A variety of international conventions, treaties and other arrangements apply to the enforcement of foreign judgments in Denmark. Exceptions apply to the autonomous regions Greenland and the Faroe Islands within the Kingdom of Denmark.

The Brussels I Regulation and the Lugano Convention

Denmark is a member state of the European Union (“EU”) but does not take part in the judicial cooperation in civil matters within the EU, including regarding recognition and enforcement, due to Denmark’s opt-outs in accordance with protocol no. 22 annexed to the EU treaties.

EU regulation within the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters therefore only applies in Denmark if a “parallel agreement” has been agreed between the EU and Denmark.

A parallel agreement has been entered into with regard to regulation no. 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast) (the “Brussels I Regulation”). Pursuant to the Brussels I Regulation, judgments in commercial matters obtained in an EU member state must as the main rule be recognised and enforced in other EU member states.

Together with the EU and Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland (member states of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), Denmark has – as an independent contracting state – entered into the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters of 21 December 2007 (the “Lugano Convention”). The Lugano Convention extends the principles of the Brussels I Regulation to apply between EU member states and Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland as the Lugano Convention substantially reproduces the provisions of the Brussels I Regulation. Consequently, judgments in commercial matters obtained in Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland shall as a main rule be recognised and enforced in Denmark and vice versa.

The Brussels I Regulation and the 2007 Lugano Convention have been incorporated into Danish law through the Danish Act on Recognition and Enforcement of Certain Foreign Judicial Decisions etc. within the Area of Civil Law and Commercial Law (the “Danish Act on Recognition and Enforcement”).

The Hague Convention

Denmark has acceded the Hague Choice of Courts Convention 2005 (the “Hague Convention”). The convention applies to exclusive choice of court agreements in international civil and commercial matters. The convention stipulates that a judgment rendered by a court in a contracting state, which has been chosen pursuant to an exclusive choice of court agreement, must as the main rule be recognised and enforced in the other contracting states.

EU has acceded to the convention on behalf of its member states, but because of Denmark’s opt-out regarding the judicial cooperation in civil matters, Denmark independently acceded to the convention.

The convention has been incorporated into Danish law through the Danish Act on Recognition and Enforcement in the same way as the Brussels I Regulation and the Lugano Convention.

These instruments – the Brussels I Regulation, the Lugano Convention and the Hague Convention — are the legal instruments of greatest significance as to recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters in Denmark.

Other treaties and conventions applicable in Denmark are:

• The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958 (the New York Convention). The convention contains provisions governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. The provisions are incorporated into Danish law through the Danish Arbitration Act.
• The Nordic Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgements in Civil Matters of 1977. The convention has been incorporated into Danish law, however, the convention has lost most of its importance as all contracting states to the Nordic Convention are also subject to either the Brussels I Regulation or the Lugano Convention.
• The Nordic Insolvency Convention of 1933 between Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. Pursuant to the convention, Nordic judgments and settlements regarding avoidance and other loss of rights in case of bankruptcy must be recognised and enforced. The convention has been incorporated into Danish law.

Other treaties and conventions apply to specific areas of law.

Upon Denmark’s accession to the Hague Choice of Courts Convention 2005, Denmark issued a declaration pursuant to art. 21 of the convention according to which Denmark exempted certain insurance law cases from the scope of the convention to ensure compliance with the Brussels I Regulation. The EU has made a similar reservation.

Firstly, it is important to be mindful of the distinction between recognition and enforcement when considering this question.

‘Recognition’ means that a foreign judgment has a binding effect or is recognised in Denmark. Consequently, a case between the same parties about the same issue will be dismissed and the judgment shall be applied in any subsequent case between the same parties to the extent that the prior decision affects the outcome of the latter.

Foreign judgments that are not recognised have no legal effect in Denmark, but the parties may submit such judgments as evidence in a case. There has been considerable debate amongst legal scholars as to the evidentiary weight to be given to foreign judgments. Recent unpublished case law from the high courts has been reluctant to afford such judgments “decisive evidentiary weight” despite arguments advanced by some legal scholars.

‘Enforcement’ means that the judicial decision may be directly enforced according to its contents by the enforcement court without any prior presentation to a Danish court.

