Dear Mr X,

On 1 January 2019, you filed a complaint^[1] with the European Ombudsman against the European Commission concerning its alleged failure to deal adequately with your infringement complaint (CHAP(2018)003069) against Slovenia. The Ombudsman has asked me to deal with your complaint and reply to you on her behalf.

Your infringement complaint concerned the adoption of the Act Regulating the Construction, Operation and Management of the Second Track of the Divača-Koper Railway Line (‘the Slovenian Act on the Railway Line’) and its alleged breach of EU environmental law. You argued, in particular, that the construction would be detrimental to the biodiversity and that it would cause irreversible damage to the karst in the affected region. You also complained about the inaction of national environmental organisations and of the inefficiency of the national legal system in Slovenia.

In your complaint to the Ombudsman, you argue that the Commission wrongly closed your case concluding that the project for the construction of the railway track did not breach EU environmental law.

After a careful analysis of all the information you provided, I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not find that the Commission’s handling of your complaint amounts to maladministration.

The Commission informed you in detail of the reasons why it closed your case. It said that your infringement complaint concerned primarily the Slovenian Act on the Railway Line, and not the environmental impact assessment or planning authorisations for the project. The Commission also stated that the project is supported by three grant agreements of the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF). The agreements contain an environmental clause requiring that the beneficiary to ensure compliance of the project with the environmental legislation. In this context, the Commission itself assessed the project and concluded that the project complied with EU environmental rules as appropriate mitigating measures have been foreseen and a specific protocol has been put in place. Moreover, the Commission noted that the project has undergone all the prescribed legal procedures, including the impact assessment under the Habitats Directive^[2]. The impact on the Val Rosandra nature reserve in Italy have also been considered under a transboundary environmental impact assessment. In accordance with the Water Framework Directive^[3], the Commission assessed the information provided by the competent national authorities concerning the impact on the karst aquifer.

In addition, the Commission was right that it could not comment in general on the effectiveness of the Slovenian legal system or on the actions of Slovenian civil society organisations.

Thus, there is no evidence of an error in the Commission’s decision to close the infringement complaint because there was no breach of EU environmental legislation. The information provided in the complaint appears not to reveal maladministration and we have therefore closed the case.

While you may be disappointed with this outcome, we nevertheless hope you find these explanations helpful.

Finally, I note that during the inquiry, you sent several e-mails regarding the European Investment Bank (EIB). Please note that this complaint concerns the Commission only. Your concerns addressed to the EIB are therefore not within the scope of this inquiry.

Yours sincerely,

Marta Hirsch-Ziembińska
Head of Inquiries and ICT - Unit 1

Strasbourg, 30/08/2019

 

 

[1] Full information on the procedure and rights pertaining to complaints can be found at: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/document/70707

[2] Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

[3] Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy.