COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2021 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Denmark Accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2021 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2021-07-20
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Denmark, administrative transparency, coronavirus disease, corruption, democracy, epidemic, independence of the judiciary, infringement of EU law, political rights, rule of law

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 20.7.2021  SWD(2021) 707 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2021 Rule of Law Report   Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Denmark Accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2021 Rule of Law Report   The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2021) 700 final} - {SWD(2021) 701 final} - {SWD(2021) 702 final} - {SWD(2021) 703 final} - {SWD(2021) 704 final} - {SWD(2021) 705 final} - {SWD(2021) 706 final} - {SWD(2021) 708 final} - {SWD(2021) 709 final} - {SWD(2021) 710 final} - {SWD(2021) 711 final} - {SWD(2021) 712 final} - {SWD(2021) 713 final} - {SWD(2021) 714 final} - {SWD(2021) 715 final} - {SWD(2021) 716 final} - {SWD(2021) 717 final} - {SWD(2021) 718 final} - {SWD(2021) 719 final} - {SWD(2021) 720 final} - {SWD(2021) 721 final} - {SWD(2021) 722 final} - {SWD(2021) 723 final} - {SWD(2021) 724 final} - {SWD(2021) 725 final} - {SWD(2021) 726 final} - {SWD(2021) 727 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

The  perception  of  judicial  independence  in  Denmark  remains  very  high,  with  a  number  of 
initiatives ongoing to further improve the efficiency and quality of the justice system. Several 
projects by the National Court Administration aim at addressing shortcomings regarding the 
digitalisation  of  the  justice  system  already  identified  in  the  2020  Rule  of  Law  Report.  The 
Government  is  also  taking legislative and  financial measures to  reduce  case handling times 
for  criminal  cases.  However,  the  courts  are  still  facing  some  challenges  in  view  of  limited 
resources, and the clearance rate has declined in  recent  years. The decision-making process 
for the closure of courts in March 2020 in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic has given 
rise to questions as regards the respect of judicial independence. In reaction, the Government 
and  National  Court  Administration  have  acknowledged  the  importance  of  communicating 
with courts in a way that fully recognises their independence.  

Denmark  continues  to  be  perceived  as  one  of  the  least  corrupt  countries  in  the  European 
Union and in the world. The anti-corruption system is to a large extent based on general rules 
on ethics and integrity, social norms and public scrutiny. Challenges identified regarding the 
implementation  of  international  recommendations  regarding  the  anti-corruption  framework 
remain.  While  civil  servants  are  subject  to  comprehensive  ethical  standards  and  conflict  of 
interest  rules,  the  framework  applicable  to  ministers  and  top  executives  remain  narrow  in 
scope.  Revolving  doors  and  lobbying  activities  remain  unregulated.  A  new  mechanism  to 
protect  whistleblowers  in  the  state  administration  has  been  introduced.  A  new  National 
Investigative Unit for serious crime will be set up in early 2022 and will bring under the same 
roof  prosecutors  and  investigators  aiming  to  achieve  a  more  efficient  and  coordinated 
approach to serious crime. 

raised  by 

the  exceptions 

New  tasks  have  been  given  to  the  national  media  regulatory  authority,  the  Radio  and 
Television  Board,  as  part  of  the  transposition  of  the  revised  Audiovisual  Media  Services 
Directive.  Persisting  concerns  regarding 
to  Public 
Administrative Documents Act, which restrict the right to access information in some cases, 
have  been 
the  Parliamentary 
Ombudsperson  and  the  journalistic  community,  including  in  the  context  of  the  COVID-19 
pandemic.  So  far  the  Government  has  not  announced  concrete  plans  to  revise  the  Act.  The 
framework for the protection of journalists remains robust. The Ministry of Justice is working 
on a legislative proposal to introduce stricter sentences for threats to freedom of expression. 
The  Government  has  provided  state  aid  to  compensate  for  the  media  industry’s  falling 
advertising revenues during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

independent  researchers, 

the  Parliament, 

the  Access 

to 

The role of Parliament in the system of checks and balances has been put into focus during 
the  COVID-19  pandemic.  It  has  handled  a  higher  number  of  legislative  procedures  in  an 
expedited manner in 2020 and 2021. A new epidemics law was adopted in February 2021 as 
a  framework  for  measures  related  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  with  reinforced  oversight 
powers for Parliament. This replaces the previous epidemics law of March 2020 under which 
significant powers had been delegated to the Minister of Health without an equivalent system 
of parliamentary control. A new system of commissions of scrutiny has been established; a 
first commission will examine the legality of the Government’s actions related to the decision 
to cull all mink in late 2020 as a step to counter the COVID-19 pandemic. Civil society has 
received financial support by the Government in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.  

1 

 
 
I. 

JUSTICE SYSTEM  

The  Danish  justice  system  consists  of  24  district  courts,  two  high  courts  (courts  of  appeal) 
and  a  Supreme  Court,  as  well  as  two  specialised  courts1.  The  independent  National  Court 
Administration  is  in  charge  of  the  administration  and  development  of  the  courts,  which 
includes  allocation  of  courts’  budgets  and  management  of  buildings  and  ICT  systems.  The 
independent  Judicial  Appointments  Council2  makes  non-binding  proposals  for 
the 
appointment  of  judges  to  the  Ministry  of  Justice,  who  then  proposes  them  for  formal 
appointment by the executive (the Queen)3. Only one judge is proposed per vacancy by the 
Appointments  Council.  There  have  been  no  cases  where  the  executive  did  not  follow  the 
proposal  of  the  Appointments  Council4.  Disciplinary  measures  can  be  issued  by  Court 
Presidents  or  the  Special  Court  of  Indictment  and  Revision5.  The  Prosecution  Service  is  an 
autonomous institution acting under the supervision of the Ministry of Justice and led by  a 
Prosecutor General6. The Law and Bar Society is the independent body governing the legal 
profession and ensuring its independence7. 

Independence  

The  level  of  perceived  judicial  independence  has  consistently  remained  high  for  the 
general  public and very high for companies.  Overall, 74% of the  general  population  and 
83%  of  companies  perceive  the  level  of  independence  of  courts  and  judges  to  be  ‘fairly  or 
very good’ in 20218. This high level of perceived judicial independence has overall remained 
stable between 2016-2020, but has decreased regarding the general public compared to 2020, 
while the figure regarding companies has slightly increased compared to the past year.  

The decision-making process  regarding the closure of the courts in March 2020 in the 
context of the COVID-19 pandemic has been subject to scrutiny as regards the respect 
of  judicial  independence.  In  light  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  the  National  Court 
Administration (NCA) had announced on 12 March 2020 that only the most critical functions 

1   The  Maritime  and  Commercial  Court  and  the  Land  Registration  Court.  CEPEJ  (2021),  Study  on  the 

functioning of the judicial systems in the EU Member States.  

2   Members  are  appointed  by  the  Minister  of  Justice  and  consist  of  one  Supreme  Court  and  one  High  Court 
judge proposed by the respective courts, one District Court judge proposed by the Judges Association, one 
lawyer  proposed  by  the  Bar  and  Law  Society  and  two  representatives  of  the  general  public  proposed  by 
Local Government Denmark and the Danish Adult Education Association. 

3   With  the  exception  of  the  president  of  the  Supreme  Court,  who  is  selected  and  appointed  directly  by  the 
Supreme Court according to an internal procedure. In addition, as regards members of the Supreme Court, 
the law sets out a special procedure under which the candidate chosen by the appointments board is vetted by 
judges of the Supreme Court before the appointment is confirmed.  

