Search En menu en ClientConnect
Search
Results
Top 5 search results See all results Advanced search
Top searches
Most visited pages
Reference: SG/E/2015/07
Received Date: 20 May 2015
Subject: A4 Motorway Zgorzelec - Krzyowa
Complainant:

Confidential

Allegations: Negative social impact and non-compliance with national applicable law
Type: E - Environmental and social impacts of financed projects
Outcome*: No grounds
Suggestions for improvement: no
Admissibility*
Assessment*
Investigation*
Dispute Resolution*
Consultation*
Closed*
20/05/2015
7/08/2015
20/10/2016
17/11/2016
16/12/2016

* 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 13 May 2015, the EIB Complaints Mechanism (EIB-CM) received a complaint concerning the A4 motorway project in Poland. The complainant alleged:

1) Breach of national law and breach of EU environmental law during the project implementation

  • Lack of the necessary construction permits and alleged revocation of development consent for 6.5 km of the motorway
  • Poland’s breach of EU environmental law. In particular, breach of Council Directive 85/337/EEC and Council Directive 92/43/EEC (EIA directive)

2) Unsuitable access from plot A to plot B and vice versa.

EIB-CM Action

The EIB-CM carried out a review of the complainant’s allegations, examined all relevant project documentation and held internal consultation meetings with the relevant EIB services. The EIB-CM reviewed the process of the EIB’s project appraisal and due diligence. In addition, the EIB-CM requested further clarifications from General Directorate for National Roads (GDDKiA), the project promoter.

Conclusions and Recommendations

In light of the raised allegations, the EIB-CM assessment and the reported findings, the complainant’s allegations were found ungrounded in relation to the first allegation. With regard to the second allegation, the EIB-CM takes the view that the complainant had been provided with a proportionate solution by the project promoter.  The EIB-CM concludes that the project had followed the EIB’s applicable standards and procedures when conducting its appraisal and due diligence. The EIB-CM takes the view that no further investigations are required regarding the raised allegations. Therefore, the EIB-CM proceeds with the closing of the file with no recommendation.

Project Information