Search En menu en ClientConnect
Search
Results
Top 5 search results See all results Advanced search
Top searches
Most visited pages
    Reference: SG/E/2014/02
    Received Date: 22 January 2014
    Subject: Route E420 Frasnes-Bruly RTE
    Complainant: Confidential
    Allegations: Effectiveness of the project; studied alternatives; environmental impact
    Type: E - Environmental and social impacts of financed projects
    Suggestions for improvement: no
    Admissibility*
    Assessment*
    Investigation*
    Dispute Resolution*
    Consultation*
    Closed*
    22/01/2014
    26/11/2018
    13/12/2018
    19/12/2018

    * 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

     

    In January 2014, the EIB's Complaints Mechanism (EIB-CM) received a complaint from an individual. The complaint concerns the motorway section between Frasnes-lez-Couvin and Brûly on route E420 in Belgium.

     

    The complaint consists of three allegations concerning the project, which is financed by the EIB.  The allegations concern the following: effectiveness of the project, studied alternatives and environmental impact.

     

    EIB-CM Action

     

    After conducting the review, the EIB-CM concluded that the project is in line with the project applicable standards with respect to the allegations made.

     

    With respect to the role of the EIB, the EIB-CM concluded that the allegations are ungrounded.  The EIB carried out a project appraisal in line with its procedures, covering the issues raised in the complaint.  The EIB also formulated a number of specific conditions, such as (i) a written authorisation from the competent authority for nature conservation (Form A) and (ii) finalisation of all ongoing disputes, and checked the fulfilment of these conditions prior to the first disbursement of funds.  The EIB continues to monitor whether the project has a significant impact on the environment in line with the contractual arrangements between the EIB and the promoter.  Once collected, the EIB should also receive information on traffic flows, which should confirm whether the project is effective.

     

    Conclusion

     

    The EIB-CM concluded that its inquiry did not identify any instances of maladministration by the EIB.  Therefore, the EIB-CM did not make any specific recommendations and closed the case.

     

     

     

    Project Information