All eyes on Rasmussen as high court case draws to its close

Date: 18/09/1997

ONE of the central questions in one of the politically most significant court cases in Denmark this century has finally been settled.

The case pits a group of Eurosceptics against Prime Minister Poul Nyrup Rasmussen and centres on their claim that Denmark's ratification of the Maastricht Treaty was unconstitutional.

In its coverage of the case, the Danish media has been dominated by speculation about the date of the final judgement.

Now that the matter has been transferred to the country's supreme high court, the Højesteret in Copenhagen, that question has been answered. If everything goes smoothly, the final verdict will be delivered on 24 March.

The reason the date is so important is because the case is closely linked to the timing of the country's referendum on the Treaty of Amsterdam.

It is widely believed that it would be impossible for Denmark to hold the vote before the court has delivered its ruling on the earlier Maastricht Treaty.

No serious government lawyer would draft the legislation for national ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty while there is still a possibility that the supreme high court might deliver a ruling which would change the very basis of that ratification.

With the legal judgement now set for 24 March, it is likely that the Amsterdam referendum will be held on a Tuesday (traditionally the day for Danes to go to the polls) during either April or May.

The decision will only be known at the very last minute since Rasmussen must hold a general election by next September at the very latest and he is determined to make a clear distinction between the EU referendum and his political destiny in the minds of the country's voters.

There have been few major developments in the lengthy legal proceedings since the high court in eastern Denmark rejected all the claims advanced by the Eurosceptic plaintiffs to bolster their argument that ratification of the Maastricht Treaty was unconstitutional.

But one significant event is the fact that the plaintiffs have been forced to change their lawyer. In the high court, their case was presented by Danish MEP Ole Krarup, a law professor. During the hearing, government lawyers claimed that Krarup's interventions were highly political at times and that he failed to keep to the legal aspects of the matter. On occasion, he was even corrected by the leading judge in the case.

Irrespective of the criticism, Krarup does not have the right to present cases before the supreme high court and the plaintiffs have had to find themselves a new lawyer to appeal against the earlier ruling.

Their final choice has fallen on Karen Dyekjær-Hansen who, ironically, is a supporter of the Maastricht Treaty. She has, however, agreed to take on the case since the outcome will ultimately settle the important constitutional issues involved.

At the heart of the various arguments lies the interpretation of Article 20 of the Danish constitution. This states that Denmark can only transfer sovereignty to international organisations if this is clearly defined and specifically limited.

The plaintiffs claim that the transfer of sovereignty involved in the Maastricht Treaty does not meet these conditions since it is not clearly defined. On these grounds, they argue that Danish ratification of the Maastricht Treaty is unconstitutional. Not surprisingly, that claim is forcefully rejected by the government.