U.2001.1980/1H Name and level of the court: (Supreme Court) 7 June 2001 (Denmark; request for dissolution; Bankruptcy Court; requirement for manuscript signature; sufficiency of electronic signature with name typed on document)

Case Translation, Demark

SAS-SPACE

234 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, Vol 6 © Pario Communications Limited, 2009Request for dissolution; Bankruptcy Court;requirement for manuscript signature;sufficiency of electronic signature with nametyped on documentSupreme Court decision, 7 June 2001 in case 3/2001The Danish Commerce and Companies Agency (theLegal Adviser to the Danish Government as representedby Lawyer N.V. Falling Olsen, Copenhagen)vs.NATURLIGVIS A.M.B.A in compulsory dissolution(Lawyer Jesper Anhøj, Faaborg)The previous court, the Bankruptcy Court of Faaborg,rendered its decision on 4 October 2000 and theEastern Division of the Danish High Court, 4th division,rendered its decision on 31 October 2000.The decision of the High Court has been broughtbefore the Supreme Court by the Danish Commerce andCompanies Agency, claiming that the decision berevoked and that the case be remitted to the BankruptcyCourt in Faaborg for the hearing to be continued.NATURLIGVIS A.M.B.A in compulsory dissolution hasclaimed affirmation.The Eastern Division of the Danish High Court hasrelied on the decision.In support of the claim, the Danish Commerce andCompanies Agency has further stated that there can beno requirement that the request for dissolution to theBankruptcy Court must be signed. The document inquestion does not create legal relations, such as a claimform. The technological development section 261(2) ofthe Danish Administration of Justice Act should besubject to renewed interpretation. Since 1995, theDanish Commerce and Companies Agency hasorganised its administrative work to the effect that arequest for dissolution to the Bankruptcy Court isprinted automatically without a signature.Three judges took part in the adjudication: Hornslet,Torben Melchior and Per Sørensen.The Supreme Court finds.Under section 261(2) of the Danish Administration ofJustice Act, the courts must reject statements of casesigned by people other than the party or a personauthorised to appear before the court on behalf of theparty. Thus, the Danish Administration of Justice Actrequires that statements of case must be signed. Therequest of the Danish Commerce and CompaniesAgency to the Bankruptcy Court for the compulsorydissolution of the co-operative society is not signed,and the submission of the unsigned request was notunder the authority of any other legislation. TheSupreme Court therefore agrees that the request couldbe rejected by the Bankruptcy Court and thus affirmsthe decision of the High Court.IT IS ORDERED THAT:The decision of the High Court be upheld.Translation © Kromann Reumert, 2009CASE CITATION: U.2001.1980/1HNAME AND LEVEL OF COURT: Højesteret (Supreme Court)DATE OF DECISION: 7 June 2001MEMBERS OF THE COURT: Judges Hornslet,Torben Melchior and Per SørensenLAWYER FOR THE CLAIMANT: N.V. FallingOlsen, CopenhagenLAWYER FOR THE DEFENDANT: Jesper Anhøj,FaaborgCASE TRANSLATION: DENMARK

Case Translation: Denmark

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

SAS-SPACE