"1EuropeanInvestmentBank

eM@)ComplaintsMechanism

.,••

• •.!.... . . .

" '~':'': ....•. , "..:...." ...,....•.....~. .., .. , .•...: : ',;'... " '. .

- •• -. • ,.. •• of

" '•.....•.. .~ ..., _. .'• •.. .. .-.• ~• •• •• •• •••••••••••.. .:

#. . '.". •..

Complaints Mechanism - Complaints Mechanism - Complaints Mechanism - Complaints Mechanism

sfax-Gabes Motorway

Tunisia

Abdelhamid BOUCHAHOUA case

Complaint SG/E/2012/01 Autoroute Sfax-Gabes

CONCLUSIONS REPORT

25 November 2013

EIB Complaints Mechanism/Policy Advisor

Prepared by

Andrei COSTICAIG/PA

Julia COLONNA D'ISTRIAIG/CM

Luigi LA MARCAPolicy Advisor

Felismino ALCARPEHead of EIB Complaints Mechanism

External DistributionComplainantBorrower/Promoter

Internal Distribution

Management CommitteeSecretary GeneralInspector GeneralEIB services concerned

2.

stax-aabes Motorway Project

The EIB Complaints Mechanism

The EIB Complaints Mechanism intends to provide the public with a tool enabling alternative and pre-emptive resolution of disputes in caseswhereby the public feels that the EIBGroup did something wrong, i.e.if they consider that the EIBcommitted an act of maladministration. When exercising the right to lodge acomplaint against the EIB,any member of the public has accessto a two-tier procedure, one internal - theComplaints Mechanism Division (EIB-CM)- and one external- the European Ombudsman (EO).

If complainants are not satisfied with a reply from the EIB-CM,they have the right to submit a confirmatorycomplaint within 15 days of the receipt of the EIB-CM's reply. Furthermore, complainants who are notsatisfied with the outcome of the procedure before the EIB-CMand who do not wish to make a confirmatorycomplaint may also lodge a complaint of maladministration against the EIBwith the European Ombudsman.

The EOwas "created" by the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 as an EU institution to which any EUcitizen or entitymay appeal to investigate any EU institution or body on the grounds of maladministration. Maladministrationmeans poor or failed administration. This occurs when the EIB Group fails to act in accordance with theapplicable legislation and/or established policies, standards and procedures, fails to respect the principles ofgood administration or violated human rights. Some examples, as set by the European Ombudsman, are:administrative irregularities, unfairness, discrimination, abuse of power, failure to reply, refusal ofinformation, unnecessary delay. Maladministration may also relate to the environmental or social impacts ofthe EIBGroup activities and to project cycle related policies and other applicable policies of the EIB.

The EIB Complaints Mechanism intends to not only address non-compliance by the EIB to its policies andprocedures but to endeavour to solve the problem(s) raised by complainants such as those regarding theimplementation of projects.

For further and more detailed information regarding the EIBComplaints Mechanism please visit our website:http://www.eib.org/about/cr/governance/complaints/index.htm

Table of contents

1. THE COMPLAINT ••..•••••••..•.......•.••••••••.....•.••••••••••...•......•••••••....•..•.•••••••••.•.••.••..••..•..••••.•••....••..•••••••••.42. THE PROJECT •.....••.•••••••.•.•.•••..••••••••••.••.....••••••••.•....•.•.•••••••••.•...•.•••••••.•..••.••.•••...•.••••••••....•••.•••••••.••••43. COMPLAINANT'S ALLEGATIONS •••.•••....•.•••••••••.....•.•.••••••••••....•.•••••••••••••••.•.•....•••••••••.•..•.••..••••••••..•••.54. COMPLAINANT'S REQUESTS....•..••••••.••..•..•.•••••••.•..•.••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••.••.•.••••••.•..•••.••.•••••••..••..••.••••65. EIB-CM COMPETENCE AND PROCEDURE..•.••••••••..•......•••••••••.•.......•••••••....•.••••••••.••..••.•••.••••.••••••.•••••.66. APPLICABLE LEGAL FRAMEWORK ••••••..•.•••••••••••••..•.•••.••••••••••..•.•••••••.••••.••••.••••••.•.••••.••.......•••••••.•.••.•77. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS •••••••...•.•••.•••••.•••...•.••••••.•.••.•••.•.•••.•....•.•..••••.•.•....•••••••....•.•••••••••••••.••••88. FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP •••••••.•.•.•.•••••••.•.•.•.•.•.••••••••••.••10

3.

