Brussels court rejects lobbyist’s arguments against von der Leyen’s reelection

A Brussels court rejected on Wednesday a Belgian lobbyist’s arguments opposing Ursula von der Leyen’s reappointment as head of the European Commission against the backdrop of accusations related to the controversial COVID vaccines contract negotiation with Pfizer.

Last Friday (21 June), the European People’s Party (EPP), which won the EU elections, was to appear before the French-speaking Brussels Court of First Instance in an urgent procedure launched by a Belgian citizen to force the party to remove her as their top candidate for the Commission presidency.

The EPP failed to attend the hearing, but the judge deemed the case “urgent” and listened to the plaintiff’s arguments.

In April 2023, the plaintiff – Frédéric Baldan, a Belgian lobbyist specialised in EU-China relations – already filed a criminal complaint against von der Leyen before an investigative judge in Liège in the context of the vaccine contract negotiations she conducted via text messages with Pfizer CEO, accusing her of abuse of authority, destruction of public documents, and corruption.

According to the plaintiff’s lawyer, 500 entities, including individuals, political parties and two EU member states, Hungary and Poland, have joined the case since then.

A hearing before a court in Liège in May was postponed to early December, prompting Baldan’s lawyer to send a formal notice to the European Council, Commissioner for Values and Transparency Věra Jourová, and EPP chief Manfred Weber, calling on EU leaders to force von der Leyen’s and her commissioners’ resignation.

The lawyer then summoned the EPP to appear before the Brussels court for summary proceedings because the EU top jobs package – and thus the Commission president position – should be agreed among EU leaders soon, at a summit on 27-28 June.

Reports point to von der Leyen’s reelection, but after the UE27 agrees, the European Parliament must confirm the decision through an absolute majority vote in mid-July.

Whistleblower directive

Baldan notably argues that he and the other plaintiffs in the criminal case could face retaliation if von der Leyen is reelected, saying he should be protected under the EU whistleblower directive.

For example, he repeatedly pointed out that his EU accreditation as a lobbyist had been removed a couple of hours after a press conference on Pfizergate that he gave with the now-deceased MEP Michèle Rivasi.

However, the Belgian judge rejected Baldan’s request “as he has not established the risk of serious prejudice or serious inconvenience justifying an immediate decision being taken”, AFP reported.

Baldan and his lawyer insist that he does fulfil the criteria to be considered a whistleblower.

The lobbyist told LN24 he has gone public after having filed his criminal complaint last year, and his lawyer deems the case “serious”, another criterion, pointing to the number of parties which joined the criminal complaint.

Baldan’s lawyer deplored the judge’s statement that it was the plaintiff’s role to prove why he should be considered a whistleblower. According to her, this is contrary to the EU directive and Belgian law. She told Euractiv that the judge cannot “reverse the burden of proof.”

The judge also stated that “Baldan has attempted to repeat the trial [in Liège],” pointing to the still-pending criminal case.

The plaintiff will appeal the decision and hopes to plead before the EU Parliament confirmation vote in early July, Euractiv understands.

(Anne-Sophie Gayet | Euractiv.com)

Read more with Euractiv