The Swiss federal government is being compelled to release details of its contracts with COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers, following a court ruling that prioritizes transparency even during a public health crisis. For years, the government resisted calls for full disclosure, citing concerns about negotiating leverage and protecting commercial secrets. Now, a landmark decision by the Federal Administrative Court is forcing a change in approach, potentially shedding light on the financial terms and liability clauses surrounding the nation’s pandemic vaccine procurement.
The legal battle, spearheaded by National Council member Rémy Wyssmann, centers on the principle of public access to government information. Even as initial publications of the contracts were heavily redacted, obscuring key details like pricing, delivery conditions, and crucially, liability provisions, the court has determined that these redactions were not justified. This ruling could have significant implications for future public health emergencies and the balance between government secrecy and public accountability.
Wyssmann, a member of the Swiss People’s Party (SVP), has been campaigning for the release of the contracts since August 2021. When the federal government initially published agreements with six manufacturers – including Moderna, Pfizer, and Novavax – in 2022, substantial portions were blacked out. This action went against the recommendation of Adrian Lobsiger, the Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner, who advocated for greater transparency. The government argued that as a compact country, Switzerland was in a weak negotiating position and that revealing the contracts could jeopardize future vaccine supplies.
The Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) also expressed concerns that disclosing the contracts could reveal trade secrets. Essentially, the government feared that transparency would deter manufacturers and hinder its ability to secure vaccine supplies. However, the Federal Administrative Court disagreed, stating that a pandemic can be managed effectively while also upholding principles of transparency in commercial agreements. The court found no evidence that disclosure would damage Switzerland’s international reputation and that the government had not adequately justified its claims of confidentiality regarding pricing, and liability.
Concerns Over Liability and Financial Risk
Wyssmann hopes the court’s decision will set a precedent for greater transparency across government dealings. As a lawyer specializing in liability and insurance law, he suspects the federal government assumed all liability in its vaccine contracts, shifting the financial risk onto taxpayers. “This is how profits are privatized and risks are transferred to the taxpayer,” Wyssmann stated. He believes greater public scrutiny would lead to better contract negotiations and more responsible use of public funds.
The government and the affected vaccine manufacturers have 30 days to appeal the ruling to the Federal Supreme Court. The FOPH has indicated it will thoroughly analyze the court’s decision before determining its next steps. During the pandemic, the Swiss Confederation ordered 61 million vaccine doses, totaling nearly 2.3 billion Swiss francs. As of July 3, 2023, 17 million doses had been administered, while approximately 20 million doses, valued at 1.3 billion francs, were discarded, with some of the surplus doses donated as humanitarian aid. The Federal Council defended its procurement strategy as “successful,” prioritizing supply security even if it meant ordering excess quantities.
Significant Waste and Questions of Value
The scale of the discarded vaccines has raised further questions about the government’s procurement strategy. According to reporting by the Sonntagszeitung, the disposal of 20 million doses represents a significant financial loss. The Federal Council maintains that ordering excess supplies was a deliberate decision to ensure the population’s access to vaccines, emphasizing that Switzerland secured access to “the best vaccines in the world, which were also readily available.”
This case highlights a broader trend of increasing opacity in government operations. A related dispute concerning redacted COVID-19 vaccine contracts is ongoing, with the FOPH continuing to resist calls for full disclosure despite recommendations from the Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner. This resistance underscores a growing concern that the right to public information is being eroded.
The outcome of any potential appeal to the Federal Supreme Court remains uncertain. However, the current ruling represents a significant victory for transparency advocates and could compel the Swiss government to adopt a more open approach to its dealings with pharmaceutical companies, particularly during public health emergencies. The coming weeks will be crucial as the government assesses its options and the public awaits further clarity on the terms of the vaccine contracts.
Disclaimer: This article provides informational content only and should not be considered medical, financial, or legal advice. Consult with qualified professionals for personalized guidance.
What are your thoughts on the balance between government transparency and protecting commercial interests during a public health crisis? Share your opinions in the comments below.
