Denmark

1.1 Advantages

Solving legal disputes before a tribunal outside the state-established court system has been a recognised practice in Denmark for centuries. Some of the main advantages — particularly in relation to commercial disputes — are:

• the ability for the parties to influence the appointment of arbitrators;
• the possibility for the parties to submit own expert evidence;
• the expediency of proceedings;
• the finality of the arbitration award;
• global enforcement opportunities; and
• the possibility of confidentiality.

1.2 Disadvantages and common pitfalls

• Arbitration can be costly compared to litigation, particularly in smaller disputes.
• Proceedings are not always faster than court litigation in complex cases.

1.3 Distinctive features

• The Danish Arbitration Act (DAA) is based on UNCITRAL Model Law with few modifications.
• Parties have broad autonomy in procedural matters.
• Arbitration has a strong tradition in certain sectors (e.g. shipping and construction).

2.1 Legal framework

The central statute governing arbitral proceedings under Danish Law is the DAA. If institutional arbitration is chosen, the arbitral proceedings will be subject to the rules in force at that particular institution. The two key arbitration institutes are the Danish Institute of Arbitration (DIA) and the Danish Building and Construction Arbitration Board (Arbitration Board). The latter focuses on construction disputes within the building and construction sector.

2.2 What qualifies under domestic law as “international arbitration”? Is there a specific statute?

The DAA applies when the arbitration is seated in Denmark and does not distinguish between domestic and international arbitration. International arbitration is regarded as arbitration between parties who, at the time of entering into the arbitration agreement, were situated in different countries. However, there is no specific statute for international arbitration under Danish law.

2.3 Ratification of the New York Convention

Denmark ratified the New York Convention in 1972.

2.4 Ratification of the ICSID Convention

Denmark is a contracting state of the ICSID Convention.

2.5 Other treaties relating to arbitration

Denmark has ratified a number of treaties relating to arbitration, most notably the New York Convention and the ICSID Convention.

2.6 Choice of forum for intra-EU dispute settlement

Denmark has no specific forum for settlement of intra-EU disputes.

2.7 Is the municipal law governing arbitration based on UNCITRAL Model Law?

The DAA substantially reflects the 1985 version of the UNCITRAL Model Law.

2.8 Recent amendments or reforms in arbitration laws

No recent changes have been made to the DAA.

The DIA’s rules (DIA Rules) were last substantially amended in 2021.

3.1 Presence of local arbitration institutions

The DIA is the main Danish arbitration body and handles a wide range of sectors, while the Arbitration Board oversees most construction arbitrations and is widely used via the AB 18 document.

International bodies, such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the Nordic Offshore and Maritime Association (NOMA), are also used.

3.2 Does the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) have a local office?

No.

3.3 Does the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) have a local office?

No.

3.4 Does the ICC International Court of Arbitration have a local office?

No. However, the ICC Denmark has an arbitration committee, which in cooperation with ICC headquarters, helps organise conferences, seminars, and corporate roundtables to inform the public about the ICC’s various dispute resolution services and mechanisms.

3.5 Does the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) have a local office?

No.

3.6 Agreement entered into with local offices of international arbitration institutions

The ICC Denmark may be requested by the ICC International Court of Arbitration (ICC Court) or the ICC International Centre for ADR to propose suitably qualified Danish nationals to serve in arbitration cases. This process is administered by the ICC Denmark Arbitration Nomination Commission, which interacts with the Secretariat of the ICC Court to improve the appointment process.

4.1 Requirements as to content and form

Neither the DAA nor general Danish contract law requires an arbitration agreement to meet specific requirements as to content and form. However, under section 7(1) of the DAA, arbitration agreements regarding disputes that have not yet arisen must relate to a specific, concretised legal relationship.

4.2 Validity of arbitration agreements

The doctrine of separability (section 16(1), DAA) applies, that is, the validity of an arbitration agreement is addressed separately from the main contract.

4.3 Special formalities

There are no special formalities applicable to arbitration agreements under Danish law, and section 7(1) of the DAA states that arbitration agreements may be an arbitration clause in a contract or a separate agreement.

4.4 Governing law

Under section 6 of the DAA, it is a principal rule that arbitration can be agreed for disputes relating to subject matters that the parties have an unrestricted right to dispose of.

5.1 Applicable restrictions

Arbitrability is determined case by case. Certain matters cannot be subject to arbitration agreements by law, such as residential lease disputes (cf. section 203 of the Danish Rent Act). Matters of public policy are also generally non-arbitrable.

An arbitration clause in a consumer contract is not binding on the consumer when the agreement is concluded prior to the dispute (cf. section 7(2) of the DAA and Article 1(3) of the Arbitrations Board’s Rules on Arbitration).

6.1 Stay of proceedings

If a court case is filed before arbitration, and the dispute is subject to an arbitration agreement, courts can only assess if the agreement is null, inoperative or incapable of being performed (section 8(1), DAA). If brought after arbitral proceedings commence, the court is limited to ruling on arbitrability.
During a challenge, arbitral proceedings may continue (section 8(2), DAA).

6.2 Anti-suit injunctions

A court cannot by anti-suit injunctions prevent other courts from ruling on the same arbitration agreement, as jurisdiction over arbitration agreements is not covered by the Brussels Regulation and is not further regulated in the New York Convention, the UNCITRAL Model Law, or the DAA. However, it is possible that national law permits the use of pendente lite rules, which may, to some extent, help avoid conflicting decisions.

7.1 Restrictions on the parties’ freedom to choose arbitrators

Unless the parties’ agreement (or any institutional rules) provides otherwise, the parties are free to select arbitrators.

7.2 Requirement of arbitrator independence and impartiality

Arbitrators must be impartial and independent under section 12(1) of the DAA, as well as under both the International Bar Association (IBA) Rules of Ethics for International Arbitrators from 1987, which must be agreed upon by the parties before they apply, and the DIA Rules (Article 20), which apply when the arbitration is filed with the DIA.

7.3 Mandatory rules applicable to the appointment process

If the parties have not agreed upon the appointment of arbitrators, each party shall appoint one arbitrator. The two party-appointed arbitrators then jointly appoint the third arbitrator as president of the tribunal (section 11(2), DAA).

Article 18(2) of the DIA Rules stipulates that the president of the tribunal, or a sole arbitrator, must hold a law degree. All appointments of arbitrators are also subject to confirmation by the Chair’s Committee of the DIA under Article 19(1) of the DIA Rules.

Following the Arbitration Board’s Rules on Arbitration Article 5, the appointment process is handled solely by the Arbitration Board and its presidium.

7.4 Appointment mechanism in the absence of party agreement or applicable institutional rules

Unless otherwise agreed:

• section 11(2) of the DAA determines that the tribunal consists of three arbitrators;
• according to Article 18(1) of the DIA Rules, the default is a sole arbitrator;
• according to Article 4(1) of the Arbitration Board’s Rules on Arbitration, the default rule is that the arbitral tribunal is composed of two technical arbitrators and one legal arbitrator, who serves as the chairman of the tribunal.

7.5 Mandatory rules applicable to the replacement process

Unless otherwise agreed between the parties, section 13(2) of the DAA applies by default, according to which a challenge must be made within 15 days after becoming aware of the grounds to challenge, and is decided by the tribunal.

Similar rules follow from Article 21(1) of the DIA Rules and Article 6(1) and (2) of the Arbitration Board’s Rules on Arbitration).

7.6 Mandatory disclosure obligations

Arbitrators must disclose circumstances raising doubts about availability, impartiality or independence (section 12(1), DAA; Article 20(2), DIA Rules; and section 6(3), Arbitration Board’s Rules on Arbitration).

7.7 Grounds for challenge

Challenges can arise if an arbitrator is not impartial, not independent, or lacks specified qualifications (section 12(1), DAA; Article 21(1), DIA Rules; and Article 6(2), Arbitration Board’s Rules on Arbitration).

7.8 Mandatory rules governing the challenge of arbitrators

If a challenge is rejected by the tribunal or the Chair’s Committee of the DIA, the challenging party may request court review within 30 days (section 13(3), DAA).

7.9 Removal

When an arbitrator’s mandate terminates, a new arbitrator is appointed under the same rules (section 15, DAA and Article 22(1), DIA Rules).

7.10 Liability and immunity of arbitrators

According to the preparatory works for section 12 of the DAA, there may, depending on the circumstances, be liability for damages caused by one arbitrator’s lack of disclosure. However, arbitrators generally have limited liability under institutional rules; for example, under Article 51 of the DIA Rules, arbitrators are protected except where prohibited by law, and under Article 42 of the Arbitration Board’s Rules on Arbitration no arbitrator is liable for any acts and/or omissions connected to the arbitration or award.

Under section 9 of the DAA, parties may seek court interim measures without prejudicing the arbitration agreement. Courts may order injunctions if there is evidence of a legal right, necessity, and risk that enforceability may be lost, unless issuing the injunction would cause disproportionate harm to the counterparty.

8.1 Interim measures

8.1.1 Overview of interim measures

Pursuant to the fundamental principle that parties are treated fairly and with equal right to present their case (as set out in section 18 of the DAA, Article 28(1) of the DIA Rules, and Article 7 of the Arbitration Board’s Rules on Arbitration), the tribunal may, upon request, order any party to follow such interim measures as the tribunal deems necessary (cf. section 17 of the DAA and Article 36 of the DIA Rules). However, if a party does not comply with the order from the arbitral tribunal, there is no legal basis providing for the enforceability of the interim measures ordered by the tribunal. To ensure enforceability, the party must engage the national courts (see Section 8, above).

8.1.2 Relevance of availability of emergency arbitrator mechanism

The DIA allows appointment of an emergency arbitrator for urgent measures before the tribunal is constituted (Article 48, DIA Rules). The Arbitration Board has a separate set of rules for expedited resolutions, providing that the case is resolved under simplified procedures compared to ordinary arbitration.

8.2 Taking of evidence

The tribunal may request court assistance for the taking of evidence or, in some cases, referral to the Court of Justice of the EU (section 27, DAA).

8.3 Appointment or challenge of arbitrators

If unable to constitute a tribunal, parties may ask the courts to appoint arbitrators, taking into account agreed qualifications and impartiality (cf. section 11(3) of the DAA). (Regarding challenge of arbitrators, see Section 7.8, above.)

8.4 Other available assistance

In addition to the above means of assistance, the national courts can also be involved in connection with:

• the setting aside of an arbitral award (section 37, DAA);
• enforcement of the arbitral award (sections 38 and 39, DAA).

9.1 Domestic scope of sovereign immunity from jurisdiction

Denmark has no specific law on sovereign immunity but broadly follows the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property in practice.

9.2 Immunity from execution

State actions that are commercial/private (acta jure gestionis) are not protected by immunity.

Chapter 5 of the DAA regulates procedure. If parties do not agree otherwise, the arbitral tribunal may conduct proceedings as it sees fit (section 19(2), DAA). Under section 18 of the DAA, Article 28(1) of the DIA Rules and Article 7 of the Arbitration Board’s Rules on Arbitration, the arbitral tribunal shall be fair and ensure that parties are treated equally, and that each party is given a full opportunity to present its case. The tribunal shall ensure that the case is conducted within reasonable time and in an efficient and cost-conscious manner.

There are no general statutory rules on confidentiality; however, under Article 42 of the Arbitration Board’s Rules on Arbitration, the arbitral proceedings are confidential, and under Article 28(4) of the DIA Rules, the tribunal may make decisions regarding the confidentiality of the arbitration and take measures to protect trade secrets and confidential information.

12.1 Requirements as to content and form

Awards must be written, specify place/date, be signed, and include reasons unless otherwise agreed (section 31, DAA; Article 39, DIA Rules; and Article 25(4), Arbitration Board’s Rules on Arbitration).

12.2 Time limit

The DAA contains no explicit time limits on the delivery of the award. If the arbitration takes place at the DIA, it is a fundamental principle that the arbitral tribunal ensures that the arbitration is conducted within reasonable time and in an efficient and cost-conscious manner (Article 28(1), DIA Rules). Under Article 39 of the DIA Rules, the award must be submitted by the arbitral tribunal as soon as possible after the conclusion of the oral hearings and, if possible, no later than six months from when the case was referred to the arbitral tribunal by the DIA secretariat.

Under section 25(2) of the Arbitration Board’s Rules on Arbitration, the arbitral tribunal must deliver the award as early as possible and, in so far as possible, no later than four weeks after the hearing is concluded.

12.3 Remedies

Unless the parties have agreed otherwise, the arbitral tribunal may award any remedy it finds appropriate. However, the legitimacy of remedies contrary to public policy may be questionable.

13.1 Interpretation and correction of awards

Pursuant to section 33(1) of the DAA, each party may, within 30 days of receiving the award, request the arbitral tribunal to correct errors in the award, upon which the arbitral tribunal shall — if it finds the request justified — correct any such error within 30 days from the date of the request. The arbitral tribunal can, on its own initiative, make corrections within 30 days from the rendering of the award (cf. section 33(2) of the DAA).

Similar rules are set out in Article 47 of the DIA Rules and Article 27(1) of the Arbitration Board’s Rules on Arbitration.

13.2 Challenge of an award

It is the principal rule in Denmark that arbitral awards are unappealable. However, the national courts can, pursuant to section 37 of the DAA, set aside an arbitral award or, in line with section 39 of the DAA, refuse recognition or enforcement of an award. Contesting the validity of an award or refusing to enforce it can only be done in line with the grounds specified in each of sections 37 and 39.

13.3 Recognition and enforcement proceedings

The recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards are governed by Chapter 9 of the DAA, aligning closely with Articles 35 and 36 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Parties cannot derogate from these rules (cf. section 2(1) of the DAA).

An arbitral award is recognised as binding and enforceable under the provisions for enforcement of judgments in the Administration of Justice Act (AJA), regardless of the country of origin, including those not party to the New York Convention.

Under section 39 of the DAA, enforcement may only be refused if a party provides evidence:

• of incapacity or invalidity of the arbitration agreement;
• of improper notice or inability to present the case;
• of disputes beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement;
• of non-compliance with agreed arbitral procedures or applicable law;
• that the award is not yet being binding, set aside, or suspended;
• that the matter is considered non-arbitrable; or
• that the enforcement of the award would be manifestly contrary to public policy.

13.4 Cost of enforcement

There are no additional costs associated with enforcement other than fees that may have to be paid to the court.

13.5 Enforcement of orders of emergency arbitrators

The enforcement of an emergency arbitrator’s order follows the same principles as the enforcement of an order issued by an arbitral tribunal constituted through the regular procedure.

14.1 Process for enforcing New York Convention awards

As the New York Convention is fully incorporated in Danish law, the same procedure is followed for the enforcement of New York Convention awards (see Section 13.3, above).

14.2 Grounds for resisting enforcement of New York Convention awards

Under section 39 of the DAA, enforcement of arbitral awards may only be refused on narrow grounds similar to the New York Convention (see Section 13.3, above).

14.3 Enforcing non-Convention awards

The DAA does not distinguish between the enforcement of convention and non-convention awards, and thus the enforcement procedure follows the same rules (see Section 13.3, above).

In general, Danish Bar-qualified lawyers shall act in accordance with the code of conduct for lawyers (section 126(1), AJA and the Code of Conduct for the Danish Bar and Law Society (1 September 2022)). Other ethical rules are regulated under each of the different institutional arbitration rules. Further, the IBA Rules on Conflicts of Interest are generally followed by arbitrations seated in Denmark. 

15.1 Applicable to counsel

Danish Bar-qualified lawyers acting as legal counsel in arbitration must act in line with the ethical code generally applicable for lawyers. For example, it follows from section 9 of the Code of Conduct for the Danish Bar and Law Society that a lawyer may not act as an arbitrator if they have previously acted for or advised any parties as their representative in matters connected with the dispute at issue. Similarly, after having acted as an arbitrator, the lawyer may not act for or advise any of the parties as their representative in matters pertaining to the dispute at issue.

15.2 Applicable to arbitrators

See Sections 7.2 and 15.1, above.

Third-party funding of litigation against a share of the possible outcome of the case is still a relatively rare phenomenon in Denmark, but the trend is certainly on the rise.

There are no general rules or restrictions on third-party funding in arbitration. However, Article 20(4) of the DIA Rules stipulates a duty to disclose the identity of any third-party funder.

16.1 Applicable regulatory requirements

See Section 16, above.

16.2 Overview of the third-party funding market

While Denmark does not have a large number of domestic funders, international third-party funders are increasingly showing interest in supporting arbitration cases involving Danish parties, especially those with cross-border elements. The evolving interest from funders reflects the growing recognition of third-party funding as a useful tool for financing high-value or complex arbitration claims in Denmark.

Denmark is not known internationally for a specialised type of arbitration, but arbitration is frequently used in certain sectors. In particular, disputes within the labour, shipping and maritime, construction, insurance, energy, and IT/technology sector are often resolved through arbitration.

17.1 Types of specialist arbitration

Within the field of labour law, industrial arbitration tribunals primarily deal with cases concerning the interpretation of collective agreements, but, by general or specific agreement between the parties, they may also handle cases that would otherwise fall under the Labour Court, or cases involving claims that are wholly or partly based on legislation, under the ordinary courts.

The NOMA, an association established in 2017, facilitates international arbitrations in the Nordic countries within the maritime and offshore industry.

17.2 Key legal principles

See Section 17, above.

17.3 Types of claim and defences typically brought in that area

See Section 17, above.

17.4 Issues and strategic considerations to take note of

See Section 17, above.

One of the often-mentioned advantages of choosing arbitration as the mechanism for dispute resolution instead of the national court system is that the award will be final and enforceable. In recent decisions from the Supreme Court and the Eastern High Court, this has been a topic for the Supreme Court’s consideration.

The Danish Supreme Court recently refused to enforce a Chinese award (see decision in U 2025.1922 H of 20 March 2025 (case no. BS-34884/2024-HJR)), underscoring the importance of due process, especially proper notice to parties.

The Eastern High Court confirmed that arbitral awards are generally final and can only be set aside in exceptional cases, such as clear violations of public policy. In a case about non-compete clauses, the court found the dispute suitable for arbitration and refused to set aside the award, noting that Danish courts have a limited role in reviewing arbitral decisions (U 2022.3012 of 23 May 2022 (case no. BS-25048/2021-OLR)).

In one case (U 2023.334 of 27 October 2022 (case no. B-477-22)), the High Court stayed enforcement of a foreign arbitral award while it was under appeal in Paris, on the condition that security was provided. In another case (U 2022.923 of 10 January 2022 (case no. B-774-21)), enforcement of a Danish arbitral award continued, as the objections raised were not serious enough to justify a stay.