Poland, Hungary and Romania are poised to face down a high-stakes legal confrontation in the Brussels Court of First Instance in the coming weeks over their obligations under the European Union’s largest COVID-19 vaccine procurement deal.
The cases, brought by Pfizer and its partner BioNTech, hinge on whether the three EU member states are still legally bound to purchase and pay for vast quantities of doses ordered at the height of the pandemic — contracts that critics now say were negotiated under opaque and unfavourable conditions that leave countries liable for vaccines they no longer need.
Belgian judges are expected to deliver a verdict on the disputes with Poland and Romania by the end of March, with Hungary’s hearing set for 16 April. The proceedings illustrate how, years after the pandemic’s peak, tensions over vaccine procurement have spilled from public health planning into costly courtroom battles, with billions of euros in unpaid bills at stake.
At the heart of the controversy are procurement agreements negotiated in 2021 by the European Commission, which secured a framework contract with Pfizer and BioNTech covering hundreds of millions of doses.
Once the overarching terms were agreed, individual member states opted in and placed specific orders. Countries now argue that these arrangements lacked sufficient transparency and imposed legally binding commitments even as public health needs shifted and surplus doses accumulated.
A longstanding political dimension to the dispute centres on Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, who personally engaged in the negotiations with Pfizer’s chief executive, Albert Bourla. The episode has drawn significant criticism under the banner of “Pfizergate”, a term used in Brussels to describe the broader scandal.
Investigations and legal actions have focused on secret text messages exchanged between von der Leyen and Bourla, which were not initially disclosed in response to freedom-of-information requests.
The European Ombudsman, Emily O’Reilly, accused the Commission of “maladministration” for failing to search for and preserve the messages, and a judgment by the EU General Court in May 2025 found that the Commission had wrongly refused to release them, reinforcing concerns about a lack of transparency in how the contracts were concluded.
The General Court’s ruling stressed that EU institutions must maintain and disclose documentation relating to policy decisions wherever possible, and criticised the Commission’s claim that the text messages were ephemeral and therefore did not need to be retained.
European Parliament resolutions have reflected deep unease among lawmakers, with some urging that von der Leyen should help elucidate the circumstances or even refrain from seeking a further term in office while criminal investigations and complaints are pending.
National liability and contractual disputes
The legal challenges now before the Brussels court underscore the practical consequences of these earlier procurement controversies.
Hungary’s dispute arises from its 2021 order of around two million doses at about €19.50 each, with additional requests in 2022. Budapest later sought to delay deliveries in response to the economic disruptions caused by Ukraine’s war and subsequently refused to pay, with Pfizer demanding approximately €60 million plus interest.
Poland, having halted deliveries in April 2022 amid excess stocks and diminished demand, faces a far larger claim: the company is seeking nearly €1.4 billion, plus interest, for some 60 million undelivered doses.
Warsaw has invoked force majeure in relation to the war in Ukraine and re-allocated funds that had been set aside for a possible settlement to patient care, heightening concerns about the fiscal impact should the court rule in Pfizer’s favour.
Romania’s case stems from its decision to cancel the delivery and payment of roughly 28 million surplus doses worth about €615 million, with Bucharest’s representatives insisting that contractual and EU law principles must be applied in context and that “Pfizer’s broader campaign to press EU countries on delivery of COVID vaccine contracts” does not reflect the dramatic shift in public health needs since the deals were signed.
Pfizer, for its part, argues that member states entered firm commitments in an extraordinary global emergency. In a statement, the company said it sought to hold governments to “commitments for COVID vaccine orders placed by the governments… in which Pfizer made unprecedented commitments in terms of volume guarantees, production in Europe, and many other respects”, and pointed to its “extraordinary flexibility” in accommodating changing circumstances.
As the court proceedings unfold, the outcome will not only determine the immediate financial liabilities of three EU countries but may also influence how future collective procurement initiatives are structured to avoid similar disputes.
