Expert criticises ministry's handling of Femern conflict
After the minister refused a meeting with the French ambassador, the matter was handled by the permanent secretary. Law professor Frederik Waage raises criticism of both the diplomatic track and the permanent secretary's involvement.
The element factory seen from above. Photo: Sund & Bælt
When a foreign ambassador requests a meeting about a Danish construction project, it indicates the gravity of the conflict. In the conflict at the Fehmarn construction, the minister ended up saying no to meeting personally, but the request was still handled at the highest level. On 10 October last year, the French ambassador, Christophe Parisot, met with the top official of the Ministry of Transport, Jacob Heinsen. The ambassador was accompanied by the economic advisor of the French embassy, and the meeting was about the problems at the Fehmarn construction.
The agenda was the French contractor Vinci Construction, which, as the largest part of the main contractor Fehmarn Link Contractors, has a key role in the work on the tunnel and in the ongoing conflict with the client.
The process began already in late summer when the ambassador requested a meeting with the minister to discuss the difficulties that he pointed out Vinci was experiencing in cooperation with Sund & Bælt, and which, according to the French side's assessment, were already affecting the work. The minister said no to meeting personally. Only when Vinci had shown that it could handle the initial elements would he be prepared for a meeting, wrote the minister, and in the meantime referred the ambassador to the permanent secretary.
Permanent secretary Jakob Heinsen.
In the weeks following, the embassy continued contact to arrange a date. The Ministry of Transport initially suggested two possible times in October, but the embassy replied that the ambassador was not in Copenhagen on one of the days and asked to return with final confirmation. Shortly after, the meeting was scheduled for Friday, 10 October from 13:00 to 14:00 at the Ministry of Transport, and on the day itself, the embassy informed that the ambassador would bring the embassy's economic advisor Matthieu Garrigue-Guyonnaud.
Not enough distance
Professor of administrative law Frederik Waage from the University of Southern Denmark has researched lawsuits against the public sector for several years. He notes that the case is essentially a dispute between a state-owned company and a contractor, but that it is nevertheless being elevated into a diplomatic space.
- It is very remarkable that they choose to involve the French ambassador directly in the private legal dispute. It is unconventional, and I do not recall hearing about it before. On one hand, it indicates that the case, understandably, is given high priority by the ministry. On the other hand, in my opinion, there is not sufficient distance maintained between the minister and the permanent secretary and the state-owned company.
Frederik Waage also points out that the case has several aspects. Partly the diplomatic, where the ambassador reaches out, and partly the department head's later role in a direct dialogue with the contractor, while an arbitration case is ongoing.
- We have a situation where there is a large ongoing arbitration case, and where the private party and the state-owned company generally seem to be in a major conflict. It is understandable that the French ambassador in this case reaches out to the transport minister. The case concerns not just a French company, but also a project to which the EU has provided massive support. It certainly makes sense to keep communication channels open. But the ministry should not interfere directly in the ongoing arbitration case, says Frederik Waage.
Confrontation with Bliaut
Frederik Waage also points out that the meeting with the ambassador is only one aspect of a case where the Ministry of Transport's role subsequently becomes even more direct. A month and a half later, the conflict develops into an open written exchange between department head Jacob Heinsen and Vinci director Sébastien Bliaut, where the department head directly addresses the contractor's ability to deliver, even though there is an ongoing arbitration and Femern Link Contractors have raised a claim of 14.5 billion against Sund & Bælt.
- The department head is interfering in an ongoing dispute with a state-owned company, which he should keep at arm's length from as a representative of the minister. What the department head expresses can indeed affect the case.
Overall, it gives the impression that the case has not been handled as it should have been.
- It is an incomprehensible interference in a case that should be handled by the company's lawyers. Overall, one must question whether the ministry is handling this case correctly. I believe the minister must address this, says Frederik Waage.
No minutes
The meeting between the ambassador and the department head also raises questions, according to Waage, because the Ministry of Transport states that no minutes were prepared. He emphasises that diplomatic meetings can indeed take place without written documentation, but the absence of minutes in this case is striking.
- I am very surprised that no minutes were taken of such a meeting, says Frederik Waage.
On 21 January, it was announced that the first submersion of tunnel elements is now expected to take place in spring 2026. At the same time, it is clear that the dispute over the finances is not closed, and the parties are still negotiating the claims arising from the delays.
The Ministry of Transport has no further comments on the matter.
