On 18 February (as reported previously) Jens-Frederik Nielsen, Democrat asked the following S37 questions:
1. Has the Naalakkersuisut had internal legal assessments made in relation to whether there is a risk that companies can sue the Self-Government in connection with the adoption of a uranium ban?
a. In that case, I want to know who in the Self-Government has made these assessments as well as when they were given.
2. Has the Naalakkersuisut had external legal assessments made in relation to whether there is a risk that companies can sue the Self-Government in connection with the adoption of a uranium ban?
a. Who made these assessments?
b. When they were delivered.
In Sermitsiaq number 6/22 you can read that meetings are being held between the Ministry of Minerals and Greenland Minerals with the Danish Chamber Advocate. I would like to know the following about these meetings:
3. How long have they been going on?
4. How long has the Naalakkersuisut known about these meetings?
5. What is the reason for the meeting activity?
6. Assess the Naalakkersuisut - including a possible external legal adviser - that there is a risk of a
lawsuit?
7. In what way has the Naalakkersuisut involved Inatsisartut in the meetings with Greenland Minerals
with the Danish chamber lawyer?
8. How will Inatsisartut be involved in these and similar meetings in the future?
9. Can the Naalakkersuisut state anything else of interest to the subject?
On 2 March Naaja replied
… from the Business and Mineral Resources Committee that it is Naalakkersuisut's
assessment that an adoption of the proposal will not entail claims for compensation as a result of the adoption of the law.
1. Has the Naalakkersuisut had internal legal assessments made in relation to whether there is a risk that companies can sue the Self-Government in connection with the adoption of a uranium ban?
Answer: In the spring of 2021, the Ministry of Raw Materials initiated an overall assessment of the legal implications of a possible showdown with the zero-tolerance policy, including the possibility of being met with compensation. During the process, contributions were obtained from an external law firm. Thus, both internal and external legal assessments form the basis for the overall work with the Zero Tolerance Act and its consequences. Efforts have been made to assess the legal possibilities and consequences of a number of scenarios related to the exploration and utilization of radioactive minerals in Greenland.
(1a above refers) in that case, I would like to know who in the Self-Government has made these assessments and when they were submitted.
Answer: The internal assessments have been prepared by the Department of Raw Materials. An immediate assessment was available at the beginning of March 2021. The external contributions have been prepared by the law firm Poul Schmidt. The external contributions were obtained after the internal assessment was available and were completed on October 8, 2021.
2. Has the Naalakkersuisut had external legal assessments made in relation to whether there is a risk that companies can sue the Seivstyret in connection with the adoption of a uranium ban?
Reply: See the answer to question 1 and leave.
a. Who made these assessments?
Answer: See the answer to question 1 and leave.
b. When they were delivered.
Answer: See the answer to question 1 and leave.
Sermitsiaq number 6/22, you can read that meetings are being held between the Ministry of Minerals and Greenland Minerals at the Danish Chamber Advocate. I would like to be informed of these meetings as follows:
3. How long have they been going on?Answer: Three meetings have taken place in the period from 15 December 2021 to 9 February 2022. In addition, there has been written correspondence in relation to the planning of the meetings.
4. How long has the Naalakkersuisut known about these meetings? Answer: As Naalakkersuisoq with responsibility for the raw materials area, I have of course known about the meetings and the content of the meetings from the early planning phase. I have only personally attended the meeting on 9 February. There has been full openness about the meetings from both the company's side and the Naalakkersuisut's side, and the meetings have been mentioned in the media.
5. What is the reason for the meeting activity?Answer: The meetings on 15 December and 7 February were intended to inform Greenland Minerals about the design of the Zero Tolerance Act and to guide Greenland Minerals about the possibilities of seismicity after the adoption of the Uranium Act. In addition, the further process concerning the company's ongoing application for a permit for exploitation was discussed. The undersigned attended the meeting on 9 February and the meeting intended to give Greenland Minerals the opportunity to directly convey their views and wishes for the further process to the Naalakkersuisut, just as the undersigned communicated the Naalakkersuisut's policy.
6. Does the Naalakkersuisut - including a possible external legal adviser - assess that there is a risk of a lawsuit?Answer: The Naalakkersuisut considers that it is not possible to grant the company the application for an exploitation permit. There is always a risk of litigation when an administrative decision does not fully uphold a party.
7. To what extent has the Naalakkersuisut included lnatsisartut in the meetings with Greenland Minerals with the Danish Chamber Advocate? Answer: Inatsisartut has not been involved in the meetings with Greenland Minerals, as the purpose of the meetings has been to guide a rightholder and discuss their considerations. This is a common administrative task that does not involve political decisions.
8. How will lnatsisartut be involved in these and similar meetings in the future?Answer: A briefing will be given to the relevant Inatsisartut committees regarding the meetings already held. Furthermore, the relevant Inatsisartut committees will be involved in the Naalakkersuisut's possible assessments of future initiatives, which may result from wishes or dispositions on the part of Greenland Mineral.
9. Can the Naalakkersuisut state anything else of interest to the subject? Answer: Naalakkersuisut has in not further to disclose.
This resulted in a further question from Jens-Frederik Nielsen, Democrat on 2 Mar
Pursuant to section 37 para. 1 of the Rules of Procedure for Inatsisartut, I put the following questions to the Naalakkersuisut.
Questions to Naalakkersuisut:
In connection with the consideration of EM2021 / 23 (the uranium ban), the Naalakkersuisut in its answer to questions from the Business and Mineral Resources Committee dated 20 October 2021 mentions nothing about the fact that on 8 October the same year an external legal assessment was received from the law firm Poul Schmith regarding the proposal. In this connection, I would like the following information:Three times (Appendix A in the committee's report to EM2021 / 23, questions 5, 6 and 7), the Business and Mineral Resources Committee asks whether the Naalakkersuisut has had a legal assessment made. Not once does the Naalakkersuisut mention that shortly before (October 8) they have received a legal assessment from the law firm Poul Schmith. What is the reason for actively hiding that information from Inatsisartut?
2. Does the Naalakkersuisut consider that the external legal assessment was indifferent to the treatment of EM2021 / 23 (the uranium ban)? If so, please explain why the Naalakkersuisut explained it
b. If not, Naalakkersuisut please explain why this information was actively withheld from Inatsisartut
3. Does the Naalakkersuisut believe that by concealing the information about the prepared external legal assessment, it has violated section 6 of Inatsisartutlov no. 6 of 13 May 1993 on the liability of Naalakkersuisut members? If so, I would like to know what the consequences of the Naalakkersuisut will be as a result.
b. In the negative, I would like to know why the Naalakkersuisut does not see it as a concealment of information that must be regarded as essential to Inatsisartut's assessment of the case.
(Member of Inatsisartut Jens-Frederik Nielsen, Democrats)
Reasons In answer to § 37 question number 48/2022, the Naalakkersuisut states that on 8 October 2021, an external legal assessment was received from the law firm Poul Schmith regarding. possible consequences of imposing a ban on uranium (EM2021 / 23).<BR>Despite the fact that the Business and Mineral Resources Committee repeatedly asks whether the Naalakkersuisut has had a legal assessment made, the Naalakkersuisut does not mention anything about the external legal assessment in its reply to the committee dated 20 October 2021 - ie 12 days after receiving the external legal assessment from the law firm Poul Schmith. I find it obscene that the Naalakkersuisut has concealed this information from Inatsisartut. And I also find it contrary to Inatsisartutlov no. 6 of 13 May 1993 on the liability of Naalakkersuisut members. Allow me to quote § 6:<BR>§ 6. A member of the Naalakkersuisut is sentenced to a measure, cf. § 10, if he intentionally or through gross negligence neglects the duties incumbent on the member under the Inatsisartuts Act on Inatsisartut and Naalakkaersuisut or the legislation in general or according to the nature of his position.
PCS. 2. The provision in para. 1, shall apply mutatis mutandis if a member of the Naalakkersuisut provides Inatsisartut with incorrect or misleading information or during Inatsisartut's processing of a case conceals information which is of significant importance for Inatsisartut's assessment of the case. ”The law is, as can be seen, quite clear. The Naalakkersuisut must not withhold information that is material to Inatsisartut's assessment of a case. And it has, in my best belief, happened in this case. I look forward to receiving your questions within 10 working days.
No reply from Naaja as of 14 Mar
(20min delay)
