Von der Leyen’s SMS Affair: Facts and Consequences #
Introduction #
The controversy surrounding SMS communication between EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla has raised fundamental questions about transparency in European institutions. In spring 2021, when the EU Commission concluded a contract for 1.8 billion vaccine doses with Pfizer, the New York Times reported on personal text messages between the two. What followed was an institutional failure in documentation and transparency.
The Facts #
What Actually Happened #
- The Commission refused to release these messages, claiming they had not been documented
- February 2022: The European Ombudsman opened an investigation
- April 2023: The Ombudsman classified this as maladministration, as the Commission had violated its documentation obligations
What the Ombudsman Found #
The European Ombudsman did not speak of bribery or personal benefits, but rather of:
- Lack of transparency in documentation
- Violation of record-keeping obligations for official communications
- Democratic deficit due to insufficient parliamentary oversight
Context of Vaccine Procurement #
The EU Commission acted on behalf of member states under enormous time pressure:
- Negotiations took place during a global vaccine shortage
- All contracts were approved by member states in the Health Committee
- The Pfizer contract was one of several (alongside Moderna, AstraZeneca, etc.)
- Prices were high due to market conditions but comparable to other industrialized nations
Calls for Accountability #
In the European Parliament, there were inquiries and debates about vaccine procurement transparency, particularly from The Left group and individual MEPs. The criticism includes:
- Written questions to the Commission demanding disclosure of communications
- Debates in the Budgetary Control Committee about contract terms
- Demands for greater transparency in future procurement processes
Transparency Deficits vs. Corruption: An Important Distinction #
| Allegation | Evidence |
|---|---|
| Lack of transparency | Confirmed by Ombudsman |
| Democratic deficit | Speed left little time for parliamentary oversight |
| Documentation obligations violated | Officially determined |
| Personal enrichment | No evidence found |
| Corruption in legal sense | Neither Ombudsman nor Court of Auditors found evidence |
Conclusion #
The criticism of opaque communication is justified and has been officially confirmed by the European Ombudsman. EU institutions must take their documentation obligations more seriously.
The actual investigation reveals structural problems in crisis communication, but not systematic corruption in the legal sense. Trust in institutions would be strengthened more through fact-based transparency than through unsubstantiated corruption allegations.
The demand for full disclosure of all communications remains legitimate – not because corruption is proven, but because democratic oversight requires transparency.
Sources:
- European Ombudsman: Strategic inquiry into European Commission’s handling of a request for public access to text messages (Case OI/3/2022/MIG)
- New York Times: “How Europe Sealed a Pfizer Vaccine Deal With Texts and Calls” (April 2021)