4   For transparency, the Judicial Appointments Council issues a press release when making their proposal. 
5   2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Denmark, p. 2.  
6   The  Prosecutor  General  is  appointed  by  the  executive  (formally  the  Queen)  on  recommendation  of  the 
Minister of Justice following approval of the Governments’ Recruitment Board and can be dismissed on a 
motivated  recommendation  of  the  Minister  of  Justice  (in  the  latter  case  the  recommendation  is  submitted 
directly to the Queen). The Minister of Justice can issue instructions to prosecutors in individual cases, with 
a number of safeguards applicable (2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law of situation 
in Denmark, p. 3.)  

7   Administration of Justice Act, Chapter 15.  
8   Figures 48 and 50, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. The level of perceived judicial independence is categorised 
as  follows:  very  low  (below  30%  of  respondents  perceive  judicial  independence  as  fairly  good  and  very 
good); low (between 30-39%), average (between 40-59%), high (between 60-75%), very high (above 75%).  

2 

 
                                                 
of courts would be maintained and urgent and critical cases would be prioritized9; it also set 
up a crisis  management  group. Subsequently, the process  for this decision and in  particular 
whether  the  way  it  was  communicated  to  the  courts  respected  constitutional  principles  of 
judicial  independence  has  been  subject  to  scrutiny10  by  an  independent  panel  appointed  by 
Parliament.  This  panel,  which  was  tasked  to  examine  the  handling  of  the  COVID-19 
pandemic, found in its report presented in January 202111 that it could be questioned whether 
the  instructions  sent  to  the  individual  courts  by  the  NCA,  which  have  been  made  at  the 
request of the Ministry of Justice, were consistent with the constitutional independence of the 
courts12. The Government and the NCA consider that their communications to the courts on 
the matter had taken the form of a recommendation, but acknowledge that the findings of the 
committee  have  raised  awareness  of  the  need  to  be  particularly  careful  in  recognizing  the 
courts’ independence in the communication with them13. For the re-opening of courts in April 
2020 and all further steps, a more cautious communication style was adopted. Following an 
internal learning process for future crisis preparedness, in December 2020, a working group 
set  by  the  NCA  further  stressed  that  the  crisis  management  group  (composed  of  the 
management of the NCA and  a number of judges) can only provide instructions within the 
remit  of  the  NCA’s  competence  and  otherwise  needs  to  limit  itself  to  guidelines  and 
recommendations14.  

Quality  

The  courts  are  facing  challenges  regarding  resources,  in  particular  in  view  of 
anticipated increases in their caseloads. The expenditure on the justice system continues to 
be  very  low  in  Denmark  (at  0.16%  of  GDP)15  as  does  the  number  of  judges  per  100 000 
inhabitants (at 6.5)16, confirming a longer-term trend17. Some additional resources have been 
allocated  to  the  courts  in  2020,  in  particular  to  address  needs  related  to  the  COVID-19 
pandemic  and  challenges  related  to  digitalisation18.  Further  funding  of  EUR 1.75  Million 
(DKK 13 Million) per year has been allocated for the period of 2021-23. Furthermore, on 24 
June 2021, the Government announced a further allocation of approximately EUR 3.5 million 
(DKK 25.0 Million) in 2021 and approximately EUR 6.5 million (DKK 47.5 Million) in 2022 
to  address  the  caseload  in  the  courts.  However,  stakeholders  have  reiterated  that  this  is 
insufficient to respond to more structural resource challenges, especially since the creation of 
new posts for judges would require a more long-term allocation of resources19. Stakeholders 
have  also  expressed  concerns  that  the  low  competitiveness  of  judicial  salaries  with  private 

9   2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Denmark, p. 12.  
10   In particular, in line with the Constitution, only the courts themselves should decide on a closure/reduction 

of their activities.  

11   Report by the Danish Parliament’s Committee on Rules of Procedure Group (2021), Tackling COVID-19 in 

spring 2020.  

12   See chapter 12 on “Legal Aspects” in Tackling COVID-19 in spring 2020. The panel has analysed all emails 

exchanged between the Ministry of Justice, the NCA and the courts.  
13   Information received in the context of the country visit to Denmark.  
14   Chapter 12 “Legal Aspects” in Tackling COVID-19 in spring 2020, pp. 314-15.  
15   Figure 30, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
16   Figure 32, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
17   2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Denmark, p. 4.  
18   Approx. EUR 4.8 Million (DKK 40 Million) and 9 additional posts for judges were allocated, primarily to 
deal with backlogs created by the pandemic. Input from Denmark for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 10.  
19   See the  Letter of the Danish Association of Judges to the  Legal Affairs Committee of 22 March 2021 and 

Danish Association of Judges (2020), The judges’ working conditions, p. 5-8.  

3 

 
                                                 
sector  jobs  and  other  justice  professions  could  affect  the  ability  of  courts  to  recruit  new 
judges20.  

Additional  resources  for  police  and  prosecutors  together  with  legislative  amendments 
aim  to  reduce  the  handling  time  for  criminal  cases.  The  new  agreement  on  police  and 
prosecution  for  2021-23  introduced  additional  resources  to  create  310  full  time  equivalent 
posts  (for  police  officers,  prosecutors  and  support  staff)  specifically  for  the  processing  of 
criminal  cases21.  In  this  context,  concrete  targets  for  processing  time  within  police  and 
prosecution for  all criminal  cases  and specific categories (such  as violent crime) have been 
set. This is part of a broader effort to improve handling times for criminal cases, which also 
includes  a  set  of  legislative  amendments  that  include  different  measures  aimed  at 
streamlining  criminal  proceedings  and  eliminating  certain  superfluous  procedural  steps22. 
These amendments were adopted by Parliament in June 2021 and entered into force on 1 July 
2021. While these aims have been broadly welcomed, stakeholders have also highlighted that 
these efforts focus mainly on police and prosecution, but not on the courts, where handling 
times for criminal cases continue to increase23.  

Initiatives to address a number of outstanding shortcomings regarding the digitalisation 
of the justice system are under-way. The 2020 Rule of Law Report had already identified 
some shortcomings  as regards digitalisation24. While digital  communication tools for courts 
and prosecution are in place25, a number of gaps regarding digitalisation of the justice system 
remain. Procedural rules for digital tools are only partly in place for civil, administrative and 
criminal proceedings26 and digital access to proceedings is very limited for administrative and 
criminal  proceedings,  e.g.  regarding  the  possibility  to  access  files  of  on-going  and  closed 
cases online27. While a new electronic filing system for civil cases is in place, the system for 
criminal  cases  is  out-dated  according  to  stakeholders  and  though  a  new  system  is  being 
prepared,  funding  still  needs  to  be  secured28.  The  NCA  is  also  developing  a  new  online 
database  for  judgments,  which  will  include  arrangements  for  machine-readability,  which  is 
intended  to  be  available  by  the  end  of  2021  or  early  2022  and  would  improve  the  current 
situation  regarding  access  to  judgments  online29.  The  NCA  has  further  implemented  a  new 
data management system that allows to extract more complex data e.g. to identify the average 
age of a pending case and therefore to better identify reasons for long disposition times.  

The legal aid system is  under review.  In response to  a number of studies  by stakeholders 
highlighting certain weaknesses in the functioning of the legal aid system30, in April 2020 the 
Ministry  of  Justice  has  set  up  a  pre-legislative  committee  to  review  the  existing  legal  aid 
system. It is composed of representatives of different relevant Ministries and authorities (such 

20   Information received in the context of the country visit to Denmark.  
21   Input from Denmark for the 2021 Rule of Law report, pp. 13-14 and information received by the Ministry of 

Justice in the context of the country visit to Denmark.  

22   Proposal to the Act amending the Administration of Justice Act and various other Acts and repealing of the 

Law on mortgages and on attachment without a judgment or settlement.  

23   Letter from the Danish Association of Judges of 10 December 2020 to Minister of Justice Nick Hækkerup 
about the courts' current situation and information received in the context of the country visit to Denmark.  

24   2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Denmark, p. 4.  
25   Figures 42-43, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
26   Figure 40, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
27   Figures 44-45, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
28   Information received in the context of the country visit to Denmark.  
29   Figure 46, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
30   See e.g. Justitia (2019), The Danish legal aid model.  

4 

 
                                                 
as the NCA and the Institute for Human Rights), as well as experts (including a former judge 
and  an  academic)  and  assisted  by  a  follow-up  group  providing  experience  from 
practitioners31. While the committee was  initially expected to present  its results by summer 
2022,  this  is  likely  to  be  postponed  due  to  the  context  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic32. 
Criticism  of  the  current  system  raised  by  the  Bar  Association33  and  Justitia,  a  think  tank 
working on judicial issues, who in October 2020 published a set of recommendations for the 
reform  of  the  legal  aid  system34,  relates  in  particular  to  the  access  to  legal  aid  offices 
(including  regional  disparities),  legal  aid  in  administrative  matters  as  well  as  the  need  to 
clarify  the  legal  insurance  scheme35.  Stakeholders  have  generally  welcomed  the  review 
process  set  up  by  the  Government,  but  regretted  that  it  has  been  stalled  due  to  COVID-19 
pandemic36.  

Efficiency 

The  justice  system  overall  remains  efficient,  but  is  experiencing  some  challenges  as 
regards  the  clearance  rate.  The  estimated  time  to  resolve  litigious  civil  and  commercial 
cases has slightly increased on average at all instances in 2019 compared to 2018 (from 207 
to  222  days  for  first  instance  cases)37.  Moreover,  the  clearance  rate  for  litigious  civil  and 
commercial cases has continued to decrease, dropping from 95% in 2018 to 91.8% in 2019. 
Still, the number of pending  cases remains overall very low, in  particular for litigious  civil 
and commercial cases38. The National Courts Administration has reported that in 2020, there 
has  been  a  significant  increase  in  incoming  cases,  with  courts  having  received  20%  more 
cases in 2020 than in 2017. However, courts have treated 97% of the total number of cases, 
one percentage point more than in 201939.  

II. 

ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK  

Denmark does not have a dedicated anti-corruption strategy nor a specialized agency dealing 
with corruption issues. The anti-corruption system is to a large extent based on general rules 
on  ethics  and  integrity  as  well  as  social  norms  and  public  scrutiny.  Several  authorities  are 
involved  in  preventing  corruption,  promoting  good  administrative  practice  and  compliance 
with the legal framework. This includes amongst others the Financial Supervisory Authority, 
the Parliamentary Ombudsperson and the Auditor General.  The Employee and Competence 
Agency and the Prime Minister’s Office have responsibilities with regard to the promotion of 
integrity  among  civil  servants  and  Ministers.  The  Ministry  of  Justice  ensures  cooperation 

31   Composed of representatives of the Bar and Law Society, the Association of the think-tank Justitia, from the 
legal aid of office and from Insurance and Pension Denmark. Written contribution received by the Ministry 
of Justice in the context of the country visit to Denmark.   

32   Information received by the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Denmark.  
33   See  e.g.  Report  on  legal  aid  prepared  by  a  working  group  set  up  by  Danish  Lawyers  and  the  Danish  Bar 

Association in 2016.  

34   Justitia (2020), Justitia's recommendations for reform of the Danish legal aid model.  
35   In this context, it can be noted that stakeholders generally do not see concerns with the thresholds for access 

to legal aid; this is also confirmed by Figure 23, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard.  

36   Information received in the context of the country visit to Denmark.  
37   No separate data on administrative cases is available.  
38   Figures 11, 12 and 15, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
39   National Court Administration, Key figures for the Danish Courts.  

5 

 
                                                 
between  national  authorities  in  elaborating  anti-corruption  measures40.  Rules  to  prevent 
conflict of interests are broadly in place for civil servants.  

The  perception  among  experts  and  business  executives  is  that  Denmark  is  one  of  the 
least  corrupt  countries  in  the  world.  In  the  2020  Corruption  Perceptions  Index  by 
Transparency International, Denmark scores 88/100 and ranks 1st both in the European Union 
and worldwide41. This perception has been relatively stable42 over the past five years43.  

A  reform  to  set  up  a  new  national  investigative  unit  responsible  for  serious  crimes  is 
being implemented44. The new unit will build on the tasks that are now assigned to the State 
Prosecutor  for  Serious  Economic  and  International  Crime  (SØIK)  while  also  incorporating 
other  parts  of  the  police  involved  in  serious  crime  cases.  It  will  bring  under  the  same  roof 
investigators  and  prosecutors,  who  will  be  better  able  to  follow  serious  crime  cases  all  the 
way from district level to appeal, with the aim of ensuring a more efficient and coordinated 
approach regarding serious crime, including complex cases of corruption. The aim is for the 
new unit to be organisationally established by early 2022. 

According to the prosecution services’ data, the majority of corruption related cases are 
handled in the regional prosecution offices. More complex cases, including foreign bribery 
cases, are investigated and prosecuted at national level by the special prosecution for serious 
economic and international crime (SØIK)45. Authorities reported that resources available and 
training  for  officials  are  adequate  to  fulfill  the  tasks  assigned  to  the  office.  Cooperation 
between the Prosecution service and companies is  regarded  as working well as information 
on  possible  misconducts  is  often  shared  with  law  enforcement  shortly  after  internal 
investigations46.  

Comprehensive rules of behaviour and ethical standards are in place for civil servants, 
while  Codes  of  Ethics  for  ministers,  parliamentarians  and  top  executives  remain 
undeveloped. Danish public servants47 are subject to a Code of Good Conduct in the Public 
Sector48. The Codes are enforceable and make direct reference to provisions contained in the 

40   While  the  Ministry  of  Justice  has  set  up  an  anti-corruption  forum  for  internal  coordination,  it  has  not  met 

since 2015 and coordination is carried out through ad-hoc written consultations.  

41   Transparency  International,  Corruption  Perceptions  Index  2020  (2021),  pp.  2-3.  The  level  of  perceived 
corruption is categorised as  follows: low (the perception among experts and business executives of public 
sector  corruption scores  above  79);  relatively  low  (scores  between  79-60),  relatively  high  (scores  between 
59-50), high (scores below 50). 

42   In 2015 the score was 91, while, in 2020, the score is 88. The score significantly increases/decreases when it 
changes  more  than  five  points;  improves/deteriorates  (changes  between  4-5  points);  is  relatively  stable 
(changes from 1-3 points) in the last five years. 

43   The Eurobarometer data on corruption perception and experience of citizens and businesses as reported last 
year is updated every second year. The latest data set is the Special Eurobarometer 502 (2020) and the Flash 
Eurobarometer 482 (2019). 

44   Government Reflection Paper for an Agreement on the finances of the Police and Prosecutor’s Office 2021-
2024 Ministry of Justice, page 17-21. Information received by the Prosecution Service in the context of the 
country visit to Denmark.  

45   An ongoing investigation refers to possible bribery in a tender for a power plant in Mauritius, while charges 
on a case involving misuse of EU funds by a high level politician have been forwarded to Court.  Finally, a 
case of abuse of office was finalised last year and the responsible was convicted.  

