Australian Minerals Corporation to Withdraw Case Against Danish Government
The Australian Minerals Corporation’s Energy Transition Minerals (ETM) arm, through its Greenlandic subsidiary Greenland Minerals, is set to withdraw its lawsuit against the Danish government. The company claims it was unjustly denied an exploitation permit for the Kuannersuit project in Greenland. Consequently, the case will now proceed solely in Greenland’s High Court.
A Step Towards Clarity
This decision reflects the company’s response to recent rulings from both the arbitration court and the Copenhagen City Court, which have clarified the legal avenues available for the case. Daniel Mamadou, director of ETM, expressed optimism about this development in a recent press release. “We are pleased with the clarity provided by the courts, and by removing the last procedural hurdle, we can now advance to the substantive phase in Greenland’s High Court,” Mamadou stated. He further indicated that the company anticipates a swift response from authorities, noting, “They have had several years to prepare their arguments.”
A Legal Matter for Greenland
In light of the developments, Naaja H. Nathanielsen, Greenland’s Minister for Business, Raw Materials, Energy, Justice, and Equality, made it clear that the Danish government should not be involved in this case. “This case ought to be tried in Greenland, not Denmark. It is simply the right approach. The Danish state cannot be a party to a lawsuit concerning a Greenlandic law enacted by our parliament, which falls under our jurisdiction,” she asserted.
Contested Mining Rights
The heart of the matter lies in the company’s claim that its project at Kuannersuit has faced unwarranted delays due to the Uranium Act, enacted in 2021. The lawsuit argues that the company has a legal right to an exploitation permit and contends that the Uranium Act should not apply to its existing exploration permit. Furthermore, ETM suggests that previous refusals from the Naalakkersuisut (the Government of Greenland) to grant an exploitation permit were unfounded, and the company expects compensation should its permit request be ultimately denied.
‘Desperate Spin’ or Legal Rhetoric?
Regarding ETM’s assertions, Nathanielsen expressed strong disagreement, stating that the company does not possess a legal claim to an exploitation permit. “Greenland Minerals’ application was properly processed under the Uranium Act,” she said, describing the parent company’s recent announcements as “desperate spin.” She urged the company to allow the courts to resolve the matter, emphasizing that the issue should be determined within the legal framework, not in the media.
In a final note, ETM reiterated its commitment to engaging constructively with both Greenlandic and Danish politicians and authorities to seek solutions that benefit all stakeholders and foster long-term value for Greenland.
As of now, the first court hearing between Greenland Minerals/Energy Transition Minerals and the self-government has yet to be scheduled.