In Denmark, there are several public registers that can be utilised in order to ascertain the asset position of another party prior to enforcement. These include, inter alia, the following.

• The Danish Central Business Register (CVR), which contains a range of information including financial statements and details about a company’s directors and shareholders, etc. The Central Business Register also indicates whether a company is subject to insolvency or liquidation proceedings.
• The Danish Land Registry (Tingbogen), which contains information regarding ownership of properties and the extent to which a property is encumbered.
• The Danish Ship Register (Skibsregistret), which has information regarding the ownership of ships and the extent to which a ship is legally encumbered.
• The Danish Vehicle Register (Bilbogen), which provides information on whether a vehicle is subject to a retention of title or an attachment, and the extent to which a vehicle is encumbered.
• The Danish Personal Register (Personbogen), which contains information on whether a natural or legal person holds title to movable property that is encumbered, including information on any floating charges.

Asset disclosure orders are not legal instruments available in Denmark. However, in the context of enforcement or insolvency proceedings, a debtor may be questioned with regard to their existing assets and their location, and must answer such questions truthfully.

If the creditor’s claim is not yet enforceable, but there is a risk that the debtor will dispose of assets in a manner that could be detrimental to the creditor, the latter may seek a precautionary attachment (arrest in Danish) of the debtor’s assets in accordance with the procedure set forth in Chapter 56 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act, which, if granted, will prohibit the debtor from proceeding with a disposal.

In Denmark, the courts can issue three distinct types of judicial rulings: (i) judgments, (ii) orders, and (iii) decisions.

A judgment is typically used when the court issues a ruling that concludes the entire proceedings before the court (at that very instance). On the other hand, orders and decisions are typically used for rulings made during the course of a court case, and usually concern procedural matters – rulings regarding evidence, whether a case should be dismissed, postponed or referred to another court, etc. Decisions and orders differ in that decisions do not necessarily have to be explained, which is a requirement for orders. The type of ruling that the court should use in a specific case is regulated by the Danish Administration of Justice Act and general non-statutory principles.

Judgments

Two categories of judgments are typically distinguished.

• Enforceable judgments (fuldbyrdelsesdomme) order the defendant to carry out or refrain from carrying out a specific act. These include, for example, payment of a specified sum of money, the surrender of an object, or the eviction of the defendant from a tenancy. Such a judgment may be enforced directly by the bailiff’s court, provided that it has been formulated in a clear and distinct manner that enables the bailiff’s court to identify the subject matter of that which is to be enforced as well as the obliged and entitled party.
• Declaratory judgments (anerkendelsesdomme) establish the legal position between the plaintiff and the defendant. For instance, the judgment may stipulate that the defendant shall recognise, having acted negligently towards the plaintiff, that a contract between the parties is binding or has certain legal effects, or it may order a state authority to recognise that an administrative act is invalid with respect to the plaintiff. As such, declaratory judgments, by their very nature, cannot be directly enforced by the bailiff’s court.

Default Judgments

If the defendant fails to appear in court, or does not submit a pleading within the timeframe stipulated by the court, the court may, depending on the circumstances, issue a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff, provided that the claim is substantiated by the plaintiff’s presentation of the case and the evidence submitted in support of the claim.

However, if a default judgment has been issued against the defendant, the defendant is entitled to request a reopening of the case within a period of four weeks following the issuance of the default judgment. In exceptional circumstances, the court may grant the reopening of the case if the request is submitted later than four weeks but within one year of the default judgment.

Injunctive Relief

In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 40 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act, a party may petition the court for injunctive relief with a view to compelling another party to abstain from, or to carry out, or tolerate certain acts in order to protect or uphold the rights of the party seeking the injunctive relief.

In order to obtain injunctive relief, the party requesting it must demonstrate:

• that it has, or likely has, the right to seek to be protected by the injunctive relief;
• that the other party’s behaviour necessitates the granting of the injunctive relief; and
• that the party’s opportunity to obtain its right will be lost if it is ordered to await the outcome of an ordinary civil action.

The objective of the procedure regarding injunctive relief is to provide an aggrieved party with the means to swiftly prevent or impose a specific course of action upon another party violating its rights. As injunctive relief is solely an interim measure, it must be followed up by the commencement of ordinary civil action no later than 14 days after the court’s decision to grant injunctive relief has become final.

There are different options for enforcing a domestic judgment in Denmark, depending on the subject of the judgment.

Monetary Claims

If the judgment concerns payment of a sum of money, it can be used for attachment of the debtor’s assets. This is done by submitting a request to the competent bailiff’s court in accordance with the provisions set out in the Danish Administration of Justice Act. The application must be accompanied by the judgment which serves as the basis for the attachment.

Attachment may be made in cash assets as well as property, immovable property, claims in favour of the debtor, and all other assets that can be established.

Once an attachment has been made, the judgment creditor may request that the assets attached be sold at a forced sale, which enables the judgment creditor to finally obtain satisfaction of their claim. If a claim on a third party in favour of the judgment debtor is attached, the judgment creditor becomes entitled to receive payments from the debtor of the claim in accordance with the general rules on assignment of claims, provided that the debtor of the claim is properly notified. In the event that the judgment debtor possesses tangible currency, such funds shall usually be surrendered to the creditor immediately upon attachment.

Enforcement of Judgments Other Than Monetary Claims

To enforce a judgment that requires the other party to perform or refrain from performing a specific act (other than paying a sum of money), an application must be made to an authorised bailiff’s court. The application must be accompanied by the judgment which serves as the basis for the enforcement.

According to Chapter 48 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act, the bailiff’s court has several enforcement measures at its disposal to enforce the judgment, depending on the content of the specific judgment.

It is also possible for the bailiff’s court to allow the claim to be converted into a monetary claim, which can then be enforced by attachment.

Insolvency Proceedings

If the judgment creditor believes that the debtor is insolvent, the creditor may submit a bankruptcy petition to the relevant bankruptcy court. Initiation of bankruptcy proceedings requires that it can be demonstrated that the debtor is unable to fulfil its obligations as they fall due, and that the inability to do so is not temporary. Bankruptcy petition does not require that the debtor’s claim has been established in a final judgment, nor that the claim is due.

Should the bankruptcy court determine that the judgment debtor is insolvent, it will appoint a bankruptcy trustee who will be responsible for liquidating the debtor’s assets and distributing the proceeds equally among the creditors in accordance with the order of priority. The trustee will also investigate whether there is a basis for claims for avoidance or damages against third parties in the interest of the creditors.

Usually, the court will require the petitioner to provide a security deposit of DKK40,000 in connection with the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings.

It should be noted that the opening of bankruptcy proceedings has the effect that any attachment made on the debtor’s assets later than three months before a reference date (commonly the date of the petition for bankruptcy) has no legal effect against the bankruptcy estate.

Timeline

In Denmark, the enforcement procedure is administered by the bailiff’s courts. As the bailiff’s court is a division under each of Denmark’s city courts, the length of time it takes to enforce a judgment depends on the specific bailiff’s court.

The average case-processing time across all Danish bailiff’s courts was 2.7 months in 2023, which includes both Danish and foreign judgments. The longest average processing time was approximately 3.8 months and the shortest was one month.

Costs

In 2021, the regulations regarding payment of court fees in enforcement cases before the bailiff court were simplified. As a consequence, a fee of DKK750 is now payable upon application to a bailiff court for the attachment of property in the context of a monetary claim or the enforcement of non-monetary judgments irrespective of the value of the claim. Furthermore, an additional fee of DKK1,500 is payable in connection with a request for a forced sale of an attached asset.

Other types of costs may be incurred, including attorneys’ fees.

Costs incurred in connection with the enforcement of a judgment may, as a general rule, be recovered from the debtor. However, attorneys’ fees may only be recovered to a certain extent based on indicative rates established by the courts. These rates may be derogated from if deemed reasonable in light of the nature of the case and the scope of the work. It is rare for attorneys’ fees to be reimbursed in full.

In the context of enforcement proceedings before the bailiff’s court, the debtor is obliged to provide the bailiff’s court with the information that the bailiff deems necessary for enforcement, including information on the debtor’s financial position and where the debtor’s assets are located (see Section 497(1) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act). Failure to answer truthfully is a criminal offence under the Danish Criminal Code, and may be sanctioned with a fine or imprisonment.

Should the debtor decline to furnish the requisite information, the bailiff’s court may also issue an order for the debtor’s apprehension and detention until such time as they comply with the obligation, as provided for in Section 497(2) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act. Additionally, the bailiff’s court may conduct an examination of the debtor’s premises, person, or other relevant locations if deemed necessary for enforcement purposes. In such instances, the police will provide assistance to the court in accordance with Section 498 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act.

Challenging Enforcement by Ordinary Appeal

In accordance with Section 480 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act, a judgment may be enforced after the expiry of the time limit for enforcement unless the judgment has been appealed before. Consequently, a defendant may challenge the enforcement of a judgment by appealing the judgment itself.

The time limit for enforcement is 14 days, unless the judgment stipulates otherwise. The period allowed for appeal is usually four weeks, unless otherwise stated in the judgment. However, an appeal may be permitted until one year after the delivery of the judgment where the appeal court deems it appropriate. An appeal after four weeks is rare, however. 

In the event that the judgment is appealed after the expiry of the time limit for enforcement, the defendant may request the court to which the judgment is appealed to issue a stay of enforcement.

An application for reopening a case where the court has issued a judgment in default has the same effect as an appeal with regards to enforcement.

Challenging Enforcement Before the Bailiff’s Court

In accordance with Section 501(1) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act, if objections are raised against the basis for enforcement and it is found, according to the limited evidence that can be presented before the bailiff’s court, that the enforcement of the judgment is questionable, the bailiff’s court may refuse to enforce the judgment. An objection could, for instance, be that the claim has ceased to exist, for example, due to the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations for claims established by a judgment or an arbitral award is ten years for claims subject to Danish law.

As a general rule, objections pertaining to the correctness of the judgment may not be raised during enforcement proceedings (see the Danish Administration of Justice Act). This is understood to mean the judgment’s substantive correctness in relation to the court’s factual and legal assessment.

Nonetheless, the bailiff’s court is empowered to ascertain whether the judgment in question has been issued by a duly constituted court and whether the defendant has been lawfully served. In addition, the bailiff’s court must examine whether the judgment is enforceable according to its content, and whether it has been drawn up in legal form. The interrelationship between the courts precludes the bailiff’s court from examining whether the procedural rules set forth in the Danish Administration of Justice Act have been complied with by the court that has issued the judgment, including whether the court had subject-matter or territorial jurisdiction.

In accordance with Section 502 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act, the bailiff’s court may stay enforcement if one of the following conditions are met:

• the judgment sought to be enforced has been appealed after the time limit for enforcement has expired;
• a legal relationship, the determination of which may influence the outcome as to whether the request for enforcement should be met, is being processed by a court or an administrative authority – eg, concerning a counterclaim between the same parties; or
• other special circumstances apply.

In general, it is difficult for a debtor to resist enforcement of a judgment issued by a Danish court that has become enforceable.

Under Danish law, declaratory judgments cannot be enforced directly. Further, a judgment cannot be enforced if it is so vague or contradictory that the bailiff’s court is unable to ascertain with certainty what is to be enforced. Please also refer to section 2.1 Types of Domestic Judgments.

A publicly accessible register comprising all judgments in Denmark does not currently exist. A selection of judgments is published by the Danish Courts Administration on this website. Further, almost all Supreme Court judgments are published on the Supreme Court’s own website, while selected judgments from the High Courts are made available on the Eastern High Court and Western High Court sections. 

Additionally, a number of private journals publish selected judgments within different areas of law.

It is typically not possible to request the removal of a judgment from any of the above-mentioned websites or journals if the judgment has been fulfilled. However, it should be noted that judgments that are published in Denmark are usually anonymised.

In general, it is possible to obtain a copy of a specific judgment directly from the court that has issued the judgment against payment of a fee of DKK150.

Under Danish law, no general legal framework exists according to which foreign judgments are enforceable in Denmark by default. Rather, the prevailing principle under Danish law is that foreign judgments cannot be enforced as a matter of course unless this has been established by law.

In accordance with Section 479 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act, the Danish Minister of Justice is authorised to issue provisions whereby judgments rendered by foreign courts and authorities pertaining to civil claims may be enforced in Denmark provided that the decisions are enforceable in the state where they were rendered, and provided that enforcement will not be manifestly incompatible with the legal order of Denmark. However, this authority has only been exercised to a very limited extent with low practical significance.

Nevertheless, Denmark has acceded to various international treaties and conventions regarding enforceability of foreign judgments which have been incorporated into Danish law through separate statutory provisions. Thus, many foreign judgments are enforceable in Denmark.

In practice, the most significant treaties and conventions applicable in Denmark are Regulation No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast) (the Brussels I Regulation), the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters of 21 December 2007 (the Lugano Convention), and the Hague Choice of Courts Convention 2005 (the Hague Convention). In addition, other treaties and conventions apply to other specific areas of law.

The Brussels I Regulation and the Lugano Convention

While being a member of the European Union (EU), Denmark does not participate in the EU’s judicial cooperation in civil matters due to opt-outs in accordance with protocol No 22 annexed to the EU treaties. As a result, EU regulations related to judicial cooperation in civil matters are only applicable in Denmark if a “parallel agreement” has been concluded between the EU and Denmark.

One such parallel agreement exists in relation to the Brussels I Regulations, which stipulate that judgments in commercial matters from any EU member state are generally recognised and enforceable in other EU member states, including Denmark. Thus, commercial judgments from courts in EU countries are, as a general rule, recognised and enforced in Denmark.

In addition, together with the EU and Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland (member states of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA)), Denmark has, as an independent contracting state, entered into the Lugano Convention. The Lugano Convention extends the principles of the Brussels I Regulation to apply between EU member states and Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland, as it largely mirrors the provisions of the Brussels I Regulation. As a result, commercial judgments from Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland are, as a general rule, recognised and enforced in Denmark, and vice versa.

The Brussels I Regulation and the 2007 Lugano Convention have been incorporated into Danish law through the Danish Act on Recognition and Enforcement of Certain Foreign Judicial Decisions within the Area of Civil Law and Commercial Law (the Danish Act on Recognition and Enforcement).

The Hague Convention

Denmark has acceded to the Hague Convention, which mandates that a judgment rendered by a court in a contracting state, designated through an exclusive choice of court agreement, shall, as a general rule, be recognised and enforced in other contracting states, including Denmark.

The EU has acceded to the convention on behalf of its member states, but because of Denmark’s opt-out regarding the judicial cooperation in civil matters, Denmark has acceded to the convention independently. The convention has been incorporated into Danish law through the Danish Act on Recognition and Enforcement in the same way as the Brussels I Regulation and the Lugano Convention.

Judgments subject to the Lugano and Hague Conventions must be declared enforceable through an exequatur procedure before they can be enforced in Denmark. In contrast, there is no similar formal requirement to apply for the enforceability of judgments subject to the Brussels I Regulation, which can be enforced directly.

As a general rule, there are no specific types of foreign judgments that cannot be recognised and enforced in Denmark provided that the foreign judgement is enforceable under a relevant legal instrument applicable in Denmark (eg, the Brussels I Regulation, the Lugano Convention, or the Hague Convention) and is enforceable by its nature.

The procedure for enforcing a foreign judgment in Denmark is subject to slight variations according to the applicable treaty or convention under which the judgment is enforceable in the country. The procedure is out in the relevant treaty or convention supplemented by provisions in the Danish Act on Recognition and Enforcement and the general rules set out in the Danish Administration of Justice Act.

The procedure for enforcing a foreign judgment in Denmark is subject to slight variations according to the applicable treaty or convention under which the judgment is enforceable in Denmark. The procedure is set out in the relevant treaty or convention supplemented by provisions in the Danish Act on Recognition and Enforcement and the general rules set out in the Danish Administration of Justice Act.

The Brussels I Regulation

In accordance with the Brussels I Regulation, a judgment given in a member state of the EU which is enforceable in that member state shall be enforceable in the other member states, including Denmark, without any declaration of enforceability being required.

An application for enforcement must be submitted in writing to a relevant bailiff’s court. The application must be accompanied by the documentation set forth in Article 42 of the Brussels I Regulation, including a copy of the judgment which satisfies the conditions necessary to establish its authenticity and a certificate from the court of origin certifying that the judgment is enforceable. Where necessary, certified translated copies of the documentation must be provided to the court.

In the absence of any objections from the judgment debtor and provided that the formal requirements are met, the bailiff’s court will then proceed with the enforcement of the judgment in accordance with the general rules set out in the Danish Administration of Justice Act. Should the debtor raise objections, the bailiff’s court will determine whether enforcement should be refused. This decision may be appealed by the judgment creditor, as well as the judgment debtor, to the High Court and subsequently – with the leave of the Appeals Permission Board – to the Supreme Court pursuant to the general rules on appeal under Chapter 37 of the Administration of Justice Act.

The Lugano Convention

In accordance with the Lugano Convention, a judgment given in a state bound by the convention and enforceable in that state shall be enforced in another state bound by the convention, including Denmark, when it has been declared enforceable in the latter.

In order for a foreign judgment subject to the Lugano Convention to be declared enforceable in Denmark, an application must be submitted in writing to a competent bailiff’s court. The application must be accompanied by the documentation set forth in Article 53 of the convention, including a copy of the judgment which satisfies the conditions necessary to establish its authenticity and a certificate from the court of origin certifying that the judgment is enforceable. If the bailiff’s court so requires, a certified translation of the documents must be produced. In conjunction with the application, the judgment creditor may also request the actual enforcement of the judgment, ie, in the same application.

If the bailiff’s court finds that the formal requirements set out in Article 53 of the convention are met, the judgment must be declared enforceable immediately, without any review of potential grounds for refusal and without the judgment debtor being entitled to make any submissions against the application at this stage (see Article 42 of the Convention).

Subsequently, the decision of the bailiff’s court regarding the enforceability may be appealed by either party to the High Court and then, with the leave of the Appeals Permission Board, to the Supreme Court in accordance with the general rules on appeal set forth in Chapter 37 of the Administration of Justice Act.

Upon the judgment being declared enforceable by the bailiff’s court, the actual enforcement – eg, attachment or other actions of enforcement requested – may be initiated in accordance with the general rules in the Danish Administration of Justice Act. However, until the time limit for appealing the decision on enforceability has expired, or until any appeal has been decided, no forced sale of attached goods or other measures that go beyond ensuring the presence of goods that can be enforced may be conducted.

The Hague Convention

In accordance with the Hague Convention, a judgment given by a court of a contracting state designated in an exclusive choice of court agreement shall be enforced in other contracting states, including Denmark, if it is enforceable in the state of origin. This requires that the judgment in question be declared enforceable in a manner similar to that applicable with respect to judgments subject to the Lugano Convention.

Thus, an application of enforceability must be submitted in writing to a competent bailiff’s court. The application must be accompanied by the documentation set forth in Article 13 of the Convention, including a complete and certified copy of the judgment and the exclusive choice of court agreement or a certified copy thereof. Where appropriate, certified translations of the documents shall be produced. In conjunction with the application, the judgment creditor may also request the actual enforcement of the judgment, ie, in the same application.

It follows from the Danish Act on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments that the subsequent procedure is identical to the procedure described above regarding judgments subject to the Lugano Convention.

The time and costs involved in enforcing a foreign judgment are typically the same as those for enforcing a domestic judgment. Please refer to section 2.3 Costs and Time Taken to Enforce Domestic Judgments.

The grounds upon which the enforcement of foreign judgments can be challenged are dependent on the relevant treaty or convention on which the enforcement is based.

Brussels I Regulation

As previously stated, pursuant to the Brussels I Regulation, a judgment given in a member state which is enforceable in that member state shall be enforced in other member states, including in Denmark, without any declaration of enforceability being required.

In accordance with Section 2(3) of the Danish Act on Recognition and Enforcement, the party against whom enforcement is sought may request that enforcement be refused in accordance with Articles 41(2) and 46 of the Brussels I Regulation.

Pursuant to Article 46, enforcement of a judgment may be refused if one or more of the grounds set forth in Article 45 are substantiated. Thus, enforcement may be refused if:

• the judgment is manifestly contrary to Danish public policy (ordre public);
• the writ of summons, etc, in judgments given by default has not been properly served on the defendant;
• the judgment is irreconcilable with a judgment given between the same parties in Denmark;
• the judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in another member state or in a third state involving the same cause of action and between the same parties, provided that the earlier judgment fulfils the conditions necessary for recognition in Denmark;
• the Brussels I Regulation’s rules on jurisdiction in insurance, consumer and individual labour contract cases have been violated; or
• the judgment is contrary to the Brussels I Regulation’s rules on exclusive jurisdiction.

In accordance with Article 41(2) of the Brussels I Regulation, enforcement may also be refused or suspended on the basis of grounds for refusal or suspension under national law, provided that such grounds are not incompatible with those provided for in Article 45. This means, inter alia, that enforcement may be refused or suspended if the conditions set out in Sections 501 or 502 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act are fulfilled (see 2.5 Challenging Enforcement of Domestic Judgments).

Also, according to Article 51, enforcement proceedings may be stayed if an ordinary appeal has been lodged against the judgment in the member state of origin or if the time for such an appeal has not yet expired.

An applicable judgment of another state under the Brussels I Regulation may not be reviewed as to its substance.

The Lugano Convention

As previously stated, according to the Lugano Convention, a judgment given in a state bound by the convention and enforceable in that state shall be enforced in another state bound by the convention, including Denmark, when, on the application of any interested party, it has been declared enforceable there.

A declaration of enforceability shall be refused only on one of the grounds specified in Articles 34 and 35. According to these, enforcement of a judgment shall be refused on grounds which largely replicate the grounds for refusal set out in Article 45 of the Brussels I Regulation.

The judgment may not be reviewed as to its substance.

According to Article 46 of the Convention, on the application of the party against whom enforcement is sought, the decision on whether to declare the judgment enforceable may be stayed if an ordinary appeal has been lodged against the judgment in the state of origin, or if the time for such an appeal has not yet expired.

The Hague Convention

As previously stated, according to the Hague Convention, a judgment given by a court of a contracting state designated in an exclusive choice of court agreement shall be enforced in other contracting states, including in Denmark, if it is enforceable in the state of origin. Enforcement pursuant to the Hague Convention may be refused only on the grounds specified in the convention. Without prejudice to such review as is necessary for determining whether the Hague Convention is applicable to the judgment, there may be no review of the merits of the judgment given by the court of origin.

Recognition or enforcement may be postponed or refused if the judgment is the subject of review in the state of origin, or if the time limit for seeking ordinary review has not expired. In addition, enforcement may be refused if:

• the court of choice agreement was null and void under the law of the state of the chosen court, unless the chosen court has determined that the agreement is valid;
• a party lacked the capacity to conclude the agreement under the laws of Denmark;
• the document which instituted the proceedings, or an equivalent document including the essential elements of the claim: i) was not notified to the defendant in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable them to arrange for their defence, unless the defendant appeared and presented their case without contesting notification in the court of origin, provided that the law of the state of origin permitted notification to be contested; or ii) was notified to the defendant in Denmark in a manner that is incompatible with the fundamental principles of the laws of Denmark concerning service of documents;
• the judgment was obtained by fraud in connection with a matter of procedure;
• recognition or enforcement would be manifestly incompatible with the public policy of Denmark (ordre public), including situations where the specific proceedings leading to the judgment were incompatible with fundamental principles of procedural fairness recognised in Denmark;
• the judgment is inconsistent with a judgment given in Denmark in a dispute between the same parties; or
• the judgment is inconsistent with an earlier judgment given in another state between the same parties on the same cause of action, provided that the earlier judgment fulfils the conditions necessary for its recognition in Denmark.

Enforcement may also be refused if, and to the extent that, the judgment awards damages, including exemplary or punitive damages, that do not compensate a party for actual loss or harm suffered.

In general, Denmark has a favourable stance towards the enforcement of arbitral awards.

Denmark is a party to the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention), and has largely replicated the model law of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) in the Danish Arbitration Act.

In accordance with Section 38 of the Danish Arbitration Act, an arbitral award made in Denmark or in another country is binding in Denmark and can be enforced in accordance with the provisions set out in the Danish Administration of Justice Act. This is irrespective of whether Denmark is obliged to do so under treaty law, including if the award is rendered in a state that has not acceded to the New York Convention, and regardless of whether the arbitral award concerns commercial matters or not. In this regard, the Danish Arbitration Act is more expansive than the New York Convention and the UNCITRAL model law.

