Statizoid

Enforcing contracts: Court structure and proceedings (0-5) in Denmark

Denmark: Enforcing contracts: Court structure and proceedings (0-5) was 3.5 DB17-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat

Latest (2019)
3.5 DB17-20 methodology
Change on year
unchanged
World rank
67th
of 188 countries
All-time high
3.5 DB17-20 methodology
in 2015
All-time low
3.5 DB17-20 methodology
in 2015
Years of data
5
2015–2019

Enforcing contracts: Court structure and proceedings (0-5) in Denmark, 2015–2019

012342015201720192015: 3.5 DB17-20 methodology2016: 3.5 DB17-20 methodology2017: 3.5 DB17-20 methodology2018: 3.5 DB17-20 methodology2019: 3.5 DB17-20 methodology

Source: World Bank. Measured in DB17-20 methodology.

Analysis

The most recent figure for enforcing contracts: court structure and proceedings (0-5) in Denmark is 3.5 DB17-20 methodology, measured in 2019. That is the highest value across all 5 years on record.

Compared with earlier readings it is unchanged over five years.

Denmark ranks 67th of 188 countries on this measure, in the middle of the range.

Countries ranked near Denmark

  1. 66 Mexico 3.75 DB17-20 methodology compare
  2. 67 Albania 3.5 DB17-20 methodology compare
  3. 67 Armenia 3.5 DB17-20 methodology compare
  4. 67 Azerbaijan 3.5 DB17-20 methodology compare
  5. 67 Bulgaria 3.5 DB17-20 methodology compare
  6. 67 Colombia 3.5 DB17-20 methodology compare
  7. 67 Dominican Republic 3.5 DB17-20 methodology compare
  8. 67 Estonia 3.5 DB17-20 methodology compare
  9. 67 Georgia 3.5 DB17-20 methodology compare
  10. 67 South Korea 3.5 DB17-20 methodology compare
  11. 67 Lithuania 3.5 DB17-20 methodology compare
  12. 67 Madagascar 3.5 DB17-20 methodology compare
  13. 67 Mauritania 3.5 DB17-20 methodology compare
  14. 67 Moldova 3.5 DB17-20 methodology compare
  15. 67 Nicaragua 3.5 DB17-20 methodology compare
  16. 67 Norway 3.5 DB17-20 methodology compare
  17. 67 Palau 3.5 DB17-20 methodology compare
  18. 67 Panama 3.5 DB17-20 methodology compare
  19. 67 Philippines 3.5 DB17-20 methodology compare
  20. 67 Portugal 3.5 DB17-20 methodology compare
  21. 67 Slovakia 3.5 DB17-20 methodology compare
  22. 67 South Africa 3.5 DB17-20 methodology compare
  23. 67 Spain 3.5 DB17-20 methodology compare
  24. 67 Sweden 3.5 DB17-20 methodology compare
  25. 67 Taiwan 3.5 DB17-20 methodology compare
  26. 67 Turkey 3.5 DB17-20 methodology compare
  27. 67 Venezuela 3.5 DB17-20 methodology compare

See the full ranking of 190 places →

More reference data data for Denmark

All data for Denmark →

Frequently asked questions

What is enforcing contracts: court structure and proceedings (0-5) in Denmark?
Enforcing contracts: court structure and proceedings (0-5) in Denmark was 3.5 DB17-20 methodology in 2019, according to the World Bank.
What is the highest enforcing contracts: court structure and proceedings (0-5) recorded in Denmark?
The highest recorded value was 3.5 DB17-20 methodology in 2015.
What is the lowest enforcing contracts: court structure and proceedings (0-5) recorded in Denmark?
The lowest recorded value was 3.5 DB17-20 methodology in 2015.
How does Denmark rank for enforcing contracts: court structure and proceedings (0-5)?
Denmark ranks 67th out of 188 countries with data for 2019.
Where does this Denmark data come from?
The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Enforcing contracts: Court structure and proceedings (0-5) (DB17-20 methodology). Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.

Download this data

CSV · JSON — 5 observations, free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data).

About this data

Indicator
Enforcing contracts: Court structure and proceedings (0-5) (DB17-20 methodology)
Unit
DB17-20 methodology
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
190 places, 950 data points, 2015–2019
Last refreshed

The court structure and proceedings evaluates five aspects of the court system: (i) whether a specialized commercial court, division or section is available; (ii) whether a small claims court and/or simplified procedure for small claims is available; (iii) whether pretrial attachment of defendant's movable assets is available; (iv) whether new cases are assigned randomly and through an automated system to judges; and (v) whether a woman’s testimony in court carries the same evidentiary weight as that of a man's. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.