The Court of Justice of the European Union General Court (EUCJ) ruled on Wednesday that the European Commission’s refusal to give the New York Times access to communication exchanges between the European Commission (EC) president and Pfizer was incorrect. The court thereby annulled the EC decision.

The General Court recognized that, although all institutional documents should, in principle, be accessible to the public, there is a presumption that certain documents may not exist if the institution asserts as much. However, this presumption can also be challenged by “relevant and consistent evidence produced by the applicant.”

The General Court found that in this case, the New York Times had produced evidence which was consistent and therefore “succeeded in rebutting the presumption of non-existence and of non-possession of the requested documents.” It ruled that the EC must provide credible evidence and clear explanations as to why the documents are not available.

The EC responded to the decision, saying that it will “adopt a new decision providing a more detailed explanation” regarding the documents.

A New York Times journalist made an Access to Documents application, requesting that the EC provide access to “all text messages exchanged between President Ursula von der Leyen and Albert Bourla, the chief executive officer of Pfizer, between 1 January 2021 and 11 May 2022.” The exchanges related to the acquisition of vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic and claims that the two parties negotiated a “multibillion-euro vaccine deal.” The EC rejected this application on the basis that it no longer had the documents requested. The New York Times challenged this decision.

The Access to Documents Regulation falls under the fundamental EU principle of transparency, protected under Articles 10 and 11 of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, particularly Article 15.