Search En menu en ClientConnect
Search
Results
Top 5 search results See all results Advanced search
Top searches
Most visited pages
    Reference: EIF/F/2014/04
    Received Date: 08 October 2014
    Subject: JEREMIE
    Complainant: Confidential
    Allegations: Allegedly unfair implementation of JEREMIE Programme in Cyprus
    Type: F - Governance aspects of financed operations
    Outcome*: No grounds
    Suggestions for improvement: no
    Admissibility*
    Assessment*
    Investigation*
    Dispute Resolution*
    Consultation*
    Closed*
    15/10/2014
    20/10/2014
    1/12/2014

    * 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 8 October 2014, the EIB Complaints Mechanism (EIB-CM) received a complaint concerning the implementation of JEREMIE Programme in Cyprus. The complainant alleged that he/she could not get any loanunder the JEREMIE initiative without securing “some land”. The complainant referred to the agreement of 19 September2014 between the EIB, on the one hand, and the Bank of Cyprus and the Hellenic Bank, on the other hand, providing EUR 85 mil to support SMEs. In this context, the complainant alleged that Cypriot citizens would never receive the financial assistance provided by the EIB Group to Cypriot banks. In the opinion of the complainant, Cypriot banks would set too demanding requirements for SMEs to access the funds and would, in turn, privilege their network or very large companies, thus jeopardizing the purpose of the financial assistance.

    EIB-CM Action

    The EIB-CM contacted the complainant to clarify that the information provided to the EIB-CM was not sufficient to justify the opening of a formal inquiry into the case. The EIB-CM drew the complainant’s attention to the fact that, in case he/she wished to pursue the matter further and he/she had at his/her disposal evidence substantiating his/her allegations, he/she was requested to provide such evidence.

    Conclusion

    The EIB-CM has not received any further correspondence from the complainant which modifies the documentary evidence at its disposal. Based on the available information, it does not appear appropriate to launch a formal inquiry into the matter; therefore the EIB-CM proceeds to close the case.

    Project Information