T-586/23

ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber) 13 November 2025 (*) ( Action for annulment – Economic and monetary policy – EIOPA assessment report on Euroins Romania Asigurare-Reasigurare S.A. – Decision of the Board of Appeal to dismiss the appeal as inadmissible – Manifest lack of jurisdiction in part – Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law ) In Case T‑586/23, Evroins inshurans grup AD, established in Sofia (Bulgaria), represented by A. Morogai, H. Drăghici and F. Giurgea, lawyers, applicant, v European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA), represented by S. Rosenbaum and S. Dispiter, acting as Agents, assisted by H.‑G. Kamann, Z. Mzee and F. Boos, lawyers, defendant, THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber), composed, at the time of the deliberations, of I. Gâlea, acting as President, T. Tóth (Rapporteur) and S.L. Kalėda, Judges, Registrar: V. Di Bucci, having regard to the written part of the procedure, in particular the measure of organisation of procedure of 6 February 2025 inviting the parties to submit their observations on the consequences to be drawn, for the present case, from the order of 16 October 2024, Evroins inshurans grup AD v EIOPA (T‑416/23, not published, EU:T:2024:708), makes the following Order 1        By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Evroins inshurans grup AD, seeks the annulment of Decision BoA-D-2023-02 of the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities of 19 July 2023 dismissing as inadmissible the appeal that it brought under 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, ‘the contested decision’).  Background to the dispute 2        The applicant is a Bulgarian limited company with its registered office in Sofia (Bulgaria). It owns almost all the shares in Euroins Romania Asigurare-Reasigurare S.A. (‘Euroins Romania’), an insurance undertaking domiciled 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 Комисия за финансов надзор (Financial Supervision Commission, Bulgaria) (‘the Bulgarian supervisory authority’) 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) (‘the Solvency II Directive’). 4        On 30 January 2023, the Romanian supervisory authority asked the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) to share its view on a complex quota share reinsurance treaty, which covered Euroins Romania’s motor third-party liability portfolio, and on the methodology used by Euroins Romania for the computation of the best estimate of liabilities. 5        On 8 February 2023, the Bulgarian supervisory authority sought EIOPA’s view on the measure taken by the Romanian supervisory authority in respect of Euroins Romania. It also requested, inter alia, an external review of Euroins Romania’s technical provisions and reinsurance cover. 6        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, lodged an application for a declaration of insolvency. 7        On 28 March 2023, EIOPA adopted a report, which contained its assessment concerning the valuation of technical provisions gross and net of reinsurance for the motor third-party liability portfolio of Euroins Romania (‘the EIOPA report’). That report, which was shared on the same day only with the Romanian and Bulgarian supervisory authorities, found that Euroins Romania had a deficiency. 8        On 11 April 2023, Euroins Romania challenged the withdrawal decision before the Curtea de Apel București (Court of Appeal, Bucharest, Romania). 9        On 16 May 2023, the applicant brought an appeal against the EIOPA report before the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities (‘the Board of Appeal’), pursuant to Article 60 of Regulation No 1094/2010. On 19 July 2023, by the contested decision, the Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal as inadmissible on the ground that the EIOPA report did not constitute a challengeable act for the purposes of Article 60 of Regulation No 1094/2010 since it did not have binding effect. 10      By application lodged at the Court Registry on 18 July 2023, the applicant brought an action, registered as Case T‑416/23, seeking the annulment of the EIOPA report. In support of its action, it raised, in essence, the same pleas in law as those relied on in support of its appeal before the Board of Appeal. By order of 16 October 2024, Evroins inshurans grup AD v EIOPA (T‑416/23, not published, EU:T:2024:708), the Court dismissed the action as inadmissible, in that the EIOPA report was not capable of producing binding legal effects and did not therefore constitute a challengeable act for the purposes of Article 263 TFEU.  Forms of order sought 11      The applicant claims, in essence, that the Court should: –        annul the contested decision; –        annul the EIOPA report; –        or, in the alternative, order the Board of Appeal to re-examine the action against the EIOPA report; –        order the ‘European Supervisory Authorities’ and EIOPA to pay the costs. 12      EIOPA contends that the Court should: –        dismiss the action as inadmissible; –        in the alternative, dismiss the action as manifestly unfounded in law; –        order the applicant to pay the costs.  Law 13      Under Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, where it is clear that the General Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine an action or where the action is manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law, the General Court may, on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur, at any time decide to give a decision by reasoned order without taking further steps in the proceedings. 14      In the present case, the Court, considering that it has sufficient information available to it from the material in the file, has decided to give a ruling without taking further steps in the proceedings.  The jurisdiction of the Court to rule on the third head of claim 15      EIOPA contends that the third head of claim must be rejected on the ground that the Court manifestly has no jurisdiction to give an order requiring the Board of Appeal to re-assess the appeal lodged by the applicant against the EIOPA report. 16      The applicant maintains, in essence, that, by its third head of claim, worded ‘in the alternative’, it is not asking the Court to substitute itself for the Board of Appeal, but only to give legal effect to the annulment of that board’s decision. 17      In the present case, it should be noted that, by its third head of claim, raised as an alternative, the applicant is requesting the Court to order the Board of Appeal to re-assess the applicant’s appeal against the EIOPA report. Therefore, that head of claim amounts, in essence, to a request for the Court to issue a direction to the Board of Appeal. 18      According to the Court’s settled case-law, it is not the function of the European Union judicature to issue directions to the EU institutions or to substitute itself for those institutions when exercising its powers of review. 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, to that effect, judgment of 25 September 2018, Sweden v Commission, T‑260/16, EU:T:2018:597, paragraph 104 and the case-law cited). 19      In those circumstances, the third head of claim requesting that the Board of Appeal be ordered to re-assess the action against the EIOPA report must be rejected on the ground of manifest lack of jurisdiction.  The admissibility of the second head of claim 20      EIOPA initially maintained, in its defence, that the second head of claim was destined to fail, because the Board of Appeal had rightly rejected the applicant’s appeal as inadmissible. In the alternative, EIOPA also disputed the admissibility of that head of claim, because its claim for annulment of the EIOPA report in Case T‑416/23, Evroins inshurans grup AD v EIOPA (not published, EU:T:2024:708) was lis pendens. Next, in its response to the measures of organisation of procedure adopted by the General Court, EIOPA contended that the order of 16 October 2024, Evroins inshurans grup AD v EIOPA (not published, EU:T:2024:708), resulted in the inadmissibility of the second head of claim in the present case seeking the annulment of the EIOPA report, owing to the authority of res judicata, since that head of claim and the action brought in Case T‑416/23, Evroins inshurans grup AD v EIOPA (not published, EU:T:2024:708) referred to the same act, were between the same parties and were based on similar arguments. 21      The applicant submits that there is no link between the present action and the action in Case T‑416/23, Evroins inshurans grup AD v EIOPA (not published, EU:T:2024:708) permitting a finding of the existence of lis pendens. Those two actions seek the annulment of different decisions adopted on different legal bases and raise different pleas in law. 22      The applicant also maintains that, by its claim, it is not asking the Court to substitute itself for the Board of Appeal, but only to give legal effect to the annulment of that Board’s decision. It asserts that the annulment of that decision does not preclude the submission of a claim for annulment of the EIOPA report. 23      It should be noted that, according to settled case-law, the status of a judicial decision, namely a judgment or order, as res judicata, is such as to bar the admissibility of an action if the proceedings disposed of by the judgment or order in question were between the same parties, had the same purpose and had the same legal basis, those conditions necessarily being cumulative (see, to that effect, judgments of 25 June 2010, Imperial Chemical Industries v Commission, T‑66/01, EU:T:2010:255, paragraph 197, and of 25 February 2015, Walton v Commission, T‑261/14 P, EU:T:2015:110, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited). 24      In the present case, it must be held that the action, as regards the second head of claim, is between the same parties, has the same purpose and has the same legal basis as the action which gave rise to the order of 16 October 2024, Evroins inshurans grup AD v EIOPA (T‑416/23, not published, EU:T:2024:708). In that case, the applicant also sought, on the basis of essentially similar arguments, the annulment of the EIOPA report. 25      In other words, by the second head of claim, the applicant is requesting for a second time before the EU judicature the annulment of the EIOPA report, the same request which was dismissed by the order of 16 October 2024 Evroins inshurans grup AD v EIOPA (T‑416/23, not published, EU:T:2024:708). 26      Therefore, to accept the admissibility of the second head of claim would amount to conferring on the applicant the possibility of reviving, to its advantage, a right of appeal against the EIOPA report and enable it to call into question the force of res judicata of the order of 16 October 2024, Evroins inshurans grup AD v EIOPA (T‑416/23, not published, EU:T:2024:708), by which its action for annulment against that report had been dismissed as inadmissible in that that report did not have binding legal effects. 27      That conclusion is not called into question by the fact, pointed out by the applicant in its response to the measures of organisation of procedure adopted by the General Court, that the Romanian court, subsequent to the delivery of the order in Case T‑416/23, Evroins inshurans grup AD v EIOPA (not published, EU:T:2024:708), admitted the EIOPA report as evidence in the insolvency proceedings and in the interlocutory proceedings. That fact cannot, in any event, call into question the force of res judicata of that order. 28      On those grounds, the second head of claim must be rejected as manifestly inadmissible.  The first head of claim 29      As regards the objection to inadmissibility raised by EIOPA alleging that the first head of claim is inadmissible in that Article 61(1) of the EIOPA Regulation requires as a prior condition for the admissibility of an action for annulment before the EU courts the existence of an appeal admissible by the Board of Appeal, 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). 30      In support of the first head of claim of its action, the applicant raises four pleas in law, alleging, first, infringement of Regulation No 1094/2010, of the Solvency II Directive and of the rules of procedure before the Board of Appeal; second, infringement of the general principles of EU law and, in particular, of the principles of proportionality, equal treatment, protection of legitimate expectations and effective judicial protection; third, infringement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and; fourth, misuse of powers.  The first plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation No 1094/2010, of the Solvency II Directive and of the rules of procedure before the Board of Appeal 31      The applicant claims that the contested decision errs in finding that the Board of Appeal held that the EIOPA report was not a challengeable act within the meaning of Article 60 of Regulation No 1094/2010. 32      First, the applicant submits that, since Article 60(1) of Regulation No 1094/2010 ‘explicitly and positively’ lists the acts which may be subject to an appeal, the Board of Appeal should, first of all, in order to rule on the admissibility of its appeal, have determined whether the EIOPA report fell within the acts explicitly listed in that article. In so doing, it should have examined under which EIOPA power the report in question was issued and whether that power was one listed in Article 60(1) of Regulation No 1094/2010. 33      Second, the applicant objects to the classification of the EIOPA report as a ‘technical report’, since no provision of the relevant legislation provides for the possibility for EIOPA of adopting such a report. It takes the view that the report at issue gives concrete expression to a delegation of power by the Romanian supervisory authority to EIOPA in the context of its supervisory activity. That report is, in consequence, an act issued by EIOPA in accordance with Article 30(2) and Article 36(2)(b) of the Solvency II Directive, and must therefore be regarded as binding. 34      Third, the applicant states that the Board of Appeal was, from the outset, heavily influenced by the ‘title’ of the EIOPA report subject to its review and that it merely took into account its wording for the purpose of drawing its conclusions, without making a real assessment of that report’s substance rather than its form. All its other elements (content, context and enforceability of the act) were treated as secondary elements to the ‘title’ and ‘wording’ of the EIOPA report, which were analysed in a superficial manner. Moreover, the Board of Appeal made no real assessment of the context of that report and therefore its conclusions on the effects of that report and its binding nature are flawed and incorrect. 35      Fourth, the applicant claims that the EIOPA report was definitive, which made it not a preparatory act, but a binding decision, the conclusions of which are binding on the Romanian supervisory authority. In its view, by delegating to EIOPA the power to assess technical provisions of an insurance undertaking in order to be able to determine whether that undertaking complied with the Solvency II Directive, the Romanian supervisory authority became bound by the conclusions of the act issued by EIOPA following that assessment. It was not permissible for that authority to disregard the conclusions of the EIOPA report, because that would have meant that the authority itself was not complying with the Solvency II Directive and Regulation No 1094/2010. 