46   Information received by the Prosecution Service in the context of the country visit to Denmark.  
47   Public Servants in Denmark include special advisers and top level civil servants. 
48   2020  Rule  of  Law  Report,  country  chapter  on  the  rule  of  law  situation  in  Denmark,  p.  6.  Agency  for 

modernisation (2017), Code of conduct in the public sector. 

6 

 
                                                 
Danish Criminal Code and in the Public Administration Act. The non-compliance with these 
codes may lead to disciplinary sanctions49. As also highlighted by the Group of States against 
Corruption (GRECO)50, Denmark has still not developed a Code of Ethics for Ministers51 nor 
for members of Parliament and top  executive functions. However, Ministers have legal and 
truthfulness, 
political 
confidentiality, disqualification or conflicts of interest.52 The disregard of these rules can be 
sanctioned in some instances as stated in Section 5 of the Ministerial Accountability Act of 
196453. 

including  duties  on 

the  Parliament 

responsibility 

towards 

Rules on conflicts of interest apply to all public employees; however, for Ministers, these 
remain  narrow  in  scope  and  limited  guidance  is  available.  Public  employees  and 
authorities are subjected to rules on impartiality, legal incapacity and reporting of conflicts of 
interest as stated in the Public Administration Act54. As described in the “Code of conduct in 
the  public  sector”,  the  provisions  of  the  Public  Administration  Act  are  supplemented  by  a 
general  fundamental  legal  principle  of  impartiality,  which  covers  areas  where  the  Public 
Administration  Act  does  not  apply55.  Provisions  on  conflicts  of  interest  under  this  Act  also 
apply to members of the government who need to report to the Prime Minister, in charge of 
transferring  responsibilities  among  ministers56.  The  shortcomings  highlighted  in  the  2020 
Rule of Law Report57 concerning the discretion left to Ministers when reporting conflicts of 
interest  remain,  as  little  guidance  is  available58  and  the  scope  of  application  has  not  been 
extended59.  Ministers  have  the  practice  of  voluntarily  declaring  their  assets;  the  system  of 
asset declarations is still not regulated, lacks control measures and is not mandatory, contrary 
to GRECO’s advice60. As for parliamentarians, shortcomings persist as regards the lack of a 
clear definition of conflicts of interest and the need for mechanisms to report them61.  

Contacts  between  decision-makers  and  lobbyists  aiming  to  influence  policy-making 
remain  unregulated.  Apart  from  general  rules  on  confidentiality  and  conflicts  of  interest, 
Ministers  and  special  advisers  are  not  subjected  to  any  rules  on  lobbying.  Also,  interest 

49   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, paragraph, p. 15. 
50   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, recommendation 44. 
51   New Ministers are given a ministerial handbook which is updated regularly and contains the main applicable 
rules and guidelines on integrity-related matters regarding governmental work including rules on secondary 
employment, gifts and other benefits and conflicts of interests. 2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on 
the rule of law situation in Denmark, p. 6.  

52   These responsibilities are endorsed by the Ministerial Accountability Act. 
53   Application of this provision is very rare. Ministerial Accountability Act. 
54   Public Administration Act (Retsinformation) Chapter 2, Sections 3-6. For the areas not covered by the public 
administration act, a general fundamental legal principle of impartiality applies; Agency for modernisation 
(2017), Code of conduct in the public sector.  

55   Agency for modernisation (2017), Code of conduct in the public sector, p. 25. 
56   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, para. 66, p.24 
57   2020 Rule of law report country chapter on the rule of law situation in Denmark, p. 7.  
58   Section 5 Chapter 2 Public Administration  Act (Retsinformation) says  “After consulting  with the Minister 
for Justice, the minister concerned may lay down more detailed rules by order on the scope of Sections 3 and 
4 for specific sectors of the administration”. 

59   As stated in the 2020 Rule of Law report, conflicts of interest for ministers do not cover self-employment, 

financial interests, honorary occupations or those associated to a minister’s political party, p. 7. 

60   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, paragraph, paragraph 84, p. 30. 
61   2020 Rule of law report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Denmark, p. 7. 

7 

 
                                                 
representatives have no duty to report on their activities62. As stressed by GRECO, increasing 
influence of lobbying in decision-making requires further guidance and transparency63.  

The  absence  of  post-employment  rules  and  cooling-off  periods  for  Ministers  remains 
unaddressed  despite  cases  on  revolving  doors  being  reported64.  According  to  GRECO, 
regulating  the  revolving  door  phenomenon  could  prevent  potential  risks  of  conflicts  of 
interest and misuse of information linked to this practice65. Ministers can move directly into a 
new  position  after  leaving  public  office,  without  any  restrictions  other  than  the  duty  of 
declaring the financial agreement with the new employer and they remain bound by general 
rules of confidentiality66. Stakeholders report a number of cases of revolving doors in recent 
years that could raise potential concerns regarding conflict of interest67.  

Shortcomings  are  still  present  in  the  transparency  of  political  party  financing  rules68. 
Rules  on  party  funding  present  transparency  gaps  with  little  restrictions  on  foreign  sources 
and  a  threshold  to  report  private  donations  set  above  the  amount  of  DKK  20 000  (EUR 
2 700)69. After introducing changes to increase transparency of party financing in 2017, the 
Ministry  of  the  Interior  and  Housing  established,  in  June  2020,  a  guide  explaining  when 
various  forms  of  contributions  to  political  parties  are  subject  to  the  existing  regulation70. 
These  guidelines  addresses  inter  alia  the  issue  of  in-kind  donations71  and  clarify  that  the 
political  parties  accounts  shall  be  audited  by  an  auditor  who  is  not  member  of  the  party 
controlled72.  Nevertheless,  international  recommendations  to  address  other  specific  issues, 
such as anonymous donation to political parties, the obligation to report the total amount of 
donations received, and the establishment of sanctions for not complying with the rules are 
not fully resolved 73 and the Government has not so far announced any additional measures74. 

Denmark  is  reviewing  its  rules  on  whistleblower  protection  and  has  developed  new 
mechanisms  to  protect  whistleblowers  at  ministerial  level.  As  of  1  November  2020,  the 
Government  has  established  internal  whistleblower  channels  in  each  ministry  and  in  all 
subordinate  authorities  with  50  employees  or  more75.  In  June  2020,  the  whistleblower-
scheme  under  the  Business  Authority  was  broadened  to  include  the  business-oriented 

62   2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Denmark, pp.7-8.  
63   Recommendation  CM/Rec(2017)2  of  the  Committee  of  Ministers  on  the  legal  regulation  of  lobbying 

activities in the context of public decision-making. 

64   2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Denmark, p. 8.  
65   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, paragraph 81, p. 29 
66   Special advisers are employed as (non-permanent) civil servants, with their employment coinciding with the 
term  of  office  of  their  ministers.  When  a  minister  leaves  the  public  office  or  when  an  election  is  called, 
special advisers are dismissed but  will  still  get paid  for the following 6  months. GRECO Fifth Evaluation 
Round – Evaluation Report, paragraph, paragraph 80, p. 29.  

67   Information received in the context of the  Country  visit to Denmark. Information on specific cases:  News 
magasin Altinget, 3 July 2019, https://www.altinget.dk/navnenyt/eks-minister-faar-bestyrelsespost; Altinget, 
editor, 27 December 2020, https://www.altinget.dk/navnenyt/fhv-forsvarschef-ny-lobbyist-hos-rud-pedersen. 

