Member Info for PAYJJ

these documents that they have been submitted by the board member as well
the signatory in the company that is the applicant in the case and by the applicant's
representatives and that the Ministry of Trade and Industry, in the light of e.g. earlier
correspondence in the case has made the assessment that there is no reason to
5 communicate these documents with other stakeholders in the case. When it
applies to other documents covered by the issue has the Ministry of Trade and Industry
made the assessment that it is currently clearly unnecessary to
communicate these documents with the applicant in the case.
With regard to the committee's question as to the reason why a letter was received
10 The Ministry of Trade and Industry in August 2019 was not registered until November 2019
stated that the letter did not contain a record number or any direct
reference to the case and that it was not clear in any other way that
the letter was relevant to the case. Of the email signature on the document
it appeared that the sender represented the company Beowulf Mining plc
The company is not a party to the case.

Memoranda from the Government Offices
15 The committee has requested answers through three letters sent to the Government Offices
on certain issues. In response, the committee received on 9 January 2020, 6 February 2020
and on 27 October 2020 three memoranda from the Ministry of Trade and Industry (Appendix
A3.3.2–4). The memoranda mainly state the following.
The cases in question are very extensive and complicated. As for
In the current case, it is stated that since March 2018, the
measures have been taken in the form of legal investigations and various
considerations. Such preparation measures are not reflected in a case file.
The preparation has resulted in a position that the UN organization for
education, science and culture (Unesco) should be given the opportunity to reassess
The activities covered by the application have an impact on the Laponia World Heritage Site.
As part of the preparations for such a referral, certain documents in
the case was translated into English.
According to the Ministry of Trade and Industry's assessment, the Minister of Finance
Ministry, Ministry of Education, Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Trade and Industry
And the Ministry of Culture affected by the case. The case must therefore be prepared in
consultation with relevant ministers. The Ministry of Finance is responsible for e.g.
administrative matters concerning the general guidelines for financial
policy and for the county administrative boards. The Ministry of Education is responsible for e.g.
administrative matters concerning horizontal UNESCO matters. Environment-
35 the ministry is responsible for e.g. the Environmental Code. The Ministry of Trade and Industry is responsible
for i.a. administrative matters concerning regional growth, in so far as such
matters do not belong to any other ministry, and for the reindeer herding industry.
The Ministry of Culture is responsible for for administrative matters that apply
national minorities in Sweden, insofar as such matters do not belong to anything
40 other ministries, as well as the language and culture of the Sami people. The
joint preparation of this case is not completed.
In response to the committee's question on the reasons why a number of documents in
the case has not been communicated to the other party is stated in the case of some of

In the autumn of 2014, the committee stated that the processing times were in several cases
long and that in several cases it took a long time without
documented processing measures (ref. 2014/15: KU10 p. 20 f.). In his answer
on the committee's questions, the Government Offices stated that a strained work situation
for employees and turnover of staff was one explanation for the long
35 processing times. The committee emphasized that this was not acceptable
situations arise in the ministries that the handling of matters pertaining to
Exercise of authority against individuals is delayed due to the personnel situation
is not satisfactory. This position was repeated in the autumn of 2016, then
The Committee also reiterated that the handling of complex administrative
40 cases require an efficient and effective organization (bet.
2016/17: KU10 p. 19 f.).
The committee also repeated its previous ones in the spring of 2017 and the autumn of 2018
positions regarding long processing times in administrative
cases handled by the government and emphasized once again the importance of the work of shortening processing times is progressing (ref. 2016/17: KU20
p. 121 f. and bet. 2018/19: KU10 p. 17 f.).
Within the framework of its review, the committee has also emphasized the importance of
that public documents are registered (see, inter alia, ref. 2012/13: KU10 p. 22 f., ref.
5 2014/15: KU10 pp. 20 f., Bet. 2014/15: KU20 p. 170 f. And bet. 2016/17: KU20
pp. 143 f.). In these contexts, the committee has emphasized the right to take part
public documents constitute a cornerstone of the Swedish legal system and are of
central importance for opinion formation, for debate and for transparency and control
of the activities of the authorities. A basic prerequisite for this
10 right should work in the intended way is according to the committee that the public can gain knowledge
about what documents are in the possession of an authority, and the purpose of
the provisions on registration are to guarantee public access to
public documents.

