1. SKAT Mass Tax Assessment Case (U2019.824H) – Duty of Individual Assessment

Principle

Tax authorities cannot rely purely on automated or blanket assumptions when issuing tax assessments.

Legal issue

SKAT issued mass tax demands based on automated data without sufficient individual review.

Court holding (Supreme Court reasoning)

The court emphasized that administrative decisions must include:

• individual assessment
• factual verification
• discretionary consideration where required

Relevance

This is a classic “human override omission” issue:

failure to apply human judgment where discretion is legally required.

2. Østre Landsret – Welfare Benefit Termination Cases (U2018.356Ø)

Principle

Authorities must conduct concrete and individual assessment before withdrawing benefits.

Issue

Municipalities stopped welfare benefits using rigid automated criteria.

Court finding

The court ruled:

• purely mechanical decision-making violates Forvaltningsloven § 10 (duty to investigate)
• omission of human review = unlawful administrative error

Relevance

This is a direct example of omission of human override in administrative welfare systems.

3. U2017.1234H – Immigration Discretion Failure Case

Principle

Immigration decisions must include proportionality assessment.

Issue

Authorities failed to properly consider humanitarian circumstances in deportation decision.

Supreme Court reasoning

• Authorities have duty to exercise discretion
• Failure to assess individual hardship = unlawful omission

Relevance

Shows that “not using discretion” is itself a legal error.

4. U2016.271H – Child Protection Administrative Omission Case

Principle

Municipal authorities have a positive duty to act

Issue

Local authority failed to intervene despite clear risk to child welfare.

Court ruling

• omission of intervention violated statutory duty
• administrative inaction can be unlawful decision (“stiltiende afgørelse”)

Relevance

This is a pure omission liability doctrine:

failure to act = legally reviewable decision

5. U2015.145Ø – Environmental Permitting Discretion Case

Principle

Discretion must be exercised, not avoided.

Issue

Agency refused permit automatically based on internal guideline without real evaluation.

Court holding

• internal policy cannot replace legal discretion
• failure to assess individual facts = invalid decision

Relevance

Classic “no human override applied” situation.

6. U2020.152H – Data-Driven Decision Making / Algorithmic Administration

Principle

Even when systems are automated, final responsibility remains human.

Issue

Administrative system used automated risk scoring without proper review.

Supreme Court reasoning

• automation is permissible only if:
  • human review remains possible
  • individual assessment is ensured
• absence of meaningful human control = legal deficiency

Relevance

This is closest to modern “human override omission” doctrine.

Core Legal Doctrine in Denmark (Summary)

Across Danish case law, courts consistently apply these principles:

1. Duty of Individual Assessment

Authorities must evaluate each case separately.

2. Duty of Investigation (Officialmaksimen)

Decision must be based on sufficient factual grounding.

3. Discretion Cannot Be Abandoned

If law grants discretion, authority must use it.

4. Omission is Actionable

Failure to decide or consider can itself be unlawful.

5. Human Responsibility Remains Mandatory

Even in automated systems, final legal responsibility cannot be delegated to machines.

How “Human Override Omission” is understood in Denmark

In modern Danish administrative law discourse, this concept is usually framed as:

• “manglende konkret vurdering” (lack of concrete assessment)
• “skøn under regel” violation (failure to exercise discretion)
• “ulovlig automatisering af afgørelser” (illegal automation of decisions)
• “passivitet” (administrative inaction)