68   2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Denmark, p. 8.  
69   GRECO Third Evaluation Round – Addendum to the second compliance report on Denmark, p. 5.   
70   Input from Denmark for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 15.  
71   Ministry of Social Affairs and the Interior (2020), the guidelines on political party funding, point 6. 
72   Ministry of Social Affairs and the Interior (2020), The guidelines on political party funding, point 9.3.1. 
73   GRECO Third Evaluation Round – Addendum to the second compliance report on Denmark. 
74   Input from Denmark for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 15. 
75   Input from Denmark for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 16.  

8 

 
                                                 
COVID-19  compensation  schemes  and  to  include  a  special  duty  of  confidentiality76.  New 
legislation on whistleblower protection was adopted by the Parliament on the 24 June 202177. 
A new reporting IT system is expected to be developed by the end of the year.  

While no specific measures were introduced to prevent corruption in the context of the 
COVID-19 pandemic, the sanctions for corruption offences committed in relation to the 
pandemic  have  been  toughened.  As  regards  criminal  sanctions,  a  new  provision  has  been 
added  to  the  Criminal  Code  in  April  2020,  doubling  the  penalty  for  a  number  of  crimes 
related to the COVID-19 pandemic78. Bribery was initially not included in this list, but was 
added after attention was raised to this by stakeholders79.   

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM AND MEDIA FREEDOM 

The  Constitution  provides  the  overall  framework  for  the  protection  of  the  freedom  of 
expression. The tasks, organisational  structure and rules of procedure of the national  media 
regulatory authority, the Danish Radio and Television Board, are prescribed in law80. There 
are  no  specific  laws  pertaining  to  transparency  of  media  ownership  or  allocation  of  state 
advertising.  Access  to  documents  is  regulated  in  the  Access  to  Public  Administrative 
Documents  Act  of  201481.  Several  laws  have  been  adopted  to  transpose  the  Audiovisual 
Media Services Directive82. 

The Radio and Television Board has been given new tasks with the implementation of 
the  revised  Audiovisual  Media  Services  Directive.  The  new  tasks  relate  to  obligations 
concerning  supervising  video-sharing  platforms  and  safeguarding  accessibility  of  media 
content for persons with disabilities. The Danish authorities have clarified that the Board now 
consists of nine instead of eight constant members, including the chair and vice-chair, each 
appointed  by  the  Minister  for  a  duration  of  four  years83.  The  change  reflects  the  increased 
competences  of  the  Board  and  allows  the  appointment  of  two  members  with  particular 
expertise  in  working  with  media.  One  of  these  appointments  is  based  on  nominations  from 
the Danish Media Association, and one appointment is based on nominations from the Danish 
Union of Journalists84. The media regulator considers their means to be generally sufficient, 
and  the  secretariat  has  recently  been  expanded  by  one  employee85.  The  Media  Pluralism 

76   Whistleblower  protection  rules  already  apply  in  the  context  of  potential  violations  of  financial  regulations 
and  of  market  abuse  as  well  as  in  audit  legislation  or  structural  funds  areas.  2020  Rule  of  Law  Report, 
country chapter on the rule of law situation in Denmark, p. 8.  

77   Input from Denmark for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, pp. 16-17. See Danish Parliament (2021), Law on the 

protection of whistleblowers.  

78   Input from Denmark for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 18. It should be noted that stakeholders such as the 
Judges’  Association  have  criticized  this  as  it  removes  discretion  for  judges  to  consider  individual 
circumstances of a case.  

79   Information received in the context of the country visit to Denmark.  
80   The  Radio  and  Television  Broadcasting  Act,  Executive  Order  on  the  Radio  and  Television  Board  and  the 

Danish Public Administration Act. 

81   The Reporters Without Borders’ annual World Press Freedom Index continuously ranks Denmark among the 

best performing countries, currently in fourth place and third among the EU Member States. 
82   Complete transposition of the AVMSD was notified to the Commission on 18 September 2020. 
83   Amendments  to  the  Radio  and  Television  Broadcasting  Act,  Consolidation  Act  No  1350  of  4  September 

2020. 

84   Input from Denmark for the 2021 Rule of Law report, p. 20. 
85   Written contribution from the Radio and Television Board for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, pp. 1-2. 

9 

 
                                                 
Monitor  (MPM)  2021  finds  a  very  low  risk  on  the  independence  and  effectiveness  of  the 
media authority86. 

The  Government  has  introduced  measures  to  compensate  for  the  media  industry’s 
falling  advertising  revenues  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  The  calculation  of  the 
compensation  has  been  based  on  losses  of  advertising  revenues  with  a  maximum  amount 
specified  per  entity.  So  far,  private  media  entities,  irrespective  of  the  type  of  media  outlet, 
indicating  an  inclusive  approach,  have  benefitted  from  the  support  package  worth 
approximately EUR 32 million (DKK 240 million)87. This has enabled the media companies 
to continue their activities. Specific support was also made available for freelancers and self-
employed  journalists  whose  working  conditions  have  particularly  suffered,  every  fourth  of 
them  having  lost  at  least  80  percent  of  their  income88.  A  new  support  package  of 
approximately  EUR  5.4  million  (DKK  40  million)  was  prepared  in  2021  for  weekly  local 
newspapers,  which  have  been  particularly  hard-hit  by  the  COVID-19  pandemic89. 
Negotiations  are  also  expected  to  begin  for  a  new  financial  support  framework  for  Danish 
media with a plan to give increased support for local news media and innovation, in addition 
to finding new ways to support quality journalism, and enhance trust in news media90. News 
media concentration is reported to be high in Denmark91. 

Restrictions to the right to access public information are being debated. As noted in the 
2020  Rule  of  Law  Report92,  the  Access  to  Public  Administrative  Documents  Act,  which 
provides  the  rules  for  all  public  administration  bodies  and  Ministries  on  public  access  to 
information  and documents, is  subject  to  certain  restrictions limiting public and journalistic 
access to specific governmental files. Although the Danish Government  notes that there are 
currently no plans to reopen and revise the Act, following debates concerning the Act and its 
exceptions  in  Parliament  in  April  2021,  Parliament  adopted  a  resolution  on  4  May  2021, 
instructing  the  Government  to  initiate  political  negotiations  on  the  Act  in  202193. 
Negotiations on this basis are expected to begin in the summer94. One of the driving forces 
was the publication of an independent report on the government’s handling of the COVID-19 
pandemic,  which  reflected  on  the  need  to  strengthen  the  right  to  access  documents95.  The 
Parliamentary  Ombudsperson  reports  that  they  have  handled  one  pandemic-related  own-
initiative  case  and  two  investigations  based  on  complaints  regarding  access  to  documents, 
highlighting  concerns  in  each  case96.  The  fact  that  Denmark  has  neither  signed  nor  ratified 

86   2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Denmark, p. 10. 
87   Information  received  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Denmark;  European  Commission  (2020), 

coronavirus response – state aid cases – Denmark.  

88   2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Denmark, p. 7 and 10. 
89   European Commission (2020), State aid: Commission approves €5.4 billion Danish scheme to compensate 
companies  particularly  affected  by  the  coronavirus  outbreak;  Information  received  in  the  context  of  the 
country visit 

90   Information received by the Ministry of Culture in the context of the country visit.  
91   Public service media dominates the audio-visual media market and is concentrated in few media companies 
of which the largest are owned by the state. See2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Denmark, 
pp. 8 and 11. 

92   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Denmark, p. 11. 
93   Danish Parliament (2021), Resolution on the convening of negotiations on the Danish Public Access Act. 
94   Information received in the context of the country visit. 
95   Danish Parliament’s Committee on Rules of Procedure Group (2021), Tackling COVID-19 in spring 2020, 

pp. 116-120.  

