Provisional text
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL
RANTOS
delivered on 21 May 2026 (1)
Case C‑325/25
Eneco Wind Belgium SA
v
Région wallonne
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Council of State, Belgium))
( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Environment – Regulation (EU) 2022/2577 – Framework to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy – Article 3(2) – Construction and operation of plants and installations for the production of energy from renewable sources and the related grid infrastructure development – Planning and permit-granting process – Projects which are recognised as being of overriding public interest – Priority when balancing legal interests in individual cases – Material scope of priority – Method for recognising overriding public interest – Absolute priority or priority in principle – Wind turbines – Landscape and heritage protection )
I.      Introduction
1.        According to recital 1 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2577, (2) ‘the Russian Federation’s war of aggression against Ukraine and the unprecedented reduction of natural gas supplies from the Russian Federation to Member States threaten the security of supply of the Union and its Member States …’. Under those circumstances, the regulation, which supplemented the REPowerEU Plan presented by the Commission on 8 March 2022, (3) established temporary rules of an emergency nature to accelerate the permit-granting process applicable to the production of energy from renewable sources. Article 3(2) of the regulation thus provided that, at least for projects which are recognised as being of overriding public interest, the construction and operation of plants and installations for the production of energy from renewable sources and the related grid infrastructure development are to be ‘given priority’ when balancing the legal interests in individual cases.
2.        In the case in the main proceedings, the Région wallonne (Walloon Region, Belgium) rejected the application submitted by Eneco Wind Belgium (‘the applicant’) for the construction and operation of two wind turbines, on the ground that that project would adversely affect the landscape and heritage within the immediate vicinity concerned. In that context, what interpretation should be given to the concept of ‘priority’ referred to in Article 3(2) of that regulation, in relation to a project for the production of energy from renewable resources (‘a renewable energy project’), in particular as regards the legal interest of landscape and heritage protection? That, in essence, is the question asked by the Conseil d’État (Council of State, Belgium).
3.        The present case, which is unprecedented, will require the Court to clarify the extent to which Member States retain discretion as regards the grant of a permit for a renewable energy project falling within the scope of Regulation 2022/2577.
II.    Legal framework
A.      European Union law
1.      Directive 92/43/EEC
4.        Article 6(3) and (4) of Directive 92/43 (4) states:
‘3.      Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. […]
4.      If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, the Member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. […]
[…]’
5.        Article 16(1)(c) of the directive provides:
‘Provided that there is no satisfactory alternative and the derogation is not detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range, Member States may derogate from the provisions of Articles 12, 13, 14 and 15(a) and (b):
[…]
(c)      in the interests of public health and public safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment’.
2.      Directive 2000/60/EC
6.        Article 4 of Directive 2000/60, (5) which is entitled ‘Environmental objectives’, provides, in paragraph 7 thereof:
‘Member States will not be in breach of this Directive when:
–        failure to achieve good groundwater status, good ecological status or, where relevant, good ecological potential or to prevent deterioration in the status of a body of surface water or groundwater is the result of new modifications to the physical characteristics of a surface water body or alterations to the level of bodies of groundwater, or
–        failure to prevent deterioration from high status to good status of a body of surface water is the result of new sustainable human development activities
and all the following conditions are met:
(a)      all practicable steps are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of the body of water;
(b)      the reasons for those modifications or alterations are specifically set out and explained in the river basin management plan required under Article 13 and the objectives are reviewed every six years;
(c)      the reasons for those modifications or alterations are of overriding public interest and/or the benefits to the environment and to society of achieving the objectives set out in paragraph 1 are outweighed by the benefits of the new modifications or alterations to human health, to the maintenance of human safety or to sustainable development, and
(d)      the beneficial objectives served by those modifications or alterations of the water body cannot for reasons of technical feasibility or disproportionate cost be achieved by other means, which are a significantly better environmental option.’
3.      Directive 2009/147/EC
7.        Article 9(1)(a) of Directive 2009/147 (6) is worded as follows:
‘Member States may derogate from the provisions of Articles 5 to 8, where there is no other satisfactory solution, for the following reasons:
(a)      in the interests of public health and safety,
–        in the interests of air safety,
–        to prevent serious damage to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water,
–        for the protection of flora and fauna’.
4.      Directive (EU) 2018/2001
8.        Article 2 of Directive 2018/2001, (7) entitled ‘Definitions’, provides, in point 1 of its second subparagraph:
‘The following definitions also apply:
(1)      “energy from renewable sources” or “renewable energy” means energy from renewable non-fossil sources, namely wind, solar (solar thermal and solar photovoltaic) and geothermal energy, ambient energy, tide, wave and other ocean energy, hydropower, biomass, landfill gas, sewage treatment plant gas, and biogas’.
9.        Article 16f of that directive, entitled ‘Overriding public interest’, provides:
‘By 21 February 2024, until climate neutrality is achieved, Member States shall ensure that, in the permit-granting procedure, the planning, construction and operation of renewable energy plants, the connection of such plants to the grid, the related grid itself, and storage assets are presumed as being in the overriding public interest and serving public health and safety when balancing legal interests in individual cases for the purposes of Article 6(4) and Article 16(1), point (c), of [Directive 92/43], Article 4(7) of Directive [2000/60] and Article 9(1), point (a), of Directive [2009/147]. Member States may, in duly justified and specific circumstances, restrict the application of this Article to certain parts of their territory, to certain types of technology or to projects with certain technical characteristics in accordance with the priorities set out in their integrated national energy and climate plans …’
5.      Regulations 2022/2577 and (EU) 2024/223
10.      Recitals 8 and 9 of Regulation 2022/2577 state:
‘(8)      One of the temporary measures consists of the introduction of a rebuttable presumption that renewable energy projects are of overriding public interest and serving public health and safety for the purposes of the relevant Union environmental legislation, except where there is clear evidence that those projects have major adverse effects on the environment which cannot be mitigated or compensated for. Renewable energy plants, including heat pumps or wind energy, are crucial to fight climate change and pollution, reduce energy prices, decrease the Union’s dependence on fossil fuels and ensure the Union’s security of supply. Presuming renewable energy plants, including heat pumps, are of overriding public interest and serve public health and safety would allow such projects to benefit, where necessary, from a simplified assessment for specific derogations foreseen in the relevant [European] Union environmental legislation with immediate effect. Taking into consideration their national specificities, Member States should be allowed to restrict the application of this presumption to certain parts of their territories or certain technologies or projects. It is possible for Member States to consider applying this presumption in their relevant national legislation on landscaping.