36      Fifth, the applicant asserts that EIOPA intended the report to produce legal effects vis-à-vis Euroins Romania. If that were not the case, it would not have agreed to disclose that report to the Romanian courts. The national courts are unlikely, in the applicant’s view, not to take into consideration an act issued by an EU body and formally endorsed by a national supervisory authority where the conclusions of that act are not challenged within the EU or national legal system. 37      EIOPA disputes the applicant’s arguments. 38      It should be noted, first of all, that, according to Article 8(2) of Regulation No 1094/2010, the types of acts which EIOPA may establish include guidelines, recommendations, opinions and individual decisions in the specific cases referred to in Articles 17, 18 and 19 of that regulation. In that context, it should be recalled that the fourth and fifth paragraphs of Article 288 TFEU state that a decision is binding in its entirety, whereas recommendations and opinions have no binding force. 39      According to Article 60(1) of Regulation No 1094/2010, ‘any natural or legal person, including competent authorities, may appeal against a decision of the Authority referred to in Articles 17, 18 and 19 and any other decision taken by the Authority in accordance with the Union acts referred to in Article 1(2) which is addressed to that person, or against a decision which, although in the form of a decision addressed to another person, is of direct and individual concern to that person’. 40      Moreover, according to Article 60(4) of Regulation No 1094/2010, ‘if the appeal is admissible, the Board of Appeal shall examine whether it is well founded’. Under Article 9(1) of its Rules of Procedure, the Board of Appeal must determine the admissibility of the appeal before examining whether it is well founded, if the respondent contends that the appeal is not admissible. 41      In the present case, it is clear from the information in the file that EIOPA lodged a reply before the Board of Appeal, dated 30 May 2023, which was limited to questions of admissibility. In that reply, EIOPA submitted that the appeal should be dismissed as inadmissible. 42      By its decision, the Board of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal as inadmissible, on the ground, in essence, that the EIOPA report was not a legally binding decision within the meaning of Article 60(1) of Regulation No 1094/2010. 43      It is apparent from the contested decision – and is not disputed by the applicant – that the Board of Appeal considered that the concept of ‘decision’ within the meaning of Article 60(1) of Regulation No 1094/2010 implied binding effects and corresponded to the concept laid down in the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU, which states that a decision ‘shall be binding in its entirety’. 44      As is clear from the case-law of the EU judicature, in order to determine whether an act produces legal effects, it is necessary, in particular, to look to the substance of that act as well as to its author’s intention (see, to that effect, judgment of 17 July 2008, Athinaïki Techniki v Commission, C‑521/06 P, EU:C:2008:422, paragraph 42) and to assess those effects on the basis of objective criteria, such as the content of that act, taking into account, as appropriate, the context in which it was adopted and the powers of the institution which adopted the act (see judgment of 22 April 2021, thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel and thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo v Commission, C‑572/18 P, EU:C:2021:317, paragraph 48 and the case-law cited). 45      In that regard, since the Court has already held that the EIOPA report was not capable of producing binding legal effects and did not therefore constitute a challengeable act for the purposes of Article 263 TFEU (order of 16 October 2024, Evroins inshurans grup AD v EIOPA, T‑416/23, not published, EU:T:2024:708, paragraph 46), the same conclusion must be drawn as regards the classification of that report as a decision within the meaning of Article 60(1) of Regulation No 1094/2010. 46      In that respect, in the first place, it must be stated at the outset that, as is clear from paragraph 62 of the contested decision, the EIOPA report was adopted and sent to the Romanian and Bulgarian supervisory authorities on a date after the date on which the withdrawal decision was adopted. That withdrawal decision was adopted by the Romanian supervisory authority on 17 March 2023, and that report was adopted on 28 March 2023. Consequently, the applicant cannot reasonably claim that the contested report had binding legal effects in respect of the withdrawal decision (order of 16 October 2024, Evroins inshurans grup AD v EIOPA, T‑416/23, not published, EU:T:2024:708, paragraphs 26 and 28). 47      In the second place, as regards the content of the EIOPA report, it is apparent from that report that it consists of an evaluation of the technical provisions gross and net of reinsurance for the motor third-party liability portfolio of Euroins Romania. That report merely establishes that Euroins Romania had a deficiency on the basis of the data transmitted to EIOPA by the Romanian supervisory authority. 