I'm not even sure they get much of a slap on the wrist for being sloppy. The ruling gives a clear indication of AZN's culpability from the perspective of Belgian law. The court found that AZN's actions were extremely blameworthy and in no way excused by any provisions of the contract. Indeed, it reasons at some length about how specific actions seemingly constitute clear violations of AZN's contractual "best reasonable efforts" obligations as well as violations of their general obligation to be faithful to the letter and spirit of the contract wrt truthfulness, transparency, etc (afaict the same reasoning I have laid out previously wrt article 13 of the APA among others).
The interesting thing is that English media is trying to portray the reasoning re. the EU's contracts not having priority over other contracts as a win for AZN. While it isn't a material win for the EU, the reasoning indicates that AZN is at fault, even though there can be no adequate remedy for the EU—because of conflicts with other contracts, over which the court lacks jurisdiction. This is a reaffirmation of something that has been pointed out repeatedly in the public, media and forum debate: valid contracts don't take priority over conflicting valid contracts unless that priority is specifically provided for by the contracts in question; you must honor your contracts—and contractually stipulate what priority they have wrt other contracts if you intend to prioritize between them. There is no "first come, first served" unless that condition is explicitly stipulated in the signed contract. Only incompetent jokers whose word means nothing—and who cannot be taken seriously in business matters—have difficulties understanding that businesses must, in principle, honor their contracts.