Tuesday, 21 July 2026
A legal dispute between Poland and Pfizer over unused COVID-19 vaccine doses has entered a new phase after the pharmaceutical company moved to secure payment by targeting funds destined for the Polish Air Navigation Services Agency (PAŻP), extending the impact of the case beyond the healthcare sector.
In April, a civil court in Brussels issued a non-final judgment ordering Poland to accept delivery of approximately 64 million COVID-19 vaccine doses and pay Pfizer around €1.3 billion, in addition to interest and legal costs. The court rejected Poland’s arguments that changing circumstances, reduced vaccine demand, the economic effects of the war in Ukraine and alleged abuse of market dominance justified modifying or terminating the contract. Poland has appealed the decision, although the ruling may be enforced while the appeal is pending.
The proceedings are taking place in Belgium because the vaccine procurement agreement, negotiated by the European Commission on behalf of EU member states, is governed by Belgian law.
Following the ruling, Pfizer sought to enforce the judgment by freezing funds that Eurocontrol was scheduled to transfer to PAŻP. Eurocontrol collects air navigation charges from airlines operating across Europe before distributing the relevant amounts to national air navigation service providers.
For PAŻP, these payments represent more than 80% of its operating revenue. The agency is responsible for managing Polish airspace, financing air traffic control operations, maintaining radar and communications systems and supporting aviation infrastructure.
Although the freeze has raised concerns about the agency’s finances, the Polish government has stated that it would provide financial support if required. As a result, aviation experts do not expect any immediate disruption to air traffic, with any funding shortfall likely to be covered temporarily through the state budget.
The dispute illustrates the broader legal and financial consequences of long-term public procurement contracts concluded during emergency situations. Governments entering into large-scale agreements during periods of uncertainty often face the challenge of balancing supply security against the risk of future oversupply if circumstances change.
Legal specialists generally note that contracts remain binding even when economic or political conditions evolve, unless contractual provisions or applicable law provide grounds for amendment or termination. At the same time, enforcement measures affecting third-party public institutions can raise questions about proportionality, particularly where the targeted entity was not directly involved in negotiating or performing the original agreement.
The case also highlights wider procurement challenges. During the pandemic, governments across Europe sought to secure sufficient vaccine supplies amid considerable uncertainty over future demand. While this approach reduced the risk of shortages, it also increased the possibility of surplus orders if vaccination needs later declined.
The outcome of Poland’s appeal will determine the country’s final legal obligations under the vaccine agreement. Regardless of the court’s final decision, the dispute has already drawn attention to the importance of designing emergency procurement contracts that provide legal certainty while retaining sufficient flexibility to address significant changes in market conditions over the life of the agreement.
Source: WEI