(9)      This reflects the important role that renewable energy can play in the decarbonisation of the [European] Union’s energy system, by offering immediate solutions to replace fossil-fuel based energy and by addressing the aggravated situation in the market. In order to eliminate bottlenecks in the permit-granting process and operation of renewable energy plants in the planning and permit-granting process, the construction and operation of energy plants from renewable sources and the development of the related grid infrastructure should be given priority when balancing legal interests in the individual case, at least for projects which are recognised as being of public interest. As regards the protection of species, this priority should only be given 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 this purpose.’
11.      Article 1 of the regulation, headed ‘Subject matter and scope’, provides, in paragraphs 1 and 2:
‘This Regulation establishes temporary rules of an emergency nature to accelerate the permit-granting process applicable to the production of energy from renewable energy sources, with a particular focus on specific renewable energy technologies or types of projects which are capable of achieving a short term acceleration of the pace of deployment of renewables in the Union.
This Regulation applies to all permit-granting processes that have a starting date within the period of its application and is without prejudice to national provisions establishing shorter deadlines than those laid down in Articles 4, 5 and 7.’
12.      According to Article 3 of the regulation, entitled ‘Overriding public interest’:
‘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 [Directive 92/43], Article 4(7) of Directive [2000/60] and Article 9(1)(a) of Directive [2009/147]. 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.’
13.      Article 10 of the regulation, entitled ‘Entry into force and application’, specifies that it was to enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and that it was to apply for a period of 18 months from its entry into force. (8)
14.      Regulation 2022/2577 was amended by Regulation 2024/223. (9) Recitals 13 and 14 of the latter regulation state:
‘(13)      One of the temporary measures introduced by Regulation [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 [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 [2022/2577]. Therefore, it is not necessary to prolong the application of Article 3(1) of Regulation [2022/2577] since such a rebuttable presumption will apply by virtue of Article 16f of Directive [2018/2001].
(14)      However, Article 3(2) of Regulation [2022/2577] requires priority to be given to projects that are recognised as being of overriding public interest 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 [2018/2001]. The first sentence of Article 3(2) of Regulation [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 [(10)] demonstrated the value of the first sentence of Article 3(2) of Regulation [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 [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 [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.’
15.      Article 1 of Regulation 2024/223, entitled ‘Amendments to Regulation [2022/2577]’, provides:
‘Regulation [2022/2577] is amended as follows:
[…]
(2)      in Article 3, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:
‘2.      Member States shall ensure, 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 first subparagraph 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.’
[…]
(6)      in Article 10, the following paragraph is added:
“However, Article 1, Article 2, point (1), Article 3(2), Article 3a, Article 5(1), Article 6 and Article 8 shall apply until 30 June 2025.”’
B.      Belgian law
1.      Loi relative à la motivation formelle des actes administratifs (Law on the requirement to state reasons for administrative measures)
16.      Pursuant to Article 2 of the Law on the requirement to state reasons for administrative measures of 29 July 1991 (11):
‘A formal statement of reasons must be provided for the administrative acts of the administrative authorities referred to in Article 1.’
17.      Article 3 of that law provides:
‘The statement of reasons required consists of an indication, within the act, of the legal and factual considerations on which the decision is based.
It must be adequate.’
2.      Code du développement territorial wallon (Walloon Code for territorial development)
18.      Article D. IV. 53 of the Walloon Code for territorial development, in the version applicable to the main proceedings, is worded as follows:
‘On the basis of an adequate statement of reasons, the permit may be refused, granted with or without conditions, granted with or without planning conditions, or derogations or exemptions provided for in this Code may be granted.
Such conditions shall be necessary either for the integration of the project into the built and natural environment or for the feasibility of the project, namely its implementation and operation.
In addition to compatibility with the content of the sector plan, including the land-use map, plans, planning permissions and guidelines, the granting or refusal of a planning permit shall be based on local planning circumstances and may be based, in particular, on the grounds and conditions mentioned in the present section.’
III. The dispute in the main proceedings, the questions referred and the procedure before the Court of Justice
19.      On 26 April 2023, the applicant submitted an application for a single permit (12) to build and operate two wind turbines of a maximum of 4.28 megawatts (MW) each, and all their ancillary installations, namely the assembly areas, the access roads, the electrical substation and the underground electric cables, in a plant located in Namur (Belgium) (‘the project at issue’). The application concerned Class 1 installations, which were subject to an environmental permit, and was accompanied, inter alia, by an environmental impact assessment report. On 16 May 2023, the officials appointed by the Walloon Government from the spatial planning administration and the urban development authority respectively (‘the delegated official’) and the environmental administration (‘the technical official’), who were jointly competent to examine the applicant’s application, issued an acknowledgement of receipt certifying that the applicant’s file was complete.
20.      A public enquiry into the applicant’s request was held from 7 June to 10 July 2023. On 2 October 2023, the technical official and delegated official took the decision to refuse to grant the single permit applied for. It is apparent in particular from that decision that, should the two wind turbines be installed, the visual impact would be significant for 10 dwellings; that the alteration to the landscape would be considerable within the area concerned; that the project would stand alone within an area without wind turbines within a seven-kilometre radius but bordered to the north and south by two major wind farm developments; that the reference framework for the siting of wind turbines in the Walloon Region, adopted in 2013, gives priority to wind farms consisting of a minimum of five wind turbines and, ultimately, that ‘the development of wind power cannot be carried out to the detriment of the landscape and heritage qualities of the immediate area of which it forms part’.
