Recherche FR menu Portail client du Groupe BEI
Recherche
Résultats
5 premiers résultats de la recherche Voir tous les résultats Recherche avancée
Recherches les plus fréquentes
Pages les plus visitées
Reference: SG/F/2015/01
Received Date: 05 February 2015
Subject: Transmission Line Yacyreta
Complainant: Confidential
Allegations: Alleged irregularities in the monitoring of the EIB loan
Type: F - Governance aspects of financed operations
Outcome*: No grounds
Admissibility*
Assessment*
Investigation*
Dispute Resolution*
Consultation*
Closed*
5/03/2015
17/02/2015
5/08/2015
2/10/2015
21/10/2016

* 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 5 February 2015, the EIB Complaints Mechanism (EIB-CM) received a complaint concerning the EIB financed-project Transmission Line Yacyreta. The complainant denounces irregularities in the approval of the loan. He alleges that the approval of the loan and guarantee agreement is not valid because the Act no. 5184/2014 does not meet the legal requirements established in the National Constitution. In particular, the complainant argues that the text of the loan and guarantee agreements were not included in the text of the Act but were annexed to it. Additionally, he mentions that the publication of the loan agreement and state guarantee in the Official Gazette nos. 127 and 172 respectively was irregular and therefore not valid.

EIB-CM Action

In the course of the enquiry the EIB-CM reviewed the complaint to the EIB. The EIB-CM held internal consultation meetings with the relevant EIB services. Additionally, the EIB-CM reviewed the entire project’s documentation and the relevant legal framework.

Conclusions

It must be noted that the EIB services have not proceeded to a disbursement without the necessary legal opinions verifying the validity of the Act no. 5184/2014 in line with the procedure described in the Finance Contract. On the contrary, the fact that following the complaint, the EIB services proactively asked for an additional legal opinion can be considered as an example of good administration. In light of the foregoing, the EIB-CM concludes that, based on the information available, its inquiry did not reveal any instance of maladministration by the EIB services.

Project Information