* 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 15 December 2014, the EIB Complaints Mechanism (EIB-CM) received a complaint concerning the SME Guarantee Facility, which is managed by the European Investment Fund (EIF) on behalf of the European Commission. In his/her letter the complainant stated that in 2006 he/she had signed a credit contract for a EUR XX XXX loan over 10 years with BANK A that was provided under the EIF SME Guarantee Facility. The complainant alleged that, after a number of years, he/she realised that the intermediary bank had unlawfully increased the interest rate on the loan several times without notification and, therefore, in 2011 he/she terminated the credit contract and repaid the loan prior to the due date.
In this context, the complainant alleged the following:
- BANK A had unlawfully imposed a 5% penalty for early repayment of the loan;
- BANK A had unlawfully charged a credit management fee;
- The clauses of the credit contract were misleading, in particular the clause concerning the interest margin for the loan;
- BANK A had failed to comply with the Guarantee Agreement, in particular regarding the interest rate and grace periods.
As a result, the complainant suggested to the EIF an out-of-court settlement and requested reimbursement of the amounts allegedly illegally received by the EIF.
EIB-CM Action
In light of the complainant’s concerns, the EIB-CM carried out a review of the complainant’s allegations and examined the documentation provided by the complainant and the relevant parties. The EIB-CM liaised with the EIF’s operational services and held an internal consultation meeting with a view to obtaining further information. The EIF and the EIB-CM also liaised with the intermediary in order to obtain additional information on the issues at stake.
Conclusions and Recommendations
On the basis of the EIB-CM findings regarding the allegations concerning the Guarantee Agreement and the EIF, the EIB-CM takes the view that the complainant seemed to have misinterpreted the disputed provisions of the Guarantee Agreement. Therefore, the EIB has filed the relevant allegations without making any recommendation.
With regard to the allegations concerning the credit contract concluded between the complainant and BANK A, the EIB-CM notes that the complainant is challenging alleged actions of BANK A rather than the EIF. In this respect, it is important to recall that the EIB-CM Principles, Terms of Reference and Rules of Procedures apply to complaints regarding maladministration of the EIB Group. Thus, complaints which do not challenge an action of the EIB Group but rather actions and/or omissions of third parties fall outside the remit of the Mechanism.
The EIB-CM takes notes that the complainant had already raised the issues related to the credit contract with the national courts and that the court proceedings were still ongoing while this complaint was being dealt with by the EIB-CM. The EIB-CM, therefore, recommends that the EIF follows up with BANK A developments in the national court proceedings with a view to assessing the possible impact of a court decision on the EIF Guarantee Facility.
With regard to the complainant’s proposal for an out-of-court settlement, the EIB-CM does not see a valid reason to enter into such settlement.