Order — ECLI:EU:T:2016:374
Date: 2016-06-24
Language of the case: Romanian
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: Approximation of laws
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - inadmissible;Action for damages - inadmissible;Action for failure to act - inadmissible
Origin: Romania

summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based. In order to satisfy those requirements, an application seeking compensation for damage caused by an EU institution must state the evidence from which the conduct alleged against the institution can be identified, the reasons for which the applicant considers there to be a causal link between the conduct and the damage it claims to have suffered, and the nature and extent of that damage (judgments of 18 September 1996, Asia Motor France and Others v Commission, T‑387/94, EU:T:1996:120, paragraphs 106 and 107, and of 6 May 1997, Guérin automobiles v Commission, T‑195/95, EU:T:1997:66, paragraphs 20 and 21). A claim for any unspecified form of damages, however, is not sufficiently concrete and must therefore be regarded as inadmissible (judgment of 2 December 1971, Zuckerfabrik Schoeppenstedt v Council, 5/71, EU:C:1971:116, paragraph 9). 82 Admittedly, an applicant may not have put in figures the amount of the loss which it submits it has suffered, while clearly indicating the evidence which enables its nature and extent to be assessed, so that the defendant is in a position to conduct its defence. In such circumstances, the absence of precise figures in the application does not affect the other party’s rights of defence (order of 22 July 2005, Polyelectrolyte Producers Group v Council and Commission, T‑376/04, EU:T:2005:297, paragraph 55). 83 However, in the present case, the applicant merely made vague reference not only to a pecuniary loss, consisting of a 59% decline in its turnover for policies issued in Italy, loss of profit and costs arising from the bar on opening of a branch in Italy, but also to a loss of reputation or image, without substantiating its allegations in any way. The applicant thus failed to provide sufficient information to enable the Court and EIOPA to assess the nature and the extent of the loss suffered. 84 Nor has the applicant set out sufficiently the reasons why it considers there to be a causal link between the behaviour it alleges on the part of EIOPA and the loss it claims to have suffered. It merely observed that ‘it was true that the chain of causality leading to the loss suffered commenced with the IVASS decision, but, in failing to take a decision, or in taking fundamentally flawed decisions, EIOPA made a decisive contribution to maintaining the effects of that decision and to the failure to take steps to remedy that restriction’. It must be held that such vague and unsubstantiated allegations do not satisfy the requirements referred to in paragraph 81 above. 85 In those circumstances, the claim for damages must be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. 86 In the light of all the foregoing and, in particular, of the conclusions drawn in paragraphs 43, 59, 78 and 85 above, the present action must be dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law. Costs 87 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance with the form of order sought by EIOPA. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber) hereby orders: 1. The action is dismissed. 2. Onix Asigurări SA is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA). Luxembourg, 24 June 2016. E. Coulon M.E. Martins Ribeiro Registrar President * Language of the case: Romanian.