* 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
DTŚ Expressway II concerns the construction of the Western section (15.8 km) of a high capacity urban highway between the agglomeration of Katowice and Gliwice (some 31 km in Total) via Chorzow, Swietochlowice, Ruda Slaska and Zabrze.
The Complaint
The complainant alleged that the project would be implemented in breach of the EIA Directive, EU legislation and the Aarhus convention due to the lack of consideration for alternatives for the currently contested sections during the public consultations. An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) had not been presented during these public consultations and the only criterion that had been taken into account in the Social Impact Report had been the number of buildings which would be demolished. The complainant alleged, moreover, that historical heritage and negative impact on residents’ health had not been taken into account.
The EIB-CM assessment & investigation
The EIB-CM’s investigations have shown that proper EIA public consultations have been performed in a more advanced stage by the environmental authority that presented the EIA initially. During these public consultations the current alternatives for the various project components and the arguments for their selection, based on technical, traffic, urban, social and cost assessment, have been explained in the context of the impacts on human health and that more detailed environmental assessments of the alternatives were presented in the EIA executed by the authorities.
The Promoter engaged in public consultations as widely announced through leaflets, posters, paper surveys, press and internet websites providing the possibility for public to express opinions online and through paper surveys. These reflect that 83% of the respondents are in favour of the presented alternatives.
The health hazard caused by the emission of air pollutants by motor vehicles is insignificant in all the alternatives of the planned route; however, the chosen alternative for the project was selected on the basis of an evaluation of impacts for each individual alternative and.
During all stages of the project cycle, the EIB services have taken the necessary steps to conduct a sound due diligence and to assure the compliance of the assessment with the EIB's environmental standards as well as with the relevant Community legislation. Early engagement of the EIB operational services with the civil society had provided an essential feedback that consequently provided important elements in setting up some of the conditions of disbursement in the finance contract.
Conclusion
The EIB-CM concludes to file the allegations of failure to present an environmental impact assessment, of lack of consideration and assessment of the alternatives and of lack of assessment of impact on health, with no recommendation. The EIB-CM concludes that there was no maladministration committed by the EIB regarding the alleged breach of EIA directive and proceeds to the closing of the file.