DENMARK Law and Practice Contributed by: Flemming Elbæk, Helle Ina Elmer, Mads Lund and August Reinhold, HaugaardBraad
4.3 Regulators’ Approach to Policy and Enforcement Denmark’s regulators apply a preventive, risk-based and proportionate approach across all environmental approvals and permits. Supervision is planned against environmental risk, accident potential and compliance history, with desk review of monitoring data comple- menting site inspections. Policy is generally stand- ards- and BAT-driven: permits are conditioned to best available techniques, environmental quality objectives and water/nature plans, and reviewed and tightened when required. See 4.1 Investigative and Access Powers for enforce- ment. 4.4 Transferring Permits/Approvals Permits are given to a specific entity for the purpose of operating one or more specific activities or one or more specific installations at one particular geographi- cal location. A permit can be transferred to a successor operator for the same site and scope. A change of ownership must be registered with the authorities to identify the party responsible for complying with the terms of the permit, BAT and other relevant legislation. 4.5 Consequences of Breaching Permits/ Approvals Breaching an environmental approval/permit in Den- mark can trigger administrative, civil and criminal con- sequences. See more in 4.1 Investigative and Access Powers .
biocides, etc), liability can shift from the producer, importer or seller. Authorities may issue restoration or risk-reducing orders under the Danish Environmental Protection Act ( Miljøbeskyttelsesloven ), including abatement orders and tolerance orders that compel the property holder to allow investigation and cleanup. Severe breaches can result in criminal liability with fines and, in aggra- vated cases, imprisonment. In parallel, parties may be held civilly liable, including for reasonable costs of preventive measures and cleanup. 5.2 Liability for Historical Environmental Incidents or Damage Orders under the Danish Contaminated Soil Act ( Jord- forureningsloven ) primarily target the polluter(s), but may bind later operators or later purchasers who knew or ought to have known of an issued or pre-notified order. Depending on the circumstances, a contaminated property may be viewed by private parties as suffer- ing from a defect. In such cases, the owner can file a lawsuit against the previous owner to be compen- sated if the property value is diminished as a result of the contamination. The new owner carries the burden of proof. 5.3 Key Defences Administrative/Regulatory Liability Liability is operator-based and triggered by environ- mental damage or an imminent threat thereof – eg, significant harm to protected species/habitats or contamination of water, soil, etc. Once triggered, the operator must notify, take preventive/remedial meas- ures and bear the associated costs. Key defence/relief grounds (which shift or limit cost liability rather than the duty to act) include compliance with binding offi- cial instructions, third-party acts despite appropriate safeguards and – under certain circumstances – per- mitted emissions/events without negligence. Rem- edies are proportionate: authorities select primary, complementary and compensatory measures, and may stop further action where residual risk is negli- gible or costs are clearly disproportionate to environ- mental gain.
5. Environmental Liability 5.1 Key Types of Liability
The operator (the person/entity running or control- ling the activity) is the primary addressee of duties to notify, prevent imminent threats and remediate actual damages. The responsible party must bear the associ- ated costs. Strict liability applies to listed higher-risk activities, while other harms require fault-based liabil- ity. For certain product-related harms (eg, pesticides,
149 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook