Rather brilliantly, the publication of the AstraZeneca contract appears to have proven to both sides that they were absolutely right.

I suppose this is why we have courts...

Calling all contract lawyers...

On the balance of briefings from lawyers I've had so far (all of whom have prefaced their expertise with "I'm not a Belgian lawyer so everything I say might be irrelevant") I'm slowly coming round to the notion that AstraZeneca are absolutely vindicated by this contract.

If you are a lawyer who passionately disagrees with this - let's talk.

The key arguments appear to be:

1) The contract commits AstraZeneca to use "best reasonable efforts" to manufacture 300m doses

2) The fact that AZ has lots of extra doses in the UK is because it signed an earlier contract with the UK, the fruits of which the EU has no right to

3) Clause 13.1, in which AZ gives a warranty that it has no contractual conflicts with anyone else, is irrelevant. Because the UK's contract is not in conflict. It is actively helping the EU. It has provided capacity, which wouldn't otherwise exist, which the EU can access later.

4) It would be very difficult to argue that "best reasonable efforts" on AstraZeneca's part would include tearing up a contract with an existing client.

A Belgian lawyer writes...

"From the published contract between the EU Commission and #AstraZeneca I cannot conclude that the Commission has the contract and therefore the right on its side. Quite the contrary." https://twitter.com/FKeuleneer/status/1355138055305388036?s=20

On the dispute over clauses 5.1 and 5.4, the most numerous arguments I've heard are that 5.4 actually has no bearing on AstraZeneca's duty to manufacture 300m doses.

It is 5.1, so it goes, that is the killer.

5.1 states that AZ's obligation is to use Best Reasonable Efforts to manufacture doses in the EU. There is no EU claim on doses outside of that.

5.4 relates more narrowly to the location of the manufacturing, not the duty, and does not give the EU any rights to UK factory output

But I am aware this is an active area of dispute and I say again, this is presumably why courts exist.