“A quasi-mafia culture”: “powerful consiglieri” dominate the von der Leyen Commission, according to the European Ombudsman

(Why ”quasi” ?!!)

By Etienne Fauchaire for The Epoch Times

Emily O’Reilly is preparing to bow out, not without failing to address some final harsh criticisms to Ursula von der Leyen on her lack of transparency. Guest on the EU Confidential podcast on Politico, the European Ombudsman, who has repeatedly fought against the Commission, denounced on Friday a “quasi-mafia culture” at its head, according to the terms used by the American media. During her mandate, the Ombudsman, who, a few days earlier, warned of the “political winds” threatening her administration, particularly distinguished herself for her key role in the affair nicknamed “Pfizergate”.

Emily O’Reilly, whose second five-year term will end at the end of February, spoke to Politico on 20 December. It was an opportunity for the European Ombudsman to deliver her final truths with calculated temperance. Behind the apparent restraint of the overall criticism, fierce judgments are intermittently revealed: thus, she ends up whispering that she has “never been comfortable” with the “powerful consiglieri” who sit in the office of the President of the Commission. Statements that are quite striking coming from the director of the body responsible for monitoring the proper administration of the institutions of the European Union: the term “consiglieri”, of Italian origin, refers to the trusted advisers of the mafia boss.

A mentality of secrecy contrary to European principles

“Culture always comes from above. “The Commission President is the one who sets the tone,” argued Emily O’Reilly, denouncing the institution’s growing opacity: “If information is withheld for political reasons and the culture comes from the top, then yes, it is probably the President and her cabinet who are responsible.” A trend she described as “worrying”: “Imagine the frustration felt after spending months processing a request for access to documents, citing European legislation, only to be met with a ‘no’”.

Ursula von der Leyen, whom O’Reilly indicated she had never met even once during her tenure, will however soon be relieved of one of her most persistent critics. On 17 December, MEPs met in plenary session in Strasbourg to elect the successor to the European Ombudsman.

To replace the Irishwoman, the Parliament, dominated by the European People's Party (EPP), elected by secret ballot the Portuguese Teresa Anjinho. A choice that is not without provoking some reactions of incredulity: the former MEP was a member of the People's Party, itself affiliated with the EPP to which Ursula von der Leyen belongs. Teresa Anjinho nevertheless assures that she has broken all ties with the movement.

"However, it is not insignificant that the EPP and its allies have chosen a former politician rather than one of the four candidates without party ties. It would be surprising to see her display the same intransigence as O'Reilly in the face of von der Leyen's "Pfizergate" and other key issues," writes the European Conservative. This intransigence, a trademark of Emily O'Reilly's two terms in office, has been paid for by the European Commission and its president.

Pfizergate, a catalyst for a democratic deficit

The European Ombudsman investigates cases of “maladministration” within the institutions of the European Union, either on its own initiative or following a complaint. If mismanagement, abuse of power, or a violation of rights is found, the body makes recommendations, but does not have coercive powers: as such, it cannot impose sanctions. But it certainly provokes media coverage that makes a bad impression. This is how Ursula von der Leyen found herself caught in a storm that occasionally comes back to haunt her: the famous text message affair mentioned above.

On April 28, 2021, the New York Times revealed that she had negotiated directly by text message with Albert Bourla, the boss of Pfizer, a contract for 1.8 billion doses of Covid vaccine, for the modest sum of 35 billion euros. Eager to know their content, Alexander Fanta, then a journalist for the Netzpolitik website, filed a request for access to documents with the AsktheEU.org platform on 4 May 2021.

On 21 July 2021, he received a response from the Commission that no such “document” could be identified, since the text messages “were ephemeral conversations that were not considered EU documents”. He then filed a complaint with the European Ombudsman, leading to an investigation opened on 16 September 2021.

