On Monday 6 January, the plaintiffs in the “Baldan v. von der Leyen” case once again came en masse to attend a new hearing at the Liège court. Several hundred people were admitted to the room where essential debates were held behind closed doors. At the end of the hearing, their lawyers expressed encouraging reactions. A first decision is expected on 20 January.
Plaintiffs determined to pursue
Despite the pouring rain, many people came to support the complainants, whose number continues to grow. Since the initial complaint was filed by Belgian businessman Frédéric Baldan, hundreds of people, including many victims of vaccine injuries, have joined this action against the President of the European Commission.
Among those determined to take this matter to its conclusion are the association Notre Bon Droit, which helped relay the complaint in Belgium, as well as organisations from France (Verity France), Italy, and air navigation personnel, as well as former MEP Rob Roos.
The Dutch entrepreneur, who served as Vice-President of the European Parliament, was one of the few MEPs who dared to criticise the European Commission's Covid policy and to question Ursula von der Leyen on her role in negotiating contracts for Covid vaccines.
The main charges against Ursula von der Leyen, Albert Bourla and the companies Pfizer and BioNtech relate to usurpation of office and titles, destruction of public documents and corruption.
At present, it is still a question of determining whether the complaint is admissible. Mrs von der Leyen's lawyers invoke the legal immunity linked to her office, while Pfizer's argue that the plaintiffs have no interest in the case and no legitimacy to act.
Furthermore, the European Public Prosecutor (EPPO, a new European Union agency created in 2021) has tried to interfere in the proceedings and is seeking to remove the case from the Liège court prosecutor's office, which would probably stifle the entire case. This Monday's hearing therefore provided an opportunity to debate these various issues.
A major challenge for democracy
As the MP pointed out while waiting to enter the courtroom, this trial is of capital importance:
Ultimately, it is mainly about respecting the separation of powers. We will know whether justice is able to call politicians to order. It is about making them understand that they are not above the law, that they must respect the regulations in force, otherwise they are punishable.
MP Rob Roos waiting to enter the Liège court
The judiciary must be able to intervene against the executive and justice must be able to triumph, because what is happening is absolutely scandalous. Furthermore, it is also a question of respect for the law within the European Union, the way in which the Commission acts in relation to the Member States.
The man also explained how this question had impacted his career:
Many members of parliament enter parliament with good intentions, but they are quickly forced to comply with the wishes of their group, otherwise they are not included in committees or for appointments to various positions. Unfortunately, they only think about their own careers. As for me, from the moment I began to speak out on these issues, I fell into disgrace in my own party.
I was one of the few who fought for people, a bit like Michèle Rivasi. We got along very well, even if we didn't always have the same opinions, but it was a good collaboration. And that's because our actions really come from a surge of sincerity and goodwill for people. That was certainly the case with Rivasi.
Belgian justice holds firm
At the end of the morning, Diane Protat, the lead lawyer in the case, expressed a positive feeling about the conduct of the hearing:
This case is taking a very interesting turn. It is very important that there was this hearing. I hope that there will be a positive decision on 20 January that will allow us to continue. Either we are told that the civil parties, including Hungary and Poland, have no interest in acting and that is where it stops… But that would be very surprising… Or we will continue the action against the Pfizer companies, which do not benefit from immunity, and against Mrs von der Leyen, who normally does not benefit from it either in this case.
This is indeed an encouraging step forward, as the European Public Prosecutor's Office had requested a postponement of the hearing on several occasions. For Mr Protat, the fact that Liège has "held firm", that the pleadings have taken place and that a decision is expected shortly is "tremendous" news.
Hungary and Poland could weigh in on the debate
As he left the courtroom, Maître Denis Philippe, who represented the interests of Hungary, explained the importance that this country could have in this case.
Hungary had requested additional duties to the investigation in order to force Ursula von der Leyen and Albert Bourla to produce the famous 'missing' text messages. This request had been refused in an initial decision arguing that the President of the Commission benefited from legal immunity. But Hungary repeated its request targeting the Pfizer company which has no reason to benefit from such a privilege and for which the Belgian courts should remain competent.
This complaint therefore does not only concern the exercise of the right to transparency or the destruction of administrative documents as in the Baldan case, but also the underlying problem, namely corruption.
Pfizer is currently claiming more than €60 million in contractual compensation from Hungary, on the grounds that it refused to honour all of the vaccine orders it had initially committed to, as recommended by the European Commission.
If it turns out that in the contracts negotiated in secret by Mrs von der Leyen, Pfizer did not commit to ensuring that its products had any form of efficacy (in particular in preventing the transmission of the disease), this will confirm that this is a deception causing serious harm to States and their populations.
In this context, the text messages exchanged between Ursula von der Leyen and Albert Bourla could perhaps help determine whether the negotiations were conducted in such a way as to conclude contracts unfavourable to Hungary and to Member States, such as Poland, which has also initiated similar proceedings.
A case that could resonate far and wide
Neither Ursula von der Leyen nor Albert Bourla have yet answered the questions posed in this “SMS gate” affair, either before the European Parliament or before the Belgian courts. It is clear that a conviction would have serious consequences for the President of the European Commission, who would probably be asked to resign from her post. Behind the judiciary, we can also see a huge political battle.
The decision of January 20 is therefore eagerly awaited. It should be noted that this date falls at the same time as the inauguration of the new American president and his team. If the case is allowed to continue its course, it is possible that it will have repercussions in the new political context in the United States.
Just one regret, but a major one: with the exception of the Russian news agency TASS, no media outlet from the public or private sector came out for the occasion. However, these are accusations of fraud in the context of a €70 billion contract – the largest ever signed in the European Union – the consequences of which have had a lasting impact on an entire population of 450 million people. Can we still talk about 'public service media?'
The case is well worth looking into from every point of view…
This is important! The absence of MSM is proof!
You already posted an article about the issue.
🤞🤞🤞 again !!!
Thanks for your kind follow-up and eager to get the hopefully good news after 20.01.25 ...