1.

Do Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 (1), Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/60 (2) and/or Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/42 (3) read in the light of Article 3(3) TEU and/or Article 11 and/or 191(2) TFEU and/or Article 37 of the [EU] Charter of Fundamental Rights have the effect that an action programme under Article 5 of Directive 91/676 (4) that is assessed under or by reference to such Directives is required to be assessed in relation to the effects on the environment of the Nitrate-emitting agricultural activities which will be carried out on foot of derogations granted consequent on the plan, either generally or insofar as such effects are indirectly contributed to by the absence of more rigorous protective measures in the plan, as opposed to being assessed by reference to the protective measures the plan positively includes and those alone?

2.

If the answer to the first question in general is No, do the provisions referred to have that effect where provisions in the domestic law of the Member State concerned for assessment of individual derogations granted consequent on an action programme pursuant to Article 5 of Directive 91/676 are not operated in practice in that context so that there is in practice no assessment carried out under Directive 92/43 of individual derogations granted consequent on the plan in terms of the effect on European sites of Nitrate-emitting agricultural activities which will be carried out on foot of such derogations?

3.

Do Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 and/or Article 3(1) and/or 5(1) and/or 11(2) of Directive 2001/42 read in the light of Article 3(3) TEU and/or Article 11 and/or 191(2) TFEU and/or Article 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights have the effect that assessment of a plan or programme that is subject to those articles and that is capable of having environmental effects on a water body must include assessment by reference to Article 4 of Directive 2000/60 either alone or together with other binding measures adopted by the Member State are sufficiently rigorous to ensure that the plan or programme will not cause a deterioration of the status of a body of surface water or jeopardise the attainment of good surface water status or of good ecological potential and good surface water chemical status by the date laid down by Directive 2000/60, and if so, do those provisions or either of them require such an assessment to state in express and/or clearly ascertainable terms whether the relevant environmental objectives of Directive 2000/60 will be met following adoption of the plan or programme; either generally or in the specific case of the proposed adoption of a basic measure as defined by Article 11(3) of Directive 2000/60 and in particular a nitrates action programme under Article 5 of Directive 91/676 (as referred to in Annex VI part A para (ix) of Directive 2000/60 as referenced in Article Il(3)(a) of that Directive)?

4.

If the answer to the third question is such that that assessment of a plan or programme that is subject to Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 and/or Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/42 and that is capable of having environmental effects on a water body must include assessment by reference to Article 4 of Directive 2000/60 and the answer to the first or second questions is such that assessment for the purposes of Directive 2001/42 in terms of compliance with Directive 2000/60 is required to include an assessment of the effects on the environment of the Nitrate emitting agricultural activities which will be carried out on foot of derogations granted consequent on the plan and/or in particular the omission of more rigorous provisions in a plan, does Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/60 (and specifically the principle of law having the effect that Member States are required, unless a derogation is granted, to refuse authorisation for an individual project where it may cause a deterioration of the status of a body of surface water or where it jeopardises the attainment of good surface water status or of good ecological potential and good surface water chemical status by the date laid down by the Directive), read in the light of Article 3(3) TEU and/or Article 11 and/or 191(2) TFEU and/or Article 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, have the effect that a Member States must also refuse to adopt a plan if the particular protections afforded by the plan either alone or together with other binding measures adopted by the Member State are insufficiently rigorous to ensure that the Nitrate-emitting agricultural activities which will be carried out on foot of derogations granted consequent on the plan will not cause a deterioration of the status of a body of surface water or jeopardise the attainment of good surface water status or of good ecological potential and good surface water chemical status by the date laid down by Directive 2000/60, either generally or in the specific case of the proposed adoption of a basic measure as defined by Article 11(3) of Directive 2000/60 and in particular a nitrates action programme under Article 5 of Directive 91/676 (as referred to in Annex VI part A para (ix) of Directive 2000/60 as referenced in Article Il(3)(a) of that Directive)?

5.

If the answer to the third and/or fourth questions in general is No, do the provisions referred to have the effect referred to where provisions in the domestic law of the Member State concerned for assessment of individual derogations granted consequent on an action programme pursuant to Article 5 of Directive 91/676 are not operated in practice in that context so that there is in practice no assessment carried out under Directive 92/43 (whether by reference to Article 4 of Directive 2000/60 or otherwise) of individual derogations granted consequent on the plan in terms of the effect on water bodies in the Member State of Nitrate emitting agricultural activities which will be carried out on foot of such derogations?

6.

Does Article 4 of Directive 2000/60 read in the light of Article 3(3) TEU and/or Article 11 and/or 191(2) TFEU and/or Article 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights have the effect that a plan or programme in particular a nitrates action programme under Directive 91/676 with the potential to affect the status of any relevant water body within a Member State cannot be adopted by the competent authority of a Member State unless the competent authority is required to satisfy itself firstly, that the adoption of the plan or programme is not liable to cause a deterioration of the status of any surface water body which has been or ought to have been identified by that Member State as constituting a surface water body 'type', nor is it liable to compromise the attainment of good surface water status or of good ecological potential and good chemical status of such a surface water body and, secondly, that the adoption of the plan or programme is compatible with the measures implemented pursuant to the programme under Directive 2000/60 established, in accordance with Article 11 of that Directive, for the river basin district concerned?

7.

Do Article 5(1) of and Annex I para, (i) to Directive 2001/42 read in the light of Article 3(3) TEU and/or Article 11 and/or 191(2) TFEU and/or Article 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights have the effect that the environmental report itself must include a description of the measures envisaged concerning monitoring in accordance with Article 10 in sufficient detail to demonstrate that Article 10 will be complied with, including details of how this monitoring will occur; when it will be done; and/or how the monitoring will be used and how any identified unforeseen adverse environmental effects will be addressed?

8.

Does the term 'material assets' in para, (f) of annex I of Directive 2001/42 exclude the value of such assets and/or in particular in the case of the assessment of an action programme pursuant to Article 5 of Directive 91/676, does that term exclude the broad societal impacts of agricultural activities, the impact of the plan or project on the agricultural industry and on the output and income of farmers, the sustainability of the agricultural industry in the Member State concerned, the food supply chain, and the employment of a significant portion of the population, and if so does Directive 2001/42 have the effect that consideration of such matters is unlawful in assessing the effects of the plan?

9.

If the answers to one or more of the first to eighth questions have the consequence that the adoption of the NAP involved a breach of Directives 92/43, 2000/60 and/or 2001/42, is Commission Decision 2022/696 (5) invalid having regard inter alia to Article 3(3) TEU and/or Article 11 and/or 191(2) TFEU and/or Article 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights?