The Swiss Federal Administrative Court has issued a ruling mandating the full disclosure of contracts between the Federal Office of Public Health (BAG) and vaccine manufacturers Moderna and Novavax related to the procurement of COVID-19 vaccines. The decision follows a complaint filed by SVP National Councilor Rémy Wyssmann, who successfully argued that the redactions previously applied to these contracts were insufficient under public disclosure laws.
What Happened
The court approved three complaints challenging the redactions made to the COVID-19 vaccine procurement contracts. National Councilor Wyssmann initiated the legal challenge, arguing that the justifications provided by the BAG for withholding information were not legally sound. The ruling compels the BAG to release the contracts in their entirety, without any redactions.
What Information Was Previously Blacked Out
The BAG had redacted key details concerning vaccine prices, delivery conditions, and, crucially, liability provisions in the event of adverse effects from the vaccines. The agency maintained that protecting the manufacturers’ trade secrets necessitated these redactions. This decision to withhold this information has now been overturned.
What Happens Next
The BAG has a 30-day window to appeal the court’s judgment. If no appeal is filed, the agency is legally obligated to publish the contracts in their complete, unredacted form. This ruling represents a significant step towards greater transparency in government dealings related to public health emergencies.
“This is a victory for the public and the taxpayer.”
Rémy Wyssmann, SVP-Nationalrat
Wyssmann’s Perspective
National Councilor Wyssmann emphasized the importance of this ruling for public accountability. He stated that the lack of transparency in contract negotiations creates an environment where favorable terms for the public may not be secured. He expressed concern that the BAG may have accepted inflated prices and waived manufacturer liability without proper scrutiny. He hopes the ruling will encourage greater openness in future negotiations, ensuring that taxpayer interests are protected. “If the BAG’s administrative lawyers conclude contracts in private, there is no pressure for good negotiations,” Wyssmann stated.
What Information Will Be Revealed?
The specific details contained within the redacted portions of the contracts remain undisclosed pending the outcome of any potential appeal. However, the ruling promises to shed light on the financial terms of the vaccine purchases, the logistical arrangements for delivery, and the extent to which vaccine manufacturers were shielded from liability for potential adverse events. Wyssmann anticipates that the full disclosure will reveal whether Switzerland secured competitive pricing compared to other nations and whether the liability provisions were unduly favorable to the manufacturers.
The BAG’s Response
Simon Ming, a spokesperson for the Federal Office of Public Health, confirmed that the agency has taken note of the court’s judgments and will analyze them to determine the appropriate course of action. The BAG had previously made the contracts available in redacted form and will now assess the implications of the ruling for future disclosure practices.
The Broader Context of Vaccine Contract Secrecy
The Swiss case is part of a larger global trend of governments facing pressure to release details of their COVID-19 vaccine contracts. As reported by the Brownstone Institute, major governments worldwide signed multi-billion dollar agreements with pharmaceutical companies to secure vaccine access, but have largely resisted calls for transparency, citing “commercial in confidence” concerns. Leaked contracts, such as those obtained by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism and Public Citizen, have revealed instances where pharmaceutical companies allegedly exerted significant influence over governments during negotiations, and in some cases, even demanded concessions such as sovereign assets as guarantees against legal claims. A South African court recently ruled in favor of access to vaccine contracts, finding that the deal with Pfizer appeared to be “held to ransom” by the company, with Pfizer receiving all profits and bearing none of the risks. Similar concerns regarding transparency and fairness in vaccine procurement have been raised in other countries, including in the European Union, where the Court of Justice of the European Union recently ruled that the European Commission did not provide sufficient public access to the details of its COVID-19 vaccine contracts.
The Swiss ruling, aligns with a growing international movement demanding greater accountability and transparency in the handling of public health crises and the procurement of essential medical supplies. The full release of these contracts promises to provide valuable insights into the negotiations, terms, and potential risks associated with the nation’s COVID-19 vaccine program.
