President
European Investment Bank

 

Dear President,

I have received a complaint against the European Investment Bank concerning its operations involving Israeli entities that have been listed by the UN as involved in the activities mentioned in paragraph 96 of report A/HRC/22/63[1] of the United Nations Human Rights Council.[2] The purpose of the UN database[3] is to list entities involved in activities in the occupied territories.

I have decided to open an inquiry into this complaint to receive additional information on how the EIB handles funding of projects involving entities listed on the UN database and on how the EIB and its Complaints Mechanism deal with complaints submitted about this, including by EIB staff members.

To this end, I have decided that it is necessary for my inquiry team to meet with the relevant representatives of the EIB and of the EIB Complaints Mechanism and to inspect the documents mentioned in annex, which should be provided by the EIB, preferably in electronic format, ahead of the meeting and no later than 13 October 2025. Information or documents that your institution considers to be confidential will not be disclosed to the complainant or any other person without the prior agreement of the EIB.[4]

You will find a list of the topics that I expect to be discussed during the meeting in annex to this letter.

I would be grateful if your office could contact Mr Vieri Biondi, who is in charge of this inquiry, to agree the arrangements for the inspection and meeting to take place before 31 October 2025.

Yours sincerely,

Teresa Anjinho
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 02/10/2025

 

ANNEX

List of topics to be discussed during the meeting and documents to be inspected

The EIB’s financing of projects involving Israeli entities that are listed by the UN as involved in the activities mentioned in paragraph 96 of report HRC/22/63 of the United Nations Human Rights Council

The complainant raises concerns about the EIB’s decision to finance projects involving entities listed on the UN database. He considers that these entities are involved in illegal activities in the occupied territories that are in breach of fundamental rights and that, consequently, the EIB should not finance projects involving them.

I understand from the reply that the EIB sent to the complainant in the context of the Ombudsman’s previous inquiry,[5] that the EIB considers that the fact that an entity is listed on the UN database does not have any legal implications or consequences. The EIB also stated that it considers that the lending to Bank of Leumi is fully in line with the applicable EU guidelines, which require final recipients of financial instruments not to operate in the occupied territories.

During the meeting, I would appreciate that you provide further explanations on how the EIB decides whether to finance or not a project that involves an entity listed on the UN database and what actions the EIB can take, if subsequent to the funding decision, it becomes aware of concerns of non-compliance with its Human Rights policies and/or EU Guidelines.

In particular, I would appreciate it if the EIB could elaborate on its position that the listing of a company on the UN database does not have any legal implications or consequences. While the listing of an entity might not be legally binding on the EIB, EU institutions should comply with decisions and guidance issued by the UN. The EIB itself indicates on its website that it is deeply committed to complying with international human rights laws and standards, such the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Thus, considering that the listing of an entity on the UN database does not have any consequence, beyond reputational risk, would not appear to be in line with such commitments nor with the values on which the EU is built.

In addition to this, I would appreciate if the EIB could clarify its argument that funding these projects is allowed under EU guidelines.

The guidelines issued by the European Commission in 2013[6] require, in the case of financial instruments, that Israeli entities do not operate in the occupied territories, either in the framework of the EU funded financial instruments or otherwise (emphasis added).

The wording of the guidelines seems to imply that any kind of activity in the occupied territories would automatically lead to the Israeli entity being considered ineligible for EU funding. The purpose of the UN database is precisely to list entities involved in activities in the occupied territories. In light of this, it is not immediately clear how the funding issued by the EIB to the Bank of Leumi (and also to the other project mentioned by the complainant - Tel Aviv Lrt Green Line) would be in line with the EU guidelines.

In light of this, I would appreciate if the EIB could clarify if it follows the same approach as described in the EU guidelines issued by the Commission when deciding on funding to Israeli entities and, if so, how it interprets the requirements set out therein.

In addition, I would appreciate receiving the view of the EIB Complaints Mechanism on this matter during the meeting.

The handling of complaints from staff members by the EIB and its Complaints Mechanism

According to the information available to the Ombudsman, the complainant had first turned to the EIB legal department, which advised him to contact the EIB Office of the Chief Compliance Officer (OCCO). The complainant did so on 30 May 2024. The complainant obtained a substantive reply from the EIB only on 2 December 2024, following an inquiry of the Ombudsman.[7]

During the meeting, I would appreciate if the EIB could explain how it dealt with the complainant’s request and why it took it so long to reply to the complainant.

