Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/1110

(Case T-624/24)

(C/2025/1110)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novis Insurance Company, Novis Versicherungsgesellschaft, Novis Compagnia di Assicurazioni, Novis Poisťovňa a.s. (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: A. Börner, S. Förster and S. Henrich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul decision EIOPA-24-727 insofar as the defendant rejected the applicant’s request for access pursuant to Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’),

—annul decision EIOPA-24-728 insofar as the defendant rejected the applicant’s request for access pursuant to Article 41 of the Charter,

—annul the decision EIOPA-24-729 insofar as the decision rejects the applicant’s request for access to the recommendation issued by the defendant on 28 July 2021 and the underlying documents [(a) and (b)] pursuant to Article 41 of the Charter,

—annul decision EIOPA-24-730 dated 20 September 2024 insofar as the defendant rejected the applicant’s request for access pursuant to Article 41 of the Charter (taken together ‘the contested decisions’);

—order the defendant to bear all costs of the proceedings; and

—join the cases for annulment of the contested decisions for the written and oral proceedings and the decisions to be taken therein.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging the infringement of the applicant’s right of access to the file pursuant to Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter as the defendant refused to grant the applicant access to the file of concern to the applicant:

—the applicant holds that it had requested access to a file of concern to it, and that access was unlawfully refused, without the defendant considering and adequately taking into account the applicant’s fundamental rights;

—investigations and procedures conducted by the defendant and the European Commission as proceedings for breach of Union law pursuant to Article 17 Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) on the supervision of the applicant by the national competent authority (‘the administrative proceedings’) are administrative procedures of concern to the applicant. These investigations and acts were conducted as undertaking-specific procedures, focussing primarily on the conduct of the applicant, and whether it was compliant with the requirements of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2), and aiming ultimately at the adoption of measures vis-à-vis the applicant;

—even though the administrative proceedings were concerned primarily with the applicant, the defendant continues to keep secret crucial documents drawn up and invoked in the context of the procedures as basis of the institution’s acts. The applicant further presents that the defendant keeps secret the specific nature, effect and extent of the administrative proceedings’ causation of, influence on, and interrelation with, the national administrative procedures conducted by the national authority;

—without access to the file kept by the defendant on the administrative proceedings and on their interrelation with the national administrative procedures, the applicant is unable to consider and pursue effective legal remedies against the acts adopted by the defendant, the European Commission and the national competent authority, and it was due to this that the applicant requested access to the file pursuant to its right confirmed in Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter;

—the refusal to grant access to crucial documents part of the defendant’s file by means of the contested decisions therefore infringed upon the rights of the applicant;

—the defendant cannot justify the contested decisions by invoking allegedly opposing objectives of general interest, such as the functioning of the European System of Financial Supervisors. The defendant failed to perform relevant considerations, as the defendant merely refers to arguments made against public disclosure;

—finally, the defendant failed its obligation to weigh and strike an adequate balance between the applicant’s fundamental rights and any potentially opposing consideration, thus rendering the contested decisions unlawful. Inter alia, where benchmarks used for purposes of Solvency II capital requirements are concerned, information cannot be considered internal or confidential, because such benchmarks have an equivalent function as technical standards.

2.Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of the applicant’s right of defence pursuant to Article 47 combined with Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter.

As the defendant refused to uphold the applicant’s right of access to the file, the defendant at the same time infringed upon the applicant’s fundamental right of defence, as the applicant cannot consider or pursue effective legal remedies without having access to requested documents part of the defendant’s file.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/79/EC (OJ 2010 L 331, p. 48).

(2) Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II) (recast) (OJ 2009 L 335, p. 1).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1110/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—

* * *