Future Regulatory Reforms in Denmark

1. Introduction

Denmark’s future regulatory reforms must respond to technological innovation, environmental protection, digital transformation, biotechnology, artificial intelligence, data privacy, and changing European Union legal requirements. As a member of the European Union, Denmark develops its domestic regulatory framework within the limits of EU law while retaining national authority over many matters of administration, welfare, public services, and environmental implementation.

Future reforms should focus on creating clear, transparent, proportionate, and accountable rules that protect fundamental rights without unnecessarily obstructing innovation. Particular attention should be given to regulatory simplification, effective enforcement, independent oversight, public participation, and access to judicial remedies.

The Danish Constitution, EU legislation, the European Convention on Human Rights, and judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) provide important legal foundations for these reforms.

2. Constitutional and Institutional Foundations

Denmark operates under the Constitutional Act of 1953, which establishes the principal framework for parliamentary government, executive authority, and judicial power. Regulatory reforms must comply with constitutional requirements, applicable legislation, and Denmark’s international and EU obligations.

Three principles should guide future reform.

Legality: Government authorities must exercise powers under a lawful mandate. Regulations should clearly identify the responsible authority, applicable standards, and available remedies.

Proportionality: Restrictions on individual rights, business activities, and scientific research should be suitable for achieving a legitimate objective and no more restrictive than necessary under the applicable legal standard.

Accountability: Regulatory agencies should publish relevant decisions, explain their reasoning, maintain appropriate records, and remain subject to parliamentary, administrative, and judicial scrutiny.

Denmark should also strengthen coordination between national ministries, municipalities, independent regulators, and EU institutions. Consistent guidance and clearer allocation of responsibility would reduce uncertainty for citizens, researchers, and businesses.

3. Digital Regulation and Artificial Intelligence

One of Denmark’s major regulatory priorities is the implementation and enforcement of EU digital legislation. The OECD’s 2026 assessment identifies opportunities to strengthen user-centred public services and government-wide data governance.

OECD

Future reforms should include:

Establishing clear responsibilities for AI supervision and enforcement.

Requiring appropriate human oversight, transparency, and risk assessments for high-risk AI systems.

Creating effective complaint procedures for individuals affected by automated decisions.

Strengthening cybersecurity and incident-reporting arrangements.

Modernising older legislation that creates unnecessary barriers to digital administration.

As of October 2026, Denmark has introduced legislation concerning supervision of prohibited AI practices and has proposed further legislation to establish enforcement powers, inspections, and penalties under the EU AI Act. The proposed supplementary AI legislation should be distinguished from legislation already enacted.

Folketinget

+2

4. Data Protection and Fundamental Rights

Denmark should continue developing rules governing personal data, biometric information, medical records, and algorithmic decision-making. Public authorities should demonstrate a lawful basis for processing personal information and comply with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Future reforms should require privacy impact assessments for high-risk processing, appropriate data-security safeguards, meaningful explanations where legally required, and accessible remedies for individuals.

Relevant case law:

Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications, Joined Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12 (2014). The CJEU invalidated the EU Data Retention Directive because its general and indiscriminate retention requirements disproportionately interfered with fundamental rights. The judgment illustrates why surveillance and data-retention legislation requires strong safeguards.

Landeshauptstadt Wiesbaden, Case C-61/22 (2024). The CJEU examined the proportionality of including fingerprints in identity cards. Its reasoning emphasises the importance of assessing the necessity and proportionality of measures affecting privacy and personal-data protection.

Cour de justice de l’Union européenne

These decisions support carefully designed Danish rules that balance legitimate public objectives with individual rights.

5. Environmental and Climate Regulation

Environmental reform should support Denmark’s climate commitments, renewable-energy development, biodiversity protection, and sustainable industrial production.

Future measures should include predictable environmental permitting, transparent impact assessments, stronger monitoring of emissions, and clearer coordination between national and municipal authorities. Regulatory procedures should facilitate clean-energy infrastructure while ensuring compliance with environmental safeguards and public consultation requirements.

A further priority is to evaluate whether existing regulations achieve measurable environmental outcomes. Periodic reviews should identify ineffective requirements and unintended consequences without weakening statutory environmental protections.

6. Business Regulation and Administrative Simplification

Denmark already uses regulatory impact assessments and stakeholder consultation to evaluate proposed rules with significant compliance costs. The OECD also identifies work on digital-ready legislation and simplification of existing regulatory requirements.

OECD

Future reforms should expand these practices through:

Simplified licensing: Reduce duplicate documentation and unnecessary approvals.

Digital administration: Allow businesses to submit information through coordinated public-service platforms.

Regulatory impact assessment: Examine economic, social, environmental, and administrative effects before adopting major regulations.

Periodic review: Remove obsolete requirements and evaluate whether existing laws remain effective.

Public consultation: Include smaller businesses, civil society, researchers, and affected communities in regulatory development.

Simplification should not eliminate essential safeguards concerning workers, consumers, competition, or the environment.

7. Cybersecurity and Institutional Accountability

Denmark should strengthen coordination between cybersecurity authorities, sectoral regulators, and public institutions. Implementation of the EU Network and Information Security Directive 2 (NIS2) is particularly relevant to essential and important entities.

The European Commission issued Denmark a reasoned opinion in May 2025 concerning incomplete notification of NIS2 transposition measures. This illustrates the importance of timely implementation and effective coordination between national legislation and EU obligations.

Shaping Europe’s digital future

Future reforms should establish clear reporting duties, risk-based inspections, incident-response procedures, and proportionate penalties. Independent oversight and judicial review should remain available where required by law.

8. Conclusion

Future regulatory reforms in Denmark should combine digital innovation, effective public administration, environmental sustainability, cybersecurity, and fundamental-rights protection. Priorities include implementing EU legislation consistently, strengthening AI oversight, improving data governance, simplifying administrative procedures, and evaluating regulatory outcomes.

The decisions in Digital Rights Ireland and Landeshauptstadt Wiesbaden provide important EU-law principles for protecting fundamental rights while pursuing legitimate regulatory objectives. Denmark’s future reforms should translate these principles into precise legislation, transparent administrative procedures, independent oversight, and effective remedies. The ultimate objective should be a regulatory system that supports innovation and public welfare while maintaining legality, proportionality, accountability, and public trust.