Recognition

Pursuant to section 223 a of the Danish Administration of Justice Act (retsplejeloven), the Danish Minister of Justice may issue provisions under which decisions of foreign courts and authorities regarding civil claims shall have binding effect in Denmark to the extent that such recognition is not evidently incompatible with the legal order of Denmark.

This authority has only been exercised to a very limited extent of low practical significance.

Instead, as mentioned above in relation to question no. 1, the most important treaties and conventions recognising foreign judgments, i.a., the Brussels I Regulation, the Lugano Convention and the Hague Convention, have been incorporated into Danish law through separate statutory provisions.

It has been a subject of much debate among Danish legal scholars whether there exists a general rule on a non-statutory basis which allows for recognition of foreign judgments in Denmark, i.e., beyond the Danish Administration Act section 223 a and other statutory provisions.

The case law in this field is sparse. With reference to a High Court judgment from 2001, some legal scholars have argued that a foreign judgement may be recognised subject to certain conditions being fulfilled, whereas others have been of the opinion that section 223 a of the Danish Administration of Justice Act leaves no room for recognition of foreign judgments on a non-statutory basis. More recent unpublished case law from the High Courts supports the latter view.

Enforcement

Pursuant to section 479 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act (retsplejeloven), the Danish Minister of Justice may issue provisions under which decisions of foreign courts and authorities regarding civil claims and enactments can be enforced in Denmark provided that the decisions can be enforced in the state where the decision was made, or according to the law by which the enactment is to be judged, and provided that the enforcement is not evidently incompatible with the legal order of Denmark.

This authority has only been exercised to a very limited extent of low practical significance.

As also mentioned above, the most important treaties and conventions regarding enforceability of foreign judgments have instead been incorporated into Danish law through separate statutory provisions.

Beyond section 479 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act and other statutory provisions regarding enforcement of judgments under certain treaties and conventions, no general rule exists according to which foreign judgments can be enforced in Denmark.

In general, if a judgment is enforceable pursuant to a relevant legal instrument applicable in Denmark, e.g., the Brussels I Regulation, the Lugano Convention, or the Hague Convention, including that the judgment is enforceable in the country of origin, the judgment can also be enforced in Denmark.

Enforcement of foreign judgments is, in general, not limited to money judgments but extends to other forms of relief. Naturally, however, a judgment needs to be enforceable by its nature.

Please also refer to our answers to the following questions:

• Question no. 5 regarding the procedure for enforcement
• Question no. 7 regarding formal requirements
• Question no. 9 regarding interim relief
• Question no. 11 regarding on what grounds enforcement of foreign judgments may be challenged
• Question no. 12 regarding examination of the merits of a foreign judgment
• Question no. 13 regarding examination of the foreign court’s jurisdiction
• Question no. 14 regarding requirements on the way in which the defendant was served with the proceedings
• Question no. 16 regarding types of foreign judgments that cannot be enforced
• Question no. 17 regarding enforcement in situations where there is a pending appeal in the foreign jurisdiction

The rules regarding the procedure are set forth in the respective treaties and conventions, as applicable, and these are supplemented by the Danish Act on Recognition and Enforcement and the rules governing the enforcement procedure before the Danish enforcement courts as set out in the Danish Administration of Justice Act (chapters 45-55).

Brussels I Regulation

Judgments obtained in other EU member states that fall under the scope of the Brussels I Regulation are directly enforceable in Denmark without any special procedure being required.

The party seeking enforcement shall submit a written application regarding enforcement to the competent enforcement court (bailiff’s court) in Denmark. The application must be accompanied by the documentation set forth in article 42 of the Brussels I Regulation, including a copy of the judgment which satisfies the conditions necessary to establish its authenticity and a certificate from the court of origin certifying that the judgment is enforceable. Where necessary, certified translated copies of said documentation must be provided to the court.

In the absence of any objections from the judgment debtor and provided that the formal requirements are met, the bailiff’s court will then proceed with the enforcement of the judgment in accordance with the general rules set out in the Danish Administration of Justice Act. Should the debtor raise objections, the bailiff’s court will determine whether enforcement should be refused. This decision may be appealed by the judgment creditor as well as the judgment debtor to the High Court and – with the leave of the Appeals Permission Board – to the Supreme Court pursuant to the general rules on appeal under the Administration of Justice Act, chapter 37.

Lugano Convention

Judgments obtained in Iceland, Norway, or Switzerland that fall under the scope of the Lugano Convention are not directly enforceable in Denmark but must be declared enforceable through an exequatur procedure.

A request in this respect must be submitted in writing to the competent Danish enforcement court (bailiff ’s court). Simultaneously with the request, a request for enforcement may be submitted to the enforcement court. The application must be accompanied by the documentation set forth in article 53 of the convention, including a copy of the judgment which satisfies the conditions necessary to establish its authenticity and a certificate from the court of origin certifying that the judgment is enforceable. If the bailiff’s court so requires, a certified translation of the documents shall be produced.

If the enforcement court finds that the formal requirements set out in article 53 of the convention are met, the judgment must be declared enforceable immediately without any review of potential grounds for refusal and without the judgment debtor being entitled to make any submissions against the application at this stage, cf. article 42 of the convention.

Subsequently, the decision of the bailiff’s court regarding the enforceability may be appealed by either party to the High Court and, with the leave of the Appeals Permission Board, to the Supreme Court in accordance with the general rules on appeal set forth in the Administration of Justice Act, chapter 37.

Upon the judgment being declared enforceable by the bailiff’s court, the actual enforcement, e.g. attachment or other actions of enforcement requested, may be initiated in accordance with the general rules in the Danish Administration of Justice Act. However, until the time limit for appealing the decision on enforceability has expired or until any appeal has been decided, no forced sale of attached goods or other measures that go beyond ensuring the presence of goods that can be enforced may be conducted.

Hague Convention

Similar to the Lugano Convention, judgments obtained in a state that has acceded to the Hague Convention and that fall under the scope of the convention are not directly enforceable in Denmark but must be declared enforceable through an exequatur procedure.

The procedure follows that described with respect to judgments subject to the Lugano Convention.

Not applicable. Please refer to question no. 3 above.

Certain formal requirements follow from the relevant treaties, conventions, and agreements.

Pursuant to the Brussels I Regulation, article 42, the party seeking enforcement shall provide the court with (i) a copy of the judgment that fulfils the necessary conditions for establishing its authenticity and (ii) a certificate from the court of origin confirming that the decision is enforceable and contains an excerpt of the judgment as well as the relevant information about the legal costs that may be claimed back and information about the calculation of interest.

Pursuant to the Lugano Convention, article 53, a copy of the judgment which satisfies the conditions necessary to establish its authenticity and a certificate from the court of origin certifying that the judgment is enforceable.

Pursuant to the Hague Convention, the party seeking recognition or enforcement shall produce the documents mentioned in article 13 of the convention, including a complete and certified copy of the judgment and the exclusive choice of court agreement, a certified copy thereof, or other evidence of its existence.

The Brussels I Regulation, the Lugano Convention, and the Hague Convention all contain provisions as to when relevant documents and certificates are required to be translated.

In Denmark, the enforcement courts (bailiff ’s court) are divisions under each of Denmark’s city courts and the processing time depends on the specific court.

The average processing time across all Danish enforcement courts (bailiff’s courts) was 2,7 months in 2022, which includes both Danish and foreign judgments. The highest average processing time is approximately 4.7 months and the lowest is 0.9 months.

There is no summary procedure available apart from what follows from the relevant treaty or convention.

In case the judgment is not enforceable yet, the party can apply to the Danish enforcement court (bailiff’s court) for interim measures, e.g., an attachment on property, in accordance with the general rules set out in chapters 40, 56, 57, and 57 a of the Danish Administration of Justice Act.

The party applying for an interim measure, in particular if it is a foreign entity, may be required to provide security for the attachment.

There is no limitation period for enforcing foreign judgments in Denmark.

Under Danish law, limitation is considered a question of substantive law in this respect rather than a procedural issue. The applicable deadlines are those that apply for limitation of the underlying substantive claim. If review of the judgment indicates that the substantive claim has exceeded its statute of limitations under the applicable law, no basis for enforcement exists.