EIBComplaints Mechanism/Policy Advisor

CONCLUSIONS REPORT

Complainant: Mr. Abdelhamid BOUCHAHOUADate: 13 February 2012Subject of complaint: Violation of the legal expropriation procedure carried out under the Sfax-Gabesmotorway project (Tunisia)

1. THE COMPLAINT

1.1 On 13 February 2012, Mr Abdelhamid BOUCHAHOUA(hereinafter the complainant) lodged a complaintbye-mail with the EIB Complaints Mechanism (hereinafter EIB-CM), concerning the expropriationprocedure of his land as a result of the construction of the Sfax-GabesMotorway in Tunisia.

1.2 On 27 February 2012, the EIB-CMacknowledged receipt of the complaint and informed the complainantthat a review of his case had been launched as well as the date by which he might expect a formal replyfrom the Bank.

1.3 During the months following the complaint, the EIB-CMcontacted the complainant and STA in order toget additional information and documents for the assessment of the complaint. In the course of theassessment of the case by the EIB-CM,the complaint was supplemented by the complainant with furtherprecisions and documents, including those requested by the EIB-CM.

1.4 On 25 April 2012, the EIB-CMinformed the complainant that it appeared appropriate to extend the timeframe for handling the complaint in order to form a reasoned opinion on his concerns.

1.5 On 3 July 2012 the EIB-CMinformed the complainant, and the project promoter (STA)of its intention tomeet and discuss with all the concerned parties and to conduct an on-site assessment of the situationfrom 2 to 6 September 2012.

2. THE PROJECT

2.1 Project Background

2.1.1 The promoter of the project is the Tunisian company "Societe Tunisie Autoroutes" (hereinafter STA), a100% state-owned toll Motorway Company in charge of the implementation and exploitation of TunisianMotorways.

2.1.2 STAalready operates two other motorways: "Tunis-Bizerte" and "Tunis-Medjez Et Bab" as well as theexisting sections of the Ai highway. The first two mentioned routes constitute the Tunisian part of theTrans-Maghrebian Motorway, an ambitious construction programme that is expected to connect in futureMorocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libyawith a high capacity east-west motorway.

2.1.3 The project consists of the construction of a 155 km long dual two-lane section of the toll motorway Sfax-Gabeswhich forms part of the planned north-south axis of the national motorway programme, set forthin the ti" socio-economic development plan of Tunisia (2007-2011). The project connects with theexisting Ai toll motorway M'Saken-Sfax (97.5 km) and will run southward to Gabes,almost parallel to theexisting, single carriageway national road RNl. It includes the construction of interchanges, rest andservice areas, aswell asseveral main structures (mostly bridges) to cross existing roads.

2.1.4 The project is split into six sections. All of these parts are expected to be co-financed by the Bank. It wasplanned for implementation between 2009 and 2013.

4.

Sfax-GabesMotorway Project

2.2 Description of complainant's propertv'

2.2.1 The property in question is located in the AI-Soudan district, which is under the jurisdiction of the AI-Gharbiah Prefecture. It is accessed from the Bir Ali Road at a distance of approximately six kilometresfrom AI-Gharbiah.

2.2.2 The property is made up of three parcels of land numbered 130, 132 and 135, as on the mandatorysurvey adjudicated by the Sfax Real Estate Court on 13 April 2010 (registration application number111900). The three land parcels are planted with olive trees. With regard to parcel 130, it includes aninternal area with large olive trees with a productivity rated, by the complainant's expert, at five sacks perharvested year. The southern area is planted with olive saplings and other small trees.

2.2.3 The motorway passesthrough the three parcels belonging to the complainant, with a width of 90 meters.As alleged by the complainant's expert, the following damages are caused by the passage of themotorway: to a portion of parcel 130 (affecting a total of 67 olive trees), a portion of parcel 132 (affectinga total of 83 olive trees and 31 almond trees) and a portion of parcel 135 (affecting a total of 22 olivetrees, 1 grape vine and 1 dry almond tree).

2.2.4 According to the evaluation report concluded at the request of the complainant, the motorway passesover sandy soil that is very suitable for planting olive trees. Moreover, the same rapport states that theolive trees planted on these parcels are of very high quality.

2.2.5 The decision to expropriate the complainant's property was stated under the Governmental Decreen02010-1900 of 26 July 2010.

