DENMARK Law and Practice Contributed by: Johannes Grove Nielsen, Jakob Lentz, Anne Buhl Bjelke and Daniel Myhre Engell, Bech-Bruun Law Firm P/S
9. Enforcement of Awards 9.1 Enforcement Procedure Enforcement Procedure and Standards
Public policy as stipulated in Section 39 (2)(b) of the DAA is reserved for cases manifestly contrary to pub- lic order. In the recent Supreme Court ruling, however, the decisive point was due process notice under Section 39 (1)(1)(b) of the DAA/Article V(1)(b) of the New York Convention. The courts will independently verify that a party actually received notice, and reasonable doubt will normally bar enforcement even if local rules were observed where the seat of the arbitration was based. Set-Aside and Stays If an award is annulled at the seat, Danish courts typi- cally do not enforce the award. If annulment is pend- ing, courts may adjourn and require security. Sovereign Immunity and Recovery For ICSID awards, Danish courts are obliged under Article 54 of the ICSID Convention to recognise the award as binding, as if it was a final judgment. How- ever, when it comes to actually enforcing the award against state property, Article 55 makes it clear that ordinary rules on sovereign immunity still apply. For non-ICSID awards, recognition and enforcement in Denmark follow the normal New York Convention and DAA regime. Again, even if recognition is granted, enforcement is limited by immunity, as follows: • property used for sovereign/public purposes (eg, embassies, central bank funds, military assets) is immune from execution; and • property used for commercial purposes (eg, state- owned companies engaging in business) may be subject to enforcement, but only after a case-by- case assessment. 9.3 Asset Tracing and Recovery Targeting State Assets In Denmark, there is no special enforcement code for states; general enforcement rules apply subject to immunity. Materials on Danish practice indicate that: • public-purpose assets are subject to enforcement immunity; • commercial use assets are potentially executable; and
Denmark’s Arbitration Act, which is UNCITRAL-based, provides that arbitral awards are binding and enforce- able “irrespective of the country in which [they were] made”, subject to limited refusal grounds in Sections 38–39 of the DAA, which that mirrors Article V of the New York Convention. The bailiff’s court carries out enforcement in accord- ance with the provisions of the Danish Administration of Justice Act. Awards Set Aside at the Seat Under Section 39 (1)(1)(e) of the DAA, Danish courts may refuse recognition/enforcement if the award “has been set aside or suspended by a court of the country in which, or under the law of which, the award was made”. If annulment/suspension proceedings are pending at the seat, Section 39 (3) of the DAA authorises Danish courts to adjourn the enforcement decision and, upon the enforcing party’s request, to order the debtor to provide security. In March 2025, the Danish Supreme Court refused enforcement of a Shanghai Arbitration Commission award for lack of proper notice (even though the ser- vice attempts were sufficient under local rules), con- firming Denmark’s pro-enforcement stance with nar- row, due process-focused exceptions. ICSID Awards For ICSID cases, Article 54 (1) of the ICSID Convention obliges Denmark as a contracting state to recognise and enforce the pecuniary obligations of the award as if it were a final domestic judgment. 9.2 Approach of the Courts General Approach Danish courts are pro-enforcement, narrowly applying the defences in Sections 38–39 of the DAA and Article V of the New York Convention.
37 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook