Order — ECLI:EU:T:2026:353
Date: 2026-05-20
Language of the case: English

Action brought on 11 May 2024 – Evroins inshurans grup v EIOPA (Case T-247/24) Language of the case: English Parties Applicant: Evroins inshurans grup AD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Morogai, H. Drăghici and F. Giurgea, lawyers) Defendant: European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) Form of order sought The applicants claim that the Court should: annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities of 11 March 2024 (BoA-D-2024-02) (‘the contested decision’) and consequently EIOPA’s decision n° EIOPA-23-719 of 19 September 2023 not to start an investigation into the potential breach of European Union law regarding the withdrawal of the authorization of Euroins România Asigurare-Reasigurare SA; or, in the alternative, to direct the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities to reassess the appeal brought by Euroins Insurance Group AD against decision n° EIOPA-23-719; to order the European Supervisory Authorities and EIOPA to pay to Euroins the ensuing costs related to this procedure. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following main pleas in law. First plea in law, alleging that the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities breached Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council, 1 and of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, 2 the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities Procedural Rules, and the FEU Treaty: the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities erred in law when it established that Decision EIOPA-23-719 not to open an investigation does not represent a ‘decision’ within the meaning of Regulation n° 1094/2010; the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities erred in law when it established that Decision EIOPA-23-719 does not represent a ‘decision’ within the meaning of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union; the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities failed to find the breach of provisions of Directive 2009/138 by the relevant national competent supervisory authority (‘the national competent authority’); the contested decision fails to address the breach of the FEU Treaty by EIOPA. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision was issued in breach of the general principles of EU law: the contested decision was issued in breach of the principle of equal treatment, mainly because the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities failed to consider whether EIOPA acted in a non-objective and discriminatory manner towards the applicant; the contested decision was issued in breach of the principle of proportionality. the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities did not verify the compliance of Decision n° EIOPA-23-719 against the settled case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, mainly if the said decision was suitable to attain the objective pursued; the contested decision was issued in breach of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations. The Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities did not verify the compliance by EIOPA and the national competent authority with the obligation to act in a consistent, transparent, and predictable manner; the principle of effective judicial protection applies not only to the enforcement of EU law, but also to the protection of rights conferred by EU law. However, the right to address the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities was not effective because this board refused to properly assess the real nature of Decision n° EIOPA-23-719 and to check its actual implications; the contested decision is not addressing the lack of reasoning justifying the refusal to open an investigation, in beach of the principle of reasoning. Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision was issued in breach of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’): The provisions of Article 47 of the Charter were not respected because the applicant’s right to appeal against Decision n° EIOPA-23-719 in front of the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities was illusory, thus, not effective due to the fact that that board did not conduct a judicious assessment of the facts and evidence provided by the applicant. Fourth plea in law, alleging that Decision n° EIOPA-23-719 was issued in excess of EIOPA’s powers as regulated by Directive 2009/138 and Regulation n° 1094/2010: by refusing to open an investigation against a national competent authority, EIOPA acted in excess of its regulated competence under the Regulation n° 1094/2010, and beyond its legal power and authority. EIOPA acted in contradiction to its mandated mission of ensuring supervisory convergence across the European Union; the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities failed to thoroughly investigate all factors triggering the necessity to initiate an investigation. ____________ 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). 1 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).