Case T-635/24: Action brought on 9 December 2024 – Novis v EIOPA
Date: 2024-12-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, administrative procedure, confidentiality, exchange of information, financial supervision, insurance company, judicial proceedings, principle of proportionality, provision of documents








C_202501111EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1111


24.2.2025






Action brought on 9 December 2024 – Novis v EIOPA


(Case T-635/24)

(C/2025/1111)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Novis Insurance Company, Novis Versicherungsgesellschaft, Novis Compagnia di Assicurazioni, Novis Poisťovňa a.s. (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: A. Börner, S. Förster and S. Henrich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul EIOPA’s decision No. EIOPA-23-684-REV1, of 27 September 2024, refusing access to certain documents;










—


order the defendant to bear all costs of the proceedings;
with the defendant being required to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the General Court (Article 266 TFEU), namely granting access to all relevant documents falling within the scope of the applicant’s application.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed upon the laws of the European Union as it incorrectly invoked the exception relating to the protection of court proceedings [Article 4(2), second indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1)]. In particular:






—


the defendant incorrectly invoked court proceedings not pending at the time of the original confirmatory reply, which had been subject to the decision of the Board of Appeal and had given rise to the defendant’s obligation to adopt an amended decision on access to documents;










—


the defendant incorrectly assumed that the disclosure of documents would seriously undermine certain national court proceedings, or potential proceedings to which the defendant, or the European Commission, might become a party.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed upon the laws of the European Union as it incorrectly invoked the exception relating to the protection of investigations [Article 4(2), third indent, of Regulation No. 1049/2001].
In particular, the defendant incorrectly assumed that proceedings pursuant to Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) are still ongoing even after the defendant and the European Commission had adopted acts pursuant to Article 17(3) and (4) thereof and the national competent authority had confirmed its intention to comply with these acts.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed upon the laws of the European Union as it incorrectly invoked the exception relating to the protection of opinions for internal use [Article 4(3), second sub-paragraph, of Regulation No. 1049/2001].
In particular, the defendant incorrectly asserted that it has the right to keep secret all documents drafted and exchanged in the context of undertaking-specific proceedings pursuant to Article 17 of Regulation No 1094/2010, due to an alleged internal and confidential nature of these procedures within the European System of Financial Supervision.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed upon the laws of the European Union as it disregarded the existence of an overriding public interest in disclosure when invoking Article 4(2), second and third indent, and Article 4(3) of Regulation No. 1049/2001.
In particular, the defendant ignored the equivalence of certain Solvency II standards with technical standards, requiring public disclosure.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed upon the laws of the European Union as it disregarded the general principle of proportionality confirmed in Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001 when granting access solely to a heavily redacted version of only two documents.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed upon the laws of the European Union as it disregarded its obligation to adhere to the decision of the Board of Appeal [Article 60(5) of Regulation No 1094/2010].
In particular, the defendant disregarded the binding nature of the decision of the Board of Appeal when expressly opposing the Board of Appeal’s determinations, and when rendering a completely new decision, based on new facts, rather than amending its prior decision subject to the decision of the Board of Appeal.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed upon the applicant’s right of access to the requested documents as part of the defendant’s file of significant concern to the applicant pursuant to Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).










8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed upon the applicant’s right to good administration and a fair handling of administrative procedures pursuant to Article 41(1) of the Charter.






(1)  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).

(2)  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).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1111/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)