The purpose of this master's thesis is to describe and examine two issues, firstly how legal costs are measured within the EU on the basis of Article 14 of the Law Enforcement Directive, and secondly to examine whether Denmark has extended the scope of the Law Enforcement Directive.

To answer the first question, several analyses have been carried out. First of all, an analysis of the legal situation within the EU has been based on the UVP-case and the NT-case. Afterwards, there has been made an analysis on Danish law, where the Danish courts’ decisions about legal costs and the principles therefore are shed light to. A comparative analysis is also made, in which Danish law's gen-eral rules regarding legal costs and Danish law's legal cost rules after the UVP case are compared. Finally, an analysis in order to shed light on the measurement of legal costs in Swedish law has been made, but with only one Swedish court ruling from 2021.

On the basis of the analyses, it can be deduced that a principle of reasonableness applies as well as a criterion of materiality, deriving from the UVP case. It is seen within Denmark that there has been a major change in the measurement of legal costs in the market law cases, where actual expenses in-curred have come to be of relevance. Under Swedish law, however, no major change has been seen.

The thesis also makes a comparison of Danish and Swedish law, which both have implemented the Law Enforcement Directive. It can be deduced from the comparison that the EU has not clearly stated what matters in the principles above, which is why the measurement of legal costs is not common in the EU member states.

Therefore, it can be deduced that the EU has not provided a consistent protection to the enforcement of protecting the intellectual property rights.

To describe and conclude whether or not Denmark has extended the scope of the Law Enforcement Directive to also cover market law, the thesis will study the legal literature and the EU Commission's soft law. After this, the thesis will make an analysis of five recent Danish court rulings, which recent-ly has been decided.

The analysis of the court rulings shows that it is difficult to decide if Denmark has extended the scope.
Two of the court rulings reject such extension, whereas another two court rulings enlarge the scope. The last court ruling from The Supreme Court (regarding a case gathering of proof by means of the court) decides of the matter of legal costs on basis of the Law Enforcement Directive. Therefore, it can be deduced that although the question of Danish legal coasts enlargement is yet not clarified it seems that case law tends towards an extension.

Finally, the thesis will discuss whether the EU has succeeded in providing in a clear judicial status by means of the Law Enforcement Directive, or whether the EU instead should have used a fully harmonized directive.