Abstract
The dissertation – titled Foundation Law and The Living Charter – contains an analysis of Danish foundation law on purpose and objective in Danish foundations covered by the foundation acts, touching on two connected research questions: 1) Is it possible – based on the legal framework and practice – to identify methods and factors for interpretation of Danish foundations’ charters (by‐laws) and, if so, which methods and factors? 2) What is settled/prevailing law in terms of the purpose amendment threshold, and which factors are permissible or mandatory in the application of the purpose amendment threshold?
Danish tax regulation and the rules on protection of the purpose – rules on governance, investment, audit etc. – are only briefly touched on. In part one, I comment on scope and decisions on selection, followed by considerations on legal method and legal theory relevant for foundation law and the two research questions. Inspiration is drawn from Norwegian, Swedish and Finnish foundation law. Besides analyzing the Danish legal framework on foundations in part two, I identify the characteristics of the interpretation and application of Danish foundation law.
In part three, answering the first research question, I consider which interpretive methods or tools one should or must apply whilst reading the purpose expressed in the foundation’s charter (by‐laws). With the governing board bound by the text, words are to be understood in their everyday meaning, unless the context indicates another sense. The authorities perform a legality review and do not review the reasonableness of the discretionary decisions made by the board. As a starting point, the words in the foundation’s charter must be given the meaning they had when the text was adopted. Meaning may change over time, but as a main rule, the fixed meaning principle applies. Thus, as a main principle, the original understanding and intentions of the founder outlines the activities in the foundation throughout its existence. What the founder expressed after or before setting up the foundation has relevance only in extremely rare instances, as the law in Denmark protects the founder’s will and intentions expressed in the charter.
Answering the second research question in part four, I discuss the threshold on amending the purpose in the foundation’s charters (by‐laws) and the application of the threshold. After careful deliberation, I find that the purpose amendment threshold is either impossibility or compelling reasons, which establish that the intentions behind the current purpose are truly difficult or otherwise unreasonably hard to fulfill (kvalificeret uhensigtsmæssighed). Categorizing and extensively discussing the permissible and mandatory factors involved in this assessment, I go through a high number of cases from the Danish authorities issuing administrative decisions on foundation law. While generally recognizing the legality and appropriateness of the current administrative practice, I do however criticize certain elements in the approaches from the foundation authorities and recommend three specific changes within the existing legal framework. The changes would provide further flexibility for the foundations and governing boards, but with adequate respect for the founder’s intentions.
In part five, after a summary of the conclusions and deliberations on the occurring tension between respecting the founder’s intentions and the need for a certain level of flexibility, I find the existing law and present‐day application of the law sufficiently flexible and protective of the different interests in foundation law. However, this conclusion is with the exception of a few elements in purpose amendment practice. Additionally, I recommend in detail four specific changes to the Danish foundation acts. The recommendations would potentially lead to better framework conditions for the foundations.
Danish tax regulation and the rules on protection of the purpose – rules on governance, investment, audit etc. – are only briefly touched on. In part one, I comment on scope and decisions on selection, followed by considerations on legal method and legal theory relevant for foundation law and the two research questions. Inspiration is drawn from Norwegian, Swedish and Finnish foundation law. Besides analyzing the Danish legal framework on foundations in part two, I identify the characteristics of the interpretation and application of Danish foundation law.
In part three, answering the first research question, I consider which interpretive methods or tools one should or must apply whilst reading the purpose expressed in the foundation’s charter (by‐laws). With the governing board bound by the text, words are to be understood in their everyday meaning, unless the context indicates another sense. The authorities perform a legality review and do not review the reasonableness of the discretionary decisions made by the board. As a starting point, the words in the foundation’s charter must be given the meaning they had when the text was adopted. Meaning may change over time, but as a main rule, the fixed meaning principle applies. Thus, as a main principle, the original understanding and intentions of the founder outlines the activities in the foundation throughout its existence. What the founder expressed after or before setting up the foundation has relevance only in extremely rare instances, as the law in Denmark protects the founder’s will and intentions expressed in the charter.
Answering the second research question in part four, I discuss the threshold on amending the purpose in the foundation’s charters (by‐laws) and the application of the threshold. After careful deliberation, I find that the purpose amendment threshold is either impossibility or compelling reasons, which establish that the intentions behind the current purpose are truly difficult or otherwise unreasonably hard to fulfill (kvalificeret uhensigtsmæssighed). Categorizing and extensively discussing the permissible and mandatory factors involved in this assessment, I go through a high number of cases from the Danish authorities issuing administrative decisions on foundation law. While generally recognizing the legality and appropriateness of the current administrative practice, I do however criticize certain elements in the approaches from the foundation authorities and recommend three specific changes within the existing legal framework. The changes would provide further flexibility for the foundations and governing boards, but with adequate respect for the founder’s intentions.
In part five, after a summary of the conclusions and deliberations on the occurring tension between respecting the founder’s intentions and the need for a certain level of flexibility, I find the existing law and present‐day application of the law sufficiently flexible and protective of the different interests in foundation law. However, this conclusion is with the exception of a few elements in purpose amendment practice. Additionally, I recommend in detail four specific changes to the Danish foundation acts. The recommendations would potentially lead to better framework conditions for the foundations.
Original language | Danish |
---|
Place of Publication | Frederiksberg |
---|---|
Publisher | Copenhagen Business School [Phd] |
Number of pages | 337 |
ISBN (Print) | 9788775680818 |
ISBN (Electronic) | 9788775680825 |
Publication status | Published - 2022 |
Series | PhD Series |
---|---|
Number | 15.2022 |
ISSN | 0906-6934 |