1.

How should it be assessed whether a slaughterhouse has a carcass production capacity of 50 tonnes per day and must therefore hold a permit under the Industrial Emissions Directive? ( 2 ) That is the question to which the present request for a preliminary ruling seeks an answer.

2.

For, as the slaughterhouse forming the subject of this case did not initially have such a permit, the undertaking concerned and its managing director are now the subject of a criminal prosecution. At issue in those criminal proceedings is how the slaughterhouse’s capacity must be assessed.

3.

In that connection, it falls to be clarified in particular whether it is the weight of the carcass before or after dressing, that is to say, in particular, after bleeding and evisceration and after removal of the neck and head, that is decisive for the purposes of the threshold value. A further question is how the capacity per day is determined and to what extent actual production can be taken into account in the determination of capacity.

4.

The Industrial Emissions Directive recasts, inter alia, Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, ( 3 ) which contained largely identical provisions on the obligation for slaughterhouses to hold a permit.

5.

Article 3(3) of the Industrial Emissions Directive defines the term ‘installation’ as follows:

‘a stationary technical unit within which one or more activities listed in Annex I or in Part 1 of Annex VII are carried out, and any other directly associated activities on the same site which have a technical connection with the activities listed in those Annexes and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution’.

6.

Article 4 of the Industrial Emissions Directive lays down an obligation to hold a permit:

‘(1)   Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that no installation … is operated without a permit.

…’

7.

Annex I to the Industrial Emissions Directive is introduced as follows:

‘The threshold values given below generally refer to production capacities or outputs. …’

8.

Point 6.4(a) of Annex I to the Industrial Emissions Directive defines slaughterhouses the operation of which is covered by that directive:

‘Operating of slaughterhouses with a carcass production capacity greater than 50 tonnes per day’.

9.

At first, Article 2(d) of Council Directive 64/433/EEC of 26 June 1964 on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in fresh meat, ( 4 ) as amended by Council Directive 91/497/EEC of 29 July 1991, ( 5 ) had defined the term ‘carcase’ ( 6 ) as follows:

‘the whole body of a slaughtered animal after bleeding, evisceration and removal of the limbs at the carpus and tarsus, removal of the head, tail and the udder, and in addition, in the case of bovine animals, sheep, goats and solipeds, after flaying …’

10.

Those rules were replaced by Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin. ( 7 ) ( 8 ) As regards the definition of ‘carcase’, that regulation states that that term refers to the body of an animal after slaughter and dressing (point 1.9 of Annex I).

11.

More precise definitions of the term ‘carcass’ are contained in Annex IV to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013: ( 9 )

‘A. Union scale for the classification of carcasses of bovine animals aged eight months or more

I. Definitions

The following definitions shall apply:

…

IV. Presentation

Carcasses and half-carcasses shall be presented:

…

B. Union scale for the classification of pig carcasses

I. Definition

“Carcass” means the body of a slaughtered pig, bled and eviscerated, whole or divided down the mid-line.

…

III. Presentation

Carcasses shall be presented without tongue, bristles, hooves, genital organs, flare fat, kidneys and diaphragm.

C. Union scale for the classification of sheep carcasses

I. Definition

The definitions of “carcass” and “half-carcass” laid down in point A.I shall apply.

…

IV. Presentation

Carcasses and half-carcasses shall be presented without the head (severed at the atlantooccipital joint), the feet (severed at the carpometacarpal or tarso-metatarsal joints), the tail (severed between the sixth and seventh caudal vertebrae), the udder, the genitalia, the liver and the pluck. Kidneys and kidney fat are included in the carcass.’

12.

Denmark transposed the Industrial Emissions Directive by means of the Lov om miljøbeskyttelse (Danish law on protection of the environment) (as currently amended according to Executive Order No 100 of 19 January 2022) and the Executive Order on permits for listed activities (Bekendtgørelse om godkendelse af listevirksomhed; as currently amended according to Executive Order No 2080 of 15 November 2021; ‘the Executive Order on permits’) without providing any additional clarification as regards the threshold applicable to slaughterhouses.

13.

It follows from Paragraph 110(2) of the Danish law on protection of the environment, read in conjunction with subparagraph 1, point 6, and, to some extent, subparagraph 4 thereof, that anyone operating a slaughterhouse without a permit is liable to up to two years’ imprisonment if the breach committed has caused environmental damage.

14.

The Danish Executive Order on the production levy for the slaughter and export of pigs (Bekendtgørelse om produktionsafgift ved slagtning og eksport af svin) (as currently amended according to Executive Order No 2183 of 26 November 2021; ‘the Executive Order on the production levy’) provides that a levy is payable on each pig produced, slaughtered and unconditionally authorised for human consumption under official controls in Denmark. The rates of levy are set per pig on the basis of the delivered slaughter weight, meaning the weight of a pig carcass with its head and feet but without flare fat (‘Flomme’) and in a warm state during slaughter.

15.

From 2014 to 2016, Moesgaard Meat 2012 A/S operated a slaughterhouse without holding a permit as required under the Danish law on protection of the environment. That company did not receive such a permit until 9 May 2018, after having fulfilled certain conditions imposed by the environmental authorities.

16.

For that reason, Moesgaard Meat and its managing director, PO, were charged with having breached the Danish law on protection of the environment in that that undertaking had during the aforementioned period operated a slaughterhouse with a carcass production capacity greater than 50 tonnes per day without an environmental permit, thereby giving rise to a risk of damage to the environment.

17.

In those criminal proceedings, the parties are in dispute as to whether the weight of carcasses is to be determined by reference to the weight of the animals to be processed, that is to say the ‘raw material’, or by reference to the end product, that is to say the carcasses without the head and in a frozen (bled) state. They are also in dispute as to whether the calculation of production per day is to take into account only the days of slaughter per se or also days on which other slaughter-related work is carried out. And finally, they are in dispute as to whether a slaughterhouse’s production volume can be decisive for the purposes of calculating its capacity, in the case where, because of illegal measures, in this instance the use of additional refrigerated containers, that volume is higher than the installation’s capacity without those illegal measures.

18.

Those proceedings are now pending, at third instance, before the Højesteret (Supreme Court, Denmark), which has referred the following questions to the Court of Justice:

19.

PO and Moesgaard Meat, acting jointly, the Kingdom of Denmark and the European Commission submitted written observations and presented oral argument at the hearing on 9 March 2023.

20.

At first sight, it may sound surprising that the Court should be asked to interpret provisions of a directive in the context of criminal proceedings. However, the referring court has no intention of penalising the defendants directly on the basis of a directive, but would like to use the interpretation of the directive in question in order to interpret the transposing provisions contained in the Danish law on protection of the environment, which are largely the same as those of the directive concerned, in conformity with that directive, the criminal liability of the defendants being dependent on whether they have infringed those transposing provisions.

21.

In accordance with Article 4(1) of the Industrial Emissions Directive, Member States are to take the necessary measures to ensure that no installation is operated without a permit. In accordance with Article 3(3) thereof, an installation is a stationary technical unit within which one or more activities listed in Annex I are carried out. Point 6.4(a) of Annex I lists operating slaughterhouses with a carcass production capacity greater than 50 tonnes per day.

22.

The questions referred for a preliminary ruling seek an interpretation of the terms used to describe that type of installation. I shall answer them in reverse order.

23.

By the third question, the referring court wishes to ascertain whether the capacity of a slaughterhouse may be lower than the production actually achieved (see in this regard Section A). The second question concerns the expression ‘per day’ and the determination of the number of production days (see in this regard Section B). The first question concerns the term ‘carcass production’ and in particular in that connection whether the relevant weight is that of the killed animal or that of the dressed carcass after certain parts of the body have been removed (see in this regard Section C).

24.

By the third question, the referring court wishes to ascertain whether a slaughterhouse’s capacity must be assessed by reference to its physical, technical or legal constraints or by reference to the production actually achieved.

25.

In accordance with the first sentence of Article 4(1) of the Industrial Emissions Directive, Member States are to take the necessary measures to ensure that no installation is operated without a permit. It must therefore be possible to determine whether an installation falls within the scope of that provision before it is even put into operation.

26.

In order to ensure that this is the case, Member States must see to it that installations are checked with respect to the need for a permit before they enter into operation. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to ascertain, notwithstanding that this question was raised at the hearing, whether, and, if so, how, this took place in the case of the slaughterhouse at issue in this instance.

27.

In any event, the production later actually achieved in the slaughterhouse is not a suitable criterion for determining beforehand whether an installation requires a permit. That information is by definition available only much later, after the point at which a decision must be made as to whether a permit is required.

28.

It follows that an installation’s capacity must be assessed by reference to other criteria. Since the term ‘capacity’ refers to an installation’s maximum production volume, those criteria are to be sought in the physical, technical or legal constraints that characterise the installation, ( 10 ) a fact recognised by all the parties to the proceedings. The intentions or production targets of the operator of the installation, on the other hand, cannot be relied on for this purpose, since this would create a risk that the obligation to hold a permit would be circumvented by means of deception about the true intentions or targets.

