In a recent ruling, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) declared that the European Commission was wrong to withhold details about its multi-billion euro deals for COVID vaccines. This ruling comes as Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, faces scrutiny for allegedly keeping secret and deleting text messages with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla regarding vaccine purchases. The court’s decision is separate from this ongoing controversy, but it is likely to have a negative impact on von der Leyen’s bid for a second term as President.
Additionally, the ECJ stated that Pfizer is liable for damages if its COVID vaccine is found to be defective. The ruling is based on the principle that a producer is responsible for the damage caused by a defect in its product, and this liability cannot be limited or excluded. This means that if Pfizer’s vaccine is deemed defective and causes harm to individuals, they can seek damages from the company. Pfizer, in turn, can seek reimbursements from a third party, such as BioNTech.
The ruling also criticized the European Commission for failing to provide sufficient access to the purchase agreements and for redacting important clauses related to indemnifications. The court argued that the Commission did not prove how these clauses would undermine the commercial interests of pharmaceutical companies.
It is worth noting that media coverage of the ruling has mostly focused on the Commission’s lack of transparency and redaction of contracts, rather than highlighting the liability of pharmaceutical companies. However, according to the ECJ ruling, pharmaceutical companies are not entirely indemnified for any damages caused by their vaccines if they are found to be defective.
This ruling raises questions about the safety and effectiveness of COVID vaccines. The Directive referred to by the ECJ states that a product is considered defective if it lacks the safety that the public is entitled to expect. Given the numerous reports of deaths and injuries related to COVID vaccines, it suggests that these vaccines may indeed be considered defective under this definition.
Overall, the ECJ’s ruling has significant implications for the transparency of vaccine contracts and the accountability of pharmaceutical companies. It remains to be seen how this ruling will impact future vaccine procurement and the public’s perception of vaccine safety.
