In 2022, Danish fisherman, Henning Kjeldsen sold his fishing vessel, the Gitte Henning, along with pelagic fishing quotas and a new vessel which was under construction. Now he is seeking compensation from the State
Danish news outlet Nordjyske reports a fierce legal battle over compensation is unfolding between Danish fisherman Henning Kjeldsen and the Danish State, after Kjeldsen was acquitted in a high-profile quota fraud case.
Kjeldsen, one of Denmark’s largest fishing operators, seeks more than 51 million Danish kroner (€6.8 million / £5.9 million) to cover legal fees and losses from the years-long case, while the state has offered just 4,400 kroner (€590 / £510).
The dispute stems from Kjeldsen’s initial conviction for alleged quota violations, where prosecutors claimed he used a network of “straw men” to control fishing quotas, a tactic that purportedly allowed him to exceed legal limits. In 2022, Kjeldsen, alongside five co-defendants, was acquitted by the Vestre Landsret (Western High Court), clearing him of all charges. Yet, despite his exoneration, Kjeldsen’s fight continues as he seeks reimbursement for substantial legal costs incurred during his defence.
Kjeldsen’s claim centres on €6.1 million (£5.3 million) spent on legal fees alone. However, the state, represented by the Special Crime Prosecution Office, has rejected these demands, arguing that Kjeldsen’s legal team was privately appointed rather than court-appointed, thus disqualifying the expenses from state coverage. Instead, the state has offered a nominal amount that would cover only the expenses related to initial search operations.
“This case has exposed a wide chasm between the expectations of defendants for fair compensation and the state’s policies,” commented a legal observer. “With millions of kroner at stake, the outcome could set a precedent for how legal costs are managed in future high-stakes cases.”
The case will return to the Holstebro Court, though a decision date has not been set. For Kjeldsen and other Danish fishermen who faced similar charges, the ruling could signify a crucial victory or further frustration in their battle for compensation and justice.
Source
