Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2023:534
Date: 2023-06-29
Language of the case: Danish
Subject matter: Environment;Approximation of laws
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Denmark

Summary C-311/22 – 1 
Case C-311/22 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged:  
10 May 2022 
Referring court:  
Højesteret (Denmark) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
4 May 2022 
Defendants: 
PO 
Moesgaard Meat 2012 A/S 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
The dispute in the main proceedings concerns whether the defendants – 
Moesgaard Meat 2012 A/S (‘Moesgaard Meat’) and the company’s managing 
director, PO – must be penalised for a breach of environmental law by operating a 
slaughterhouse without an environmental permit during the period from 1 January 
2014 to 31 December 2016. 
The questions referred for a preliminary ruling concern the correct understanding 
of point 6.4(a) of Annex I to Directive 2010/75 and, in particular, the meaning to 
be given to the following three terms: 
(1) ‘carcass production’ 
(2) ‘per day’ 
(3) ‘capacity’ 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-311/22 
 
2  
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Interpretation of point 6.4(a) of Annex 1 to Directive 2010/75/EU of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions 
(integrated pollution prevention and control). Reference on the basis of 
Article 267 TFEU. 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
‘1. Is point 6.4(a) of Annex I to Directive 2010/75/EU of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions 
(integrated pollution prevention and control) to be interpreted as meaning that 
“carcass production” covers the slaughter process, which begins when the animal 
is removed from lairage, stunned and killed and ends when the large standard cuts 
are produced, so that the weight of the slaughter animal is to be calculated before 
the neck and head as well as the organs and entrails are removed, or does “carcass 
production” mean the production of pig carcasses after the organs and entrails as 
well as the neck and head have been removed, and after exsanguination and 
chilling, so that the weight of the slaughter animal should only be calculated at 
this point in time? 
2. Is point 6.4(a) of Annex I to Directive 2010/75/EU of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions 
(integrated pollution prevention and control) to be interpreted as meaning that 
when determining the number of production days included in the capacity “per 
day”, this should take into account only the days when stunning, killing and 
immediate cutting up of the slaughter pig are carried out, or should this take into 
account the days when the operations for dressing the slaughter pigs are carried 
out, which includes preparing the animal for slaughter, chilling the slaughtered 
animal and removing the animal’s head and neck? 
3. Is point 6.4(a) of Annex I to Directive 2010/75/EU of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions 
(integrated pollution prevention and control) to be interpreted as meaning that the 
“capacity” of a slaughterhouse is to be calculated as the maximum production per 
day within 24 hours, subject to the physical, technical or legal constraints actually 
complied with by the slaughterhouse, but not lower than its achieved production, 
or can the slaughterhouse’s “capacity” be lower than its achieved production, for 
example, where the production achieved by a slaughterhouse has been carried out 
in disregard of the physical, technical or legal constraints on production that are 
assumed when calculating the slaughterhouse’s “capacity”?’ 
Provisions of European Union law and case-law relied on 
Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and 
MOESGAARD MEAT 2012 
 
3 
control) (‘the IE Directive’; OJ 2010 L 224, p. 17): recital 10; point 3 of Article 3; 
Article 4(1); Chapter II, Annex I, point 6.4(a). 
Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated 
pollution prevention and control, consolidated by Directive 2008/1/EC of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated 
pollution prevention and control (‘the IPPC Directive’) (OJ 2008 L 24, p. 8): 
Article 4; point 3 of Article 2; Annex I, point 6.4(a). 
Council Directive 64/433/EEC of 26 June 1964 on health problems affecting 
intra-Community trade in fresh meat (OJ 121, p. 2012; English special edition: 
Series I Chapter 1963-1964 p. 185); Article 1 and Article 2(a); as amended by 
Council Directive 83/90/EEC of 7 February 1983 amending Directive 
64/433/EEC on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in fresh meat 
(OJ 1983 L 59, p. 10); Article 1, as amended, and Article 2, as amended. More 
specifically, the definition of ‘carcase’. 
Council Directive 91/497/EEC of 29 July 1991 amending and consolidating 
Directive 64/433/EEC on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in 
fresh meat, which recast Directive 64/443; in particular, Article 2(d) and Article 1. 
Directive 2004/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 
2004 repealing certain Directives concerning food hygiene and health conditions 
for the production and placing on the market of certain products of animal origin 
intended for human consumption and amending Council Directives 89/662/EEC 
and 92/118/EEC and Council Decision 95/408/EC (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 33), which 
repealed Directive 64/433; first to third recitals. 
Council Directive 77/99/EEC of 21 December 1976 on health problems affecting 
intra-Community trade in meat products (OJ 1977 L 26, p. 85). 
Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin 
(Hygiene Regulation) (OJ 2004 L 139, p. 55); Annex I, points 1.9 and 1.11, 
Annex III, Section I, point 2, and Annex III, Chapter IV, points 6 to 11).  
European Commission Guidance; ‘Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control, 
Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Slaughterhouses and 
Animal By-Products Industries’ (May 2005). 
European Commission Guidance on the concept of capacity (April 2007): 
‘Guidance on Interpretation and Determination of Capacity under the IPPC 
Directive’. No 2 (Daily and hourly capacity), no 3 (Technical limitations on 
capacity), no 4 (Legal limitations on capacity). 
Judgment of 22 January 2009, Association OABA, C-473/07 (EU:C:2009:30). 
Meaning of ‘poultry’. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-311/22 
 
4  
Judgment of 15 December 2011, Niels Møller, C-585/10 (EU:C:2011:847). 
Meaning of ‘places for sows’. 
Judgment of 24 October 1996, Kraaijeveld and Others, C-72/95 (EU:C:1996:404, 
paragraph 38). 
Provisions of national law relied on 
It follows, inter alia, from § 33 of the lov om miljøbeskyttelse (Danish Law on 
protection of the environment) (current Executive Order no 100 of 19 January 
2022) (‘the Environmental Protection Law’), read in conjunction with § 35 
thereof, that activities, installations or facilities included in the list of especially 
polluting activities, installations or facilities drawn up by the Minister for the 
Environment and Food of Denmark, may not be expanded without a permit. 
The detailed rules for that list are set out in the bekendtgørelse om godkendelse af 
listevirksomhed (Danish Executive Order on permits for listed activities) (current 
Executive Order no 2080 of 15 November 2021) (‘the Permits Executive Order’), 
which transposes the IE Directive. § 3(1) of that executive order, read in 
conjunction with point 6.4(a) of Annex I thereof, states that the operation of 
slaughterhouses with a carcass production capacity, including slaughtered poultry, 
in excess of 50 tonnes per day requires a permit. 
It is stipulated in § 110(2) of the Environmental Protection Law, read in 
conjunction with § 110(1)(6) and, to some extent, § 110(4) thereof, that an 
operator without a permit may, pursuant to § 33 of that law, be sentenced to up to 
two years’ imprisonment if the breach has caused environmental damage.  
The bekendtgørelse om produktionsafgift ved slagtning og eksport af svin (Danish 
Executive Order on a production levy for the slaughter and export of pigs) (most 
recently Executive Order No 2183 of 26 November 2021) (‘the Production Levy 
Executive Order’) determines that a levy is payable on each pig produced in 
Denmark that is slaughtered and unconditionally authorised for human 
consumption by official controls. The levy rates are set per pig on the basis of a 
delivered slaughter weight, which means the weight of a pig carcass with its head 
and feet, but without flare fat and in a warm state during slaughter. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The dispute concerns whether the defendants – Moesgaard Meat 2012 A/S 
(‘Moesgaard Meat’) and the company’s managing director, PO – must be 
penalised for a breach of environmental law by operating a slaughterhouse 
without an environmental permit during the period from 1 January 2014 to 
31 December 2016. 
MOESGAARD MEAT 2012 
 