In its reply to the complainant, the EIB said that “concerns about the operations, eligibility criteria, integrity, compliance and other relevant aspects are to be addressed in the context of the operation’s approval. The EIB procedures do not foresee a request for review coming from a staff member outside of the decision-making process. As members of public or citizens, they may lodge a complaint of maladministration by the Bank with the EIB Complaints Mechanism”.

On 17 May 2025, the complainant submitted a complaint to the EIB Complaints Mechanism about the matter. On 3 June 2025, the Complaints Mechanism rejected the complaint as inadmissible considering that it had been submitted beyond the relevant timeframe and that the complainant was not eligible to turn to the Complaints Mechanism. Regarding this second ground of rejection, the Complaints Mechanism referred to Article 4.3.5 of its Policy, which provides that “Complaints submitted by the EIB Group’s staff are not handled by the EIBCM. Such cases are addressed through other internal mechanisms, such as those managed by Personnel and EIF HR for employment-related matters, or by the Compliance Directorate (OCCO) and EIF Compliance for issues related to the EIB Group’s Code of Conduct”.  

During the meeting, I would appreciate if the EIB and the EIB Complaints Mechanism could clarify the apparently conflicting information provided to the complainant as to the possibility to turn to the Complaints Mechanism. I would also appreciate if the Complaints Mechanism could elaborate on its interpretation of Article 4.3.5 of the Complaints Mechanism Policy. In particular, I would like to understand from the Complaints Mechanism why it considers that EIB staff members should not be allowed to turn, as citizens, to the Complaints Mechanism when they complain about matters that are unrelated to their position in the EIB, as it was also indicated by the EIB to the complainant.

Documents to be inspected

I would appreciate receiving copies of the following documents:

• copies of any internal exchanges or consultations within EIB’s internal departments/divisions/offices on the complainant’s request of May 2024;
• all relevant EIB policies and standards concerning the protection of Human Rights in its lending decisions;
• any internal document or guidance issued to staff on how to assess projects involving entities listed in the UN database;
• a list of all current or past projects funded by the EIB involving entities listed in the UN database. For each of these projects, please provide us with copies of any internal document setting out the EIB’s assessment of the fact that entities involved in the project were listed in the UN database in light of the EIB’s policies on Human Rights and the EU’s guidelines;
• copy of any decision issued by the EIB Complaints Mechanism on complaints concerning funding to entities listed in the UN database, if any.

 

[1] Report of the independent international fact-finding mission to investigate the implications of the Israeli settlements on the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, A/HRC/22/63, https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/22/63.

[2] Paragraph 96 of report HRC/22/63 lists the following activities:

· The supply of equipment and materials facilitating the construction and the expansion of settlements and the wall, and associated infrastructures

· The supply of surveillance and identification equipment for settlements, the wall and checkpoints directly linked with settlements

· The supply of equipment for the demolition of housing and property, the destruction of agricultural farms, greenhouses, olives groves and crops

· The supply of security services, equipment and materials to enterprises operating in settlements

· The provision of services and utilities supporting the maintenance and existence of settlements, including transport

· Banking and financial operations helping to develop, expand or maintain settlements and their activities, including loans for housing and the development of businesses

· The use of natural resources, in particular water and land, for business purposes

· Pollution, and the dumping of waste in or its transfer to Palestinian villages

· Captivity of the Palestinian financial and economic markets, as well as practices that disadvantage Palestinian enterprises, including through restrictions on movement, administrative and legal constraints

· Use of benefits and reinvestments of enterprises owned totally or partially by settlers for developing, expanding and maintaining the settlements

[3] https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/regular-sessions/session31/database-hrc3136.

[4] Please clearly mark such material ‘Confidential’. Encrypted emails can be sent to our dedicated mailbox. Information and documents of this kind will be deleted from the European Ombudsman’s files shortly after the inquiry has ended.

[5] Complaint 1899/2024/VB.

[6] Guidelines on the eligibility of Israeli entities and their activities in the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967 for grants, prizes and financial instruments funded by the EU from 2014 onwards, 2013/C 205/05, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52013XC0719(03).

[7] Complaint 1899/2024/VB.