Strasbourg, 10 July 2006

Dear Mr D.,

On 31 March 2004, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning the application made by the Italian company ITALTILE for financing under the European Investment Bank ("EIB") Global Loans for Small and Medium-sized enterprises in Nigeria.

On 22 April 2004, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the EIB. The EIB sent the Italian translation of its opinion on 20 July 2004. I forwarded it to you on 29 July 2004 with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 12 August 2004.

In the light of these observations, it appeared that it was necessary to conduct further inquiries. On 12 November 2004, I therefore wrote to the EIB, asking the institution to comment on your observations. On 10 December 2004, I received its reply which I forwarded to you on 16 December 2004 with an invitation to make observations. I received your observations on 5 January 2005.

On 16 November 2005, I sent you a holding letter in which I informed you that I would communicate to you the results of my inquiries into your complaint as soon as possible and, in any case, by no later than 31 January 2006.

On 15 December 2005, I informed you by letter that, on the same date, I had written to the President of the EIB since I considered that supplementary information was necessary in order to pursue my inquiries into your complaint. On 6 February 2006, I received the Italian translation of the EIB's reply which I forwarded to you on 13 February 2006 with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished, by 15 March 2006. I enclosed with the EIB's reply a copy of the decision that I had adopted on a similar issue (case 3442/2004/PB)(1). I have received no observations from you.

I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

According to the complainant, the relevant facts are as follows:

On 10 September 2003, ITALTILE, an Italian company, submitted an application for financing under the Global Loans for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises ("SMEs") of the European Investment Bank (the "EIB") in order to set up a plant for the production of spaghetti in Nigeria. This application was sent to Ventures & Trusts Ltd, the EIB's intermediary responsible for Nigeria.

One month later, the complainant contacted the EIB in Luxembourg by telephone. The complainant spoke with Mr V., to whom he expressed some concerns about the way in which Ventures & Trusts Ltd had dealt with ITALTILE's application. Mr V. reassured the complainant about the professionalism of the EIB's intermediary and stated that the complainant could send a copy of the application to the EIB, if he so wished, because it would be useful for its evaluation. On 23 October 2003, the complainant sent a copy of the relevant application to the EIB.

During a telephone conversation between the complainant and Mr V., which took place at the beginning of November 2003, the latter asked the complainant to contact Mr L., the EIB official responsible for Nigeria. The complainant therefore contacted Mr L. who informed him that the EIB could not interfere with the evaluation made by the intermediaries and, moreover, that it received the project for the final financing only after it had been pre-selected by the intermediaries.

Mr L. also informed the complainant that he would contact the intermediary in order to urge it to undertake a prompt examination of the application made by ITALTILE.

On 26 November 2003, during a meeting with Ventures & Trusts Ltd, the complainant was informed that all the facilities under the Global Loans provided by the EIB had been exhausted and that it would therefore be impossible to award financing to ITALTILE.

On 3 December 2003 and 20 January 2004, the complainant wrote to the EIB which, in its reply of 28 January 2004, stated that: "Global Loans are credit facilities opened by the Bank with certain financial intermediaries in selected countries for supporting SMEs. The funds are lent to the financial institutions for on-lending to specific projects. In this respect, projects' appraisal and monitoring is first and foremost the responsibility of the intermediary institution. The Bank is not involved in the selection process of projects undertaken by the intermediary and it is its prerogative to decline any project presented to it. Thereafter, once a project has been approved by the intermediary, it is up to it whether or not to present it to the Bank for refinancing under the Global Loan facility. If so, the Bank will verify the economic and financing viability of the projects presented, but the choice of allocation to be submitted to the Bank for consideration is left entirely to the intermediary's discretion (…). For the time being in Nigeria, the Bank has such a facility in place only with Ventures & Trusts. This facility is close to full utilization and will not be renewed in the short term. We are currently reviewing the opportunity of selecting new intermediaries in order to extend our support to SMEs in Nigeria".

On 19 February 2004, the complainant replied to the EIB and stated that, in his fax of 20 January 2004, he had requested to be informed which projects, if any, had been approved and financed in Nigeria during the period of validity of the facility concerned. The content of the EIB's reply was therefore not consistent with his request.

In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that (i) in its reply of 28 January 2004, the EIB failed to address the points raised by him in his letter of 20 January 2004 and that (ii) the EIB failed to reply to his fax of 19 February 2004.