3. COMPLAINANT'S ALLEGATIONS

3.1 The complainant alleged that the expropriation procedure, conducted in relation to the Sfax-GabesMotorway project, co-financed by the EIB,was carried out in an improper manner in that the national lawproviding for a fair and prior compensation for the expropriated property (article 2 of the Tunisian Law onexpropriation asamended in 2003) had not been respected.

3.2 More precisely, the complainant alleged that:

• He did not receive any compensation offer for the future expropriation of his land.

According to the complainant no conciliation or negotiation procedure was initiated in order toestablish a prior amount of compensation. In an e-mail sent on 24 April 2012 to the EIB-CM, thecomplainant confirmed that "no official expropriation compensation was ever received" by him.

The claimant requested the SfaxTribunal of First Instance ("Tribunal de premiere instance de Sfax")in Tunisia to designate a judicial expert to evaluate the property that was subject to expropriation.According to the claimant, the evaluation report that had been established following the expert'svisit on the property had been sent to the Tunisian authorities (more precisely to the Ministry ofDomains and to the MEHAT)without ever receiving a reply.

The complainant also made a request to the Governorate to stop the expropriation process until hislegal rights would be respected. Due to the delays in the execution of the project, on 13 September2011 STA brought a legal action against the complainant accusing the latter of "obstruction oflabour". The Tunisian court ruled on the ih of May 2012 in favour of the complainant.

1The information concerning Complainant's property was taken from a report submitted by a Court Judicial Expert appointedby the complainant

5.

EIB Complaints Mechanism/Policy Advisor

The complainant informed the Tunisian authorities that he never opposed the motorway project(fully understanding its important role in the Tunisian economy) and that his only wish is to receive afair and prior compensation for his land.

• He was unable to find an interlocutor at the concerned institutions to whom he could present hiscase.

The complainant claimed that he had tried several times to contact STA. However, he stated to notknow the exact person to whom he should address to solve the conflict. Moreover, he affirmed thathe had never received an answer to any of his letters to the Tunisian Government concerning thematter in hand.

• He was threatened by STA'semployees.

The complainant claimed that STA's employees and site contractors in charge of works threatenedthat they would forcibly cut-off his trees.

4. COMPLAINANT'S REQUESTS

4.1 The complainant requested that his property rights and the national legal procedure be respected.

4.2 In addition, the complainant wishes that the evaluation report issued at his request (according to whichthe compensation for his expropriated land should amount to 400.000 dinars (DT)) be taken intoconsideration, disregarding the one initially established by the Tunisian authorities.

4.3 According to the complainant, he is not opposing the motorway project (as stated before) but his onlyintention is to bring to the attention of the EIB the allegedly illegal behaviour of STA.

5. EIB-CM COMPETENCE AND PROCEDURE

5.1 The EIB Complaints Mechanism Principles, Terms of Reference and Rules of Procedure

5.1.1 The EIB-CM applies to complaints of rnaladrmnlstratloni lodged against the EIB Group (article 4.1 of Title II"Principles" of the EIB Complaints Mechanism Principles, Terms of Reference and Rules of Procedure -EIB CMPTR - adopted in February 2010). Complaints may concern any alleged maladministration of theEIB Group in its actions and/or omissions (Article 4.1 of Title IV "Rules of Procedure" of the EIBCMPTR).

5.1.2 In accordance with Article 2.2 of the EIB CMPTR (IV), "Members of the public who feel affected by theactivities of the EIB Group but who are not aware of the rules, regulations, policies or procedures applyingto the Group may also submit complaints."

5.1.3 According to the EIB CMPTR Article 7.7 of the EIB CMPTR (IV), Complaints mechanism division uses,whenever appropriate, "dispute resolution techniques such as mediation, conciliation and dialoguefacilitation thus ensuring to give the adequate emphasis to problem solving" (emphasis added).

5.2 Limitation of the EIB-CM competence

5.2.1 According to Art. 2.3 of the EIB CMPTR (IV), the EIB-CM is not competent to investigate complaintsconcerning International organisations, Community institutions and bodies, national, regional or localauthorities (e.g. government departments, state agencies and local councils).

2 The definition of maladministration provided by the EIB CMPTR includes inter alia the EIB's failure to comply with theapplicable legislation and/or established policies, standards and procedures.6.

Sfax-GabesMotorway Project

5.2.2 Moreover, Art. 2.5 of the EIBCMPTR(IV) states that the EIB-CMcannot investigate complaints which havealready been lodged with other administrative or judicial review mechanisms or which have already beensettled by latter.

