My Constitutional Act with Explanations

Part eight deals with citizens’ rights and freedoms. This is referred to as the Constitutional Act’s Part on constitutional rights or human rights. In 1992, Parliament passed an Act adopting the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights in Denmark. Many of the rules in the European Convention on Human Rights go further in their protection of human rights than is the case with the Danish Constitutional Act.

Section 71
Subsection 1. Personal liberty is inviolable. No Danish citizen may be subjected to any form of imprisonment on the grounds of his or her political or religious convictions or his or her descent.

Subsection 2. Imprisonment may only take place when authorised by an Act.

Subsection 3. Anyone who is taken into custody must appear before a judge within 24 hours. If the person taken into custody cannot immediately be released, the judge must decide, by means of a reasoned decision that must be made as soon as possible and at the latest within three days, if he or she must be imprisoned and, if he or she can be released on bail, the judge must determine the nature and amount of the bail. Where Greenland is concerned, this provision may be derogated from by an Act insofar as it may be regarded as necessary according to local conditions.

Subsection 4. The person in question can immediately bring the decision made by the judge before a higher court.

Subsection 5. Nobody can be remanded in custody for an offence that can only entail punishment by a fine or simple detention.

Subsection 6. Outside the rules of criminal procedure, the legality of an imprisonment that has not been ordered by a judicial authority and which is not authorised in the legislation on foreigners must be submitted to the ordinary Courts or another judicial authority for review at the request of the person imprisoned or a person acting on his or her behalf. Detailed rules on this are established by an Act.

Subsection 7. The treatment of the people mentioned in Subsection 6 is subject to review by a supervisory committee elected by Parliament to which the people in question must be able to address an inquiry to.

Section 71
Subsection 1. An Act passed by Parliament determines what constitutes a criminal offence. However, the Constitutional Act has established a number of guidelines for acts that do not constitute criminal offences. It establishes that people may not be taken into custody, imprisoned or confined in any other way because of their political opinions, their faith or their descent. This provision applies only to Danish citizens. The remainder of Section 71 applies to everyone staying in Denmark. Subsections 1, 2, 6 and 7 were inserted into Section 71 when the Constitutional Act was amended in 1953. This was after the Second World War. And the provision was strongly influenced by what happened during the German occupation of Denmark from 1940 to 1945. During this time, the Danish police imprisoned members of the Danish Communist Party, including those with seats in Parliament. And the Germans also persecuted Jews in Denmark so that many of them had to flee to Sweden.

Subsection 2. The police cannot simply arrest people. There must be a suspicion that they have done something illegal. The conditions are laid down in the Administration of Justice Act. An Act also regulates confinement in the form of compulsory commitment to a psychiatric hospital, for instance.

Subsection 3. People who are arrested by the police must be brought before a judge within 24 hours. This is called a preliminary statutory hearing. The judge is entitled to defer making a decision on imprisonment for three days. This is called remanding a suspect in custody. This is usually done to give the police time to gather more evidence to support their case. However, the judge may not remand the suspect if it is quite clear that there is no case.
The police can request that the suspect remain in custody at the preliminary statutory hearing. The police must give a reason for this. This could be out of consideration for their investigation, for instance. The police could find it difficult to make their case if a suspect were at liberty and could hide evidence or talk to witnesses.
If the judge agrees with the police, he or she can decide that the suspect must be imprisoned for a period of time. This is called being remanded in custody. The judge has a duty to show cause for remanding the suspect in custody.
The Constitutional Act allows special rules to be introduced in Greenland. This must be done by means of an Act.

Subsection 4. The judge’s decision is known as a ruling. If a suspect is dissatisfied with a ruling in the District Court, he or she can appeal to the High Court. The decision of the High Court must be complied with. However, it may take some time before the High Court hears the case. And the suspect must remain in custody during this period.

Subsection 5. A person can only be remanded in custody if the judge believes that the offence involved would be punishable by imprisonment. If the case concerns an offence that would “only” be punishable by a fine, the suspect cannot be remanded.

Subsection 6. When people are imprisoned they are deprived of their liberty. However, this is not the only way it is possible to be deprived of one’s liberty.
In the case of people who are so ill for a period of time that they constitute a danger to themselves or their surroundings, they can be compulsorily committed to a psychiatric hospital. This compulsory commitment to a hospital has no connection with being sentenced or with the Danish Penal Code. Confinement of this kind can be brought before the Courts. It need not necessarily be the patient who appeals to the Courts.
A member of the patient’s family or a friend acting on behalf of the patient can appeal to the Courts.
Subsection 6 does not include imprisonment covered by the legislation on foreigners. Under the Danish Aliens Act, a foreigner can be imprisoned if there is a decision pending on his or her deportation, for instance. Imprisonment of this kind can always be brought before the Courts. This is guaranteed by the Danish Aliens Act, not the Constitutional Act.

Subsection 7. Parliament must elect a supervisory committee to keep an eye on the treatment of the people mentioned in Subsection 6. The supervisory committee consists of nine members and is elected at the beginning of each sessional year. Complaints about treatment can be made to this supervisory committee or to the Ombudsman.

Section 72
The home is inviolable. House searches, the seizure and examination of letters and other documents and breach of the confidentiality of the post, telegraph and telephone can only take place when authorised by a Court order where there is no authority in an Act for a specific exemption.

Section 72
This Section deals with the protection of privacy. It imposes limits on the degree to which the public authorities can interfere with people’s private affairs. First and foremost, private homes are safeguarded. As are “private” premises and buildings that are not accessible to all and sundry. This means that the police cannot simply enter private homes and search them. A judge must first grant them permission to do so. The police must have a Court order. This also applies if they want to open people’s letters or intercept their telephone calls, for instance. However, there are certain exceptions. There is not always sufficient time to obtain a Court order. If the police are pursuing a criminal who is hiding in a house, for instance, they are permitted to gain access to the house by force if there is a risk that the criminal would otherwise get away. A judge must subsequently approve this action.
In certain cases, authorities other than the police, such as the tax authorities, can examine people’s private accounts without first obtaining permission from a judge.

Section 73
Subsection 1. Ownership is inviolable. Nobody can be ordered to relinquish his or her property except where the common good so demands. This may only take place in pursuance of an Act and in return for full compensation.

Subsection 2. When a Bill concerning the expropriation of property is passed, within three weekdays of the Bill finally being passed, one-third of the Members of Parliament can demand that the Bill not be submitted for royal affirmation until there has been a general election and the Bill has been passed again by the newly-convened Folketing.

Subsection 3. Any question relating to the legality of an act of expropriation and the amount of compensation can be brought before the Courts. An Act enables the amount of compensation to be reviewed by referring the matter to Courts established for this purpose.

Section 73
Subsection 1. This Section deals with safeguarding people’s property. This applies to all owners, both Danes and foreigners, companies and private individuals. The word property is understood in a very broad sense. The Constitutional Act protects the rights that are the basis of people’s financial existence. Section 73, for instance, safeguards the right to receive wages and to a pension saved up personally. People have a right to the things they have bought and own. This also applies to buying a house or a piece of land, for instance.
However, it may be the case that the State or the municipality needs people’s property. If there is a plan to build a public road, for instance, the project cannot be stopped because a property owner will not sell his or her land. In such a situation, the State and the municipality can take over people’s property and pay them compensation. This is called expropriating people’s property. But property cannot be expropriated without further ado. The project in question must be of benefit to the community. An Act must be passed permitting the expropriation. And full compensation must be paid for the property that the State or municipality takes over.

Subsection 2. Passing an Act on expropriation can be difficult. If one-third, that is 60, Members of Parliament are against an Act on expropriation, they can demand that it must be postponed until after the next general election. And then the new Folketing must vote on the Act. This demand by the minority must be made within three working days. The deadline is calculated from the day on which the Act was passed.

Subsection 3. The provision to the effect that expropriation may only take place in return for full compensation is the most important element of the protection of ownership provided by the Constitutional Act. However, it is not always easy to decide what constitutes “full compensation”. Therefore, Subsection 3 makes it possible for a person to go to the Courts to have his or her case reviewed. The Courts can decide whether the expropriation is legal and whether the compensation is adequate. If Parliament so wishes, it is possible to establish a special Court to hear such cases. This has not been done so far.

Section 74
All restrictions on free and equal access to trades must be abolished by an Act if such restrictions are not based on the common good.

Section 74
This provision is from 1849, when the first Constitutional Act was drawn up. At the time, the various trades decided for themselves how many competitors there would be. The carpenters’ guild (Tømrerlavet) decided how many carpenters there would be, the bakers’ guild decided how many bakers there would be, and so on. Among other things, this made it possible for tradesmen to maintain a given price level for their work. Many people were dissatisfied with the power exercised in this way. Therefore, what is known as freedom of trade was introduced with the Constitutional Act. However, there are still some restrictions on the freedom to carry on a trade.
But the individual trades no longer set these limits. Parliament and the municipalities do so.
Some trades, however, are still strictly regulated. This is the case with driving taxis and buses, for instance. People cannot just get into cars and call themselves taxi drivers. They need a special licence from the municipality. And only a limited number of taxi licences are issued.

Section 75
Subsection 1. It should be an aim that every able-bodied citizen has the opportunity to work under conditions that safeguard his or her existence in order to promote the common good.

Subsection 2. A person who is unable to support himself or his dependants, and whom no one else is under an obligation to support, is entitled to assistance from the State, while accepting the obligations that the Act relating to such assistance imposes.

Section 75
Subsection 1. The Constitutional Act states that every citizen who is able to work must have the opportunity to do so under reasonable conditions. If this is at all possible. The latter sentence is important. It means that an unemployed person cannot demand a job with reference to the Constitutional Act. Subsection 1 is not a provision that actually grants individual rights. It has no direct effect. It could be compared to a provision on a political objective that states what Parliament should attempt to do.

Subsection 2. This part of Section 75 has more practical significance than Subsection 1. It states that people who are unable to support themselves must receive assistance from the State. But before the State steps in, the person must have exhausted his or her own possibilities.
This could be by working or realising his or her assets. However, it may also be the case that others have an obligation to support the person in question. Spouses or registered partners have a duty to support each other. And parents have a duty to support their children until they reach the age of 18. However, not everyone lives up to their duties. If a divorced father, for example, does not pay maintenance to the mother and their child, the State pays. This is laid down in social legislation.
A couple who live together but are not married have no duty to support each other. Children have no duty to support their parents. And parents have no duty to support children aged 18 or over. State assistance is established in social legislation.
Subsection 2 says nothing specifically about who is entitled to State assistance. However, successive Acts have determined that “anyone residing lawfully in Denmark” is entitled to assistance. This is also stated in the latest social Acts: the Act relating to social services and the Act relating to active social policy. Citizens who are 18 years old or over are entitled to assistance. Foreigners also have such a right as the Constitutional Act does not require people to be Danish citizens to receive assistance. Students are enrolled in a course of education and are therefore not at the disposal of the labour market. Therefore, students usually have no right to assistance.

Section 76
All children who have reached the age of compulsory education are entitled to free education at a Danish municipal primary and lower secondary school (Folkeskolen). Parents or guardians who ensure that children receive an education on a par with that normally required at a Folkeskole are not under an obligation to enrol them at a Folkeskole.

Section 76
All children are entitled to free education at the Folkeskole. In fact, all children also have a duty to receive an education. Parliament has introduced nine years of compulsory education. This is stated in the Primary Education Act. The Constitutional Act states that education at the Folkeskole must be free of charge. However, parents are not obliged to send their children to the Folkeskole.
Their education can take place at home or at a private school. But the course of education must be on a par with that at the Folkeskole. Many people decide not to send their children to the Folkeskole for educational or religious reasons. However, those who choose a different type of school must pay for their children’s education. The Constitutional Act only guarantees that the Folkeskole is free of charge. General legislation contains rules to the effect that the State must subsidise private schools, etc.

Section 77
Anyone is entitled to publish his or her ideas in print, in writing and orally, subject to the authority of the Courts. Censorship and other preventive measures can never be reintroduced.

Section 77
All citizens may give expression to whatever they wish. People are permitted to say, write or otherwise express their ideas publicly. But at the same time they must also take responsibility for what they say or write. Legislation imposes some limits on what people are permitted to say or write publicly.
If people are very impolite and offend another person publicly they risk legal proceedings being taken against them for slander. And if people write something that threatens the security of Denmark, for instance, they can be charged, tried and sentenced by the Courts.
Occasionally, articles and contributions in newspapers or magazines appear without a by-line. In these cases, the editor responsible under the Danish Press Act is liable for what has been printed. Therefore, the name of the editor responsible must always be printed in the publication. The place where the publication was printed must also be printed.
Although the Constitutional Act guarantees freedom of expression for all, limitations can be imposed in some situations. This applies to people in prison, for instance. The authorities are entitled to restrict inmates’ freedom of expression if this is necessary to maintain security and order.
The armed forces are also entitled to restrict soldiers’ freedom of expression if this is necessary to maintain order and discipline.
In principle, freedom of expression naturally also applies to State employees. However, at the same time, a caseworker in a social security office, for example, is subject to a duty of confidentiality. Among other things, the duty of confidentiality means that the caseworker must not reveal any personal information he or she has become acquainted with via his or her work.
The Constitutional Act provides safeguards against “censorship and other preventive measures”. The prohibition against censorship was introduced in 1849. Before that time, books and newspapers were examined by one of the King’s civil servants before they were printed. He removed what he did not like and only then could the books and newspapers be published. The prohibition against censorship means that the police cannot take action against a newspaper or a book once it has been published.

The authorities are not entitled to demand to read a manuscript in advance of its publication. Nevertheless, it is possible to take action against a publication before it has been printed, also without contravening the Constitutional Act. An injunction can be granted against a publication if a judge can be convinced that it will be very damaging and therefore illegal. It is up to the judge to decide whether a restraining injunction should be issued against the publication.
This occurred in the 1980s, when the Masonic Order obtained an injunction to prevent the Danish Broadcasting Corporation airing a documentary about the Order. The broadcast would have revealed some of the Masonic Order’s secret initiation rituals. The case was finally decided in the Supreme Court. The Masonic Order won. The Supreme Court considered that the initiation rituals were private matters. Therefore, they could not be made public. The TV documentary about the Masonic Order has never been broadcast.

In another case, events took a different turn. This case was also from the 1980s. This was a period when farmers’ use of medicine on their livestock was a much-debated topic. Artist Mikael Witte entered the debate by painting a poster containing the text: ‘Danish pigs are healthy, they are full of penicillin’. The poster showed a drawing of a happy pig, which was a satirical imitation of advertising material from the Cooperative Slaughterhouses. This angered the slaughterhouse organisations. They tried to have the poster banned. But the Supreme Court decided that the poster was not illegal. The Court emphasised that the poster was part of a social debate. It was therefore of relevance to the public.

Section 78
Subsection 1. Members of the public are entitled to form associations for any legal purpose without prior permission.

Subsection 2. Associations that operate or attempt to achieve their aims by means of violence, incitement to violence or similar criminal action against those who think differently can be dissolved by means of a judgement.

Subsection 3. No association may be dissolved by a Government measure. However, an association can be provisionally banned, in which case proceedings for its dissolution must be brought against it immediately.

Subsection 4. Cases concerning the dissolution of political associations can be brought before the highest Court in Denmark without special permission.

Subsection 5. The legal effects of such a dissolution are established in more detail by an Act.

Section 78
Section 78 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of association. This is a fundamental right in Danish society, where associations play an important role. The provision is first and foremost included to protect associations against State interference. However, it does not provide protection against interference on the part of private individuals. Nor does it protect individual citizens’ right not to join an association.
Subsection 1. Members of the public are entitled to form associations. They need not ask permission of anyone first. However, the association must be legal. This means that it must not have the objective of committing illegal acts.

Subsection 2. If an association uses violence or other illegal methods to achieve its aims, it must be dissolved. In such a case, this must be done by means of a judgement. And the Minister for Justice must initiate proceedings. The special provision on associations that use violence was introduced in 1953, eight years after the German occupation of Denmark. During the occupation, corps and associations were established with the aim of exercising violence and acts of terrorism against the public. The Hipo Corps is an example of such an association.

Subsection 3. The State or the Government cannot simply dissolve an association at will. But in special cases, the Government can intervene and ban an association provisionally. In such a case, however, the Government must immediately bring the case before the Courts. And if the Courts arrive at a result that differs from that of the Government, the dissolution will be ruled invalid. The Courts have the last word in this connection.

Subsection 4. If a case concerns the dissolution of a political association, the case may be brought before the Supreme Court after having been heard in a District Court and the High Court. It is not necessary to obtain permission from the special board called the Danish Appeals Permission Board (Procesbevillingsnævnet) in advance.

Subsection 5. The detailed rules for the effects of the dissolution of an association must be established by an Act. However, Parliament has not passed such an Act. The general rules governing associations and the Danish Penal Code are used instead.

Section 79
Members of the public are entitled to assemble unarmed without prior permission. The police have the right to attend public meetings. Outdoor meetings can be banned if there is concern that they could represent a danger to public order.

Section 79
This Section is closely associated with Sections 77 and 78. These three Sections describe the traditional constitutional rights: the right to speak freely, the right to form associations and the right to assemble. Section 79 ensures that all people resident in Denmark have the right to hold meetings or to demonstrate. But they must not bear arms.
The police have the right to attend public meetings. If the meeting takes place out of doors, the police can ban it, but only if there is a “danger to public order”. This may be the case, for example, if there is a threat of extensive disturbances between demonstrators and other groups of people. However, the police can demand that a meeting be moved elsewhere if it disturbs traffic significantly or is a great inconvenience for others. It is not necessary to ask the police for permission to hold a meeting.
But anyone planning to hold an outdoor demonstration must inform the police in advance. The demonstration must be “notified” by stating the meeting time, the route it will take and the meeting place. And this must be done no later than 24 hours before the demonstration begins. If such notification is not given, there is a risk of receiving a fine. But the demonstration will not be illegal for this reason. These provisions are in the police regulations.

