2020 Danish mink cull

From top, left to right: Danish prime minister Mette Frederiksen • Protesters in Copenhagen • Minister of food Mogens Jensen • A mink (Neogale vison)

The 2020 Danish mink cull was the government-mandated slaughter of all roughly 17 million mink that were being raised on farms for their fur in Denmark. The cull started in September in response to the detection of Cluster 5, an outbreak of a novel variant of SARS-CoV-2, in the mink during the COVID-19 pandemic in Denmark. The cluster led to concerns that the potential of spillover to humans could reduce the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. The cull was made nation-wide on 4 November 2020; however, two days later the government announced that the extension of the cull orders had been given without legal authority, causing a political scandal, also known as the "Mink Case" (Danish: Minksagen). Around 150,000 mink were culled without authority before the problem was identified.

After the legal issues were discovered, the government put forward a bill which, with its adoption on 21 December 2020, established legal authority behind the national culling order. In the meantime, the authorities continued to recommend farmers to continue culling all mink on a voluntary basis. A large number of mink carcasses were buried in mass graves, but were later exhumed and disposed of by incineration, because the buried carcasses posed a danger of polluting the local groundwater. A general ban on mink breeding was established in 2021 and later extended until 31 December 2022.

The actions of several high-profile officials were criticized in the ensuing investigation known as the Mink Commission. The criticism of the majority of the officials was later revoked, however, following a more particular legal inquiry. The political reactions to the handling of the culling caused the resignation of the Minister of Food Mogens Jensen in November 2020 and eventually led to snap general elections in 2022, which resulted in a strengthening of the ruling Social Democratic party. As of 2022, the culling is estimated to have caused DKr 20 billion (US$3 billion) in financial damages. Payment of financial compensation to the mink breeders was originally planned to be paid no later than 2024, but according to later assessments may in some cases be delayed until 2027.

Background

Mink industry before the culls

In 2019, there were almost 800 Danish mink farms with a total of almost 3,000 people employed. At that time, the industry was in decline with falling turnover, fewer people employed and fewer farms than five years earlier, and the individual herds had a deficit of DKK 700,000 per farm on average.^[1] The Danish mink industry produced 40% of the world's pelts and was the largest producer of mink skins in the world.^[2][3] The actual production value of the Danish mink industry amounted according to Statistics Denmark in 2019 to DKK 2.5 billion.^[4][5] According to the Danish Agriculture & Food Council (Landbrug & Fødevarer), mink fur and skins ranked the third largest agricultural export product of animal origin, with an annual export value of €1.1 billion.

First SARS-CoV-2 infections in mink

Minks are among the animals that can be infected with coronaviruses.^[6] This became a topic of concern during the COVID-19 pandemic, over fears of viral evolution in mink and spillover back into humans, which could impact the efficacy of vaccines that were being developed.^[7][6] Transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from minks to humans was first documented in the Netherlands through genetic tracing, which prompted the Dutch government to bring forward a slated ban on mink farming to March 2021 from 2024.^[8][9] The United States Department of Agriculture confirmed that cases of minks infected with COVID-19 had been documented in Utah in August 2020.^[10] On 15 June 2020 the Veterinary and Food Agency (Fødevarestyrelsen) documented COVID-19 in a mink herd in the northernmost part of North Jutland called Vendsyssel.^[11] It was not possible at this point to determine whether the mink had infected humans or vice versa. The disease had also reached several residents of the nursing home Vendelbocenteret in Sindal. The lack of hospitalizations from this source of infection could, according to the SSI, indicate a relatively mild variant.^[12]

The authorities decided that the minks on these farms should be culled to prevent further spread of infection. In a September risk assessment, the SSI described the spread of "a special mink variant" in North Jutland.^[1] This SARS-CoV-2 variant was later named Cluster 5 by the SSI.^[2][5] In September, the spread increased, and the health and veterinary authorities expressed concern. On 1 October, COVID-19 was detected among 41 herds in North Jutland, and infection was suspected in a further 20. The government therefore announced that all mink within a radius of 7.8 kilometers from an infected farm must be culled and the owners compensated. There was already a legal basis for such locally limited measures. The decision resulted in approximately 100 North Jutlandic farms having to cull their herds.^[13][14]

