Search En menu en ClientConnect
Search
Results
Top 5 search results See all results Advanced search
Top searches
Most visited pages
    Reference: SG/F/2015/01
    Received Date: 05 February 2015
    Subject: Transmission Line Yacyreta
    Complainant: Confidential
    Allegations: Alleged irregularities in the monitoring of the EIB loan
    Type: F - Governance aspects of financed operations
    Outcome*: No grounds
    Suggestions for improvement: no
    Admissibility*
    Assessment*
    Investigation*
    Dispute Resolution*
    Consultation*
    Closed*
    5/03/2015
    17/02/2015
    5/08/2015
    2/10/2015
    21/10/2016

    * 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 5 February 2015, the EIB Complaints Mechanism (EIB-CM) received a complaint concerning the EIB financed-project Transmission Line Yacyreta. The complainant denounces irregularities in the approval of the loan. He alleges that the approval of the loan and guarantee agreement is not valid because the Act no. 5184/2014 does not meet the legal requirements established in the National Constitution. In particular, the complainant argues that the text of the loan and guarantee agreements were not included in the text of the Act but were annexed to it. Additionally, he mentions that the publication of the loan agreement and state guarantee in the Official Gazette nos. 127 and 172 respectively was irregular and therefore not valid.

    EIB-CM Action

    In the course of the enquiry the EIB-CM reviewed the complaint to the EIB. The EIB-CM held internal consultation meetings with the relevant EIB services. Additionally, the EIB-CM reviewed the entire project’s documentation and the relevant legal framework.

    Conclusions

    It must be noted that the EIB services have not proceeded to a disbursement without the necessary legal opinions verifying the validity of the Act no. 5184/2014 in line with the procedure described in the Finance Contract. On the contrary, the fact that following the complaint, the EIB services proactively asked for an additional legal opinion can be considered as an example of good administration. In light of the foregoing, the EIB-CM concludes that, based on the information available, its inquiry did not reveal any instance of maladministration by the EIB services.

    Project Information