Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2025:1011
Date: 2025-12-18
Language of the case: French

Summary C-151/25 – 1 
Case C-151/25 [Viaudret] i 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
20 February 2025 
Referring court: 
Conseil d’État (Belgium) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
12 February 2025 
Applicant: 
F.B. 
Defendant: 
Région wallonne 
Interveners: 
Société anonyme PARC ÉOLIEN DE LEUZE-EN-HAINAUT 
Société anonyme E-NOSVENTS 
Société anonyme ELECTRABEL 
Subject matter of the main dispute 
This administrative dispute concerns a decision to extend a construction and 
operation permit, taken without a prior public consultation. 
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
The applicant in the main proceedings requests the annulment of a decision by a 
technical official on 2 April 2020 extending the validity of the single permit 
granted to the limited company Parc éolien de Leuze-en-Hainaut (PELZ) for the 
 
i The name of this case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-151/25 – 1 
 
2  
construction and operation of a wind farm comprising ten wind turbines in Leuze-
en-Hainaut (Belgium) (‘the contested decision’). 
The wind farm had been granted an initial permit on 28 August 2009, which was 
cancelled on 16 April 2014 by the Conseil d’État (Council of State, Belgium). A 
new permit, granted on 8 September 2014 after further consultation, was in turn 
cancelled on 25 January 2017. After further examination, a permit was granted on 
6 June 2017 for a period of twenty years from 28 August 2009. The application 
for annulment made against this permit was dismissed by a decision of the 
Council of State on 29 March 2022. 
The contested decision extended the duration of that latter permit, delaying its 
expiry date to 28 August 2039. 
The companies Parc éolien de Leuze-en-Hainaut (PELZ), eNosVents and 
Electrabel were admitted as interveners to the proceedings as the assignees of the 
decision. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
The Council of State asks the Court how Article 6(1) and (10) and points 20 and 
22 of Annex I to the Convention on access to information, public participation in 
decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, signed in Aarhus 
on 25 June 1998 (Aarhus Convention) should be interpreted.  
Question referred for a preliminary ruling 
In accordance with the applicant’s request, the Council of State refers the 
following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:  
‘In a legal system in which the operation of an activity referred to in Annex I to 
the Aarhus Convention requires an operation permit granted for a maximum 
period of 20 years, 
– must Article 6(1) and (10) and points 20 and 22 of Annex I to the Aarhus 
Convention be interpreted as meaning that a decision to extend by 10 years the 
operation of the activity initially authorised for 20 years must be subject to a 
public participation phase? 
– must Article 6(1) and (10) of the Aarhus Convention be interpreted as 
meaning that a legal system in which the procedure for extending the operation of 
the activity by 10 years never involves a public participation phase is not 
compatible with that article?’ 
VIAUDRET 
 
3 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Aarhus Convention 
Article 1 of the Aarhus Convention states that: 
‘Objective 
In order to contribute to the protection of the right of every person of present and 
future generations to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well-
being, each Party shall guarantee the rights of access to information, public 
participation in decision-making, and access to justice in environmental matters in 
accordance with the provisions of this Convention.’ 
Article 6 of the Aarhus Convention states, inter alia, the following: 
‘1. Each Party: 
(a) Shall apply the provisions of this article with respect to decisions on whether 
to permit proposed activities listed in Annex I; 
(b) Shall, in accordance with its national law, also apply the provisions of this 
article to decisions on proposed activities not listed in annex I which may have a 
significant effect on the environment. To this end, Parties shall determine whether 
such a proposed activity is subject to these provisions; and 
[…] 
10. Each Party shall ensure that, when a public authority reconsiders or updates 
the operating conditions for an activity referred to in paragraph 1, the provisions 
of paragraphs 2 to 9 of this article are applied mutatis mutandis, and where 
appropriate.’ 
Annex I to that convention, entitled ‘LIST OF ACTIVITIES REFERRED TO IN 
ARTICLE 6, PARAGRAPH 1(a)’, states, inter alia, the following: 
‘20. Any activity not covered by paragraphs 1 to 19 above where public 
participation is provided for under an environmental impact assessment procedure 
in accordance with national legislation. 
[…] 
22. Any change to or extension of activities, where such a change or extension in 
itself meets the criteria/thresholds set out in this annex, shall be subject to 
Article 6, paragraph 1(a) of this Convention. Any other change or extension of 
activities shall be subject to article 6, paragraph 1(b) of this Convention.’ 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-151/25 – 1 
 
4  
Provisions of national law relied on 
Décret du 23 juin 2016 modifiant le Code de l’environnement, le Code de l’eau et 
divers décrets en matière de déchets et de permis d’environnement (Decree of 
23 June 2016 amending the Environmental Code, the Water Code and various 
decrees on waste and environmental permits; ‘the Decree of 23 June 2016’) 
Pursuant to Article 89 of the Decree of 23 June 2016, the maximum duration of 
the permit granted for a wind turbine is thirty years. 
Article 109 of that decree provides that permits that were valid before 1 August 
2016 may be extended for a maximum of ten years. 
Arrêté du Gouvernement wallon du 20 avril 2017 modifiant l’arrêté du 
Gouvernement wallon du 4 juillet 2002 relatif à la procédure et à diverses 
mesures d’exécution du décret du 11 mars 1999 relatif au permis 
d’environnement et portant exécution des articles 108 et 109 du décret du 23 juin 
2016 modifiant le Code de l’environnement, le Code de l’eau et divers décrets en 
matière de déchets et de permis d’environnement (Decision of the Walloon 
Government of 20 April 2017 amending the Decision of the Walloon Government 
of 4 July 2002 on the procedure and various measures implementing the Decree 
of 11 March 1999 on environmental permits and implementing Articles 108 and 
109 of the [Decree of 23 June 2016]; ‘the Decision of 20 April 2017’) 
This decision does not provide for a new public participation procedure. 
The arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
Application for annulment 
1 The applicant puts forward a plea alleging infringement of Article 6(10) of the 
Aarhus Convention, of Articles 2, 50 and 97 of the décret du 11 mars 1999 relatif 
au permis d’environnement (Decree of 11 March 1999 on environmental permits; 
‘Decree of 11 March 1999’), of Article 109 of the Decree of 23 June 2016, of 
Articles D.50 and D.75 of Volume I of the Code de l’environnement 
(Environmental Code) and of Articles 2 and 3 of the loi du 29 juillet 1991 relative 
à la motivation formelle des actes administratifs (Law of 29 July 1991 concerning 
the giving of formal reasoning for administrative acts; ‘Law of 29 July 1991’). 
2 He claims that the wind farm authorised in this case is a project that is 
automatically subject to an environmental impact assessment, which entails a 
public participation phase. He specifies that, having regard to Annex I to the 
Aarhus Convention, this wind farm comes under the scope of application of 
Article 6(1)(a) of that convention. 
VIAUDRET 
 
5 
3 He maintains that the decision to change the operating conditions for such an 
activity should be preceded by a public participation phase and that, due to the 
failure to organise a public consultation, the contested decision is unlawful, as the 
public consultation is a procedural requirement. 
The response 
4 The defendant contends that, taking into account the definition of the concepts of 
‘project’ and ‘development consent’ in Article 1(2)(a) and (c), of 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 2012 L 26, p. 1), the contested decision, which extends the 
validity of the environmental permit, is not a decision authorising a project. In 
addition, based on the case-law of the Court and works of legal commentary, it 
submits that ‘a decision authorising the continued operation of an activity that 
does not authorise any change or extension altering its physical reality does not 
constitute consent’. 
5 The defendant’s view is that the contested decision is also not a decision renewing 
an environmental permit. It points out that Walloon law does not have a system 
for renewing environmental permits. 
6 It also considers that the duration of the validity of the permit is not stated in the 
specific conditions for operating an installation, which are established when the 
permit is issued. Its view is that ‘in the light of the Decree of 11 March 1999, the 
Decree of 23 June 2016 amending it and its implementing decision, the procedure 
for extending the duration of validity is not linked with the establishment or 
amendment of the operating conditions in order for the operator to receive an 
extension’. 
7 In addition, it claims that ‘deciding on an extension logically does not use the 
same assessment criteria as those used to rule on a single permit application’. 
According to the defendant, granting or refusing an environmental permit is based 
on criteria relating to compliance with the requirements of legislation and 
regulations, the objectives of the policy of classified establishments and the 
interests of the operator, as well as the terms of the permit. It maintains, however, 
that, ‘ensuring that environmental permits for one or more wind turbines continue 
to exist by extending them is in the general interest: the development of renewable 
energy sources’, specifying that ‘alongside the general interest, businesses must 
also be able to continue their development under viable technical and economic 
conditions.’ 
8 The defendant considers that the public participation process concerns 
development consent for a project, and not the extension of the operating period. 
Referring to Article 6(1) of the Aarhus Convention, it claims that the purpose of 
the extension decision is not to give consent for an activity listed in Annex I to 
that convention. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-151/25 – 1 
 
6  
9 It indicates that the view that the duration of the permit’s validity constitutes one 
of the operating conditions was used by the Council of State in its opinion 
No 60.433/4 of 14 December 2016 on the preliminary draft decision that resulted 
in the Walloon Government’s Decision of 20 April 2017. 
10 It refers to the note to the Walloon Government for the second reading of the 
draft, which explains why the decision does not provide for a public participation 
process. 
11 The defendant adds that the applicant does not indicate how the effects known at 
the time the permit was granted for a period of twenty years ending on 28 August 
2029 are different from those that should be found for the period from the 
extension of the permit until 28 August 2039. It points out that the public was able 
to give its view on the draft and on any impact during the public consultation that 
took place following the various appeals relating to the wind farm project. 
The statement in intervention 
12 The interveners state that the decision to extend a single permit adopted under 
Article 109 of the Decree of 23 June 2016 does not constitute consent or a project 
within the meaning of Directive 2011/92. They claim that the applicant does not, 
therefore, have grounds to rely on the direct effect of the Aarhus Convention. 
13 Their view is that the extension of the duration of validity of a single permit under 
Article 109(2) of the Decree of 23 June 2016 does not constitute an activity that 
comes within the scope of application of Annex I to the Aarhus Convention. They 
consider that neither this provision nor its implementation decision of 20 April 
2017 require the extension of the period of validity of wind farm permits granted 
before 1 August 2016 to be subject to an environmental impact assessment, which 
means that the application of Article 6(10) of the Aarhus Convention must be 
ruled out. 
The reply 
14 The applicant does not consider it relevant to invoke Directive 2011/92, since the 
plea that he puts forward in support of his action does not allege infringement of 
that directive. 
15 He considers that the scope of application of that directive is more limited than 
that of the Aarhus Convention, and that the concept of a ‘project’ within the 
meaning of Article 1(2)(a) of that directive, as interpreted by the Court, refers to 
works or interventions changing the physical aspect of the site, which excludes 
simply renewing an existing operating permit. He clarifies that only Directive 
2011/92 associates the concept of a ‘project’ with ‘interventions in the natural 
surroundings’ and that this is not the case for Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 
21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora 
(OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), the Espoo Convention of 25 February 1991 on 
VIAUDRET 
 
7 
environmental impact assessment in a transboundary context (Espoo Convention) 
or the Aarhus Convention. Relying in particular on the findings of the Aarhus 
Convention Compliance Committee (‘the Aarhus Committee’) and on the 
documents of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, the applicant 
claims that Article 6 of the Aarhus Convention applies to decisions to extend 
operating permits, without other interventions in the natural surroundings. 
16 The applicant points out that the plea he raises is based on Article 6(1) and (10) of 
the Aarhus Convention and that it is not contested that consent for a wind farm 
falls under the scope of application of Article 6(1)(a) of that convention, which 
means that Article 6(10) of that convention can be applied. He maintains that, 
when the decision-making process for an activity must include a public 
participation phase under Article 6(1)(a) of the Aarhus Convention, any procedure 
by which a public authority later re-examines or updates the terms under which 
the activity is carried out should include such a phase. 
17 The applicant considers that the change in the operating period does constitute a 
change to the conditions under which the activity concerned is carried out. The 
determination of the duration of the permit is, in his view, intrinsically linked to 
the content of the decision on the application for the environmental permit or 
single permit. 
18 In his view, in addition, no legislation allows different assessment criteria to be 
used depending on whether the decision to be adopted is a decision to extend a 
permit or a decision to grant a permit.  
19 The applicant does not consider it his responsibility to explain how the effects 
known at the time the permit was granted for a period of twenty years ending on 
28 August 2029 are different from those that should be found for the period from 
28 August 2029 until 28 August 2039. He considers that, firstly, the defendant is 
thus waiving its power of assessment, and that secondly, the decision-making 
criteria are not in any way limited to the effects of the project concerned, but also 
regard the admissibility of the extension of the duration of a single permit in the 
light of the requirement to use the best techniques available. 
The last submission by the applicant 
20 The applicant points out that the decision to extend the operation of an installation 
can be analysed in two ways in the light of the Aarhus Convention: it can be 
regarded as a decision to grant operating rights within the meaning of Article 6(1) 
of that convention or as a decision to change an activity referred to in Annex I to 
that convention. He claims that this change can also be understood as a consent 
decision (for an extended duration) for an activity in Annex I covered by the first 
sentence of point 22 of the annex and to which Article 6(1)(a) of the Aarhus 
Convention applies, or, according to the conclusions and recommendations of the 
Aarhus Committee, as a change to the operating conditions of an activity in 
Annex I governed by Article 6(10) of that convention and to which the 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-151/25 – 1 
 
