{"id":108263,"date":"2025-10-08T20:11:01","date_gmt":"2025-10-08T18:11:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.aisdue.eu\/?p=108263"},"modified":"2025-10-08T20:25:43","modified_gmt":"2025-10-08T18:25:43","slug":"maria-patrin-this-is-not-a-text-message-access-to-documents-and-transparency-after-stevi-and-new-york-times-v-commission","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aisdue.eu\/en\/maria-patrin-this-is-not-a-text-message-access-to-documents-and-transparency-after-stevi-and-new-york-times-v-commission\/","title":{"rendered":"MARIA PATRIN, \u201cThis is not a text message\u201d \u2013 Access to documents and transparency after Stevi and New York Times v Commission"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p><strong>Abstract (ITA)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Il 14 maggio 2025 il Tribunale ha annullato una decisione di diniego della Commissione europea relativa ad una domanda di accesso ad alcuni messaggi di testo scambiati tra la presidente della Commissione e l\u2019amministratore delegato dell\u2019impresa farmaceutica Pfizer durante la pandemia di Covid-19. La sentenza <em>Stevi e NYT\/Commissione<\/em>,meglio conosciuta come Pfizergate, ha ricevuto una grande copertura mediatica per la sua rilevanza politica, rivelando numerose carenze nella gestione delle richieste di accesso ai documenti da parte della Commissione. In seguito alla sentenza il Parlamento europeo ha infatti presentato una mozione di censura, la quale \u00e8 stata respinta dalla plenaria. Il presente contributo analizza la rilevanza giuridica e politica della sentenza sulla base della giurisprudenza della Corte sulla trasparenza e l\u2019accesso ai documenti e nel contesto della prassi istituzionale della Commissione. In ultima analisi la sentenza presenta profili innovativi circa il ruolo che il controllo giurisdizionale pu\u00f2 svolgere nel potenziare e innescare processi di controllo democratico e di responsabilit\u00e0 politica.&nbsp; <em>&nbsp;<\/em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Abstract (ENG)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>On 14 May 2025 the General Court annulled a Commission\u2019s decision denying access to text messages exchanged between the Commission President and the Pfizer\u2019s CEO during the Covid-19 crisis. The <em>Stevi and New York Times v Commission <\/em>judgment, better known as the <em>Pfizergate<\/em>,has received large public attention and has put the Commission under great political pressure, triggering a motion of censure by the European Parliament. This contribution analyses the legal and political relevance of the judgment against the background of the Court\u2019s jurisprudence on transparency and access to documents and in the framework of the larger transparency (or untransparent) practices of the Commission. It argues that the case represents an interesting example of how legal accountability can trigger political accountability and highlights the crucial role of courts and private applicants in driving the debate on key issues for the Union\u2019s democratic legitimacy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\t\t<div class=\"wppdfemb-frame-container-1\" style=\"-webkit-overflow-scrolling:auto;\">\n\t\t\t<iframe class=\"pdfembed-iframe nonfullscreen wppdf-emb-iframe-1\"\n\t\t\t\tsrc=\"https:\/\/www.aisdue.eu\/en\/?pdfemb-data=eyJwZGZJRCI6MTA4MjY0LCJ1cmwiOiJodHRwczpcL1wvd3d3LmFpc2R1ZS5ldVwvd3AtY29udGVudFwvdXBsb2Fkc1wvMjAyNVwvMTBcL1BhdHJpbi1CbG9nRFVFLnBkZiIsInRpdGxlIjoiUGF0cmluLUJsb2dEVUUiLCJpbmRleCI6MSwid21fdGV4dCI6IiJ9\"\n\t\t\t\ttitle=\"Patrin-BlogDUE\"\t\t\t\tdata-pdf-id=\"108264\"\n\t\t\t\tdata-pdf-index=\"1\"\n\t\t\t\tstyle=\"border:none;width:100%;max-width:100%;height:100vh;\"\n\t\t\t\tscrolling=\"yes\">\n\t\t\t<\/iframe>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t\t\n\n\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center\"><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.aisdue.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Patrin-BlogDUE.pdf\">DOWNLOAD IN FORMATO PDF<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>SUMMARY: 1. Introduction. \u2013 2. The facts of the case and the definition of \u201cdocument\u201d under Regulation 1049\/2001. \u2013 3. The reasoning of the Court and the principle of good administration. \u2013 4. The Court\u2019s case-law on transparency and access to documents. \u2013 5. The Commission\u2019s transparency practices and legal accountability. \u2013 6. Political accountability: the political impact of the case. \u2013 7. Concluding remarks.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":108266,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_piecal_is_event":false,"_piecal_start_date":"","_piecal_end_date":"","_piecal_is_allday":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[233],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-108263","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-blogdue"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aisdue.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/108263","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aisdue.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aisdue.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aisdue.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aisdue.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=108263"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.aisdue.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/108263\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":108270,"href":"https:\/\/www.aisdue.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/108263\/revisions\/108270"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aisdue.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/108266"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aisdue.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=108263"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aisdue.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=108263"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aisdue.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=108263"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}