Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2026:421
Date: 2026-05-21
Language of the case: French

Summary C-325/25 – 1 
Case C-325/25 
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: 
13 May 2025 
Referring court: 
Conseil d’État (Belgium) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
24 April 2025 
Applicant: 
Eneco Wind Belgium SA 
Defendant: 
Région wallonne 
 
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
The applicant seeks the annulment of the order of 2 October 2023 by which 
technical and delegated officials refused to grant it a single permit for the 
construction and operation of two wind turbines with a maximum unit capacity of 
4.28 MW and all ancillary systems at Rue de Limoy, Namur. 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
The main provision of EU law at issue is Article 3 of Council Regulation (EU) 
2022/2577 of 22 December 2022 laying down a framework to accelerate the 
deployment of renewable energy (‘Regulation 2022/2577’), which states as 
follows (in the version applicable in the present case): 
‘1. The planning, construction and operation of plants and installations for the 
production of energy from renewable sources, and their connection to the grid, the 
related grid itself and storage assets shall be presumed as being in the overriding 
public interest and serving public health and safety when balancing legal interests 
in the individual case, for the purposes of Article 6(4) and Article 16(1)(c) of 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-325/25 
 
2  
Council Directive 92/43/EEC, Article 4(7) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the 
European Parliament and of the Council and Article 9(1)(a) of Directive 
2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. Member States may 
restrict the application of those provisions to certain parts of their territory as well 
as to certain types of technologies or to projects with certain technical 
characteristics in accordance with the priorities set in their integrated national 
energy and climate plans. 
2. Member States shall ensure, at least for projects which are recognised as 
being of overriding public interest, that in the planning and permit-granting 
process, the construction and operation of plants and installations for the 
production of energy from renewable sources and the related grid infrastructure 
development are given priority when balancing legal interests in the individual 
case. Concerning species protection, the preceding sentence shall only apply if 
and to the extent that appropriate species conservation measures contributing to 
the maintenance or restoration of the populations of the species at a favourable 
conservation status are undertaken and sufficient financial resources as well as 
areas are made available for that purpose.’ 
The following provisions are also invoked: 
– recitals 8 and 9 of Regulation 2022/2577; 
– recitals 13 and 14 of Council Regulation (EU) 2024/223 of 22 December 2023 
amending Regulation (EU) 2022/2577 laying down a framework to accelerate 
the deployment of renewable energy (‘Regulation 2024/223’); 
– Article 6(4) and Article 16(1)(c) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 
1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora; 
– Article 4(7) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in 
the field of water policy; 
– Article 9(1)(a) of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 On 26 April 2023, the applicant submitted an application for a single permit to 
build and operate two wind turbines of 4.28 MW each, located at Rue de Limoy in 
Andoy (Namur). 
2 The application concerns Class 1 installations and is accompanied by a range of 
documents, including an environmental impact assessment. 
3 The project is intended to be located in an agricultural area. 
ENECO WIND BELGIUM 
 
3 
4 Following a public enquiry held from 7 June to 10 July 2023, which resulted in a 
number of complaints concerning, essentially, the impact on heritage, the impact 
on the landscape, the lack of compliance with the sectoral plan, the unsuitability 
of the site and the excessive proximity of the wind turbines to dwellings, and after 
having taken note of numerous opinions from the municipalities concerned, 
departments, commissions and specialist bodies, the technical and delegated 
officials took the decision on 2 October 2023 to refuse to grant the requested 
permit. 
5 In essence, the refusal to issue the single permit requested is based on the 
significant impact of the proposed wind turbines on the landscape and heritage, as 
the project is located in an area with significant landscape and heritage value 
where there have so far been no wind turbines installed within a very close 
distance (7 km). 
6 The applicant lodged an administrative appeal against that decision with the 
Walloon Government on 19 October 2023. 
7 On 30 January 2024, the officials proposed that the relevant ministers issue a 
permit subject to conditions. 
8 However, on 15 March 2024, those officials informed the applicant that the 
ministers had not taken a decision within the prescribed period and the initial 
refusal decision should therefore be considered as confirmed. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
9 The applicant submits that Article 3 of Regulation 2022/2577 creates a 
presumption that the activity – in the broad sense – of producing renewable 
energy is in the overriding public interest and that that provision also accords 
priority to installations thus recognised as being in the overriding public interest 
when balancing the legal interests involved, as required by EU law, prior to any 
authorisation of projects likely to harm the environment. 
10 It argues that such balancing primarily concerns interests relating to the protection 
of the environment, such as biodiversity, and of public health, and the interests of 
the project itself, on the understanding that the analysis of the project’s impact on 
the landscape forms part of the assessment of a project’s impact on the 
environment. 
11 With regard to the protection of the environment, the applicant observes that that 
concept includes the landscape, as is apparent from point 11(a) of the first 
paragraph of Article D.6 of Book I of the Code de l’environnement 
(Environmental Code), and that the analysis of the impact of the project on the 
landscape forms part of the assessment of the impact of a project on the 
environment. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-325/25 
 
