Denmark

The Danish court system has a three-tier structure:

• district courts;
• high courts (and the Maritime and Commercial High Court); and
• the Supreme Court.

The Danish courts are generalist courts which consider all types of cases, both criminal and civil, including large and complex commercial claims.

Denmark has 24 district courts distributed throughout the country. As a clear main rule, district courts serve as the courts of first instance. Judgments delivered by a district court as the court of first instance may be freely appealed to the high court.

The two high courts are the Eastern High Court in Copenhagen and Western High Court in Viborg. The high courts primarily hear appeals from the district courts. However, if the district court finds a case to be of principle nature, it can refer the case directly to the high court, which will then serve as the court of first instance for the case in question.

Cases relating to EU trademarks and EC design are heard by the Maritime and Commercial High Court, which also hears complex cases concerning international commercial issues. Finally, cases concerning maritime and transport matters may be heard by the Maritime and Commercial High Court.

The Supreme Court is located in Copenhagen and is the highest court in Denmark. Judgments delivered by a high court as the court of first instance may be freely appealed to the Supreme Court as the second instance. Judgments delivered by the Maritime and Commercial Court may be appealed to the Supreme Court if the case is of a principle nature and of general significance for the application and development of the law or has significant societal impact in other respects. If not, they can be appealed to the Eastern High Court or the Western High Court. Judgments delivered by a high court as the second instance may only be brought before the Supreme Court if leave from the Appeals Permission Board for a third instance is granted. Leave for a third instance may only be granted in cases of a principal nature.

The main procedural rules governing commercial litigation under Danish law are set out in the Danish Administration of Justice Act (AJA), which applies to civil and commercial disputes in Danish courts.

Case law, in particular from the high courts and the Supreme Court, is also an important source of law for interpretation of the statutory framework.

Preparatory works for statutory law are an important secondary source, as they can help clarify the legislator’s intentions, as well as the purpose and scope of laws that are in force. 

There is no formal obligation to attempt settlement before litigation. Under section 268(1) of the AJA, parties to first-instance civil cases are offered court-based mediation led by a mediator. However, this procedure is voluntary, requires both parties’ acceptance, and is rarely used in large and complex disputes.

Solving legal disputes before a tribunal outside the state-established court system has been recognised in Denmark for centuries. The main alternatives to dispute resolution with specific relevance to the settlement of large commercial disputes are mediation and arbitration.

The average processing time varies from court to court. As per 2024, civil cases were on average scheduled for trial within 12–18 months from commencement of the legal proceedings at the District Court of Copenhagen, within 8–23 months at the high courts, and within 6–8 months at the Supreme Court. But the timeline will depend on a number of factors, including the complexity of the matter, the need for expert evidence and the number of days needed for the main hearing.

The Danish civil procedure is based on the adversarial principle and the principle of free evaluation of evidence. This means that the parties are responsible for presenting and substantiating the facts they rely on, while the court freely assesses the evidentiary value of the material submitted.

During the preparatory phase, the parties may request the production of documents from the opposing party.

If a party applies for a court order compelling the production of documents, the request must specify the document or category of documents sought, identify the factual circumstances the evidence is intended to prove, and demonstrate its relevance to the case. The request must concern evidence that the documents can be assumed to exist and that it is in the possession or control of the other party. The court will also consider proportionality and whether legitimate grounds for refusal exist, such as confidentiality or professional secrecy. Similar rules apply if a party requests documents from a third party.

If the opposing party does not comply, the court may draw an adverse inference from that refusal.

The court may exclude evidence it deems irrelevant or unnecessary. However, within the framework of the adversarial system, the court retains a general authority to urge a party to provide further evidence when the factual basis of the case would otherwise remain uncertain.

Under section 168(1) of the AJA, any person is obliged to give testimony before the court unless exempt due to their professional capacity or personal relationship to a party. Exemptions apply, among others, to public officials and members of parliament, clergy, doctors, defence attorneys, mediators, patent advisers, and lawyers bound by professional secrecy; to a party’s closest relatives; and, under certain conditions, to journalists and editorial staff.

Danish civil proceedings are based on direct oral evidence. Witnesses give their testimony orally in court and are first examined by the party who has called them, followed by examination by the opposing party. As a general rule, written witness statements are not used in court proceedings, except in rare cases where the court, after hearing the parties, grants it. This stands in contrast to arbitration, where written witness statements are common.

If a witness, without lawful excuse or prior notice, fails to appear or refuses to answer without justification, the court may, under section 178(1) of the AJA, impose a fine, order the police to bring in the witness, require compensation for any resulting expenses, or place the witness in custody.

The main rule for cost orders is that the losing party must reimburse the winning party’s costs associated with the case, on the basis of standardised rates (see below). The court has discretion to depart from the main rule if special reasons warrant it and can decide that the losing party shall not pay costs to the winning party.

If the losing party has offered the opposing party what the court later decides the latter is entitled to, the court may take this into consideration so that the opposing party shall not be compensated for costs relating to the part of the proceedings following the settlement offer from the losing party.

Where each of the parties has partly lost and partly won the case, the court may, at its discretion, order one party to pay partial legal costs to the other party or decide that neither party shall pay legal costs to the other.

If a case is withdrawn, the court can order one party to pay full or partial costs or decide that no costs are payable.

Where a judgment is appealed and reversed or otherwise altered, the appellate court will consider costs both for the appeal court and the lower instance under the same discretionary principles.

Where the court assesses costs in relation to legal representation, it will refer to the High Court Presidents’ recommended rates (2020). These standardised rates are based, first and foremost, on the value of the case and not on the actual legal costs incurred by the parties in the specific case. However, in cases with an economic value exceeding DKK 5.75 million, the amount awarded to cover legal representation is determined based on what is considered reasonable, taking into account the scope and nature of the case, the complexity of the factual and legal issues, the duration of preparation and hearings, the procedural course, and, in multi-party cases, the coordination of the lawyers’ work. Usually, costs awarded will be lower — and can be significantly lower — than the actual legal costs spent.

Under section 411 of the AJA, the court may, upon request, issue an injunction or an order demanding a party, whether a private individual or a public authority acting in a private capacity, to perform certain specific acts, refrain from doing something, or tolerate certain acts.

The court may grant an injunction or order if the applicant proves or renders probable that:

• the applicant is entitled to protection by the contemplated injunction or order;
• the opponent’s conduct makes it necessary to issue the injunction or order; and
• the applicant’s ability to obtain effective relief would be forfeited if it would have to await final judgment.

The Danish courts play a limited role with respect to arbitral proceedings and have only competence in arbitration matters to the extent expressly set out in section 4 of the Danish Arbitration Act (DAA), including:

• enforcement of interim measures decided by the arbitral tribunal;
• appointment of the arbitral tribunal if not possible under the arbitration agreement or under the DAA;
• challenge of an arbitrator, if the challenge has been rejected by the tribunal;
• whether an arbitrator may be excused due to being legally or de facto unable to perform their functions;
• appeals regarding the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction;
• assistance with the taking of evidence (upon the arbitral tribunal’s consent);
• appeals regarding the arbitral tribunal’s decision on cost orders;
• the setting aside of an arbitral award; and
• enforcement of arbitral awards.

Arbitration in Denmark is governed by the DAA, which is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law.

The tribunal may, upon request, order a party to follow such interim measures as the tribunal deems necessary (cf. section 17, DAA). 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 seek relief from the national courts.

Arbitral awards are unappealable in Denmark.

However, the national courts can, pursuant to sections 37 and 39 of the DAA, set aside or refuse recognition or enforcement of an arbitral award. The DAA rules are closely aligned with Articles 35 and 36 of the UNCITRAL Model Law.

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

An arbitral award may be set aside, or the recognition or enforcement of an arbitral award may be denied, only where a party provides evidence of one or more of the following:

• incapacity or invalidity of the arbitration agreement;
• improper notice or inability to present the case;
• disputes beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement;
• non-compliance with agreed arbitral procedures or applicable law;
• the award is not (yet) binding, or it has been set aside or suspended in the country where it was issued;
• the matter is considered non-arbitrable; and
• the enforcement of the award would be manifestly contrary to public policy.

Denmark is a party to the Brussels Convention and the Lugano Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, covering the EU and European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries. 

In respect of arbitration, Denmark is party to the New York Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards and the ICSID Convention.

All judgments by Danish courts are enforceable when they can no longer be appealed. Following from section 372 of the AJA, the period allowed for appeal is four weeks.

