Warsaw Ring Road, Poland

The project consists of the construction of two out of five Warsaw Ring Road sections on the western side of the city, the S2 section from the Konotopa to the Pulawska interchanges and the S8 section from the Konotopa to the Powazkowska.

The complaint concerns a breach of EU environmental legislation as well as of the of EIA directive for the implementation of the S8 section of the project, in particular the failure to carry out a proper Environmental Impact Assessment or to conduct a Strategic Environmental Assessment. The complainant accuses the promoter to have failed to adequately carry out a public consultation, leading to a further breach of Articles 6 and 9 of the EIA Directive. The complainant also alleges the possible worsening, or increase, of the traffic forecasts and of possibilities for public transport on the S2 section and supporting roads of the projects.

The EIB-CM assessment & investigation:

The EIB-CM investigation found that for part of the S8 section the procedure for the initiation of the development consent was launched prior the entry into force of the EIA Directive in Poland, for another part the development consent procedure was launched after entry into force of the Directive. Therefore the EIA Directive does not apply to one part of the S8 section, whereas it is fully applicable for the other section. The investigation brought to light that in both instances the performed environmental impact assessments were carried out in line with the EU legislation, which included impact assessment study and alternative solutions and mitigation study for possible impacts, including public participation in line with Article 53 of the Environmental Protection Law which was applicable at the time

On the allegation that construction permits for residential buildings close to the road had been illegally granted it was made clear that it is not the Roads & Motorways Directorate that is responsible of issuing such construction permits nor can it stop these permits when they are issued in line with the applicable law. In any case the EIB-CM is not competent to investigate complaints against, i.c., the authority responsible for issuing the building permits.

Overall, the EC found that, indeed, the project had been split into sections, and that each of the sections had been subject to an EIA, ánd the cumulative effects had been considered and assessed. Therefore the EC could not detect breach of EIA Directive.

Regarding the alleged possible worsening, or increase, of the traffic forecasts it was made clear that the new bridge over the Vistula river will improve the flow of the traffic; the aim of the project in general is to decrease the density of traffic ín the city and thus deviate it from the city. Public transport and in particular buses will be allowed on the new roads including bus stops on the S8.

The alleged failure to adequately carry out a public consultation - Breach of Articles 6 and 9 of the EIA Directive - has been already dealt with by the national administrative authorities and courts. Moreover, the EC had already initiated an infringement procedure against Poland concerning the incorrect transposition of Directive 85/337/EEC into Polish law. A new Act on the access to environmental information and environment protection, public participation in environment protection and environmental impact assessment was adopted on 3 October 2008 by the Polish parliament providing for wider access to judicial review procedures. This new law of 15 November 2008 addresses the Commission's concerns regarding non-compliance with Article 10a of the directive.

Conclusion

From the EIB-CM’s investigation it appears that an EIA was carried out. Moreover, the Commission is the competent authority to deal with alleged infringements of EC law. In its inquiry the European Commission concluded that it had not detected any infringement of the EIA Directive on the contested project.

Regarding the alleged possible worsening, or increase, of the traffic forecasts, the EIB-CM concludes that there was no maladministration by the Bank.