Landbrug & Fødevarer, Denmark's agriculture and food industry organisation, sued the state on Monday over the government's temporary stop on conventional pig production. The organisation wants the courts to decide whether the stop is "legal or a nullity", it said in a press release, according to kristeligt-dagblad.dk, borsen.dk and Berlingske.
The executive order formally took effect on Monday.
The stop blocks permits for new conventional pig production and for expanding existing farms for one year. Minister for Nature and Animal Welfare Christian Rabjerg Madsen (S) announced it on 23 September, and applications submitted from that date are handled under the new rules. The order was issued by Styrelsen for Grøn Arealomlægning og Vandmiljø, the agency that is also being sued.
It remains in place until the government completes the so-called pig four-party talks with agriculture and animal welfare organisations on new animal welfare rules for Danish pig barns.
DR's climate analyst Filip Knaack Kirkegaard said the stop was introduced as an executive order instead of a bill, which the government had otherwise promised in its governing basis. Several experts, including law professors Rasmus Grønved Nielsen and Peter Pagh, do not believe the law the government relies on can be used to stop new or expanded conventional pig production.
Christian Fink Hansen, director of Landbrug & Fødevarer Sektor for Gris, said in the press release: "When some of the country's foremost legal experts in the field assess that there is not the necessary legal basis for such a far-reaching intervention, we cannot just watch. Then we have to get the question tried in the courts."
Rabjerg Madsen said in a written reply to DR that he takes the lawsuit calmly. "The temporary stop for expansion and establishment of conventional pig productions rests on thorough preparatory work, and both my ministry and the Ministry of Justice have assessed and concluded on the question of legal basis," he wrote. "So that someone chooses to sue the state, I take calmly. It is of course an important part of a democracy that questions can be tested in the courts."