29.

In order to assess an installation’s capacity, it is necessary to determine which part of the installation or which production step limits the capacity of the specific installation to be assessed. ( 11 ) The reason for this is that the production steps carried out in the other parts of the installation necessarily depend on that production step. Those other parts of the installation cannot produce more because the limiting production step either cannot process any more intermediate products or cannot supply any more intermediate products for further steps. Consequently, even if there is more capacity available in those other parts of the installation, that capacity is unusable.

30.

In the main proceedings, one of the issues under debate is whether account must be taken of a production level which was achieved only because of additional illegally installed refrigerated containers.

31.

My understanding of that debate is that refrigeration capacity limits the production, and therefore the total capacity, of the slaughterhouse at issue. In other words, if the refrigeration facilities are full, it is not possible to slaughter any more animals in the slaughterhouse because the meat of any animals so slaughtered would spoil. Thus, when the refrigeration facilities are fully utilised, any unused capacity to kill animals does not increase the capacity of the slaughterhouse as a whole.

32.

Any later increase in refrigeration capacity through the fitting of additional refrigerated containers constitutes a change to the installation. If the installation already has a permit as provided for in the Industrial Emissions Directive, the operator must, in accordance with Article 20(1) of that directive, be required to inform the competent authority of that change.

33.

If the threshold for the obligation to hold a permit is exceeded only by virtue of those additional refrigerated containers, meaning, therefore, that the installation does not yet have a permit as provided for in the Industrial Emissions Directive, the installation may not be operated by recourse to the new refrigerated containers until after such a permit has been issued, in accordance with Article 4. The operator must therefore be required to apply for a permit and to wait until it receives that permit before putting the refrigerated containers into service.

34.

Similar considerations must apply where other physical, technical or legal constraints are removed or mitigated. For example, an installation’s capacity can be increased simply by eliminating legal restrictions on daily working hours. In this case too, a permit must be applied for before the threshold is exceeded for the first time. In those circumstances, however, it would be disproportionate to require the installation to cease operating until such time as the permit is issued, if that is the case, so long as the additional working hours available are not (yet) used.

35.

Notwithstanding the decisive importance of the physical, technical or legal constraints which characterise the installation, however, any capacity in excess of that assumed which manifests itself in the course of the installation’s actual operation must not be disregarded. Any such excess is, rather, a strong indication that the assessment of the installation’s capacity was based on false assumptions.

36.

It must therefore be concluded that an installation which has not obtained a permit under the Industrial Emissions Directive but which exceeds the applicable threshold in the course of actual production may require a permit after all.

37.

In such a case, the operator of the installation must be required to inform the authority responsible for deciding whether or not to issue a permit without delay. That authority must assess the installation’s capacity by reference not only to the new information but also to any other circumstances of the particular case. Should it turn out that the capacity was indeed erroneously set too low, the operator must at the very least apply for a permit. It may also be necessary to halt the installation’s operation until such time as a permit is issued, or at least to lay down a legal restriction on operating capacity. If the operator has contributed towards that error, consideration must even be given to imposing appropriate penalties.

38.

Conceivably, however, exceeding the threshold might also be a one-off, exceptional event which would not normally be repeated. This would be the case in particular where the excess production volume materialises because certain parts of the installation have overstepped legal restrictions or technical capacity limits, thus triggering other disadvantages such as the excessive wear and tear of equipment or lower production quality. In such cases, the competent authority may choose not to conclude that the exceptional increase in actual production is indicative of greater capacity on the part of the installation and, therefore, of the need for a permit.

39.

The answer to the third question must therefore be that, for the purposes of applying point 6.4(a) of Annex I to the Industrial Emissions Directive, the capacity of an installation must be assessed by reference to the physical, technical or legal constraints characterising it. Should the actual production of an installation for which a permit was not initially issued later exceed its assumed capacity and the applicable threshold, the operator must be required to communicate this without delay to the authority responsible for issuing permits, which must take the necessary further measures.

40.

The second question seeks to determine an installation’s capacity per day.

41.

The background to this question is the fact that, according to the request for a preliminary ruling, the slaughter process at Moesgaard Meat is spread over three days in total. On the first day, the animals are delivered and prepared; on the second day, they are killed and hung in a cold room; and, on the third day, their heads and necks are removed and the carcasses are prepared for collection. It is to be noted in this regard that animals are killed only on weekdays, although animals are delivered on Sunday in readiness for being killed on Monday, and animals killed on Friday are processed on Saturday. For that reason, Moesgaard Meat submits, capacity per day must be determined on the basis of weekly production divided by seven days. Denmark, on the other hand, argues that the only days that should be taken into account are those on which animals are actually killed.

42.

This dispute reflects once again the incorrect assumption that the capacity by virtue of which an installation incurs an obligation to hold a permit can be determined directly on the basis of production per day.

43.

As I have already said, ( 12 ) however, for the purposes of deciding whether there is an obligation to hold a permit, production capacity must be determined beforehand by reference to the installation’s characteristics and individual components. To do this, it is in principle necessary to determine the maximum capacity of the installation as a whole, regard being had to the physical, technical or legal constraints of each of its individual components. The decisive factor for the purposes of capacity is which part of the installation or which production step limits the capacity of the entire installation. ( 13 )

44.

In this regard, it does not matter whether the end product that is to be produced is itself produced by that step (or on that day). What must be determined is, rather, how much of the end product can be produced from the intermediate product that emerges from the decisive production step. For, as I have said, that quantity dictates the volume which the installation as a whole can produce.

45.

Consequently, if it is correct to assume that the production volume of the slaughterhouse at issue is limited by its refrigeration capacity, it falls to be examined, first, how many killed animals can be brought into the refrigeration facilities each day, and, next, what quantity of carcasses can be produced from them.

46.

In order to determine maximum capacity, a daily round-the-clock operation must be assumed, that is to say one running 24 hours a day, provided that this is not affected by any of the aforementioned constraints. ( 14 ) If the assessment by reference to those constraints shows that a round-the-clock operation is not possible, on account of legal limitations or essential maintenance work, for example, this must necessarily be taken into account in the determination of capacity per day.

47.

It is of no relevance to the determination of capacity per day, on the other hand, if, on account of the aforementioned constraints, the installation is non-operational or operational only to a limited extent only on certain days, because of bans on trading on Sundays and/or public holidays, for example, the reason being that point 6.4(a) of Annex I to the Industrial Emissions Directive lays down a daily threshold. If capacity fluctuations were to be taken into consideration, the legislation would refer to capacity over longer periods of time. Account is therefore to be taken of the days on which capacity can actually be used, that is to say specifically not of average values over several days.

48.

That conclusion is also supported by the objective, laid down in Article 1(1) and recital 2 of the Industrial Emissions Directive, of preventing or at least reducing environmental pollution. ( 15 ) While the long-term environmental effects of an installation are also important in the context of the attainment of that objective, what matters most is that the installation should be designed in such a way as to prevent or at least reduce the particularly serious effects which production peaks have on the environment. There would otherwise be a danger that particularly high levels of production would be disproportionately polluting. ( 16 )

49.

For, if an installation were designed to cope only with the environmental effects of average production levels, the systems for preventing or reducing environmental pollution would be overloaded during times of particularly intensive production. Thus, in the case of a slaughterhouse, this would create a risk that the installation might no longer be able to treat some of its wastewater or that it might generate waste that cannot be appropriately stored.

50.

How the operation of the installation is actually organised, on the other hand, is of potential relevance only in so far as the aforementioned constraints are reflected in its organisation. If, for example, the installation can be operated for only part of the day because of legal restrictions, that constraint is necessarily reflected in the actual organisation of working time. The installation’s capacity is equal to the production volume achievable during that time.

51.

If, conversely, the operation of the installation is organised is in such a way that the capacity actually available is not fully utilised irrespective of any physical, technical or legal constraints, this does nothing to change the capacity triggering the obligation for the installation to hold a permit. In particular, since the installation’s capacity consists of its maximum production volume, regard cannot be had to restrictions on production which are motivated by purely economic considerations.

52.

Consequently, the answer to the second question must be that an installation’s capacity per day within the meaning of point 6.4(a) of Annex I to the Industrial Emissions Directive is to be determined by reference to the maximum production achievable within 24 hours, regard being had to the physical, technical or legal constraints affecting all parts of that installation.

53.

The first question seeks to clarify the meaning of ‘carcasses’, the weight of which must be taken into account in the calculation of a slaughterhouse’s production capacity. The referring court wishes to ascertain whether regard is to be had to the weight of the animals immediately after being killed, which is practically the same as their live weight, or to their weight after further processing steps, namely removal of the organs and entrails, removal of the neck and head and exsanguination and chilling of the slaughtered animal.

