As digital platforms become increasingly popular, new competition law concerns are arising both nationally and globally. Denmark has seen several recent cases in which the competition authorities have found that digital platforms infringed competition law. Providers of services acquired via digital platforms (eg, cleaning or accounting) risk infringing competition law if they are not wary of the general terms and conditions used by the platform.
The Maritime and Commercial High Court recently found that a pharmaceutical distributor had abused its dominant position in Denmark by charging excessive prices (a price increase of 2,000%). The pharmaceutical sector has received increased scrutiny from the competition authorities in recent years. The case is particularly relevant to the application of competition law during the COVID-19 crisis, as even short periods of dominance are sufficient to establish abuse of a dominant position.
The Western High Court recently upheld a Danish Competition and Consumer Authority (DCCA) decision on merger notification forms. As a result of this ruling, even if a merger meets the criteria for simplified notification, the DCCA can require a standard notification if it cannot determine that no competition concerns will arise based solely on the simplified notification.
On 16 March 2020 significant parts of Denmark's public administration were shut down as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although the shutdown has begun to ease up, the merger control time limit suspension remains and has been extended by executive order until 10 May 2020.
As the COVID-19 pandemic spreads across Denmark, merger control has come to a temporary standstill and significant parts of the country's public administration have already been shut down for three weeks. However, the Danish competition authorities are adamant that competition law remains in force and will prioritise enforcement against companies that take advantage of the current situation through illegal behaviour, such as coordinating prices or limiting the production of certain goods.
Following consultation in 2019, an executive order on the psychological working environment has been issued by the Working Environment Authority. The executive order aims to clarify the psychological working environment rules for employers and employees in order to facilitate the prevention of mental wellbeing issues. The executive order entered into force on 1 November 2020.
If an employee makes an invention as part of an employment relationship and if the exploitation of the invention falls within their employer's field of work, the employee must inform their employer. The Maritime and Commercial Court recently found that an engineer had not duly informed his employer of an invention and had therefore failed to discharge his duty to provide information under the Act on Employee Inventions.
Against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, the government has published the legislative programme for the 2020/2021 parliamentary year, which includes bills relating to, among other things, maternity leave and sickness benefits, the reporting of occupational accidents, the state retirement age, compensation in regard to workplace violence and protection against discrimination for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people.
In May 2020 a bill was passed to provide sickness benefits to employees who are at a higher risk of becoming seriously ill from COVID-19 or the relative of a person who is at a higher risk. The temporary scheme ran until 31 August 2020. Parliament has now passed a new bill which, among other things, extends this scheme until 31 December 2020.
Under the Act on Equal Treatment of Men and Women, if an employee is dismissed while on pregnancy or maternity leave, the employer will have the onus of proving that the dismissal was not in any way connected to these circumstances. But what does it take for an employer to discharge the reversed burden of proof? The Supreme Court recently decided this issue.
Geothermal energy has long been used for district heating in Denmark, but lately political and industry interest therein has been on the rise. This has resulted in an increase in applications to explore for and produce geothermal energy. Since 2017, five new exploration licences have been granted and five additional licences are currently being assessed by the Danish Energy Agency. Geothermal energy will help to fulfil the political goal of a carbon-neutral Denmark by 2050.
The Ministry of Climate, Energy and Utilities recently invited companies to take part in the eighth Danish licensing round for oil and gas exploration and production in the Danish North Sea. Licences were expected to be issued this summer, but political pressure on the government elected in June 2019 means that the eighth licensing round's future is uncertain.
The new government has raised the bar for climate and environmental goals with the aim of making Denmark the world leader in the transition to renewable energy. The government's climate plan calls for a significant focus on the use of wind energy and a new agreement goes even further than the 2018 energy agreement, with plans for an offshore energy island with a capacity of at least 10GW.
The signatories to the Energy Agreement recently decided the location of the first of three new offshore wind farms that will be put up for tender. Unlike previous projects in which the government was responsible for developing the offshore site and preparing the grid connection, the new wind farm will be procured through a procedure in which the winning tender will be responsible for developing and preparing the grid connection.
In a recent ruling on the recharge of the sum insured in a project liability insurance policy, the Danish Building and Construction Arbitration Board ruled that the obligation to recharge was incumbent on the policyholder (adviser), regardless of whether the client had requested it or not. This article examines the ruling and highlights the conditions that parties should be aware of when refilling.
This article provides options for companies which have a claim against a bankrupt tortfeasor and discusses Section 95 of the Insurance Contracts Act, which gives creditors the right to raise a claim directly against a tortfeasor's insurer. However, this right is forfeited if the applicable deadlines are not met.
The execution of 'hot work' (ie, work which carries the risk of fire) often results in fires. Therefore, anyone who executes or arranges for the execution of hot work should be aware of how damages and possible liability for damages can be avoided. Hot work insurance policies should also be thoroughly examined. This article highlights the rules that craftspeople, contractors and clients must consider before and during the execution of hot work, as well as the associated liability issues.
A new ruling determines that prorogation of jurisdiction can be validly agreed in a yacht insurance contract, even where consumer interests are concerned and the contract requires that legal proceedings be brought in a court in the insurer's home country. Pursuant to the ruling, a private policyholder who is an EU citizen and purchases boat insurance in another EU country is bound by the jurisdiction agreement in the insurance contract.
The Maritime and Commercial Court recently ruled that a charter agreement was binding on a charter even though a conditional test of the vessel was not performed. This decision shows that a party which wishes to enter into a conditional chartering agreement must formulate the condition clearly and, in negotiations on the conclusion of the agreement, maintain the reservation in question.
The Maritime and Commercial Court recently held that there is no basis for an interpretation that the time limit for a recourse claim can be extended beyond the total time limit of two years. Thus, the time limit for a recourse claim between sea carriers for damage to cargo which falls under the Merchant Shipping Act is, as a general rule, a maximum of two years from the date on which the damaged cargo was delivered.
The Danish Maritime and Commercial Court recently rejected a jurisdictional claim in a dispute between a Danish shipowner and a Spanish shipyard. It follows from the judgment that a jurisdiction clause in a repair contract in some instances requires that the party which receives the other party's general terms and conditions must accept the jurisdiction clause in writing in order for it to be binding between the parties.
The Maritime and Commercial Court recently examined a compensation claim for stolen champagne. The customer argued that the carrier should have taken precautions to protect the goods against theft. However, the court decided that the carrier could limit its liability for the theft. The judgment is in line with Danish court practice concerning liability for the theft of high-value and exposed goods.
A Danish court recently found a freight forwarder to be vicariously liable to a Danish company for fire damage caused to cargo carried by a subcontractor. The judgment suggests that a contracting carrier may incur liability where a general average situation is deemed to have occurred if it fails to provide information to its customer about the concrete circumstances that give rise to the general average situation, even when the contracting carrier holds no information about said circumstances.