Had the EU known that AZ has a different understanding of the contract both had signed (to put it as neutral as possible), the EU-side signature might not have happened.
In that case, the EU could have invested more in other vaccine providers instead of that dud.
The EU is clearly very interested in this "dud" because their few other vaccine investments were unlucky, performed worse, and didn't make it through trials
https://qap.ecdc.europa.eu/public/extensions/COVID-19/vaccin... claims that 47M doses in total have been distributed across the EU. Of those, 8.7M are AZ.
If that company continues to be such a high maintenance supplier (the others had production shortages as well, but _somehow_ they managed to not make a mess out of that that made EU bureaucrats consider it necessary to set up an export control instrument just for them) any effort to get AZ involved might have been better invested in supporting any of the others.
For reference, the sums per product that I extracted from that data set (as of 2021-03-05):
AstraZeneca 8.682.532
BBIBV-CorV 550.000
Moderna 3.069.953
Pfizer/BioNTech 34.366.485
Sputnik V 46.000
Unknown 604.275
--------------------------
Total 47.319.245The "competing agreements" discussed in this section of the contract refers to conflict between the EU-AZ agreements and agreements between the EU and other vaccine manufacturers.
That is to say, if the EU is asking two manufacturers for vaccines who are in turn competing for the same processing plant, they are not in breach. They do however have the responsibility to let the EU know about it.
The contract is actually silent on competition/priority between the EU and other customers.
> In the event AstraZeneca's ability to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement is impeded by a competing agreement entered into by or on behalf of the Commission ... AstraZeneca shall not be deemed in breach of this Agreement as a result of any such delay due to the aforementioned competing agreement(s).
It does, as you say, come from a different perspective. It seems to be saying that if the EU has other agreements, and those other agreements impact AZs ability to meet its obligations, then AZ isn't liable.
So the competing agreements are not agreements between AZ and third parties, but further agreements either between AZ and the EU (most likely, perhaps to cover additional EU orders which may run in parallel for example) or other agreements between the EU and third parties (maybe if those agreements restrict AZ ability to obtain equipment or materials).
Either way, thanks for leading me to look again. This stuff is so complex and interwoven it's almost like we need a specialised profession to help clarify the legal aspects.
Haha, Agreeed.