By Tamás ORBAN

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The Commission admitted to reviewing the texts weeks after the freedom of information request had been filed, yet still decided not to keep them.

Just when you thought EU Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen had already hit rock bottom in terms of dodging accountability in the Pfizergate scandal, she picked up a shovel and started digging.

The questionable strategy began with the Commission surprisingly deciding to let the deadline expire and not to appeal the EU Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling against it earlier this week, announce instead that it would “comply” with the ruling by providing a “better explanation” for why it didn’t release the potentially incriminating text messages between von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla all these years.

Then, on Friday, Brussels sent a letter to The New York Times—the outlet which broke the scandal and subsequently won against the Commission at the ECJ—explaining that it did review the texts in 2021, but since they contained only logistical and “short-lived” information regarding the multibillion vaccine deal, they weren’t considered worthy of registering as official documents. The president then changed phones multiple times, losing the texts in the process.

And that’s it, case closed. At least from the Commission’s perspective, which clearly wants us to believe that the NYT fought for nearly four years in the highest European court to learn what von der Leyen has been publicly saying all this time. That the texts had nothing interesting in them—which is only for Brussels to decide, apparently—and that they’ve been irreversibly lost.

But von der Leyen would be wrong to hope that there would be no more questions after this, as there seem to be multiple problems with how the Commission imagines “compliance” with the ECJ ruling.

First of all, the Commission said in the letter that von der Leyen’s chief of staff reviewed the texts during “the summer of 2021” before deciding not to archive them, while the first freedom of information request from the outlet was filed in May 2021. Meaning the Commission had the texts when the request was submitted, and decided not to keep them while knowing full well there was a legal obligation to provide them to the NYT as soon as possible.

Furthermore, the Court established several shortcomings on behalf of the Commission, the most important being that it was unlawful not to disclose the texts in the first place, and secondly, the Commission failed to give a sufficient explanation to the Court for why it didn’t or couldn’t.

So, if von der Leyen used the same argument in Court that she gave to the NYT now, it means it’s still not a sufficient explanation; therefore, the Commission still refuses to comply with the ruling.

But it would be even more puzzling if it turned out that she didn’t submit this explanation to the Court, even though it would have been enough for her to win the case. Or, from the other way around, if this explanation was enough, the fact that she lost suggests that she didn’t give it to the Court.

If that was the case, the Commission’s reason might have been trying to avoid admitting to the destruction of sensitive documents as well, which it practically did now anyway.

Whatever the truth, this explanation is hardly a “compliance” with the ECJ ruling, but von der Leyen knows that as well. Her strategy is clear: take it or sue me again, and we’ll see each other in another four years. Sadly, she’s right: if the EU Parliament couldn’t make her come clean—thanks to all mainstream parties rushing to her rescue—a journal will not either.

It’s a painful lesson for the European public as well, which rightfully feels that it deserves to know why von der Leyen bought 10 vaccine doses for each and every one of them out of their pocket, only for the vast majority to end up in landfills. But we know by now that we should not expect democratic accountability from an unelected official.

Original article:  europeanconservative.com