6. APPLICABLELEGALFRAMEWORK

6.1 The EIBGuide to Procurement

6.1.1 On 25 March 2004, the Bank published the EIBGuide to Procurement (GtP)on its website, updated inJune 2011.

6.1.2 Article 1.3 of the GtP stipulates as follows: "Promoters are fully responsible for implementing projectsfinanced by the Bank, in particular for all aspects of the procurement process, from drafting tenderdocuments and awarding contracts through to implementing contracts. The involvement of the Bank isconfined solely to verifying whether or not the conditions attached to its financing are met. TheBank mayadvise or assist Promoters in the procurement process, but is not a party to the resulting contracts. TheBank simply has the right and obligation to ensure that [...j in the caseof projects outside the union, therelevant criteria with regard to proper management of its financing are respected, and that theprocurement procedures are fair and transparent and the tender selected is economically the mostadvantageous. The rights and obligations of the Promoter vis-a-vis the tenderers for works, goods orservices to befurnished for a project are governed by the local legislation and tender documents publishedby the Promoter and not by this Guide" (emphasis added by EIB-CM).

6.1.3 Under these circumstances, the Bankcannot interfere in the contractual relations between the promoterand the implementing companies.

6.2 The Tunisian expropriation law

6.2.1 The applicable Tunisian legal framework consists of law n02003-06 of 14 April 2003, operating the reformof the expropriation legislation for public utility causes, amending and supplementing law n076-85 of11 August 1976.

6.2.2 Article 2 of law n02003-06 of 14 April 2003 states that the expropriator cannot obtain possession of theexpropriated property unless by providing a fair and prior compensation.

6.2.3 The property evaluation procedure is regulated by Articles 4 and 6 of the same law. Article 4 states that inorder to determine the value of the immovable subject to expropriation, its nature, its purpose and thequality of the construction materials (at the date of the expropriation) shall be taken into consideration.Also, reference shall be made to the prices of similar immovable located in the same area. Article 6 statesthat the amount of the compensation should never be inferior to the value fixed according to article 11 ofthe present Law.

6.2.4 Article 11 states that an expropriation commission shall transmit to the concerned administrativeauthority the order to proceed to the publication of the intention to expropriate after having gathered allthe relevant technical information. The commission convenes at its headquarters the real or presumedconcerned landowners in order to reach an agreement on the value of the immovable to be expropriated.This value is established according to two reports: one established by a public expert and the other by anevaluator chosen from a list of judicial experts priory agreed upon. The concerned public authority isbound to respect the amount fixed by the commission. The beneficiaries must inform the commission oftheir confirmation or refuse.

7.

EIBComplaints Mechanism/Policy Advisor

7. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

As part of its inquiry, the EIB-CMreviewed the documentation gathered and engagedwith the concernedparties to the dispute. Nonetheless, in order to better evaluate and clarify the raised issues, a series ofconference calls, interviews and meetings with the concerned parties was organised.

The complainant's case raised fundamentally the question of how the overall expropriation procedurewas carried out under the Sfax-Gabesmotorway project and in particular on the way in which the sameprocedure was conducted in the complainant's case.

Given the limits of the applicable legal framework on which the Bank's activity is based, the main purposeof EIB-CM's intervention was, more precisely, to assess the situation, to verify if any act ofmaladministration had been committed by the Bank as well as to establish possible remedies and moregenerally, to find a possible compromise between the complainant and the promoter in order to settlethe issueand to speed-up the operations of the project in the common interest of all the parties involved.

7.1 STA'sposition

7.1.1 STA3 informed the Bank that a single procedure had been followed for all the properties subject toexpropriation. Namely, it had involved the following steps: after the designation of an evaluation expertand the establishment by him of an initial compensation offer, a letter had been sent to all landownersorganising a meeting between them and an expropriation commission. This commission consisted ofdifferent members of the Tunisian public authorities and was chaired by a judge, and its role was toacknowledge either the amicable acceptance of the compensation offered by the Government or therefusal of the offered amount. Were the second situation is preferred by the landowners, a privateexpertise and negotiations between them and the government should be initiated. The end result in thiscasecould be either an understanding between the parties, or the initiation of a judicial procedure.

7.1.2 During the entire period, the amount of the initial compensation offer remained frozen in a bank accountand the expropriated owner was able to cash out the amount whenever he wished. To the bestknowledge of the company's employees, all land owners were informed by letter of the scheduledmeeting with the expropriation commission.

7.1.3 The complainant acknowledged" the fact that he had received a letter concerning the abovementionedmeeting, but that this letter informed him only about the decision to expropriate his land, and not aboutthe amount of the compensation.

7.1.4 He also implied that STA'semployees tried to manipulate the truth and that the amount established bythe first evaluator had not been registered and had not been at his disposal. As a result, the complainantauthorised the EIB-CMto treat his complaint as non-confidential.

7.2 STA'sassessment

7.2.1 On 11 April 2012, STAalso reported on the expropriation procedure carried out under the Sfax-GabesMotorway project. STA informed EIB-CM that in connection with this project a total of 24 disputesconcerning expropriations were confirmed. 14 of these were related to cadastral problems and 10 ofthem represented caseswhere land owners refused to accept the compensation offered by the nationalauthorities.

3 STAwas contacted by the Bank in April 2012 in order to gather information concerning the expropriation procedure carriedout under the Sfax -Gabes project. The results of the interview were forwarded to the complainant on 27 April 2012.4 E-mail sent to the EIB-CMon 27 April 2012.8.

Sfax-GabesMotorway Project

7.2.2 Under the project, a total of approximately 800 persons (private property owners) would be subject toexpropriation in the nearest future. EIB's services confirmed the fact that the compensations initiallyproposed by the national authorities are frozen into a bank account.

In caseswere the proposed amounts would be accepted, the compensations would be thus paid in areasonable time. Nonetheless, concerning the caseswhere the amounts proposed were not accepted, theprocedure could be longer.

7.3 EIB-CMfindings during its mission in Tunisia

7.3.1 The EIB-CMdecided to meet all the parties involved in the case between 2 and 6 September 2012. Thescope of the mission in Tunisia was to gather supplementary information, to meet the concerned parties,to discussthe casewith them, to assesstheir different positions and assesstheir different versions on thematter as well as to facilitate the dialogue between the parties and achieve a possible compromise. Moreprecisely, it was necessary to clarify some key points related to the existence of an official compensationand the modalities of its transmission to the complainant.

7.3.2 On 3 September 2012 EIB-CMhad a meeting with the CEOof STAin order to obtain further informationabout the way in which the expropriation procedure was effectively carried out.

7.3.3 At this meeting the CEOof STAconfirmed that the expropriation procedures had followed the next steps:

i. the publication of an official decree of expropriation for concerned properties.

ii. the evaluation of the expropriated properties, carried out by an independent expert taking intoaccount different elements (such as the quality of the soil, its location, the number and thequality of the trees, the various constructions built on it etc.).

iii. notification to the owner by letter indicating the compensation which he is entitled to.

7.3.4 Concerning the complainant's case, the expropriation of his property was stipulated in an expropriationdecree", without stipulating an amount for compensation.

7.3.5 STA'sCEOunderlined the existence of two cadastral plans and of two evaluations in this particular case.Under the first plan the mention "and consorts'" ("et consorts") was inserted and it contained a terrainsurface which did not effectively belong to the complainant.

7.3.6 According to STA'sCEOthe Ministry had attempted to deliver a formal document containing the offer forcompensation by a legal officer (bailiff), but the complainant refused to receive the letter.

7.3.7 The proposed compensation indicated in the abovementioned letter was 119.000 DT.

7.3.8 The EIB-CMpresented at the meeting a copy of the second expertise, carried out at the complainant'srequest, evaluating the complainant's property at 400 000 DT.

7.4 The meeting with the complainant and STA'sdelegates

7.4.1 The meeting between the EIB-CM delegates and the complainant took place on the 4th of September2012 at the complainant's residence, on the property subject to expropriation. At the meetingparticipated the EIB-CM,the complainant and his sons, the complainant's lawyer and a STA'sdelegate.

7.4.2 During this meeting, the EIB-CM presented the mechanism used by the Bank for the treatment ofcomplaints, specifying that it was not in the Bank's attributions to fix the amount of the compensation orto interfere in the national judicial proceedings.

5 The Governmental Decree n02010-1900 of 26 July 2010.6 The complainant contests the use of this mention, claiming that he is the only owner of the land in question.

9.

EIBComplaints Mechanism/Policy Advisor

7.4.3 Several observations were raised by the complainant.

a) First of all, he alleged that there had been no interlocutor (at STAor at the Ministry) for him to discusshis problem. He also alleged that a letter was sent to the relevant Tunisian Ministry, explaining thesituation, but that he had not received a reply.

b) Secondly, according to the complainant, the expropriation procedure had not been respected sincethe letter containing the proposed compensation was brought to him by a bailiff and had not beensent via an official letter with acknowledgment of receipt, as stated by the law. Under thosecircumstances he refused to receive/accept the letter.

c) Thirdly, the delegate of STAconfirmed that the amount of the initially proposed compensation was of119.000 dinars (DT) and that this amount was still frozen in a bank account for the complainant,should he decide to accept it. However, the complainant had wished to receive the amount indicatedin the second evaluation report, which indicated a compensation value of 400.000 DT. Thecomplainant alleged that this report had been sent to the administration, without ever receiving anyanswer. Moreover, the complainant claims that he tried to present the report to the conciliationcommission but that the commission had refused to take it into consideration.

7.4.4 The complainant underlined that at that time he had no intention to initiate a judicial procedure as hewas not the main interested party in the matter of the expropriation, and therefore he did not contestedthe letter and the amount suggested in the Tunisian authorities' report.

7.4.5 Lastly, the complainant alleged that he was threatened by STA'semployees, who told him that they aregoing to "reave his olive trees". The company's delegate was present at the discussion and took note ofthis information. He also insisted on the fact that the company will not make use of force in order to solvethe issue.

7.4.6 After this meeting EIB-CM'sdelegates visited the land to be expropriated and took pictures of the olivetrees plantations and of the boundary marking.

8. FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP

8.1 As a result of these findings, the EIB-CM'sdelegates insisted on the fact that it would be in both parties'common interest to open a dialogue and reach an amicable settlement to the dispute. Moreover, the EIB-CM initially suggested that STAor the Tunisian authorities competent for expropriation should contactthe complainant in order to propose him a new offer of compensation. This was however, impossible forthe Tunisian authorities due to the existing legal constraints.

8.2 The EIB-CM's delegates also suggested that all actions and activities put in place by STAor contractorswhich could jeopardize reaching an amicable settlement should be avoided. The EIB-CMalso suggestedthat the parties should not threaten with the use of violence and that negotiations and conciliation arerecommended. In this respect, a solution should be found, as soon as possible, in order to avoid furtherlossesfor both parties.

8.3 The EIB-CM observed that, during assessment of the case and discussions with the parties, some of therecommendations put forward by the EIB-CMhave been applied. In particular the complainant had metwith STArepresentatives who had been able to answer his questions and, to a certain extent, a dialoguehas taken place between the parties involved. It should be noted, however, that due to the constraints ofthe Tunisian legal system and the impossibility for the competent authorities to derogate from theprecise limits fixed by internal provisions, a settlement of the dispute based on a compromise on theamount of compensation was not feasible.

10.

stax-cabes Motorway Project

8.4 It is noteworthy that initially, when the complainant was lodged with the EIB-CM and during theassessment of the complaint, there was no pending judicial procedure on the amount of thecompensation. However, in consideration of the aforementioned difficulties, the complainant filed a casewith the competent Tunisian legal jurisdictions and informed in November 2012 the EIB-CMof his action.

8.S The EIB-CMhas also been following the developments of this legal action and has tried notwithstandingto facilitate a dialogue between the parties which could have put an end to the litigation. The dealing ofthe case by the Tunisian Court has been repeatedly postponed. At today's date, to the EIB-CMknowledge(based lastly on the information provided by the complainant and STA), the procedure before theTunisian Court is still on-going and the Tunisian Court of first degree in charge of the case has not yetrendered its judgement.

8.6 EIB-CMhas also suggested the parties to find a quick solution, in order to considerably shorten the timenecessary to reach a final decision in the case,to clarify the legal position of the complainant and contactthe competent Ministries in charge of the legal procedure of expropriation (the Ministry of Domain andthe Ministry of Justice) in order to avoid any further difficulties and resume the construction activities onthe Motorway.

8.7 Under these circumstances, bearing in mind that the EIB-CMused all its powers to bring the parties to aconciliatory position and that the case is currently being reviewed by the national courts, no furtheractions should be taken by the EIB-CMunder the current complaint.

L. LaMarcaPolicy Advisor

Inspectorate General25 November 2013

F. AlcarpeHead of Division

Complaints Mechanism25 November 2013

11.