Section 80
In the event of a disturbance, the armed forces can only intervene, unless attacked, after the crowd has been requested to disperse three times in the name of the King and the law.

Section 80
A disturbance is not the same as an assembly. However, an assembly could develop into a disturbance if there is a lack of management and self-control and thus result in chaos and riot. The police can intervene if a disturbance occurs. But they must warn the crowd three times first. The Constitutional Act actually also defines what the police must say in this situation. They must request the crowd to disperse “in the name of the King and the law”. Only if the crowd refuses to follow the request may the police take action against them. This “dissolution formula” is important.
After the disturbances in connection with the EU vote in 1993, the High Court acquitted some participants in the disturbances. They were charged with not following police orders. But they were acquitted because the police had not used the “dissolution formula”.

Section 81
Every man fit for military service is under an obligation to contribute with his person to the defence of his country in accordance with the provisions prescribed by law.

Section 81
If a man is healthy and fit, he has a duty to serve as a soldier. This is called conscription. The Constitutional Act establishes only that there must be an obligation to do military service. It is up to Parliament to decide the rules for this duty. Among other things, it has been decided that people can be exempted from military service if bearing arms conflicts with their convictions. Conscientious objectors are obliged to do community service in a social institution, for instance, instead of military service.
Conscripts are selected according to objective, uniform criteria such as age, health and education. And although the Section states “man fit for military service”, Parliament may decide by an Act that military service be introduced for women as well. This has not been done so far.

Section 82
Municipalities’ right to manage their affairs autonomously under the supervision of the State is regulated by an Act.

Section 82
Denmark is governed not only by the State and the Government. Many decisions are made at a more local level – close to where people live. Denmark is divided into 98 municipalities and five regions.
Municipalities provide citizens with access to the public sector and perform tasks connected with social affairs, employment, businesses, and public transport.
The Regions are responsible for hospitals, regional development, and specialised social institutions.
The Constitutional Act ensures that municipalities are autonomous. But the State supervises municipalities and Regions.

Section 83
All privileges associated in legislation with nobility, title and rank have been abolished.

Section 83
This Section deals with the advantages some people were born with in bygone days. At the time, there was more class division in society than is the case today. People were born into a particular social class or with a specific title or rank. And this conferred many advantages, what were known as privileges.
It was a great advantage to be an aristocrat. That is, to have the title of count or baron. The aristocracy had privileges that no ordinary citizens had. They paid less tax, for instance. These privileges were abolished by the first Constitutional Act in 1849. But even then, the special rights of the aristocracy were already partly a thing of the past. Very few privileges remained.
The constitutional provision abolished special rights once and for all. But it did not abolish the right to ennoble certain people. However, this is of no great significance today.

Section 84
No fief, entailed estate or other family trust may be created in the future.

Section 84
In bygone days, certain families could retain large properties undivided. This could be done, for example, by the eldest son inheriting the property – perhaps an entire estate – without having to share it with his siblings. The Constitutional Act does away with this principle. The King used to be able to reward his people by giving them estates and land. They were called fiefs. Many fiefs were created because they conferred certain financial advantages on the families who controlled them. They could earn large annual incomes from the management of the fiefs and did not have to pay much tax. The many fiefs also meant that extensive areas of Danish estates were bound to specific counties or baronies. They only benefited certain families. In the same way, entailed estates were also linked to particular families. The Danish word for entailed estate, “fideikommis”, comes from Latin and means entrusted estate or money. Estates and property were inherited within the family undivided and could not be sold. It has been illegal to create new estates of this type since 1849. And all of the remaining fiefs and entailed estates were abolished in 1919. The owners received a certain amount of compensation from the State in return for surrendering some of their assets.

Section 85
The provisions stipulated in Sections 71, 78 and 79 are only applicable to the armed forces with the restrictions that follow from the regulations in the military Acts.

Section 85
Soldiers’ constitutional rights are restricted. They do not enjoy quite the same freedom of association and freedom of assembly as other citizens. They must obtain special permission if they want to hold meetings in their barracks, for instance. Soldiers are also subject to a special military Penal Code and Administration of Justice Act. Among other things, this means that a soldier can be detained for 72 hours without coming before a judge.