However, according to section 480 of the AJA, judgments may generally be enforced once 14 days have passed since the judgment was delivered, unless the judgment has been appealed within that period or the judgment provides otherwise.

In cases involving declaratory judgments, enforcement can be more challenging than enforcing a judgment carrying an order for enforcement (typically concerning a claim for payment), as declaratory judgments require specific conduct rather than the simple payment of a sum of money.

A judgment issued in another EU country is recognised in Denmark, provided that the nature of the case falls within the scope of the Brussels Regulation. Consequently, a Danish court cannot review the substance of the case or the foreign court’s jurisdiction to hear the matter.

A judgment rendered in an EFTA country (Norway, Iceland or Switzerland) is recognised in Denmark under the Lugano Convention, whose rules correspond to those of the Brussels Regulation.

With respect to judgments not covered by the Brussels Regulation or Lugano Convention — either because of the nature of the case, or because the judgment is from a country outside the EU and EFTA — the only clear legal basis for recognising such judgments in Denmark is the Choice of Court Agreements Convention. The Convention allows judgments to be recognised if:

• they come from a court in a country that has joined the Convention; and
• the parties have agreed, through a valid agreement, that the courts in that country should decide the case.

Under section 2 of the Danish Act on the recognition and enforcement of certain foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters (Act no. 1282 of 14 November 2018 (consolidated)), the request for enforcement of a foreign judgment covered by the Brussels Convention (EU judgments) shall be written and submitted to the bailiff’s court.

Also, foreign arbitral awards are recognised and enforceable, provided that the party seeking enforcement submits certified copies of the award and the arbitration agreement (with translations if needed) (section 28(2), DAA).

Once a judgment or arbitral award is recognised in Denmark, it can be enforced using the remedies available under Chapters 45 and 47 of the AJA.

The execution methods include the seizure and forced sale of assets, whereby the court can order that the debtor’s movable or immovable property be seized and sold to satisfy the creditor’s claim. If the debtor fails to comply with a judgment or award, the creditor may request that the court initiate enforcement measures. These measures may involve the confiscation and subsequent auctioning of the debtor’s assets with the proceeds used to pay off the debt.

The court may order arrests or attachments to secure a monetary claim when:

• distraint is not possible; and
• there is a risk that the debtor’s ability to satisfy the claim will be significantly impaired.

Arrest or attachments can be applied to real estate, movable property, cash, securities, salary, cooperative dwellings, receivables, patent and copyrights, and business assets, subject to specific rules. Further, in certain cases of a maritime claim or maritime lien, arrest can be applied to ships (Chapter 4,  Danish Merchant Shipping Act). The creditor must initiate validation proceedings within one week if the validation proceedings are submitted with the Danish courts, within two weeks if the validation proceedings are submitted with a foreign court. If legal proceedings concerning the claim in question are pending before a foreign court whose decision is assumed to have binding effect under Danish law, the adjudication of a case brought pursuant to section 634(1) of the AJA shall be suspended until a final decision has been made in the foreign case. Arrests and attachments can be contested, modified, or lifted by the court during the validation proceedings. The arrest and attachment itself can also be appealed to the High Court (cf. sections 636–638, AJA).

Proceeding on the assumptions outlined in the Model Answer, would a court in this jurisdiction recognise and enforce the arbitral award under the New York Convention?

In particular:

• Does the award fall within the scope of Article V(1) of the Convention, or would any of the grounds in Article V(1) justify refusal on the assumed facts?
• Is the subject matter of the dispute capable of settlement by arbitration under domestic law for the purposes of Article V(2)(a)?
• Would recognition or enforcement of the award be contrary to public policy within the meaning of Article V(2)(b)?

Response

Does the award fall within the scope of Article V(1) of the Convention, or would any of the grounds in Article V(1) justify refusal on the assumed facts?

Under Danish law, an arbitral award rendered either in Denmark or abroad is, in principle, binding and enforceable. Recognition and enforcement may be refused only on the exhaustive grounds set out in section 39 of the DAA, which mirrors the Article V(1) of the New York Convention. Under Article V(1), recognition and enforcement may be refused only if the party against whom the award is invoked proves one of the grounds listed in the subparagraphs (a) to (e).

On the stated assumptions, none of those grounds appears to be engaged. It is expressly assumed that the governing law and seat recognise non-payment of the contractual obligation as giving rise to a dispute capable of arbitration and the arbitration agreement is valid. Thus, Article V(1)(a) does not provide a basis for refusal. Further, nothing in the assumptions suggests any lack of proper notice, inability to present the case or procedural irregularity, and thus Articles V(1)(b) and V(1)(d) are therefore not implicated.

Moreover, the arbitral tribunal’s mandate is expressly confined to confirming that the foreign judgment is final and remains unpaid after the specified period, and to ordering payment of the corresponding contractual amount and interests, without re-litigating the underlying merits of the court dispute. On the assumed facts, the award therefore concerns the enforcement of a separate contractual obligation arising upon non-payment of the judgment, rather than enforcement of the underlying court judgment as such. On that basis, the award does not go beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration within the meaning of Article V(1)(c). Finally, it is assumed that the arbitral tribunal has issued a final and binding award and that it has not been set aside or suspended, and thus that Article V(1)(e) is not applicable.

Is the subject matter of the dispute capable of settlement by arbitration under Danish law for the purposes of Article V(2)(a)?

The Danish court will consider ex officio whether the subject matter of the dispute is, by its nature, arbitrable under Danish law, cf. Article V(2)(a) of the New York Convention and section 39(2)(a) of the DAA.

A claim relating to the non-payment of a monetary obligation falls well within the traditional scope of arbitrable disputes, as the parties typically have full disposal rights over such a claim. A clause restricting the arbitrator’s mandate to confirming the finality of a court judgment and issuing an award ordering payment would therefore be considered legally effective and valid under Danish law, provided that the relevant procedural requirements are complied with and the parties’ due process rights are observed.

This conclusion is also consistent with the fact that, in other legal contexts, monetary obligations reflected in or arising from judgments may be treated as giving rise to enforceable civil claims. Against that background, a contractual mechanism under which non-payment of a final judgment gives rise to a separate payment obligation, coupled with an agreed arbitral process limited to that obligation, does not appear conceptually foreign to Danish arbitration law.

On this basis, on the assumed facts, there is no apparent reason for a Danish court to treat the dispute as non-arbitrable under Article V(2)(a).

Would recognition or enforcement of the award be contrary to public policy within the meaning of Article V(2)(b)?

Article V(2)(b) permits refusal of recognition or enforcement of an arbitral award if it would be contrary to public policy (ordre public) of the enforcing state. This rule – mirrored in section 39(2)(b) of the DAA – is a narrow exception. This is underscored in the preparatory works of the DAA, which state that the arbitral award must be “manifestly incompatible” with the Danish legal order, and it is further confirmed in Danish Supreme Court case law. In its judgment of 28 January 2016 concerning the interpretation of a distribution agreement, the Danish Supreme Court did not set aside the arbitral award and confirmed that the provision is a narrow exception, applicable only in exceptional cases where the arbitral tribunal has committed errors of such an extraordinarily serious nature that the award is manifestly incompatible with the country’s legal order (ordre public) (UfR 2016-1558/2 H).

In a recent Danish District Court decision of 29 January 2026, the court refused enforcement on ordre public grounds, finding that the arbitral tribunal had committed extraordinarily serious procedural errors – in particular by disregarding a party’s right to be heard and the adversarial principle. The issue concerned an interest claim that had been disputed by one party, yet the arbitral tribunal treated it as undisputed and awarded it without supporting submissions or evidence. The court held that, as a result, the relevant part of the award was manifestly incompatible with the Danish legal order (ordre public) (District Court of Horsens, case no., BS-20094/2024-HRS). 

On the assumed facts, however, there is no basis to conclude that the award falls within the narrow scope of Article V(2)(b). In particular, if the award is determining a separate contractual obligation arising upon non-payment of a final judgment, and not as purporting to re-litigate the foreign judgment itself, the mere fact that the contractual sum corresponds to the judgment debt does not in itself make enforcement contrary to Danish ordre public. Nor does the cross-border character of the mechanism do so, given that both judgments and arbitral awards are routinely recognised and enforced across jurisdictions, subject to ordinary safeguards including the prohibition on double recovery.

Accordingly, from a Danish perspective, recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award would not be contrary to public policy within the meaning of Article V(2)(b).