{"id":2671,"date":"2015-04-26T19:00:19","date_gmt":"2015-04-26T17:00:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/kpnet.dk\/blogs\/?p=2671"},"modified":"2015-04-29T21:07:34","modified_gmt":"2015-04-29T19:07:34","slug":"mette-frederiksen-i-dobbeltrolle-i-grundlovssag","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kpnet.dk\/blogs\/martinthiemke\/mette-frederiksen-i-dobbeltrolle-i-grundlovssag","title":{"rendered":"METTE FREDERIKSEN I DOBBELTROLLE I GRUNDLOVSSAG"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"mette
\n<\/a>Af<\/em> Martin Thiemke<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

For over et \u00e5r siden begyndte en gruppe borgere at arbejde p\u00e5 at st\u00e6vne staten for brud p\u00e5 Grundloven i forbindelse med gensidig fors\u00f8rgerpligt for samlevende kontantshj\u00e6lpsmodtagere.<\/p>\n

En sag som mange vurderer hurtigt kan blive en af de st\u00f8rste sager mod staten, idet den vil f\u00e5 betydning for alle der p\u00e5 den ene eller anden m\u00e5de bliver ramt af sygdom eller arbejdsl\u00f8shed, eller som allerede er ramt.<\/p>\n

Sagen blev for et \u00e5r siden taget ud af st\u00f8beformen og er p\u00e5 vej til Justitsministeriets bord til s\u00f8gning om friproces i Civilretsstyrelsen under justitsministeren og samlet set vil alle medlemmer g\u00e5 under den frie proces p\u00e5 lige fod med hinanden.<\/p>\n

N\u00e5r der s\u00e5 ikke er sket mere med ans\u00f8gningen om friproces til grundlovssagen i det seneste \u00e5r, rejser det nogle principielle sp\u00f8rgsm\u00e5l. Civilretsstyrelsen oplyste for et \u00e5r siden, der kunne forventes en normal behandlingstid p\u00e5 et halvt \u00e5r. Dette er for l\u00e6ngst g\u00e5et og overskredet med adskillige m\u00e5neder. Styregruppen bag grundlovssagen er bekendt med at ans\u00f8gningen til fri proces ligger klar til afg\u00f8relse i civilretsstyrelsen og dette ikke er helt nyt.<\/p>\n

Derfor rejser sig et altafg\u00f8rende sp\u00f8rgsm\u00e5l om afg\u00f8relsen af fri proces syltes i civilretsstyrelsen eller politisk. Der er jo politikere og partier som har interesse i at grundlovssagen mod staten og kommuner ikke bliver til noget. Der er ogs\u00e5 politiske motiver nok til, at enkelte politikere har interesse i at f\u00e5 afg\u00f8relsen syltet. S\u00e5 sp\u00f8rgsm\u00e5let, der rejser sig, med en afg\u00f8relse som \u00e5benlyst bliver syltet, er af hvem? Civilretsstyrelsen, politisk eller i samarbejde? Vurder selv.<\/p>\n

Statsministeriet og statsministeren har en politisk interesse i at beskytte sin enkelte fagminister, i denne sag dav\u00e6rende besk\u00e6ftigelsesminister, Mette Frederiksen.<\/p>\n

Justitsministeriet og nuv\u00e6rende justitsminister, Mette Frederiksen, er \u00f8verste myndighed for Civilretsstyrelsen som skal tr\u00e6ffe afg\u00f8relse om friproces for grundlovssagen, og har b\u00e5de en politisk og personlig interesse i at grundlovssagen enten tr\u00e6kker ud eller ikke bliver til noget, idet nuv\u00e6rende justitsminister er selv samme Mette Frederiksen, som var besk\u00e6ftigelsesminister ved freml\u00e6ggelse og vedtagelse af kontanthj\u00e6lpsreformen.<\/p>\n

Civilretsstyrelsen har samme interesse i at kunne tr\u00e6kke afg\u00f8relsen om fri proces for grundlovssagen ud som Justitsministeriet, idet ministeriet er styrelsens \u00f8verste myndighed og man som styrelse dermed kan \u201dpasse\u201d p\u00e5 sin minister.<\/p>\n

Alt i alt tegner sig samlet set, ud fra hvad jeg kan se, et billede af politisk interesse i at Civilretsstyrelsen ikke kommer frem til en afg\u00f8relse om friproces i grundlovssagen mod staten og flere kommuner i forbindelse med gensidig fors\u00f8rgelsespligt for samlevende kontanthj\u00e6lpsmodtagere, inden det kommende folketingsvalg, trods sagen ligger klar til afg\u00f8relse i Civilretsstyrelsen p\u00e5 nuv\u00e6rende tidspunkt.<\/p>\n

Enhver som skal afg\u00f8re om andre m\u00e5 f\u00e5 mulighed for at st\u00e6vne sin chef, skal forholde sig mere end yderst neutral i forhold til sagen. Jeg vil mene, at de fleste vil blive betragtet som inhabile. Her er en sag om brud p\u00e5 grundloven foretaget et folketingsflertal og hvor en instans, Civilretsstyrelsen, under Folketinget, skal tr\u00e6ffe s\u00e5dan en afg\u00f8relse, som ligger klar.<\/p>\n

Jeg skal ikke sige om Civilretsstyrelsen er inhabil i sager mod Staten eller i sager med folketingsflertal. Men jeg finder det ikke retssikkert og uproblematisk at en styrelse under landet ledelse skal tr\u00e6ffe s\u00e5dan en afg\u00f8relse.<\/p>\n

Det kunne jo v\u00e6re en af de grundl\u00e6ggende \u00e5rsager til, at afg\u00f8relsen om fri proces i denne grundlovssag, tr\u00e6kker ud i Civilretsstyrelsen, at der er en minister som sidder med en helt tydelig dobbeltrolle, f\u00f8rst som besk\u00e6ftigelsesminister og nu som justitsminister.<\/p>\n

Dog ville en person, der sidder med en dobbeltrolle som Mette Frederiksen g\u00f8r i denne sag, v\u00e6re blevet erkl\u00e6ret inhabil i enhver anden sammenh\u00e6ng.<\/p>\n

Om hvorfor en afg\u00f8relse, som ligger klar endnu ikke er afgjort i Civilretsstyrelsen, er uklart. Dog er det klart og nu ogs\u00e5 \u00e5benlyst klart, at afg\u00f8relsen p\u00e5 den ene eller anden m\u00e5de tr\u00e6kkes ud. Dette til gene for borgerne. Om der\u00a0ligger et\u00a0politisk motiv til grund, skal jeg lade v\u00e6re usagt, ligeledes om der er sket eller sker politisk un\u00f8dig indblanding i afg\u00f8relsen skal jeg lade v\u00e6re usagt, kun at det er set f\u00f8r i sager, der har vedr\u00f8rt politikere.<\/p>\n

In English<\/em>
\nMETTE FREDERIKSEN IS PLAYING A DOUBLE ROLE IN CONSTITUTIONAL\u00a0CASE
\n<\/em><\/p>\n

More than a year ago a group of Danish citizens started work on taking out a summons against the government for breaching the constitution in connection with the mutual support obligation for recipients of social security.<\/p>\n

As it will have great significance to all Danes that have been or are going to be affected by disease or unemployment, this case is estimated by many to become one of the largest cases against the government.<\/p>\n

A year ago the case was taken out of its mold, and it is now on its way to the Ministry of Justice. An application for legal aid for all plaintiffs has been applied for in the ministry’s Department of Civil Affairs.<\/p>\n

Nothing much has, however, happened in the past year regarding the application for legal aid in the constitutional case, and this raises some fundamerntal questions. A year ago the Department of Civil Affairs stated that it would normally take them six months to consider the case. These six months have gone a long time ago. The steering committee behind the constitutional case knows that the application for legal aid has been made ready for ruling at the Department of Civil Affairs, and this is not exactly news.<\/p>\n

This raises this crucial question: Is the ruling in the case of legal aid being shelved by the Department of Civil Affairs or politically? There are politicians and political parties that have an interest in the case against the government and the local authorities does not go any further. And there are sufficient political motives for individual politicians to want the case shelved. And if the application has really been shelved, the question is by whom? The Department of Civil Affairs? Politically or in collaboration? Judge for yourself.<\/p>\n

The Prime Minister’s Office and the Prime Minister share a political interest in protecting the individual departmental minister \u2013 in this case the then Minister of Employment, Mette Frederiksen.<\/p>\n

The Ministry of Justice and the present Minister of Justice, Mette Frederiksen are the Department of Civil Affairs’ highest authorities. They both have a joint interest in the constitutional case either making slow progress or being definitely shelved. The present Minister of Justice is the very same Mette Frederiksen that was Minster of Employment at the presentation and passing of the social security reform.<\/p>\n

The Department of Civil Affairs shares the same interest in the ruling regarding the legal aid application making slow progress as the Ministry of Justice, as the ministry is the department’s highest authority and the department can thus ‘protect’ its minister.<\/p>\n

Overall, from where I stand, one can see a picture emerging \u2013 a picture of political interest in the Department of Civil Affairs not ruling on legal aid in the constitutional against the government and several local governments about the mutual support obligation for recipients of social security before the upcoming general election, despite the case already being ready for a ruling in the Department of Civil Affairs.<\/p>\n

Anyone who is going to decide whether others can be allowed to take out a summons against their boss, must observe the strictest neutrality in the matter. In my opinion most would be considered disqualified. Here we have a case about a majority in parliament breaching the constitution and an authority – the Department of Civil Affairs, subordinate to the parliament \u2013 going to issue a ruling that is ready.<\/p>\n

I cannot say whether the Department of Civil Affairs is disqualified in cases against ther government or in cases against a parliamentary majority. But I do not find it in accordance with the rule of law and unproblematic that a government department has to come to a ruling in a case like this.<\/p>\n

The minister is playing a double role \u2013 first as Minister of Employment and now as Minister of Justice \u2013 and this may be the reason why the Department of Civil Affairs is dragging its feet in the ruling on legal aid in this constitutional case. A person playing a double role \u2013 as Mette Frederiksen is in this case \u2013 would have been disqualified in any other context.<\/p>\n

Why a ruling being ready in the Department of Civil Affairs has not been finished yet is not clear. It is, however, clear \u2013 obviously clear \u2013 that the ruling in some way is dragging on to the inconvenience of the citizens. Whether this has a political reason I cannot say \u2013 as I cannot say whether there is or has been improper political intervention in the case. I can only say that this has happened before in cases involving politicians.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Af Martin Thiemke For over et \u00e5r siden begyndte en gruppe borgere at arbejde p\u00e5 at st\u00e6vne staten for brud p\u00e5 Grundloven i forbindelse med gensidig fors\u00f8rgerpligt for samlevende kontantshj\u00e6lpsmodtagere.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":84,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2671","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blogs"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p451d4-H5","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kpnet.dk\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2671","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kpnet.dk\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kpnet.dk\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kpnet.dk\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/84"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kpnet.dk\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2671"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/kpnet.dk\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2671\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2700,"href":"https:\/\/kpnet.dk\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2671\/revisions\/2700"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kpnet.dk\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2671"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kpnet.dk\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2671"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kpnet.dk\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2671"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}