Von der Leyen criminal case, the new Dutch government, Big Tech deepens inequality & lobbyist shouldn't be anonymous

Welcome to the biweekly newsletter of Follow the Money’s EU desk! 

Read the latest news about our investigations into the European Union and get tips for further reading, viewing, and listening. 

Our most important recommendation: Who’s Watching Brussels? This latest book from Follow the Money’s Lise Witteman reveals how it’s possible that European politicians and officials get away with blunders, abuse of power, and even outright corruption with astonishing ease. Order the book here ! 

Got tips? Send an email to bureaubrussel@ftm.eu .

In this edition:

• Ombudsman: Lobbyists cannot keep using privacy claims to protect their interests 
• The new Dutch government has new budget-cutting plans
• Hearing in criminal case against Ursula von der Leyen postponed
• Big Tech is deepening inequality, but we’re not really surprised

Lobbyists shouldn’t claim privacy shield: Ombudsman

To the annoyance of transparency advocates, the European Commission (almost) always redacts the names of lobbyists from documents it releases under the EU’s freedom of information law. 

Journalists, too, frequently ask the Commission to release the redacted names. Follow the Money recently complained to the European Ombudsman about names of crypto-currency advocates that the Commission redacted from a document. The EU executive argued that it had reasonable grounds to believe that disclosure could harm the legitimate interests of the individuals concerned.

But while the watchdog upheld the Commission’s redactions, it made an important general observation : “The Ombudsman is of the view that lobbying activities should be transparent, as this enables citizens to understand who or what interest informed a decision and to participate themselves in that decision-making as part of exercising their democratic rights,” it found. “Interest representatives meeting with an EU institution should therefore not expect that this activity would remain secret. In other words, the Ombudsman finds it questionable whether, generally, a person lobbying an EU institution can legitimately expect that this activity will not be made transparent.”

Alexander Fanta

The Dutch want their money back

Today marks six months since the Dutch elections for the Lower House, and we still don't know who the new prime minister is going to be. But what we do know is that she or he is going to need Thatcherite qualities. Last week, election winner Geert Wilders, from the far-right party PVV, reached an agreement with three other political parties about what the new government should achieve.

Although the agreement states that the Netherlands will “remain a constructive partner” in the EU, they want the government to lower the annual EU bill. The Netherlands should contribute 1.6 billion euro less per year to the EU budget from 2028. It’s unclear what the government should offer other member states – who would need to pick up the bill.

The agreement also contains some… questionable goals: 

• They want Dutch farmers to be allowed to process more manure than farmers in other countries. They even want to completely divert from the EU maximum amount of nitrogen levels;
• They want electric pulse fishing to be allowed again – something that the EU banned a few years ago;
• They want an opt-out of EU migration and asylum rules (and they want to submit it to the European Commission, although it would require a treaty change, which is an intense and lengthy negotiation project).

Peter Teffer

Criminal case against von der Leyen to be heard 6 Dec.

A Belgian judge decided on Friday that a procedural hearing in the case against EU executive chief Ursula von der Leyen will be held on 6 December. Belgian activist Frédéric Baldan filed a complaint with an investigative judge in Liège last year, claiming von der Leyen had broken criminal law when negotiating the purchase of 1.8 billion COVID-19 vaccines with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla – and by later either destroying messages or refusing to publish them. (Read our Friday story for the full context.)

Both sides claim victory: Complainants see it as a sign the judge takes the case seriously, while von der Leyen’s lawyer said the decision was against the demands of the complainants. 

The reaction of Poland’s lawyers – and even their presence – was also striking. A Polish government spokesperson previously said that the new Donald Tusk-led government decided to withdraw the complaint filed by the previous Eurosceptic coalition. But Poland is still keeping an eye on the outcome of this criminal case, as the country was sued by Pfizer for 1.4 billion euros of unpaid vaccine doses. “The democratic debate over which mistakes have been made in this [vaccine] purchase could not take place before the [European] Parliament,” a lawyer for Poland said on Friday. “It will now have to take place in front of the competent courts.”

Simon Van Dorpe

Big Tech drives inequality, economist says

Tech giants such as Apple and Google, but also Europe’s new pet company ASML, push up prices, drive down wages and ultimately widen the gap between the rich and the poor. The reason, according to Belgian economist Jan Eeckhout: their market power, or ability to charge higher prices for their products than would be possible in a properly functioning market with sufficient competition.

Follow the Money interviewed Eeckhout, an important voice in the global debate around market power and inequality. Artificial intelligence will further increase inequality in the labour market, he said, and will also threaten the middle class. His solution? Not more taxes, but more competition.

Simon Van Dorpe