Abstract
In Danish law, a special compensatory regime is in force. This was introduced by the Act on the Growing etc. of Genetically Modified Crops1 (the Co-existence Act). In addition, an Executive Order on Compensation for Losses due to Certain Occurrences of Genetically Modified Material was issued2 (Executive Order on Compensation). According to § 1 of the Co-existence Act, it is applicable to commercial cultivation, handling, sale and transport of genetically modified crops. The system is not a liability regime. It is meant to work by way of a compensation fund. The compensation fund is financed by the state and the GMO cultivators. The system covers economic loss resulting from actual GMO presence in non-GM crops. The person suffering damage is entitled to compensation if he can prove the existence of a loss caused under specific circumstances described in the Co-existence Act and in the Executive Order on Compensation. Compensation will be paid by the Plant Directorate (the state) provided the injured party fulfils the requirements. The state is entitled to a recourse action against the GMO cultivator. The system will be explained in more detail below. As of now, cultivation by means of GMOs requires permission from the Plant Directorate3 and cultivation has not been practiced on a large scale in Denmark.4 Consequently, there is no case law that can illustrate the interpretation of the rules.
This report does not take into consideration materials published after July 1, 2006.
Act no. 436 of 9th June, 2004 (see infra Annex 674 ff). The Act entered into force on 9. 4. and 17. 12. 2005, see Executive Order no. 224 of 31. 3. 2005 and Executive Order no. 1178 of 17. 12. 2005.
Executive Order no. 1170 of 7. 12. 2005. The Executive Order entered into force on the 17. 12. 2005.
See Executive Order no. 220 of 31. 3. 2005 on Cultivation of Genetically Modified Crops (Executive Order on Cultivation of GM Crops) § 1, sec. 1.
According to the Plant Directorate, only one permission had been granted by June 2006.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Lovforslag (bill)169 (2003) per § 7.
Bill 169 (2003) per § 7.
Bill 169 (2003) per § 7.
The bill originally contained a rule authorizing the minister to set a financial limit, see bill 169 (2003) per § 7, section 3.
In connection with the evaluation of the system it will be considered whether this could be changed into an insurance system, see bill 169 (2003) per § 10.
Bill 169 (2003) section 4.
See bill 169 (2003) appendix 56, section 3.
The preparatory work to the Gentechnology Act mentions production in laboratories and the like as covered, see bill 117 (1990) per § 7 and 8.
See B. von Eyben/ H. Isager, Lærebog i erstatningsret (5th ed. 2003) 134 ff.
UfR (Ugeskrift for Retsvæsen, Weekly Law Reports) 1968, 84, H (Højesteret, Supreme Court).
Von Eyben/ Isager (supra fn. 23) 217–218.
Von Eyben/ Isager (supra fn. 23) 221.
In a sense, this rule is a variant of the rule described above on acts by the tortfeasor that are clearly negligent, see von Eyben/ Isager (supra fn. 23).
Von Eyben/ Isager (supra fn. 23) 239, A. Vinding Kruse, Erstatningsret (5th ed. 1989) 146 ff. T. Iversen, Erstatningsberegning i kontraktsforhold (2000) 820.
Von Eyben/ Isager (supra fn. 23) 62.
Von Eyben/ Isager (supra fn. 23) 87.
In von Eyben/ Isager (supra fn. 23) 135 it is implicitly assumed that in general, neighbourhood conflicts are not subject to a rule of strict liability. In contrast, it is assumed in B. von Eyben/P. Mortensen/P. Pagh, Fast ejendom (1999) 149, that as regards nuisances of a lasting character there is no need for a “traditional negligence” test. In Vinding Kruse (supra fn. 29) 248–249 it is assumed that tort law principles play a minor role in relation to neighbourhood conflicts of a lasting character.
Von Eyben/ Isager (supra fn. 23) 252.
Von Eyben/ Mortensen/ Pagh (supra fn. 34) 147.
When damages were not reduced in U 1998.1515 H it was probably due to the fact that the case concerned fear of health risk, see Lene Pagter Kristensen, UfR2000B.403, at 412–413.
Von Eyben/ Mortensen/ Pagh (supra fn. 34) 215.
Lene Pagter Kristensen, UfR2000B.403, at 412–413.
EC Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, Brussels 1968.
According to ECJ 21/76, Bier [1976] ECR 1735 the plaintiff is free to choose between the country in which the harmful act took place and the country in which the consequences of the harmful act occurred.
J. Lookofsky, International privatret (3rd ed. 2004) 102.
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer-Verlag/Wien
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ulfbeck, V. (2008). Economic Loss Caused by GMOs in Denmark. In: Koch, B.A. (eds) Economic Loss Caused by Genetically Modified Organisms. Tort and Insurance Law, vol 24. Springer, Vienna. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-211-77988-0_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-211-77988-0_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Vienna
Print ISBN: 978-3-211-77987-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-211-77988-0