BRUSSELS — Are there any serious checks on the woman running the European Commission?

That’s the real question that a long-awaited ruling by the EU’s General Court on Wednesday might go a small way to answering. The “Pfizergate” case has come to symbolize the institutional blind spots at the heart of the EU, and, in particular, around its most powerful official, Ursula von der Leyen. 

The case itself hinges on a legal technicality: Whether the Commission was wrong to dismiss a journalist’s request to access the text messages von der Leyen exchanged with Albert Bourla, the CEO of drug company Pfizer, during discussions about getting vaccines to Europe at the height of the Covid-19 crisis in 2021.

The repercussions go far wider however, raising deep concerns about where accountability in the European Union lies.

“The Pfizergate case is the most illustrative example of the consistent discrepancy between the president’s application of transparency and her rhetoric,” said Nick Aiossa, head of Transparency International Europe, an NGO. “This has resulted in a culture that has placed obstruction above accountability.”

It’s less than a year since the EU’s 27 governments and the European Parliament backed giving von der Leyen a second five-year term at the helm of the Commission. And while there’s little appetite in capitals to rock the boat, in the corridors of power in Brussels a sense of frustration with her leadership style is perceptible.

Important decision-making is becoming increasingly centralized. She and a close-knit group of largely German advisers run the show and keep a tight grip on all messaging and communication.

The court ruling won’t change any of that. But, if it goes against the Commission, it could strike a blow.

That culture that Aiossa describes has led critics to consider what the refusal to release the text messages really reveals. They see a system where the most powerful official can operate behind closed doors, even at moments when her decisions can trigger enormous consequences, without proper checks and balances.

Politically and financially

Von der Leyen’s defenders say she did what was necessary at a time of crisis — securing vaccine doses for 27 countries when lives were at stake.

The question now is not whether what she set in motion was right or wrong. Few people deny that the stakes of the vaccine deal were enormous — both politically and financially. Member countries ultimately signed off, but the details were never fully disclosed, even to the Court of Auditors.

Pfizer reportedly raised its prices during negotiations, and the EU ended up with millions of surplus doses, many of which were later destroyed. Some governments, reluctant to pay for more vaccines, were later sued by Pfizer under the same deal.

Throughout it all, transparency has been hard to come by. Von der Leyen herself has never commented on the messages’ contents. And within her own administration, no one appears to have formally asked her to. 

Some think the criticism of von der Leyen is overblown, and point to her very strong mandate in Brussels.

“Regardless of her personal style or the tightly controlled structure of her cabinet, she now has a political foundation that no previous Commission president has ever enjoyed,” said Didier Georgakakis, French political scientist and visiting professor at the College of Europe, discussing von der Leyen’s leadership style. “When it comes to checks and balances, the EU has one of the most advanced systems in place. There’s the rule of law, upheld by an independent court, and the European Parliament.”

As if people can control her!

But von der Leyen’s lack of transparency became evident during a preliminary hearing in the EU court in November when Judge Heikki Kanninen, frustrated that the Commission wasn’t being very forthcoming about the nature of the text messages, asked its lawyer dryly: “President von der Leyen would be in a good place to answer questions ― has anybody asked her?”

Commission lawyer Paolo Scantanelli replied: “I do not know how those searches were done.”

The exchange prompted some murmurings from others in court, which brought home the limitations the European civil service operate within. A Commission staffer muttered to one of their colleagues: “As if there are people who can control the President! Public servants do what politicians tell them.”

Brought in front of the EU’s top judges for institutional disputes, the Commission did not detail how it handled the records request, only saying the texts weren’t “substantive” and didn’t qualify them as documents under EU rules, while finding itself unable to say who had made the call. 

The Commission, when contacted by POLITICO in the past few days, says it doesn’t comment on ongoing court proceedings. Critics say the institution acted as both defendant and judge in deciding whether the texts were important documents that should be archived.

Strength and authority

Before this happened, many had tried to force the Commission to change its approach and push von der Leyen’s administration towards more transparency. The European Ombudsman said the institution committed maladministration. The Court of Auditors has complained of blocked access.

Von der Leyen, meanwhile, has called on commissioners to disclose meetings with lobbyists — but has herself only published two such meetings this year.

Right after the start of her second term on Dec. 1 last year, the Commission changed its transparency guidelines, introducing a “presumption of non-disclosure” for certain documents and laying out that text messaging should not be used for important information unless strictly necessary. 

The court’s ruling won’t compel von der Leyen to release the texts. But it could clarify whether the Commission was wrong to claim they never counted in the first place — and whether the EU’s rules can keep pace with the way its leaders actually operate.

And, as with all politicians, she’s at the mercy of events ― some of which count in her favor.

“The renewed U.S.-Russia rapprochement is also playing a role, encouraging political forces in Brussels to close ranks,” Georgakakis said. “With this being her second term, she’s entering it with significantly more strength and authority than she had during her first.”

Mari Eccles contributed reporting.