Ursula von der Leyen faces the most defining test of her presidency of the European Commission this week as the EU’s General Court announces its ruling on the case of messages she exchanged with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla during negotiations for a contract to supply up to 1.8 billion doses of a vaccine against Covid-19.

The case – known as “Pfizergate” – has become a political and institutional issue of the first magnitude, as the Court will decide whether the Commission violated transparency principles by refusing to make public the contents of the emails, which have never been officially archived. At the heart of the matter is the question of whether written messages concerning political decisions constitute official documents, and therefore publicly accessible.

As Politico notes, the history of the case begins with an interview Bourla gave to the New York Times in April 2021, where he revealed a personal text message exchange with von der Leyen that “created deep trust.” The deal, signed in May 2021, provided for an initial purchase of 900 million tranches and the option to purchase as many more.

The New York Times, through its chief correspondent in Brussels, submitted a request to publish the messages, which was denied. The European Ombudsman, Emily O’Reilly, called the denial “maladministration” and “a bellwether for institutional transparency” and criticized the Commission president for a “culture of cover-up” and absence from the only hearing held to date. “It was the elephant that was not in the room,” he said.

The commission itself has not commented publicly, citing pending litigation. At a hearing in the Luxembourg court last November, the commission’s legal representatives admitted, for the first time, to the existence of the messages, to the irony of those present, and the displeasure of the judges. The latter criticised the vagueness of the replies and the absence of “sufficient and diligent action” to trace the text messages. It was not clear whether an explanation was sought from von der Leyen, whether her phone was checked, or whether data accounts were taken.

New York Times lawyer Bodine Clustra called the commission’s preparation “disappointing,” noting: “We don’t know what happened to the president’s cellphone, nor whether apps like Signal were used, nor exactly where the search was conducted.”

The case takes on even greater weight given that von der Leyen heads the institution tasked with enforcing European rules, including transparency rules. The Court’s ruling could damage the institutional credibility of the Commission, at a time when the president began her second term just a few months ago with an emphasis on institutional integrity and “modernising governance”.

At the same time, the European Public Prosecutor (EPPO) is investigating the procurement of vaccines, with chief Laura Contrutta Covesi confirming that Commission officials have already been subpoenaed for testimony on how the deals were negotiated.

Pressure is also mounting from the European Parliament. Green MEP Tilly Metz, who was involved in the action against the Commission for censoring contracts with pharmaceutical companies, said von der Leyen was “either misguided or denying transparency for political reasons”. She said public trust cannot be built without transparency, especially when it comes to public health and multi-billion euro deals.

The General Court’s ruling will not be about just one political figure. It will, observers say, be a milestone for institutional transparency in the EU and will determine whether the top officials of the Union are subject to the same accountability rules as the rest of us.