Previous review
The question of processing times in the government's administrative matters has been
subject to review by the Constitutional Committee on a number of previous occasions.
The following review matters can be mentioned here.
5 In the autumn of 2010, the committee noted that the processing time in several of the
examined the administrative matters had been very long, which according to the committee
was not satisfactory (ref. 2010/11: KU10 p. 16 f.). In some cases, it touched
processing times of between four and eight years and for a few more
the processing time was just over or about two years. In several of the cases appeared
10 a long time have passed without any handling measures at all
taken. The committee noted that certain measures to shorten the
the times had been taken within the Government Offices but that these possibly should
have been inserted before.
In the autumn of 2012, the committee noted that the processing time in two of the
15 examined the cases with regard to the nature of the cases had been too long - just over
eight and almost three years respectively - and that a long time had passed in the cases in addition
from completed correspondence until a decision has been announced (ref. 2012/13: KU10
pp. 17 f.). The committee emphasized that this was obviously not satisfactory
long processing times and generally emphasized the importance of processing
20 of cases are not delayed unnecessarily.
In the autumn of 2013, the committee examined e.g. certain appeal cases and
stated that it was of course unsatisfactory that the processing times in one
number of cases was long (ref. 2013/14: KU10 p. 26 f.). It moved around
half of the cases concerning processing times of between one and a half and
25 just over two years. Furthermore, it was noted that in some cases a long time had passed without
no investigative measures have been taken or that a long time has elapsed between completed
correspondence and the Government's decision in the matter. The committee emphasized that
the handling of complex administrative matters requires an efficient and
appropriate organization.

- On 9 October 2017, the Ministry of Trade and Industry requested an opinion from
The County Administrative Board of Norrbotten County. The opinion would, according to
The Ministry may also include the possible mining operations
impact on Laponia.
Such an opinion was received, together with supplementary opinions
from the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the National Heritage Board, to the Ministry of Trade and Industry
on 30 November 2017. The County Administrative Board's overall assessment is in
25 that there are compelling reasons why the application for
concession for Kallak should not be granted. The County Administrative Board's opinion was sent
by the Ministry of Trade and Industry to e.g. Bergsstaten, Norrbotten Region,
Jokkmokk municipality, the Swedish Sami National Association and Jokkmokk
Iron Mines AB for any comments.
30 - Such opinions were received after deferral granted to the Ministry of Trade and Industry
at the end of January and the beginning of February 2018.
- Further communication of received comments was made, with
the opportunity to comment again no later than March 2018. Some such
comments were received by the Ministry of Trade and Industry in March 2018.
35 - Jokkmokk Iron Mines AB and the parent company Beowulf Mining have since
submitted some letters to the Ministry of Trade and Industry in October 2018, in
February, April, July and November 2019 and in September 2020. I
In this context, it can be noted that a letter received by the Business
the ministry on 21 august 2019 was not registered until 5 november
40 2019.

decision in the case and also not refer the case on the grounds that
the quarry master in the application of chs. 3 and 4 the Environmental Code finds reason to
deviate from what the county administrative board has proposed (compare Chapter 8, Section 2, Section 2 of the Minerals Act).
The miner, on the other hand, considers that the question of how a planned business
5 impact on a World Heritage Site shall be dealt with in a concession review is
an issue of such a controversial nature that it can be referred to the government
with the support of ch. 8 2 § 1 of the Minerals Act (an issue that is particularly important
from a general point of view).
The miner requests in connection with the referral that the government take
10 position to which authority is to make the assessment of the applicant
the potential impact of the business on the Laponia World Heritage Site, it submits
the authority to issue such an opinion and then decide the matter
processing concession. Even if the government believes that the application should again
returned to the quarry master, the quarry master requests that the government first take
15 position on the issue of competent authority.
Following the referral, the Government has taken the following
measures:

The second government case (N2017 / 04553 / FÖF)
After a re-examination of the application for a processing concession for the area
Kallak again referred the mayor to the government on June 29, 2017.
The mayor states in the decision that there are divided opinions in the case
30 which authority is competent to take a position on the planned
impact of mining on Laponia World Heritage Site: County Administrative Board or
The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the National Heritage Board. The miner believes that
the examination shall be made by the county administrative board in the county where the concession area is located
as it is the authority that the quarry master should consult with
35 the application of current provisions in the Environmental Code. The County Administrative Board in
Norrbotten County, on the other hand, has argued that the trial in this part lies
at the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the National Heritage Board in their capacity as national
world heritage authorities. These two authorities have in turn made the assessment
that there is a risk of a negative impact on the reindeer husbandry business that is
40 a national interest, that this national interest has great significance for the area's status as
world heritage but that it is up to the County Administrative Board to make the final
the trial in the case, also in the part concerning the impact on the world heritage.
The absence of the County Administrative Board's position on possible mining operations
impact on Laponia means, according to the miner, that she can not communicate

The County Administrative Board considered that a processing concession should not be granted
because mining would have too extensive an impact on the area.
The County Administrative Board also said that it was unclear what the effects would be
transports to and from the mine.
5 In February 2015, the quarry master decided that with the support of ch. 2 § 2
the Minerals Act, refer the concession case to the Government for review. The
was, according to the quarry master, lacking sufficient investigation as to the extent of
the intrusion that would be caused in the concession area. The Miner
therefore considered itself, unlike the County Administrative Board, not to be able to assess the rules
10 in Chapters 3 and 4 the Environmental Code constituted an obstacle to the concession.
During the Government's handling of the case, there was an exchange of letters
statements from Jokkmokk Iron Mining AB, County Administrative Board of Norrbotten County,
The Sami Parliament, the Sami villages concerned, the mayor, the UNESCO World Heritage Committee,
The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the National Heritage Board. During the processing
15 the HFD announced its above-mentioned judgment. The change of writing thus came, among other things. to
refer to the parties' view of the consequences of the judgment for the case in question
the case.
The Government decided on 30 June 2016 to return the case to
the miner for new treatment. The government justified the decision by saying that
The legal situation had been clarified by HFD's judgment as to which land use
to be tried in a case of a processing concession under the Minerals Act.
According to the government, the current case should be handled and tried
starting point in the assessment HFD had made in the matter, and such an examination
should be done in the first instance. According to the government, the trial would also apply
The possible impact of the planned mining on the Laponia World Heritage Site.

The cases concerning processing concessions under the Minerals Act for
the area of ??Kallak
20 Application for a processing concession for ore mining in Kallak K no. 1 i
The municipality of Jokkmokk (Kallak) has been referred to the government for review
two occasions and has therefore led to two different cases with the government. The first
the case is closed and the second is ongoing.
The first government case (N2015 / 01677 / FÖF)
25 On 25 April 2013, Jokkmokk Iron Mines AB applied to the quarry master for
processing concession for the Kallak area. Jokkmokk Iron Mines AB is one
subsidiary of the British company Beowulf Mining. Attached to the application
i.a. an environmental impact statement and a calculation of the mineral resource.
Kallak is located in an area that is considered to be of national interest for the reindeer herding industry.
30 It is also located in the Laponia region, which, by the UN Educational Organization,
Science and Culture, Unesco, has been designated a World Heritage Site with regard to both culture
and nature. In the vicinity of the concession area there is also a primeval forest area
which is Natura 2000-rated.
The mining master received statements from e.g. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Riks-
35 antiquarian office, Sami villages with reindeer husbandry rights within the concession area
and a number of private individuals. The miner further consulted with the County Administrative Board
in Norrbotten County.
The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the National Heritage Board believed that there was a risk
for the planned mining to affect the Laponia World Heritage Site.
40 The Sami villages stated that the reindeer husbandry they carry out within the concession area
would be adversely affected by mining and by industrial areas and transport
roads outside the concession area.

A judgment from the Supreme Administrative Court
40 The Supreme Administrative Court (HFD) ruled in a judgment on 22 February 2016 in one
case of judicial review, although the review of a concession case according to
the Minerals Act should not be limited to the geographical area directly
covered by the activities to which the concession case applies, for example
area where a planned mine is located. The test according to chs. 3 and 4
According to HFD, the Environmental Code must also refer to land use in
areas that may be affected by the business and which are
necessary for the business, such as land use for operating facilities.
5 It also follows from the judgment that if a mine can affect Natura 2000 areas
the project must have a permit in accordance with the rules of the Environmental Code before the quarry master can
approve a processing concession. Practice had previously meant that
the environmental assessment was done in a final step, when a mine had already been obtained
processing concession under the Minerals Act.
10 The permit for a processing concession that was covered by HFD's judgment
referred to the right to mine earth metals in an area in Jönköping municipality. The
According to the court, it could not be ruled out that the neighboring Natura 2000
areas would be significantly affected by the planned
mining, e.g. through the forthcoming location of operating facilities.
15 However, no examination had been made of the application of Chapters 3 and 4.
the Environmental Code in such areas, and therefore HFD repealed the government's decision
on granted concession.

Registration of public documents
A document is according to ch. Section 4 of the Freedom of the Press Ordinance is general about it
kept by an authority and is to be regarded as having been received by or established
with an authority. According to ch. 5, public documents must § 1 publicity
20 and the Secrecy Act (2009: 400) as a general rule are registered as soon as they have
submitted to or drawn up by an authority.
The Species and Habitats Directive and Natura 2000
Council Directive 92/43 / EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats
and wildlife (often referred to as the Species and Habitats Directive)
Promote biodiversity through the conservation of habitats, animals and
plants in the Member States. The directive states i.a. which species and habitat types
to be protected within the EU; the annexes to the directive list habitat types as well as animal and
plant species whose conservation requires the designation of specific areas of conservation or
which require special protection. Member States are obliged to ensure that these species
And habitat types have so-called favorable conservation status, which means that
distribution area, area, population development and other qualities are available
and can be maintained.
The directive has been implemented in Swedish legislation, e.g. by provisions of
the Environmental Code.
35 In order to protect the species listed in the Directive, special conservation
areas are set aside to be included in the so-called The Natura 2000 network. The network
also covers areas selected in accordance with Council Directive 79/409 / EEC on
conservation of wild birds.

but also for the authorities. If the treatment in many cases drags on
time easily creates large case balances. The authorities then have to spend a lot
time to answer questions about the pending cases. Not seldom
duplication of work arises because the cases must be read in by different people
5 administrators. However, according to the committee, it is the individual who is hardest hit
that the case processing takes time. To have to go and in uncertainty
wait for a long time for a government decision that may apply to issues that have
crucial to a person's financial or personal circumstances
can cause insecurity and personal suffering, perhaps even financial
10 losses. According to the committee, this is not a purely service issue but deals with
to a large extent also about the legal security of the individual.
The government is not an administrative authority within the meaning of the Public Administration Act.
Despite this, it has been considered important that the government follows the principles set out
the Public Administration Act expresses (SB PM 2012: 2 The Yellow Book - Decisions and
15 Minutes of the Government, p. 47).

The Public Administration Act
The Public Administration Act (2017: 900) contains provisions on the handling of
matters before administrative authorities and the handling of administrative
25 cases in courts. The law regulates the grounds for good administration through
the principles of legality, objectivity and proportionality. Here is also available
basic rules on government services, accessibility and
cooperation.
The Public Administration Act also contains certain general requirements for processing
30 of cases. One such is the requirement for urgent processing: According to section 9,
cases are handled as easily, quickly and cost-effectively as possible without
that legal certainty is neglected. Another is the requirement in section 25 for communication:
Before an authority makes a decision in a case, it must, if it is not
obvious that it is not necessary, as a general rule, inform the party
35 all material relevant to the decision and give the party an opportunity to within a
certain time to comment on the material.
In addition, there are provisions in the Public Administration Act on e.g. party insight,
conflict of interest and the right to an interpreter and representative.
The issue of expedited processing was given special attention in
the preparatory work for the Public Administration Act.1 40 The Constitution Committee stated (bet.
1985/86: KU21 p. 9 f.) That this is a central issue for the individual people

Certain provisions in the Environmental Code
In Chapters 3 and 4 The Environmental Code contains provisions on the management of land and
water areas. These provisions contain i.a. regulations on the protection of
areas that are of national interest for, for example, cultural environmental protection or
5 outdoor life.
Of ch. 3 Section 5 follows i.a. that such areas as are relevant to
reindeer husbandry or commercial fishing or for aquaculture as far as possible
protected against measures that could significantly impede the operation of industries.
Areas of national interest for reindeer husbandry or commercial fishing must be protected
10 against such measures. According to ch. 4 Section 5 of the Environmental Code may in certain specified
mountain areas buildings and facilities come into being only if it
needed for the reindeer husbandry, the resident population, the scientific
research or the active outdoor life. Other measures in these areas
may be taken only if it can be done without affecting the character of the areas.
15 Special rules also apply to areas covered by EU species and
Habitats Directives and Birds Directives, so-called Natura 2000 sites (see below). Of
Chapter 7 Section 28 a of the Environmental Code stipulates that a permit is required to conduct activities
or take measures that can significantly affect the environment in such
areas, and of ch. 4 Section 8 of the Environmental Code stipulates that a use that can
20 affect a Natura 2000 site may not occur without one
permission.