5 
2 Moesgaard Meat did not have, during the period from 2014 to 2016, an 
environmental permit for the production of carcasses in excess of 50 tonnes per 
day. Such a permit was not granted to the company until 9 May 2018, after it had 
fulfilled certain specific requirements from the environmental authorities. 
3 By the indictment of 19 July 2017, proceedings were brought against Moesgaard 
Meat and PO for breaching the Environmental Protection Law as a result of 
operating, during the abovementioned period, without an environmental permit, a 
slaughterhouse producing carcasses amounting to more than 50 tonnes per day, 
which posed a risk of causing damage to the environment. 
4 The defendants were found guilty before the court of first instance, which 
considered that Moesgaard Meat had breached § 33(1) of the Environmental 
Protection Law by failing first to obtain an environmental permit. Moesgaard 
Meat was ordered to pay a fine of DKK 841 000 and a sum of DKK 3 364 722 
was to be confiscated, while PO was ordered to pay a fine of DKK 150 000. 
5 The defendants appealed against that judgment to the Vestre Landsret (High Court 
of Western Denmark), which delivered its judgment in the case on 4 July 2019, 
upholding the district court’s judgment, while, however, reducing the amount of 
the fine imposed on PO to DKK 80 000. 
6 On 16 January 2020, the Procesbevillingsnævnet (Danish Appeals Permission 
Board) granted leave to appeal the judgment of the Western Regional Court to the 
Højesteret (Supreme Court, Denmark) (third instance), before which the case is 
now pending. 
Statements by environmental authorities of other EU countries 
7 Following the referral of the case to the Supreme Court, the Rigsadvokaten 
(Danish Director of Public Prosecutions) consulted the environmental authorities 
in several other EU countries and in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and 
Northern Ireland. 
8 As part of the consultation, the Director of Public Prosecutions asked the 
authorities how they understood, first, the term ‘carcass’ and then, the expression 
‘per day’, in the light of point 6.4(a) of Annex I to the IE Directive. The questions 
were sent out in English and were worded as follows: 
‘A. Please indicate which of the following understandings of the term 
“carcass” in point 6.4 in annex I to the IE directive you share: 
1) “Carcass” means the weight of the animal after it has been killed and 
just before the actual slaughter process begins. Thus head and organs 
are included in the weight. […] 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-311/22 
 
6  
2) “Carcass” means the weight of the animal after the actual slaughter 
process has taken place. Thus head and organs are not included in the 
weight. […]  
3) None of the above. […]: 
B. Please indicate which of the following understandings of the term “day” in 
point 6.4 in annex I to the IE directive you share: 
1) “Day” only mean[s] days where actual slaughtering takes place, i.e. 
days where the official veterinarian is at inspection according to 
Regulation No 854/2004. 
[…]  
2) “Day” includes all days where the slaughtering process or part of it 
takes place. The slaughtering process encompasses the preparation of 
the animal for slaughter, the actual slaughter and the handling of the 
animal after slaughter namely the chilling of the animal according to 
Regulation No 853/2004 until it is ready to leave the slaughterhouse. 
[…] 
3) None of the above. […]’ 
9 These questions were sent to the authorities in Germany, Sweden, Austria, France, 
Belgium, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. The Director of Public 
Prosecutions received replies from Belgium (Flemish Region), the United 
Kingdom and Germany.  
Replies from the national authorities questioned (in English) 
10 […] Belgium, Flanders 
‘Question A: The English version […] uses the term “Carcase” in activity 
6.4. However, the Dutch version […] translates this as “slaughtered 
animals” […]. If we would need a (European) definition for Carcase, we 
would refer to Regulation No 853/2004.  
Question B: 
Day in activity 6.4 is linked with the capacity threshold. In our opinion it 
means that if an installation is permitted to exceed the daily (threshold) 
capacity, it is to be considered an IPPC installation.’ 
[…] 
MOESGAARD MEAT 2012 
 
7 
[…] 
11 United Kingdom […] 
‘Question A: […] “carcase” means the body of a dead animal and head and 
offal are excluded from the carcase weight assessment. […] 
Question B: […][C]apacity is defined as the maximum rate at which an 
installation can operate. […]’ 
In its order for reference, the Supreme Court also incorporated an extract from the 
guidance on interpreting the legislation transposing the IE Directive in England 
and Wales (2019) (‘Understanding the meaning of regulated facility’) issued by 
the environmental authorities of England and Wales, to which the authorities of 
the United Kingdom as well as the defendants have referred. 
[…] 
12 Germany 
‘[…] question A: […] Carcase/Carcass: Body of an animal after slaughtering 
and dressing Carcase/Carcass weight: Weight of the slaughtered and 
eviscerated (dressed) animal before cooling. 
We also define which parts of the animal belong to the carcass and must not 
be cut-off prior to taking the weight of the carcass […] 
[…] question B: We follow the same approach as Flanders. […]’ 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
The first question (‘carcass production’) 
Observations of the Supreme Court 
13 By its first question, the Supreme Court asks the Court of Justice of the European 
Union to give a ruling on the meaning of the term ‘carcass production’ in 
point 6.4(a) of Annex I to the IE Directive.  
14 In its judgment, the High Court of Western Denmark considered that the delivered 
slaughter weight of the animals declared by the defendants in accordance with the 
Production Levy Executive Order, and which specified ‘the weight of a pig 
carcass with the head and feet but without flare fat and in a warm condition during 
slaughter’, was less than or equal to the carcass production referred to in 
point 6.4(a) of Annex I to the Permits Executive Order. The Regional Court did 
not consider that a carcass was to be understood as being the weight without the 
head and in a chilled state. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-311/22 
 
8  
15 The method used to determine the weight in relation to ‘carcass production’ 
including whether the animal’s weight should be determined with or without the 
head or in a warm or exsanguinated state, is significant to the outcome of the case, 
as this will affect the calculation of the slaughterhouse’s production capacity and, 
therefore, when a permit is required to operate the slaughterhouse. 
Views of the defendants 
16 The defendants claim that a ‘carcass’ is a body without the head and in a chilled 
(exsanguinated) state. This is implied by a natural linguistic understanding of 
point 6.4(a), which refers to ‘carcass production […]’.  
17 Carcass production is therefore no different, for example, from ‘cement clinker 
production’ or the ‘manufacture of ceramic products’, such as roofing tiles, bricks, 
etc. In those cases, the focus is also on the finished product and not on the weight 
of the raw materials. 
18 A pig carcass with the neck and head and in a warm state is the unprocessed raw 
material, not the finished product. 
19 From a terminology perspective, a distinction is also made between a ‘body’ and a 
‘head’. If the EU legislature had intended that the weight of a slaughter pig ought 
to be regarded as including the head and being in a warm state, it could and ought 
to have expressed this. 
20 Consequently, with regard to assessing the need for an environmental permit 
under the IE Directive, a slaughterhouse must only go by the weight of its finished 
products (‘carcasses’) and not by the weight of the unprocessed raw material (the 
pigs before slaughter). 
21 The defendants also refer to the definition of ‘carcase’ in Directive 64/433, 
consolidated most recently by Directive 91/497, according to which a ‘carcase’ is 
the body of the animal after ‘bleeding’ and after ‘removal … of the head’.  
22 Furthermore, it should be noted that Regulation No 853/2004 sets out a definition 
of ‘carcase’ which coincides with the definition of carcass laid down by Directive 
64/433. 
23 The defendants also refer to the responses which the Anklagemyndigheden 
(Public Prosecutor) has obtained from the authorities in Belgium, the United 
Kingdom and Germany, and to the guidance issued in 2019, which the 
Environment Agency for England and Wales has based on point 6.4(a) of Annex 1 
to the IE Directive. 
24 Lastly, the defendants note that the pig levy is a purely Danish scheme and that 
the concept of ‘delivered slaughter weight’ is a purely Danish concept relating to 
the calculation of a Danish levy. 
MOESGAARD MEAT 2012 
 
9 
25 There are also very great differences linguistically between the concept of ‘carcass 
production’ within the meaning of the IE Directive and that of ‘delivered slaughter 
weight’ used in the Production Levy Executive Order. The executive order does 
not use the concept of ‘carcass’ at all, nor does it refer to the ‘production’ of 
carcasses by the slaughterhouse. 
26 Lastly, the defendants highlight that the present case is a criminal case in which 
the defendants were ordered to pay substantial fines for breaching the law and 
Moesgaard Meat had a huge sum of money confiscated. The principles of legal 
certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations form part of the 
fundamental legal principles of the European Union and imply that, in criminal 
proceedings, particular requirements are imposed in terms of legal clarity and, in 
the event of any ambiguity, a legal provision ought to be interpreted in favour of 
the defendants. 
Views of the Public Prosecutor 
27 The Public Prosecutor contends that the activity of ‘carcass production’ referred to 
in point 6.4(a) must be understood as the actual slaughter process, from the animal 
being removed from lairage, stunned and killed until when the large standard cuts 
are produced. 
28 The wording of this point in the Annex does not expressly state at which stage in 
the production the capacity ought to be determined, i.e. whether the weight of the 
animal is to be taken into account before, during or after slaughter. It is therefore 
necessary to take into consideration interpretation factors other than the wording 
of the Annex, in particular the purpose and general structure of the Directive. 
29 With regard to its purpose, the IE Directive was adopted solely on the basis of 
Article 192(1) TFEU, thus its unequivocal purpose is environmental protection. 
That conclusion is supported by the recitals and Article 1 of the IE Directive. 
30 With regard to the structure of the IE Directive, the Public Prosecutor considers 
that Article 4(1), which mentions Annex I, occupies a central role and that 
Annex I cannot therefore be interpreted restrictively. 
31 According to the Public Prosecutor, the purpose and structure of the IE Directive 
indicate the broadest possible interpretation must be applied to the term ‘carcass 
production capacity’, so that the scope of the permit requirement guarantees the 
best possible protection for the environment. The purpose and structure of the IE 
Directive imply that production figures ought to be used which best reflect the 
pollution caused by the production of carcasses as a whole. 
32 The Public Prosecutor therefore concludes that it is the weight of the animal 
immediately prior to the actual slaughter process which must be taken into 
account when calculating production capacity. In the light of this, the definition 
and use of the term ‘carcass’ in the legal acts relied on by the defendants cannot, 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-311/22 
 
10  
according to the Public Prosecutor, be used to interpret the provision in 
point 6.4(a) of Annex I to the IE Directive. 
Second question (‘per day’) 
Observations of the Supreme Court 
33 By the second question, the Supreme Court asks the Court of Justice of the 
European Union to give a ruling on the meaning of the expression ‘per day’ in 
point 6.4(a) of Annex I to the IE Directive. 
34 In the judgment under appeal, the High Court of Western Denmark considered 
that the activity of ‘carcass production’ was ‘the actual slaughter process which 
occurs from when the animal is removed from lairage, stunned and killed, until 
the large standard cuts are produced’. The Regional Court also considered that 
veterinarians from the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration (‘official 
veterinarians’) would have been present in the slaughterhouse on all days when 
‘carcass production’ was in operation. 
35 The decision as to whether to include, when determining the number of 
production days, only the days from when the animals are removed from lairage, 
stunned and killed until the large standard cuts are produced, or whether to include 
the days when the dressing of the animal is carried out, is significant to the 
outcome of the case, as this will affect the calculation of the slaughterhouse’s 
production capacity and, therefore, the point at which a permit is required in order 
to operate the slaughterhouse. 
36 In this respect, a slaughter process may generally be considered to include four 
steps: 
• Step 1: The animal is delivered by lorry. The animal is housed and 
prepared for slaughter. 
• Step 2: The animal is slaughtered and is hung, still with its head and 
neck, in a cold room. 
• Step 3: The head and neck are removed from the chilled and 
exsanguinated body. 
• Step 4: The chilled and exsanguinated body is prepared for collection 
(packed in refrigerated trailers, etc.). 
A veterinarian is required to be present only at the time of actual slaughter (step 
2). 
MOESGAARD MEAT 2012 
 
11 
Views of the defendants 
37 The defendants claim that the dressing of the animals which takes place at the 
weekend (preparation on Sunday for slaughter on Monday (step 1), and final 
processing on Saturday of the pigs slaughtered on Friday, which includes 
removing the head and neck of the animal when the animal is in a chilled state 
(steps 3 and 4)) ought to be taken into account. 
38 Moesgaard Meat would be unable to produce the same number of carcasses if 
production were limited to the working days when a veterinarian is present (step 
2). If Moesgaard Meat had not carried out dressing operations during the 
weekend, far fewer pig carcasses would have been produced. 
39 In the defendants’ view, it cannot be inferred from the wording of the provision 
that only the days when a veterinarian is present must be taken into account. On 
the contrary, it is most naturally implied from the wording of the provision 
(‘production … per day’) that all days when the production of pig carcasses is 
being carried out in the slaughterhouse must be taken into account. 
40 The defendants’ interpretation is corroborated by the Directive’s underlying 
objective, which is protection of the environment. The environmental impact 
follows production and is independent of whether or not veterinarians are present 
at the slaughterhouse. There would have been nothing to prevent Moesgaard Meat 
from paying instead for a veterinarian to be present at the slaughterhouse on 
Saturday and Sunday. The upshot of this would be that those days could then be 
taken into account when determining ‘production days’, which would have led to 
a very significant reduction in daily production. 
41 Lastly, the defendants refer to the principle of legal certainty of EU law (nulla 
poena sine lege), according to which, in the event of ambiguity, a legal provision 
entailing criminal liability ought to be interpreted in favour of the individual (the 
defendants). 
Views of the Public Prosecutor 
42 The Public Prosecutor contends that the assertions made by the defendants imply 
that a much higher number of days would be counted when determining, on the 
basis of actual production figures (number and, therefore, weight of slaughter 
pigs), whether the production capacity threshold has been reached, given that, for 
each slaughter pig, dressing takes place in the slaughterhouse over several days. 
43 A calculation of the number of production days as claimed by the defendants 
would mean that the same slaughter pig is ‘produced’ over perhaps three to four 
days. As a result, the weight limit for the purpose of the permit requirement would 
be increased de facto accordingly – and each slaughterhouse could then adapt that 
weight limit itself by adjusting the number of days it chooses to spread the 
slaughter process over. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-311/22 
 
12  
44 Given that it is precisely the actual slaughtering which is the activity referred to in 
point 6.4(a), the Public Prosecutor takes the view that there is no reason to believe 
that it was incorrect only to count the days when a veterinarian was present at the 
slaughter process, i.e. the days when the actual slaughter took place, as the High 
Court of Western Denmark did in the judgment under appeal. 
45 Furthermore, it should be noted that, according to the European Commission’s 
guidance on the concept of capacity, production capacity ought basically to be 
determined as the optimum potential production for a 24-hour period at any given 
moment, so that there is no need to determine the actual production figures and 
actual production days at the outset. Accordingly, it clearly does not make sense 
to define the term ‘day’ separately, which is also evident from the comments 
received from other countries. 
46 Therefore, potential production will include every part of the slaughter process 
which takes place on a given day (as stated above). This means that daily capacity, 
as mentioned earlier, ought to be calculated on the basis of the number of 
slaughter pigs which can be slaughtered and immediately cut up on a given day. 
The third question (‘capacity’) 
Observations of the Supreme Court 
47 By the third question, the Supreme Court is asking the Court of Justice of the 
European Union to give a ruling on the meaning of the term ‘capacity’ in 
point 6.4(a) of Annex I to the IE Directive. 
48 In its judgment under appeal, the High Court of Western Denmark considered that 
the declared slaughter weight was less than or equal to the carcass production 
referred to in point 6.4(a). 
49 The Western Regional Court also held that the evidence had established that 
Moesgaard Meat had continually had a carcass production capacity of more than 
50 tonnes per day, and that conclusion could not be altered by the fact that during 
part of the period the company used refrigerated containers which had been 
unlawfully set up. 
50 It is significant to the outcome of the case how a slaughterhouse’s capacity is to be 
calculated, including the question whether its ‘capacity’ may be lower than the 
production it achieves. 
Views of the defendants 
51 With regard to the first part of the third question, the defendants agree with the 
Public Prosecutor that the ‘capacity’ of a slaughterhouse must be calculated as the 
maximum production per day, subject to physical, technical or legal constraints.  
MOESGAARD MEAT 2012 
 
13 
52 With regard to the second part of the third question, the defendants claim that the 
‘capacity’ of an installation may be lower than the production achieved if, for 
example, the production achieved was carried out in disregard of any physical, 
technical or legal constraints on production.  
Views of the Public Prosecutor 
53 The Public Prosecutor claims that the concept of ‘capacity’ (for the production of 
carcasses) must, in principle, be understood as the maximum production which the 
slaughterhouse is equipped to achieve and that, consequently, the production 
capacity of a slaughterhouse does not, initially, have to be determined on the basis 
of the (lower) production actually recorded during a given period, but must be 
assessed on the basis of an overall estimate of the slaughterhouse as a whole, 
including its production, staffing, equipment, etc. 
54 According to the Public Prosecutor, the expression ‘carcass production capacity’ 
could, in practice, be applied the way in which the regional court has applied it, so 
that, in the absence of more specific data concerning the maximum potential 
production, it is possible to refer to the company’s actual production figures, 
which will always be less than or equal to the production capacity, and therefore 
provide a sound basis for assessment. Consequently, the ‘capacity’ of an 
installation could never be lower than its actual production, not even temporarily. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
Since the clarification of these issues is significant to the outcome of the present 
case and since the doubt concerns the interpretation of a rule of EU law, the 
Supreme Court requests the Court of Justice to answer the questions referred.