Mark Abraham · 20 April 2026 · 12 minute read · 80 pages of attached filings
📖 Reader’s guide — This article is an educational explainer about EU procedural rights in cross-border proceedings. It describes what I have formally asked the Eastern High Court to examine. It does not claim that any ruling was unlawful, nor allege bad faith against any individual. Every claim is sourced to a publicly filed document attached at the bottom.
“I grew up in a house with 4,000 books, educated by a mother who taught Latin. I’ve read all the Danish classics.” — Me, four months ago, in Make Denmark Great Again.
Today is Day 46. Forty-six days since Østre Landsret — the Danish Eastern High Court — unanimously annulled the first bankruptcy of Shape Robotics A/S on 5 March 2026. On 17 April 2026, Sø- og Handelsretten — the Maritime and Commercial Court of Copenhagen — issued a new ruling placing the company into forced liquidation (tvangsopløsning) and appointing a liquidator. I filed an appeal (kæreskrift) against that ruling today.
This article is a procedural explainer. It is not a commentary on the merits of the liquidation, which are now before Østre Landsret. I respect the judicial process. I believe in the Danish legal system. What I have done today — what every party in my position is entitled to do under Danish law — is use the appeal mechanism the law provides for cases where procedural questions arise.
Let me walk you through those questions.
Date of hearing : 17 April 2026
Court : Sø- og Handelsretten (first instance)
Appellant : Mark Abraham, Romanian citizen
Proceedings language: Danish
Testimony language : English
Native language : Romanian
Certified interpreter: NOT PROVIDED
De facto translators: Attorneys of the newly-appointed liquidator
Consular notification: NOT MADE
Appeal filed : 20 April 2026, to Østre Landsret
Attachments : 8 exhibits, 80 pages total
Four procedural questions before Østre Landsret:
1. Interpretation standard (retsplejeloven §149(1) + Directive 2010/64/EU)
2. Impartiality of the translator (analogous to retsplejeloven §60–61)
3. Concrete discrepancies between testimony and court record (audio verification under §71(2))
4. Consular notification (Article 36, Vienna Convention on Consular Relations)⚖️ The legal framework, in one equation
The core principle that governs a hearing like the one on 17 April 2026 can be expressed as a simple identity:
If any of the three factors fails, the composition fails. What is preserved in the retsbog (the official court record) is no longer the party’s sworn testimony. It becomes an interpretation of the party’s statements, made by someone else, whose accuracy depends on factors the party cannot control.
This is not a philosophical observation. This is the operational principle behind §149(1) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act, Directive 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation, Articles 47 and 48 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
The appeal asks Østre Landsret to examine whether, on 17 April 2026, each of the three factors held.
🗓️ Timeline
6 Jan 2026 — Bankruptcy opened against Shape Robotics A/S. Teis Gullitz-Wormslev appointed kurator.
8 Jan 2026 — Trustee instructs Romanian subsidiary to redirect all payments to a Kromann Reumert client account at Danske Bank.
21 Jan 2026 — Romanian subsidiary’s Chief Legal Advisor emails trustee about critical governance vacuum.
5 Mar 2026 — Østre Landsret unanimously annuls the bankruptcy (case K 3337/25-F).
8 Mar 2026 — Chairman & CEO sign Formal Acknowledgment of DKK 217M creditor claim.
26 Mar 2026 — Shape Robotics România S.R.L. files criminal complaint with Bucharest Prosecutor (gestiune frauduloasă).
7 Apr 2026 — Shape Robotics A/S public announcement: Kromann Reumert deposit is uautoriseret (unauthorised).
14 Apr 2026 — EGM: new board elected (Nein, Okkola, Ambrozie). New registered address.
15 Apr 2026 — Erhvervsstyrelsen files for compulsory dissolution.
17 Apr 2026 — Sø- og Handelsretten orders liquidation. Re-appoints Teis as liquidator. Cross-examines me under strafansvar.
20 Apr 2026 — Appeal filed with Østre Landsret. Romanian Embassy notified.
📊 The two concrete discrepancies, visualized
Part of the appeal asks Østre Landsret to compare what the court record reports against what I believe I actually said at the hearing. Two items stand out.
The magnitude of the discrepancy — a factor of approximately 21 — is too large to be accommodated by conventional rounding, currency conversion error, or minor imprecision. A certified, verbatim interpreter working between Romanian, Danish, and English does not produce a 21× discrepancy in a reported asset value.
The second item is conceptual rather than numerical: the court record attributes to me a declaration that the company is “insolvent because its shares cannot be traded.” This is a legal characterization, not a factual description. Trading suspension and insolvency are distinct concepts in both Danish and Romanian corporate law. It is unlikely, though not impossible, that a non-lawyer CEO speaking about his own company would volunteer such a characterization — particularly one who, in the same breath, enumerated intellectual property worth more than €15 million, a damages claim of DKK 250 million, and secured financing of €16 million.
The appeal respectfully asks Østre Landsret to use the tools available to it — audio verification under retsplejeloven §71(2), and witness examination of Bo Kretzschmer Larsen and Alexandru-Octavian Ambrozie, both present in the room — to establish what was actually said.
Question 1 — The interpretation standard
📜 The legal rule — Under retsplejeloven §149(1), the court shall ensure qualified interpretation when a party does not master the language of the court. This is a statutory duty of the court, not an optional accommodation. It is reinforced by Directive 2010/64/EU and Article 47 of the EU Charter.
I am a Romanian citizen. My native language is Romanian. Danish is not. This is recorded in the identification section of the retsbog itself.
On 17 April 2026, a certified Romanian–Danish interpreter was not assigned. Instead, shareholder Bo Kretzschmer Larsen — who is a fellow shareholder of Shape Robotics A/S, not a certified interpreter — was asked to “interpret to the extent necessary” (tolkede i fornødent omfang).
I consented to that limited arrangement for the general discussion. I did not consent to — and, in my respectful submission, could not have validly consented to — word-for-word translation of formal testimony under strafansvar (criminal sanction) by a person who was neither certified, independent, nor specifically briefed on the legal duties of a court interpreter.
The question for Østre Landsret is not whether I consented. The question is whether the arrangement satisfied the statutory standard.
Question 2 — The identity of the translator
📜 The legal rule — Under general principles of Danish procedure, applicable by analogy from retsplejeloven §60–61 on the impartiality of judges and court officials, a court interpreter should be independent of the parties. This is standard across EU member states and codified in Directive 2010/64/EU Article 2(8).
The actual word-for-word translation of my testimony was not performed by Bo Kretzschmer Larsen. It was performed by:
• Attorney Albert Mungo Madsen (Kromann Reumert)
• Attorney Kamilla Krebs (Kromann Reumert)
Both were present in the courtroom as procedural representatives of Teis Gullitz-Wormslev, who moments earlier in the same hearing had been formally appointed liquidator of Shape Robotics A/S.
An additional structural fact is that Mr. Madsen is named personally in a criminal complaint filed on 26 March 2026 (22 days before the hearing) by Shape Robotics România S.R.L. with the Prosecutor’s Office of the Bucharest Tribunal, alleging complicity in gestiune frauduloasă under Article 242 of the Romanian Criminal Code. The complaint is attached to this post.
What I am not saying: I am not saying these attorneys acted in bad faith during the translation. I have no way of knowing what was in their minds, and I will not speculate.
What I am saying: the structural situation — where opposing counsel performs real-time translation of opposing counsel’s counterparty’s testimony under criminal sanction — is inconsistent with ordinary impartiality standards. That is a legal question for Østre Landsret.
Question 3 — Specific discrepancies
The two items already discussed above — the German contract (record: DKK 14M; statement: €40M) and the insolvency characterization — are, in my respectful submission, unlikely to be the only ones. A complete comparison of the audio record, if one exists, against the retsbog will establish the full scope.
The appeal respectfully requests:
1) Verification of audio recording under retsplejeloven §71(2)
2) Summoning Bo Kretzschmer Larsen as witness
3) Summoning Alexandru-Octavian Ambrozie as witness
These are instruments entirely within Østre Landsret’s ordinary authority. I am not asking the court to believe my version against theirs. I am asking the court to use the tools Danish law provides to establish, on the evidence, what was actually said.
Question 4 — Consular notification
📜 The legal rule — Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963) requires the receiving State to inform a foreign national, without delay, of the right to contact their consular representation, and to notify the consulate of the national’s participation in serious legal proceedings.
To my knowledge, the Romanian Embassy in Copenhagen was not notified. I was not informed of my right to contact the Embassy before or during the hearing.
Today, simultaneously with filing the appeal, I have notified the Romanian Embassy myself. The complete dossier provided to the Embassy is attached to this post, in Romanian.
🌍 The cultural dimension — and why it matters legally
In Romanian procedural culture, sworn testimony is a solemn, clearly delineated act. The witness places a hand on the Bible. The judge reads an explicit caution regarding perjury. The procedural ritual makes the transition from conversation to sworn statement impossible to miss.
In Danish procedural culture, the transition is marked by the phrase behørigt formanet (“duly cautioned”). It is a legally weighty but linguistically compact formula. For a Romanian citizen without a certified interpreter, this formula can pass by without registering as the same solemn act it is under Danish law.
This is not a criticism of Danish procedure. Danish procedure is internally consistent and works excellently when all parties understand the language. It is, however, a reason why §149(1) exists: to ensure that cross-linguistic parties receive the same procedural signals as native speakers.
When the protection of §149(1) is not operational, the cultural mismatch becomes a legal problem: the party does not know, in the moment, that a statement has acquired criminal-sanction weight.
I did not know. I recognized it only afterward, when I read the retsbog and found DKK 14 million attributed to me. That is part of why I am writing this article — so that the next EU citizen in a cross-border proceeding recognizes it in the moment.
💼 What is at stake, in one table
These assets are now under the control of the liquidator pending the outcome of the appeal. This is why the appeal also requests suspensive effect under retsplejeloven §395 — a request that the liquidation be paused while Østre Landsret examines the procedural questions.
Suspensive effect is a standard procedural instrument. It does not prejudge merits. It preserves the status quo. The decision on suspensive effect is entirely within Østre Landsret’s authority. I respectfully leave the question to the court.
🇪🇺 For readers — what EU procedural protections you have
If you are an EU citizen doing business in Denmark — or in any other Member State where your native language differs from the court’s — here are the protections that apply to you:
1) Certified interpretation (retsplejeloven §149(1) Denmark, or equivalent). Request it in writing before any hearing where you may speak.
2) Consular notification (Vienna Convention Article 36). If your consulate has not been notified, notify them yourself in writing before the hearing.
3) Independent interpreter. If examined under criminal sanction, you are entitled to an interpreter independent of the opposing party. This is general EU law.
4) Accurate court record. The retsbog is the record of your statements. If it does not match what you said, mechanisms exist for challenge: audio verification, witness examination, retsbog corrections.
5) Appeal on procedural grounds. Danish kæreskrift under retsplejeloven §393 allows appeal of procedural defects to the High Court, without the need for a Danish attorney. Self-representation (selvmøderprincippet, §260) is permitted.
None of these rights is obscure. All are in statutes and treaties. The hard part is recognizing, in the moment, when they are being tested.
🔍 What this article is, and is not
• Not a claim that the 17 April ruling was unlawful. That is a question for Østre Landsret.
• Not an allegation of bad faith against any judge, attorney, or party.
• Not a commentary on whether Shape Robotics should be liquidated.
• Not a campaign to pressure the High Court.
• An educational explainer about EU procedural rights and their application on 17 April 2026.
• A transparent record of what I have asked Østre Landsret to examine, with the underlying documents attached.
• An act of confidence in the same Østre Landsret that ruled unanimously on 5 March 2026 and will rule on its own schedule on this appeal.
✉️ For Kromann Reumert
If any sentence in this article is factually inaccurate, please write to me at mark@shaperobotics.com. I will publish a correction in the next edition with the same prominence as the original claim. I have taken care to stay strictly within the four corners of the filed documents. If I have nonetheless made a factual error, I want to know, and I will correct it.
🏛️ The Denmark I still believe in
I came to Denmark believing in the tradition of Kierkegaard, Andersen, and the maritime merchants. I wrote about that tradition in Make Denmark Great Again, four months ago. Forty-six days and two high-profile court rulings later, I believe in it more, not less.
Østre Landsret’s ruling of 5 March 2026 was unanimous. Five judges examined the record, applied the law, and reached a conclusion. That is the Denmark I came to. That is the Denmark with jurisdiction over my appeal. That is the Denmark I am addressing when I file 80 pages of documents today.
Transparency serves that Denmark. Not the one that cancels inconvenient voices through noise-engineering — the one from the earlier article. The one that produced Kierkegaard, the Vikings, the maritime merchants, and the five-judge panel that reads the record carefully.
The documents are attached. The appeal is filed. The next decision is not mine.
—
Mark Abraham — Founder & CEO, Shape Robotics A/S — Administrator, Shape Robotics România S.R.L. — Romanian citizen — Copenhagen / Bucharest — mark@shaperobotics.com — +40 749 288 688
“A system that survives on silence dies the moment someone refuses to be canceled — but the refusal is worth more when it is filed through proper channels, documented in the official record, and offered in good faith to the court that decides.”
#GameOver #ShapeRobotics #EUlaw #DueProcess #ViennaConvention #Retsplejeloven #Directive201064EU #WildCEO
📎 Complete evidence file attached to this post
Each attachment is a document either filed today in a Danish or Romanian court, or transmitted today to an official authority. Everything in this article is sourced to these files.
📄 Kaereskrift_COMPLET_SK-524-2026-SHR.pdf — 80 pages — Bilingual (Danish / English) — Complete appeal filed today with Østre Landsret through Sø- og Handelsretten. Contains the appeal brief (14 pages) plus 8 exhibits: court record of 17 April 2026, kærevejledning (appeal guidance), reference to the 5 March 2026 annulment, Company Announcement 10-26, the Bucharest criminal complaint with its 8 annexes (RO + EN), the gældbogsliste listing, the Formal Acknowledgment of 8 March 2026, and the appeal fee receipt placeholder
.
📄 SesizareAmbasada_COMPLETA.pdf — 71 pages — Romanian with English-translated components — Complete dossier provided today to the Romanian Embassy in Copenhagen under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Contains the consular notification itself (5 pages, Romanian), the full appeal, the 17 April 2026 court record, and the Bucharest criminal complaint with English translation.
All documents are complete, unredacted, and filed in an official proceeding. They are the record. This article has added nothing to them beyond explanation.
📨 Subscribe
I will publish, as filings and rulings come in, only what is in the official record. No commentary on merits pending decision. No speculation about intent. Just documents and procedural posture:
• Østre Landsret’s ruling on suspensive effect, when issued
• Any filings by the parties in the appeal
• Østre Landsret’s ruling on the merits
• Consular response from the Romanian Embassy
• Public progress of the Romanian criminal investigation
Documentation over speculation. Procedure over noise. This is Wild CEO.
💬 Join the conversation
Have a question about the appeal, the procedural issues, or EU cross-border rights? Join the chat below. I read every message.
Join Mark Abraham’s subscriber chat