96   Parliamentary  Ombudsman  (2021)  2020  Annual  Report.  The  own-initiative  case  concerned  long  waiting 
times  for  replies  by  health  authorities.  The  other  cases  relate  to  access  to  information  about  the  health 
sector’s preparedness and information from the Ministry of Health. 

10 

 
                                                 
the Council of Europe Convention on Access to Official Documents has also been criticised 
by  the  journalistic  community97.  As  regards  transparency  of  information  related  to  the 
pandemic in particular, provisions have been included in the new Epidemics Law adopted in 
February 2021 to ensure a more transparent processes by making recommendations made by 
the  newly  created  Epidemics  Committee  (composed  of  independent  experts)  to  relevant 
ministries publicly available98. 

The  framework  for  the  protection  of  journalists  remains  strong.  Stakeholders  have  not 
provided  any  indications  concerning  a  potential  weakening  of  the  framework  for  the 
protection of journalists. No new alerts have been published for Denmark on the Council of 
Europe’s  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists99. 
However,  one  incident  has  been  noted  concerning  one  of  the  main  Danish  TV  channels.  
Namely, it posed restrictions on the coverage of particular issues related to sexism by media 
professionals  who  had  publicly  expressed  their  opinion  on  it100.  The  MPM  2021  considers 
that  in  Denmark,  there  is  a  low  risk  as  regards  the  protection  of  freedom  of  expression. 
Journalists  are  not  subjected  to  smear  campaigns  carried  out  by  the  Government  or  other 
actors,  there  are  no  attacks  on  independent  media  and  lawsuits  against  the  media  are 
uncommon in Denmark101. 

The  Government  plans  to  submit  legislation  to  introduce  more  severe  sentences  for 
threats to freedom of expression. Stakeholders report that there is increasing recognition of 
the challenges faced by journalists and other public figures on social media platforms, and the 
need  to  introduce  legislation  to  address  these  issues  in  the  public  debate  in  Denmark102.  A 
survey  carried  out  by  the  Union  of  Journalists  at  the  end  of  2020  reveals  that  digital 
harassment  can  be  an  important  factor  in  journalists’  working  environment,  leading 
potentially  to  situations  where  journalists  may  avoid  writing  about  specific  issues103.  The 
Ministry  of  Justice  is  working  on  a  legislative  proposal  to  introduce  stricter  sentences  for 
such cases. It is expected to be presented in autumn 2021104.  

IV.  OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES 

Denmark  has  a  unicameral,  parliamentary  system  of  government,  in  which  both  the 
Government  and members of Parliament  can propose legislation, although draft bills  are in 
general  presented  by  the  Government.  In  the  absence  of  a  constitutional  court,  ex-post 

97   Louise  Brincker  (Danish  Media  Association),  Tine  Johansen  (Danish  Journalists’  Association)  and  Oluf 
Jørgensen  (Danish  School  of  Media  and  Journalism)  (26  January  2021),  “If  we  include  all  the  rules,  the 
Danish Public Access to Information Act may soon be placed as one of the most closed in Europe”. 

98   The Epidemics Act, Law Nr. 285 of 27 February 2021, section 11.  
99   Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists, Denmark. 
100  Journalisten (11 September 2020), Hvis du har underskrevet Sofie Linde-brevet, er du inhabil ; An alert has 
been registered in this regard in the Media Freedom Rapid Response platform; Six TV 2 employees authored 
an open letter raising awareness of sexism that they have experiences and/or are aware of within the Danish 
media industry, which was signed by over 700 women. As a result, TV 2 disqualified any media professional 
who had signed the letter from writing a feature or doing live interviews on the case. 

101  2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Denmark, pp. 9-10. 
102  Information received in the context of the country visit to Denmark.  
103  Journalistforbundet (2020), Digital harassment survey.  
104  Input from Denmark for the 2021 Rule of Law report, p. 22 and information received in the context of the 

country visit. 

11 

 
                                                 
constitutionality  review  can  be  carried  out  by  all  courts  in  concrete  cases105.  The 
Parliamentary  Ombudsperson  provides  oversight  on  decisions  by  public  authorities  and  the 
Danish Institute for Human Rights monitors the respect of fundamental rights. 

Parliament  has  made  increased  use  of  expedited  procedures  and  consultation  periods 
have  been  shortened,  also  for  proposals  unrelated  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  In 
situations  of  urgency,  at  the  request  of  the  Government,  Parliament  can  decide  to  handle 
legislative  proposals  in  an  expedited  manner,  on  a  decision  of  three  quarters  of  its 
members106. In 2020 and 2021, regular recourse has been made of this possibility, with 19% 
of laws adopted in 2020 and 31% of those adopted until February 2021 having been handled 
in  fast-track procedure, in particular for measures related to  the COVID-19 pandemic107. A 
report  by  the  Standing  Orders  Committee  adopted  in  March  2021108  proposes  a  number  of 
guidelines for the use of fast-track proceedings, inter alia suggesting that laws adopted in this 
manner should always include a sunset clause and to differentiate between different degrees 
of urgency109. It also highlights the importance of submitting all proposals, including urgent 
ones,  to  a  public  consultation.  While  the  general  framework  for  stakeholder  consultation  is 
considered  to  be  robust110,  stakeholders  have  noted  a  tendency  of  shortened  consultation 
periods in practice, not limited to proposals related to the COVID-19 pandemic111.  

A  new  framework  was  adopted  to  strengthen  parliamentary  oversight  on  measures 
related to the COVID-19 pandemic.  Measures in  the context of the COVID-19 pandemic 
have  been  based  on  the  Epidemics  Act,  which  was  amended  in  a  fast-track  procedure  in 
March 2020 to grant additional powers to the Minister of Health to take restrictive measures 
by ordinance. A sunset clause set on 1 March 2021 was introduced at the same time112. To 
replace  this  framework,  preparations  for  a  new  Epidemics  Act  started  in  autumn  2020. 
Following  criticism  of  the  initial  Government  proposal113,  in  December  2020,  a  revised 
proposal  foreseeing  strengthened  parliamentary  oversight  was  introduced  based  on  an 
agreement between all main political parties and adopted in February 2021114. The new law 
provides  in  particular  that  a  special  parliamentary  committee  will  review  executive  orders 
proposed  by  the  Government  in  a  number  of  key  areas  and  can  reject  them  by  vote  of  the 
majority of its members115. In addition, a national advisory Epidemics Commission has been 
set up, which must deliver an opinion on the proposed Government ordinances. The opinion 

105  This happens rarely and there has only been one case in which the Supreme Court decided to disapply a law 

for being incompatible with the Constitution, in the 1999, Tvind case, U 1999.841 H. 

106  Normally, the third and final reading can take place at the earliest 30 days after submission of the proposal to 

Parliament. Section 42 of the Standing Orders of the Parliament.  

107  Input from Denmark for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 24.  
108  Standing Orders Committee (2021), Report concerning urgent consideration of government draft laws. 
109  Concretely  the  committee  suggests  that  depending  on  the  degree  of  urgency,  a  scale  for  the  time  for 
consideration in Parliament should apply (i.e. less than the standard 30 days, but still more than 15 days for 
proposals that are “mildly urgent” and 8-14 days for those which are “moderately urgent”).  

110  2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Denmark, p. 11.  
111  Contribution from European Civic Forum for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 22 and information received 

in the context of the country visit to Denmark.  

112  Act  no.  133  of  12  March  2020  amending  the  Danish  Law  on  Measures  against  Infectious  and  Other 

Communicable Diseases 

113  See e.g. the position by the Danish Institute for Human Rights (2020), DEBATE: The Epidemic Act must 

give the Folketing control over far-reaching measures. 
114  The Epidemics Act, Law Nr. 285 of 27 February 2021.  
115  The  Committee,  which  is  set  up  as  a  sub-committee  of  the  Standing  Orders,  has  21  members.  In  urgent 
cases, the Minister may adopt ordinances directly, but must then immediately submit them to the committee, 
who can repeal them within a week. §9-11 Epidemics Act.  

