(AGENPARL) – mer 17 luglio 2024 PRESS RELEASE No 113/24
Luxembourg, 17 July 2024
Judgments of the General Court in Cases T-689/21 | Auken and Others v Commission
and T-761/21 | Courtois and Others v Commission
The Commission did not give the public sufficiently wide access to the
purchase agreements for Covid-19 vaccines
That infringement concerns, inter alia, those agreements’ provisions on indemnification, and concerns the
declarations that there was no conflict of interest on the part of the members of the team who negotiated the
purchase of the vaccines
In 2020 and 2021, purchase agreements for Covid-19 vaccines were concluded between the Commission and some
pharmaceutical undertakings: approximately €2.7 billion were quickly released so that a firm order could be made
for more than 1 billion doses of vaccine.
In 2021, some Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and private individuals requested, on the basis of the
regulation on access to documents 1, access to those agreements and to certain related documents so that they
could understand their terms and conditions and satisfy themselves that the public interest was protected.
As the Commission granted only partial access to those documents, which were put online in redacted versions, the
MEPs concerned and private individuals brought actions for annulment before the General Court of the European
Union.
In its judgments, the General Court upholds the two actions in part and annuls the Commission’s decisions in so far
as they contain irregularities.
As regards the agreements’ provisions on the indemnification of the pharmaceutical undertakings by the
Member States for any damages that those undertakings would have to pay in the event of their vaccines being
defective, the General Court states that a producer is liable for the damage caused by a defect in its product and its
liability cannot be limited or excluded vis-à-vis the victim by a clause limiting, or providing an exemption from,
liability under Directive 85/374 2. The General Court notes, however, that there is no provision in Directive 85/374
that prohibits a third party from reimbursing the damages which a producer has paid as a result of its product being
defective. It states that the reason why the provisions on indemnification were incorporated into the agreements 3,
namely to compensate for the risks incurred by the pharmaceutical undertakings in connection with the shortening
of the period for the development of the vaccines, had been endorsed by the Member States 4 and fell within the
public domain. The General Court finds that the Commission did not demonstrate that wider access to those clauses
would actually undermine the commercial interests of those undertakings. Similarly, the Commission did not
provide sufficient explanations as to how access to the definitions of ‘wilful misconduct’ or ‘best reasonable efforts’,
in some of the agreements, and as to how access to the agreements’ provisions on donations and resales of the
vaccines, could actually and specifically undermine those commercial interests.
As regards the protection of the privacy of individuals, relied on by the Commission to refuse, in part, access to the
declarations by the members of the team who negotiated the purchase of the vaccines that they had no conflict of
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
interests, the General Court finds that the persons who brought the action had duly demonstrated the specific
purpose of the public interest in the disclosure of the personal data of the members of that team. It was only
by having the names, surnames and details of the professional or institutional role of the members of the team in
question that they could have ascertained whether or not the members of that team had a conflict of interests.
Furthermore, the Commission did not take sufficient account of all the relevant circumstances in order to
weigh up correctly the interests at issue, related to the absence of a conflict of interests and a risk that the right