Denmark: A Dispute Resolution Overview

The Kingdom of Denmark comprises Denmark, Greenland and the Faroe Islands, which generally share similar legal systems and cultures.

Institutional and ad hoc arbitration are the predominant dispute resolution forums for resolving larger commercial disputes in Denmark. Arbitral proceedings are governed by the Danish Arbitration Act, which is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law of 1985. Denmark is also a contracting state to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The two major domestic arbitration institutions are the Danish Institute of Arbitration and the Danish Building and Construction Arbitration Board.

2025 in Review

For the tenth consecutive year, Denmark was ranked first on the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index in 2025. However, the court system has faced challenges in recent years due to increased case processing time. Consequently, funding of the court system has significantly increased from 2024 to 2027 and several reforms of the procedural rules governing civil and criminal cases have been enacted.

In December 2025, the Danish government announced a major reform of the state’s legal services. As part of the reform, selected legal tasks will be opened up for competitive tendering, and a new public authority, “Statsadvokaten”, will be established to handle a range of legal services in-house. The reform also includes measures to strengthen the state’s internal legal capacity and introduces a central procurement function for legal services.

Below, we have highlighted the landmark cases from 2025.

The fishing quota case

In 2021, the District Court convicted several commercial fishermen for violating the rules on fishing quotas and imposed fines and confiscation of approx. DKK240 million. In 2022, the Western High Court acquitted the fishermen, holding that the rules on fishing quotas at the time of the alleged violations were not subject to criminal punishment.

The fishermen subsequently brought a claim for damages against the Prosecution Service for DKK50 million corresponding to the legal costs incurred in connection with the criminal proceedings and claimed that the Prosecution Service had violated the no punishment without law-principle in Article 7 of the ECHR.

In March 2025, the District Court found that the convictions at first instance constituted a violation of Article 7 and awarded the fishermen discretionary compensation of DKK7 million.

Trustee liability

In November 2014, OW Bunker, Denmark’s third largest company measured on revenue and the world’s largest bunker supplier at the time, went bankrupt just seven months after its IPO following significant losses on trading activities.

In August 2025, more than ten years after the spectacular bankruptcy, a damages claim of DKK629 million brought by the bankruptcy estate against the bankruptcy trustee was dismissed.

The Eastern High Court held that while the bankruptcy trustee had acted negligently for having missed a deadline which prevented the bankruptcy estate from pursuing a claim of DKK629 million against the investment bank Jefferies, arising from a margin call on derivatives, the bankruptcy estate had suffered no loss due to the negligent behavior, since the margin calls were not voidable. The judgment has been appealed to the Supreme Court.

Negative interest rates on trial

After Denmark’s central bank introduced negative interest rates on deposits in 2012, Danish banks gradually passed these costs on to customers. Subsequently, the Consumer Ombudsman sued one of the major Danish banks, Jyske Bank, arguing that the bank lacked contractual basis to charge negative interest on private deposits from 2019–2022 and that its interest adjustment clauses were invalid.

In September 2025, the Maritime and Commercial High Court ruled in favor of Jyske Bank, finding that the clauses were lawful, in line with fair business practice, and compliant with good practice for financial institutions. The judgment, which may have significant implications for the Danish financial sector, has been appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Samsam case

In 2018, the Danish citizen Ahmed Samsam was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment in Spain for having travelled to Syria in 2012–2014 to fight for a presumed predecessor to the Islamic State. Samsam claimed that he had been in Syria as an agent for the Danish Security and Intelligence Service (PET) and the Danish Defence Intelligence Service (FE). Subsequently, Samsam filed a civil case in Denmark against PET and FE asking them to either acknowledge or deny that he had been an agent for the security services. PET and FE disputed the case, arguing that Samsam lacked the necessary standing and that the intelligence services are required to keep their operational activities confidential due to national security.

The case attracted massive media coverage and was perceived by many, including two former permanent secretaries at the Ministry of Justice, as a massive miscarriage of justice.

In 2023, the Eastern High Court found that Samsam did not have the necessary standing and dismissed the case. In September 2025, the Supreme Court held that Samsam had the necessary standing, and that the intelligence services had to acknowledge that Samsam had been an agent for PET and FE, finding that several factors indicated that Samsam had in fact been an agent.

Immediately after the judgment, PET and FE issued a joint press release acknowledging that Samsam had acted as an agent on behalf of the intelligence services.

The Findsen case

In December 2021, the former head of PET and FE, Lars Findsen, was charged preliminarily of breaching state secrecy in relation to a cable‑cooperation arrangement between Denmark and the United States. In the subsequent criminal trial, the Prosecution Service limited the accused and the public’s access to information about the criminal case citing national security, a line of argument the Supreme Court rejected in 2023. Following the ruling, the Prosecution Service withdrew the case, attracting significant criticism for its conduct of the case.

Findsen later brought a civil claim against the Prosecution Service of DKK50,000 based on the fact that the head of PET had briefed the Danish Parliament on the contents of a PET report containing highly sensitive personal information, including references to Findsen’s sexual preferences and allegations about theft of used bicycles.

In November 2025, the District Court held that the unrelated and personal information about Findsen in the parliamentary briefing was false and defamatory and awarded Findsen DKK 20,000 in compensation. The judgment has been appealed to the Eastern High Court.

The Kvanefjeld case

In 2008, Greenland Minerals (now Energy Transition Minerals) obtained a licence to explore rare earths at Kvanefjeldet in southern Greenland, a deposit containing both significant rare earths and high levels of uranium. Political opposition to uranium mining led to a change of government in 2021 and the adoption of the Uranium Act, which banned activities in high-uranium areas.

In 2022, Greenland Minerals initiated a multi-billion-dollar arbitration and parallel court proceedings against the Government of Greenland and the Danish state seeking to safeguard its rights to develop the rare earth project.

In October 2025, an arbitral tribunal seated in Copenhagen held that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the licence and Uranium Act and excluded the Danish state from the proceedings. In November 2025, the District Court ruled that the Government of Greenland could not be sued in Copenhagen, confirming that claims against it must be brought before the courts of Greenland.