Global Competition Law is primarly a practitioner's guide presenting the most salient aspects of the major competition laws country by country, giving an overview of their structure and most charasteristic elements.
Global Competition Law also provides insight into possible future developments in the field.

Global Competition Law

Before 2012, although the Competition Act contained no specific provision relating to the granting of interim relief, injunctions could be sought under Section 642 of the Administration of Justice Act. The 2012 reform introduced a new Section 16b to the Competition Act under which if, according to a preliminary assessment, an agreement or conduct is deemed to be in breach of Sections 6(1) or 11(1) …

Interim relief

The Competition Council may take up cases on its own initiative, upon notifications by the parties to an agreement or upon receipt of a complaint. Upon receipt of a complaint, the Council decides whether its raises sufficient grounds to justify an investigation.

Investigations are governed by Section 18 of the Act (as amended in February 2021). Upon authorization given by a court order, the Competition Council may access premises and means of transport, search documents and make copies. The 2002 amendment added that the authority may access externally stored data and remove information in order to copy it, upon authorization given by a court. The Authority must return the seized information within three working days. 

Furthermore, on 8 September 2017, Denmark entered into a cooperation agreement with Iceland, Finland, Sweden, and Norway. The Nordic cooperation agreement allows the competition authorities of these countries to cooperate through notifications and information exchange in on-going antitrust investigations as well as merger control issues. The Nordic competition authorities may also submit official requests for information on each other’s behalf and assist each other in conducting dawn raids. The Consolidation Act No 155 of 2018 integrated the provisions of the cooperation agreement into Danish law (Sections 17 and 18).

Complaints and investigations

The Competition Council cannot take direct action regarding anticompetitive conduct which results from public regulation. Before taking any action, the Council must obtain a decision from the authority that is responsible for the regulation. The relevant Government minister must reply to any such request within four weeks (Section 2(4)).

The 2012 reform introduced a Preliminary Statement of Objections at an early stage of the proceedings. Under Section 15a of the Competition Act, in cases in which an order is issued or in which a commitment is made binding, the Competition Council must issue a Preliminary Statement of Objections and a Statement of Objections. The parties to whom a Preliminary Statement of Objections has been issued have a time-limit of two weeks to submit their comments. After the investigation is completed, and if an order is issued in accordance with Section 6(4), Section 10a(1) and (6), Section 11(4), Section 11a(1) or Section 11b(2), a new Statement of Objections is notified to the parties who a have a time-limit of six weeks to reply.

Where a hearing of the parties is held, the hearing must comply with the Act on Public Administration. In such cases, the parties have access to the entire draft decision. Parties have at least three weeks to submit a response to the draft decision (Section 15a). The Competition Council may request any information, including inter alia business records and electronic data, necessary for its decision (Section 17).

Under Section 23b, in cases where the maximum penalty is a fine, the Competition and Consumer Authority may, with the consent of the State Prosecutor for Serious Economic Crime, indicate that the case may be settled without a trial if the offender admits guilt and is willing to pay the fine within a specified time-limit. If the fine is accepted, there are no further proceedings.

Proceedings before the Competition Council

Before 2012, although the Competition Act contained no specific provision relating to the granting of interim relief, injunctions could be sought under Section 642 of the Administration of Justice Act. The 2012 reform introduced a new Section 16b to the Competition Act under which if, according to a preliminary assessment, an agreement or conduct is deemed to be in breach of Sections 6(1) or 11(1) or Articles 101(1) or 102(1) TFEU, and there is a risk of serious restriction of competition unless quick action is taken, the Competition Council may issue an order to terminate the restrictive effects of the agreement or conduct.

No later than 10 working days after the Competition Council has issued the order, it must bring the decision before the Competition Appeals Tribunal in order to uphold the order. If the order is not submitted before the deadline, the decision is deemed to be null and void.

The order is applicable from the moment of the Competition Appeals Tribunal's ruling until the Competition Council has made a decision as to whether there is an infringement of the law, or until the Competition Council has made the undertaking's commitments binding.

Danish courts have general jurisdiction over any action for damages, including suits for damages for infringements of the Competition Act. Cases may be brought before the city courts, or may be brought in the first instance before the High Court where the amount in controversy exceeds 500,000 Krone (EUR 67,500). In other cases, a case may be brought before the Maritime and Commercial Court in Copenhagen.

Denmark implemented EU Directive No 2014/104 on damages actions for competition law infringements through Act No 1541 of 13 December 2016. Whereas previously the burden of proof of the harm and the extent thereof laid on the victim, the new Act introduces a rebuttable presumption that cartels cause an injury to their victims. In addition, where certain conditions are met, indirect purchasers also benefit from a rebuttable presumption that the direct purchaser has passed on the overcharge resulting from the cartel. The new limitation period is of five years, compared to the maximum of three years previously applicable, with an absolute cap of ten years. This limitation period may be interrupted by any act of investigation, whether or not originated by the claimant. Under the new Act, liability of SMEs and leniency applicants is limited to their relations with direct purchasers, whereas any other member of the cartel is jointly and severally liable with the others towards all victims. Finally, the Act also provides detailed rules for the disclosure of evidence, which try to balance the requirements of both private and public enforcement. It entered into force on 27 December 2016, i.e. the time-limit for transposition set by the EU directive.

Global Competition Law

182. Interim relief

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les notions juridiques connexes

182. Interim relief

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les notions juridiques connexes

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise