Judgment delivered on 22 December 2014.
Kr. Rosgaard og Søn ApS
The Danish Veterinary and Food Administration
The Danish Veterinary and Food Administration had not acted negligently when using an interpolation and extrapolation table for computing space requirements for the administration of the rules on pig transports
The EU Transport Regulation regulates, among other things, the minimum floor area for pig transports, and in Denmark, the Regulation has been supplemented by an executive order laying down requirements for the floor area for pigs in different weight categories. In its administration of the rules, the Administration has also used a table to computer area requirements for transports where the pigs, on average, weigh more or less than the weight categories provided in the executive order. Interpolation and extrapolation are used in the table based on the categories in the executive order.
The appellants, which are pig transporters, claimed that the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration's use of the table was in contravention of the Transport Regulation, and that the executive order envisaged a principle of the lower interval and did not apply to area requirements for pigs below 25 kg, which is the lowest category in the executive order. In addition, the appellants claimed that the Administration wrongly used the average weight of the pigs when computing the area requirements.
The Supreme Court held that the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration's use of the table could not be regarded as going beyond the scope of the Transport Regulation and was not in contravention of the Regulation. Also, it was not in contravention of the provisions of the executive order to use the interpolation and extrapolation table based on average weight. Consequently, the appellants were not entitled to damages for their loss.
The appellants' other claims in the case, concerning the interpretation of the rules on area requirements in the Transport Regulation and the executive order, were dismissed.
The Supreme Court reached the same conclusion as the High Court; however, on different grounds.