Denmark caretaker government rules are again under scrutiny after a leaked memorandum from the Prime Minister’s Office clarified how far acting ministers may go while the country waits for a new cabinet. More than five weeks after Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen (S) informed King Frederik X that the outgoing SVM government would resign, the same cabinet continues as a caretaker government (forretningsministerium), with limited powers under the Danish Constitution.
The situation has raised a practical question in Copenhagen: what happens when a government has formally resigned, but no replacement has yet been appointed? The short answer is that the state continues to function, but ministers must avoid political initiatives, controversial decisions and appointments that require a clear political mandate.
What Denmark’s caretaker government can still do
Under Section 15(2) of Denmark’s 1953 Constitution (Grundloven), a ministry that has received a vote of no confidence or has requested its dismissal continues in office until a new ministry is appointed. During that period, acting ministers may only do what is necessary for the uninterrupted conduct of official business.
In practice, this means that a Danish caretaker cabinet may keep ordinary administration running. Ministries can process standard cases, ensure that agencies continue their work and represent Denmark in necessary international settings, including EU Council meetings. According to the memorandum sent by the Prime Minister’s Office to the other ministries, participation in EU work remains among the tasks that must still be carried out, although with additional caution for political reasons.
The rule is meant to balance two needs. Denmark cannot be left without an executive administration. At the same time, a government that has resigned, or no longer has parliamentary support, cannot act as if it still had a full political mandate.
Why acting ministers must avoid political decisions
Frederik Waage, professor of constitutional and administrative law at the University of Southern Denmark, told DR that the central point is that the government “must not govern as a government” because it has a majority against it in the Folketing.
That distinction matters. A caretaker minister may ensure continuity, but should not launch new government initiatives, make controversial policy choices, change administrative practice on a politically sensitive issue or appoint senior administrative officials.
The memorandum cited by DR lists several examples of matters that should normally be postponed. These include filling top administrative posts, setting up committees or commissions, making certain appointments and presenting new government initiatives. In other words, the caretaker government in Denmark can manage the state, but should not shape a new political direction.
The eel licence case shows how grey areas appear
The limits of a caretaker cabinet are not always easy to apply. Waage noted that the memorandum also shows how much the acting government may still do, as long as decisions remain within ordinary administration and do not require political judgement.
One example concerns eel fishing licences. The Danish Agency for Agriculture and Fisheries had reportedly not issued eel licences because the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries is currently part of a caretaker government. Waage described that interpretation as too restrictive. In his view, if Denmark can be represented at EU meetings during a caretaker period, an eel licence based on standard criteria can also be issued.
The Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries said it was aware of the situation facing eel fishers and was working on clarification. The case illustrates a broader issue: when the boundaries are unclear, ministries may prefer to avoid action rather than risk overstepping the constitutional limits.
Why some ministers speak while others stay silent
The caretaker period has also produced different approaches to public statements. Acting Minister for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Jacob Jensen (V) commented publicly after the Danish National Audit Office (Rigsrevisionen) criticised authorities’ handling of pig welfare controls. He called the reported episodes serious and unacceptable, and said more needed to be done to improve animal welfare.
By contrast, acting Transport Minister Thomas Danielsen (V) did not speak on his own initiative after the Gribskov railway accident in North Zealand. Waage argued that the difference can be explained by the nature of the two cases. A minister may need to respond to a strong independent report addressed to the ministry’s area of responsibility, while a railway accident does not automatically require a political intervention unless immediate action is needed to protect lives.
The comparison shows that acting ministers in Denmark still have public responsibilities, but their role is narrower. They can react, explain and maintain administration. They should not use the caretaker period to advance new policy.
The Prime Minister’s Office has the final practical word
Formally, each caretaker ministry must assess what it can do within the constitutional framework. In practice, the memorandum says ministries may consult the legal department of the Prime Minister’s Office (Statsministeriet) when in doubt.
Waage told DR that this gives the Prime Minister’s Office a decisive role. No ministry wants to do something that the Prime Minister’s Office later considers inappropriate. That creates a centralised legal filter during the interim period, even if the political responsibility remains distributed among the acting ministers.
For Denmark, the current situation is a reminder that parliamentary government depends not only on elections and coalition negotiations, but also on conventions of restraint. Until a new cabinet is appointed, the outgoing government keeps the state operating. But it does so under a constitutional rule designed to prevent an administration without a fresh mandate from governing as if nothing had changed.
