President European Investment Bank

 

Dear President,

I have received a complaint from CEE Bankwatch Network against the European Investment Bank (EIB).

The complaint concerns the EIB’s reply to a request for internal review, submitted by the complainant on 14 May 2024, regarding the EIB Board of Directors’ decision to approve the financing proposal for the Poklečani Wind Farm (“the Project”) in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

In its reply, the EIB concluded that the elements raised in the request did not justify the need for any additional action by the EIB in relation to the financing of the Project.

In its complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant challenges the EIB’s reply to the request for internal review, maintaining its position that the EIB approved the financing of the Project without properly categorising its environmental and social risks, which had consequences for the EIB’s environmental and social due diligence.[1] The complainant also alleges a lack of disclosure of environmental information in relation to the Project, as required by the EU Aarhus Regulation^[2].

After a careful assessment of all the information provided, I have decided to open an inquiry into the aspect of the complaint which concerns the EIB’s reply to the request for internal review.

As a first step, I have concluded that it would be useful to receive a written reply from the EIB on the matter, which should also address the questions annexed to this letter.

I would be grateful to receive the EIB's reply by 5 August 2026.

Please note that I am likely to send your reply and related enclosures to the complainant for comments. I may also decide to publish your reply. If you wish to submit documents or information that you consider to be confidential, and which should not be disclosed to the complainant, please mark them ‘Confidential’[3].

Furthermore, I consider it necessary for my inquiry team to inspect the relevant documents and correspondence concerning the EIB’s approval of the Project. This should include:

1. EIB documentation, such as exchanges, notes and reports concerning the proposal, at pre-appraisal and appraisal stage, on the environmental, climate and social due diligence process for the Project in question.

2. the finance contract, including its annexes such as the Environmental and Social Action Plan (ESAP);

3. all relevant environmental and social assessments and the EIB’s comments thereon, including the draft preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of 2023, the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) of August 2023, the Critical Habitat Assessment of November 2023, the Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) of February 2024, February 2024 draft Land Acquisition and Compensation Plan (LACP), Draft Biodiversity Management Plan (BMP).

I would be grateful to receive the above documents, preferably in electronic format through encrypted e-mail,^[4] by 27 May 2026.

Once my inquiry team has assessed the documents and the EIB’s written reply, I will decide if it is necessary to arrange a meeting with relevant representatives of the EIB to discuss this case.

The inquiries officer responsible for the case is Ms Kristina Wittkopp.

If, in the course of this inquiry, the EIB becomes involved in court proceedings concerning the same subject matter as this complaint, I would ask you to let us know.

Please note that I considered the aspect of the complaint concerning the alleged non-disclosure of environmental information under the Aarhus Regulation[5] to be inadmissible, as this argument was not raised in the request for internal review and therefore does not fall within the scope of this inquiry. I have informed the complainant accordingly.

Yours sincerely,

Teresa Anjinho
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 05/05/2026

 

Annex: Questions to the EIB in case 3556/2025/KW

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

The complainant argues that the EIB approved the financing of the Poklečani Wind Farm without properly categorising the Project’s environmental and social risk, in breach of its own Environmental and Social Policy, its Environmental and Social Handbook and the applicable Environmental and Social Standards. According to the complainant, this omission deprived the EIB Board of Directors of essential environmental information and undermined informed decision making.

The complainant also considers that, contrary to the EIB’s claim, this omission had concrete effects on the environmental and social due diligence. In particular, it argues that the failure to categorise the Project:

(i) created uncertainty as to which environmental and social standards applied, including whether an EIA or ESIA and a public participation were required. According to the complainant, project categorisation is a prerequisite under the EIB’s Environmental and Social Framework for determining applicable standards, monitoring obligations, and stakeholder engagement requirements. Despite acknowledging the need for more comprehensive environmental studies, the EIB did not categorise the project and failed to clearly inform both the public and its Board of Directors of the applicable standards and resulting conditionalities.

(ii) resulted in the absence of a lawful environmental impact assessment and meaningful public participation, as required under the EIA Directive[6]. While the EIB requested and disclosed additional environmental studies, the complainant maintains that these cannot substitute for an EIA carried out by the competent national authority through a formal public decision‑making process.

(iii) resulted in the absence of an ‘Appropriate Assessment’ required under the Habitats Directive[7] and EIB Standard 4, despite the project’s proximity to proposed Natura 2000 sites and other protected areas. Although the EIB required additional biodiversity studies, the complainant maintains that these cannot substitute an Appropriate Assessment conducted by a competent authority and embedded in a formal decision-making process.

Questions to the EIB

The Ombudsman would be grateful if the EIB could, in its written reply,

address the matters raised in the complaint regarding the EIB’s reply to the request for internal review, including also a reply to the following questions:

1. Could the EIB explain how it handles requests for internal review, in terms of the procedure involved and the composition of the internal entity conducting the review?

2. Could the EIB explain the purpose behind the risk categorisation of projects and whether the outcome of this categorisation affects the applicability of certain standards to the project? Why did the EIB not categorise the risk for the Project in question, in line with paragraph 43 of the EIB’s Environmental and Social Handbook, from 2 December 2013, and paragraph 4.18 of the EIB Group’s Environmental and Social Policy, from 3 February 2022?

3. When did the EIB become aware of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bosnia and Herzegovina taken by the Aarhus Center in BiH challenging the August 2023 screen-out decision? Was this judgment considered by the EIB in this specific case?

4. How did the EIB ensure compliance with the requirement of biodiversity screening before the decision to approve lending for the project? In particular, how does the EIB ensure compliance with the obligation to carry out a biodiversity screening where the Habitats Directive has not yet been transposed into the national law of the candidate country and/or where no competent authority has been appointed at national level, and which would be the standards/legal framework applicable in such case?

 

[1] A more detailed account of the complainant’s arguments is set out in the Annex.

[2] Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies

[3] Encrypted emails can be sent to our dedicated mailbox.

[4] 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] Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies.

[6] Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 26, 28.1.2012, pp. 1–21.

[7] Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora

OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, pp. 7–50.