Ongoing
* 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
On 28 December 2022, the EIB-CM received a complaint from an individual on behalf of the non-governmental organisation CEE Bankwatch Network. The complainant approached the EIB-CM having previously corresponded with the competent services of the EIB between December 2021 and December 2022 on matters relevant to the allegations presented below.
Allegation 1. The complaint related to the delay incurred by the EIB in publishing the project summaries of seven operations (the concerned operations). The complainant considered that the EIB failed to comply with its Transparency Policy in force at the relevant time (EIB Group Transparency Policy, EIB-TP). In this respect, the complainant alleged that the EIB made excessive use of its discretionary power in postponing the publication of the project summaries on the basis of the exceptions provided for in Section 5 of the EIB-TP, namely the unjustified use of the exception regarding the protection of commercial interests.
Allegation 2. In addition, for some of the concerned operations, the complainant considered that the EIB was withholding environmental information (project summaries, Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIA) and Environmental and Social Data Sheet). More specifically, for some of the concerned operations, the complainant alleged that the EIB had failed to comply with the Aarhus Convention as implemented for EU institutions and bodies by Regulation (EC) 1367/20066 (the Aarhus Regulation).
The EIB-CM’s inquiry assessed these allegations in the context of potential EIB maladministration. After conducting a review of available information and undertaking numerous stakeholder meetings, the EIB-CM concluded the following:
Allegation 1 outcome: Grounded across all seven EIB operations
The EIB relevant services should ensure that a promoter’s request to postpone the publication of the project summary is properly assessed and documented in a timely manner, especially when the information provided by the promoter does not manifestly align to any of the justified interests based on the exceptions set forth in the EIB-TP. Any such assessment should ensure that the reason(s) given by the promoter are justified in accordance with the EIB-TP and that the postponement length is strictly tied to its justification. It is strongly encouraged that the relevant EIB services seek clarifications from the promoter where needed and within a reasonable timeframe, to inform such assessment.
The EIB-CM therefore recommended that the EIB continue to raise awareness of the requirements of the EIB-TP to staff that directly liaise with EIB promoters regarding project summary publication and related requirements under the EIB-TP. In particular, the EIB-CM recommended that, as part of the EIB’s OPS Directorate newcomers programme (or of any other specific training programmes offered by the EIB), an in-depth module is created to train EIB relevant staff to (i) explain the EIB-TP to promoters, (ii) assess requests for postponed publication based on the justified interests [exceptions] provided under Section 5 of the EIB-TP and (iii) seek support from the EIB competent services responsible for providing guidance on the interpretation and application of the EIB-TP.
In addition, the EIB-CM recommended strengthening the processes of internal verification and/or validation when determining whether the postponement of project summary publication is justified.
Lastly, it was recommended that the EIB continue to enhance its methods of communication with promoters regarding its transparency requirements so as to enable improved documentation and decision-making surrounding project summary publication and, in particular, the postponement of such publication. This particular recommendation was implemented as of June 2024 during the course of report consultation with the EIB services.
Allegation 2 outcome: Partially grounded
The EIB-CM found the EIB compliant with the provisions on proactive dissemination of environmental information set out in the Aarhus Regulation in that Article 4 of said Regulation requires that environmental information is progressively made available in electronic databases. Article 4 of the Aarhus Regulation does not impose any timelines on the progressively made available environmental information. The environmental information was made available on the EIB website.
With respect to one concerned operation, the EIB-CM found that there was a failure to comply with the relevant EIB-TP in that links to the two ESIAs/Non Technical Summaries (NTS) were not provided as early as possible in the project cycle. The project summary was published 13 months before the ESIAs/NTS' were published on the EIB website. The EIB-CM found there to be no justified postponement in the publication of the relevant project summary, thus no justified delay in the publication of the ESIAs/NTS’. However, the EIB-CM noted that the ESIAs were published on the websites of the competent authorities well before they were published on the EIB’s website.
The EIB-CM therefore recommended improved coordination between the EIB relevant services to ensure that links to environmental information are provided to the public as early as possible in the project cycle and in line with the applicable framework.