JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber)
17 December 2025 (*)
( European System of Financial Supervision – Request not to publish a decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities or to treat certain information as confidential – Refusal of the request – Action for annulment – Partial lack of jurisdiction – Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 – Independence – Impartiality )
In Case T‑367/24,
Evroins inshurans grup AD, established in Sofia (Bulgaria), represented by H. Drăghici and F. Giurgea, lawyers,
applicant,
v
European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA), represented by S. Rosenbaum, S. Dispiter and A. Terstegen-Verhaag, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann, Z. Mzee and F. Boos, lawyers,
defendant,
THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber),
composed of E. Buttigieg, President, J. Schwarcz and F. Bestagno (Rapporteur), Judges,
Registrar: V. Di Bucci,
having regard to the order of 11 October 2024, Evroins inshurans grup v EIOPA (T‑367/24 R, not published, EU:T:2024:691),
having regard to the written part of the procedure,
having regard to the fact that no request for a hearing was submitted by the parties within three weeks after service of notification of the close of the written part of the procedure, and having decided to rule on the action without an oral part of the procedure, pursuant to Article 106(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court,
gives the following
Judgment
1        By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Evroins inshurans grup AD, seeks the annulment of order BoA‑O‑2024‑03 of the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities of 24 June 2024 (‘the contested order’), dismissing its application for confidential treatment of Decision BoA‑D‑2024‑02 of 11 March 2024 (‘the decision of 11 March 2024’).
Background to the dispute and events subsequent to the bringing of the action
2        The applicant is a Bulgarian joint stock company with its registered office in Sofia (Bulgaria). It owns almost all the shares in Euroins Romania Asigurare – Reasigurare SA (‘Euroins Romania’), an insurance undertaking which has its registered office in Romania.
3        For the purposes of the supervision of a group which includes the applicant, a college of supervisors composed of the Autoritatea de Supraveghere Financiară (Financial Supervisory Authority, Romania) (‘the Romanian supervisory authority’) and the Komisiya za finansov nadzor (Financial Supervision Commission, Bulgaria) was put in place within the meaning of Article 212(1)(e) of 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) (OJ 2009 L 335, p. 1).
4        On 17 March 2023, the Romanian supervisory authority adopted a decision withdrawing Euroins Romania’s operating licence (‘the withdrawal decision’) and, after verifying that that company was insolvent, applied for a declaration of insolvency. On 11 April 2023, Euroins Romania challenged the withdrawal decision before the Curtea de Apel București (Court of Appeal, Bucharest, Romania).
5        By several letters which it sent to the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) during the period between March and August 2023, the applicant raised its concerns regarding a potential breach of EU law by the Romanian supervisory authority when adopting the withdrawal decision. In that context, it requested EIOPA to initiate an investigation.
6        By letter of 19 September 2023, the Chairperson of EIOPA decided that an investigation in respect of a breach of EU law against the Romanian supervisory authority would not be appropriate and closed the applicant’s request without initiating an investigation (‘the letter of 19 September 2023’).
7        By application lodged at the Court Registry on 20 November 2023, the applicant brought an action, registered as Case T‑1094/23, for annulment of the letter of 19 September 2023. By order of 26 March 2025, Evroins inshurans grup v EIOPA (T‑1094/23, not published, EU:T:2025:347), the Court dismissed that action as inadmissible.
8        On 20 November 2023, the applicant also brought an appeal against the letter of 19 September 2023 before the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities (‘the Board of Appeal’), pursuant to Article 60 of 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).
9        On 11 March 2024, the Board of Appeal gave its decision declaring inadmissible the appeal referred to in paragraph 8 above.
10      On 19 March 2024, the applicant requested that the Board of Appeal not make the decision of 11 March 2024 available to the public.
11      By application lodged at the Court Registry on 11 May 2024, the applicant brought an action, registered as Case T‑247/24, for annulment of the decision of 11 March 2024.
12      On 24 June 2024, the Board of Appeal communicated the contested order to the applicant. By that order, the Board of Appeal refused the applicant’s request not to publish the decision of 11 March 2024 and notified its intention to publish the full text of that decision on 31 July 2024.
