31

In those circumstances, the Raad voor Vergunningsbetwistingen (Council for consent disputes) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Do Article 2(a) and Article 3(2)(a) of Directive [2001/42] mean that Article 99 of the Order of the Flemish Government amending the Order of the Flemish Government of 6 February 1991 on the adoption of Flemish regulations concerning environmental consent and amending [the Vlarem II] as regards the updating of the aforementioned orders in keeping with the evolution of technology, which introduces, into the Vlarem II, Section 5.20.6 on installations for the generation of electricity by means of wind energy, and [the Circular of 2006], both of which contain various provisions regarding the installation of wind turbines, including measures on safety, and standards relating to shadow flicker and noise levels, having regard to town and country planning zones, must be classified as a “plan or programme” within the meaning of the provisions of the Directive? (2) If it appears that an environmental assessment should have been carried out before the adoption of [the Order and the Circular of 2006], can the Raad voor Vergunningsbetwistingen (Council for consent disputes) modulate the timing of the legal effects of the illegal nature of [the Order and the Circular of 2006]? To that end, a number of sub-questions must be asked: (a) Can a policy instrument such as [the Circular of 2006], which the public authority concerned is competent to draw up on the basis of its discretionary and policy-making powers, meaning that the competent authority was not, strictly speaking, designated to draw up the “plan or programme”, and in respect of which there is also no provision for a formal drafting procedure, be regarded as a “plan or programme” within the meaning of Article 2(a) of the Directive [2001/42]? (b) Is it sufficient that a policy instrument or general rule, such as [the Order and the Circular of 2006], partially curtails the margin of appreciation of a public authority responsible for granting development consent, in order to be considered a “plan or programme” within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive [2001/42], even if they do not represent a requirement, or a necessary condition, for the granting of consent or are not intended to constitute a framework for future development consent, notwithstanding the fact that the European legislature has indicated that that purpose is an element of the definition of “plan or programme”? (c) Can a policy instrument such as the Circular [of 2006], the format of which is drawn up on grounds of legal certainty and thus constitutes a completely voluntary decision, be regarded as a “plan or programme” within the meaning of Article 2(a) of [Directive 2001/42], and does such an interpretation not run counter to the case-law of the Court of Justice to the effect that a purposive interpretation of a directive may not deviate fundamentally from the clearly expressed will of the EU legislature? (d) Can Section 5.20.6 of the Vlarem II, in circumstances where there was no mandatory requirement to draw up the rules contained therein, be defined as a “plan or programme” within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive [2001/42], and does such an interpretation not run counter to the case-law of the Court of Justice to the effect that a purposive interpretation of a directive may not deviate fundamentally from the clearly expressed will of the EU legislature? (e) Can a policy instrument and a normative government Order, such as the [Order and the Circular of 2006], which have a limited indicative value – or at least do not constitute a framework from which any right to execute a project may be derived and from which no right to any framework specifying to what extent projects can be approved may be derived – be regarded as a “plan or programme” that constitutes “the framework for future development consent of projects listed in Annexes I and II to Directive [85/337]” within the meaning of Article 2(a) and Article 3(2)(a) of [Directive 2001/42], and does such an interpretation not run counter to the case-law of the Court of Justice to the effect that a purposive interpretation of a directive may not deviate fundamentally from the clearly expressed will of the Union legislature? (f) Can a policy instrument such as [the Circular of 2006], which has a purely indicative value, and/or a normative government order, such as Section 5.20.6 of the Vlarem II, which merely sets a minimum threshold for development consent and which, moreover, is a general rule that operates fully autonomously, – both of which contain only a limited number of criteria and modalities, and – neither of which is the only determinant for even a single criterion or modality, and in relation to which it could be argued that, on the basis of objective information, the possibility that they are likely to have significant effects on the environment can be ruled out, be regarded as a “plan or programme” on a joint reading of Article 2(a) and Article 3(1) and (2) of [Directive 2001/42], and can they thus be regarded as acts which, by the adoption of rules and control procedures applicable to the sector concerned, establish a whole package of criteria and modalities for the approval and execution of one or more projects that are likely to have significant effects on the environment? (g) If the answer to [question 2, sub-question (f)] is in the negative, can a court or tribunal determine this itself, after the Order or the quasi-legislation (such as the Order and the Circular of 2006) have been adopted? (h) Can a court or tribunal, if it has only indirect jurisdiction through the commencement of an objection procedure, the result of which applies only to the parties, and if the answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling shows that [the Order and the Circular of 2006] are illegal, order that the effects of the unlawful order and/or the unlawful circular be maintained if the unlawful instruments contribute to an objective of environmental protection, that is also pursued by a Directive within the meaning of Article 288 TFEU and if the requirements laid down in European Union law for such maintenance (as laid down the judgment [of 28 July 2016, Association France Nature Environnement (C‑379/15, EU:C:2016:603)] have been met? (i) If the answer to [question 2, sub-question (h)] is in the negative, can a court or tribunal order that the effects of the contested project be maintained in order to comply indirectly with the requirements imposed by EU law (as laid down in the judgment [of 28 July 2016, Association France Nature Environnement (C‑379/15, EU:C:2016:603)] for the continued maintenance of the legal effects of plans or programmes that do not conform to the [Directive 2001/42]?’