Risk assessment

On 13 October, chief physician Anders Fomsgaard from SSI reported that the mutated coronavirus cluster 5, which was found in Danish mink, could potentially reduce the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.^[15] On 2 November, Kåre Mølbak, Executive President of the SSI, stated that in a worst-case scenario Denmark risked potentially becoming "a new Wuhan".^[13] This assessment was new for the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of the Environment and Food, who requested a new risk assessment from SSI and called the government's Coordination Committee to a meeting on 3 November.^[13] In the SSI's new risk assessment from 3 November 2020, it was concluded that continued mink breeding would lead to a significant probability of further spread of COVID-19. This could threaten public health both because the many infected mink farms could lead to a greater disease burden among humans, and because a large virus reservoir in mink would increase the risk of new virus mutations arising again, potentially reducing optimal vaccine protection.^[11] The institute concluded, "Continued mink breeding during an ongoing covid-19 epidemic poses a significant risk to public health, including to the possibilities of preventing covid-19 with vaccines".^[12]

Decision to cull all mink

Decision-making

On the evening of 3 November, a meeting took place in the cabinet's coordination committee (koordinationsudvalget).^[16] In addition to the prime minister, several other central ministers and officials also participated in the meeting,^[a][18] which was held virtually due to the current gathering restrictions during the pandemic.^[19] The meeting was held without summary,^[20] but the process was later unveiled during the Mink Commission's hearings. The Ministry of Justice had prepared a case for presentation at the meeting, which contained contributions from the various ministries and ended up recommending two courses of action: either a hibernation scheme for mink breeding or a permanent ban on mink breeding in Denmark.

The case's cover (summary of the case, which is usually the decision-making basis for ministers) mentioned the two alternatives and a proposal for a speed bonus. However, the cover did not contain any information about possible issues regarding legal authority for the culls nor grant legal basis (bevillingsmæssig hjemmel) for a speed bonus, and the issues in this regard were not mentioned at the meeting. In two appendices which accompanied the cover, however, the legal challenges did feature. Yet, the full case with all the annexes did not reach the ministers and the other officials until six minutes before the meeting. None of the meeting participants had therefore had the opportunity to read the appendices, just as none of the present officials had drawn attention to legal issues.^[19]

In her testimony to the Mink Commission, Mette Frederiksen explained that she as leader of the meeting had decided not to postpone or interrupt the meeting for a reading break on account of her clear conviction being a need for urgent action, and that she had had trust in that the ministers would point out the topics that the committee should be aware of.^[21] At the 44-minute long meeting, it was decided to cull all mink in Denmark, including the breeding animals.^[22][23] As chairman of the committee, Mette Frederiksen had the ultimate responsibility for this decision.^[24]

Announcement and execution of the orders

The day after, the Ministry of the State summoned a press conference for later that day.^[25] There, Mette Frederiksen stated the cabinet's decision: "Firstly, it is necessary to cull all mink in Denmark. Unfortunately, this also applies to breeding animals"^[26] and further stated that, "With the corona mutations, which we are now seeing in North Jutland, we can risk that the efficacy of the future vaccine will be weakened or, in the worst case, absent".^[27] Kåre Mølbak stated at the same event that it was important to understand that "worst case is that we have a pandemic that starts all over again, with starting point in Denmark".^[28] In the following days, the culling of mink was therefore strongly intensified. Denmark was divided into three zones, where zone 1 was infected herds, zone 2 herds within a radius of 7.8 kilometers from an infected herd and zone 3 farms outside this radius. The authorities (the police, the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration, the armed forces and the Home Guard) assisted the culling of mink in zones 1 and 2, where there was legal basis to order culling. The farmers were offered a "speed bonus" if they culled their mink quickly.^[29] During the culling process the borders between the zones could change, e.g. in the event of an outbreak in a given farm or one nearby.^[30] On 6 November, cullings also began in zone 3, for which there was no legal authority. It was this lack of legal authority in zone 3 that was the starting point for the legal case.

In the period from 10 October to 30 November, approx. 15.5 million mink were culled distributed on 1182 herds throughout Denmark. Of this, 351 mink herds were in zone 1 and 512 in zone 2, corresponding to respectively 4.9 and 6.5 million killed mink. In zone 3, from 6 November to 30 November, 319 herds corresponding to four million animals were culled. Of this, almost 150,000 animals were culled in the days from 6 to 10 November^[31][32] on which date the mink breeders in zone 3 were informed that it was only a recommendation and not an order from the authorities for the animals to be culled.^[33]

On the evening of 5 November, Kopenhagen Fur approached the Veterinary and Food Administration and requested clearer communication to the mink breeders, who felt frustrated and confused. Upon request from Kopenhagen Fur and the Ministry of the Environment and Food, the agency sent a proposal for a letter to all mink breeders to the ministry's Head of department. The letter concerned both mink in and outside the infection zones. The ministry sent some proposals for corrections back to the agency, and the agency corrected them in the letter. The same afternoon, the ministry sent an email to the agency stating that the agency "have to initiate the culls before the numbers are up. Both on infected and non-infected herds", and that it should be "evident from the letter to the mink breeders that they just have to start". The Veterinary and Food Agency sent the letter to the mink breeders via Kopenhagen Fur. The letter stated, "The government has announced that all mink in the country must be culled for reasons of public health. It is important that the culls take place as soon as possible". To the mink breeders outside the infection zones, appeared, "The culling of all mink (including breeding animals) must be over by 16 November 2020. You must therefore start culling and furring the herd the soonest possible".^[33]

Health-related assessments

Danish experts

After the press conference on November 4, a discussion arose among professionals about the health-related basis for the decision. Particular criticism was raised concerning the supposed risk from the cluster 5 variant, which had been emphasised as central at the press conference. Numerous experts doubted cluster 5 in itself posing a significant threat. During the Mink Commission's hearings a year later, it became known that the Director General of the Danish Health Authority, Søren Brostrøm, had already on 3 November 2020 warned the SSI and the Ministry of Health's Head of Department Per Okkels against letting the concerns for cluster 5 be at the root of a new risk assessment.^[34] On November 6, 2020, researchers from the University of Copenhagen issued a memo to the SSI doubting the SSI's data for in itself being an indication of a serious vaccine threat.^[35][36] On 9 November, the Danish Medicines Agency similarly stated in a memo that the cluster 5 mutation did not pose a significant threat to the efficacy of first-generation vaccines.^[37][38]

The SSI itself also subsequently downplayed the importance of cluster 5. Kåre Mølbak thus stated on 9 November that the SSI's biggest concern since June had been the large reservoir of virus constituted by mink, and that the cluster 5 variant was not worrying in itself. He agreed that the issues surrounding cluster 5 itself had been granted too much weight, and that it would not surprise him if the cluster 5 variant had already gone extinct, but also stated that a large mink population would posed a risk for future variants who potentially could cause reduced vaccine efficacy.^[39]

His colleague, then head of department in the SSI, Tyra Grove Krause, mentioned a few days later that a study with cluster 5, which Minister of Health Magnus Heunicke had highlighted at the press conference on November 4, did not document cluster 5 in itself to pose a threat against a future vaccine. At the same time, she clarified that the SSI's risk assessment was not based on the specific cluster 5 study, but that the description of the study was simply included in the assessment as one data point on top of everything else that made up the risk assessment.^[40]

Professor of immunology Jens Christian Jensenius wrote in October 2021 that there did not seem to be "doubt... that the Executive President of Statens Serum Institut professor Kåre Mølbak led the government astray leading up to the press conference on 4 November 2020", and that the results of Anders Fomsgaard's preliminary studies had been misused by Kåre Mølbak to foster the dramatic decision on 4 November, which was thus not made on grounds of evidence. Jensenius stated that there was widespread agreement among professionals that mink farming on the large scale as practiced in Denmark could be a hotbed for new pandemics, but that the panicked culling, based on an alleged immediate danger associated with cluster 5, was not well founded.^[41]

In his book titled Vild virus (Wild Virus) from October 2022, professor of infectious diseases Jens Lundgren described referring to the role of the cluster 5 mutations, Kåre Mølbak's risk assessment as "overdone", "painted too dark of a picture", and relied on a thin scientific foundation.^[42][28] Lundgren furthermore explained in connection with the book's publication that he believed that the government could not be blamed for acting on the basis of the SSI risk assessment, which in his opinion could not be ignored when it was formulated as it was.^[43]

The SSI repeated in a response to Lundgren's criticism that the institute had not solely relied on concern with respect to the cluster 5 mutations, but also the rapid increase in infections in mink, the prevalent transmission of viruses from mink to humans, where 4,000 people in Jutland at the time in question were estimated to have been infected with the variant, and the concern regarding development of resistance in vaccines among certain viruses.^[28]

Foreign experts

On November 10, 2020, World Health Organization epidemiologist Margaret Harris stated that "We consider the global risk associated with the new mink-related variant to be very low. Definitely".^[44] The next day, Anthony Fauci, at the time lead member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force in the United States, explained that he too found no reason to believe the mink infection to threaten a future vaccine.^[45]

Lack of legal basis

Disclosure of lacking legal basis

As mentioned, it was already stated in two appendices to the cover at the government's coordination committee meeting on 3 November that there was a legal problem in relation to the two proposed cull models, but the participants had not had the opportunity to read the appendices, and the problem had not been addressed at the meeting of the officials who had participated in the preparation of the case files. In the civil service, however, the discussion about possible legal problems continued in the following days.^[46] Shortly before the government's press conference on 4 November, where the decision to cull was proclaimed, the Veterinary and Food Agency warned against legal obstacles. The agency contacted the Ministry of Food and asked for a contact in the Ministry of Justice because the agency did not find it to be judicially justified to cull all the nation's mink, which "the Ministry of Environment and Food can endorse". The following day the Ministry of Justice communicated that it "does not have reason to override" the assessment. There was agreement about the need for new legislation to cull mink outside the zones.^[47]

According to the Mink Commission's later conclusions the Minister of Food was given notice about the issues with legal basis on 5 November, while the Prime Minister was given notice on 8 November.^[48] Former Minister of Food Mogens Jensen oriented Parliament and the press about the government having neither legal basis for the ongoing culling of all mink nor the speed bonuses. The Veterinary and Food Agency sent on 10 November a letter to the mink breeders explicitly stating that it was only an "instigation" to cull all mink outside the zones as well as a pledge to secure the necessary legal justification for demanding all mink culled.^[47] To Ekstra Bladet on 8 November the Minister of Food gave a statement that due to the urgency of the situation he had assessed that one "couldn't have awaited new legislation before delivering an announcement".^[49][50] The day after he apologised the "unclear communication" on whether there had been the proper legislation in place to justify ordering mink outside the security zones culled.^[51] On 10 November Jensen explained that he had not been aware of the lack of legal basis for giving the order when the government announced it on the press conference and called it "a mistake".^[51]

After 8 November disagreement emerged among judicial scholars on whether the orders had indeed been lacking legal basis.^{[52][53][54][55][56]} However, in its report the Mink Commission concluded that the orders had been "grossly misleading and clearly illegal".^[57]

Resignation of the Minister of Food

After the information about the lack of legal authority had been published, Mogens Jensen was sharply criticized by the government's external support parties

In connection with the minister change, it was announced the following day that the Ministry of Environment and Food would once again be split into the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries.[60] Lea Wermelin was appointed new minister in the first ministry and Rasmus Prehn in the latter.^[61] Mogens Jensen continued as deputy chairman of Socialdemokratiet.^[62]

Establishment of legal basis

Before his exit Jensen had, following the lack of legal basis, on 10 November put forward a bill (lovforslag) establishing the legal justification to cull all mink and prohibiting mink breeding. The bill named L 77 also contained authority to the payments of speed bonuses to mink breeders who contributed to the culling of their animals. After a settlement between the government and its three external support parties as well as

In a draft of the bill from the government, it appeared that the recommendation of the SSI was to cull all mink in Denmark. The SSI rejected this and emphasised it being a political decision.[64]^[65] Apart from the passing of L 77 the Mink Commission was also created as a consequence of the case. The government initially tried to get the processing of the bill expedited (hastebehandling), which required a three-quarters majority in the Folketing. The government abandoned this before the bill was put before Parliament (fremsættelse).^[66]

Police involvement

Role of the Police

At the press conference on 4 November 2020, Frederiksen stated that in order to support the food authorities' ongoing cull efforts, "an emergency plan for euthanasia is now being implemented, which is handled under the auspices of the National Operative Staff (Den Nationale Operative Stab) under the command of the police".^[67][68] A sub-staff called Operations Staff Mink (Operationsstab Mink) was established.^[69]

After the press conference, mink breeders outside the infection zones received phone calls from the National Police of Denmark (the Rigspoliti). To support the conversations with the breeders, the cadets were given a so-called action card, which functioned as a script. The text recommended the breeders to participate in the cull of their herds, and one of the questions was whether they were willing to do so. If they agreed the conversation would be over. Did they refuse, the police officials were instrued in saying:^[70]

"I'm sorry to hear that, but the decision has been made. Failure to cooperate will therefore mean that you don't get to obtain the bonus, and you can expect that the authorities to come and perform the emptying of the heards anyway. I would therefore like to know, whether this makes you change your mind?"

Criticism of the Rigspoliti

The Rigspoliti and the Police Commissioner Thorkild Fogde was criticised for the executions of the calls after the publication of the Ministry of Environment and Food's review from 18 November 2020 concluding that the Rigspoliti at the time of the making of the action cards knew its illegality. The Rigspoliti itself admitted this afterwards.^[71][72][73]

Lawyer investigation of the Rigspoliti's action card

The Folketing initiated in the spring of 2021 a lawyer investigation of the police action card.^[74][75] The report on the investigation was published on 8 October and was made by Claus Guldager.^[76][77] The investigation concluded that, in relation to the action cards, negligence had been committed, but a further evaluation of it could not be performed within the assigned terms of the investigation.^[76] In addition, the investigation concluded, "There is no basis for assuming that people in the top management of the police – or in the management levels below – have instructed anyone to prepare an action card".^[78]

In the investigation's review of the actual sequence of events, there were comments on the question of whether it was true and fair when the Ministry of Environment and Food in its review of 18 November wrote, "It has not been established in the available material that the question of legal justification to extend the previous efforts to cull mink to the whole country has been mentioned in cases for use in discussions in the relevant government committees in the period after 1 October 2020 and onwards until 3 November 2020". The investigation pointed out that context, that there in the cover (main memo) to the government's coordinations comitiee meeting on 3 November on emergency plans for culls said, "The emergency plan is assessed to assume deviations from a number of applicable rules and guidelines in the environmental and animal fields".^[76][79]

Based on the investigation, on 19 November 2021, the Folketing expanded the Mink Commission's terms of reference to also include an investigation of the Rigspoliti's action card.^[80][81]

Burial and re-excavation of the culled mink

From the left: Nørre Felding Station and Kølvrå Soldaterhjem; the two villages where large numbers of mink were buried outside and later re-excavated.