The grounds upon which the enforcement of foreign judgments can be challenged are dependent on the relevant treaty or convention on which the enforcement is based.

Brussels I Regulation (EU member states)

As previously stated, pursuant to the Brussels I Regulation, a judgment given in a member state which is enforceable in that member state shall be enforced in other member states, including in Denmark, without any declaration of enforceability being required.

In accordance with the Danish Act on Recognition and Enforcement, section 2(3), the party against whom enforcement is sought may request that enforcement be refused in accordance with the Brussels I Regulation, articles 41(2) and 46.

Pursuant to article 46, enforcement of a judgment may be refused if one or more of the grounds set forth in article 45 are substantiated. Thus, enforcement may be refused if

• Recognition of the judgment is manifestly contrary to public policy (ordre public) in Denmark;
• The judgment was given in default of appearance, and the defendant was not served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable her to arrange for her defence, unless the defendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment when it was possible for her to do so;
• The judgment is irreconcilable with a judgment given between the same parties in Denmark;
• The judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in another member state or in a third state involving the same cause of action and between the same parties, provided that the earlier judgment fulfils the conditions necessary for recognition in Denmark;
• The Brussels I Regulation’s rules on jurisdiction in insurance, consumer and individual labour contract cases have been violated; or
• Another member state than the state which issued the judgment had exclusive jurisdiction according to the Brussels I Regulation.

In accordance with Article 41(2) of the Brussels I Regulation, enforcement may also be refused or suspended on the basis of grounds for refusal or suspension under national law, provided that such grounds are not incompatible with those provided for in article 45.

This means, inter alia, that enforcement may be refused or suspended if the conditions set out in the Danish Administration of Justice Act, sections 501 or 502, are fulfilled. In accordance with section 501, if objections are raised against the basis for enforcement and it is found, according to the limited evidence that can be presented before the bailiff’s court, that the enforcement of the judgment is questionable, the bailiff’s court may refuse to enforce the judgment. However, objections to the correctness of the judgment cannot be raised during the enforcement procedure, cf. section 501(2). In accordance with Section 502, the bailiff’s court may stay enforcement if one of the following conditions are met:

• the judgment sought to be enforced has been appealed after the time limit for enforcement has expired;
• a legal relationship, the determination of which may influence the outcome as to whether the request for enforcement should be met, is being processed by a court or an administrative authority – e.g., concerning a counterclaim between the same parties; or
• other special circumstances apply.

Further, pursuant to article 64, a decision regarding a civil claim made in another EU member state in connection with legal proceedings against an individual for a negligent offense does not have to be recognised or enforced in Denmark if the individual in question:

• does not have residence or citizenship in the deciding state,
• has been absent after the court in the deciding state has ordered the individual to appear in person, and
• has not had the opportunity to represent their interests during the case.

Lugano Convention

A declaration of enforceability shall be refused only on one of the grounds specified in articles 34 and 35. According to articles 34 and 35, enforcement of a judgment shall be refused on grounds which largely replicates the grounds for refusal set out in article 45 of the Brussels I Regulation.

Hague Convention

Pursuant to article 9 of the convention, enforcement may be refused if

• the court of choice agreement was null and void under the law of the state of the chosen court, unless the chosen court has determined that the agreement is valid;
• a party lacked the capacity to conclude the agreement under the laws of Denmark;
• the document which instituted the proceedings, or an equivalent document including the essential elements of the claim, i) was not notified to the defendant in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable her to arrange for her defence, unless the defendant entered an appearance and presented her case without contesting notification in the court of origin, provided that the law of the state of origin permitted notification to be contested; or ii) was notified to the defendant in Denmark in a manner that is incompatible with fundamental principles of the laws of Denmark concerning service of documents;
• the judgment was obtained by fraud in connection with a matter of procedure;
• recognition or enforcement would be manifestly incompatible with the public policy of the Denmark (ordre public), including situations where the specific proceedings leading to the judgment were incompatible with fundamental principles of procedural fairness recognised in Denmark;
• the judgment is inconsistent with a judgment given in Denmark in a dispute between the same parties; or
• the judgment is inconsistent with an earlier judgment given in another state between the same parties on the same cause of action, provided that the earlier judgment fulfils the conditions necessary for its recognition in Denmark.

In addition, pursuant to article 11, recognition or enforcement of a judgment may be refused if, and to the extent that, the judgment awards damages, including exemplary or punitive damages, that do not compensate a party for actual loss or harm suffered.

Pursuant to the Brussels I Regulation (article 45) and the Lugano Convention (article 35), an applicable judgment of another state may not be reviewed as to its substance.

As to judgments under the Hague Convention (article 8), a judgment may be reviewed to the extent necessary to ensure that the convention’s rules on recognition and enforcement apply to the judgment.

This depends on the legal basis under which a party is seeking enforcement of a foreign judgment in Denmark.

Pursuant to the Brussels I Regulation, the courts may not review the jurisdiction of the court of origin, however, with the exception of certain cases relating to consumers, employment, and insurance contracts (where the defendant is the consumer, the employee, or the beneficiary of the insurance contract) or in cases where another state has exclusive jurisdiction.

In this regard, the Lugano Convention mirrors the Brussels I Regulation, however, in contrast to the Brussels I Regulation, no exception applies if the court of origin has disregarded jurisdiction in a case regarding an employment contract where the defendant is the employee.

The Hague Convention only applies where the foreign court has jurisdiction in accordance with a qualifying exclusive jurisdiction clause. The Danish court therefore needs to be satisfied that the foreign court did have jurisdiction in accordance with such a clause.

Under both the Brussels I Regulation and the Lugano Convention, when examining the jurisdiction of the court of origin (when allowed), the Danish court is bound by the facts on which the court of origin based its jurisdiction. The same applies under the Hague Convention, unless the judgment was given by default.

In general, the Danish courts may impose such requirements, and a Danish court may refuse to recognise and enforce a judgment if the defendant was not properly served.

Pursuant to the Brussels I Regulation, on the application of the person against whom enforcement is sought, the enforcement of a judgment shall be refused, where the judgment was given in default of appearance, if the defendant was not served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document, in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable her to arrange for her defense, unless the defendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment when it was possible for her to do so.

The same applies for foreign judgments covered by the Lugano Convention.

Pursuant to the Hague Convention, enforcement may be refused if the document which instituted the proceedings or an equivalent document, including the essential elements of the claim, i)  was not notified to the defendant in sufficient time and in a way that enabled her to arrange for her defence, unless the defendant entered an appearance and presented her case without contesting notification in the court of origin, provided that the law of the State of origin permitted notification to be contested; or ii) was notified to the defendant in the requested state in a manner that is incompatible with fundamental principles of the requested State concerning service of documents.

Pursuant to the Brussels I Regulation, the Lugano Convention and the Hague Convention, recognition may only be refused in accordance with the grounds specified to justify refusal.  Danish courts do not have discretion to refuse recognition when conditions are met unless allowed under the instrument in question.

Please refer to question no. 3 as to recognition of foreign judgments on a non-statutory basis.

There are no specific types of foreign judgments that cannot be recognised and enforced in Denmark provided that the foreign judgement is enforceable under a relevant legal instrument applicable in Denmark (e.g., the Brussels I Regulation, the Lugano Convention, or the Hague Convention) and is enforceable by its nature.

E.g., under the Hague Convention, a decision on an interim measure in a foreign country is not considered a judgment and, thus, cannot be enforced.

Please also refer to our answers to the following questions:

• Question no. 5 regarding the procedure for enforcement
• Question no. 7 regarding formal requirements
• Question no. 9 regarding interim relief
• Question no. 11 regarding on what grounds enforcement of foreign judgments may be challenged
• Question no. 12 regarding examination of the merits of a foreign judgment
• Question no. 13 regarding examination of the foreign court’s jurisdiction
• Question no. 14 regarding requirements on the way in which the defendant was served with the proceedings
• Question no. 17 regarding enforcement in situations where there is a pending appeal in the foreign jurisdiction

Punitive and multiple damages

No general rule in Denmark exists according to which a judgment ordering punitive or multiple damages cannot be enforced in Denmark. However, depending on the specific circumstances of the case, enforcement of a judgment awarding punitive damages or multiple damages may be refused with reference to Danish public policy (ordre public).