12 

 
                                                 
is  made  public  and  must  be  submitted  to  the  parliamentary  committee  as  well116.  An 
independent expert panel set up by Parliament, which reviewed the handling of the COVID-
19  pandemic  by  the  Government  in  spring  2020,  has  highlighted  the  very  strong 
centralisation of powers in the hand of the executive at the start of the pandemic and stressed 
the  need  for  adequate  parliamentary  control117,  which  this  new  framework  also  aims  to 
address.  The  Parliamentary  Ombudsperson  has  received  around  200  complaints  related  to 
measures taken in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic118.  

A  new  system  of  commissions  of  scrutiny  to  investigate  specific  matters  of  general 
importance  has  been  introduced.  On  19  April  2021,  Parliament  passed  legislation 
introducing a new system of commissions of scrutiny119. These new commissions will be able 
to carry out focussed investigations on specific matters of general importance. In comparison 
with the already existing commissions of inquiry, their scope will be more narrowly defined 
and  their  results  are  expected  to  be  delivered  within  a  year  of  their  establishment120. 
Furthermore, the commissions are set up under the control of Parliament121, which draws up 
the terms of reference, appoints the members, and receives its reports.  The establishment of 
this  system  was  agreed  following  the  debate  regarding  the  government  measures  to  cull  all 
the farmed mink of the country after the identification of a mutated coronavirus strain122. As 
part of this agreement, the first such commission of scrutiny has been set up on 23 April 2021 
to  examine the Government’s actions  related to  the minks’ culling, including whether there 
was a sufficient legal basis for the decision123.  

The  overall  framework  for  civil  society  organisations  remains  robust  and  support  has 
been  allocated  to  help  them  cope  with  the  impact  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  Civil 
society  space  in  Denmark  is  considered  to  be  open124  and  robust  mechanisms  for  the 
involvement  of  civil  society  exist125.  In  September  2020,  a  compensation  fund  of 
approximately EUR 6.7 Million (DKK 50 Million) for civil society organisations negatively 
affected  by  the  COVID-19  pandemic  working  with  vulnerable  groups  was  set  up126. 
Nevertheless,  the  National  Institute  for  Human  Rights127  and  stakeholders128  have  raised 
some  concerns  about  a  trend  that  certain  legislative  proposals  related  to  security  measures 

116  §7-8 Epidemics Act.  
117  Executive Summary, Tackling COVID-19 in spring 2020.  
118  Information received by the Parliamentary Ombudsperson in the context of the country visit to Denmark.  
119  Act amending the Act on Commissions of Inquiry and the Code of Judicial Procedure.  
120  Commissions of inquiry usually take 2-3 years to deliver their results.  
121  Instead of the relevant Ministry, as is the case for commissions of inquiry. Input from Denmark for the 2021 

Rule of Law Report, p. 28.  

122  Danish Parliament (2020), Report about the  establishment  of a  form of inquiry  with  special parliamentary 

anchoring.  

123  Danish  Parliament  (2021),  Terms  of  reference  for  a  Commission  of  Inquiry  into  the  matter  of  killing  of 

mink. On this issue, see e.g. the contribution from ENNHRI for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 117.  

124  Rating  given  by  CIVICUS,  ratings  are  on  a  five-category  scale  defined  as:  open,  narrowed,  obstructed, 

repressed and closed.  

125  2020  Rule  of  Law  Report,  country  chapter  on  the  rule  of  law  situation  in  Denmark,  pp.  11-12;  see  also 

Contribution from the European Civic Forum for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 22.  

126  Ministry of Social Affairs and Interior, Act nr. 318, 24 September 2020:  
127  Contribution from ENNHRI for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, pp. 114-115.  
128  Contribution from European Civic Forum for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 22; see also European Centre 

for Non-Profit Law (2021), Security for all Danes – a serious threat to freedom of assembly.  

13 

 
                                                 
could negatively impact civic space due to a risk of arbitrariness in their scope of application 
and have asked that such proposals should be more targeted129. 

129  See footnotes 122 and 123. These concerns have been raised in relation to Act no. 414 of 13 March 2021 on 
the prohibition of receiving donations from certain physical persons and legal entities and the draft law on 
introducing the possibility of police ordering persons to stay away from public places.  

14 

 
                                                 
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order*  

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2021 Rule of Law report 
can  be  found  at  https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/upholding-rule-
law/rule-law/rule-law-mechanism/2021-rule-law-report-targeted-stakeholder-consultation. 

Agency  for  modernisation  (2017),  Code  of  conduct  in  the  public  sector  (code-of-conduct-in-the-
public-sectorforside.pdf (modst.dk)). 

Altinget  news  magasin,  3 
bestyrelsespost).  

July  2019 

(https://www.altinget.dk/navnenyt/eks-minister-faar-

Altinget,  editor,  27  December  2020  (https://www.altinget.dk/navnenyt/fhv-forsvarschef-ny-lobbyist-
hos-rud-pedersen). 

Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (2021), Media pluralism monitor 2021.   

CEPEJ (2021), Study on the functioning of the judicial systems in the EU Member States.  

Civicus, Monitor tracking civic space – Denmark (https://monitor.civicus.org/country/denmark/)  

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2017),  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2017)2  of  the 
Committee of Ministers on the legal regulation of lobbying activities in the context of public decision-
making (https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectId=0900001680700a40 ). 

Danish  Association  of  Judges  (2021),  Letter  to  the  Legal  Affairs  Committee  of  22  March  2021 
(https://www.dommerforeningen.dk/meddelelser/2021/dommerforeningens-brev-til-retsudvalget-i-
anledning-af-offentliggoerelse-af-danmarks-domstoles-aarsrapport-2020/).  

Danish  Association  of  Judges  (2020),  Letter  of  10  December  2020  to  Nick  Hækkerup  about  the 
courts' 
(https://www.dommerforeningen.dk/meddelelser/2020/brev-til-nick-
haekkerup-om-domstolenes-aktuelle-situation/). 

situation 

current 

Danish Association of Judges (2020), The judges’ working conditions.  (Dommernes arbejdsforhold) 
(https://www.dommerforeningen.dk/media/74794/rapport-om-dommernes-arbejdsforhold-juni-
2020.pdf). 

Danish  Bar  Association  (2016),  Report  on legal  aid prepared  by  a  working  group  set up  by  Danish 
Association 
the 
Lawyers 
(https://www.ft.dk/samling/20161/almdel/REU/bilag/124/1712324/index.htm). 

Danish 

Bar 

and 

Danish Government (2021), Input from Denmark for the 2021 Rule of Law Report.  

Danish  Government  (2020)  Reflection  Paper  for  an  Agreement  on  the  finances  of  the  Police  and 
Prosecutor’s  Office  2021-2024  Ministry  of  Justice 
(https://www.justitsministeriet.dk/wp-
content/uploads/2020/08/trygheden_foerst_final-a.pdf). 

law  on 
Danish  Parliament 
(https://www.ft.dk/samling/20201/lovforslag/l213/index.htm). 

(2021),  Proposal 

for  a 

the  protection  of  whistleblowers  

Danish Parliament (2021), Resolution on the convening of negotiations on the Danish Public Access 
Act. (https://www.ft.dk/samling/20201/beslutningsforslag/B169/som_vedtaget.htm).  

Danish Parliament (2021), Terms of reference for a Commission of Inquiry into the matter of killing 
of  mink.  (Kommissorium  for  en  granskningskommission  om  sagen  om  aflivning  af  mink) 
(https://www.ft.dk/samling/20201/almdel/GRA/bilag/12/2380425.pdf).  

Danish Parliament’s Committee on Rules of Procedure Group (2021), Tackling COVID-19 in spring 
2020, 
(https://www.ft.dk/-
2020 
/media/sites/ft/pdf/publikationer/haandtering-af-covid19-foraar-2020.ashx).  

Håndteringen 

covid-19 

foråret 

af 

i 

Danish  Parliament  (2020),  Report  about  the  establishment  of  a  form  of  inquiry  with  special 
parliamentary anchoring, (Beretningometablering af en undersøgelsesform med særlig parlamentarisk 
forankring) (https://www.ft.dk/ripdf/samling/20201/beretningalmenart/20201_BER_3.pdf).  

15 

 
Directorate-General for Communication (2020), Special Eurobarometer 502: corruption. 

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2020),  Flash  Eurobarometer  482:  Businesses'  attitudes 
towards corruption in the EU. 

European Centre for Non-Profit Law (2021), Security for all Danes – a serious threat to freedom of 
assembly (https://ecnl.org/news/security-all-danes-serious-threat-freedom-assembly).  

European Civic Forum (2021),  Contribution from European Civic Forum for the 2021 Rule of Law 
Report. 

ENNHRI (2021), Contribution from ENNRHI for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

European Commission (2021), 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 

European  Commission 
(https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/coronavirus-response/jobs-and-economy-during-
coronavirus-pandemic/state-aid-cases/denmark_en). 

(2021),  coronavirus 

response  – 

state  aid  cases  –  Denmark  

European Commission (2020), 2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation 
in Denmark.  

European  Commission  (2020),  State  aid:  Commission  approves  €5.4  billion  Danish  scheme  to 
compensate 
outbreak 
(https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_541). 

coronavirus 

particularly 

companies 

affected 

the 

by 

GRECO  (2019),  Fifth  Evaluation  Round  Evaluation  Report  on  Denmark  on  preventing  corruption 
and  promoting  integrity  in  central  governments  (top  executive  functions)  and  law  enforcement 
agencies. 

GRECO (2021), Third Evaluation Round – Addendum to the second compliance report on Denmark, 
(https://rm.coe.int/third-evaluation-round-addendum-to-the-second-compliance-report-on-
den/1680a29ae4). 

Institute for Human Rights (2020), DEBATE: The Epidemic Act must give the Folketing control over 
far-reaching measures (DEBAT: Epidemiloven skal give Folketinget kontrollen over vidtgående tiltag) 
(DEBAT:  Epidemiloven  skal  give  Folketinget  kontrollen  over  vidtgående  tiltag  |  Institut  for 
Menneskerettigheder). 

Journalisten  (11  September  2020)  Hvis  du  har  underskrevet  Sofie  Linde-brevet,  er  du  inhabil 
(https://journalisten.dk/tv-2-hvis-du-har-underskrevet-sofie-linde-brevet-er-du-inhabil/). 

Journalistforbundet  (2020),  Digital  harrassment:  Employers  have  a  great  responsibility  (Digital 
chikane: ”Arbejdsgiverne har et stort ansvar”)  (https://journalistforbundet.dk/nyhed/digital-chikane-
arbejdsgiverne-har-et-stort-ansvar). 

Justitia  (2020),  Justitia's  recommendations  for  reform  of  the  Danish  legal  aid  model,  (Justitias 
anbefalinger  til  reform  af  den  danske  retshjælpsmodel)  (https://justitia-int.org/justitias-anbefalinger-
til-reform-af-den-danske-retshjaelpsmodel/).  

Justitia (2019), The Danish legal aid model. (Den danske retshjælpsmodel) (http://justitia-int.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/01/Retshj%C3%A6lpsbog-_Endelig-udgave.pdf). 

Louise  Brincker  (Danish  Media  Association),  Tine  Johansen  (Danish  Journalists’  Association)  and 
Oluf  Jørgensen  (Danish  School  of  Media  and  Journalism)  (26  January  2021)  If  we  include  all  the 
rules, the Danish Public Access to Information Act may soon be placed as one of the most closed in 
Europe (Tager vi alle regler med, kan den danske offentlighedslov snart være placeret som en af de 
mest  lukkede  i  Europa)  (https://politiken.dk/debat/art8077777/%C2%BBTager-vi-alle-regler-med-
kan-den-danske-offentlighedslov-snart-v%C3%A6re-placeret-som-en-af-de-mest-lukkede-i-
Europa%C2%AB). 

Minister  of  Justice  (2020),  Proposal  of 
content/uploads/2020/08/trygheden_foerst_final-a.pdf). 

the  minister  (https://www.justitsministeriet.dk/wp-

16 

 
Ministry  of  Social  Affairs  and  the  Interior  (2020),  The  guidelines  on  political  party  funding 
(https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/retsinfo/2020/9338). 

Ministry 
Interior 
(https://www.ft.dk/RIPdf/samling/20191/aktstykke/aktstk318/20191_aktstk_afgjort318.pdf).  

of  Social  Affairs 

(24  September 

2020),  Act 

and 

nr. 

318, 

National Court Administration, Key figures for the Danish Courts (Nøgletal for Danmarks Domstole) 
(https://www.domstol.dk/om-os/tal-og-fakta/noegletal/). 

Parliamentary 
(https://www.ombudsmanden.dk/find/nyheder/alle/beretning_2020_offentliggjort/#cp-title). 

Ombudsman 

Annual 

(2021) 

2020 

Report 

Reporters without Borders – Denmark (https://rsf.org/en/denmark). 

Standing Orders Committee (2021), Report concerning urgent consideration of government draft laws 
Folketinget) 
(Betænkning 
(https://www.ft.dk/ripdf/samling/20201/beretningalmenart/20201_BER_15.pdf). 

indstillingomændring 

forretningsorden 

for 

og 

af 

Transparency International (2021), Corruption Perceptions Index 2020. 

17 

 
Annex II: Country visit to Denmark 

The Commission services held virtual meetings in April 2021 with: 

Journalists' Union  
Judges Association  
Justitia  

  Bar Association  
  Danish Institute for Human Rights  
  Danske Medier  
  Employee and Competence Agency  
  Financial Supervisory Authority  
 
 
 
  Ministry of Business  
  Ministry of Culture 
  Ministry of Justice  
  National Audit Office 
  National Court Administration  
  Parliamentary Ombudsman  
  Pressenævet  
  Prosecution Service  
  Standing Orders Committee of the Parliament  
  Supreme Court  
  Transparency International Denmark  

In addition, the Media Authority provided written answers to questions.  

* The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings: 

  Amnesty International 
  Center for Reproductive Rights 
  CIVICUS 
  Civil Liberties Union for Europe 
  Civil Society Europe 
  Conference of European Churches 
  EuroCommerce 
  European Center for Not-for-Profit Law 
  European Centre for Press and Media Freedom 
  European Civic Forum 
  European Federation of Journalists 
  European Partnership for Democracy  
  European Youth Forum 
  Front Line Defenders 
  Human Rights House Foundation  
  Human Rights Watch  
 
ILGA-Europe 
 
International Commission of Jurists 
 
International Federation for Human Rights 
 
International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network (IPPF EN) 
 
International Press Institute 
  Netherlands Helsinki Committee  

18 

 
 
 
  Open Society European Policy Institute 
  Philanthropy Advocacy 
  Protection International  
  Reporters without Borders 
  Transparency International EU 

19