AstraZeneca says EU loses legal bid for more vaccine

[EasterIssland]

AstraZeneca says EU loses legal bid for more vaccine supplies by end-June

AstraZeneca (AZN.L) on Friday said the European Union had lost a legal case against the pharmaceutical firm over the supply of COVID-19 vaccines as a court in Brussels rejected an EU request for more deliveries by the end of June.

The Anglo-Swedish firm committed in a contract to do its best to deliver to the 27-nation bloc 300 million doses by the end of June, but production problems led the pharmaceutical company to revise down its target to 100 million vaccines.

The cuts in the supplies delayed the EU's vaccination drive in the first quarter of the year, when the bloc had initially bet on AstraZeneca to deliver the largest volume of jabs. That led to a bitter dispute and to the EU's legal action to get at least 120 million doses by the end of June.

But the judge said the company should only deliver 80.2 million doses by a deadline of Sept. 27, AstraZeneca said.

www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/astrazeneca-says-eu-loses-legal-bid-more-vaccine-supplies-by-end-june-2021-06-18/

Considering how foul and threatening the EU was towards a company producing a not-for-profit vaccine, I approve of the decision.

Excellent news

Sure they can swing this around to make it the fault of the UK somehow. My guess is before we are 2 pages in a poster on here will manage it🤓

Anyway apparently AZ has supplied the EU with more doses quicker than they needed too. Kind of makes you wonder what else the EU high priestess is not honest about😶

@Somarefuser

Considering how foul and threatening the EU was towards a company producing a not-for-profit vaccine, I approve of the decision.

I agree.

Not sure other countries but I can speak from spain:
Only 60-70yo ones left to receive their second doses which they're starting now to provide. Because of the delta variant some areas are starting to vaccinate 10-11 weeks instead of 12.

So I guess if many countries are in the same position, the UE is not in such a rush to have the 120m vaccines requested hence why the judge has said that.

Would be interesting to know what is said about the fine requested by the EU for the delay

Im reading something about it in spanish

"The Court of First Instance of Brussels has decided to grant precautionary measures in the case opened by the European Commission against AstraZeneca, by which it orders the Anglo-Swedish laboratory to deliver 50 million doses of vaccine before September 27, 2021, according to the following schedule: 15 million doses by July 26 (at 9:00 am), 20 million doses by August 23; and 15 million doses by September 27.

In the event of non-compliance with these delivery deadlines, AstraZeneca will have to pay a penalty of 10 euros per dose not administered, as the European Commission has just announced. "The judge's decision on the requested precautionary measures is based on the fact that AstraZeneca committed a serious breach ('faute lourde') of its contractual obligations with the EU," says the Community Executive."

That's good news, though I'd just had it shared in the Telegraph (paywall) and a massive annoying advert is preventing me from reading the last half of the Reuters article... I'm searching for details on a news site I can just read!

I would love to know how many doses they actually need given the majority of EU residents are shunning AZ.

Doesn't sound like its resolved yet.
Separate case think to be heard September.
I don't think eu has signed contract beyond this June

@mrex I posted the Reuters link above

Iirc the September case was to sue for price difference as had to buy Pfizer. Hopefully this is a strong indication it will be lost too.

The price difference was to be on doses that weren't delivered on time. This finding looks to be that nothing could contractually be considered late, so as long as AZ can deliver 50m by September they won't have that breach to deal with.

@MRex

The price difference was to be on doses that weren't delivered on time. This finding looks to be that nothing could contractually be considered late, so as long as AZ can deliver 50m by September they won't have that breach to deal with.

Great, what a relief. I feel relieved can only imagine how they feel!

Caveat - I am scratching around news sites, the full text isn't available so I could be wrong.

Considering how foul and threatening the EU was towards a company producing a not-for-profit vaccine, I approve of the decision.

This. The EU’s behaviour over this has been nothing short of contemptible.

@MRex

Caveat - I am scratching around news sites, the full text isn't available so I could be wrong.