The complainant claimed that the EIB should reply to his fax of 19 February 2004 and that it should provide him with the information he had requested on 20 January 2004.

THE INQUIRY

The European Investment Bank's opinion

In its opinion on the complaint, the EIB made, in summary, the following comments:

A Global Loan is a line of credit to an intermediary financial institution, which then on-lends the proceeds (sub-loans or allocations) to final beneficiaries in order to finance small and medium-scale projects. On-lending by the intermediary is made in accordance with the framework agreement signed between the EIB and the intermediary which incorporates and assures respect of EIB eligibility criteria. The funds are not a grant and have to be managed according to the best banking practice. In this respect, to ensure appropriate selection and follow-up of the projects to be submitted to the EIB, appraisal and monitoring are the responsibility of the intermediary financial institution. The EIB is not involved in the selection process of projects and it is the prerogative of the intermediary to deal with any project presented to it. It is only after a project has been approved by the intermediary that it can be presented and reviewed by the EIB for refinancing. The commercial risk is normally borne by the intermediary. However, for some operations on European Development Fund resources managed by the EIB in developing countries, the EIB can decide to share the commercial risk (up to 50%) with the financial intermediary. On several occasions, the EIB had explained its role to the complainant. In addition, it had pointed out that the first choice of a project is made by the beneficiary without any intervention by the EIB, and that the involvement of the latter only starts after the first choice has been made.

As regards the complainant's allegation that the EIB failed to address the point that he had raised in his letter of 20 January 2004, concerning the Global Loan procedure, it had already been outlined to the complainant beforehand that it was the intermediary which selects both the projects and the beneficiaries for subsequent approval by the EIB.

As regards the complainant's demand to "disclose loud and clear some (if not all) of the projects financed under the said global loan in the past years", the EIB was not in a position to disclose the names of the beneficiaries of Global Loans to the public, in view of the commercial sensitivity of these data which were therefore covered by the exception established by Article 4(vii) of its Rules on Public Access to Documents (the "Rules")(2). The EIB confirmed, however, that a Global Loan to the value of EUR 5 million had been signed with Ventures & Trust Ltd (the intermediary for Nigeria) on 14 June 2002 and that the amount had almost entirely been applied by the latter to finance projects in Nigeria.

As regards the complainant's allegation concerning the alleged failure to reply to his fax of 19 February 2004, several telephone conversations had taken place between the complainant and the EIB. When the relevant fax had been received, the EIB considered that it had already answered the questions raised by the complainant. Furthermore, about ten days after the receipt of the relevant fax, the EIB had received a letter from the Dipartimento per gli Italiani nel mondo (the "Department") raising some further questions about the EIB's financing in Nigeria and mentioning the project presented by the complainant. After some further e-mail exchanges and telephone calls, the EIB informed the Department, by letter of 18 May 2004, about its other projects in Nigeria. The reason why the same procedure had not been followed as regards the complainant's fax of 19 February 2004 was because, on 24 April 2004, the EIB became aware of the fact that the complainant had lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman. From that moment, the EIB followed its usual practice of not maintaining direct contact with the complainant.

In conclusion, as regards the question put by the complainant in his fax of 19 February 2004 concerning which projects had benefited from the Global Loan, it had been answered in the EIB's opinion to the Ombudsman. As regards the question concerning the future possibilities for SMEs in Nigeria, the complainant had already been informed that the EIB was negotiating in order to conclude a Global Loan with a new intermediary in Nigeria, but that, for the time being, no information had been published.

The complainant's observations

In his observations of 12 August 2004, the complainant took note of the explanation given by the EIB. He asked, however, why the EIB argued that it was not in a position to disclose the names of the beneficiaries of Global Loans to the public in view of the commercial sensitivity of this data, and why it had invoked the exception established by Article 4(vii) of the Rules. The EIB's position was, in the complainant's view, unclear since this exception appeared to apply only in the case of beneficiaries who receive "indirect loans" and not in the case of those who receive "direct loans".

Further inquiries
First request for further information

After careful consideration of the EIB's opinion and the complainant's observations, it appeared that further inquiries were necessary.

On 11 November 2004, the Ombudsman therefore wrote to the EIB and asked it to comment on the complainant's observations, namely, (a) on the fact that the complainant had questioned the EIB's argument that it was not in a position to disclose the names of the beneficiaries of Global Loans to the public in view of the commercial sensitivity of this data, and (b) on the fact that the EIB had invoked the exception established by Article 4(vii) of the Rules on Public Access to Documents. The Ombudsman further asked the EIB to comment on the complainant's view that the EIB's position was unclear since this exception appeared to apply only in the case of beneficiaries who receive "indirect loans" and not in the case of those who receive "direct loans".

The EIB's reply

In its reply to the Ombudsman's request for further information, the EIB clarified that its Information Policy(3) and its Rules applied to all projects financed by the EIB, and therefore to both direct and indirect loans, the first of which is granted directly to the promoter and the second granted to the promoter through an intermediary, that is, the borrower. In principle, all projects appeared on the project pipeline list with the exception of those projects for which the promoter specifically requested confidentiality to protect commercial interests.

Regarding Global Loans, the EIB published on its website the list of financial intermediaries handling the EIB's Global Loans, as these are its counterparts in the relevant contractual relationship. The list is intended to enable parties to contact potential financial intermediaries with a view to financing their investment projects. Financial intermediaries appraise and select projects, which would be eligible for EIB financing under a Global Loan. Final beneficiaries have therefore a contractual relationship with the financial intermediary and not with the EIB. The EIB cannot disclose any confidential information obtained through the intermediary.

The refusal of the EIB to disclose the name of final beneficiaries of Global Loans to the public was in accordance with Article 4(vii) of the Rules on Public Access to Documents.

The complainant's observations

In his observations, the complainant stated that he has been living in Nigeria for twenty-five years and that he was not aware of even one project which benefited from a financing through the Global Loan granted to Ventures & Trust Ltd. According to the complainant, since in Nigeria banks grant loans with 30% interest, these banks were not interested in acting as intermediate beneficiaries and granting loans with much lower interest rates (4% to 5%).

The complainant also referred to the fact that the European Investment Bank Guidelines on Fighting Corruption and Fraud (of 19 November 2004), affirmed "zero tolerance when credible evidence of corruption exists among its staff or [in an] EIB-financed project". In the complainant's view, the situation existing in Nigeria spoke for itself.

The complainant finally stated that his reply should not be considered as further observations to be forwarded to the EIB but as his final comments on the situation described in his complaint and further correspondence.

Second request for further information

On 15 December 2005, the Ombudsman wrote a further letter to the President of the EIB, since he considered that he still needed further information in order to deal with the present complaint. Accordingly, he asked the EIB to specify the concrete contents of the "professional ethics, rules and practices applicable in the banking and financial sector" that it considered would be affected in case of disclosure of the relevant information.

The EIB's reply dated 31 January 2006

In its reply, the EIB stressed that Article 287 of the EC Treaty prohibits the disclosure of information of the kind covered by the obligation of professional secrecy, in particular, information about enterprises , their business relations or their cost components. In the light of this and of the established case-law of the Community courts(4), which also accords special protection for business secrets, the EIB considered that disclosure of detailed information on global loans would have infringed the rights of third parties to have their legitimate commercial interests kept confidential.

The EIB further stated that, due to its specific status as a financing institution, it must ensure mutual trust with its counterparts by respecting banking secrecy and the confidentiality of market sensitive information in compliance with European and national regulations and banking sector standards. Moreover, depending on the country of operation, the EIB's activities were also subject to national rules and practices. Regarding the obligation of banking secrecy, it was a widely recognised concept in the national legislation of the EU Member States and in laws adopted by various professional associations. The EIB's counterparts had a legitimate right to expect that the EIB would act within the established legal framework and that it would not divulge information protected by the obligation of banking confidentiality(5).

Regarding the project under discussion in the present case, the EIB explained that, according to the provisions of the contract signed with the financial intermediary, the EIB might have been obliged to divulge information relating to the final beneficiary to the Court of Auditors. However, since this was the only exception foreseen in the relevant contract, the EIB's liability could have been engaged if it had divulged such information, without specific authorisation, to parties other than the Court of Auditors.

The complainant's observations

No observations on the EIB's reply were received from the complainant.

THE DECISION

1 Preliminary remarks

1.1 The Ombudsman notes that the complainant, in his observations on the reply given by the European Investment Bank ("EIB") to the Ombudsman's first request for further information, referred to the fact that he was not aware of even one project which benefited from financing through the Global Loan granted to Ventures & Trust Ltd.

The complainant also referred to the fact that the EIB Guidelines on Fighting Corruption and Fraud (of 19 November 2004), affirmed "zero tolerance when credible evidence of corruption exists among its staff or [in an] EIB-financed project". In the complainant's view, the situation existing in Nigeria spoke for itself.

However, the complainant also stressed that his letter should not be considered as further observations to be forwarded to the EIB but as his final comments on the situation described in his complaint and further correspondence.

1.2 The Ombudsman's decision is therefore limited to the allegations and claims which the complainant made in the original complaint.

2 The complainant's allegation that the EIB failed to address the points of his letter of 20 January 2004 and the complainant's claim

2.1 On 10 September 2003, ITALTILE, an Italian company, made an application for financing under the Global Loans for Small and Medium-scale enterprises ("SMEs") of the EIB, in order to set up a plant for the production of spaghetti in Nigeria. This application was sent to Ventures & Trusts Ltd, the EIB's intermediary responsible for Nigeria.

In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that the EIB, in its reply of 28 January 2004, failed to address the points raised by him in his letter of 20 January 2004(6). The complainant claimed that the EIB should provide him with this information. According to the complainant, the EIB should disclose to him the projects financed under the same Global Loan for which his company, ITALTILE, had applied in August 2003.

2.2 In its opinion on the complaint, the EIB explained that a Global Loan is a line of credit to an intermediary financial institution, which then on-lends the proceeds (sub-loans or allocations) to final beneficiaries in order to finance small and medium-scale projects. It further added that the relevant procedure had already been outlined to the complainant beforehand.

As regards the complainant's point about the possibility to "disclose loud and clear some (if not all) of the projects financed under the said Global Loan in the past years", the EIB stressed that it was not in a position to disclose the names of the beneficiaries of Global Loans to the public in view of the commercial sensitivity of these data which were therefore covered by the exception established by Article 4(vii) of the EIB's Rules on Public Access to Documents(7) (the "Rules"). The EIB confirmed, however, that a Global Loan to the value of EUR 5 million had been signed with Ventures & Trust Ltd (the intermediary for Nigeria) on 14 June 2002 and that the amount had almost entirely been applied by the latter to finance projects in Nigeria.

2.3 In his observations, the complainant stated that the EIB's argument that it was not in a position to disclose the names of the beneficiaries of Global Loans to the public in view of the commercial sensitivity of this data was unclear. Furthermore, he stated that the EIB's reasons for invoking the exception established by Article 4(vii) of the Rules were unclear. In his view, this exception applied only in the case of beneficiaries who receive "indirect loans" and not in the case of those who receive "direct loans", whose names were published on the EIB's website.

2.4 On 12 November 2004, the Ombudsman wrote to the EIB and asked it to comment on the complainant's observations.

2.5 In its reply, the EIB explained that its Rules applied to all projects financed by the Bank, and therefore to both direct and indirect loans, the first of which is granted directly to the promoter and the second granted to the promoter through an intermediary, that is, the borrower. The EIB stated that, regarding Global Loans, it publishes on its website the list of financial intermediaries handling the EIB's Global Loans, as these are its counterparts in the relevant contractual relationship. The list also enables parties to contact potential financial intermediaries with a view to financing their investment projects. Financial intermediaries appraise and select projects, which would be eligible for EIB financing under a Global Loan. Final beneficiaries therefore have a contractual relationship with the financial intermediary and not with the EIB. It thus cannot disclose any confidential information obtained through the intermediary.

The refusal by the EIB to disclose the name of final beneficiaries of Global Loans to the public was therefore in accordance with Article 4(vii) of its Rules.

2.6 By further letter of 15 December 2005, the Ombudsman asked the EIB to specify the concrete contents of the "professional ethics, rules and practices applicable in the banking and financial sector" that it considered would be affected in case of disclosure of the relevant information.

2.7 In its reply, the EIB stressed that Article 287 of the EC Treaty prohibited the disclosure of information of the kind covered by the obligation of professional secrecy, in particular, information about enterprises, their business relations or their cost components. In the light of this and of the established case-law of the Community courts(8), which also accords special protection for business secrets, the EIB considered that disclosure of detailed information on global loans would have infringed the rights of third parties to have their legitimate commercial interests kept confidential.

The EIB further stated that, due to its specific status as a financing institution, it must ensure mutual trust with its counterparts by respecting banking secrecy and the confidentiality of market sensitive information in compliance with European and national regulations and banking sector standards. The EIB's counterparts had the legitimate right to expect that it would act within the established legal framework and that it would not divulge information protected by the obligation of banking confidentiality(9).

Regarding the project under discussion in the complainant's complaint, the EIB explained that, according to the provisions of the contract signed with the financial intermediary, the EIB might be obliged to divulge information relating to the final beneficiary to the Court of Auditors. However, since this was the only exception foreseen in the relevant contract, the EIB's liability could have been engaged if it had divulged such information, without specific authorisation, to parties other than the Court of Auditors.

2.8 No observations on the EIB's reply were received from the complainant.

2.9 The Ombudsman notes that the EIB interpreted the complainant's point made in his letter of 20 January 2004, concerning the possible disclosure by the EIB of some (if not all) of the projects financed under the Global Loan to which ITALTILE had applied, as a request for access to documents.

2.10 The relevant legislation concerning access to documents in the EIB's possession is the Rules adopted in 1997(10) and revised in October 2002. According to the sixth recital of the Rules, the EIB recognises that documents should be publicly available to the maximum extent possible.

However, in accordance with Article 287 of the EC Treaty, which prohibits the disclosure of information of the kind covered by the obligation of professional secrecy, in particular, information about enterprises, their business relations or their cost components, the EIB must, when dealing with a request for access to documents, ensure that the promoters of projects, actual and potential borrowers, as well as other parties involved in the implementation or financing of a project, can rely on the confidentiality of their proceedings with it.

2.11 In the present case, the Ombudsman notes the EIB justified its non-disclosure of the information requested by the complainant on the basis of the exception established by Article 4(vii) of the Rules, according to which access to all or part of a document shall be refused where its disclosure would undermine the protection of the obligation of professional secrecy where such disclosure would be contrary to professional ethics, rules and practices applicable in the banking and financial sector.

The EIB further added that it could not disclose any confidential information obtained through the financial intermediary.

2.12 The Ombudsman further notes that a document published in October 2002 and available on the EIB's website(11) concerning "Public Access to information - How EIB communicates - an overview" specifically deals, inter alia, with "Information on Global Loans". According to the relevant section of the above-mentioned document, "information of individual Global Loan allocations is the competence of the intermediary bank, as business partner for the beneficiary, carrying the project's commercial risk and signing the financing contract".

2.13 In light of the above, it emerges that the EIB has adopted a practice of not disclosing detailed information related to Global Loans allocations, on the basis of the fact that the final beneficiaries have a contractual relationship with the financial intermediary and not with the EIB.

2.14 The Ombudsman further considers that, in its reply to his second request for further information, the EIB referred to the established case-law of the Community courts(12), which accords special protection for business secrets, and explained that disclosure of detailed information on global loans would infringe the rights of third parties to have their legitimate commercial interests kept confidential. Regarding the project under discussion in the present case, the EIB explained that, according to the provisions of the contract signed with the financial intermediary, the EIB might be obliged to divulge information relating to the final beneficiary to the Court of Auditors. However, since this was the only exception foreseen in the relevant contract, the EIB's liability could have been engaged if it had divulged such information, without specific authorisation, to parties other than the Court of Auditors.

2.15 In the light of the explanations given by the EIB in the course of the inquiry and of the last specifications provided in its reply to second request for further information, which have not been disputed by the complainant, the Ombudsman takes the view that the EIB's practice on the relevant issue appears to be legitimate. In view of this, the Ombudsman considers that the EIB's position not to disclose information concerning the beneficiaries of Global Loans on the basis of the exception foreseen by Article 4(vii) of the Rules on Public Access to Documents was justified.

It therefore appears that there has been no maladministration regarding this aspect of the case.

3 Alleged failure by the EIB to reply to the complainant's fax of 19 February 2004 and the complainant's claim that the EIB should reply

3.1 In his complaint, the complainant alleged that the EIB had failed to reply to his fax of 19 February 2004 and claimed that it should do so.

3.2 In its opinion, the EIB stated that it had held several telephone conversations with the complainant and that, when receiving the relevant fax, it considered that it had already answered the questions raised by the complainant in his fax. Furthermore, about ten days after the receipt of the fax of 19 February 2004, the EIB had received a letter from the "Dipartimento per gli Italiani nel mondo" (the "Department") raising some further questions about the EIB's financing in Nigeria and mentioning the project presented by the complainant. After some further e-mail exchanges and telephone calls, by letter of 18 May 2004, the EIB had informed the Department about its further projects in Nigeria. The reason why the same procedure had not been followed as regards the complainant's fax of 19 February 2004 was because, on 24 April 2004, the EIB became aware of the fact that the complainant had lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman. From that moment, the EIB followed its usual practice of not maintaining direct contact with the complainant.

3.3 Principles of good administration require that institutions reply to citizens' queries within a reasonable time. In the present case, the complainant sent a fax to the EIB on 19 February 2004. No reply was given to the complainant by the EIB. The Ombudsman notes that the EIB has justified its behaviour by stressing that it considered that it had already replied in substance to the points raised by the complainant in his fax during several telephone conversations with him.

The Ombudsman notes, however, that the EIB has not established that a written reply was unnecessary. Furthermore, he considers that the EIB's reply to the Department, by letter of 18 May 2004, does not appear to be relevant as a justification for the EIB's failure to reply to the complainant himself.

3.4 As regards the EIB's point that, from the date the EIB received the Ombudsman's letter opening the present inquiry, that is, on 24 April 2004, the EIB followed its usual practice of not maintaining direct contact with the complainant, the Ombudsman does not consider this explanation to be sufficient to justify the failure to reply to the complainant's fax of 19 February 2004. The Ombudsman further takes the view that the fact that a citizen has lodged a complaint with him should not lead the Community institution or body concerned to discontinue direct contacts with the complainant.

3.5 In view of the above, the Ombudsman considers that the EIB's failure to reply to the complainant's fax of 19 February 2004 therefore constitutes an instance of maladministration. The Ombudsman therefore makes a critical remark below.

3.6 In the light of the conclusion reached in point 3.5, the Ombudsman takes the view that no further action appears to be necessary as regards the complainant's claim.

4 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, it is necessary to make the following critical remark:

Principles of good administration require that institutions reply to citizens' queries within a reasonable time. In the present case, the complainant sent a fax to the EIB on 19 February 2004.

The failure by the European Investment Bank to reply to this fax of 19 February 2004 constitutes an instance of maladministration.

Given that this aspect of the case concerns procedures relating to specific events in the past, it is not appropriate to pursue a friendly settlement of the matter. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

The President of the European Investment Bank will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) The decision is available at: http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/decision/en/043442.htm.

(2) OJ 2002 C 292, p. 10.

(3) It appears that the document to which the EIB referred to was a document called "Public access to information - How EIB communicates - an overview", adopted in October 2002.

(4) Case T-353/94 Postbank NV v Commission [1994] ECR II-921 and Case 53/85 AKZO Chemie BV and AKZO Chemie UK Ltd v Commission [1986] ECR 1965.

(5) The EIB further recalled that the Ombudsman, when dealing with a similar case (3442/2004/PB), concluded in its decision that the EIB's policy of not giving detailed information on global loan allocations was legitimate.

(6) In this letter, the complainant questioned the way in which the application submitted by ITALTILE had been handled and stated that, in order to dispel doubts, a solution could be to disclose loudly and clearly some (if not all) of the projects financed under the said Global Loan in the previous years.

(7) OJ 2002 C 292, p. 10.

(8) Case T-353/94 Postbank NV v Commission [1994] ECR II-921 and Case 53/85 AKZO Chemie BV and AKZO Chemie UK Ltd v Commission [1986] ECR 1965.

(9) The EIB further recalled that the Ombudsman, when dealing with a similar case (3442/2004/PB), concluded in its decision that the EIB's policy of not giving detailed information on global loan allocations was legitimate.

(10) OJ 1997 C 243, p. 13.

(11) http://www.eib.eu.int/Attachments/strategies/howeibcom_en.pdf.

(12) Case T-353/94 Postbank NV v Commission [1994] ECR II-921 and Case 53/85 AKZO Chemie BV and AKZO Chemie UK Ltd v Commission [1986] ECR 1965.