Recherche Fr menu fr ClientConnect
Recherche
Résultats
5 premiers résultats de la recherche Voir tous les résultats Recherche avancée
Recherches les plus fréquentes
Pages les plus visitées
    Reference: SG/E/2010/09
    Received Date: 10 July 2010
    Subject: Motorway A-2, Poland Confirmatory
    Complainant: Individual, Poland
    Allegations: Inappropriate and insufficient expropriation procedures
    Type: E - Environmental and social impacts of financed projects
    Outcome*: No Grounds
    Suggestions for improvement: no
    Admissibility*
    Assessment*
    Investigation*
    Dispute Resolution*
    Consultation*
    Closed*
    22/09/2010
    24/09/2010
    30/09/2010

    * 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 confirmatory complaint alleges that the EIB-CM’s Conclusions Report of 3 June 2010 is wrong when it claims that neither Directive 85/337/EEC nor Directive 92/337/EEC apply to implementing the construction of A-2 Swiecko - Nowy Tomysl Motorway in Poland, as the date of issue of the building permits determines whether the above-mentioned Directives apply to the contested Project. Moreover the complainant confirms his allegations that the Promoter of the project violated property rights as land-parcels that had been expropriated for the building of the to Autostrada Wielkopolska S.A.had been unlawfully disposed of. Thirdly the confirmatory complaint challenges the adequacy of the public consultation, notably the failure to notify the issue of decisions/permits for the contested Project to Project-affected people as this ought to have been published in both local newspapers and not only in one of them.

    The EIB-CM assessment

    The confirmatory complaint appears not to raise any additional allegations to the previous complaint with the EIB-CM.

    The EIB-CM confirms that the European Commission is the competent EU institution to deal with alleged infringements of Directives 85/337/EEC and Directive 92/337/EEC and that the national authorities and the national administrative courts are currently dealing with the allegations regarding the violated property rights on the land-parcels that had been expropriated for the construction.

    On the basis of, i.a., the Voivodship Administrative Court, the EIB-CM has established that the local community has been adequately informed of the procedures for the issue of permits as well as of the public consultation sessions as when there are two newspapers of comparable circulation and the announcement is published in one of them, such publication would not constitute breach of law

    Pursuant to the EIB Environmental and Social Practices Handbook, the EIB is responsible for verifying the correct application of all EIA process (including the public consultation and approvals/planning consent); the EIB-CM has confirms that this project is no exception to the Bank's normal practice in this respect.

    Conclusion

    On the basis of Articles 2.3 and 2.5 of the EIB Complaints Mechanism, the EIB-CM is not competent to investigate complaints against national, regional or local authorities (as re. the violated property rights) and cannot deal with complaints which have already been lodged with other administrative or judicial review mechanisms (as re. the applicability of the aforementioned EU Directives.

    The EIB-CM proceeds to close this confirmatory complaint.