Case C-524/25 P: Appeal brought on 1 August 2025 by Novis Insurance Company, Novis Versicherungsgesellschaft, Novis Compagnia di Assicurazioni, Novis Poisťovňa a.s. against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 23 May 2025 in Case T-179/24, Novis v Commission
Date: 2025-08-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Slovakia, administrative procedure, admissibility, central bank, discretionary power, financial supervision, insurance company, right to an effective remedy








C_202505077EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5077


29.9.2025






Appeal brought on 1 August 2025 by Novis Insurance Company, Novis Versicherungsgesellschaft, Novis Compagnia di Assicurazioni, Novis Poisťovňa a.s. against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 23 May 2025 in Case T-179/24, Novis v Commission


(Case C-524/25 P)

(C/2025/5077)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Novis Insurance Company, Novis Versicherungsgesellschaft, Novis Compagnia di Assicurazioni, Novis Poisťovňa a.s. (represented by: A. Börner, S. Förster and S. Henrich, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the order under appeal;










—


declare the appellant’s application for annulment of Commission Opinion C(2022) 6455 final of 13 September 2022 addressed to Národná banka Slovenska (Slovak National Bank) (‘the NBS’) on actions necessary to comply with Directive 2009/138/EC (‘the contested act’) admissible;










—


refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling on the merits of the appellant’s application; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of both the appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court; or










—


in the alternative, order the costs to be reserved.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on six grounds of appeal.
First, the General Court erred in law when rejecting the appellant’s standing by disregarding that the appellant was directly concerned by the contested act under Article 263 TFEU. In particular, the General Court erred in law when disregarding that:






—


the contested act did not leave any genuine discretion to the national authority;










—


the NBS’ implementation measure was already clearly foreseeable and thus, in any case, a mere automatic consequence;










—


the system of Article 17 Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 (1), as applied by the Commission, establishes that undertaking-specific formal opinions, including the contested act, are of direct concern to the targeted insurance undertaking, as no deviation from the content of the formal opinion is possible; and










—


the contested act brought about a change in the appellant’s legal position which the appellant had no other effective avenue to challenge and which, in the current EU system of judicial protection, allows for a direct action.




Second, the General Court committed a breach of procedure and law when issuing its order based on insufficient and contradictory reasoning, and exchanged the content of the contested act with its own views.
Third, the General Court erred in law by incorrectly interpreting its discretion to inquire when failing to both request necessary evidence on its own volition and ignoring the appellant’s request that the Commission produce further evidence and in doing so, denied the appellant an effective legal remedy by ruling on the appellant’s application on the basis of incomplete information.
Fourth, the General Court committed a breach of procedure by failing to initiate a measure of procedure and/or inquiry, despite a submission by the appellant to do so and thus contrary to the appellant’s right to be heard, and without giving proper reasons for the denial.
Fifth, the General Court erred in law and procedure when disregarding the right to be heard and the principles of the burden of proof in case one of the parties to a conflict exclusively holds information which the other party requires to substantiate its pleas.
Sixth, the General Court committed a breach of procedure by imposing the costs of the proceeding fully on the appellant and failing to take account of Articles 135(1) and 135(2) of the Rules of Procedure.


(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).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5077/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)