13      In the context of the application for interim measures seeking suspension of operation of the contested order pending resolution of the main proceedings, brought by the applicant before the Court on 19 July 2024 and registered as Case T‑367/24 R, the Board of Appeal, at the request of the Court, decided to postpone publication of the decision of 11 March 2024 until 7 August 2024.
14      On 7 August 2024, the decision of 11 March 2024 was published in full on the websites of the three European supervisory authorities, EIOPA, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) and the European Banking Authority (EBA).
Forms of order sought
15      In essence, the applicant claims that the Court should:
–        annul the contested order;
–        order the Board of Appeal not to publish the decision of 11 March 2024;
–        or, in the alternative, order the Board of Appeal to publish only a redacted version of the decision of 11 March 2024;
–        order the ‘European supervisory authorities’ and EIOPA to pay the costs.
16      EIOPA contends that the Court should:
–        dismiss the action as manifestly unfounded in law;
–        order the applicant to pay the costs.
Law
17      Without raising an objection of inadmissibility by separate document, EIOPA claims, in essence, that the first, second and third heads of claim are inadmissible and that, consequently, the action as a whole should be dismissed as inadmissible. It is appropriate to examine first the Court’s jurisdiction to rule on the second and third heads of claim and then the first head of claim.
The Court’s jurisdiction to rule on the second and third heads of claim
18      EIOPA contends that the second and third heads of claim must be rejected as inadmissible on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction to give an order requiring the Board of Appeal not to publish the decision of 11 March 2024 or to publish only a redacted version thereof.
19      In the present case, it should be noted that, by its second and third heads of claim, the applicant requests the Court to order the Board of Appeal not to publish the decision of 11 March 2024 or, in the alternative, to publish a redacted version of that decision. Thus, those heads of claim are equivalent to two requests for the Court to issue directions to the Board of Appeal.
20      It is settled case-law that, when exercising judicial review of legality under Article 263 TFEU, the EU judicature has no jurisdiction to issue directions to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the European Union (see judgment of 14 March 2024, D & A Pharma v Commission and EMA, C‑291/22 P, EU:C:2024:228, paragraph 160 and the case-law cited). It is however for the institution concerned, under Article 266 TFEU, to adopt the measures required to give effect to a judgment delivered in an action for annulment (see judgment of 25 September 2018, Sweden v Commission, T‑260/16, EU:T:2018:597, paragraph 104 and the case-law cited).
21      In those circumstances, the second and third heads of claim seeking an order requiring the Board of Appeal not to publish the decision of 11 March 2024 or, in the alternative, to publish a redacted version of that decision, must be rejected on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
The first head of claim
22      As regards the objection of inadmissibility raised by EIOPA, alleging that the first head of claim is inadmissible in that the contested order is not an act open to challenge under the fifth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 61(1) of Regulation No 1094/2010, it should be noted that, in the circumstances of the present case, the proper administration of justice justifies ruling on the merits of that head of claim without previously examining its admissibility (see, to that effect, judgment of 26 February 2002, Council v Boehringer, C‑23/00 P, EU:C:2002:118, paragraph 52).
23      In support of the first head of claim in its action, the applicant raises, in essence, two pleas in law, alleging (i) infringement of Regulation No 1094/2010, the decision of the Management Board of EIOPA of 10 June 2014 on the protection of information systems (‘the decision on the protection of information systems’), the decision of the Management Board of EIOPA adopting the Rules of Procedure on Professional Secrecy for Non-Staff, and repealing Decision of the Management Board of 10 January 2011 on Professional Secrecy and Confidentiality (‘the rules of procedure on professional secrecy’) and the FEU Treaty, and (ii) infringement of the principle of equal treatment and the requirements of independence and impartiality.
The first plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation No 1094/2010, the decision on the protection of information systems, the rules of procedure on professional secrecy and the FEU Treaty
24      In the first place, the applicant claims that, by refusing its request not to publish the decision of 11 March 2024 or to redact it in part, the Board of Appeal disregarded the provisions of Regulation No 1094/2010, the decision on the protection of information systems and the rules of procedure on professional secrecy.
25      The applicant claims, in essence, that, pursuant to Article 70(1) of Regulation No 1094/2010 and the additional provisions adopted by the EIOPA Management Board, all EIOPA staff are subject to the requirements of professional secrecy pursuant to Article 339 TFEU and the relevant provisions in European Union legislation.
26      In addition, in the view of the applicant, it is apparent from the contested order that the Board of Appeal failed to analyse the reasons why EIOPA initially applied the label ‘EIOPA restricted use’ to the letter of 19 September 2023. It claims that the Board of Appeal should have stated the reason why a document bearing that label did not merit the confidential treatment requested.
27      Furthermore, the applicant takes the view that Article 1(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), which refers to ‘the widest possible access to documents’, must be understood only in relation to the overall content of that legal provision and also in relation to other relevant legal documents. Thus, the very wording of that regulation allows sensitive documents to be treated differently where the issue arises as to the protection of the commercial interests of a natural or legal person, and of court proceedings and legal advice relating thereto.
28      Furthermore, the appellant contests the Board of Appeal’s interpretation of the case-law of the Court of Justice in the contested order in that, although the criterion established by that case-law may provide some guidance as to the meaning of the concept of confidential information, it is clearly not necessarily universal and a more detailed assessment of the circumstances of the case must be carried out.
29      In any event, the applicant claims that the information contained in the decision of 11 March 2024 was not intended for the general public, could harm its position as regards the cases pending before various Romanian courts and is commercially sensitive. Full disclosure of the decision of 11 March 2024 would therefore seriously harm its reputation and the public interest and entail the disclosure of certain commercially sensitive information to third parties.
30      In the second place, the applicant submits, in the alternative, that, in its view, the Board of Appeal should have redacted a number of paragraphs of the decision of 11 March 2024 on the ground, in essence, that they disclose, inter alia, first, its request to EIOPA to investigate the alleged infringement by the Romanian authority of applicable EU law and, second, the decision of EIOPA to refuse to initiate an investigation into the allegedly unlawful actions of the Romanian authority, giving the impression that EIOPA and the Board of Appeal had already assessed the legality of the Romanian authority’s action on its merits, and, third, certain commercial aspects of its activity which are protected as business secrets.
31      EIOPA disputes the applicant’s arguments.
32      It should be noted that, in paragraphs 2 to 4 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal first of all recalled that, under Article 60(7) of Regulation No 1094/2010 and Article 24(1) of its Rules of Procedure, as established by its Decision BoA‑2020‑01, its decisions must be made public and that there is no exception to that rule. Whilst recognising the importance of confidentiality, the Board of Appeal emphasised that the omission of relevant contextual information could reduce the scope and clarity of the decision at issue. In that regard, it referred to Article 24(2) and Article 26 of its Rules of Procedure.
33      In addition, the Board of Appeal recalled that the party requesting confidential treatment must justify the reasons therefor.
34      In paragraph 12 et seq. of the contested order, the Board of Appeal found that none of the information identified by the applicant constituted confidential information protected by the principle of professional secrecy.
35      In particular, the Board of Appeal recalled the judgment of 19 June 2018, Baumeister (C‑15/16, EU:C:2018:464), which identifies confidential information as information which is not public, the disclosure of which could affect adversely the interests of its authors, third parties, or the proper functioning of the monitoring carried out by the competent authority.
36      Next, in the first place, as regards the applicant’s argument that the publication of the decision of 11 March 2024 could prejudice its position in a range of court proceedings, the Board of Appeal considered that the information concerned was relevant for the purposes of national proceedings, so that it would therefore not be inappropriate for a court to order disclosure thereof in any event.
37      In the second place, as regards the applicant’s argument that the publication of the decision of 11 March 2024 could give the impression that the legality of the national competent authority’s acts had already been assessed by EIOPA and by a supervisory body such as itself, which would weaken the applicant’s position before the national courts, the Board of Appeal noted that the appeal against EIOPA’s letter had been declared inadmissible, so that it had not taken any position on the merits thereof. Disclosure of that information cannot therefore be considered, in the view of the Board of Appeal, as likely to affect adversely the applicant’s interests within the meaning of the test set out in paragraph 35 of the judgment of 19 June 2018, Baumeister (C‑15/16, EU:C:2018:464).
38      Finally, the Board of Appeal stated that it had also considered whether other parts of the decision of 11 March 2024 would be likely to affect adversely the applicant’s interests within the meaning of the test set out in paragraph 37 above, paying particular attention to the passages identified by the applicant in its request for redaction, but it had been unable to identify any of that information as confidential.
39      In this case, with regard to the applicant’s first complaint that, by refusing its request not to publish the decision of 11 March 2024 in full, the Board of Appeal failed to comply, in the contested order, with the provisions of Regulation No 1094/2010, the decision on the protection of information systems and the rules of procedure on professional secrecy, it should be noted that Article 60(7) of Regulation No 1094/2010 provides that ‘decisions taken by the Board of Appeal … shall be made public by [EIOPA]’. In addition, under Article 24(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Board of Appeal, ‘the Secretariat shall ensure that the Decision is made public in accordance with Article 60[(7)] of [Regulation No 1094/2010].’
40      Article 60(7) of Regulation No 1094/2010 therefore imposes a legal obligation to publish the decisions of the Board of Appeal.
41      Furthermore, it should be noted that that provision gives concrete expression to the general principle set out in Article 15(1) TFEU, according to which ‘in order to promote good governance and ensure the participation of civil society, the Union’s institutions, bodies, offices and agencies shall conduct their work as openly as possible.’
42      However, since the applicant does not raise a plea of unlawfulness against Article 60(7) of Regulation No 1094/2010 and therefore does not seek a declaration that it is inapplicable pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, it must be held that it cannot be validly argued that the refusal of its request not to publish the decision of 11 March 2024 led the Board of Appeal, in the contested order, to infringe that regulation or the implementing provisions of that regulation adopted by the Management Board of EIOPA. The first complaint raised by the applicant in support of its first plea in law must therefore be dismissed, without it being necessary to rule on the other arguments referred to in paragraphs 26 to 29 above, which it put forward in that regard.
43      As regards the second complaint that, in the contested order, EIOPA wrongly refused to redact certain information in the decision of 11 March 2024, even though it contained information protected by an obligation of professional secrecy under Article 339 TFEU, which would have justified the publication of a redacted version of that decision, it should be noted that the applicant states that it is raising that complaint in support of its third head of claim. However, the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine that head of claim, as indicated in paragraph 21 above; therefore, that complaint cannot be upheld.
44      In any event, even if that complaint were also relied on in support of the first claim, it could likewise not be upheld.
45      It should be recalled that the burden of proof lies with the individual who requests confidential treatment to establish that such treatment is justified (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgment of 28 January 2015, Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission, T‑345/12, EU:T:2015:50, paragraph 62).
46      It must also be held that, according to case-law, three cumulative conditions must be fulfilled in order for information to be of the kind to fall within the ambit of professional secrecy and thus to benefit from protection against disclosure to the public. First, that the information must be known only to a limited number of persons; second, its disclosure must be likely to cause serious harm to the person who provided it or to third parties; and, third, and last, the interests liable to be harmed by disclosure must, objectively, be worthy of protection (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 January 2015, Evonik Degussa v Commission, T‑341/12, EU:T:2015:51, paragraph 94 and the case-law cited).
47      Accordingly, it is necessary to ascertain in this instance, on the basis of the above case-law, whether the Board of Appeal was correct to find that the passages identified by the applicant in the decision of 11 March 2024 contained no confidential information.
48      First, as regards establishing whether the information for which confidential treatment is requested is known only to a limited number of persons, the Court notes, similarly to EIOPA, that the applicant does not claim that the information for which it requests confidentiality is known only to a limited number of persons. The Court finds that most of that information is in the public domain, in particular on account of the notification in the Official Journal of the European Union of the pleas in law and forms of order sought by the same applicant in its action giving rise to the order of 26 March 2025, Evroins inshurans grup v EIOPA (T‑1094/23, not published, EU:T:2025:347), and in the action registered as Case T‑247/24. Furthermore, it should be noted that the applicant had not requested that that information be treated as confidential before the Court.