I only managed to get it out of an Spanish news (I think from Argentina )

"according to AstraZeneca, the court ordered it to deliver just 10m doses more than it has already sent — a total of 80m, by September — which it can complete ahead of schedule by the end of June."
amp.ft.com/content/6c535f67-c154-4044-91d0-8ed375cab361

Great news, there was a bit the Guardian but no great detail. What a waste of time and money. The EU were told upfront the UK would be delivered first, they knew this before they signed the contract. AZ would have had all the correspondence.

@Dongdingdong

Considering how foul and threatening the EU was towards a company producing a not-for-profit vaccine, I approve of the decision.

This. The EU’s behaviour over this has been nothing short of contemptible.

Absolutely this. It was pretty outrageous from a body whose members stockpiled that very vaccine because their population didn't want it!

So the judge confirmed that the EU 'understanding' of the contract they signed was wrong. The AZs start up issues had impacted delivery and that was covered by the 'best effort' undertaking; that the EU had no right or reason to expect or demand preferential delivery or deliveries from elsewhere.

The judge set a deadline for September that AZ have almost met already and state they will exceed by the end of this month.

And the EU have a second court case asking for punitive action, that would effectively give them free vaccines, to be applied to the contract they signed in retrospect

They surely have no chance of that succeeding either. But they will waste their own time and money, that of an organisation that is still selling at cost and all for vaccine they don't have any confidence in and are actively trying to avoid using.

WHY URSULA? WHY?

WHY URSULA? WHY?
Because whatever the judge said, it would of course include stating that AZ had not delivered the full.amount of initial doses on the schedule, which would enable her to spin it like this:
"European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said Friday's ruling supported the EU's view that AstraZeneca against which the bloc has recently launched a second lawsuit had failed to meet its commitments."
thefinancialexpress.com.bd/world/europe/eu-loses-legal-bid-for-more-vaccine-supplies-by-end-june-1624023767?amp=true

More from a spanish newspaper

""All the other measures requested by the European Commission have been rejected and, in particular, the court determined that the European Commission does not have exclusivity or right of priority over all other contracting parties," the company said in the statement, which also ensures that the judgment recognized that the difficulties experienced by AstraZeneca in this unprecedented situation had a substantial impact on the delay. "AstraZeneca now hopes to renew the collaboration with the European Commission to help fight the pandemic in Europe," they say from the laboratory."

cincodias.elpais.com/cincodias/2021/06/18/companias/1624023496_012180.html

And yet we can see it!

I don't think I've ever seen such intransigence.

Judge, and many commentators over the last few months - no, you are wrong, stop shouting, it's not a competition, work with AZ not against them.

AZ - we want compensation, financial penalities. They need to be punished for not seeing things the way we demanded.

So maybe the question should have been "Why Ursula?" There are many others who could do the job better.

It will be interesting to see some analysis beyond views of the two parties involved.

One link quotes AZ's own statement that the EU has lost bid to be supplied with more doses before end of June.

Then goes on with UvdL's , on behalf of EU, that the ruling supported the view that AZ has failed to meet their commitments.

It would be interesting to see the judgement or some credible non partisan commentary of source document.

Thinking outside side the box

I know the EU huge and every countries doing different thing's with vaccines..
Thought I read 1 article that France said 1 jab is sufficient and I don't mean janson 1 shot.
What is hit vague I find in the UK and some extent the EU.

Whats current supply like?
Have moderna increased their deliveries as they hardly delivered much to the UK?
How is pfizer meeting demand from block UK and other countries to make enough in its EU sites?
Has the issues with safety and production been worked out with janson as that arrived late and may have same side effects as AZ.

Its just keep hearing last few weeks UK short on pfizer.
We heading into 3rd wave
Won't some eu states follow later like they did before and delta is probably in Europe as well.
Some EU member states used vaccines with lower protection like Russian and Chinese vaccines

Maybe thats why they pushing for the doses as overall they short and they think the 3rd wave maybe an issue.
We are basically being told 1 dose is not enough how many eu citizens have had 2 doses?