21.      On 19 October 2023, the applicant lodged an administrative appeal against that decision with the Walloon Government. On 30 January 2024, the technical official and delegated official, with responsibility to issue a decision on the appeal, submitted their summary report to the ministers for regional planning and the environment (Belgium) proposing that they issue the single permit requested, subject to conditions. On 15 March 2024, those officials informed the applicant that the ministers had not notified them of a decision on its appeal by the deadline laid down in Article 95(7) of the décret relatif au permis d’environnement (Decree on environmental permits) of 11 March 1999, (13) and that therefore the decision of 2 October 2023 had been confirmed.
22.      On 14 May 2024, the applicant brought an action against that decision before the Conseil d’État (Council of State), the referring court, relying on a single plea in law alleging infringement of Article D. IV. 53 of the Walloon code for territorial development, Articles 2 and 3 of the Law of 29 July 1991 on the requirement to state reasons for administrative measures, Article 3 of Regulation 2022/2577, and failure to state reasons, in that ‘the competent authority did not weigh up the legal interests and remained silent as to the priority to be accorded to its project, which was recognised as being of overriding public interest’. In support of its plea, the applicant argued that the balancing of legal interests required by EU law primarily concerned, on the one hand, interests relating to the protection of the environment, such as biodiversity and public health, and, on the other hand, those associated with the project itself.
23.      With regard to the protection of the environment, the applicant observed that that concept includes the landscape, as is apparent from point 11(a) of Article D.6 of Book I of the code de l’environnement wallon (Walloon Environmental Code), and that the analysis of the impact of a project on the landscape forms part of the assessment of its impact on the environment. It submitted that the obligation to carry out, within that framework, a balancing of the legal interests applies both to the technical official and delegated official and to the ministers responsible for ruling on an appeal. The applicant added that Regulation 2022/2577 requires, in that balancing exercise, recognition of the priority nature of the production of renewable energy, a requirement which, in its view, must be apparent from the statement of reasons for the act at issue. In the present case, the applicant argues that it is not apparent from the decision of 2 October 2023 either that the authors have recognised the priority nature of the relevant project as being of overriding public interest, or that they have taken that nature into account in balancing the legal interests present.
24.      For its part, the Walloon Region has indicated that it defers to the assessment of the referring court ‘in so far as the ministers have not taken a decision’.
25.      That court points out that, according to a first interpretation, the scope of Article 3(2) of Regulation 2022/2577 is identical to that of Article 3(1). Under such an interpretation, paragraph 1 is understood to confer on renewable energy projects a specific quality enabling them to be balanced against the interests protected by Directives 92/43, 2000/60 and 2009/147 (‘the directives referred to’), while paragraph 2 of that article provides that those projects and the related interests are to have priority over such environmental interests. The applicant argues that the structure of the regulation supports that interpretation, in so far as the presumption of overriding public interest and the priority nature of a project are grouped together in a single provision.
26.      A second interpretation is that Article 3(2) of the regulation in question has an autonomous and broader scope than Article 3(1), in that it requires the competent national authorities, when balancing the legal interests on a case-by-case basis, to ensure that renewable energy projects are given priority, even outside the scope of the directives referred to, provided that those projects are recognised as being of overriding public interest. To that end, carrying out such projects and developing the infrastructure of the related grid would take precedence not only over environmental interests but also over any competing interests, including those relating to landscape and heritage protection. The general nature of the wording of Article 3(2) of Regulation 2022/2577 supports that second interpretation and appears to be more consistent with the intention of the EU legislature, as is apparent from recitals 13 and 14 of Regulation 2024/223. Such a desire is also reflected in recital 9 of Regulation 2022/2577, which refers to the objective of ‘[eliminating] bottlenecks in the permit-granting process and operation of renewable energy plants’, without expressly limiting itself to potential obstacles directly linked to nature conservation or water protection obligations.
27.      Furthermore, the referring court is uncertain as to the scope of the phrase ‘at least for projects which are recognised as being of overriding public interest’ in Article 3(2) of Regulation 2022/2577, in particular as regards the term ‘recognised’. Depending on whether Article 3(2) has an independent scope, the term could be understood either as a reference to the fact that the presumption referred to in Article 3(1) has not been rebutted (or even to the possibility under Article 3(1) of limiting the application of that presumption), or as implying a specific decision by the competent authorities of a Member State to recognise certain projects as being of ‘overriding public interest’ for the sole purposes of Article 3(2) of Regulation 2022/2577. The choice of the verb ‘recognise’ and the proactive attitude it implies tend to favour that second interpretation. However, the need for specific recognition by the Member States does not appear to be compatible with the objective pursued by the regulation, which is to encourage the deployment of renewable energy and accelerate the procedures for issuing the related permits by means of a directly applicable legal instrument. From that perspective, the EU legislature appears to be opting for the direct and full applicability of the requirements laid down in the regulation, while leaving Member States the possibility of excluding or restricting it.
28.      According to the referring court, the question also arises as to the interpretation of the obligation to ensure that projects falling within the scope of Article 3(2) of Regulation 2022/2577 ‘are given priority when balancing legal interests in the individual case’. That ‘priority’ rule could, on the one hand, be understood as establishing an absolute priority in favour of renewable energy projects, thus obliging the authority responsible for balancing the interests of those projects against the competing interests to give precedence to the former. In that first scenario, Article 3(2) would result in particularly significant interference with the discretion of the competent national authorities as regards granting permits for such projects. However, the ‘priority’ rule could also be interpreted as enshrining a priority in principle that those authorities had a duty to adhere to, while retaining the power to depart from it, if necessary, by giving specific reasons. In the latter scenario, the interests relating to renewable energy projects would be accorded particular weight in the exercise of the discretion of the competent national authorities, without, however, systematically taking precedence over the competing interests.
29.      That court adds that Article 3(2) of Regulation 2022/2577 has not yet been interpreted by the Court of Justice and that that interpretation is not so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt.
30.      In those circumstances, the Conseil d’État (Council of State) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
‘(1)      Must Article 3(2) of [Regulation 2022/2577] 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 [article], or when balancing legal interests for the purposes of Article 6(4) and Article 16(1)(c) of [Directive 92/43], Article 4(7) of Directive [2000/60] … and Article 9(1)(a) of Directive [2009/147 …, 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?’
