§ 37 question 056 2022 regarding possible compensation claims as a result of the Uranium Act
Pursuant to Inatsisartut's rules of procedure § 37, para. 1, you have submitted the following questions to the Naalakkersuisut regarding possible compensation claims as a result of the Uranium Act.
In connection with the consideration of EM2021 / 23 (the uranium ban), the Naalakkersuisut mentions in its answer to questions from the Business and Mineral Resources Committee dated 20 October 2021 that it did not receive an external legal assessment from the Law Firm on 8 October of the same year. Pout Schmith on 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) a legal assessment was received from the law firm Pout Schmith. What is the reason often that one actively conceals that information for lnatsisartut?
Reply:
Initially, I would like to emphasize that no information has been withheld from lnatsisartut, and I strongly dissociate myself from that interpretation.
The bill banning preliminary investigation, exploration and extraction of uranium, etc. was thoroughly considered by Inatsisartut at the autumn meeting of 2021. In connection with lnatsisartut's consideration, the Business and Raw Materials Committee asked a number of questions, all of which were answered. The answer was attached to the committee's report for the second reading and can be accessed on lnatsisartut's website.
On October 11, 2021, the committee asked a series of questions in which you specifically ask 3 of them. The questions and the corresponding answers are given below:
Question 5:
Has the Naalakkersuisut made a legal assessment of whether failure to grant a production license in accordance with the conditions mentioned in question 4 could be regarded as expropriation?
Reply:
The proposal is not an expropriation law and therefore does not authorize the expropriation of protected property rights. Thus, a permit may not be refused or a permit may be restricted or revoked if this is specifically considered to constitute an expropriatory interference with a property protected by section 73 of the Constitution.
dom. Even under the existing Mineral Resources Act, it is not permitted to expropriate protected property rights in the form of permits.
Whether a refusal to grant an exploitation permit under conditions as mentioned in question 4 could be considered as expropriation is a concrete assessment, which depends on a large number of circumstances, and which is made in connection with the Naalakkersuisut making a decision in a given case. If in the given case it is assessed that a refusal would constitute an expropriatory intervention, the Naalakkersuisut will not be able to grant a refusal on the basis of / above, as the proposal does not provide authority for
spropriation.
Question 6:
Has the Naalakkersuisut made a legal assessment of whether the introduction of a general
ban on uranium mining could be considered as expropriation in connection with ongoing projects involving uranium?
Reply:
The proposal is not an expropriation law and therefore does not authorize expropriation of protected property rights. Thus, no refusal of a permit or restriction or revocation of a permit can be granted if this is specifically considered to constitute an expropriatory interference in a property protected by section 73 of the Constitution.
The Naalakkersuisut therefore does not consider that the introduction of a general ban on the extraction of uranium could be considered as expropriation. It is noted in this connection that the proposal does not apply to permits already granted, but nevertheless
for e.g. exploitation permits issued after the entry into force of the Act as an extension of an exploration permit issued before the entry into force of the Act.
Question 7:
Has the Naalakkersuisut made a legal assessment of whether it will be possible to raise a claim for compensation against the self-government if the assessment cf. questions 5 and 6 have shown that there could be expropriation? Has the Naalakkersuisut below made an assessment of how large a possible claim for compensation could be?
Reply:
First, it should be noted that the proposal does not provide a legal basis for the payment of compensation or other compensation to rightholders whose projects may be affected by the prohibition scheme. However, it can not be ruled out that affected rightholders will sue the Self-Government in order to obtain compensation or other compensation on another basis.
With reference to question 5, it is again noted that the proposal is not an expropriation law and therefore does not allow for refusal of exploitation permits if it is assessed that a refusal will constitute expropriation. The Naalakkersuisut will therefore also only be able to grant a refusal to grant an exploitation permit if the Naalakkersuisut has assessed that the refusal can be granted without constituting expropriation.
In this connection, however, it cannot be ruled out that the right holder who is granted a refusal wishes to bring the Naalakkersuisut's decision before the courts, and in this connection claims that the refusal constitutes expropriation. In such a situation, the claim for compensation will depend on the specific right holder, the specific project and a wide range of other circumstances.
With reference to question 6, it is noted that the adoption of the proposal, in the opinion of the Naalakkersuisut, cannot in itself constitute expropriation. The Naalakkersuisut therefore also does not consider that the Self-Government can be met with claims for compensation already as a result of the adoption of the law. "
3 days before these questions were asked, on October 8, 2021, I received an external legal assessment from the law firm Poul Schmidt. The assessment concerns whether it would constitute expropriation if applications for exploitation permits were rejected to two specific right holders. The assessment thus does not deal with the bill that Inatsisartut considered. This is supported by the fact that the assessment was commissioned before the election for lnatsisartut in 2021, and thus long before
the bill was drafted or tabled. Since the bill is not an expropriation law, the external legal assessment was not assessed significantly in relation to the consideration of the bill, nor for the answer submitted to the committee. It should be mentioned, however, that the law firm Poul Schmidt has assisted in drafting the uranium law.
The 3 questions from the committee have thus been answered correctly and nothing has been concealed.
It is also noted that the Business and Mineral Resources Committee was informed of the external legal assessment by the law firm Poul Schmith at a committee meeting on October 22, 2021. A committee meeting where the chairman of the Democrats was extraordinarily invited despite the fact that he did not have a seat on the committee. The invitation was just given to ensure broad involvement and information sharing.
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, please explain why the Naalakkersuisut actively withheld this information from lnatsisartut
Reply:
The preparation of the external legal assessment was initiated before the election to lnatsisartut in 2021 and it is thus not something that the current Naalakkersuisut has had an influence on. However, I have been informed that the external assessment came as a result of an internal administrative preliminary assessment of possible conditions by Greenland Minerals' permit in the spring of 2021.
See also the answer to question 1.
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 state why the Naalakkersuisut does not see it as a concealment of information that must be regarded as material to lnatsisartut's assessment of the case.
Reply:
I dissociate myself from the interpretation that information has been concealed with reference to the above answer.
On the other hand, the Naalakkersuisut has answered all the committee's questions in connection with the consideration of the bill. In addition, there has been additional involvement as the Democrats have been invited to a committee meeting where the party was not represented. This is to give all parties equal access to knowledge and to ask questions.
Yours sincerely
. Nathanielsen
