Finally, after almost five years of unprecedented power centralisation within the European Commission, justice and democracy seem to be reasserting themselves. I know this might sound like a fixation, writing again about the President of the European Commission and the institution itself. However, we must use our pen to hold those in privileged positions to account. This is even more critical especially since the European Parliament is failing to do its job properly. Oversight becomes indispensable, especially when the European Ombudsman and the European Court of Auditors are being obstructed in doing their jobs properly, by powerful consiglieri who appear determined to block transparency and accountability across EU structures. The question that arises is, why would someone working for the president of an EU institution take it upon themselves to block even the European Ombudsman? Is it out of loyalty, or is it out of fear? Whatever the reason, both are morally wrong within the democratic structures of the EU. Loyalty must be towards the EU citizens and taxpayers’ money.
It is already bad governance for the President of the European Commission to reside in the Berlaymont building living at public’s expense. And this must have been flagged by the European Court of Auditors a while ago. Yet, what happened last week makes this governance deficit even more alarming. The European Court of Justice’s judgment ordering President Ursula von der Leyen to disclose her text messages with the CEO of Pfizer is not just a legal breakthrough, but a key moment of reckoning for the European Union and the values it claims to uphold. This is not about some petty exchange of personal messages to check in on how they were both coping with the pandemic. Nor was it a WhatsApp group for EU geriatrics in top positions to remind each other about their vulnerability to the virus. It concerns billions of euros in public funds. It is money paid by EU taxpayers for vaccines procured under shady conditions, with the highest authority in the EU Commission refusing to be held accountable.
To put it in perspective, we’re talking about contracts worth billions, not just minor sums that, even in the thousands, would raise red flags under OLAF regulations. The scale of such multi-billion contracts dwarfs the revenues Malta received from its Individual Investor Programme, for which the Commission took us to court. And herein lies the crux of the story. The EU Commission took us to the European Court of Justice, arguing that we broke the spirit of cooperation and trust between member states, for allegedly selling passports. Just read the ECJ’s judgment and the arguments of the EU Commission. So, when billions were negotiated in secret, without minutes, traceability, or oversight, did the European Commission not break trust? Did Ursula von der Leyen not trample over the very same principles of transparency, accountability and good governance that she so often preaches? Some might argue this is a non sequitur or perhaps whataboutism. However, what we are talking about is the basic principle of trust. And when institutional trust is broken, especially by the very person who took Malta to the ECJ over what now appears to be a fraction of the funds at stake, then the only honourable way forward is resignation. Otherwise, we are all complicit in this charade.
This is why I felt compelled to write this opinion today. Let’s lay out the facts and how they unfolded. During the height of the pandemic, while citizens were in lockdown and health systems were on the brink of collapse, von der Leyen took it upon herself to communicate directly with Pfizer’s CEO via text message, thereby bypassing institutional procurement protocols. These communications led to the largest vaccine contract in the EU’s history. Yet, to this day, she refuses to disclose the contents of those exchanges. She has resisted journalistic and legal efforts to access them, citing weak and absurd technicalities. Her behaviour looks less like that of a European Commission president and more akin to what we would expect from Putin’s Russia or Aliyev’s Azerbaijan when handing out billions in contracts to oligarchs. It is indeed authoritarian and entirely unaccountable behaviour. It always occurred to me that von der Leyen is selective in her diplomatic affections toward authoritarian leaders, but I did not know their methods were so easily contagious!
What von der Leyen did with Pfizer was anything but transparent. It was an ad hoc arrangement between two powerful individuals, conducted in the shadows, using public funds. And the hypocrisy is unbelievable. The same European Parliament that gushed in outrage when a former Maltese Prime Minister refused to provide the password to his phone during a politically rigged investigation, has remained entirely silent on von der Leyen’s conduct. Not a single statement or calls for accountability. They only brushed Article 122 off for the financing of ReArm Europe, to look like they had done something ahead of the ECJ’s judgment. This is institutional hypocrisy at its worst. The so-called guardians of EU democracy have gone AWOL.
What’s risible, though, is how Euractiv rushed to von der Leyen’s defence. I couldn’t believe what I was reading. My message to Euractiv is that to your dismay, it wasn’t von der Leyen who saved Europe from the pandemic. It wasn’t her centralised procurement model. Actually, it was science that saved us. And more importantly, the billions of euros in taxpayers’ money that financed the vaccines. Credit does not belong to her. Responsibility, however, does. Certainly, we must ask questions. Where did those billions go? Could we have had better deals? Were there sufficient safeguards in place? We simply don’t know. And that is precisely why the ECJ ruling is so critical. It affirms that even the highest-ranking EU officials are not above scrutiny. It affirms that public money demands public accountability. Ursula von der Leyen is no longer Germany’s Defence Minister. Surely, she cannot hide behind national security. We all recall that von der Leyen already refused to release her text messages in her former post. So, this is, unfortunately, a pattern we are seeing here and not an oversight.
Moreover, the European Parliament cannot remain silent. After all, several EU parliamentarians were elected on a platform of good governance and transparency. If those principles are to mean anything, they must apply not only to small member states but also to the most powerful figures in EU institutions. Right now, it increasingly feels like a shadow state is operating within the European Union, which is centred around von der Leyen’s modus operandi and bolstered by powerful consiglieri and loyalists. It’s like watching a coterie movie play out in real time, one where institutional power is weaponised to shield those at the top.
By now, you might have realised that von der Leyen is a bully. Her authoritarian conduct, sleazy dealings, and churlish behaviour are unbecoming of anyone leading the European Commission. The Maltese authorities, and smaller member states, must resist such a bully. In fact, they must use this moment, with backing from MEPs, to push for transparency in this entire episode and call for good governance and accountability at all levels. This is not just a legal matter. It is a moral and political one.
If the European Commission demands transparency from small member states, it must embody that same principle. If the European Parliament claims to represent democratic values, it must equally uphold them. If the European Court of Justice delivered a judgment, there can be no political backtracking, as this is not merely a legal issue, even if the EU Commission appeals. The ECJ ruling is a rare opportunity in the past five years to foster integrity in a chapter otherwise marked by sleaziness under the sitting president. We must not waste it. Hopefully, let us send a clear message to all EU citizens, that nobody, not even Ursula von der Leyen, is above the law.
