Search En menu en ClientConnect
Search
Results
Top 5 search results See all results Advanced search
Top searches
Most visited pages
Reference: SG/E/2009/03
Received Date: 05 May 2009
Subject: Slovak Motorways (PPP) D1 Phase I
Complainant: Friends of the Earth - CEPA
Allegations: Alleged breaches of EU and national law concerning the environmental impact assessment of Turany-Hubova section of the project Slovak Motorways (PPP) D1 Phase I; alleged breaches of the EIB’s Statement of Environmental and Social Principles and Standards in the appraisal of the contested project
Type: E - Environmental and social impacts of financed projects
Outcome*: Areas for improvement
Suggestions for improvement: yes
Admissibility*
Assessment*
Investigation*
Dispute Resolution*
Consultation*
Closed*
5/05/2009
28/10/2009
9/11/2009
17/11/2009

* 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

Complaint                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

On 5 May 2009 Friends of the Earth-CEPA (hereinafter the Complainant) lodged a complaint with the EIB by e-mail to the complaint mailbox concerning the Project Slovak Motorways D1 (SLOVAK MOTORWAYS PPP D1 PHASE I 2008-0070).

In his message, the complainant alleged breaches of EU and national law with regard to the environmental impact assessment carried out by the competent national authorities as well as breaches of the EIB Statement with regards to the appraisal carried out by the EIB’s competent services prior to Board’s approval. In addition, the Complainant claimed the EIB’s withdrawal from the operation.  

 

EIB-CM Action                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  On 13 May 2009 an acknowledgment of receipt was sent to the complainant whereby he was informed about the date of an official reply from the EIB. Following a preliminary analysis on the admissibility of the complaint, the EIB Complaints Office (CO) deemed appropriate to carry out further inquiries with a view to gathering additional information on the complaint. In this context, the EIB CO thoroughly reviewed all documents provided by the Complainant and by the Promoter as well as the submissions by the competent services of the Bank. Finally, it carried out an inter-services consultation on the complaint. On 14 July 2009 the EIB Secretary General informed the complainant that due to the complexity of his complaint both in terms of the scope of the allegations and the number of contacts with the Promoter and other national authorities, it was necessary to extend the timeframe for the handling of the complaint in line with article 11.10.2 of the EIB Complaints Mechanism Policy.

Conclusions and Recommendations                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       As regards the first allegation, it is recommended that, prior to signature of the Finance Contract, the Promoter provide the EIB with documental evidence that the administrative act launching the approval procedure was issued before 1 st of February 2006. 

As regards the second allegation, the Complaints Office proceeds to the filing of the allegation with no recommendation.    

As regards the third allegation, it is recommended that, prior to signature of the Finance Contract, the Promoter provide the EIB with documentary evidence that the requirements of the Habitats Directive have been fulfilled (Forms A/B or equivalent) including evidence of an appropriate assessment of the impact of the project on NATURA 2000 sites as well as of the public participation carried out within the framework of such assessment in line with the obligations stemming from the Aarhus Convention.    

As regards the fourth allegation, it is recommended that, prior to signature of the Finance Contract, the Promoter provide the EIB with zoning and building permits for all the project sections, fully in force, approved by the competent authorities and compliant with international, EC and domestic law.    

As regards the information provided by the Complainant and referred to in §3.5.2, it is recommended to inform the latter of the possibility of referring the case to the European Commission which may be the competent authority to deal with his concern.