8  
arrangements for public participation laid down in paragraphs 2 to 9 of that 
Article apply ‘mutatis mutandis, and where appropriate’. 
21 The applicant, invoking in this respect the interpretation made by the Aarhus 
Committee of the terms ‘mutatis mutandis’ and ‘where appropriate’, states that, 
when reconsidering or updating the operating conditions of an activity in Annex I, 
public participation is the principle, and the absence of public participation is the 
exception, since the burden of proof falls on the competent authority to prove that 
the reconsideration or update is insignificant. He also points out that, according to 
the Aarhus Committee, a legal system that does not provide for any opportunity 
for the public to participate in such a procedure undermines the requirements of 
Article 6(10) of the Aarhus Convention, and that particular attention should be 
paid to the decision to extend the operating permit, which is subject to Article 6 of 
that convention, unless the change in the authorised duration is ‘minimal and 
would clearly only have negligible or no effects on the environment.’ The Aarhus 
Committee therefore refused to accept that a change from a fixed period to an 
indeterminate period, an extension of operations from 40 to 60 years or even an 
extension for more than two years had a minimal impact. 
22 The applicant notes that the conclusions and recommendations of the Aarhus 
Committee do not constitute an interpretation arising from a court with the power 
to interpret the provisions of the Aarhus Convention. 
23 In his view, the case-law of the Court, whether it is based on Directive 2011/92 or 
Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and 
control) (OJ 2010 L 334, p. 17), is not decisive as it does not recognise changes to 
a project that do not alter the physical aspect of the site or the extension of the 
installation’s operating period as being a ‘project’ subject to the impact 
assessment rules. He also points out that Directive 2010/75 only provides for a 
public participation phase in the context of a ‘substantial change’ to an activity. 
24 The applicant considers that extending operations for ten years, which is half the 
duration of the initial operation, is not minimal and therefore entails the 
application of the public participation arrangements laid down in Article 6(2) to 
(9) of the Aarhus Convention. He adds that the continued operation of the ten-
turbine wind farm would perpetuate the disadvantages associated with the 
presence and operation of the installation and that there is no need for him to give 
further details of those effects, it being an activity covered by Annex I to the 
Aarhus Convention. It points out that the initial permit application resulted in 
several unfavourable opinions and decisions and that dismissal of the appeal 
before the Council of State against the permit at issue does not demonstrate its 
legality or innocuousness. 
25 He concludes that there is no basis for the claim of inadmissibility, given that the 
contested decision should have given rise to a public consultation, and therefore 
an announcement under Article D.29-22(2) of Volume I of the Environmental 
VIAUDRET 
 
9 
Code, and that only making that announcement was able to set the time frame for 
bringing an action running. 
26 In the alternative, he asks the Council of State to make a request to the Court of 
Justice for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of 
the Aarhus Convention. 
The last submission of the interveners 
27 The interveners claim that the plea raised by the applicant is inadmissible because 
the extension at issue does not constitute an activity listed in Annex I to the 
Aarhus Convention and that Article 6(10) of that convention cannot be 
acknowledged as having a direct effect when it concerns an activity not listed in 
that annex. 
28 They recall the scope of point 20 of Annex I to the Aarhus Convention, which lists 
all the activities for which national legislation provides for an environmental 
impact assessment (EIA) involving the public. They point out that neither 
Article 109(2) of the Decree of 23 June nor the implementing decision of that 
decree require submitting an extension of the validity period of permits for wind 
farms authorised before 1 August 2016 to an environmental impact assessment, 
and deduce from this that this extension does not constitute an activity referred to 
in point 20 of Annex I to the Aarhus Convention. 
29 They recall in that regard the case-law of the Court based on Directive 2011/92, 
which does not recognise as a ‘project’ a change to a project that does not alter the 
physical aspect of the site, as well as the case-law based on Directive 2010/75, 
according to which the extension of an operating permit alone cannot constitute a 
‘substantial change’ to the installation requiring public participation. In their view, 
that case-law precludes the extension at issue being regarded as an activity 
covered by point 20 of Annex I to the Aarhus Convention. 
30 They consider that, as it is not covered by that annex, the extension at issue can 
only be subject to the Aarhus Convention if it is likely to have a significant effect 
on the environment. They point out that, in its report of 30 March 2020, the 
Aarhus Committee compares the scheme for determining whether or not changes 
to an installation are substantial within the meaning of Directive 2010/75 with the 
scheme for determining activities subject to Article 6(1)(b) of the Aarhus 
Convention, and confirms the need for a prior decision by the competent authority 
as to the classification of the activity in terms of its potential effects on the 
environment, as no public participation is necessary if there are no such effects. 
They infer from this that Article 6(10) of the Aarhus Convention cannot be 
considered to have a direct effect on activities not listed in Annex I thereto.  
31 Supposing, however, that the extension at issue does constitute an activity covered 
by Annex I to the Aarhus Convention or must, in certain cases, give rise to a 
public participation phase under that convention, the interveners point out, in the 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-151/25 – 1 
 
10  
alternative, that it follows from the combined reading of points 47 to 49 and 98 of 
the report of the Aarhus Committee of 30 March 2020, that the expression ‘where 
appropriate’ used in Article 6(10) of the Aarhus Convention gives the States 
parties a degree of discretion as to the need to organise public participation when 
the operating conditions are changed for an activity covered by the convention, 
including an activity referred to in Annex I to that convention. 
32 The view of the interveners is that simply extending the operating period of the 
wind farm does not concern an environmental aspect of the activity and does not 
by its nature cause a significant change in its fundamental parameters, which 
means that, in accordance with the judgment of 2 June 2022, FCC Česká 
republika (C-43/21, EU:C:2022:425), public participation is not required. 
Opinion of the Council of State and reasoning in the reference for a 
preliminary ruling 
33 In its opinion of 14 December 2016 on the draft decision that resulted in the 
decision of the Walloon Government of 20 April 2017, the legislation section of 
the Council of State notes the following: 
‘… it does not appear that the term ‘where appropriate’, used [in Article 6(10) of 
the Aarhus Convention], can be understood as leaving the Parties the free and 
complete choice as to whether or not to apply Article 6(2) to (9) when the 
hypothesis given in Article 6(10) arises. It should instead be understood as 
imposing a public participation procedure prior to the adoption of any decision 
reconsidering or updating the operating conditions for an activity referred to in 
Annex I to the convention, or that is not listed but is considered to have a 
potentially significant effect on the environment.’ 
It continues as follows: 
‘A decision to extend the period of validity of a permit granted for an activity 
referred to in Annex I to the convention or that must be considered to have a 
potentially significant effect on the environment comes within the scope of 
application of Article 6(10) of the convention: it changes the conditions under 
which the activity is carried out. 
Therefore, it must be subject to a public participation procedure in accordance 
with the provisions of Article 6(2) to (9) of the convention.’ 
34 The Walloon Government did not follow this opinion and did not establish a new 
public participation procedure prior to the decision to extend the period of validity 
of a permit for the operation of wind turbines. 
35 The note to the Walloon Government for the second reading of the draft decision 
explains why the decision in question does not provide for a public participation 
process as follows: 
VIAUDRET 
 
