Search En menu en ClientConnect
Search
Results
Top 5 search results See all results Advanced search
Top searches
Most visited pages
    Reference: SG/E/2021/02
    Received Date: 02 February 2021
    Subject: Autobahn A49 Fritzlar-Ohmtal Dreieck (PPP)
    Complainant: Confidential
    Allegations: Alleged negative environmental impacts of the project
    Type: E - Environmental and social impacts of financed projects
    Suggestions for improvement: no
    Admissibility*
    Assessment*
    Investigation*
    Dispute Resolution*
    Consultation*
    Closed*
    4/02/2021
    8/07/2021
    23/09/2022
    3/10/2022
    12/10/2022

    * 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 EIB Group Complaints Mechanism (EIB-CM) received two complaints concerning the “AUTOBAHN A49 FRITZLAR - OHMTAL DREIECK (PPP)” project (SG/E/2020/21 and SG/E/2021/02), which were dealt with in one Conclusions Report (because of the two complaints having largely overlapping allegations). The object of the complaints is the design, construction, financing, operation and maintenance of a section of the A49 motorway in the German federal state of Hessen.

    The allegations raised in the complaints include (i) failure of the project to comply with applicable legislation, including EU environmental law, especially shortcomings of the assessment as required by the EIA Directive (public access to information), and other joint assessments such as required by the Water Framework Directive, the Habitats Directive and non-compliance in terms of noise impacts, and (ii) the project’s non-compliance with the Paris Agreement and the EIB’s climate change commitments.

    EIB-CM Conclusions

    Based on a review of the available information, the EIB-CM found all allegations to be ungrounded with respect to the project’s compliance with the applicable standards. Moreover, the EIB-CM considers that the EIB fulfilled its role as required when carrying out due diligence during appraisal and monitoring.

    However, in its Environmental and Social Data Sheet (ESDS), the EIB did not communicate satisfactorily the outcome of the appropriate assessment for the Natura 2000 site crossed by the project and on the public consultation process, specifically the negative campaign. Therefore, the EIB-CM made a suggestion for improvement for the Bank to issue an addendum to the ESDS concerning the project’s impact on the Natura 2000 site and information on public consultations, appeals and protests.