However, in this regard, the distinction between arbitral awards and other types of decisions or statements issued by an arbitral tribunal should be noted, as only the former are enforceable. For example, in a case from 2012 (published in the Danish Weekly Law Reports (UfR 2012.3156/1 Ø)), the Eastern High Court ruled that a decision on costs, which was not made by an arbitral award but by a decision notified to the parties by letter, was not enforceable.

An arbitral award is characterised by the fact that it ends the parties’ dispute on a particular issue before the arbitral tribunal, and it must fulfill the minimum requirements set out in Section 31 of the Danish Arbitration Act as to form and substance to be enforceable. These requirements include that the award be concluded in writing and signed by all arbitrators, or, alternatively, by a majority of arbitrators, accompanied by a statement outlining the reasons why not all arbitrators have signed. Additionally, the award must be dated and specify the location of the arbitration. Finally, the reasons must be provided with the award, unless the parties have agreed otherwise, or the award is on agreed terms.

As stated above under section 4.1 Legal Issues Concerning Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, all types of arbitral awards, regardless of the country in which they were made and whether the award concerns commercial matters, have binding effect in Denmark and are enforceable. With regard to the approach to enforcement, no distinction is made between Danish and foreign arbitral awards, which are both enforced in accordance with the procedure set out in the Danish Administration of Justice Act.

Declaratory awards cannot be enforced, nor can orders that are too vaguely worded. Please also refer to section 4.6 Challenging Enforcement of Arbitral Awards.

The enforcement of an arbitral award is subject to the same procedural framework as domestic judgments – ie, Chapters 45-57a of the Danish Administration of Justice Act. Consequently, the request for enforcement must be submitted to a competent bailiff’s court. The party requesting enforcement shall produce a certified copy of the arbitral award and of the arbitration agreement, if it is in writing. In the event that the aforementioned documents are not in Danish, they shall, if deemed necessary by the bailiff’s court, be accompanied by a certified translation into Danish.

Please refer to section 2.3 Costs and Time Taken to Enforce Domestic Judgments.

Section 39 of the Danish Arbitration Act (which is based on Article 36 of the UNICITRAL model law), exhaustively lists the grounds on which enforcement of an arbitral award may be refused.

According to Section 39 of the Danish Arbitration Act, the grounds for refusal are divided into (i) grounds for refusal at the request of the party against whom the award is being invoked, and (ii) grounds for refusal that are not subject to the free disposal of the parties (“indispositive grounds”), and which must be applied by the court on its own motion (ex officio). It should be noted that it is not possible to derogate from Section 39 by agreement.

The grounds for refusal at the request of the party against whom the award is being invoked include the following.

• One of the parties to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity or the agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law of the country where the award was made.
• The party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings, or is otherwise unable to present their case.
• The award deals with a dispute not considered by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, that part of the award which contains decisions on matters submitted to arbitration may be recognised and enforced.
• The composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with the law of the country where the arbitration took place.
• The award has not yet become binding on the parties, or has been set aside or suspended by a court of the country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made. However, this particular grounds for refusal does not apply in instances where the country in which an award has been set aside or suspended is a party to the European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration of 21 April 1961 (the Geneva Convention).

The burden of proof lies with the party against whom the award is being invoked.

In addition, the court must, of its own motion, refuse to enforce an arbitral award if the following conditions apply:

• the subject matter of the dispute cannot be settled by arbitration under the laws of Denmark; or
• the recognition or enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of Denmark (ordre public).

Thus, enforcement may not be refused solely on the basis that the arbitral tribunal misapplied the law or misjudged the facts.

With regard to the ordre public reservation, the Danish Supreme Court has (in a case published in the Danish Weekly Law Reports (UfR 2016.1558/2 H)) established that an arbitral award can only be set aside according to this provision in exceptional cases where the arbitral tribunal has committed such extremely serious errors that the arbitral award is manifestly incompatible with Danish public policy. It is insufficient for an award to be contrary to mandatory rules of law in isolation.

If the grounds for refusal only applies to a part of the arbitral award, then only that part will be refused enforcement (see Section 39(2) of the Danish Arbitration Act).

If an application for the setting aside or suspension of an arbitral award has been submitted to a competent court, the enforcement proceedings may be stayed, or the party seeking enforcement may be ordered to provide adequate security (see Section 39(3) of the Danish Arbitration Act).