31.      The referring court has requested the Court to apply the expedited procedure to the present case pursuant to Article 105 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice. That application was dismissed by order of the President of the Court of 2 September 2025. (14)
32.      Written observations were submitted to the Court by the Belgian, Czech, Italian and Polish Governments and the Commission.
IV.    Analysis
A.      The first question
33.      By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 3(2) of Regulation 2022/2577 must be interpreted as meaning that Member States must ensure 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 the legal interests in the individual case solely for the purposes of Article 6(4) and Article 16(1)(c) of Directive 92/43, Article 4(7) of Directive 2000/60 and Article 9(1)(a) of Directive 2009/147, or whether that priority rule also applies for the purposes of competing legal interests falling outside the scope of those provisions, in particular landscape and heritage protection.
34.      As a preliminary point, I note that the main proceedings concern an application for the grant of a permit, submitted on 26 April 2023, concerning the construction and operation of two wind turbines. That application was rejected by the competent national authorities on the grounds that the project at issue would adversely affect the landscape and heritage qualities of the immediate area of which it would form part.
35.      As regards the provisions of EU law applicable in the present case, Regulation 2022/2577 on the deployment of renewable energy states, in the second paragraph of Article 1 thereof, that it applies to all permit-granting processes (15) that had a starting date within the period of its application. In that regard, it follows from Article 10, in its original version, that that regulation entered into force on 30 December 2022 and was applicable until 30 June 2024. Furthermore, point (1) of the second paragraph of Article 2 of Directive 2018/2001 defines the concept of ‘energy from renewable sources’ as including, inter alia, ‘wind … energy’. Accordingly, it must be held that Regulation 2022/2577 is applicable ratione temporis and ratione materiae to the present case.
36.      That regulation is based on Article 122(1) TFEU, under which the Council may decide, in a spirit of solidarity between Member States, upon the measures appropriate to the economic situation, in particular if severe difficulties arise in the supply of certain products, notably in the field of energy. The first paragraph of Article 1 of Regulation 2022/2577 thus provides that the regulation establishes temporary rules of an emergency nature to accelerate the permit-granting process applicable to the production of energy from renewable energy sources. In that context, Article 3 of the regulation, entitled ‘Overriding public interest’, defines the conditions under which the balancing of legal interests was to be carried out, in particular as regards the construction and operation of plants and installations for the production of energy from renewable sources and the related grid infrastructure development.
37.      In the present case, the referring court is uncertain as to the interpretation to be given to Article 3(2), which entails, in the light of the structure of that article, a prior examination of the scope of paragraph 1 thereof. It follows from that paragraph that, inter alia, the construction and operation of plants and installations for the production of energy from renewable sources and the related grid are presumed to be in the overriding public interest and as serving public health and safety when balancing the legal interests in individual cases, for the purposes of Article 6(4) and Article 16(1)(c) of Directive 92/43 (on the protection of habitats and of wild fauna and flora), Article 4(7) of Directive 2000/60 (on the protection of water) and Article 9(1)(a) of Directive 2009/147 (on the protection of wild birds), but that Member States retain the option to restrict the application of those provisions to certain parts of their territory and to certain types of technologies or to projects with certain technical characteristics, in accordance with the priorities set out in their integrated national energy and climate plans.
38.      Consequently, Article 3(1) of Regulation 2022/2577 does not, as a general rule, confer the status of ‘overriding public interest’ on renewable energy projects, even though that regulation establishes temporary rules of an emergency nature to accelerate the permit-granting process, but recognises that status solely in the light of the provisions of the directives referred to, relating to the protection of the environment, which provide that a project likely to have an effect on a site may nevertheless be authorised where several cumulative conditions are met, including the existence of an ‘overriding public interest’. Thus, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice, even where the assessment finds that the proposed measures have a negative effect on the site and there are no alternative solutions, Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43 provides that those measures may nevertheless be implemented where justified by imperative reasons of overriding public interest, provided that the Member State takes all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. (16) As regards Directive 2000/60, the Court of Justice has held that, in order to determine whether a project has been authorised without infringing that directive, a court may review whether the authority which issued the authorisation complied with the conditions laid down in Article 4(7)(a) to (d) of that directive, by determining, inter alia, whether the activities concerned serve an overriding public interest and/or whether the benefits to the environment and society linked to the achievement of the objectives set out in Article 4(1) of the directive are outweighed by the benefits to human health, the maintenance of safety for persons or sustainable development resulting from those activities. (17)
39.      In order to determine the scope of Article 3(1) of Regulation 2022/2577, I would recall that, according to the Court’s settled case-law, even though the preamble to an EU act has no binding legal force and cannot be relied on as a ground either for derogating from the actual provisions of the act in question or for interpreting those provisions in a manner that is clearly contrary to their wording, it may explain their content, since the recitals in that preamble constitute important elements for the purposes of interpretation that may clarify the intentions of the author of that act. (18) Moreover, the operative part of an act is indissociably linked to the statement of reasons for it, with the result that, when it has to be interpreted, account must be taken of the reasons which led to its adoption. (19)
40.      It follows that Article 3(1) of the regulation must be interpreted in the light of recital 8 of that regulation, which states that the provision introduces a rebuttable presumption that renewable energy projects are of overriding public interest for the purposes of the relevant Union environmental legislation, except where there is clear evidence that those projects have major adverse effects on the environment which cannot be mitigated or compensated for. That recital also indicates the aim of establishing such a presumption, which is to allow such projects to benefit, where necessary, from a simplified assessment for specific derogations foreseen in the relevant EU
environmental legislation with immediate effect.
41.      I would add that, in the light of that recital, Article 3(1) of that same regulation does not relate solely to the directives referred to. Indeed, recital 8 indicates that, taking into consideration their national specificities, Member States may consider applying that presumption in their relevant national legislation on landscaping. Accordingly, the EU legislature grants Member States the option to introduce in their national legislation a rebuttable presumption under which, in order to facilitate their siting in national territory, renewable energy projects, in particular wind turbines, are of overriding public interest in comparison with landscape protection. Such an option is based on the premiss that national legislation is responsible for the landscape protection of the relevant Member State. (20)
42.      In other words, as emphasised by the Czech Government, the presumption that a renewable energy project is of overriding public interest must rest upon a legal basis, either in EU law (for the directives referred to), or within national law, with the Member States having, pursuant to the abovementioned Article 3(1), the power to restrict the application of that presumption to certain parts of their territory or to certain technologies or projects.
43.      In the present case, the referring court seeks to ascertain whether the priority rule laid down in Article 3(2) of Regulation 2022/2577 applies only in the context of the directives referred to or whether it also extends to legal interests falling outside the scope of those three directives, in particular landscape and heritage protection.
44.      According to settled case-law of the Court of Justice, for the purpose of interpreting a provision of EU law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part. (21)
45.      In the first place, as regards the wording of Article 3(2) of Regulation 2022/2577, that provision states that ‘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 the 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.’
46.      It follows from the wording of paragraph 2 that it concerns a situation arising subsequently to that referred to in paragraph 1 of that article. Priority only comes into play once a project has been recognised as of overriding public interest, when balancing the legal interests specific to each individual case. (22) However, as the referring court has explained, it is not clear from the wording of paragraph 2 whether it concerns solely the directives referred to. (23) In that regard, the travaux préparatoires that led to the adoption of Regulation 2022/2577 do not provide any further indication as to the scope of paragraph 2. (24) Moreover, while the second sentence of Article 3(2) of the regulation mentions species protection, that reference does not lead to the conclusion that the paragraph is necessarily restricted to those three directives.
47.      In the second place, with regard to the context of Article 3(2) of Regulation 2022/2577, I note that recital 14 of Regulation 2024/223, amending Regulation 2022/2577, states that the first sentence of Article 3(2) of Regulation 2022/2577 requires Member States to promote renewable energy projects by giving them priority when dealing with different conflicting interests beyond environmental matters in the context of their planning and permit-granting process, and that the provision recognises the relative importance of renewable energy deployment beyond the specific objectives of the derogations foreseen in the directives referred to. Although, as the Czech Government has pointed out, Regulation 2024/223 is not applicable ratione temporis to the dispute in the main proceedings and recital 14 is not reflected in the body of the text of that regulation, that recital, in accordance with the case-law cited in point 39 of the present Opinion, nevertheless serves to clarify the Council’s intention at the time of the adoption and prolongation (25) of Article 3(2) of Regulation 2022/2577, namely that the scope of that provision is not limited to the directives referred to.
48.      Similarly, it is apparent from recitals 13 and 14 of Regulation 2024/223 that the reason why the application of Article 3(1) of Regulation 2022/2577 was not prolonged was that the rebuttable presumption provided for therein will apply by virtue of Article 16f of Directive 2018/2001, unlike Article 3(2) of Regulation 2022/2577, since Directive 2018/2001 does not contain a provision analogous to that paragraph 2. Such a distinction tends to show that the two paragraphs of Article 3 of Regulation 2022/2577 are not inextricably linked and may fall within different material scopes of application.
49.      In the third and last place, as regards the objectives pursued by Regulation 2022/2577, it follows from the first paragraph of Article 1 of that regulation that it sought to accelerate the permit-granting process applicable to renewable energy projects. In that context, as stated in recital 9 of that regulation, the priority rule set out in Article 3(2) of the same regulation is intended to eliminate bottlenecks in the permit-granting process and operation of renewable energy plants. The attainment of that objective logically implies that the priority rule applies beyond just the interests relevant to the directives referred to. Furthermore, it would be paradoxical if that rule were to apply when balancing legal interests on a case-by-case basis in relation to habitats (Directive 92/43), birds (Directive 2009/147) and water (Directive 2000/60), in respect of which Article 191(2) TFEU states that Union policy is to aim at a high level of protection, but were not to extend to other legal interests which do not enjoy comparable protection under EU law, in particular as regards landscape and heritage. Therefore, like the referring court, I take the view that the interpretation according to which the scope of Article 3(2) of Regulation 2022/2577 is not limited to the directives referred to is more consistent with the intention of the EU legislature.
50.      In the light of the foregoing, I propose that the answer to the first question should be that Article 3(2) of Regulation 2022/2577 must be interpreted as meaning that Member States must ensure 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, not only for the purposes of Article 6(4) and Article 16(1)(c) of Directive 92/43, Article 4(7) of Directive 2000/60 and Article 9(1)(a) of Directive 2009/147, but also for the purposes of competing legal interests falling outside the scope of those provisions, in particular landscape and heritage protection.
B.      The second question
51.      By its second question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 3(2) of Regulation 2022/2577 must be interpreted as meaning that the words ‘projects which are recognised as being of overriding public interest’ means that such an interest requires express recognition by the Member State concerned or must be understood as referring to the fact that the presumption established in paragraph 1 of that article has not been rebutted or indeed, in the light of paragraph 1 in fine, to the fact that those projects are not excluded from the scope of that presumption.
52.      With regard to the concept of ‘projects which are recognised as being of overriding public interest’, (26) within the meaning of Article 3(2) of Regulation 2022/2577, I believe it is necessary to distinguish between three different categories of cases.
53.      First of all, as was pointed out in response to the first question referred for a preliminary ruling, it is apparent from Article 3(1) of Regulation 2022/2577, read in conjunction with recital 8 thereof, that renewable energy projects are presumed to be in the overriding public interest for the purposes of the relevant EU environmental legislation, except where there is clear evidence that those projects have major adverse effects on the environment which cannot be mitigated or compensated, and Member States are also allowed to restrict the application of that presumption to certain parts of their territories or certain technologies or projects. As that recital also specifies, the aim of that rebuttable presumption is to allow such projects to benefit from a simplified assessment in relation to specific derogations foreseen in that environmental legislation. Consequently, it follows from those provisions that, except in cases where the presumption has been rebutted (following an assessment carried out on a case-by-case basis, in relation to a particular project and its characteristics, which reveals major adverse effects on the environment) and/or where the application of that presumption has been restricted by the Member State concerned under the conditions laid down in Article 3(1), a renewable energy project must be regarded as being of overriding public interest for the purposes of the directives referred to, without any express recognition measure being required.