Cases concerning the granting of a processing concession are examined by
the master, who shall consult with the county administrative board on the question of the balance that
shall be made in accordance with the Environmental Code. The County Administrative Board submits a proposal to the quarry master
30 which also informs the affected Sami villages and gives them the opportunity to comment
over the application. A granted processing concession is valid for 25 years. The Miner
is head of Bergsstaten, which is a unit within Sweden's geological
survey (SGU). The mountain state handles matters relating to exploration
and extraction of minerals (Sections 13 and 14 of the Ordinance [2008: 1233] with
35 instructions for the Swedish Geological Survey).
A case concerning the granting of a processing concession shall be referred to
the government if the miner considers the issue of concession to be special
significant from a general point of view or if he or she in the application of
Chapters 3 and 4 The Environmental Code finds reason to deviate from what the County Administrative Board has proposed
40 (Chapter 8, Sections 2 and 1 of the Minerals Act).

The Ministry of Trade and Industry's handling of the case. The review should refer partly to which
organizational and other measures that have been taken to shorten
the processing time in the case, partly if sufficient resources have been set aside for
preparation of the case. According to the notification, the review should also refer to
5 the Prime Minister, who has the overall responsibility for the government and
The Government Offices has the organization and the routines required for a correct
handling of administrative matters.
Documentation for the review
The basis for the review is e.g. memoranda with appendices from
10 Ministry of Trade and Industry, Appendix A3.3.2. – 4.
Investigation in the case
Applicable order
Processing concession according to the Minerals Act
The Minerals Act (1991: 45) applies according to ch. § 1 examination and processing
15 of deposits on own or someone else's land of a number of listed minerals
substances (concession mineral). One of these minerals is iron found in
the bedrock. Processing means the extraction and utilization of one
concession mineral and only those who have a processing concession may
as a general rule, carry out processing (Chapter 1, Sections 3 and 4).
20 According to ch. Section 2 of the Minerals Act, a processing concession shall be notified
a deposit that can probably be utilized financially has been found
and the location and nature of the deposit do not make it inappropriate for the applicant to receive
the requested concession. In cases concerning the granting of a concession, 3 and
Chapter 4 and ch. 5 Section 15 of the Environmental Code applies. These provisions include
That a balance must be struck between the measures covered by the application and
certain public interests (see below).

3.3 Application for a processing concession for Kallak
The case
Registration
In a notification to the Constitutional Committee (no. 269-2019 / 20), Appendix A3.3.1,
it is requested that the committee examine how the government handles an application for
25 processing concession relates to i.a. the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act
on expeditious processing. The notification mainly states the following.
In April 2013, a mining company applied for a processing concession for
iron ore mining in the area Kallak K no. 1 in Jokkmokk municipality. In the area
is Europe's largest unprocessed iron ore deposit. The permit matter has
30 then referred between Bergsstaten, the County Administrative Board, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency,
The National Heritage Board and the government. The case has been in the hands of others since 2017
time with the government for decision. The mining company, which has thus waited over
six years on a decision in the case, has invested over SEK 80 million in the project.
The lack of legal certainty for the establishment of mines in Sweden does not affect
Only investors and municipalities without the whole of Sweden, because it risks that
damage interest in investing in a sustainable mining industry and contribute to
depopulation of sparsely populated areas.
According to the notification, the Constitution Committee should examine the former Minister of Trade and Industry
Mikael Dambergs, current Minister of Trade and Industry Ibrahim Baylans and

Haha, don't worry...mine has not arrived either. All I have is the online communication from Halifax.

Obviously, considering a new profile was made in order to post this...I would assume it's just a massive ramp. It made me come take a look though.

It was BauerJ

1 post of all time on their profile