Also, pursuant to article 11 of the Hague Convention, recognition or enforcement of a judgment may be refused if, and to the extent that, the judgment awards damages, including exemplary or punitive damages, that do not compensate a party for actual loss or harm suffered.

This depends on what legal basis the judgment is recognised and enforceable.

Pursuant to the Brussels I Regulation, article 51, the court to which an application for refusal of enforcement is submitted or the court which hears an appeal lodged may stay the proceedings if an ordinary appeal has been lodged against the judgment in the Member State of origin or if the time for such an appeal has not yet expired. The same applies under the Lugano Convention, cf. article 46.

Pursuant to the Hague Convention, article 8, recognition and enforcement may be postponed or refused if the judgment is the subject of review in the country of origin or if the time limit for seeking ordinary review has not expired. A refusal does not prevent a subsequent application for the recognition or enforcement of the judgment.

The party against whom the enforcement proceedings are initiated may object to the request. The enforcement court (bailiff ’s court) will then render a decision on whether the foreign judgment is enforceable, and the enforcement court’s decision can be appealed to the High Court and – with the leave of the Appeals Permission Board – ultimately to the Supreme Court pursuant to the general rules on appeal under the Danish Administration of Justice Act, chapter 37.

Interest may be claimed if this is stipulated in the foreign judgment.

Under the Brussels I Regulation, a certificate must be issued by the court of origin certifying that the judgment is enforceable and containing an excerpt of the judgment as well as, where appropriate, relevant information on the recoverable costs of the proceedings and the calculation of interest.

The courts do not require a foreign judgment to be converted into local currency with regards to recognition and declaration of enforceability of the foreign judgment.

As to enforcement, if the judgment debtor is in possession of funds in the same currency as stipulated in the judgment, the judgment may be directly enforced by the seizure of said funds. However, if the judgment debtor is not in possession of funds in the currency stipulated in the judgment, which often would be the case, the claimed amount will, for practical purposes, need to be converted into Danish kroner (DKK).

Yes, court costs and parties’ costs can as a general rule be recovered, if the costs are deemed reasonable and necessary for the enforcement.

Lawyer’s fees may, however, only be claimed to a certain extent based on guiding rates issued by the courts which, among other factors, are determined on the basis of the financial value of the case and only if it is found reasonable in view of the nature of the dispute and the extent of the work. The lawyer’s fees which can be recovered will rarely correspond to the actual lawyer’s fees.

The provisions governing costs of enforcement are different depending on whether the costs are determined as judicial or extrajudicial enforcement costs.

There are no statutory restrictions on third-party funding at this time, and enforcement proceedings may be subject to funding. This is, however, a developing area of Danish law.

A third-party funder may conceivably be held liable for costs under ordinary liability rules, for example if the third-party funder should have known that the party seeking enforcement would be unable to pay costs incurred and there was specific reason to believe that such costs might be incurred. Liability will depend on the specific circumstances and there is, to our knowledge, no case law yet that considers the position of a third-party funder. However, bankruptcy practitioners have been held liable for costs incurred in connection with claims brought by bankruptcy estates where the estate was subsequently unable to pay costs awarded to the opposing party.

The position on enforcement of English judgments in Denmark is likely to evolve, and in the short term this may well reinvigorate legal debate on non-statutory recognition of foreign judgments considering the relative dearth of published judgments on this question.

The Hague Convention was acceded to by Denmark in 2018. Denmark has acceded to the convention as a contracting state independent from the EU’s approval of the convention in 2014 due to Denmark’s opt-out concerning judicial cooperation in civil matters in accordance with protocol no. 22 annexed to the EU treaties.

The Council of the EU adopted a decision on 12 July 2022 on the European Union’s accession to the Hague Judgments Convention 2019. However, due to Denmark’s opt-out from the judicial cooperation in civil matters in accordance with protocol no. 22 annexed to the EU treaties, this will not apply to Denmark.

Denmark has not acceded to the convention as an independent contracting state. There is currently no indication that Denmark will do so in the near future.