54.

In practice, that distinction can have a significant impact on whether or not the threshold for the obligation to hold a permit under the Industrial Emissions Directive is reached. In Denmark, processing steps carried out after killing reduce weight by about 45% in cattle and about 33% in pigs. ( 17 )

55.

As all of the parties to the proceedings recognise, this question cannot be assessed on the basis of the Danish Executive Order on the production levy on the slaughter and export of pigs. For the purposes of applying the Industrial Emissions Directive, the capacity of slaughterhouses must be determined on the basis of terms of EU law which are to be interpreted independently. ( 18 ) However, it is not inconceivable that the production volume indicated in connection with that levy may make it possible to estimate the quantity of carcasses actually produced.

56.

On the basis of its purely literal meaning, the term ‘carcass production’ in point 6.4(a) of Annex I to the Industrial Emissions Directive could be construed as referring to animals immediately after they have been killed. Some language versions use a term originally intended to denote a dead living being. ( 19 ) However, even the German term, ‘Schlachtkörper’, is formed of the words ‘schlachten’ (slaughter) and ‘Körper’ (body), thus denoting a slaughtered, that is to say killed, body. On that understanding, the term ‘production’ would equate to killing.

57.

However, it is important not to lose sight of how the terms used are actually understood in the economic sector concerned, in this instance, the slaughter of farm animals. This follows not least from the fact that that term governs the capacity of slaughterhouses. In some language versions, the reference to slaughter is apparent even from the term for the result of the production process itself. This is true, for example, of the Spanish term ‘canal’, ( 20 ) the Danish term ‘slagtekrop’, ( 21 ) the German term ‘Schlachtkörper’, the Dutch term ‘geslachte dieren’ (slaughtered animals) and the Swedish term ‘slaktvikt’ (slaughter weight).

58.

How the terms used are understood in the economic sector concerned is illustrated by the relevant provisions of EU law. There, the terms used in most language versions of point 6.4(a) of Annex I to the Industrial Emissions Directive are expressly defined as meaning that the act of killing the animals is followed by further processing steps which reduce their weight.

59.

According to the definition contained in Article 2(d) of Directive 64/433, as amended by Directive 91/497, ‘carcase’ included the whole body of a slaughtered animal after bleeding, evisceration and removal of the limbs at the carpus and tarsus, removal of the head, tail and the udder, and, in the case of bovine animals, sheep, goats and solipeds, after flaying.

60.

According to the currently applicable provision contained in point 1.9 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, a ‘carcase’ is the body of an animal after slaughter and dressing. However, that provision does not make clear which body parts are removed in the course of dressing.

61.

Regulation No 1308/2013 is more helpful in this regard. This states that ‘carcass’ means, in the case of bovine animals and sheep, the whole body of a slaughtered animal, after bleeding, evisceration and skinning, and, in the case of pigs, the body of a slaughtered pig, bled and eviscerated, whole or divided down the mid-line. It follows from the rules on the presentation of carcasses that, in the case of bovine animals and sheep, the head and feet, the entrails and the genital organs must be removed, and, in the case of pigs, the tongue, bristles, hooves, genital organs, flare fat, kidneys and diaphragm must be removed.

62.

Two points must be noted in this regard.

63.

First, the definition of ‘carcass’ in force at the time when the original environmental permit scheme for slaughterhouses was adopted in Directive 96/61 was that contained in Directive 64/433, as amended by Directive 91/497. It must therefore be assumed that that definition shaped the understanding of that term in the legislative process.

64.

Second, the meaning of the terms used in the rules on slaughter is shown by the evolution of the German version of the permit obligation scheme laid down in the Industrial Emissions Directive. Thus, Directive 96/61, like the definition contained in Directive 64/433, as amended by Directive 91/497, used the term ‘Tierkörper’ (literally, animal body) rather than the term ‘Schlachtkörper’ (literally, slaughter body). It was not until the currently applicable Industrial Emissions Directive that the former term was replaced by the term ‘Schlachtkörper’, which is also used in the more recent rules on slaughter.

65.

What is more, the definitions contained in the rules on slaughter are consistent with the introduction to Annex I to the Industrial Emissions Directive, highlighted by the Commission, according to which the threshold values given in that annex generally refer to production capacities, in other words to the volume of produced product. While this is not true of all types of installation, it is certainly the case, on the basis of the wording of that annex alone, that the threshold value for slaughterhouses relates to production.

66.

So it is, according to the information before the Court, that the relevant economic sector also assumes that a carcass is to be construed as referring to the processed dead body of an animal after substantial parts of it have been removed. This is apparent from the information provided by the authorities in Flanders, the United Kingdom and Germany, as documented in the request for a preliminary ruling. Most importantly, however, the best available techniques reference document for slaughterhouses, produced by the Commission under Article 16(2) of the then still applicable Directive 96/61, contains a table showing that carcass weight lags significantly behind live weight in many Member States. ( 22 )

67.

Taking into account the aforementioned legitimate expectation as to practice in the implementation of point 6.4(a) of Annex I to the Industrial Emissions Directive also ensures the foreseeability and precision of provisions of criminal law ( 23 ) which – like that in the main proceedings – take as their point of reference the obligation to hold a permit.

68.

A carcass is therefore to be construed as being the body of a slaughtered animal after dressing, in other words after further processing steps have been completed.

69.

The definitions contained in the rules on slaughter, however, are consistent only in relation to the evisceration and bleeding of killed animals. Conversely, the currently applicable rules contained in Annex IV to Regulation No 1308/2013 differ in relation in particular to the skin and the head, both of which are to be removed in the case of bovine animals and sheep, but not in the case of pigs. The definition contained in Directive 64/433, as amended by Directive 91/497, on the other hand, did not yet distinguish between those species.

70.

It must be assumed that the rules laid down in Annex IV to Regulation No 1308/2013, which are applicable now (and were applicable during the period at issue in the domestic proceedings), have driven or at least influenced the evolution of the understanding of the terms in question in the economic sector concerned. The term ‘carcass’ as used in point 6.4(a) of Annex I to the Industrial Emissions Directive should therefore be interpreted in accordance with the definitions of that term and the rules on presentation contained in Annex IV to Regulation No 1308/2013.

71.

In contrast, the proposition that account should be taken of live weight is not supported by the fact that there are language versions in which the Industrial Emissions Directive uses terms different from those employed in the rules on slaughter. This was true even in the original Directive 96/61 of the Dutch ( 24 ) and Swedish ( 25 ) versions and is now also true of the Bulgarian, ( 26 ) Czech, ( 27 ) Hungarian, ( 28 ) Slovene ( 29 ) and Slovak ( 30 ) versions.

72.

It is true that, in principle, the existence of those divergent language versions extends the scope for interpretation and means that special importance is to be attached in particular to the schematic context and objectives of the rules in question. ( 31 )

73.

However, the schematic context, in particular the reference to production and the link to the understanding of the terms in question in the economic sector of animal slaughter, indicates on the contrary that capacity is to be determined by reference to the weight of the dead animals after further processing.

74.

Reliance on the schematic context is not invalidated by the fact that the objectives of pollution prevention and control pursued by the Industrial Emissions Directive point more towards the proposition that regard is to be had to the live weight of slaughtered animals.

75.

It is true that the purpose of that directive has been broadly defined and therefore precludes a narrow interpretation. ( 32 ) What is more, the environmental effects of the slaughter process are more closely associated with live weight than with the weight of the produced product. It is precisely the body parts that are removed from the carcass that may be unwanted and therefore become waste. By their very nature, the definitions contained in the rules on slaughter do not take into account those potential environmental effects because those rules have as their purpose not environmental protection but the hygiene of slaughterhouses and the organisation of the market concerned. ( 33 )

76.

This does not mean, however, that, when calculating the threshold value for an obligation to hold a permit, the legislature did not also take into account the fact that dressed carcasses come with a certain quantity of body parts which are removed and do not contribute towards the weight of the carcasses. That quantity and the environmental effects associated with it can, after all, be estimated on the basis of empirical evidence and may to that extent influence the determination of the threshold value.

77.

As the Commission submits, moreover, that interpretation of the term ‘carcass’ does not preclude the Member States, when transposing the Industrial Emissions Directive, from extending the obligation to hold a permit by basing the threshold value on the live weight of slaughter animals ( 34 ) or setting a lower threshold. In so doing, they would, after all, be taking enhanced protection measures permissible under Article 193 TFEU. Moesgaard Meat argues, however, that Denmark has not adopted any such stricter rules.

78.

The answer to the first question must therefore be that the term ‘carcass’ as used in point 6.4(a) of Annex I to the Industrial Emissions Directive must be interpreted in accordance with the definitions of the term ‘carcass’ and the rules on presentation contained in Annex IV to Regulation No 1308/2013.

79.

I therefore propose that the Court’s answer to the request for a preliminary ruling should be as follows: