The Dispute Resolution Review: Denmark
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 a legal system and culture, but certain features of Greenlandic and Faroese law are not found in the Danish legal system.
Danish and indeed 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.
Danish law is characterised by extensive bodies of systematic and written law. Statutes are the main sources of law. Preparatory works, case law and legal doctrine are secondary sources of law. Civil law is dominated by a range of individual statutes and, in some areas, by unwritten law guided mainly by cases and custom. Generally, criminal law is governed by the Criminal Code,2 and administrative law is governed by two statutory acts of public administration3 and a complex body of sector-specific statutes.
Denmark’s membership of international organisations and participation in international conventions have changed its legal landscape notably throughout the past 50 years. Since 1973, Denmark has been a member of the European Union, which has significantly influenced the Danish legal system. Denmark has four opt-outs from EU cooperation. The opt-outs were agreed among the Member States following a referendum in 1992 where a majority in Denmark voted no to the Maastricht Treaty. The opt-outs are outlined in the Edinburgh Agreement4 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 krone as its currency. In 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 court procedure in both civil and criminal cases.
Executive, legislative and judiciary powers in Denmark are divided between the government, the parliament and the courts, respectively. This is a fundamental principle that has been enacted by the Danish Constitution since it was adopted in 1849. The Constitution 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 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 two 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:
- the Supreme Court;
- the High Courts;
- the Maritime and Commercial High Court;
- 24 district courts; and
- 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 bodies such as the Danish Press Council, the Danish Consumer Council and the Danish Bar and Law Society.
Finally, Danish law allows for the settling of disputes privately by way of arbitration or mediation. Arbitration is governed by the Arbitration Act,5 which is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Institutional arbitration is widely used, and the Danish Institute of Arbitration plays an important role in relation to commercial disputes in Denmark. For example, the Institute has published suggestions for updating the Arbitration Act, including as regards interim remedies.
The year in review
Highlights from 2020 include three cases from the Danish Supreme Court. The first contributes to a line of case law concerning bank manager liability. The second highlights the courts’ use of preparatory works for statute interpretation and the third provides guidance on companies’ use of surnames.
i Manager liability following the financial crisis
In the wake of the financial crisis, several Danish banks were wound up and taken over by the state-owned company, Financial Stability, to ensure the stability of the Danish economy. Following the banks’ takeover, Financial Stability initiated legal proceedings for professional liability and mismanagement regarding certain of the banks.
One such case was against individuals at Eik Bank, including the former chair of the board, board members and managers. The claim concerned a number of loan arrangements and sought damages of 250 million kroner.
The case was first heard by the Eastern High Court in 2018. It ruled that four of the individuals (who included the former chair) were liable for damages amounting to 28.6 million kroner.
The Supreme Court ruled on the case in June 2020, on appeal by Financial Stability.6 The Supreme Court partly overturned the High Court’s judgment and found that none of the individuals were negligent because there was no reason to override the business judgement exercised by the bank's management, judgement that included an assessment of loan suitability.
The judgment contributes to the case law on bank manager liability and confirms that, while individuals such as board members can be held liable for certain actions taken, the threshold is high and that the concept of business judgement for the Danish courts in loan decisions can apply not only to the decision itself but also to the basis of that decision.
ii Ready use of preparatory works to interpret insurance statute
In 2001, a policyholder took out two life insurance policies. The beneficiaries of the original policies, which reflected the standard wording in the Danish Act on Insurance Contracts at the time,7 were the policyholder's next of kin. Next of kin was defined in the policies as first the spouse, then direct descendants and finally any other heirs.
Following a change in the Act, the insurer informed the policyholder by letter in 2011 that the definition of next of kin would change. The change entailed that a cohabitant, who had lived together with the policyholder for at least two years, would be regarded as the next of kin in cases where there was no spouse. The insurer informed the policyholder that it considered the new terms to be accepted if the policyholder continued to pay for his insurance after 1 January 2012.
The policyholder did not reply to the correspondence and continued to pay for the insurance until his death in 2016. The first instance district court found that the correspondence fulfilled the requirements for changing the insurance conditions, and the second instance Western High Court found that the policyholder was in a position to understand the correspondence's content so that the changes were considered accepted.
However, on 3 September 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that the insurer could not change the definition of next of kin by such passive acceptance.8 The Supreme Court highlighted that the transitional rules for the statute’s update and the preparatory works for such rules were clear that a change to the insurance cover before the update came into force could only be done by notifying the insurer.
The case highlights that what may be regarded as standard practice can be overridden by specific statute and that it is common for the Danish courts to refer readily to preparatory works when interpreting statute.
iii Guidance for use of a surname by companies
In 2017, energy company DONG Energy A/S changed its name to Ørsted A/S. A group of descendants of the renowned Danish scientist H C Ørsted, who pioneered the discovery of electromagnetism, brought cases against the energy company for use of their surname. The descendants argued that the company’s use of the name Ørsted violated their rights under Danish law, and the Names Act, the Trademark Act, the Companies Act and the Internet Domain Act were considered. The Maritime and Commercial High Court ruled in favour of the company in 2019, and the Supreme Court on 30 November 2020 agreed with the lower court on appeal.9
The Supreme Court considered the applicable versions of each of the four acts in turn, and found among other points that:
- although Section 3 of the Names Act protects surnames held by 2,000 individuals or fewer, the government has held that the Act does not regulate what a company may call itself;
- although Section 14 of the Trademark Act restricts trademark registration if it is a personal name, this was not applicable in this case where H C Ørsted is long-deceased and the name is widely understood in the context of electricity production;
- although Section 2 of the Companies Act restricts what can be part of a company name, such restrictions must be seen in the context of securing the identification of the company, product or service on the one hand and ensuring that the name does not infringe others' rights or seem misleading on the other; and
- although Section 25 of the Internet Domain Act provides that certain domain names should not be used contrary to good domain name practice, there was no basis for this when the company actively used the domain names and the descendants did not claim a transfer of the domain names.
In short, the case provides useful guidance as to how a surname can be used by companies in Denmark.
Danish court proceedings are governed by the Danish Administration of Justice Act,10 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. 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 a party's allegations are unclear. Accordingly, 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 a revision of the Administration of Justice Act in 2008. Following this revision, the parties are no longer required to read aloud all the documents and present all the facts 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.11 The purpose of the 2008 revision of the Administration of Justice Act was to increase the efficiency and speed of court cases.
Following this purpose of efficiency, since February 2018 communication with all Danish courts in civil cases must be through a specific court website.12 If a party has a Danish company or civil registration number, methods such as individual emails and letters are no longer possible. However, communication can be made at any time and parties have access to the case documents online.
In general, anyone can attend court proceedings. However, subject to certain criteria, the court may decide that the proceedings for the entire case or a part of it are 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 not generally 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 wide. Moreover, the courts are not bound by 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. The defendant may demand that a foreign plaintiff provides security for the payment of the cost of the proceedings unless the plaintiff is a national of an EU country or of certain other countries.13
All cases are usually initiated before a district court as the court of first instance. However, the parties may request that the case is referred to a High Court or to the Maritime and Commercial High Court, or the district court may refer the case on its own motion if the case has general legal importance and is important for the application or the development of the law.
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 a district court (as the court of first instance), the parties may appeal the judgment to a High Court, and cases brought before a High Court at first instance may be appealed to the Supreme Court. Cases may be brought before the Supreme Court as the court of third instance if the case has general legal importance. The Appeals Permission Board decides whether a case may be tried at three instances.
District courts comprise ordinary civil and criminal courts. They also encompass enforcement courts and probate courts. Enforcement courts deal, inter alia, with enforcement of judgments and interlocutory remedies. The probate courts handle the administration of estates and insolvency cases, such as bankruptcies and applications for debt restructuring.
The High Courts are divided into a Western High Court and an Eastern High Court.
The highest instance of the Danish court system is the Supreme Court. As noted, it is the court of appeal for judgments decided by the High Courts. The Supreme Court is also the court of appeal for judgments decided by the Maritime and Commercial High Court if a case has general legal importance and is important for the application or the development of the law; otherwise, the court of appeal is a 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, cases that have an international commercial dimension, and cases concerning sea, air or land transport.
ii Procedures and time frames
Danish court proceedings can be divided into two phases: the preparation and the main 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,14 and the courts may dismiss a case if the statement of claim does not fulfil these requirements.
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 deadline set by the court, the court may issue a judgment in accordance with the plaintiff's claim. Following the first round of pleadings, the parties will normally be allowed to exchange further pleadings.
As 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 main 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 the issue.
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 submissions during the proceedings and to looking into any formality issues. However, the court often has to decide on issues such as expert evidence, including the potential selection of a court-appointed expert.
Following the conclusion of the preparation phase, the parties will usually prepare a summary of submissions and the court will set a date for the main hearing if this has not been done earlier. The court decides when the preparation phase concludes, which is usually four weeks before the commencement of the main hearing.15 After this date, if a party wishes to submit new evidence, allegations or claims, the party has to inform the court and counterparty. A counterparty has one week to respond after which the court makes a decision on whether to accept the new submission. The court will make a decision even if a counterparty does not respond.
The main hearing may be divided into three subphases:
- the opening address;
- the presentation of evidence and the hearing of witnesses; and
- the closing arguments.
The first subphase is commenced upon each party's presentation of its claims before the court. Subsequently, the plaintiff's legal representative will review and explain the case to the court on the basis of the documents presented to the court by the parties. The defendant's legal representative is then invited to comment. The opening address must be objective.
The next subphase constitutes the parties' presentation of evidence and the hearing of witnesses. A witness is first examined by the party who called him or her, and then the counterparty is allowed a cross-examination.
At the closing arguments, legal representatives summarise the case and the legal points raised.
Following the closing arguments, the court will withdraw directly for its deliberations. The court must pass its final judgment as soon as possible following the hearing and usually within either four weeks or two months after the main 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 into the Administration of Justice Act.16 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 equal to or less than 50,000 kroner. Appeal of a judgment of 20,000 kroner or less requires permission from the Appeals Permission Board.
iii Class actions
In 2008, provisions on class actions were included in the Administration of Justice Act. The 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.17 As a main rule, plaintiffs must affirmatively opt in to join the class action. To ensure an effective opt-in scheme, the Danish courts publish an inventory list of class actions on their official website. Opt-out class actions are possible under certain circumstances.18
Class actions are brought before the courts. No special court or tribunal deals with class actions. Case law is still scarce but recent decisions have dismissed such actions owing to the claims not being similar and the class action process not being the best method for resolution.19
iv Representation in proceedings
When acting as parties, natural persons have procedural capacity and are competent to represent themselves in court,20 and legal persons may be represented by employees. Otherwise, generally only Danish-qualified attorneys may represent parties in court. The court may order a party to retain an attorney if, given the circumstances of the case, it considers that professional representation is required.21
v Service out of the jurisdiction
For service of documents within the European Union, EU Regulation No. 1393/2007 applies. 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 Nordic Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in Service and Taking of Evidence of 1974 applies.22 Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention, a contracting state may apply directly to the relevant authority in the Nordic state for the service of documents and the taking of evidence.
Denmark has also ratified the Hague 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 the recast Brussels Regulation23 or where the Lugano Convention applies, the judgment will be enforceable in Denmark.
The Hague Convention of 30 June 2005, on Choice of Court Agreements, entered into force on 1 September 2018. Among other provisions, the Convention states, subject to various exclusions and grounds, that a judgment of a contracting state designated in an exclusive choice of court agreement shall be enforceable in other contracting states.
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 scarce.
vii Assistance to foreign courts
EU Regulation No. 1206/2001 on cooperation within the European Union on the taking of evidence does not apply to Denmark.
As noted, Denmark is party to the Nordic Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in Service and Taking of Evidence. This Convention is based on direct contact, and a request for legal assistance is submitted directly to the relevant authority.
The Hague Convention of 18 March 1970, on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, governs Denmark's assistance to foreign courts of signatory states in taking evidence.
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 public aid by the state, the person does not pay court fees, is reimbursed for expenses relating to the case and is exempted from paying the counterparty's costs. The use of third-party funding is growing in Denmark but is by no means common.
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 Laundering24 implements parts of the fourth and fifth EU Directives regarding the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing.25
Under the 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
On 25 May 2018, the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)26 came into force, harmonising data protection rules across the European Union, tightening processing rules and increasing sanctions. The Danish Data Protection Act27 also came into force, supplementing the GDPR's effect in Denmark in areas such as criminal convictions and national identification.
Documents and the protection of privilege
The relationship between attorney and client is privileged;28 correspondence and other documents on 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.
ii Production of documents
At the request of a party, the court may order another 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 draw adverse inferences.
Alternatives to litigation
i Overview of alternatives to litigation
Disputes are generally settled by the Danish courts. Although the courts remain the standard forum in relation to commercial disputes, arbitration is regularly used. Further, as part of the general reform of the Danish courts, the courts offer mediation.
The Danish Arbitration Act is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law of 1985, and applies to national and international arbitration proceedings taking place in Denmark.29
The overriding principle of the 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 of 1958, and arbitration awards are therefore recognised as binding and enforceable, and a valid arbitration agreement will normally deprive the courts of their jurisdiction. However, the Danish courts can refuse to recognise and enforce an award in specific circumstances.30 In a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in 2016, 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 (i.e., public policy).31
Arbitration proceedings commence when the respondent receives the written request for the dispute to be referred to arbitration, unless the parties agree otherwise.32 Generally, this request includes a summary of the dispute, a preliminary statement of the relief sought and, if three arbitrators, appointment of an arbitrator. The respondent will then generally submit a reply and, if three arbitrators, also appoint one arbitrator. The arbitration is normally concluded after an oral hearing.
In 2008, rules on court-based mediation were introduced in the Administration of Justice Act.35 The parties to a civil dispute are, as a matter of routine, given the option to attempt mediation within the court system before starting litigation proceedings. The court-based mediation scheme in Denmark is voluntary where both parties have to agree to mediation. The mediator is appointed by the court and is normally a judge or attorney with special training in mediation.
Mediation is popular as an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) method. It is prevalent in family-related and probate matters, such as divorce, paternity, child support and child custody. In addition, in relation to large commercial matters, it is common to have a multi-tier clause referring a matter to mediation before the case goes to arbitration.
Outlook and conclusions
The government has focused on modernising the civil court system following the 2008 update of the Administration of Justice Act. In 2020, the emphasis has been primarily on handling the situation relating to covid-19. Although the Danish courts largely shut down in March 2020, they began to reopen gradually in April, with the focus being on resolving critical cases, handling non-critical cases remotely and flexibility. In January 2021, new covid-19 recommendations for the courts were issued, including conducting cases only when a two-metre distance can be kept, using physical shielding where this distance cannot be kept, prioritising cases assessed as ‘most critical’ and limiting non-urgent smaller cases after a specific assessment. The success of the courts’ adaptation to covid-19 highlights the courts’ openness to modernising the court system as well as suggests their prompt consideration and implementation of technology to ensure efficient case management.
Moreover, the caseload of the Supreme Court has further been affected by a 2021 parliamentary decision to impeach a former Minister for Immigration and Integration regarding an order to separate couples seeking asylum if one of the pair was under 18. The impeachment requires a special court made up of 15 of the 18 Supreme Court judges, who will be unable to perform their duties at the Supreme Court while impeachment proceedings are ongoing.
Finally, the end of the Brexit transition period at the end of 2020 following the UK’s departure from the European Union in January that year marks a new relationship between the UK and Member States of the European Union in many legal areas. Without new agreements being set up, court litigation involving the UK and Denmark is likely to be less streamlined such as in the areas of jurisdiction, service, taking of evidence and enforcement. There may also be an uptake in the number of arbitration cases owing to their procedures being less affected by the EU framework.
1 Jacob Skude Rasmussen is a partner and Andrew Poole is a dispute resolution consultant at Gorrissen Federspiel. The authors acknowledge the valuable assistance of assistant attorney Mads Løvenskjold Nielsen in producing this chapter.
2 Act No. 1650 of 17 November 2020.
3 Act No. 433 of 22 April 2014 (Public Administration Act) and Act No. 145 of 24 February 2020 (Public Records Act).
4 The Edinburgh Agreement was entered into on 12 December 1992 by the European Council. The Edinburgh Agreement, inter alia, included the four opt-outs from EU cooperation requested by Denmark in its memorandum 'Denmark in Europe' of 30 October 1992. See Part B of the Edinburgh Agreement.
5 Act No. 553 of 24 June 2005.
6 22 June 2020, Supreme Court, U.2020.3547.H.
7 Currently Act No. 1237 of 9 November 2015.
8 3 September 2020, Supreme Court, U.2020.3797.H.
9 30 November 2020, Supreme Court, BS-25678/2019-HJR et al.
10 Act No. 1445 of 29 September 2020.
11 See Section 297 of the Administration of Justice Act.
13 See Section 321(1) of the Administration of Justice Act.
14 See Section 348(2) of the Administration of Justice Act.
15 See Section 356 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act.
16 See Chapter 39 of the Administration of Justice Act.
17 See Chapter 23a of the Administration of Justice Act.
18 See Section 254e(8) of the Administration of Justice Act.
19 See decision of 12 August 2015, Eastern High Court, U.2016.104Ø and decision of 12 June 2018, Eastern High Court, U.2018.3361Ø.
20 See Section 259(1) of the Administration of Justice Act.
21 See Section 259(2) of the Administration of Justice Act.
22 The Nordic Convention was ratified on 26 April 1974 by Executive Order No. 100 of 15 September 1975.
23 Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
24 Act No. 1782 of 27 November 2020.
25 Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 and Directive (EU) 2018/843 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018.
26 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016.
27 Act No. 502 of 23 May 2018.
28 See Section 170 of the Administration of Justice Act. Since 1 July 2018, European patent attorneys also benefit from client–attorney privilege before the Danish courts.
29 See Section 1 of the Arbitration Act.
30 See Section 39(1) of the Arbitration Act.
31 28 January 2016, Supreme Court, U.2016.1558/2.H.
32 See Section 21 of the Arbitration Act.
35 See Chapter 27 of the Administration of Justice Act.