Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2025:1113
Date: 2025-12-17
Language of the case: English
Court formation: First Chamber
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: Bulgaria

summary of those pleas in law. It must, accordingly, specify the nature of the grounds on which the action is based, which means that a mere abstract statement of the grounds does not satisfy the requirements of the Rules of Procedure. Moreover, that summary – albeit concise – must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the action, if necessary, without any other supporting information. In order to ensure legal certainty and the sound administration of justice, it is necessary – if an action or, more specifically, a plea in law, is to be admissible – that the basic legal and factual particulars relied on be indicated coherently and intelligibly in the application itself (see judgments of 12 September 2018, De Geoffroy and Others v Parliament, T‑788/16, not published, EU:T:2018:534, paragraphs 72 and 73 and the case-law cited, and of 8 May 2019, PT v EIB, T‑571/16, not published, EU:T:2019:301, paragraph 109 and the case-law cited). 63 However, the Court holds, similarly to EIOPA, that the complaint alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment is not supported by any specific arguments. Accordingly, since it has not been explained, it must be rejected as inadmissible. 64 In the second place, as regards the complaint alleging lack of independence and impartiality of the Board of Appeal, it is sufficient to note that the statement in paragraph 15 of the contested order, referred to in paragraph 59 above, merely states that the information on EIOPA’s position regarding a potential breach of EU law by the Romanian supervisory authority appears to be relevant for the purposes of national proceedings, so that it would not be inappropriate for a court to order disclosure thereof in any event. However, that finding, which is entirely logical, in no way demonstrates a lack of independence and impartiality on the part of the Board of Appeal. 65 In those circumstances, that complaint must be rejected, as must, accordingly, the second plea in law in its entirety. 66 It follows from all of the foregoing that the action must be dismissed in its entirety. Costs 67 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, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber) hereby: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Evroins inshurans grup AD to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA), including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures. Buttigieg Schwarcz Bestagno Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 17 December 2025. V. Di Bucci M. van der Woude Registrar President * Language of the case: English.