Criminal jurisdiction in Denmark

Case no. 88/2020
Judgment delivered on 11 March 2021

The Prosecution Service
vs.
T

T was a company established in Germany. A driver employed by T started and completed an animal transport from Denmark to Italy with an uninterrupted travelling time for the animals exceeding the 24 hours permitted under the EU Animal Transport Regulation. As an employer, T was vicariously liable for this offence.

The question before the Supreme Court was whether there was jurisdiction in Denmark for two of the counts in the case that concerned breaches of the EU Animal Transport Regulation.

The Supreme Court stated that Section 9(4) of the Danish Penal Code must be understood as meaning that the offence committed in the Danish State must in itself be punishable under Danish law, such that the offender has not only committed a punishable element of a crime abroad. Under this provision, the offence did not come within Danish jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court also stated that the obligations under the EU Animal Transport Regulation that had been breached in the case had to be considered to be covered by Section 8(3) of the Penal Code. Considering that the violations constituted breaches of EU rules committed by a company domiciled in the EU in connection with an animal transport that had partly taken place in Denmark, the requirement in the travaux préparatoires for the provision that the offender must have or have had certain ties to Denmark had been met in the case of T. Under this provision, Denmark thus had criminal jurisdiction over the offences.

The High Court had reached the same conclusion.