Suche starten De menü de ClientConnect
Suche starten
Ergebnisse
Top-5-Suchergebnisse Alle Ergebnisse anzeigen Erweiterte Suche
Häufigste Suchbegriffe
Meistbesuchte Seiten
    Reference: SG/E/2011/08
    Received Date: 04 May 2011
    Subject: Corridor 10 Highway E-75, Serbia
    Complainant: Confidential
    Allegations: Suspected breach of national law and EIB policies regarding public consultation and selection of alternatives
    Type: E - Environmental and social impacts of financed projects
    Outcome*: No Grounds
    Suggestions for improvement: no
    Admissibility*
    Assessment*
    Investigation*
    Dispute Resolution*
    Consultation*
    Closed*
    4/05/2011
    18/05/2011
    26/06/2012
    20/07/2012
    25/07/2012

    * 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

    The project consists of the design and construction of 75 km of 2 x 2 motorway of Pan European Corridor X, between Grabovnica and Levosoje in Southern Serbia partly on new and partly on old alignment. The project is divided into 5 sections and will be co-financed by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and) Hellenic Plan for the Economic Reconstruction of the Balkans (HiPERB)

    The complaint concerns essentially that an alternative trajectory for the highway section, as proposed by the Leskovac local Government had not been selected. The said alternative trajectory had been prepared by the Traffic Institute (CIP) and would cost EUR 11m less than the alternative which had been selected and would not require the construction of a tunnel. In addition, the complaint concerned a lack of public consultations on the project and the fact that the Project had never been presented to the local government of Leskovac which therefore had not given its consent. The City Assembly of Leskovac had informed the Serbian Government and the ministries and Public Roads’ services concerned, in 2008, that selecting such an expensive alternative for the project, in opposition to the choice of the local Leskovas’ authorities, would constitute a breach of the national law.

    In fact, the decision not to implement the alternative suggested by the CIP and selecting a more expensive trajectory instead, had, according to the complainant, been based on EIB's decisions during the appraisal. The complainant requested a meeting with the EIB’s services to present the City of Leskovac' arguments in favour of the CIP's cheaper alternative.

    From the EIB-CM enquiry it appears that EIAs had been carried out for each section in line with the applicable laws and that public consultation, well announced in the local press, had been held in Vranje and Leskovac between 2006 and 2008

    The EIA of the section Grdelica - Caricina Dolina had been approved on 18 July 2009 and the construction permits had been subsequently issued on 6 April 2010. For the Caricina Dolina - Vladicin Han section, the EIA had been approved on 6 April 2010 and the building permits had been issued on 12 April 2010.

    As far as the alternative trajectory, without a tunnel, is concerned [as recommended by the complainant], the information gathered shows that this alternative is less favourable in respect of required space and technical requirements. The EIB is not competent to make a judgment concerning the selection of any of the alternative options. The EIB is responsible for appraising whether the Promoter had conducted a full EIA process including the public consultation and approvals/planning consent), the identification of the impacts and appropriate measures to avoid, reduce or mitigate them, the consideration of alternatives, the proposed mitigation and compensation measures etc., in its due diligence.

    CONCLUSIONS

    Regarding the alleged lack of public consultations and the lack of consideration of alternatives, the EIB-CM concludes that the EIB did not commit an instance of maladministration in the conduct of its due diligence.

    With regard to the alternative suggested by the complainant and the complainant's request for a meeting with the EIB, the EIB -CM does not recommend a meeting with the complainant on this subject as the EIB is not competent to exercise any judgment regarding the selection/suggestion of the set of alternatives; complainant is challenging an activity of the national authorities rather than EIB activity; the EIB-CM is not competent to investigate complaints against regional or national authorities.