48      Moreover, as stated in paragraph 58 of the contested decision, the EIOPA report does not contain any recommendations on the measures to be adopted vis-à-vis Euroins Romania. On the contrary, at page 7 of that report, it states that it is be read without prejudice to the competence of the Romanian supervisory authority for the supervision of Euroins Romania (order of 16 October 2024, Evroins inshurans grup AD v EIOPA, T‑416/23, not published, EU:T:2024:708, paragraphs 29 and 30). 49      In the third place, as regards the context in which the EIOPA report was adopted, as the Board of Appeal rightly states in paragraphs 61 and 62 of the contested decision, that report resulted from a request from the Romanian supervisory authority put to EIOPA regarding Euroins Romania’s compliance with the requirements laid down by the Solvency II Directive for the technical provisions gross and net of reinsurance for the motor third-party liability portfolio of Euroins Romania. 50      It should also be noted that, in its emails sending the contested report to the national authorities, EIOPA asked those authorities to provide it with their views on the impact of EIOPA’s findings in that report (order of 16 October 2024, Evroins inshurans grup AD v EIOPA, T‑416/23, not published, EU:T:2024:708, paragraph 32). 51      In the fourth place, as regards EIOPA’s powers, it should be noted that that authority stated on several occasions that its report was adopted on the basis of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 1094/2010, which is worded as follows: ‘[EIOPA] shall have the following tasks: … (b) to contribute to the consistent application of legally binding Union acts, in particular by contributing to a common supervisory culture, ensuring consistent, efficient and effective application of the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2), preventing regulatory arbitrage, fostering and monitoring supervisory independence, mediating and settling disagreements between competent authorities, ensuring effective and consistent supervision of financial institutions, ensuring a coherent functioning of colleges of supervisors, and taking actions, inter alia, in emergency situations.’ 52      As the Board of Appeal rightly stated in paragraph 59 of the contested decision, there is no indication that EIOPA disposes of any powers to adopt binding acts or to otherwise constrain the actions of national authorities when acting under that provision. 53      In addition, it should be noted that the EIOPA report was sent to the Romanian and Bulgarian supervisory authorities with a view to assessing the correct and consistent application of the legal framework under the Solvency II Directive and to ensure adequate protection of policyholders and beneficiaries. EIOPA thus acted in the context of its tasks of contributing to the consistent, efficient and effective application of that directive (order of 16 October 2024, Evroins inshurans grup AD v EIOPA, T‑416/23, not published, EU:T:2024:708, paragraph 34). 54      In the fifth place, as regards EIOPA’s intention, its rapport was prepared in order to provide an impartial, independent and objective assessment of Euroins Romania’s financial situation on the basis of the evidence provided by the Romanian supervisory authority. As stated in paragraph 48 above, that report preserves the Romanian supervisory authority’s discretion (order of 16 October 2024, Evroins inshurans grup AD v EIOPA, T‑416/23, not published, EU:T:2024:708, paragraph 35). 55      Therefore, it must be held, as stated in the contested decision, that the EIOPA report is essentially a technical report which includes factual findings and estimates of Euroins Romania’s situation and which forms part of a framework of cooperation between the Romanian supervisory authority and EIOPA on how the Solvency II Directive is to be applied to the present situation of Euroins Romania. Having regard, moreover, to the legal basis of that report and the aims of EIOPA, it cannot be regarded as a binding legal act, either vis-à-vis the Romanian supervisory authority or vis-à-vis Euroins Romania (order of 16 October 2024, Evroins inshurans grup AD v EIOPA, T‑416/23, not published, EU:T:2024:708, paragraph 36). 56      That conclusion cannot be called into question by the applicant’s other arguments. 57      First, contrary to what the applicant claims, the EIOPA report is not the result of a delegation of power from the Romanian supervisory authority to EIOPA. Under Article 28 of Regulation No 1094/2010, a delegation of power requires an agreement between the delegating authority and the authority to whom power is to be delegated, whereas, in the present case, the national authority merely asked EIOPA to share its technical evaluation as far as concerns Euroins Romania’s situation (order of 16 October 2024, Evroins inshurans grup AD v EIOPA, T‑416/23, not published, EU:T:2024:708, paragraph 39). 58      Second, it should be noted that the Romanian supervisory authority was not bound by the EIOPA report by virtue of the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) TEU. Although the Romanian supervisory authority was in principle required to take into account the conclusions of that report, it was not however bound to the findings made by EIOPA. Additionally, it should be noted that, as stated in paragraph 46 above, that report was adopted after the withdrawal decision and therefore could not have had any binding effect on that Romanian supervisory authority in the context of the adoption of that decision (order of 16 October 2024, Evroins inshurans grup AD v EIOPA, T‑416/23, not published, EU:T:2024:708, paragraph 40). 59      Third, as regards the applicant’s argument that the publication of the EIOPA report has adversely affected its legal and economic position, it need only be observed that, even if the dissemination of that report did have adverse consequences for the applicant, that does not in any way demonstrate that that report produces binding legal effects capable of affecting its interests (order of 16 October 2024, Evroins inshurans grup AD v EIOPA, T‑416/23, not published, EU:T:2024:708, paragraph 41). 60      Therefore, having regard to the content of the EIOPA report, the context of its adoption, the powers of that authority and its intention, the Board of Appeal rightly dismissed the appeal as inadmissible in finding that that report was not capable of producing binding legal effects and did not therefore constitute a challengeable act for the purposes of Article 60(1) of Regulation No 1094/2010. 61      In those circumstances, the first plea in law should be dismissed as manifestly unfounded in law.  The second, third and fourth pleas in law 62      By its second plea in law, the applicant alleges infringement of the general principles of EU law, in particular the principles of proportionality, equal treatment, protection of legitimate expectations and effective judicial protection. 63      As regards the principle of proportionality, the applicant claims, in essence, that, by failing to assess the non-compliance of EIOPA’s conduct with the provisions of Regulation No 1094/2010, Solvency II Directive and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/35 of 10 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II) (OJ 2015 L 12, p. 1), the Board of Appeal infringed that principle. 64      As regards the principle of equal treatment, the applicant claims that the Board of Appeal infringed that principle in that, in essence, it did not assess the fact that the EIOPA report had been drawn up in a discriminatory manner towards Euroins Romania as compared with similar undertakings in Romania or in other EU Member States. 65      As regards the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, according to the applicant, EIOPA infringed that principle in so far as it had informed the applicant that no assessment had been initiated concerning it, since day-to-day supervision was the exclusive competence and responsibility of the national supervisory authority. The Board of Appeal did not assess its arguments in that regard. 66      As regards the principle of effective judicial protection, the applicant claims that the Board of Appeal, by refusing to rule on the merits of its appeal, did not examine the actual implications of the establishment of the EIOPA report and of its dissemination, and therefore infringed the principle of effective judicial protection. 67      By its third plea in law, the applicant claims that the Board of Appeal infringed Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in that its right to appeal against the EIOPA report before the Board of Appeal was illusory and was not effective, since the Board of Appeal did not proceed to a judicious assessment of the facts and evidence which it provided. 68      Lastly, by its fourth plea in law, the applicant claims, in essence, that the Board of Appeal misused its powers when adopting the contested decision rejecting the appeal as inadmissible, in that its conclusions are not substantiated by the evidence provided by the parties and that evidence was not taken into consideration. 69      In the present case, it should be pointed out from the outset that the arguments raised by the applicant in the second, third and fourth pleas in law seek, in essence, to challenge again the legality of the contested decision dismissing its appeal as inadmissible. However, it should be noted that, as stated in paragraph 60 above, the Board of Appeal rightly dismissed the appeal as inadmissible in finding that that report was not capable of producing legally binding effects and did not therefore constitute a challengeable act for the purposes of Article 60(1) of Regulation No 1094/2010. 70      In those circumstances, the second, third and fourth pleas in law must also be rejected. 71      The first head of claim, seeking the annulment of the contested decision, must therefore be dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law. 72      In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the action must be dismissed as brought in part before a court which manifestly lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the case, in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law.  Costs 73      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. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber) hereby orders: 1.      The action is dismissed. 2.      Evroins inshurans grup AD shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA). Luxembourg, 13 November 2025. V. Di Bucci   I. Gâlea Registrar   Acting President *      Language of case: English.