Executive summary
On 2 July 2026, the European Ombudsman opened an inquiry into how the European Investment Bank handled a complaint concerning the EIB-financed Poklečani Wind Farm in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The complainant alleged that the project was not compliant with EU environmental law, the Aarhus Convention and the EIB’s Environmental and Social Standards. The complainant also argued that the EIB Complaints Mechanism had not conducted an objective, thorough and transparent investigation.
These are allegations in an open inquiry. No final finding has been made by the Ombudsman. The public-interest question is therefore not whether the project or the EIB has already been proven to have breached applicable rules. It is what evidence an EU lender should be able to produce when its own internal accountability mechanism is challenged.
Why the case matters
Development banks do not only finance projects. They also establish safeguards, monitor compliance and operate complaint mechanisms intended to provide an avenue of review when affected communities or civil-society organisations raise concerns.
This creates a dual accountability question:
- Was the financed project assessed and monitored in accordance with the applicable environmental and social standards?
- Was the complaint about that assessment handled through an independent, reasoned and evidence-based process?
A complaint mechanism cannot demonstrate effectiveness merely by showing that a complaint was registered, reviewed and closed. The quality of the process depends on the evidence examined, the reasoning used, the treatment of conflicting information and the remedy available.
Core forensic question
What documentary trace must the EIB produce to demonstrate that its Complaints Mechanism conducted an objective, thorough and transparent review?
The expected trace should allow an external reviewer to understand:
- the precise allegations examined;
- the standards applied to each allegation;
- the documents and expert evidence reviewed;
- whether affected parties were heard;
- how conflicting evidence was assessed;
- whether site-specific environmental and social risks were independently verified;
- how the final conclusions followed from the evidence;
- which corrective actions were considered.
Expected evidence matrix
| Issue | Expected official trace |
|---|---|
| Scope of the complaint | Complaint, admissibility decision and issue-by-issue investigation plan |
| Applicable standards | EIB environmental and social rules, relevant EU-law analysis and Aarhus-related assessment |
| Evidence review | Document register, technical studies, correspondence and records of interviews or consultations |
| Independence | Conflict-of-interest safeguards and separation between project teams and complaint reviewers |
| Site verification | Inspection records, expert opinions or reasoned explanation if no inspection occurred |
| Participation | Records showing how complainants, authorities and affected communities were heard |
| Conclusions | Claim-by-claim reasoning linking evidence to findings |
| Follow-up | Recommendations, deadlines, monitoring records and implementation status |
Risk of administrative formalism
A complaint mechanism may produce several administratively correct outputs without demonstrating substantive accountability:
- a case number;
- an admissibility decision;
- a conclusions report;
- a list of consulted documents;
- a statement that standards were considered;
- a formal closure notice.
Those outputs are necessary, but they are not sufficient. The central test is whether the published or inspectable record shows how disputed facts were resolved.
A possible formalism pattern is:
The institution proves that a complaint procedure occurred, while the complainant challenges whether a genuine investigation occurred.
Alternative explanations
The opening of an Ombudsman inquiry does not establish that the EIB Complaints Mechanism acted improperly. The Ombudsman may ultimately find that the EIB’s investigation was sufficiently objective and complete.
Some requested information may also be subject to legitimate confidentiality, commercial-sensitivity or personal-data restrictions. Such restrictions do not necessarily justify withholding the structure of the reasoning, the categories of evidence reviewed or the basis for the final findings.
It is also possible that the complaint raises issues overlapping with other administrative or judicial procedures. Any overlap should be documented so that the division of competence is clear.
Preliminary assessment
The case is significant because it tests the credibility of an internal accountability mechanism attached to an EU financial institution. Where the mechanism itself is challenged, institutional trust depends on a reviewable evidence chain rather than on the authority of the mechanism’s own conclusions.
The strongest outcome would not merely state whether the EIB Complaints Mechanism reached a defensible result. It would clarify the minimum procedural and evidentiary standard that such a mechanism must meet in future cases.
Questions to monitor
- What documents will the EIB provide to the Ombudsman?
- Did the Complaints Mechanism independently test the contested environmental and social claims?
- Were the complainant’s principal arguments addressed individually?
- Were affected communities given a meaningful opportunity to contribute?
- Did the mechanism distinguish compliance with national permits from compliance with EIB standards?
- What follow-up or corrective measures were considered?
- Will the Ombudsman publish the EIB’s response and the final decision?
Recommended Civic Forensics modules
- Analysis of Institutional Conduct
- Evidence Register
- Expected Evidence Trace Plan
- Actor and Competence Map
- Legal and Ethical Publication Review
- Final Forensic Report
Source
European Ombudsman, How the European Investment Bank handled a complaint raising concerns about a wind energy project in Bosnia and Herzegovina that received EIB funding , case 2920/2025/KW, inquiry opened 2 July 2026: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/case/en/70800
Limitations
This analysis is based on the Ombudsman’s opening summary. The inquiry is ongoing. It makes no finding that the Poklečani project, the EIB or any other actor breached environmental, financial or administrative rules.