The Prosecuter v. Ida Nicolaisen

Environmental protester, Ida Nicolaisen, was charged with 11 offenses under the Danish Penal Code (straffeloven), the Road Traffic Act (færdselsloven) and the Public Order Regulation (ordensbekendtgørelsen) for participating in non-violent environmental protests in Copenhagen. Nicolaisen pleaded not guilty and invoked the necessity defense under § 14 of the Danish Penal Code, citing the urgency of preventing environmental harm. The District Court of Copenhagen rendered its judgment in April 2025. While the court rejected the necessity defense in most instances, it accepted the defense in relation to two incidents relating to a construction project in Amager Fælled taking place January of 2022. Amager Fælled is an urban area in Copenhagen known for is ecological significance. In the first incident, Nicolaisen positioned herself against a fence to obstruct construction. This resulted in a charge under the Public Order Regulation §18(1). The second incident concerned her participation in a follow-up meeting with local politicians at City Hall, where she refused to leave and was charged with unlawful presence on private property under § 264(1)(3) of the Danish Penal Code. Nicolaisen pleaded not guilty and invoked the necessity defense under The Danish Penal Code § 14, citing the urgency of preventing environmental harm. The court emphasized that the area in question is a registered habitat for the great crested newt, a species subject to special protection under both EU and Danish law. It further noted that the clearing of the area occurred during the newt's hibernation period, when the species typically resides underground in the affected area. Expert evidence indicated that the planned construction posed an immediate and irreversible threat to the species' habitat and the area's ecological function. The court highlighted that the acts took place in a particularly sensitive natural area, that there was a concrete threat toward a protected habitat and that the actions were motivated by a concrete and urgent concern for preventing environmental damage. Notably, the court expanded the interpretation of the term 'property' in § 14 of the Penal Code to encompass ecological values, specifically EU-protected habits. It held that the necessity defense applied and acquitted Nicolaisen of two charges under the Public Order Regulation § 18(1) and Penal Code §264(1)(3). For the remaining offenses, Nicolaisen was issued a fine. The case has been appealed.