1.

Is the statement contained in Article 34(5) of Directive 2016/801 (1) that the appeal provided for in that article is to be organised ‘in accordance with national law’ to be interpreted as meaning that it is for the national legislature alone to determine the procedural rules governing that appeal, without the national court being required to verify whether those rules are consistent with the right to an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

2.

3.

If the answer to part (a) or part (b) of the second question is in the affirmative, is the national court required to give preference to an interpretation of the law which is consistent with the purpose of Directive 2016/801 in order to arrive at a solution compatible with the objective pursued by that directive, by agreeing to examine as a matter of extreme urgency an application for suspension of enforcement of a decision as referred to in Article 20 of that directive, even though the travaux préparatoires for the law might suggest that that was not the legislature’s intention?

4.

If the answer to the first question is in the negative, does the appeal referred to in Article 34(5) of Directive 2016/801 require the Member States, in order to comply with Article 47 of the Charter, to provide that, in certain circumstances, the court may order the authority to issue the visa?