Independent Member of the European Parliament Luis-Vicențiu Lazarus (NI) claims to have signed and submitted a motion of censure, together with other MEPs, against the European Commission.

Below is the full text of the motion against the European Commission, supported by independent Member of the European Parliament Luis-Vicențiu Lazarus (NI):

„Motion of censure by the European Parliament against the European Commission

(2025/2140(RSP))

The European Parliament

– having regard to Article 17(8) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), Article 234 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 106a of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community

– having regard to the request submitted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents1 by Matina Stevi, a journalist employed by The New York Times, requesting access to all text messages exchanged between President Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla between January 1, 2021, and May 11, 2022,

– having regard to the Commission’s decision to reject this request on the grounds that it is not in possession of the requested documents,

– having regard to the judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2025 in Case T-36/23 Stevi – The New York Times v Commission2, which found that the Commission had not provided a plausible explanation as to why it did not have the requested documents relating to its negotiations with Pfizer/ BioNTech for the purchase of COVID-19 vaccines, and which clarified that the Commission’s obligation of transparency is fundamental and that any refusal to disclose documents must be justified by compelling reasons,

– having regard to Article 10(3) TEU, which provides for the right of all citizens to participate in the democratic life of the Union and that decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen,

– having regard to Rule 131 of its Rules of Procedure,

A. whereas in 2022 the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) opened an investigation into the conduct of the European Commission in the negotiation and conclusion of public procurement contracts for COVID-19 vaccines with Pfizer, an investigation that is still pending in 2025 and raises credible concerns about possible legal and ethical abuses and irregularities in the management of the Union’s financial resources;

B. whereas the General Court of the European Union, in its judgment delivered by order of 5 October 2023 in Case 36/23, Stevi – The New York Times v Commission, found that the Commission had not provided a sufficiently well-founded legal justification for its refusal to disclose the requested documents relating to the negotiations on the Pfizer vaccine;

C. whereas the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on public access to documents, in breach of the principles of transparency, good administration and institutional accountability laid down in the Treaties;

D. whereas the Commission has allocated EUR 35 billion in public funds for COVID-19 vaccines, but has failed to ensure transparency and accountability, especially since EUR 4 billion worth of doses remain unused, raising serious concerns about poor financial oversight and mismanagement;

E. whereas, in its judgment of 14 May 2025, the General Court annulled the European Commission’s decision to refuse access to text messages between Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, sent between January 1, 2021, and May 11, 2022, concerning the purchase of COVID-19 vaccines;

F. whereas in its Special Report No 22/2024, adopted on 26 September 2024, the Court of Auditors identified serious shortcomings in the implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), including insufficient links between funds paid and actual costs, weak verification mechanisms, risks of double funding, and delays in achieving investment targets, raising serious concerns about how thoroughly the Commission is overseeing one of the largest post-COVID financial instruments;

G. whereas the Court of Auditors has pointed out that the lack of thorough checks and the reliance on self-reporting by Member States increase the risk of ‘double funding’, whereby the same actions may be funded more than once, leading to inefficiencies and the possibility of misappropriation of funds;

H. whereas transparency and accountability are fundamental principles of democratic legitimacy in the Union, as laid down in Article 10(3) TEU, which enable the population to trust the institutions of the European Union, particularly in contexts involving major public health challenges and substantial financial commitments;

I. whereas, on 23 April 2025, the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs unanimously adopted a non-binding opinion rejecting the European Commission’s attempt to invoke Article 122 TFEU as the legal basis for the proposed regulation establishing a Security Action for Europe (SAFE), an initiative to finance military expenditure of EUR 150 billion;

J. whereas the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs states that when invoking Article 122 TFEU on the grounds of urgency, the Commission has no valid justification, as the provision is designed for short-term measures responding to immediate crises, not for long-term investments in the military field;

K. whereas serious concerns have been raised about the Commission’s unlawful interference in elections in Member States such as Romania and Germany through a distorted application of Regulation (EU) 2022/ 2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market for Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Regulation)3, which, although intended to protect consumers, has been misused to justify restricting voting rights and annulling elections,

1. Concludes that the Commission led by President Ursula von der Leyen is no longer worthy of Parliament’s trust and does not offer any guarantee that it will respect the principles of transparency, accountability, and good governance, which are essential for a democratic Union;

2. Concludes that the Commission’s unlawful interference in Member States’ elections through the abusive application of the Digital Services Act constitutes a serious breach of its mandate to uphold democratic principles and respect national sovereignty;

3. Notes that the Commission’s abusive invocation of Article 122 TFEU as the legal basis for the SAFE Regulation, an initiative to finance military expenditure of EUR 150 billion, constitutes a serious overreach of competence and a misrepresentation of the intended purpose of the article, which is reserved for situations of economic emergency;

4. Considers that this procedural abuse undermines trust in the Union institutions and jeopardizes the integrity of the Union’s legal framework;

5. Urges the Commission to resign because it has repeatedly proved incapable of ensuring transparency and has disregarded democratic control and the rule of law in the Union;

6. Instructs its President to forward this motion of censure and the result of the vote on it in plenary to the President of the Council and the President of the Commission.

1 JO L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2001/1049/oj.

2 Hotărârea Tribunalului din 14 mai 2025 – Matina Stevi și New York Times Company/Comisia Europeană, T-36/23, ECLI:EU:T:2025:483.

3 JO L 277, 27.10.2022, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj.

Responsibility lies solely with the Member who finances this political and information activity. The European Parliament is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained in this document.