Source: European Parliament
pursuant to Rule 131 of the Rules of Procedure
Gheorghe Piperea, Adrian‑George Axinia, Claudiu‑Richard Târziu, Georgiana Teodorescu, Şerban Dimitrie Sturdza, Fidias Panayiotou, Daniel Obajtek, Ivan David, Patryk Jaki, Zsuzsanna Borvendég, Fernand Kartheiser, Nikolaos Anadiotis, Volker Schnurrbusch, Katarína Roth Neveďalová, Irmhild Boßdorf, Virginie Joron, Ondřej Dostál, Cristian Terheş, Christine Anderson, António Tânger Corrêa, Emmanouil Fragkos, Milan Mazurek, Alexander Jungbluth, Siegbert Frank Droese, Petar Volgin, Rada Laykova, Stanislav Stoyanov, Arno Bausemer, Arkadiusz Mularczyk, Bogdan Rzońca, Milan Uhrík, Mary Khan, Tomasz Froelich, Hans Neuhoff, Alexander Sell, René Aust, Petr Bystron, Jacek Ozdoba, Galato Alexandraki, Kosma Złotowski, Waldemar Buda, Tobiasz Bocheński, Małgorzata Gosiewska, Marlena Maląg, Mariusz Kamiński, Dominik Tarczyński, Anna Zalewska, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Maciej Wąsik, Michał Dworczyk, Alvise Pérez, Luis‑Vicențiu Lazarus, Erik Kaliňák, Judita Laššáková, Waldemar Tomaszewski, Ewa Zajączkowska‑Hernik, Jaak Madison, Anja Arndt, Marcin Sypniewski, Markus Buchheit, Filip Turek, Friedrich Pürner, Kateřina Konečná, Ľuboš Blaha, Thierry Mariani, Jan‑Peter Warnke, Thomas Geisel, Branislav Ondruš, Diana Iovanovici Şoşoacă, Monika Beňová, Marc Jongen, Nikola Bartůšek, Grzegorz Braun, Sarah Knafo, Petras Gražulis, Piotr Müller, Gerald Hauser
B10‑0319/2025
Motion of censure on the Commission by the European Parliament
The European Parliament,
– having regard to Article 17(8) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), Article 234 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty,
– having regard to the request submitted under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents[1] by Matina Stevi, a journalist employed by The New York Times, seeking access to all text messages exchanged between President Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla between 1 January 2021 and 11 May 2022,
– having regard to the Commission’s refusal of this request on the grounds that it does not possess the requested documents,
– having regard to the judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2025, in Case T-36/23 Stevi – The New York Times / Commission[2], which found that the Commission has not given a plausible explanation to justify the non- possession of the requested documents concerning its dealings with Pfizer/BioNTech in the procurement of COVID-19 vaccines and which clarified that the Commission’s duty of transparency is fundamental and that refusal to disclose documents must be strictly justified with compelling reasons,
– having regard to Article 10(3) TEU, which guarantees the right of citizens to participate in the democratic life of the Union and calls for decisions to be taken openly and as closely as possible to the citizen,
– having regard to Rule 131 of its Rules of Procedure,
A. whereas the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) opened an investigation in 2022 into the European Commission’s conduct in the negotiation and conclusion of COVID-19 vaccine procurement contracts with Pfizer, which remains ongoing as of 2025 and raises credible concerns regarding potential legal and ethical breaches, as well as potential irregularities in the management of Union financial resources;
B. whereas the General Court of the European Union, in its order of 5 October 2023 in Case T- 36/23, Stevi – The New York Times/ Commission, ruled that the Commission had failed to provide legally sufficient justification for its refusal to disclose the requested documents related to the Pfizer vaccine negotiations;
C. whereas the Commission contravened its obligations under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on public access to documents and violated the principles of transparency, good administration, and institutional accountability stipulated in the Treaties;
D. whereas the Commission allocated EUR 35 billion in public funds for COVID-19 vaccines, yet failed to ensure transparency and accountability, especially as EUR 4 billion worth of doses remained unused, raising serious concerns over financial oversight and administrative failure;
E. whereas the General Court, in its judgment of 14 May 2025, annulled the European Commission’s decision to deny access to text messages between Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, exchanged between 1 January 2021 and 11 May 2022, concerning the procurement of COVID-19 vaccines;
F. whereas the Court of Auditors, in its Special Report No. 22/2024 adopted on 26 September 2024, identified serious shortcomings in the implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), including insufficient linkages between disbursed funds and actual costs, weak verification mechanisms, risks of double funding, and delays in achieving investment targets, raising significant concerns over the Commission’s oversight of one of the largest post-COVID financial instruments;
G. whereas the Court of Auditors has pointed out that the lack of robust controls and the reliance on self-reporting by Member States increase the risk of ‘double funding’, a situation in which the same actions may be financed multiple times, leading to inefficiencies and potential misuse of funds;
H. whereas, transparency and accountability are fundamental principles of the Union’s democratic legitimacy, as per Article 10(3) of the TEU, ensuring public trust in the institutions of the European Union, particularly in contexts involving major public health challenges and substantial financial commitments;
I. whereas, its Committee on Legal Affairs, on 23 April 2025, unanimously adopted a non-binding opinion rejecting the European Commission’s use of Article 122 TFEU as the legal basis for the proposal for a Regulation establishing the Security Action for Europe (SAFE), a EUR 150 billion defence financing initiative;
J. whereas the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs asserts that the Commission’s invocation of Article 122 TFEU lacks a valid emergency justification, in view of the fact that the provision is intended for short-term measures addressing immediate crises, not for long-term defence investments;
K. whereas serious concerns have been raised regarding the Commission’s unlawful interference in elections in Member States such as Romania and Germany through a distorted application of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act)[3], which is intended to protect consumers but has been misused to justify vote restrictions and election annulments;
1. Concludes that the Commission led by President Ursula von der Leyen no longer commands the confidence of Parliament to uphold the principles of transparency, accountability, and good governance essential to a democratic Union;
2. Concludes that the Commission’s unlawful interference in Member States’ elections, via a misapplication of the Digital Services Act, represents a serious breach of its mandate to uphold democratic principles and respect national sovereignty;
3. Notes that the Commission’s abusive use of Article 122 TFEU as the legal basis for the SAFE Regulation, a EUR 150 billion defence financing initiative, constitutes a serious breach of competence and a distortion of the article’s intended purpose, which is reserved for economic emergency situations;
4. Considers that this procedural abuse undermines trust in the Union’s institutions and threatens the integrity of the Union’s legal framework;
5. Calls on the Commission to resign due to repeated failures to ensure transparency and to its persistent disregard for democratic oversight and the rule of law within the Union;
6. Instructs its President to forward this motion of censure to the President of the Council and the President of the Commission and to notify them of the result of the vote on it in plenary.