class=”sc-cffd1e67-0 fmXrkB”>
The federal government has secured 61 million doses of Covid-19 vaccine from six different manufacturers during the pandemic. To this day, it is still unknown how much taxpayer money was spent on this.
The Federal Office for Public Health (BAG) has so far only heavily censored agreements with the pharmaceutical companies Astrazeneca, Curevac, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Moderna, Novavax and Pfizer. Important points such as price and payment information have been blacked out.
Adrian Lobsiger (64), Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Information (EDÖB), believes that the redactions are not compatible with the Public Information Act (BGÖ). In an opinion dated November 23, 2023, Lobsiger therefore urged the authority to make public the vaccine contracts, namely the purchase costs.
But the BAG, led by director Anne Lévy (52), wants nothing to do with it. In six identical orders available to Blick, the authority wrote on December 22, 2023: “Contrary to the commissioner’s recommendation (…) the BAG adheres to the redactions (…).”
The agency describes the reasons for this on 13 pages. The core argument: When the contract was concluded, Switzerland guaranteed confidentiality to both the vaccine manufacturers and the partner states France and Sweden, through which part of the vaccine doses were obtained.
If Switzerland were to break this promise, the contractual partners would no longer wish to negotiate with Switzerland in the future. According to the BAG, in the event of a subsequent crisis, the federal government would therefore no longer be able to purchase the necessary vaccines or medicines – which would in turn affect the “implementation of specific official measures in accordance with the objectives”.
BAG argues doubtfully
Those responsible also emphasize that the details of the vaccine contracts in other countries have not been disclosed: “A deviation would (…) be disapproved by both the European Commission and the EU Member States and in particular the partner states France and Sweden.” Disclosure would therefore be contrary to Switzerland’s ‘foreign policy interests’.
The officials also claim that the “professional, trade or production secrets” of pharmaceutical companies must be protected. It literally says: “Disclosure would lead to more competition to the detriment of the people involved (the vaccine manufacturers, the editors), which would result in a lower price on the market.”
This is a questionable argument, as the purpose of a transparent procurement system is to create functioning competition and low prices.
EDÖB-Lobsiger had little use for this argument: “The reasoning does not clarify what exactly constitutes a distortion of competition when announcing the price (…) on a state-controlled market,” he wrote in the statement of reasons his recommendation. . He also pointedly noted that the alleged “competitive disadvantage” argument was used for all six vaccine manufacturers. Conversely, this means: a level playing field for everyone, fair competition.
Lobsiger did not deny that the case had “an important foreign policy component.” According to him, the BAG failed to demonstrate concretely and plausibly to what extent Switzerland’s “foreign policy interests” could be harmed by making the contracts public.
It could involve billions of dollars of taxpayer money
He also states unequivocally that no justification for the redactions of the contracts in Switzerland can be derived from the EU’s redactions – especially as there are also ongoing legal proceedings regarding the EU contracts.
Lobsiger did not comment on the point that disclosure would impact the “target-consistent implementation of specific official measures” – i.e. procurement in the event of the next crisis. The BAG has only now relied on this article, the fulfillment of which would justify an exception to the Public Access Act as a result of the arbitration proceedings.
The BAG’s ruling can now be challenged in the Federal Administrative Court. It is unclear whether this will happen. “In order to have the case accepted at all, as a complainant I have to pay an advance of up to 5,000 francs,” says Rémy Wyssmann (56), newly elected SVP Councilor and one of the applicants involved.
But that’s not all: if the Federal Administrative Court – and ultimately the Federal Court – rules in favor of the BAG and the pharmaceutical companies, the complainants would also have to pay their legal costs. “That can easily cost tens of thousands of francs,” says Wyssmann.
Do you have any tips for explosive stories? Write to us: [email protected]
Do you have any tips for explosive stories? Write to us: [email protected]
To minimize the financial risks, he is therefore considering focusing on a vaccine contract. He would also like to coordinate with other applicants. Wyssmann: “The FDPIC has proven us right. Now we should not let the additional hurdles prevent us from demanding transparency from the authorities.”
In all likelihood, this involves taxpayers’ money worth more than a billion francs.
Source:Blick
I am Liam Livingstone and I work in a news website. My main job is to write articles for the 24 Instant News. My specialty is covering politics and current affairs, which I’m passionate about. I have worked in this field for more than 5 years now and it’s been an amazing journey. With each passing day, my knowledge increases as well as my experience of the world we live in today.