4  
12 The applicant criticises the competent authority for failing to carry out that 
balancing of legal interests and for failing to address the priority nature of the 
project. 
13 It argues that Article 3(2) of Regulation 2022/2577 confers such priority status on 
projects ‘recognised as being of overriding public interest’ and that, as stated in 
Article 3(1) of that regulation, that recognition is presumed for renewable energy 
production projects without the need for a specific decision on such recognition. 
14 It asserts that the interests to be taken into account are not only those relating to 
the environmental aspect, but also those relating to other aspects such as 
landscape protection, which falls under urban planning considerations. 
15 In that regard, the applicant refers to extracts from recital 14 of Regulation 
2024/223 (the regulation extending until 30 June 2025 the application of certain 
provisions of Regulation 2022/2577, including Article 3(2)), which states that ‘the 
first sentence of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2577 … requires Member 
States to promote those renewable energy projects by giving them priority when 
dealing with different conflicting interests beyond environmental matters’ and 
‘recognises the relative importance of renewable energy deployment in the current 
difficult energy context beyond the specific objectives of the derogations foreseen 
in the Directives referred to in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2577’. 
16 It adds that the priority requirement is ‘absolute’ such that, when balancing the 
interests associated with the renewable energy production project against 
competing interests, the authority must give preference to the former over the 
latter. It argues that a priority requirement ‘in principle’, which the authority could 
depart from by giving specific reasons, would clearly run counter to the intention 
of the authors of this European regulation. 
17 The applicant refers in that respect to the preparatory work for Regulation 
2024/223, from which it highlights the following extracts: 
– ‘a second subparagraph which requires Member States to give priority …’; 
– ‘Article 3 contains a second paragraph which calls to give priority …’; 
– ‘The first sentence of Article 3, second paragraph of Regulation (EU) 
2022/2577 has the potential to further accelerate renewable energy projects 
since it requires Member States to promote them by giving them priority’. 
18 The defendant defers to the assessment of the Conseil d’Etat (Council of State). 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
19 The referring court finds that Article 3(1) of Regulation 2022/2577 establishes a 
rebuttable presumption solely for the purposes of applying Article 6(4) and 
ENECO WIND BELGIUM 
 
5 
Article 16(1)(c) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the 
conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, Article 4(7) of 
Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of 
water policy, and Article 9(1)(a) of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild 
birds. 
20 In ‘balancing legal interests’, which the national authorities must carry out on a 
case-by-case basis (‘in the individual case’ in the English version) under those 
provisions, it is thus presumed that the acts in question, including the construction 
and operation of plants and installations for the production of energy from 
renewable sources and their connection to the grid, are in the ‘overriding public 
interest’ and serve ‘public health and safety’. 
21 Under recital 8 of Regulation 2022/2577, that presumption may be rebutted 
‘where there is clear evidence that [projects in the field of renewable energy] have 
major adverse effects on the environment which cannot be mitigated or 
compensated for’. 
22 That recital states that ‘it is possible for Member States to consider applying this 
presumption in their relevant national legislation on landscaping’. According to 
the referring court, that clarification implies that, in the absence of a national 
provision to that effect, landscape planning – or indeed land planning more 
generally – is not affected by that presumption. 
23 With regard to Article 3(2) of Regulation 2022/2577, the referring court notes that 
both the scope and the extent of the ‘priority’ requirement laid down by the 
regulation appear to be open to interpretation. 
24 First of all, its scope is open to different interpretations depending on the 
relationship established between the two paragraphs of Article 3 of the regulation. 
Secondly, the words ‘at least for projects which are recognised as being of 
overriding public interest’ also seem to be open to being understood in different 
ways. Finally, the precise scope of the ‘priority’ that Member States must 
guarantee raises questions. 
25 As regards the relationship between those two paragraphs, the initial interpretation 
is that they are identical in scope. The priority requirement laid down in the first 
sentence of Article 3(2) of Regulation 2022/2577 should therefore be linked to the 
scope of Article 3(1) of that regulation and considered as being granted as part of 
the balancing of legal interests that the national authorities are required to carry 
out under the three specific environmental texts referred to in paragraph 1. 
According to that interpretation, Article 3 of that regulation proceeds in two 
stages: paragraph 1 endows the projects in question with a specific status that 
enables them to compete with the interests protected by the abovementioned 
directives, and paragraph 2 then requires that those projects and the interests 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-325/25 
 
6  
associated with them take priority over the abovementioned environmental 
interests. 
26 The referring court argues that the structure of Regulation 2022/2577 supports that 
interpretation because the presumption of overriding public interest and the 
priority nature of the project are grouped together in a single provision. 
27 A second interpretation of that relationship is that the second paragraph is a 
standalone provision and broader in scope than the first, in that the second 
paragraph requires the national authorities – during any balancing of legal 
interests that they are called upon to carry out on a case-by-case basis – to ensure 
that any project in the field of renewable energy is given priority, even over and 
above the three specific environmental texts referred to in the first paragraph, 
provided that they are recognised as being in the overriding public interest. 
Renewable energy projects would then take precedence not only over nature 
conservation interests, but also over any possible competing interests, including 
those relating to landscape and heritage protection. Concerning species protection, 
in accordance with Article 3(2), in fine, that priority only applies however ‘if and 
to the extent that appropriate species conservation measures contributing to the 
maintenance or restoration of the populations of the species at a favourable 
conservation status are undertaken and sufficient financial resources as well as 
areas are made available for that purpose’. 
28 The referring court sees the general nature of the wording of Article 3(2) of 
Regulation 2022/2577 – which contains no restrictions as to the subject matter of 
the balancing of legal interests referred to – as confirmation of that second 
interpretation, which also appears to be consistent with the intention of the authors 
of that regulation, as is apparent from recitals 13 and 14 to Regulation 2024/223. 
These are worded as follows: 
‘(13) One of the temporary measures introduced by Regulation (EU) 2022/2577, 
which has shown positive effects and which has significant acceleration potential 
in the future, is the introduction in Article 3(1) of a rebuttable presumption that 
renewable energy projects are of overriding public interest and serve public health 
and safety for the purposes of specific derogations foreseen in the relevant Union 
environmental legislation, except where there is clear evidence that such projects 
have major adverse effects on the environment which cannot be mitigated or 
compensated for. Directive (EU) 2018/2001, by means of Article 16f thereof, 
introduced a rebuttable presumption that renewable energy projects are of 
overriding public interest and serve public health and safety, with almost identical 
wording as compared to the wording of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 
2022/2577. Therefore, it is not necessary to prolong the application of Article 3(1) 
of Regulation (EU) 2022/2577 since such a rebuttable presumption will apply by 
virtue of Article 16f of Directive (EU) 2018/2001. 
(14) However, Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2577 requires priority to be 
given to projects that are recognised as being of overriding public interest 
ENECO WIND BELGIUM 
 
7 
whenever the balancing of legal interests is required in individual cases and where 
those projects introduce additional compensation requirements for species 
protection. An analogous provision is not present in Directive (EU) 2018/2001. 
The first sentence of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2577 has the potential, 
in the current urgent and still unstable energy situation on the energy market 
which the Union is facing, to further accelerate renewable energy projects since it 
requires Member States to promote those renewable energy projects by giving 
them priority when dealing with different conflicting interests beyond 
environmental matters in the context of Member States’ planning and the permit-
granting process. The Commission’s report demonstrated the value of the first 
sentence of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2577 which recognises the 
relative importance of renewable energy deployment in the current difficult 
energy context beyond the specific objectives of the derogations foreseen in the 
Directives referred to in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2577. Given the 
particularly severe situation in the supply of energy which the Union is currently 
facing, it is appropriate to prolong the application of Article 3(2) of Regulation 
(EU) 2022/2577 in order to appropriately recognise the crucial role played by 
renewable energy plants to fight climate change and pollution, reduce energy 
prices, decrease the Union’s dependence on fossil fuels and to ensure the Union’s 
security of supply in the context of the balancing of legal interests carried out by 
permit-granting authorities or national courts. At the same time, it is also 
appropriate to keep the environmental safeguard that, for projects recognised as 
being of overriding public interest, appropriate species conservation measures, 
underpinned by sufficient financial resources, are adopted.’ 
29 The expressions ‘beyond environmental matters’ or ‘beyond the specific 
objectives of the derogations foreseen in the Directives referred to in Article 3(1)’ 
suggest that the interests targeted by the balancing in Article 3(2) of Regulation 
2022/2577 go beyond environmental interests alone, which also seems to be 
indicated by recital 9 of that regulation, which justifies the priority given to 
renewable energy projects by the objective of the need to ‘eliminate bottlenecks in 
the permit-granting process and operation of renewable energy plants’, without 
expressly limiting itself to potential obstacles linked to obligations to protect 
environmental interests. 
30 The second interpretation seems to be more in line with the intention of the EU 
legislature. However, the fact that a single provision combines the presumption of 
overriding public interest and the requirement that projects benefiting from that 
interest be given priority means that that argument cannot be accepted beyond all 
reasonable doubt. 
31 Next, as regards the scope of the term ‘recognised’ in Article 3(2) of Regulation 
2022/2577, the referring court notes that that term can be understood either as 
referring to the fact that the presumption referred to in Article 3(1) of that 
regulation has not been rebutted (or even to the possibility under that provision of 
limiting the application of that presumption), or as implying a specific decision to 
recognise an ‘overriding public interest’ by the competent authorities of a Member 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-325/25 
 
