the disclosure could lead to legal risks, such as victims of the vaccine being able to sue the manufacturers based on indemnity clauses.

What was the outcome of the Commission’s injunction request?

The Commission's request for an injunction to suspend the disclosure of negotiators' names was denied. The court found that there were no legal grounds to justify suspending the decision at this stage, though it acknowledged the possibility that the European Court of Justice could overturn the ruling on appeal.

How did the European Court view the argument that revealing negotiators' names could harm their interests?

The court considered the argument but ultimately ruled that the public's interest in transparency outweighed the negotiators' privacy concerns. The court emphasized the importance of ensuring accountability in public contracts, particularly regarding potential conflicts of interest.

What did the European Court of Auditors say about the lack of transparency in the negotiations?

The European Court of Auditors confirmed that it had no access to any elements related to the preliminary negotiations of the largest COVID-19 vaccine contract, highlighting the opacity surrounding the negotiation process, especially involving Ursula von der Leyen.

Why was there concern about the vaccine contracts, especially in relation to pricing?

Concerns arose because the contracts showed that the price per dose increased as the quantity ordered by the European Commission grew, which contradicted typical commercial principles where prices usually decrease with higher volumes. This raised questions about potential conflicts of interest and the fairness of the agreements.

What is the significance of the 'balance of interests' in this legal case?

The 'balance of interests' refers to the court's consideration of the competing interests between the European Commission, which seeks to protect the identities of negotiators, and the public's right to transparency regarding conflicts of interest and the fairness of the vaccine contracts. The court found that the public's right to know outweighed the Commission's concerns about privacy.