Naaja about Greenland Minerals: They must stand in a Greenlandic...

Naaja about Greenland Minerals: They must stand in a Greenlandic courtroom

There is no basis for involving a Danish arbitration in the issue of Greenland Minerals' claims, assesses Naaja H. Nathanielsen. She expects the claim for an arbitration case to be dismissed.

Naalakkersuisoq Naaja Nathanielsen believes that Greenland Minerals is trying to get around the uranium ban, which was adopted in the autumn. Leiff Josefsen

THOMAS MUNK VEIRUMFriday, March 25, 2022 - 10:22

It has not fallen into good soil at naalakkersuisoq for raw materials that Greenland Minerals has submitted a so-called complaint, in which the company requests an arbitration case.

According to Naalakkersuisut, Greenland Minerals wants to involve the Danish state in the case, but if a claim for compensation is to be processed, it must take place in a Greenlandic courtroom under Greenlandic law, says naalakkersuisoq Naaja H. Nathanielsen:

ALSO READ:

Greenland minerals threatens compensation claims

- I can state that Greenland Minerals has repeatedly stated that they do not believe that the uranium ban concerns them, and they are welcome to have that interpretation clarified in a courtroom, which must, however, be settled on Greenlandic land under Greenlandic law, writes Naaja H. Nathanielsen in a written reply to Sermitsiaq.AG.

On Thursday, law professor Peter Pagh pointed out that it is to mix things up when the Naalakkersuisut states that Greenland Minerals does not respect the Greenlandic people's desire for a uranium ban and democracy.

Rejects criticism from professor

It is normal to initiate arbitration if two parties view an agreement differently. And even though a uranium ban has been introduced, the Self-Government may well be liable for damages, explained the professor, who emphasizes that he does not know the agreement with the Self-Government and Greenland Minerals.

However, Naaja H. Nathanielsen does not agree at all with:

ALSO READ:

Professor of Arbitration Announcement: Self-Governing Gossip

- When Greenland Minerals chooses to initiate an arbitration case against Greenland, it is because they want to prevail that the uranium ban should not apply to them and seek to enforce the possibility of extracting uranium despite the uranium ban. Thus, they respect neither the democratic legislative process in Greenland nor the population's desire for a uranium ban, she says.

Question: Professor Peter Pagh explains that if an arbitration is to take place, it must either already be agreed in the agreement, or the parties must agree on it afterwards. Does the agreement with Greenland Minerals state that an arbitration case can be initiated in the event of a dispute?

- Decisions can not be appealed

- It is stated in the terms of the company's permit that the authorities' discretionary decisions cannot be decided by arbitration. In the same way, it is stipulated in the Mineral Resources Act that decisions in the mineral resources area must be brought before the Court in Greenland. Greenland Minerals wants the arbitral tribunal in Denmark to decide whether they can obtain an exploitation permit in Greenland and whether they are covered by the Uranium Act.

- It is precisely these matters that the Greenlandic authorities must make a discretionary decision in accordance with the law and the terms of the company's permit. That decision can be appealed to the Court in Greenland. It can not be decided by an arbitral tribunal in Denmark, writes Naaja H. Nathanielsen.

ALSO READ:

Party Chairman on Arbitration Request: Expected and a Potential Disaster

Following the adoption of a new uranium ban in the autumn, an effective halt has been put to Greenland Minerals' otherwise advanced project on the Kuannersuit. It has been awaited with some excitement how the company will react to the change in the law, and the Naalakkersuisut has stated that the question of compensation may end in a lawsuit.

Question: Naalakkersuisoq states that it "expects" that the arbitration application will be rejected. Is there any doubt about this when naalakkersuisoq also states that there is no basis for an arbitration case in the agreement? Do decisions in Denmark influence whether it comes to an arbitration case?

- There is no doubt that the legally correct decision would be to reject the arbitration case, but you can never be 100% sure of something when you do not make the decision yourself and therefore I write "expect". We have the law on our side and it is therefore my clear expectation that the case is rejected. Denmark has no influence on this, as the raw materials area is a home-grown area.