Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Deference to the Administration in Judicial Review in Denmark

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Deference to the Administration in Judicial Review

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 39))

  • 662 Accesses

Abstract

The article deals with the development of judicial review in Denmark focusing on the level of deference to the administration. It presents the general understanding of the concept of free discretion in Danish law and the scope of the investigation that a Danish court is expected to conduct during judicial review.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In a doctoral thesis from 1969, ”Øvrighedsmyndighedens grænser” [The Limits of Administrative Power], Ole Krarup argued against the distinction between free discretion and legal requirements. The distinction has, however, been withheld by the Danish Supreme Court in a number of cases.

  2. 2.

    Sørensen “Kan domstolene efterprøve forvaltningens skønsmæssige afgørelser” [Can the courts review the discretionary decisions of the administration], published in The Danish Weekly Law Report 1950B. pp. 273 ff.

  3. 3.

    A General clause can be seen as a statutory provision, which is structured such that its legal effects occur when certain generally formulated conditions are met. Such a legal formulation is usually due to the desire to allow a judicial area to develop in harmony with the patterns of trade that unfold in the area in question. General clauses are therefore used most often in areas with voluntary industry regulation or administrative practice, or where there is a possibility that practices can be clarified due to frequent litigation. Garde and Hansen-Jensen compares the principle of manifest wrong decision making to the General Clause in art. 36 of the Danish Act on Contracts which states that a contract may be set aside by the court if it is unreasonable or against common trade practice to invoke the law, cf. The Lawyer (in Danish Juristen) 2009, p. 66.

  4. 4.

    See The Danish Weekly Law Report 1999 pp. 614.

  5. 5.

    Published in The Danish Weekly Law Report 1995 pp. 495 ff.

  6. 6.

    Published in The Danish Weekly Law Report 2006 pp. 681 ff.

References

Literature

  • Garde J, Jensen MH (2009) Åbenbar urimelighed som prøvelsesgrundlag I forvaltningsretten [Manifestly wrong as a probationary basis in administrative law]. Lawyer (in Danish Juristen) 3:66

    Google Scholar 

  • Krarup O (1969) Øvrighedsmyndighedens grænser” [The Limits of Administrative Power]. Juristforbundet

    Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen M. Kan domstolene efterprøve forvaltningens skønsmæssige afgørelser [Can the courts review the discretionary decisions of the administration]. The Danish Weekly Law Report 1950B, pp 273 ff

    Google Scholar 

Laws

  • The Danish Constitution of 5 June 1849

    Google Scholar 

  • The Danish Constitution of 5 June 1953 (the present)

    Google Scholar 

  • The Danish Act of Administration (in Danish Forvaltningsloven) No 433 of 22 April 2014

    Google Scholar 

Danish Supreme Court Cases

  • Supreme Court judgment of 28 March 1995, Case No I 151/1994, The Danish Weekly Law Report 1995 pp. 495 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Supreme Court judgment of 26 March 2007, Case No 357/2005, The Danish Weekly Law Report 2007 pp. 1575 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Supreme Court judgment of 28 January 2009, Case No 127/2007, The Danish Weekly Law Report 2009 pp. 1026 ff

    Google Scholar 

Other Court Cases

  • Eastern High Court judgment of 4 December 1999, Case No B-3033-98, The Danish Weekly Law Report 1999 pp. 614

    Google Scholar 

  • Western High Court judgment of 24 November 2005, Case No S-1846-05, The Danish Weekly Law Report 2006 pp. 681 ff

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

    Bent Ole Gram Mortensen & Frederik Waage

Authors
  1. Bent Ole Gram Mortensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Frederik Waage
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bent Ole Gram Mortensen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong

    Guobin Zhu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Mortensen, B.O.G., Waage, F. (2019). Deference to the Administration in Judicial Review in Denmark. In: Zhu, G. (eds) Deference to the Administration in Judicial Review. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 39. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31539-9_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31539-9_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-31538-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-31539-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation