DENMARK Law and Practice Contributed by: Johannes Grove Nielsen, Jakob Lentz, Anne Buhl Bjelke and Daniel Myhre Engell, Bech-Bruun Law Firm P/S
Act No 502 of 16 May 2023. The ICSID tribunal has recorded that the dispute “arose out of the ‘solidarity contribution’” under the EU Regulation and the Danish Act. Parallel cases by the same claimants were filed against Germany (ICSID case no ARB/23/49) and the EU (ICSID case no ARB(AF)/23/1). Key legal issues in dispute According to the publicly available Procedural Orders from the tribunal, the claimants allege breaches of Articles 10 (1), 10 (7), 10 (3) and 13 of the ECT, includ- ing “fair and equitable treatment” (FET) and expropri- ation-related claims. The respondents raised preliminary “intra-EU” objec- tions (relying on previous case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union) to contend that Arti- cle 26 of the ECT is inapplicable intra-EU, and also advanced defences linked to “essential security inter- ests”/necessity in light of the energy crisis. The tribunal addressed these in a public consolidated Decision on Bifurcation governing the Denmark, Ger- many and EU cases. Another key preliminary question in the case, accord- ing to the publicly available Procedural Decision on Bifurcation, is whether Article 24 (3)(a)(ii) of the ECT (exemption due to essential security interests taken in time of war, armed conflict or other emergency in international relations) can be invoked by the respond- ents. Outcome/status of the case The tribunal issued a Decision on Bifurcation on 8 April 2025, deciding not to bifurcate any of the objections. No award on the merits has been rendered as of 25 September 2025, and the case remains pending. Greenland Minerals A/S v Government of Greenland and Government of the Kingdom of
seat in Copenhagen under the Danish Arbitration Act (DAA), which is based on the UNCITRAL model law. The dispute concerns Greenland Parliament Act No 20 of 1 December 2021 banning uranium pros- pecting/exploitation and its effect on the claimant’s asserted entitlement to an exploitation licence for the Kvanefjeld rare earths project. In the Request for Arbi- tration of 22 March 2022, the claimant pleaded that Greenland’s measures amount to expropriation and join the Kingdom of Denmark as co-respondent based on its role in Greenland’s mineral governance during the relevant period. The claimant later confirmed the filing of its Statement of Claim on 19 July 2023, and the tribunal ordered bifurcation on 3 October 2024. Key legal issues in dispute The key issues in this case are the assessment of the contractual entitlement to an exploitation licence (legitimate expectations under the licence terms), the legal effect of Greenland Parliament Act No 20 of 1 December 2021 on existing rights, potential expro- priation under the applicable law, and attribution/con- sent issues vis-à-vis Denmark. Outcome/status of the case Proceedings are ongoing; no final award has been published as of 25 September 2025. Donatas Aleksandravicius v Kingdom of Denmark (ICSID Case No ARB/20/30) – Discontinued on 19 November 2021 The facts of the case The Lithuanian investor brought claims under the 1992 Denmark–Lithuania BIT relating to alleged failure by Danish police to act against labour union protests tar- geting his construction company’s works and equip- ment. The tribunal was constituted under the ICSID Convention. Key legal issues actually pleaded Denmark invoked previous case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union on intra-EU treaty arbitration, stating:“ The European Court of Justice decided in case C-284/16, Achmea, that article 267 and 344 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a provision in an international agreement concluded between Member States under which an investor from
Denmark – Pending The facts of the case
This ad hoc contract-based investor–state arbitra- tion was commenced under the arbitration clause in the claimant’s Greenland exploration licence, with a
25 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook