Denmark’s National Social Appeals Board, Ankestyrelsen, will not appeal a Copenhagen City Court ruling that granted former PET agent Morten Storm 82 percent of a full early retirement pension.
Ankestyrelsen said on Wednesday that it has decided against taking the case to the High Court. Storm has told media outlets and written in books that he worked for several years as an agent for the Danish Security and Intelligence Service, PET. DR reports that the board announced the decision in a press release.
According to the release, Cathrine Due Billing, deputy director of Ankestyrelsen, stated that the board has now reviewed the judgment. She said the ruling does not change the board’s practice in this area, because the city court decision rests on a concrete assessment of the information in this specific case. Politiken reported the same statement.
Copenhagen City Court delivered its ruling on Monday, August 31, 2026. The court found it proven that Storm collaborated with PET over a four year period. It also established that he is entitled to 82 percent of a full early retirement pension.
The dispute was heard as a civil case earlier in the summer of 2026. Storm argued that he was entitled to 92 percent of a full pension, while Ankestyrelsen disagreed and asked to be acquitted. As reported by Politiken, the judgment orders the board to recognize the 82 percent entitlement.
Per Politiken’s account of the court’s written reasoning, Storm collaborated with PET and received ongoing fees. In return, he provided information about individuals in radical Islamist environments. That collaboration formed the basis for the pension calculation.
Years lived outside Denmark
Storm, who is 50, had previously been granted 67 percent of a full early retirement pension. The reason was that he lived outside Denmark for a large part of his life. He did not have permanent residence in Denmark for 90 percent of the period from his 15th birthday until the pension was awarded.
With no appeal filed, the city court judgment stands. Ankestyrelsen has stated that the outcome is limited to the circumstances of this case and does not alter how it handles similar applications.
