Suche starten De menü de ClientConnect
Suche starten
Ergebnisse
Top-5-Suchergebnisse Alle Ergebnisse anzeigen Erweiterte Suche
Häufigste Suchbegriffe
Meistbesuchte Seiten
    Reference: EIF/G/2014/01
    Received Date: 16 January 2014
    Subject: Programme CIP
    Complainant: Confidential
    Allegations: Alleged improper implementation of the CIP conditions with respect to the financial guarantee
    Type: G - EIB's Governance
    Outcome*: No grounds
    Suggestions for improvement: no
    Admissibility*
    Assessment*
    Investigation*
    Dispute Resolution*
    Consultation*
    Closed*
    16/01/2014
    1/04/2014
    25/06/2014
    7/07/2014
    16/07/2014

    * 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 14 January 2014, the EIB Complaints Mechanism (EIB-CM) received a complaint regarding the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) the SME Guarantee Facility (SMEG) which is managed by the European Investment Fund (EIF) on behalf of the European Commission.

    The complaint concerns the allegedly improper implementation of the CIP conditions. The complainant stated that within the context of a loan that was provided to her company by BANK A in 2010 marketed under the CIP guarantee, the complainant was requested to sign 3 personal guarantees of 12 075 euros each. Following the cease of the activities of the complainant’s company in 2013, the complainant was requested by BANK A to pay the commitments related to the guarantee signed. Therefore, the complainant took the view that the requests for a personal guarantee, as well as the request for compulsory reimbursement, did not correspond to the principles and conditions of the CIP guarantee which did not require a personal guarantee. As a result, the complainant requested the intervention of the EIB with a view to urging BANK A to comply with the CIP conditions.

    EIB-CM Action

    The EIB-CM liaised with the EIF operational services with a view to obtaining further information. The EIF liaised with its intermediary La Société Interprofessionnelle Artisanale de Garantie d’Investissement (SIAGI) to obtain additional clarifications. In this context, the EIB-CM reviewed the information provided by the complainant as well as correspondence between SIAGI and BANK A in relation to the guarantee, as well as further information and documents provided by SIAGI.

    Conclusions

    In light of the concerns raised, it is important to recall the streamline of the contractual relations between the EIF and its intermediary (SIAGI) as well as between SIAGI and its intermediary (BANK A). The EIF’s relation is limited to its intermediary (SIAGI) within the boundaries of their agreement and not extended to SIAGI’s intermediaries (BANK A) or to the final beneficiary of the guarantee (SARL LUDALEX), a relation which is regulated by a separate agreement between SIAGI and its intermediary.

    From the information gathered during the inquiry, it appeares that SIAGI informed the EIF that, due to the non-compliance of BANK A with the timeframe to notify the event of the default and, more importantly, the non-compliance with the CIP conditions of the guarantee agreement by requesting a personal guarantee from the beneficiary, SIAGI considered the transaction ineligible to benefit from the CIP guarantee and, consequently, withdrew the guarantee in line with its agreement with BANK A. In this context, it is important to underline that the EIF’s role takes place when a guarantee is called by its intermediary (SIAGI) which did not occur in this case. Since the EIB-CM is not competent to investigate complaints concerning other bodies or organisations, the raised allegation falls outside the remit of the EIB-CM. As a result, the EIB-CM proceeds to close the file with no recommendations.