Introduction
On 24 September 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Fifth Chamber) delivered its judgment in Case C-151/25, F.B. v Région wallonne, bearing the ECLI identifier ECLI:EU:C:2026:789. The case arose as a reference for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Conseil d'État (Council of State, Belgium) by decision of 12 February 2025, received at the Court on 20 February 2025.
The central question before the Court concerned the interpretation of Article 6(1) and (10) of, and paragraphs 20 and 22 of Annex I to, the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, signed at Aarhus on 25 June 1998, and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005. This instrument is commonly referred to as the Aarhus Convention.
The judgment is significant for public authorities, operators of wind farms, and members of the public residing near such installations, as it addresses the procedural obligations that arise when a competent authority considers extending the duration of an existing operating permit rather than issuing an entirely new one.
Background to the dispute
The proceedings before the Belgian Conseil d'État were brought by F.B., described in the judgment as a person residing close to a wind farm. The respondent was the Région wallonne (Walloon Region, Belgium), with Parc éolien de Leuze-en-Hainaut SA, e-NosVents SA, and Electrabel SA participating as third parties.
The factual trigger for the litigation was a decision by the competent technical officer of the Région wallonne to extend by 10 years the period of validity of a permit authorising the operation of the wind farm in question. F.B. challenged that decision, and the Conseil d'État considered it necessary to seek guidance from the Court of Justice on whether the Aarhus Convention required a public participation phase to be organised before such an extension could lawfully be granted.
The case was assigned the name 'Viaudret' for internal reference purposes, as indicated in the judgment. Observations were submitted on behalf of F.B., Electrabel SA, the Belgian Government, and the European Commission. The Advocate General, L. Medina, delivered an Opinion at the sitting on 18 December 2025.
The relevant legal framework
The Aarhus Convention establishes, as stated in its Article 1, that each Party shall guarantee the rights of access to information, public participation in decision-making, and access to justice in environmental matters, with the objective of contributing to the protection of the right of every person of present and future generations to live in an environment adequate to their health and well-being.
Article 6 of the Convention, entitled 'Public participation in decisions on specific activities', sets out the core obligations in this area. Under Article 6(1)(a), each Party shall apply the provisions of that article with respect to decisions on whether to permit proposed activities listed in Annex I to the Convention. Under Article 6(1)(b), each Party shall, in accordance with its national law, also apply those provisions to decisions on proposed activities not listed in Annex I which may have a significant effect on the environment, with Parties being required to determine whether such a proposed activity is subject to these provisions.
The judgment specifically concerns the interpretation of Article 6(1) and (10) of the Convention, together with paragraphs 20 and 22 of Annex I. The interplay between these provisions was central to determining whether the extension of an existing permit's duration — as opposed to the initial grant of a permit — falls within the scope of the public participation obligations established by Article 6.
The preliminary ruling procedure
The reference was made under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which empowers national courts and tribunals to request the Court of Justice to give a ruling on the interpretation of EU law where such a ruling is necessary to enable the national court to give judgment.
The Conseil d'État, as the referring court, identified a question of interpretation that it considered unresolved: specifically, whether the extension of the duration of the validity of a permit to operate a wind farm constitutes a decision that triggers the public participation obligations under Article 6 of the Aarhus Convention, including the obligation to organise a public participation phase prior to that extension being granted.
The Fifth Chamber of the Court, composed of M.L. Arastey Sahún as President of the Chamber, J. Passer as Rapporteur, E. Regan, D. Gratsias, and B. Smulders as Judges, was responsible for examining the reference and delivering the judgment.
Scope and significance of the judgment
The judgment addresses a question of practical importance for the administration of environmental permits across EU member states. Wind farms and other installations listed in or connected to Annex I of the Aarhus Convention are subject to specific procedural requirements when decisions are made about their operation. The question of whether those requirements extend to decisions that merely prolong an existing permit, rather than authorising a new activity, has direct consequences for how public authorities structure their decision-making processes.
The involvement of the Belgian Government and the European Commission as parties submitting observations reflects the broader relevance of the question beyond the specific facts of the case. The Commission's participation underscores the importance of consistent application of the Aarhus Convention's public participation requirements across the EU legal order.
By framing the issue as one concerning the 'extension of the duration of the validity of a permit', the judgment engages with the distinction between decisions that initiate a new environmental impact and decisions that continue or consolidate an existing one. This distinction has implications for how member states and their competent authorities interpret their obligations under Article 6 of the Convention when managing the lifecycle of environmental permits.
Conclusion
The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-151/25, F.B. v Région wallonne, delivered on 24 September 2026, provides authoritative guidance on the application of Article 6 of the Aarhus Convention to decisions extending the duration of permits to operate wind farms. The case originated from a challenge brought by a resident living near a wind farm against a 10-year extension of the relevant operating permit granted by the Région wallonne without a prior public participation phase.
The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Belgian Conseil d'État illustrates the role of national courts in ensuring that EU environmental law obligations, including those derived from the Aarhus Convention as approved by Council Decision 2005/370/EC, are correctly interpreted and applied at the national level. The participation of the Belgian Government and the European Commission in the proceedings further highlights the systemic importance of the questions raised.
Public authorities responsible for issuing and managing environmental permits, as well as operators of installations covered by the Aarhus Convention's Annex I, should be attentive to the obligations established by Article 6 of the Convention and to the Court's interpretation of those obligations as set out in this judgment. Individuals and communities affected by such installations may also find the judgment relevant to understanding their procedural rights in the context of permit decisions.
This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Sources consulted
- Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 September 2026. — F.B. v Région wallonne. — Reference for a preliminary ruling – Environment – Aarhus Convention – Article 6 – Public participation in decisions on specific activities – Extension of the duration of the validity of a permit to operate a wind farm – Obligation to organise a public participation phase prior to that extension. — Case C-151/25. - Court of Justice of the European Union, European Union
Published by Synojus International
Back to English publications