Closed on 31/03/2023
* Admissibility date reflects the date the case was officially registered. All other dates pertain to the date in which a stage was completed.
Case Description
On 26 March 2019 ClientEarth lodged a complaint with the Complaints Mechanism of the European Investment Bank. The complaint concerns three sets of applications for information/documents submitted by the Complainant about the project Curtis Biomass Power Generation Plant.
The EIB-CM performed a compliance review. The EIB-CM recognises the complex nature of the applications, involving assessment by the EIB services of many different documents for the purpose of disclosure.
The allegations and the EIB-CM’s conclusions are presented in the table below.
|
No. |
Allegations |
Sub-Allegations |
Compliance review conclusion |
|
(1) |
Failure to disclose the requested information |
Grounded |
|
|
(2) |
Failure to reply to the confirmatory applications within the legal deadlines |
Grounded |
|
|
(3) |
Systemic issues in applying the legal framework on access to information |
(a) Mischaracterisation of the scope of the requests |
Not grounded |
|
(b) Failure to apply the correct legal framework |
Not grounded |
||
|
(c) Failure to identify environmental information |
Not grounded |
||
|
(d) Failure to address part of the request or to rely on any exceptions to disclosure |
Partially not grounded and partially settled |
||
|
(e) Misapplication of the exceptions to disclosure and failure to state reasons |
Not grounded |
||
|
(f) Error of law in relying on the exception relating to commercial interests |
Not grounded |
||
|
(g) Failure to consider the overriding public interest in disclosure and emissions into the environment |
Not grounded |
||
|
(4) |
Further issues of maladministration in the handling of the information requests |
(a) Misleading information about the timeline |
Grounded |
|
(b) Failure to treat the requests separately |
Not grounded |
||
|
(5) |
Failure to proactively disseminate information |
(a) Failure to publish environmental information |
Not grounded |
|
(b) Failure to inform about information held by the Bank |
Not grounded |
||
Based on its inquiry, the EIB-CM found that the majority of the allegations are not grounded.
Following up on the conclusions above, the EIB-CM recommends the following to the Bank:
In two recent cases (SG/A/2019/02 African Lion Mining Fund III and SG/A/2019/03 Corridor Côtier- Section Nord), the EIB-CM recommended improvements to the EIB’s systems and procedures when dealing with applications. In particular, the EIB-CM underlined the need for development of detailed implementation guidelines/arrangements for handling applications in complex cases which could cover issues such as workflow and processes, timelines and responsibilities for the different steps involved, and the need to differentiate certain steps for different categories of documents and types of information. The EIB-CM reiterates its recommendations also with reference to the present case.
As to the LTA report, the EIB-CM finds that in respect of one instance of non-disclosed information the EIB should revert to the Complainant to confirm whether or not disclosure exceptions specifically apply also to that information.
The EIB-CM will monitor the implementation of its recommendation within 12 months of the date of issue of this report.