* 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 complainant alleges that his properties, which are located within the projected trajectory of the motorway A2 sections Swiecko-Nowy Tomyl and in the A4 section Zgorzelec-Krzyżowa, had been illegally expropriated without compensation. The complainant stated that the official land register contains false information regarding the ownership of the lands and therefore the complainant’s name is not appearing as the owner of some plots. In addition, the complainant alleged several breaches of national and EU environmental law which allegedly lead to the cancellation of the project development consent.
On 23 May 2012, the EIB Secretary General responded to the complainant. With regard to the allegations on the A2 motorway project, the complainant was informed that in 2010 and on the basis of his complaint the EIB-CM had already carried out an inquiry into the matter and concluded that the allegations were ungrounded. The findings and conclusions were communicated by the EIB-CM Conclusion’s Report of 3 June 2010 as well as by letter of 29 September 2010 on the complainant’s confirmatory complaint. However, the EIB Secretary General informed the complainant that the EIB-CM would carry out an inquiry into the new allegations.
A part of his letters as well as within his further correspondence of May 2012, November 2012 and March 2013, the complainant submitted an extensive amount of documents, letters and copies of decisions from national bodies. In his further correspondence, the complainant reiterated his concerns regarding the A2 Motorway project and provided additional allegations regarding the A4 Motorway project:
- Revocation of the construction permit as an infringement of the EIA Directive
- Failure to provide potential variants/alternative solutions
- Failure to secure public access to the proceeding for the issuance of the A4 Environmental Decision
- Failure to provide accurate information in the environmental Report
- Failure to obtain a decision on the environmental impact on Natura 2000
- Revocation of the water permit as the proof of the environmental law
On the basis of the allegations raised, the EIB-CM reviewed the documentation provided by the complainant as well as the relevant permits and decisions contested by the complainant and held meetings with the relevant EIB services. In addition, the EIB-CM requested external and specialised legal advice regarding the compliance with the national law with a view to supporting the EIB-CM analysis of the alleged breaches of national law.
On the basis of the information gathered and In light of the findings reported herein, it appears that the complainant’s allegations are not grounded. Therefore, the EIB-CM proceeds to close the file.