54.      Next, as I stated in point 41 of the present Opinion, it also follows from recital 8 of Regulation 2022/2577 that Member States may consider applying that presumption in their relevant national legislation on landscaping. Therefore, in the event that a Member State has introduced such a presumption into its relevant national legislation, a system similar to that laid down for the directives referred to must apply, namely that, where the presumption is neither rebutted nor restricted, the renewable energy project concerned must be regarded as being of overriding public interest in the light of the interest constituted by landscaping. In such a situation, no formal act of recognition may be required on the part of the Member State concerned.
55.      Lastly, as regards legal interests not expressly mentioned in Regulation 2022/2577 in the context of the application of Article 3 thereof, in particular the legal interest constituted by the protection of heritage – with a broad understanding of the concept of ‘heritage’, encompassing all assets which are of historical, artistic, archaeological, aesthetic, scientific or technical interest – the overriding public interest of a renewable energy project in relation to that legal interest does not benefit from any presumption and must first be the subject of specific, general (27) or individual recognition, based on an assessment carried out on a case-by-case basis, which will enable that project to benefit from the priority rule laid down in paragraph 2 of that article.
56.      In those circumstances, I propose that the answer to the second question should be that Article 3(2) of Regulation 2022/2577 must be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘projects which are recognised as being of overriding public interest’ means that, except in cases where the rebuttable presumption provided for in paragraph 1 of that article has been rebutted and/or where the application of that presumption has not been restricted by the Member State concerned under the conditions laid down in the latter provision, such an interest does not require express recognition as regards the directives referred to, including in cases where that Member State has introduced into its relevant national legislation such a presumption as regards landscaping. By contrast, as regards legal interests not expressly mentioned by that regulation in the context of the application of Article 3 thereof, in particular the legal interest constituted by the protection of heritage, the overriding public interest of a project must be the subject of express prior recognition, based on an assessment carried out on a case-by-case basis.
C.      The third question
57.      By its third question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 3(2) of Regulation 2022/2577 must be interpreted as meaning, where Member States ensure that at least projects which are recognised as being of overriding public interest are given ‘priority’ when balancing legal interests in the individual case, that priority is understood, subject to the condition relating to species protection laid down in that provision, as an absolute priority or as a priority in principle, from which the Member States may depart by giving specific and detailed reasons.
58.      As recalled in point 44 of the present Opinion, in order to determine the scope of the priority rule laid down in Article 3(2) of Regulation 2022/2577, account must be taken of the wording of that provision, as well as its context and the objectives pursued by that regulation.
59.      As regards the wording of the provision, the Commission submits that the words ‘Member States shall ensure … that’, used in the future tense to imply an obligation, reflected a clear obligation imposed on those States, not accompanied by derogations as to the priority nature of renewable energy projects, subject to the condition relating to species protection laid down in the provision. The Commission also refers to the context of Article 3(2) of Regulation 2022/2577, noting that, according to recital 14 of Regulation 2024/223, the provision ‘requires priority to be given to projects that are recognised as being of overriding public interest …’ (28) For its part, the Czech Government argues that if the competent national authority concludes that the presumption of overriding public interest within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Regulation 2022/2577 is not rebutted (that is to say, if the renewable energy project in question does not give rise to major adverse effects on the environment) and if the issue of species protection within the meaning of paragraph 2 of that article does not arise or is adequately addressed, that project must be accorded absolute priority when balancing the legal interests in the context of the procedures listed in paragraph 1.
60.      Nevertheless, I consider that the use of the verbs ‘ensure’ and ‘require’ is not unambiguous. They may also be understood as requiring the Member States to implement the priority rule, without, however, establishing absolute priority. Absolute priority would imply that the Member States are necessarily required to authorise renewable energy projects and to issue the relevant permits where those projects have previously been recognised as being in the overriding public interest.
61.      In addition, Article 3(2) of Regulation 2022/2577 refers to ‘balancing legal interests in the individual case’, which suggests that the Member States must carry out an individual assessment for each project. Moreover, as stated in point 40 of the present Opinion, paragraph 1 of that article establishes a rebuttable presumption. It could be inferred from this that, by analogy, paragraph 2 of that article enshrines a priority in principle, which may be ruled out for a particular renewable energy project on account of its specific characteristics.
62.      More fundamentally, it is apparent from the wording of the directives referred to that Member States have a margin of discretion in evaluating whether a given project should be authorised, taking into account its environmental impact. It therefore seems to me that, even where the presumption provided for in Article 3(2) of Regulation 2022/2577 has not been rebutted or restricted, Member States retain the option of carrying out an assessment of all the characteristics and context of a renewable energy project before adopting their final decision. That assessment must be carried out taking into account the fact that, in the words of the referring court, the interests relating to renewable energy projects must be accorded ‘particular weight’ in the exercise of that discretion.
63.      Moreover, I note that landscape and heritage protection (29) is not outside the scope of Regulation 2022/2577. In addition to recital 8 of Regulation 2022/2577, already mentioned, which refers to landscaping, Article 4 of the regulation, entitled ‘Accelerating the permit-granting process for the installation of solar energy equipment’, states, in paragraph 2, that Member States may exclude certain areas or structures from the provisions of paragraph 1 of that article (which sets a three-month maximum duration for the permit-granting process in respect of the installation of solar energy equipment and co-located energy storage assets, where solar energy production is not the primary aim) ‘due to reasons of cultural or historical heritage protection, or for reasons related to national defence interests or safety’. (30) Consequently, that regulation takes heritage into account as a legal interest worthy of protection, even though it is not mentioned in Article 3 of Regulation 2022/2577 nor in the recitals relating thereto. (31)
64.      In addition, Member States are required to comply with their international commitments, which include, where they have ratified it, the Council of Europe Landscape Convention, adopted in Florence (Italy) on 20 October 2000, as amended by the Protocol of 1 August 2016. (32) In particular, Article 5 of that convention, entitled ‘General measures’, states, in point (d), that each party undertakes ‘to integrate landscape into its regional and town planning policies and in its cultural, environmental, agricultural, social and economic policies, as well as in any other policies with possible direct or indirect impact on landscape’. With regard more specifically to wind turbines, as noted by the Polish Government, it is clear from the report entitled ‘Landscape and Wind Turbines’, dated 21 March 2011, drawn up in the context of the 6th Council of Europe Conference on the European Landscape Convention, held on 3 and 4 May 2011, that, ‘like other important infrastructure, wind turbines should be planned on an area-wide level based on the application of spatial planning principles. This is the key to successful integration into the landscape and, hence, to overall coherence that is understood and accepted by a large proportion of the population’. (33)
65.      Similarly, the Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe, (34) adopted in Granada (Spain) on 3 October 1985, provides, inter alia, in Article 4(2)(a), that each party undertakes ‘to prevent the disfigurement, dilapidation or demolition of protected properties. To this end, each Party undertakes to introduce, if it has not already done so, legislation which … requires the submission to a competent authority of any scheme for the demolition or alteration of monuments which are already protected, or in respect of which protection proceedings have been instituted, as well as any scheme affecting their surroundings’. With regard to the European Convention on the Protection of Archaeological Heritage, (35) adopted in Valletta (Malta) on 16 January 1992, it provides, inter alia, in Article 5, headed ‘Integrated conservation of the archaeological heritage’, under point (iii), that each party undertakes ‘to ensure that environmental impact assessments and the resulting decisions involve full consideration of archaeological sites and their settings’.
66.      Accordingly, I take the view that, if the priority rule laid down in Article 3(2) of Regulation 2022/2577 were to be understood as an absolute priority, and therefore as automatic, that would excessively undermine the right of the Member States to determine their land use planning. In that regard, the objective of accelerating the permit-granting process applicable to the production of energy from renewable energy sources in the current international context cannot, in my view, justify depriving the Member States of any discretion in balancing legal interests on a case-by-case basis, in particular where the competing interests protected fall within areas not harmonised by EU law and thus governed by national law.
67.      I would add that Article 3(2) of Regulation 2022/2577, which establishes a temporary rule of an emergency nature, not within the scope of Directive 2018/2001, (36) cannot, in my view, have the effect of fundamentally calling into question the balance established by the Member States between the various legal interests at issue, (37) in particular where the lifespan of a renewable energy project may extend over several decades, as is the case for a wind turbine.
68.      Therefore, I consider that the priority rule laid down in Article 3(2) of Regulation 2022/2577 must be understood as a priority in principle, and thus leaves a Member State the option, by way of exception, to refuse to authorise a renewable energy project, provided that it supplies detailed and specific reasons, basing its decision on a thorough assessment demonstrating that a competing legal interest protected in that State has been adversely affected. (38) Such a statement of reasons must enable the entity proposing the renewable energy project concerned to understand the reasons for the refusal of its application and thus allow it to defend its rights.
69.      In the light of those considerations, I propose that the answer to the third question should be that Article 3(2) of Regulation 2022/2577 must be interpreted as meaning that, where Member States ensure that at least renewable energy projects which are recognised as being of overriding public interest are given ‘priority’ when balancing legal interests in the individual case, that priority is understood, subject to the condition relating to species protection laid down in that provision, as a priority in principle, from which those States may depart following a thorough assessment demonstrating that a legal interest protected in the Member State concerned has been adversely affected and provided they supply specific and detailed reasons.
V.      Conclusion
70.      Accordingly, in the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court of Justice should answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’État (Council of State, Belgium) as follows:
1.      Article 3(2) of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/2577 of 22 December 2022 laying down a framework to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy
must be interpreted as meaning that Member States must ensure 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, not only for the purposes of 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 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, but also for the purposes of competing legal interests falling outside the scope of those provisions, in particular landscape and heritage protection.
2.      Article 3(2) of Regulation 2022/2577
must be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘projects which are recognised as being of overriding public interest’ means that, except in cases where the rebuttable presumption provided for in paragraph 1 of that article has been rebutted and/or where the application of that presumption has not been restricted by the Member State concerned under the conditions laid down in the latter provision, such an interest does not require express recognition as regards the three directives referred to, including in cases where that Member State has introduced into its relevant national legislation such a presumption as regards landscaping. By contrast, as regards legal interests not expressly mentioned by that regulation in the context of the application of Article 3 thereof, in particular the legal interest constituted by the protection of heritage, the overriding public interest of a project must be the subject of express prior recognition, based on an assessment carried out on a case-by-case basis.
3.      Article 3(2) of Regulation 2022/2577
must be interpreted as meaning that where Member States ensure that at least projects which are recognised as being of overriding public interest are given ‘priority’ when balancing legal interests in the individual case, that priority is understood, subject to the condition relating to species protection laid down in that provision, as a priority in principle, from which those States may depart following a thorough assessment demonstrating that a legal interest protected in the Member State concerned has been adversely affected and provided they supply specific and detailed reasons.
1      Original language: French.
2      Council Regulation of 22 December 2022 laying down a framework to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy (OJ 2022 L 335, p. 36). An action for the annulment of the regulation was brought before the General Court of the European Union against the decisions of the Council of the European Union rejecting the requests for internal review brought pursuant to Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13; as amended by Regulation (EU) 2021/1767 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 2021 (OJ 2021 L 356, p. 1). Those actions were dismissed by the General Court (judgments of 12 November 2025, Föreningen Svenskt Landskapsskydd and Others v Council,
T‑534/23, EU:T:2025:1020 and CEE Bankwatch Network and Ökobüro v Council,
T‑535/23, EU:T:2025:1021), currently subject to appeal before the Court of Justice (C‑33/26 P, Nederlandse Vereniging Omwonenden Windturbines and Others v Council and C‑25/26 P, CEE Bankwatch Network and Ökobüro v Council, respectively).
3      The aim of the plan is to end the European Union’s dependency on Russian fossil fuels through new actions seeking to increase the production of green energy, diversify supply and reduce demand. See, inter alia, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions, headed ‘REPowerEU: Joint European Action for more affordable, secure and sustainable energy’ (COM(2022) 108 final).
4      Council Directive of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).
5      Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1).
6      Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 2010 L 20, p. 7).
7      Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (OJ 2018 L 328, p. 82), as amended by Directive (EU) 2023/2413 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 October 2023 (OJ L 2023/2413, ‘Directive 2018/2001’).
8      For reasons of readability, even though Regulation 2022/2577 is no longer in force, it is referred to in the present tense in the present Opinion.
9      Council Regulation of 22 December 2023 amending Regulation (EU) 2022/2577 laying down a framework to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy (OJ L, 2024/223).
10      Report from the Commission to the Council of 28 November 2023 on the review of Council Regulation (EU)
2022/2577 of 22 December 2022 laying down a framework to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy, (COM(2023) 764 final).
11      Belgisch Staatsblad/Moniteur Belge of 12 September 1991, p. 19976.
12      It is apparent from the file before that Court that such a permit is the decision by the competent authority concerning a ‘mixed project’, and that it constitutes both an environmental permit and a planning permit.
13      Belgisch Staatsblad/Moniteur Belge of 8 June 1999, p. 21114.
14      Order in
Eneco Wind Belgium (C‑325/25, EU:C:2025:677).
15      That process is defined in point (l) of Article 2 of Regulation 2022/2577.
16      See, to that effect, judgment of 7 December 2023, Latvijas valsts meži (C‑434/22, EU:C:2023:966, paragraph 56
and the case-law cited).
17      See judgment of 1 June 2017, Folk (C‑529/15, EU:C:2017:419, paragraph 37
and the case-law cited). As regards Article 9(1)(a) of Directive 2009/147, it seems to me that the interest concerned is not the overriding public interest but that of public health and safety, which is also mentioned in Article 3(1) of Regulation 2022/2577.
18      See judgment of 26 January 2021, Hessischer Rundfunk (C‑422/19 and C‑423/19, EU:C:2021:63, paragraph 64
and the case-law cited).
19      See judgment of 26 March 2020, Hungeod and Others (C‑496/18 and C‑497/18, EU:C:2020:240, paragraph 69
and the case-law cited).
20      The applicant argued before the referring court that, according to the Belgian regulations applicable in the case in the main proceedings, protection of the environment includes the landscape (see point 23 of the present Opinion).
21      Judgment of 12 February 2026, Stichting Koskea (C‑490/24, EU:C:2026:89, paragraph 23
and the case-law cited).
22      The Italian Government argues that the two paragraphs of Article 3 of Regulation 2022/2577 fulfil distinct functions, in that paragraph 1, by introducing a rebuttable presumption of ‘overriding public interest’, establishes a ‘targeted’ derogation, whereas paragraph 2, by granting priority to renewable energy projects, establishes a ‘procedural priority’.
23      The Italian Government and the Commission submit that, as regards the wording of Article 3(2) of Regulation 2022/2577, the use of the expressions ‘[balancing legal interests] in the individual case’ (as also pointed out by the Belgian Government) and ‘in the planning and permit-granting process’ bear witness to the general scope of that provision, arguing that it cannot be restricted to the environmental interests referred to in paragraph 1 of that article. I do not agree with that interpretation. First, the expression ‘balancing legal interests in the individual case’ also appears in paragraph 1 of that article. Second, since the scope of the regulation is, as stated by the first paragraph of Article 1 thereof, ‘the permit-granting process’, both paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 of Article 3 of that regulation concern the planning and permit-granting process.
24      The Commission proposal of 9 November 2022 for a Council regulation laying down a framework to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy (COM(2022) 591 final) includes an Article 2, headed ‘Overriding public interest’. The wording of paragraph 1 thereof is similar to that of Article 3(1) of Regulation 2022/2577 and encompasses the same provisions of the directives referred to, while the second sentence of Article 2(2) is worded almost identically to Article 3(2) of Regulation 2022/2577. Furthermore, recitals 7 and 9 of the proposal are analogous to recitals 8 and 9 of Regulation 2022/2577.
25      Article 1(6) of Regulation 2024/223 states that the application of Article 3(2) of Regulation 2022/2577 was extended until 30 June 2025.
26      Regulation 2024/223 amended Article 3(2) of Regulation 2022/2577 by deleting the words ‘at least for’. That amendment should not lead to a different interpretation of the provision in the context of the present request for a preliminary ruling.
27      I consider that general recognition may take different forms, such as recognition by means of legislation or regulation, by category, even indeed, by the production of lists containing a number of sites that have been recognised on the basis of common criteria.
28      Emphasis added.
29      The concept of ‘heritage’ should be broadly construed. See, to that effect, point 55 of the present Opinion.
30      Article 7 of Regulation 2022/2577, entitled ‘Acceleration of the deployment of heat pumps’, lays down a similar provision in paragraph 3 thereof.
31      Other EU legal instruments also provide for landscape and heritage protection. That applies, in particular, to Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 establishing rules on support for strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States under the common agricultural policy (CAP Strategic Plans) and financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1305/2013 and (EU) No 1307/2013 (OJ 2021 L 435, p. 1), Article 6 of which, headed ‘Specific objectives’, provides, in paragraph 1(f), that the achievement of the general objectives is to be pursued, inter alia, through the following specific objective: ‘to contribute to halting and reversing biodiversity loss, enhance ecosystem services and preserve habitats and landscapes’ (emphasis added).
32      That convention may be consulted in English and French (official languages) as well as in German, Italian and Russian, at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=treaty-detail&treatynum= 176.
33      See p. 19 of the report, which may be consulted in English at: https://rm.coe.int/16806f40b3.
34      That convention may be consulted in English and French (official languages) as well as in German, Italian and Russian, at: CETS 121 - Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe.
35      That convention may be consulted in English and French (official languages) as well as in German, Italian and Russian, at: CETS 143 - European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (Revised). The Kingdom of Belgium has ratified those three Council of Europe conventions.
36      See point 48 of the present Opinion.
37      In that regard, the Polish Government observed that giving absolute priority to renewable energy projects could lead to significant disruption of the natural system or of long-established spatial development as regards the preservation of natural, landscape or cultural heritage values.
38      See, with regard to the need to strike the right balance between energy security and environmental protection, Tla da Silva, E., ‘In Search of the Golden Ratio: The Conundrum of Balancing Environmental Protection and Energy Security’, European Energy and Environmental Law Review, vol. 33, No 6, 2024, pp. 263-273.