I INTRODUCTION TO the DISPUTE RESOLUTION FRAMEWORK
The Kingdom of Denmark comprises Denmark, Greenland and the Faroe Islands. In general, Denmark, Greenland and the Faroe Islands share their legal system and culture, but certain features of Greenlandic and Faroese law are not part of the Danish legal system.
Danish and Nordic law share several common denominators with continental European legal systems. Notwithstanding this, the legal systems of the Nordic countries have evolved with their own distinctiveness and, despite many common law traits, Denmark and its fellow Nordic countries make up a legal family of their own.
The main sources of law are statutes. Preparatory works, case law and legal doctrine constitute secondary sources of law. Danish law is characterised by extensive bodies of systematic and written law. Private law is dominated by a range of individual statutory acts and, in some areas, by unwritten law guided mainly by case law and custom. Generally, criminal law is governed by the Criminal Code, and administrative law is governed by two general statutory acts of public administration and a complex body of sector-specific statutory acts.
Denmark's membership of international organisations and participation in international conventions has changed the legal landscape significantly throughout the past 50 years. Since 1972, Denmark has been member of the European Union, which has significantly influenced the Danish legal system. Denmark has four opt-outs from EU co-operation. The Danish opt-outs were agreed among the Member States following a referendum in 1992 where a majority voted ‘no' to the Maastricht Treaty. The opt-outs are outlined in the Edinburgh Agreement2 and concern the monetary union, common security and defence policy, justice and home affairs and citizenship of the European Union.
Denmark has held two referenda on the opt-outs. In 2000, the Danes voted ‘no' to the euro. As a consequence, Denmark has kept the kroner as its currency. In December 2015, the Danes voted against an opt-in model for Denmark's participation in justice and home affairs.
Denmark is also a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, which has conferred a number of legal guarantees and standards on the courts and the court procedure in both civil and criminal cases.
Executive, legislative and judiciary powers in Denmark are divided between the government, the parliament and the civil courts, respectively. This is a fundamental principle that has been enacted by the Danish Constitution since it was adopted in 1849. The Danish Constitution of 1849 ensures the judiciary's organisational, functional and personal independence. It also provides the fundamental principles and standards on which the Danish legal system is built.
The Danish legal system is based on the ‘two-tier principle', which means that the parties to a case generally have the option of appealing the ruling of one court to a higher instance. Most cases begin at district court level with the option of appealing to one of the high courts.
In 2007, the Danish courts went through significant structural and organisational changes, often referred to as ‘the statutory reform of court proceedings'.
Since 1 January 2007, the judiciary system has comprised:
a the Supreme Court;
b the high courts;
c the Maritime and Commercial High Court;
d 24 district courts; and
e the Land Registration Court.
The court of the Faroe Islands and the courts of Greenland are also part of the Danish legal system. In addition to the courts, some sector-specific disputes may be settled by specialised councils such as the Danish Press Council, the Danish Consumer Council and the Danish Bar and Law Society.
Finally, Danish law allows for settling of disputes privately by way of arbitration or mediation. Arbitration is governed by the Arbitration Act of 2005, which is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law. Institutional arbitration is widely used, and the Danish Institute of Arbitration plays an important role in relation to commercial disputes in Denmark.
II THE YEAR IN REVIEW
The year 2016 was characterised by proceedings relating to past political decisions. Thus, court cases following the financial crisis as well as public commissions relating to Denmark's participation in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan were subject to considerable attention. Some of the more important public proceedings in 2016 are given below.
A majority of commercial disputes are settled by arbitration and therefore not published. In relation to arbitration, there are discussions in the Nordic countries about establishing a Nordic Maritime Arbitration Institute.
i Same-sex marriage
Since 1989, Denmark has allowed marriage between persons of the same sex. However, it was not until 2012 that persons of the same sex could be married in the national Church of Denmark. Thus, in 2012, the Danish Parliament passed legislation allowing persons of the same sex to be married by a priest in the Church of Denmark. The decision of the Parliament was challenged in court by a political organisation, which decided to initiate an action against the Danish Minister of Ecclesiastical Affairs. On 28 June 2016, the Eastern division of the Danish High Court issued its judgment concerning the question of whether the decision of the Danish Parliament was in accordance with the Danish Constitution.
More specifically, the question to be heard by the court was whether the decision of the Parliament to allow same-sex marriages was in breach of Section 4 of the Danish Constitution. It follows from Section 4 that the national Church of Denmark shall be an Evangelical Lutheran church.
The argument to be heard by the court was that it would be contrary to the Evangelical Lutheran belief to allow same-sex marriages. The Eastern division of the Danish High Court was, however, not persuaded by the arguments of the plaintiff and concluded that there was no evidence suggesting that it would be contrary to the Evangelical Lutheran belief to allow same-sex marriages. Consequently, the Danish Minister of Ecclesiastical Affairs was acquitted.
The case has been appealed to the Supreme Court and is to be decided on 17 March 2017 by seven Supreme Court judges.
ii The wake of the financial crisis
In the wake of the financial crisis, 12 Danish banks were wound up and taken over by the state-owned company Financial Stability. Financial Stability was set up to ensure the stability of the Danish economy following the de facto bankruptcy of a number of Danish banks. Following the takeover of 12 Danish banks, Financial Stability has initiated legal proceedings for professional liability and mismanagement against the board of directors and management (and in some of the cases the auditors) in seven of the banks. The scope and grounds for professional liability and mismanagement have been different in each case.
The largest of the bank cases commenced in November 2015 against Roskilde Bank and is, so far, the longest ever scheduled hearing of a commercial case in the Danish courts. The matter is currently pending before the Eastern division of the Danish High Court and has a value of 1 billion kroner. Judgment is expected in autumn 2017.
iii Danish cooperative housing model under pressure
In 2005-2008, many institutional investors chose to sell investment properties to tenants who would purchase the properties through a cooperative. Many of the properties were purchased on budgets that were based on an expectation of a rise in property prices. Following the decline in property prices after the financial crisis, many of the cooperatives had difficulties paying instalments and therefore wished to enter into bankruptcy. The incentive to enter into bankruptcy was fuelled by the fact that under Danish law the members of the cooperatives would be entitled to stay in their apartments as tenants on favourable terms despite the bankruptcy.
In May 2016, the Supreme Court had to decide on two issues in relation to the cooperative housing association Duegaarden, which had applied for bankruptcy. The first question was whether Duegaarden had a legal interest in applying for bankruptcy, and the second question was whether Duegaarden was in fact insolvent pursuant to the Danish Bankruptcy Act. The latter question was particularly problematic in view of the fact that the Danish bank Nykredit Bank (Nykredit) had provided Duegaarden with an undertaking of financial support. Thus, Nykredit had, inter alia, undertaken to cover all Duegaarden's operational losses in 2015 and 2016, and undertaken to cover all extraordinary expenses, including expenses for necessary upkeep and all liabilities as they would fall due until 2021.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court held that Duegaarden had a legal interest in applying for bankruptcy. Furthermore, the Supreme Court was of the view that the undertaking of Nykredit was only an offer to provide financial support, which Duegaarden was entitled to reject. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the bankruptcy of Duegaarden. The judgment will most likely lead to a number of other bankruptcies of housing cooperatives.
iv The Iraq and Afghanistan Committee and the Tibet Committee
In addition to the above judgments, the year 2016 was characterised by two public enquiries relating to Denmark's foreign policy.
In June 2012, the then Danish government decided to establish the Iraq and Afghanistan Committee to examine the legal and political foundation for Denmark's participation in the war in Iraq in 2003. The Committee was also tasked to investigate the actions of the Danish authorities in connection with the detention of persons during the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, respectively. However, following the Danish election, the new government decided to abandon the Committee and instead ask two independent university scholars to prepare a report on the above questions.
In 2016, the Minister of Justice set up a committee to look into the actions of the police against Tibetan protestors in connection with Chinese state visits to Copenhagen in 2012, 2013 and 2014. The task of the committee is to examine whether the police acted on orders when removing Tibetan flags from the protestors and thereby violated the Danish Constitution's provisions on freedom of speech. The committee shall also evaluate whether the Danish Parliament has provided incorrect or misleading information on the matter. The committee is expected to deliver a report in 2017.
III COURT PROCEDURE
Danish court proceedings are governed by the Danish Administration of Justice Act (No. 594 of 20 June 2008), which sets out detailed rules of procedure. The Administration of Justice Act was originally adopted in 1916, and is complex legislation with more than 1,000 provisions.
The Administration of Justice Act is based on three fundamental principles that are predominant in Danish judicial procedure: the principles of immediacy, orality and concentration.
According to the principle of immediacy, the court may only base its judgment on what has been said and argued at the main hearing.3 The principle of orality entails that the parties, in principle, have to present their full case at the main hearing and that witnesses must appear before the court to give their testimony in person. The principle of concentration entails that the case should be heard and concluded at the main hearing, and that no new evidence should be presented during the main hearing.
The above principles mean that during the course of the proceedings parties are able to dispose materially of the subject matter of the case. In this context, the court plays a very limited role, although the court may ask questions if the party's allegations are unclear. Thus, the Danish court system may generally be described as an adversarial system.
Even if the above principles are predominant in court proceedings, they have been modified by means of the revision of the Administration of Justice Act in 2008. Following the revision of the Administration of Justice Act, the parties are no longer required to read aloud all of the documents and present all facts and circumstances on which they seek to rely, but may now refer to the case file instead. Further, in special circumstances, the parties may now also present witness statements in writing.4 The purpose of the revision of the Administration of Justice Act was to increase efficiency and speed of court cases.
Court proceedings are held publicly, which means that anyone can attend the court procedure. Subject to certain criteria, the court may decide that the court procedure for the entire case or a part of it is conducted behind closed doors.
Danish law contains no formal rules in relation to the courts' evaluation of evidence and the level of proof required. The courts are free to evaluate the evidence on its merits. In principle, the courts are not entitled to apply a subjective evaluation of the evidence in question, but the principle of the courts' freedom of evaluation entails that the discretion of the courts is very wide. It should be mentioned that the courts are not bound by experts' reports or other kinds of expert evidence.
i Overview of court procedure
In Denmark, civil disputes may be brought before the courts by natural and legal persons. Foreigners generally have the same procedural legal status as Danish nationals, and are therefore entitled to bring a civil dispute before the Danish courts provided that the Danish courts have jurisdiction. However, the defendant may demand that a foreign plaintiff provides security for the payment of the cost of the proceedings. This does not apply to nationals of EU countries and certain other countries.5
All cases must be initiated before the district court as the court of first instance. However, the parties may request that the case is referred to the high court or the Maritime and Commercial High Court, or the district court may refer the case ex officio, if the case is important for the application or the development of the law or is in the general public interest.
A fundamental principle of the Danish legal system is the ‘two-tier principle'. This principle allows the parties to appeal a judgment to a higher instance. If the case is brought before the district court (as the court of first instance), the parties may appeal the judgment to the high court, and cases brought before the high court as the court of first instance may be appealed to the Supreme Court. Cases initiated at the district court level may be brought before the Supreme Court (as the court of third instance) if the case concerns principles of general interest. The Appeals Permission Board decides whether a case may be tried by three instances.
District courts comprise ordinary civil and criminal courts. In addition, district courts encompass enforcement courts and probate courts. Enforcement courts deal, inter alia, with enforcement of judgments and interlocutory remedies. The probate court handles the administration of estates or insolvency cases, such as bankruptcies and applications for debt restructuring.
The high courts are divided into a Western High Court and Eastern High Court.
The highest instance of the Danish court system is the Supreme Court. It is the court of appeal for judgments decided by the high court and the Maritime and Commercial High Court.
The Maritime and Commercial High Court is a special court with jurisdiction over market-related disputes, such as matters regarding competition and intellectual property cases, which have an international commercial dimension or cases concerning sea, air or land transportation.
Third instance/second instance
The Maritime and Commercial High Court
Second instance/first instance
Western High Court
Eastern High Court
The Courts of Greenland
The Court of the Faroe Islands
ii Procedures and time frames
Danish court proceedings can be divided into two phases: the preparation phase and the oral hearing.
Civil proceedings commence when the plaintiff submits a statement of claim. The Administration of Justice Act sets out strict requirements as to the information required in a statement of claim, and the courts may dismiss a case if the statement of claim does not fulfil those requirements.6
Upon the court's receipt of the statement of claim, court proceedings have officially been initiated. The court will then fix a date for the defendant's submission of a statement of defence. Any claim for dismissal on formality grounds, such as lack of jurisdiction, shall be submitted in the statement of defence. If the defendant does not submit the statement of defence within the prescribed deadline set by the court, the court may issue a judgment in accordance with the claim of the plaintiff. Following the first round of pleadings, the parties will normally be allowed to exchange further pleadings.
As a part of the preparation phase, the court might summon the parties to appear at a ‘preparatory meeting'. During this meeting the court is in charge of the agenda and will set the deadlines of the procedural calendar, including, if possible, the date for the oral hearing. If a party has submitted a claim for dismissal on formality grounds, the court may decide upon this claim separately, and an oral hearing may be held to deal with those questions (bifurcation of the proceedings).
During the preparation phase, the courts will normally refrain from making any actual examination of the evidence, the allegations or the claims. The court will restrict itself to managing the exchange of statements of the case during the proceedings and looking into any formality issues. However, the court often has to decide on issues such as expert evidence and the potential appointment of a court-appointed expert.
Following the conclusion of the preparation phase, the parties will prepare a summary on the exchange of statements and the court will set a date for the final hearing. After this date, the parties may no longer submit new claims or allegations without the opponent's and the court's consent.
The oral hearing may be divided into the following three phases:
a the opening address;
b the presentation of evidence and the hearing of witnesses; and
c the closing argument.
The first phase is commenced upon each party's presentation of its claim before the court. Subsequently, the plaintiff's legal representation will review and explain the case to the court on the basis of the documents presented to the court by the parties. Following the opening address, the defendant's legal representative is invited to comment. The opening address must be objective.
The next phase constitutes the parties' presentation of evidence and the hearing of witnesses of fact. The witness is first examined by the party who called the witness, and then the opponent is allowed a counter-cross-examination.
At the closing argument, counsel present the case and the legal arguments.
Following the closing arguments, the court will immediately withdraw for its deliberations. The court must pass its final judgment as soon as possible following the final hearing and usually within four weeks or two months after the oral hearing. The court may, at its own discretion, suggest a settlement or issue an advisory opinion, but the parties may at any time request a final judgment.
On 1 January 2008, special rules governing ‘small' claims were introduced in the Danish Administration of Justice Act. The guiding principle is that the court will guide proceedings and instruct the parties both on factual and legal circumstances to allow parties to litigate in person. The small-claims procedure is only available for claims with an economic value of less than 50,000 kroner. Appeal of a small-claim judgment requires permission from the Appeals Permission Board.
iii Class actions
In 2008, provisions on class actions were included in the Danish Administration of Justice Act. The new provisions allow ‘similar claims' to be filed with the Danish courts as a class action on behalf of a group of people or legal entities.7 The class action scheme in Denmark is based on an opt-in system, which entails that claimants must affirmatively opt-in in order to join the class action. To ensure an effective opt-in scheme, the Danish courts published an inventory list of all class actions on their official website.
Class actions are brought before the courts. No special court or tribunal deals with class actions. As the class action scheme is fairly new, the case law is still scarce. The first class action case before the Supreme Court was the BankTrelleborg case in January 2012, regarding a collective shareholder action.8
iv Representation in proceedings
Only Danish-qualified attorneys may represent parties in court. However, natural persons have procedural capacity and are competent to represent themselves in court,9 and legal persons may be represented by employees. The court may order the party to retain an attorney if, given the circumstances of the case, it is of the opinion that professional representation is required.10
v Service out of the jurisdiction
Documents in civil matters may be served outside the jurisdiction within as well as outside the framework of treaties and conventions.
For service of documents within the European Union, EU Regulation No. 1393/2007 applies by means of a parallel agreement between Denmark and the European Union. The Regulation provides that Danish courts may forward an application directly to the competent authority in the Member State where service is required.
For service of documents within the Nordic countries, the 1974 treaty between Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, the Nordic Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in Service and Taking of Evidence, applies.11 Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention, a contracting state may apply directly to the competent authority in the Nordic state for the service of documents and the taking of evidence.
Denmark has also ratified the Hague Service Convention of 15 November 1965, on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, and this Convention applies between Denmark and the signatory states.
vi Enforcement of foreign judgments
For a foreign court judgment to be enforced in Denmark, a treaty on enforcement between Denmark and the foreign state is normally required.
Where a judgment has been issued by a court of a state in respect of EU Regulation No. 1215/2012 (the Brussels I Regulation), or where the Lugano Convention applies, the judgment will be enforceable in Denmark (by way of an exequatur procedure).
Judgments from states with which Denmark has concluded no treaties are, as a matter of principle, not enforceable in Denmark. Scholarly writings have discussed whether Danish law under certain criteria allows for recognition of foreign judgments, even if Denmark is not bound by a treaty obligation, but case law is very scarce.
vii Assistance to foreign courts
EU Regulation No. 1206/2001 on mutual assistance within the EU on the taking of evidence does not apply to Denmark. The European Council is currently negotiating a separate agreement on the taking of evidence between EU Member States that has been ratified by Regulation No. 1206/2001, the Lugano countries and Denmark.
Denmark is party to the Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in Service and Taking of Evidence, which applies between Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden.12 This Convention is based on direct contact, and a request for legal assistance shall be submitted directly to the relevant authority.
Finally, the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial Matters governs Denmark's assistance to foreign courts of signatory states in taking evidence in Denmark.
viii Access to court files
The main rule is that court hearings and court files are open to the public. Certain information such as trade secrets may, however, be kept secret.
ix Litigation funding
Litigants generally fund their litigation by themselves or by means of insurance. However, public aid to civil proceedings may be granted to parties with low personal and capital income or under certain other conditions. If a person is granted legal aid by the state, he or she shall not pay court fees, and the party is reimbursed for all expenses relating to the case and exempted from paying the counterparty's costs.
IV LEGAL PRACTICE
i Conflicts of interest and Chinese walls
Conflicts of interest are managed within the framework of the Danish Bar and Law Society. The overriding principle is that any member of the Danish Bar and Law Society should be independent and not represent conflicting interests. Chinese walls are not accepted.
ii Money laundering, proceeds of crime and funds related to terrorism
The current Act on Measures against Money Laundering13 implements the third EU Directive on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing.14 However, on 1 January 2017, a new Act entered into force implementing the fourth EU Directive.15
Under the current Act, attorneys are under an obligation to confirm the identity of new clients and conduct client due diligence checks before taking on a matter within certain practice areas. Matters such as disputes are generally excluded from these obligations. Members of the Danish Bar and Law Society are under an obligation to notify the Public Prosecutor for Special Economic Crimes of any suspected money laundering.
iii Data protection
The Danish Act on Personal Data16 applies to processing of all personal data carried out by electronic data processing or non-electronic processing of personal data contained in a file. Processing is generally prohibited, unless the person in question has given his or her consent.
V DOCUMENTS AND THE PROTECTION OF PRIVILEGE
The relationship between attorney and client is privileged; correspondence and other documents of the attorney's file may not be subject to disclosure and attorneys may (with minor exceptions) refuse to testify on issues relating to the client-attorney relationship. There are no specific rules concerning in-house counsels, and communication with in-house counsel is not privileged.
ii Production of documents
At the request of a party, the court may order the other party to produce certain documents. The party seeking production shall identify the documents with reasonable specificity and explain what the documents are intended to prove. Certain categories of documents may also be requested.
The parties are not obliged by law to disclose the requested documents. However, if a party fails to produce the documents requested, the court may conclude adverse interference from the failure to disclose.
VI ALTERNATIVES TO LITIGATION
i Overview of alternatives to litigation
Disputes are generally settled by the Danish courts. Although the courts remain the main forum in relation to commercial disputes, the use of arbitration is increasing and the figures of the Danish Institute of Arbitration illustrate that the trend is continuing. Further, as part of a general reform of the Danish courts, the courts now offer mediation, and mediation is now commonly used within family-related disputes. The use of mediation is also increasing in relation to commercial disputes, but often outside courts.
Arbitration is commonly used to settle commercial disputes in Denmark.
The Danish Arbitration Act is based on the UNICITRAL Model Law of 1985, and applies to national and international arbitration proceedings taking place in Denmark.17
The overriding principle of the Danish Arbitration Act is party autonomy. The control of the dispute lies with the parties, and they may to a large extent agree on how the arbitration is conducted. Consequently, the majority of the rules are non-mandatory.
Denmark is a contracting state to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, and arbitration awards are therefore recognised as binding and enforceable, and a valid arbitration agreement will deprive the courts of their jurisdiction. However, the Danish courts can refuse to recognise and enforce the award in special circumstances.18 In a recent judgment rendered by the Supreme Court, it was held that an arbitral award may only be set aside in extraordinary circumstances; for example, if the arbitral tribunal has committed such extraordinarily serious mistakes that the arbitral award is manifestly incompatible with the domestic legal system (public policy).19
Arbitration proceedings are initiated when the claimant files a request for arbitration and a statement of claim,20 which shall include a summary of the dispute and a preliminary statement of the relief sought. The request for arbitration will typically also include the name of the claimant's arbitrator. The respondent will then submit a reply and appoint an arbitrator. The arbitration is normally concluded after a main hearing.
In 2008, rules on court-based mediation were introduced in the Administration of Justice Act.21 The parties to a civil dispute are, as a matter of routine, given the option to attempt mediation within the court before starting the court procedure. The court-based mediation scheme in Denmark is voluntary. Thus, both parties have to agree on mediation. The mediator is appointed by the court and is normally a judge or attorney with special training in mediation.
Mediation is slowly becoming more popular as an alternative dispute resolution method. It is prevalent in family-related and probate matters, such as divorce, paternity, child support and custody. Also, in relation to large commercial matters, it is more common to implement a jurisdictional clause referring the matter to mediation before the case goes to arbitration.
VII OUTLOOK AND CONCLUSIONS
In the past decade, the government has focused on modernising the civil court system and implementing effective rules in relation to court proceedings. The emphasis has been on expediting court proceedings and employing cost-effective solutions.
In the area of arbitration, the Danish Institute of Arbitration has recently revised its rules on arbitration to further enhance Denmark's position as a venue for arbitration. The institute has also adopted new rules on mediation to ensure alignment with international standards. The International Congress of Maritime Arbitrators has chosen Copenhagen to host its yearly congress in 2017.
1 Jacob Skude Rasmussen is a partner at Gorrissen Federspiel. The author acknowledges the valuable assistance of Nellie Schøn in producing this chapter. Nellie Schøn is an assistant attorney at Gorrissen Federspiel.
2 The Edinburgh Agreement was entered into on 12 December 1992 by the European Council. The Edinburgh Agreement, inter alia, included the four opt-outs of the European cooperation requested by Denmark in its memorandum ‘Denmark in Europe' of 30 October 1992. See Part B of the Edinburgh Agreement.
3 See Section 338 of the Administration of Justice Act.
4 See Section 297 of the Administration of Justice Act.
5 See Section 321(1) of the Administration of Justice Act.
6 See Section 348(2) of the Administration of Justice Act.
7 See Chapter 23a of the Administration of Justice Act. This was implemented by Consolidated Act No. 181 of 28 February 2008 on the amendment of the Administration of Justice Act and other acts.
8 BankTrelleborg of 27 January 2012.
9 See Section 259(1) of the Administration of Justice Act.
10 See Section 259(2) of the Administration of Justice Act.
11 The Nordic Convention on Mutual Assistance in Judicial Matters of 26 April 1974. The Nordic Convention was ratified on 26 April 1974 by Executive Order No. 100 as of 15 September 1975.
12 The Nordic Convention on Mutual Assistance in Judicial Matters of 26 April 1974.
13 The Act on Measures against Money Laundering of 13 of August 2013, No. 1022.
14 Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005.
15 Directive 2015/849/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015.
16 Act No. 429 of 31 May 2000 on the processing of personal data.
17 Section 1 of the Consolidated Arbitration Act of 2005.
18 Section 37(2) of the Consolidated Arbitration Act of 2005.
19 The Supreme Court judgment case 142/2014 of 28 January 2016.
20 Section 21 of the Consolidated Arbitration Act of 2005.
21 See Chapter 27 of the Administration of Justice Act and Act No. 168 of 12 March 2008 on the amendment of the Administration of Justice Act, the Act on Court Fees and the Inheritance Act.