Facts
[X. AG] is an insurance company that is reinsured with [Y. AG] (now in liquidation) for risks amounting to at least approximately EUR 28 million. In 2003, [Y.] reduced its share capital and decided to go into liquidation in 2005. In December 2005, [Y.] applied to the former Federal Office of Private Insurance (BPV, now FINMA) for dismissal from insurance supervision. [X.] then applied to the Federal Administrative Court to be granted party status in the appeal proceedings of [Y.] against the rejection of the dismissal request. The Federal Administrative Court dismissed this request.
Subsequently, [X.] applied to FINMA again to be granted party status in the proceedings concerning the liquidation or dismissal of [Y.] from insurance supervision. FINMA rejected this, as did the Federal Administrative Court subsequently. [X.] appeals against this to the Federal Supreme Court.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court dismisses the appeal. It justifies this by stating that while [X.] is more affected than the general public by any deficient supervisory activities of FINMA, since as a reinsurer it has taken on high risks with [Y.] , there is a lack of a special, noteworthy, close relationship of [X.] to the subject matter of the dispute that would justify party status.
The Federal Supreme Court states that insurance supervision primarily serves to protect policyholders and that it is not the task of [X.] as a reinsurer to monitor FINMA's supervisory activities. While a deficient supervision could diminish the liability assets of [Y.] to the detriment of [X.] ,…