Well you may be right and you may be wrong. Sorry, haven't got the time to structure this post better right now but read all this if you will and you will probably get the gist of what I'm trying to say (to all of you).!!!
ACTUNDER WHICH THE EXPLORATION CONTRACT WAS SIGNED
Greenland Parliament ActNo. 7 of 7 December 2009 on mineral resources and mineral resource activities(the “Mineral Resources Act”) as amended by:· Greenland Parliament Act No. 26 of 18December 2012
· Greenland Parliament Act No. 6 of 8June 2014
· Greenland Parliament Act No. 16 of 3June 2015
· Greenland Parliament Act No. 34 of 28November 2016
· Greenland Parliament Act No. 16 of 27November 2018
· Greenland Parliament Act No. 39 of 28November 2019
Part7
Specialrules on exploration and exploitation of minerals
29 (2) A licensee who, under a license undersubsection (1) above, has discovered and delimited deposits that the licenseeintends to exploit and who has otherwise met the terms of the licenseisentitled tobe granted an exploitation license.The license may be granted to a company designated by the licensee; see section16(3) above. The license is granted for those parts of the area that containdeposits which the licensee intends to exploit. The license is granted for aperiod of 30 years, unless a shorter period has been laid down as a conditionfor granting the license.
Part 19Otherrules
89. Licensesunder this Greenland Parliament Act must stipulate the circumstancesunder which the license is forfeited or may be withdrawn by theGovernment of Greenland.
[Mineral Resources Act 2009 & revisions to 2019]
Extractedfrom
OfficialExplanatory Notes to the Mineral Resources Act
[Official Notes - Mineral Resources Act 2009]
[Study up on the special role official explanatorynotes play in interpreting statutes in Denmark --- note carefully the Danish “DeadHand Rule” in interpreting the meaning of the wording of statute law]
[Statutory Interpretation and the Rule of Law in Denmark]
Section 29 subsection (2)
The provision corresponds to section 15(2)of the current Mineral Resources Act.
The purpose of the provision is to avoidthat proven, commercially exploitable deposits are left unexploited and toattract exploration activities. Enterprises can hardly be expected to invest inexploration activities if they are not guaranteed a certain profit from suchactivities in the form of a conditional right to exploit a resource they havediscovered.
According to this provision, anexploration licence under section 16 of this bill may be extended with a viewto exploitation. A licensee is entitled to be granted an exploitation licencewhen the licensee has established the existence of a commercially exploitabledeposit of mineral resources, and the conditions of subsection (1) have beenmet. The licence is granted for the parts of the area where commerciallyexploitable mineral resources have been proven, and for a period of 30 years.The Greenland Government may demand submission of an application for approvalof an exploitation plan under section 25.
As has been the case until now, section29(2) of thebill provides for a rightfor licensees with an exploration licence to be granted an exploitation licenceon standardised terms in respect of proven deposits.from TheConstitutional Act of Denmark
§62 The administration of justice shallalways remain independent of executive authority.Rules to this effect shall be laid down by statute.
§63 (1) The courts of justice shall be empowered todecide any question relating to the scope of the executive’s authority; thoughany person wishing to question such authority shall not, by taking the case tothe courts of justice, avoid temporary compliance with orders given by theexecutive authority
NOTE:
Generally accepted legalprinciple of “Nemo Judex In Sua Causa” (ie.can’t be judge in one’s owncase) is thus effectively enshrined in the Danish constitution. Consequently, as simultaneously Minister of Mineral Resources, instigator of the refusal of ETM’s exploitation permit AND Minister of Justice, Naaja N. must be AND be seen to be at arm’s length from this case. How can that be AND be seen to be the case where (a) as Minister she IS the “Executive Authority” for mining in Greenland (b) she is a prominent member of the intelligentsia in a small community (ie.Nuuk) in which she will inevitably have social interactions with the two (only) judges who preside over the Greenland’s High Court (uncomfortable fact?) and (c) these same judges who are being called upon to adjudicate ultimately report to her office as Minister of Justice? Thus fairness of due process demands that this particular case should be adjudicated at independent arbitration or by the Danish Supreme Court in Copenhagen, but certainly not by the High Court of Greenland.
[Denmark(and despite their autonomy for now Greenland is still a part of Denmark) stillhas its international reputation to consider (see link)]
World Justice Project 2021