49      It should be recalled that, in those actions, the applicant requested the Court, with regard to the case giving rise to the order of 26 March 2025, Evroins inshurans grup v EIOPA (T‑1094/23, not published, EU:T:2025:347), to annul the letter of 19 September 2023, in which the Chairperson of EIOPA informed it that an investigation in respect of a breach of EU law by the Romanian supervisory authority would not be appropriate and, with regard to Case T‑247/24, to annul the decision of 11 March 2024, by which the Board of Appeal declared inadmissible the action with it had brought against the letter of 19 September 2023.
50      It follows that the information contained in paragraphs 2, 3, 6 to 10, 12, 15, 18 to 20, 62 and 80 of the decision of 11 March 2024, relating to EIOPA’s refusal to initiate an investigation in respect of a breach of EU law by the Romanian supervisory authority and the arguments put forward by the applicant alleging infringement of EU law by that authority, is in the public domain on account of the notification in the Official Journal of the European Union of the actions for annulment brought by the applicant.
51      Second, with regard to the disclosure of the information contained in paragraphs 69 and 73 of the decision of 11 March 2024, which, unlike the information contained in the paragraphs referred to in paragraph 50 above, is not contained in the notification in the Official Journal of the European Union, it is necessary to ascertain whether that information is likely to cause harm to the applicant, in accordance with the second condition set out in the case-law cited in paragraph 46 above.
52      In that regard, the applicant claims, in essence, that the publication of certain information contained in the decision of 11 March 2024 adversely affects its position or credibility before the Romanian courts.
53      However, it should be recalled, as the Board of Appeal rightly observed in paragraph 17 of the contested order, that the decision of 11 March 2024 does not rule on the legality of the action taken by the Romanian supervisory authority. That decision merely found that the Board of Appeal did not have jurisdiction to examine the action brought by the applicant under Article 60 of Regulation No 1094/2010 against the letter of 19 September 2023, by which the Chairperson of EIOPA refused to initiate an investigation in respect of a breach of EU law. Accordingly, the Board of Appeal did not examine the merits of that letter, but merely dismissed the applicant’s action as inadmissible.
54      A fortiori, the decision of 11 March 2024 does not rule in any way on the compliance with EU law of the action taken by the Romanian supervisory authority. Consequently, it cannot be maintained that the publication of that decision negatively affects the applicant’s position before the Romanian courts.
55      Last, as regards the applicant’s argument that the disclosure of the information contained in paragraph 69 of the decision of 11 March 2024 is likely to cause it harm in that that information concerned certain commercial aspects of its business which were protected as trade secrets, it is sufficient to note that that argument is in no way substantiated.
56      In those circumstances, the argument that the information contained in the decision of 11 March 2024 is likely to cause serious harm to the applicant must be rejected.
57      In view of all of the foregoing, it must, in any event, be held that, in the contested order, the Board of Appeal rightly refused to treat the information contained in the decision of 11 March 2024 as confidential, without any need to verify, in accordance with the case-law referred to in paragraph 46 above, whether the interests liable to be harmed by the disclosure of such information are objectively worthy of protection, since the conditions set out in that case-law are cumulative.
58      Accordingly, the second complaint and, consequently, the present plea in law, must be rejected.
The second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and the requirements of independence and impartiality
59      The applicant claims that the statement in paragraph 15 of the contested order that ‘it has to be considered that such information in fact appears to be relevant for the purposes of national proceedings, so that it would not be inappropriate for a national court to order disclosure thereof in any event’ gives the overall impression that the Board of Appeal did not, in fact, adopt the necessary objective approach, but accepted EIOPA’s argument without further reasoning.
60      Consequently, the applicant considers, in essence, that the Board of Appeal did not act with sufficient independence and impartiality when assessing the arguments relating to the confidentiality of the decision of 11 March 2024, and therefore failed to apply Article 3 of its Rules of Procedure. The applicant is of the view that only an independent court in Romania can decide whether a particular document is relevant in a pending case. It is not for the Board of Appeal to rule on that matter or to support the point of view of a national supervisory authority by affecting the interests of a regulated entity.
61      EIOPA considers that that plea should be rejected as inadmissible or, at the very least, as manifestly unfounded.
62      In the present case, in the first place it should be recalled that, under Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the application initiating proceedings must contain, inter alia, the pleas in law and arguments relied on and a 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.