8  
State for the purposes of Article 3(2) of Regulation 2022/2577 alone, whether in a 
general and abstract manner or when examining a specific project. 
32 In that respect, the court notes that the choice of the verb ‘recognise’ and the 
proactive attitude it implies tend to favour that second interpretation (which, 
incidentally, presupposes the standalone nature of paragraph 2). However, it 
observes that the need for specific recognition does not appear to be compatible 
with the objective of the regulation, which is to encourage the deployment of 
renewable energies and speed up the procedures for issuing the related permits by 
means of a directly applicable legal instrument. From that perspective, the authors 
of the regulation appear to be opting for the direct and full applicability of the 
requirements laid down in the regulation, while reserving for the Member States 
the possibility of excluding or restricting it in various respects. Furthermore, as 
this is a regulation adopted under an emergency procedure, the weight of the 
terminology-based argument is uncertain. 
33 Finally, as regards the extent of the ‘priority’ to be given to projects falling within 
the scope of Article 3(2), the referring court considers that that requirement may 
be understood as establishing an absolute priority in favour of renewable energy 
production projects, namely that the interests of such projects take precedence 
over competing interests – which results in particularly significant interference 
with the discretion of the national authorities responsible for granting permits for 
such projects – or as establishing a priority in principle that those authorities must 
adhere to, and from which they may depart if necessary by giving specific 
reasons. 
34 In view of these uncertainties, the referring court considers it appropriate to ask 
the Court for a ruling on the interpretation to be given to Article 3(2) of 
Regulation 2022/577. 
Request for an expedited procedure 
35 The referring court asks the Court to apply the expedited procedure laid down in 
Article 105 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in view 
of the energy emergency created by the current geopolitical situation. 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
(1) Must Article 3(2) of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/2577 of 22 December 
2022 laying down a framework to accelerate the deployment of renewable 
energy be interpreted as meaning that Member States must ensure that the 
construction and operation of plants and installations for the production of 
energy from renewable sources and the related grid infrastructure 
development are given priority solely when balancing legal interests as 
referred to in paragraph 1 of that provision, or when balancing legal interests 
for the purposes of Article 6(4) and Article 16(1)(c) of Council Directive 
ENECO WIND BELGIUM 
 
9 
92/43/EEC, Article 4(7) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council and Article 9(1)(a) of Directive 2009/147/EC 
of the European Parliament and of the Council, or does that obligation apply 
to any balancing of legal interests undertaken by the competent authority 
responsible for granting permits, including where the competing interest 
falls outside the scope of the three directives referred to above (in this case, 
landscape and heritage protection)? 
(2) Must the words ‘projects which are recognised as being of overriding public 
interest’ in the first sentence of Article 3(2) of that regulation be interpreted 
as requiring specific, general or individual recognition of the ‘overriding 
public interest’ of a project by the Member States, or must they be 
understood as referring to the fact that the presumption established by 
Article 3(1) of that regulation has not been rebutted, or indeed to the fact 
that the project is not excluded from the scope of that presumption, as 
permitted by Article 3(1), in fine? 
(3) Must the obligation to ensure, at least for projects which are recognised as 
being of overriding public interest, that, in the planning and permit-granting 
process, the construction and operation of plants and installations for the 
production of energy from renewable sources and the related grid 
infrastructure development are given ‘priority’ when balancing legal 
interests in the individual case, laid down by Article 3(2) cited above, be 
interpreted as establishing an absolute priority in favour of such projects – 
subject to the environmental condition relating to species protection 
contained in that paragraph – or should it be understood as a priority in 
principle, from which Member States may depart by giving specific reasons?