Arbitration decision surprises mineral resources company

On Monday, the arbitration court ruled on the award of legal costs in the case filed by Greenland Minerals/Energy Transition Minerals against Naalakkersuisut.

The decision follows the arbitration court's decision back in October 2025 that they do not have competence to handle the case.

The decision states that the company must pay 90 percent of Naalakkersuisut's legal costs, corresponding to approximately 14.3 million kroner, within 30 days.

The expenses cover legal fees, costs for the handling of the case (fees for judges and other staff, rent of premises, catering, etc.), as well as costs for, among other things, copying, transport and translations.

Naalakkersuisut is satisfied with the decision

Naalakkersuisut Minister for Industry, Minerals, Energy, Justice and Equality, Naaja H. Nathanielsen, states in connection with the decision that she is satisfied with the outcome:

– Naalakkersuisut is incredibly satisfied with the decision, which is a natural consequence of our being successful in the issue of the arbitral tribunal's competence last autumn. I believe that it is the only correct decision. Naalakkersuisut has maintained throughout the case that the case belongs in the courts and cannot be brought before an arbitral tribunal. And it cannot be right to impose expenses on a plaintiff who is filing a hopeless case. That we are left with some minor expenses is to be expected when you consider that the case has cost the opposing party up to 100 million kroner, once they have paid the amount awarded to Naalakkersuisut in the decision.

– Now the case must continue in court. But right now we can be happy to have won a victory, and it is liberating that we can now focus our resources on the lawsuit, says Naaja H. Nathanielsen.

Surprised and strongly disagree with the decision

The company Greenland Minerals /Energy Transition Minerals commented on the case in a stock exchange announcement on Tuesday morning.

Here they write that they strongly disagree and are surprised by the decision.

"In our opinion, the award does not sufficiently reflect the specific circumstances of this case. The arbitral tribunal itself acknowledged that there was ambiguity regarding the correct forum in which the case should be heard, which justified our company's decision to file the arbitration case," says CEO Daniel Mamadou.

The company further points out that the decision only concerns legal costs and not the substance of the case, which is about whether the company is entitled to an exploitation permit for Kuannersuit and whether the Uranium Act, introduced in 2021, applies to their project.

The Government is delaying the process

The company believes that the self-government is delaying the process and thus delaying a decision on the merits of the case.

– Throughout the case, we have sought to establish a clear and effective path to resolving the essential issues in the dispute. However, the dispute has instead been prolonged due to legal challenges and procedural arguments about where the case should be heard, which is delaying a decision on the merits of the case, says Daniel Mamadou, who expresses disappointment that the latest decision does not reflect the "constructive and solution-oriented approach that Greenland Minerals has consistently presented during the case."

Undermines trust in Greenland

Daniel Mamadou further criticizes the course of the entire process, which he believes is damaging Greenland's reputation abroad. "While the Greenlandic government continues to present the country internationally as 'open for business', the handling of this case risks sending the opposite signal to the global mining industry. If projects can be blocked through political decisions and disputes are prolonged through procedural maneuvers instead of being resolved on the basis of the substance of the case, it will inevitably undermine the confidence of international investors considering long-term mining investments in Greenland".

Awaiting date for first court hearing

The decision on the costs of the case puts a provisional end to the arbitration case, which has been running since March 2022. However, there may still be repercussions at the arbitration court if the courts refer a possible question of the assessment of compensation to the arbitration court.

The case is now proceeding at the Greenland High Court, where a date has not yet been set for the consideration of the main issues of the case to begin.