Laurent Truchot, president of the 9th chamber of the EU court, rejects requests for hearing on Covid vaccine contracts

2024-01-11 14:58:48

France-Soir and Xavier Azalbert filed a request with the Court of the European Union on November 10, 2023 to annul the implicit decision of the European Commission refusing to grant them access to “all vaccine acquisition contracts against Covid-19 concluded by the European Commission with the pharmaceutical companies Pfizer Inc/Biontech – Moderne – Janseen not redacted” considering that this decision violated several fundamental rights and in particular that of freedom of the press and the right to transparency.

This request was published in the official journal of the European Union in the 27 different languages ​​of the European Union:

“Appeal filed on November 10, 2023 – Shopper Union France and Azalbert / Commission” (Case T-1071/23)
Language of proceedings: French

Parties
Requesting parties: Shopper Union France (France), Xavier Azalbert (France) (representing: D. Protat, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission

Conclusions
The applicants conclude that the Court should:

Cancel the implicit decision of the European Commission refusing to grant them access to certain documents and in particular all of the contracts for the acquisition of vaccines against Covid-19 concluded by the Commission with the pharmaceutical companies Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and Janssen no redacted.

Means and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants put forward five pleas.

First way, taken from the inapplicability of the privacy exception. The applicants argue that the personal data of persons who participated in the joint team responsible for negotiating contracts with vaccine manufacturers, who were vested with a public mandate or at least a public service mission, do not are not likely to allow the revelation of their political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs or their trade union membership. There is therefore no reason to believe that the disclosure of the personal data concerned would harm the legitimate interests of the data subjects.

Second means, taken from the inapplicability of the exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of companies. According to the applicants, the Commission does not argue that it would expose itself to being liable for contractual penalties to the co-contracting pharmaceutical companies if it revealed, despite the disputed confidentiality clause, the terms of the contracts. Consequently, the exception based on business secrecy cannot be applied.

Third way, taken from the superior interest which justifies access to the requested documents. The applicants argue that several reasons relating in particular to the context of the conclusion of the contracts linked to the COVID-19 pandemic, to the purpose of these contracts, which is to satisfy a mission of general interest relating to the health of the population living in the Union, to the monopoly of the Union and the Member States concerning the acquisition and distribution of vaccines, characterize the existence of a public interest of the Union and its citizens superior to that of the private interests of companies pharmaceutical companies concerned.

Fourth means, taken from the fact that the disputed confidentiality clause constitutes an abuse of rights. The applicants argue that the Commission does not have the right to rely on the disputed confidentiality clause to refuse to accede to their requests because this amounts to “destroying” or at least “limiting” a right contained in the charter. of the fundamental rights of the European Union (hereinafter the “Charter”), that of transparency and therefore to commit an abuse of rights prohibited by Article 54 of the Charter.

Fifth means, taken from fraudulent nature of the exceptions raised by the Commission in its refusal to provide the requested documents. The applicants argue that two criminal investigations are underway into the conditions for the conclusion of contracts for the acquisition of vaccines against COVID-19 between the Commission and the company Pfizer Inc. Thus the exceptions raised by the Commission to refuse access to documents have the sole aim of protecting its members. »

On December 2, 2023, the newspaper Atlantic published an article entitled: “Pfizergate : European Ombudsman calls on media to stop remaining silent about von der Leyen’s actions “The nature and scale of the maladministration I have uncovered in the EU requires a wider public debate, said Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly.”

France-Soir and Xavier Azalbert then wrote to the president of the 9th Chamber of the court in charge of this European Union case, Laurent Truchot, so that he can schedule a pleading hearing as quickly as possible:

” Mister President,

…A few days ago, the European mediator “called on the media to stop being silent on the actions of Mrs von der Leyen » and added: “The nature and extent of the cases of maladministration that I discovered [au sein de l’UE] require a wider public debate. »

These remarks target in particular the refusal of the European Commission and Ms. von der LEYEN to give public access to the contracts for the acquisition of vaccines against COVID 19 concluded by her Commission as well as to the messages that she exchanged with the CEO of Pfizer in connection with the negotiation of said contracts.

This affair is of crucial importance for Democracy in the European Union, the foundations of which are undermined by the behavior of the European Commission and its President.

Consequently, I invite you to hear this case without delay, being reminded that your Court in other files that he considered urgentwas able to transact business to the bottom in 8 weeks.

In this case, this case cannot wait any longer and European citizens, whose fundamental rights and health are at stake, would not understand if your Chamber does not hear this case. its priority. Moreover, if this file were to drag on in limbo, it could amount to preferential treatment for the Commission and its President, while the European Ombudsman calls each and in particular the media to act to put an end to the errors of this Commission.

Thanking you for letting me know the date of the hearing that you will set to hear this matter…”

On January 10, 2023, President Laurent Truchot informed France-Soir and Xavier Azalbert that he refused, without specifying the reason, to add their request for a hearing to the procedural file!

Laurent Truchot is an eminent French magistrate, former advisor to the Court of Cassation, as recalled by his curriculum vitae accessible on the website of the court of the European Union.

Mr. Laurent Truchot is certainly not unaware of questions of respect for the rights of the Defense. It is also necessarily informed of the existence of numerous legal, civil and criminal proceedings in progress against the European Commission and its President Mrs von der Leyen in the context of the conclusion of contracts for the acquisition of vaccines against the Covid-19.

He finally knows (a minima by the request for hearing of France-Soir and Xavier Azalbert) of the position of the European Ombudsman on the actions of Mrs. von der Leyen and her illegal refusal to inform journalists and European citizens of contracts for the acquisition of vaccines against Covid-19 and electronic exchanges of negotiations with the CEO of Pfizer Inc.

His response is deeply shocking in terms of fundamental rights and in particular that of access to justice: how can a request for an urgent hearing in a matter of such importance be simply thrown into the trash by a senior magistrate?

Indeed, Article 253 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides that:

“The judges and advocates general of the Court of Justice, chosen from among personalities offering every guarantee of independence and who meet the conditions required for the exercise, in their respective countries, of the highest judicial functions, or who are jurisconsults possessing recognized skills, are appointed by mutual agreement for six years by the governments of the Member States, after consultation of the committee provided for in Article 255.”

And article 67 of this same treaty indicates for its part that:

“1. The Union constitutes an area of ​​freedom, security and justice while respecting fundamental rights and the different legal systems and traditions of the Member States.”

All the different legal systems and traditions of the Member States provide that judges in the exercise of their functions must be independent of political power.

This is the foundation of justice.

Without independence, it cannot exist.

And without justice, this space which calls itself European Union cannot do it either.