Verdict: on 28 January 2022, the body concluded that there was a case of maladministration. For Emily O’Reilly, the text messages “fall within the framework of European legislation on public access to documents” and “the public can have access to them if they concern the work of the institution”. She also asked the Commission to require Ursula von der Leyen’s office to search for the messages in question and, if identified, to examine them to determine whether they “meet the criteria under EU law on access to documents for disclosure”. In vain.

On 14 July 2022, in a terse press release, the director of the body therefore stepped up to the plate. In her response of 27 June 2022, Věra Jourová (then European Commissioner for Values ​​and Transparency) “does not answer the simple question of whether the text messages exist”, nor does she indicate “whether she had directly and properly searched for the text messages and, if not, why not”. And to drive the point home: "The handling of this request for access to documents leaves the regrettable impression of a European institution that is not frank on major public interest issues".

The institution, the Ombudsman specifies in his decision, finally admitted that the SMS messages meet the criteria to be considered as EU documents within the meaning of European legislation (Regulation 1049/2001). However, "the Commission has still not given the reasons that would prevent it from carrying out a full search of these text messages". While the decision of maladministration was confirmed, the investigation was closed, as the European Ombudsman does not have the power to impose sanctions.

The European executive has “violated the principles of good administration”

The matter could have ended there. But on 25 January 2023, there was a twist: the New York Times took legal action to force the Commission to disclose the messages, filing a request with the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for this purpose. On 15 November 2024, almost two years later, the two parties were finally heard.

According to the lawyer for the European executive, Ursula von der Leyen “did not negotiate the terms of the contract by text message” with Albert Bourla: “There were text messages to organise oral exchanges. You don’t negotiate in extenso by text message”. He also argued that Ursula von der Leyen’s office informed the Commission services in 2022 that they were “unable to find these documents”. This supports the suspicion raised in O’Reilly’s decision, which questioned whether the Commission had directly sought the text messages.

The Commission “violated the principles of good administration,” criticized the Times’ lawyer, Bondine Kloostra, recalling that the European executive had already revealed that it encouraged its members to activate ephemeral messages in their discussions. “This case raises a very important question: can officials escape public transparency by exchanging text messages?”

During this hearing, the judges of the EU court felt “frustration,” reported Emily O’Reilly during her interview with Politico: “We are trying to find out whether the Commission president exchanged text messages, and if so, what they contained. So we should ask President von der Leyen. But the only person who could have told us everything… was not there.” There were the Commission’s lawyers, but they couldn’t really provide any additional clarification.”

In her eyes, the verdict in this case is of crucial importance to ensure that the rule of law is respected by the European administration: “Because even when we remind the Commission of the Court of Justice rulings on access to certain documents, it leads to nothing. Our requests are simply ignored,” she reiterates to Politico, without being assured, however, that the Commission, in the event of a victory by the Times, would not change its attitude.

‘Very difficult times’ ahead

The court’s decision will not be handed down for several weeks, perhaps months. By then, Emily O’Reilly may have left office. Whatever the outcome, her successor will face “very difficult times,” she predicted in a speech on 13 December in the symbolic city of Maastricht in the Netherlands, four days before her replacement was elected to Parliament.

“During my term, the Commission has changed from a Commission to what is now a self-proclaimed so-called geopolitical Commission. I am not sure I understand the nature of this change, since there has been no treaty change between the Barroso Commission and the von der Leyen Commission. What I do know is that decisions of major importance have been taken, and will continue to be taken.” »

It will therefore be up to the new Ombudsman to continue the fight against the reluctance of an institution to be accountable for its decisions: “Access to documents is subject to more rigid control than ever, with requests for access to supposedly politically sensitive documents either systematically delayed for unreasonable periods or rejected on highly dubious grounds”. If not ignored.

Before asserting: “It is not enough for political leaders to proclaim their loyalty to democracy and the rule of law, they must demonstrate this through their conduct and actions, day after day.” A disapproving dig aimed, in a thinly veiled manner, at the head of Brussels. Emily O’Reilly, who recalled the essential independence of her administration in the face of “the political winds that sometimes threaten to divert it from its path”, will leave her post on 27 February.