Case T-1094/23: Action brought on 20 November 2023 — Evroins inshurans grup v EIOPA
Date: 2023-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Romania, financial supervision, infringement of EU law, insurance, national competent authority, powers of the institutions (EU)








C_202401100EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1100


5.2.2024





Action brought on 20 November 2023 — Evroins inshurans grup v EIOPA
(Case T-1094/23)
(C/2024/1100)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Evroins inshurans grup AD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: H. Drăghici, A. Morogai and F. Giurgea, lawyers)

Defendant: European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority’s decision of 19 September 2023 (EIOPA-23-719) (‘the challenged decision’); and, consequently,










—


order the EIOPA to re-assess the applicant’s request to open an investigation regarding a potential breach of European Union law by the Autoritatea de Supraveghere Financiară (Financial Supervisory Authority of Romania).





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the EIOPA 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 EIOPA erred in law refusing to open an investigation regarding a potential breach of European Union law by the Autoritatea de Supraveghere Financiară without providing a comprehensive statement of reasons in the challenged decision.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the EIOPA exceeded its competence under Regulation 1094/2010 in issuing the challenged decision.
The EIOPA erred in law in deciding there is no breach of EU legislation, on one hand, and deciding not to investigate whether there was a breach of EU legislation, on the other hand. The EIOPA’s reasoning appears rather circular because it was decided that there is no breach without actually investigating in fact if such a breach occurred.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the EIOPA breached Directive 2009/138.
The EIOPA erred in law by failing to act in accordance with its duties under Directive 2009/138 and thus restore order in this case. By issuing the challenged decision in breach of Directive 2009/138, the EIOPA failed to verify if the Autoritatea de Supraveghere Financiară acted in compliance with the provisions of Articles 32(1) and 250(1)(c) of Directive 2009/138.






(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/2024/1100/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)