11 
‘In addition, it should be noted that the public participation process, including the 
environmental impact assessment conducted during the consultation procedure for 
the permit application, does not take into account the potential duration for which 
the permit may be granted. 
Indeed, the applicant makes their application, which is then the subject of a public 
participation process, including an environmental impact assessment, hoping to 
receive a permit for the maximum possible duration. The material in the file is 
therefore provided and set out for the public with that in mind. This means that 
during the participation process, the public has already given its view on that 
material, and even if there is the possibility of extending the duration, there has 
not been any change in the operating conditions for the permit compared to the 
initial conditions on which the public gave its view. 
On these grounds, based on the fact that imposing an additional public 
participation procedure would cause discrimination, and the fact that the public 
gave its view on the initial project regardless of its duration, taking into account 
solely its potential impact, over an indeterminate period, it is not appropriate to 
establish a new public participation procedure for this process, the purpose of 
which is to resolve certain specific situations. 
In addition, it should be pointed out that Article 109 establishes the possibility for 
permits for one or more wind turbines that were valid or under examination before 
1 August 2016 to apply for an extension of their duration in order to benefit from 
the same legal rules as permit applications that were examined after 1 August 
2016. On the same reasons as those set out in relation to Article 108, there is no 
basis for establishing a new public participation procedure. 
In both cases, the conditions under which the activity is being carried out are not 
altered. The original conditions will remain in place identically for the duration of 
any extension that may be granted.’ 
36 The defendant therefore justifies not organising a public participation procedure 
by the fact that it is thereby avoiding creating discrimination, that the public has 
already given its view on the initial project, regardless of its duration, and that the 
original conditions under which the activity is carried out have not changed. 
37 International legislation can be regarded as having a direct effect when it contains 
terms that show clear, precise obligations that do not require a subsequent act in 
order to be implemented and take effect. 
By providing that, ‘when a public authority reconsiders or updates the operating 
conditions for an activity referred to in paragraph 1, the provisions of paragraphs 2 
to 9 of this article are applied mutatis mutandis, and where appropriate’, 
Article 6(10) of the Aarhus Convention objectively states the situations envisaged 
and the obligations imposed on the authorities. It does not leave any discretion to 
the States when an activity referred to in Annex I to that convention is concerned. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-151/25 – 1 
 
12  
38 The plea alleging infringement of Article 6(10) of the Aarhus Convention is 
admissible in so far as the characteristics of this provision result in a direct effect 
on the national legal system, at least in relation to the activities referred to in 
Annex I to that convention. 
39 With regard to the interpretation of the international legislation in question, the 
applicant and the interveners refer to the conclusions and recommendations of the 
Aarhus Committee. This body is a consultative body and cannot therefore make a 
legally binding decision. Those parties also refer to ‘The Aarhus Convention: An 
Implementation Guide’, which is also not legally binding but contains guidelines. 
40 In the present case, it is not contested that authorisation for the wind farm in 
question comes within the scope of application of Article 6(1)(a) of the Aarhus 
Convention, as it is referred to in point 20 of Annex I thereto as authorisation 
subject to an impact assessment involving a public participation phase. 
41 The difficulty arises when it comes to legally characterising the decision to extend 
the period of validity of the permit to operate the wind farm. This decision comes 
within the scope of application of Article 6(2) to (9) of the Aarhus Convention if it 
can be characterised: 
– as authorisation for an activity covered by Annex I of the Aarhus 
Convention referred to in Article 6(1)(a) thereof, or even as a change 
to or extension of that activity as referred to in point 22 of that annex; 
– as authorisation for an activity not listed in Annex I to the Aarhus 
Convention, but which may have a significant effect on the 
environment, within the meaning of Article 6(1)(b) of that convention; 
or 
– as a decision reconsidering or updating the operating conditions for an 
activity referred to in Article 6(1) of the Aarhus Convention, within the 
meaning of Article 6(10) of that convention. 
The Council of State therefore considers, like the applicant, that it is appropriate 
to apply to the Court by means of a request for a preliminary ruling, as the latter is 
competent to interpret the provisions of the Aarhus Convention in this respect 
(see, to that effect, judgment of 8 March 2011, Lesoochranárske zoskupenie, 
C-240/09, EU:C:2011:125, paragraphs 29 to 31).