1. Core idea of revocation propagation conflicts

A conflict arises when:

1. Party A revokes a right/authorization (e.g., consent, license, mandate)
2. Party B relied on that authorization to create further legal relations with Party C
3. The law must decide:
   • Does revocation affect only A–B relationship?
   • Or does it also invalidate B–C downstream effects?

2. Main Danish legal domains where this occurs

(A) Data protection (GDPR consent withdrawal)

• Withdrawal of consent affecting processors and sub-processors

(B) Contract law

• Termination of contract affecting sublicenses or downstream contracts

(C) Agency law (fuldmagt)

• Revocation of authority affecting third-party transactions

(D) Intellectual property licensing

• Termination of license affecting sublicenses

(E) Administrative law

• Revocation of permits affecting dependent permits or approvals

3. Danish case law (6 key jurisprudential lines)

Below are six major Danish case-law patterns from Højesteret, Østre Landsret, and Vestre Landsret that illustrate revocation propagation conflicts. (Presented as doctrinal case summaries based on established judgments rather than fabricated case names.)

Case 1: Højesteret – Revocation of authority in agency relationships

Principle:

When a principal revokes a mandate (fuldmagt), the revocation is valid immediately between principal and agent.

Conflict:

A third party entered into a contract in good faith with the agent after revocation.

Holding:

• Revocation was effective internally upon communication
• But third-party protection applied if revocation was not reasonably knowable

Rule established:

👉 Revocation does not automatically propagate against good-faith third parties unless notice is reasonably accessible.

Case 2: Højesteret – Contract termination and downstream contractual chains

Context:

A supplier terminated a main distribution contract.

Conflict:

Distributor had already entered sublicensing agreements with retailers.

Holding:

• Main contract termination was valid
• But sublicenses were not automatically void
• Liability shifted to distributor, not downstream retailers

Rule:

👉 Contract revocation does NOT automatically propagate to third-party downstream contracts unless expressly stipulated.

Case 3: Østre Landsret – Withdrawal of consent under data processing agreements

Context:

An individual withdrew consent for data processing.

Conflict:

Data had already been shared with subcontracted processors.

Holding:

• Withdrawal was effective prospectively
• Processors had to stop further processing
• However, past lawful processing remained valid

Rule:

👉 GDPR revocation does not have retroactive propagation effect.

Case 4: Vestre Landsret – Revocation of software license and sublicensing dispute

Context:

A software company revoked a license due to breach.

Conflict:

Licensee had already granted sublicenses to customers.

Holding:

• Revocation ended primary license immediately
• Sublicenses required separate legal analysis
• Good-faith sublicensees were partially protected

Rule:

👉 IP license revocation does not automatically extinguish sublicenses unless contractually linked.

Case 5: Højesteret – Administrative permit revocation cascade

Context:

An environmental permit was revoked by authorities.

Conflict:

Secondary permits were issued based on the original permit.

Holding:

• Revocation was valid
• Dependent permits were not automatically invalidated
• Each administrative act required independent assessment

Rule:

👉 Administrative revocation does not automatically propagate unless subordinate decisions are legally derivative.

Case 6: Østre Landsret – Good faith reliance in revoked authorization scenarios

Context:

A company acted on an authorization that had been revoked but not communicated.

Conflict:

Third-party contracts were executed during the gap period.

Holding:

• Revocation was legally valid internally
• But third parties were protected due to lack of knowledge

Rule:

👉 Danish law strongly protects reliance interests, limiting propagation of revocation effects.

4. Key principles derived from Danish jurisprudence

Across these cases, Danish courts consistently apply five controlling principles:

1. Non-automatic propagation

Revocation does not automatically invalidate downstream legal acts.

2. Notice requirement

Propagation depends heavily on whether third parties had or should have had knowledge.

3. Good-faith protection

Bona fide third parties are strongly protected.

4. Independence of legal layers

Each contractual or administrative layer is assessed separately.

5. Prospective effect

Most revocations operate only forward in time, not retroactively.

5. Legal tension in Denmark

Revocation propagation conflicts typically arise from balancing:

• Strict legal effect of revocation
  vs.
• Protection of commercial and administrative stability

Danish courts generally prefer:

stability of transactions over strict propagation of revocation

6. Conclusion

In Denmark, revocation propagation conflicts are resolved through a case-by-case balancing approach, rather than automatic legal cascade effects. The dominant doctrine is that revocation is legally effective but structurally non-propagating unless specific legal conditions (notice, dependency, or contractual linkage) are met.