1.

Are [the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter], read in conjunction with [the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU], and Article 2(4) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, signed in Aarhus, Denmark, on 25 June 1998, and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 (1) [(‘the Convention’)], read in conjunction with Article 9(3) thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘the public’ includes a legal entity such as a law firm partnership, which does not rely on the infringement of any right or interest specific to that entity, but rather the infringement of the rights and interests of natural persons — namely the lawyers of which that partnership is comprised — [and] can such an entity be treated as a group of natural persons acting through an association or organisation for the purposes of Article 2(4) of the Convention?

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, having regard [both] to the objectives of Article 9(3) of the Convention and to the objective of effective judicial protection of the rights conferred by EU law, must Article 9(3) of the Convention and [the first and second paragraphs of Article 47 of the Charter], read in conjunction with [the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU], be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law that makes access to justice for such a law firm partnership conditional on proof of an interest of its own or on the fact that, by bringing the action, it seeks to protect a legal situation directly connected with the specific purpose for which that type of organisation (in this case, a law firm partnership) was established?

3.

If the first and second questions are answered in the affirmative, or regardless of the answers to those two questions as set out above, must Article 9(3), (4) [and] (5) of the Convention and [the first and second paragraphs of Article 47 of the Charter], read in conjunction with [the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU], be interpreted as meaning that the expression that adequate and effective remedies, including the adoption of a judicial decision, should not be ‘prohibitively expensive’, presupposes rules and/or criteria to limit the costs that may be incurred by the unsuccessful party to the proceedings, in the sense that a national court or tribunal must ensure that the requirement that the cost not be prohibitively expensive is met, taking into account [both] the interest of the person who wishes to defend his or her rights and the public interest in the protection of the environment?