From 5 November to 19 November, 13.5 million mink were culled in Denmark, of which approx. 3 million were buried in mass graves.^[82] According to the Ministry of Food, the burial of mink was deemed necessary due to the "tempo of the cullings".^[83] As the animal carcasses started decomposing, gases caused them to expand and push them out of the ground^[84] while also risking contaminating drinking water.^[85][86]

On 2 December, Food Minister Rasmus Prehn and Environment Minister Lea Wermelin were by Parliament summoned to a consultation (samråd) on the matter.^[87] On 21 December 2020, it was decided that the minks were to be re-excavated.^[88] In May 2021 and two months ahead, the exhumation of nearly four million dead mink began at military facilities near Holstebro and Karup.^[89][90] The re-excavation was estimated in advance to cost 80 million kr. However, the Ministry of Food and Agriculture requested that 150 million kr. be made available.^[91] The re-excavated mink were taken to 13 different incineration plants around Denmark.^[92] Food Minister Rasmus Prehn called it in May 2021 a "troublesome and regrettable" case, but added that he had no need to point fingers at the people who made the decision, which was taken to protect public health.^[93]

According to Peter Pagh, professor of environmental law at the University of Copenhagen, there was a lack of legal authority to deposit the dead mink in the mass graves.^[94] However, in its memo of 15 December 2020, the Ministry of Food denied having broken the law. The process received criticism from both ends of the Folketinget by, among others, Rasmus Jarlov (K), who called the burial of mink a "tragic story taken on a thin and hasty basis".^[95]

Lawyer investigation of the burial of culled mink

In April 2021, the Danish Parliament launched a lawyer investigation into the burial of culled mink.^[96] The report on the investigation was published on October 8, 2021.^[97][98] In the investigation, it was concluded about errors and omissions, "that it will not be possible on the present basis to attribute the errors committed to individual persons, or that any errors by the individual person will have nature of a misconduct".^[98]

Mink Commission

The Folketing decided on 11 November 2020, that an impartial investigation of the 2020 Danish mink cull would take place.^[99] A political majority agreed on 10 December to the establishment of a new form of commission called an inquiry commissionsamråd (granskningskommission) and having the case investigated by one such.^[100] On 23 April 2021 the Folketing sat up the Mink Commission.^[101]

Terms of reference

According to the Terms of reference of a commission of inquiry into the case of the culling of mink (Kommissorium for en granskningskommission om sagen om aflivning af mink), the commission had the task of:^[102]

"...investigate and account for the overall course of events and for the actions and involvement of all relevant authorities and ministers in the decision and execution of the decision that all mink in Denmark as part of the efforts to combat covid-19 immediately had to be culled".

The Commission focused in particular on the 14 days leading up to the press conference, where the decision was announced to the public, as well as how ministers and other relevant people reacted when they became aware of problems with a lack of legal authority. Furthermore, an independent assessment must be made of whether there was legal authority to make the decision and whether anyone can be held legally responsible for the process. The terms of reference were in November expanded to also comprehend an investigation of the Rigspoliti's action card.^[103] However, the responsibilities of any ministers were not to be assessed. The health or veterinary basis for making the decision itself was not part of the commission's assessment.^[102]

he members of the commission were national judge Michael Kistrup (chairman), professor Helle Krunke from the University of Copenhagen and lawyer Ole Spiermann from the law firm Bruun & Hjejle, while lawyer Jakob Lund Poulsen was the commission's interrogator (udspørger).^[104]

Hearings

Several officials expressed at the hearings, that they unambiguously had warned that there had not been the legal authority to require all mink culled.^{[105][106][107]}

During the hearings four assessors (bisiddere), including the assessors for Frederiksen and her head of department, contested that there had lacked legal authority to cull all mink.^[56][55] In relation to this, Professor Andreas B. Ehlers noted in a memo, "that such an authority cannot be read from the preparatory work (forarbejderne) and the legal history of Section 30 of the Animal Husbandry Act (husdyrholdloven) as stated by the assessors".^[108]

On 13 November two officials testified to the commission, that Ministry of Food had indicated that "a total slaughter, including all breeding animals, is considered to be fatal for the industry".^[109] Allegedly, this assessment was supported by the Ministry of Justice and sent "up the system".^[110] Barbara Bertelsen explained at the hearing on 18 November that she had not been made aware of the problem with the lack of legal authority.^[111][112]

The testimony of Minister of Health Magnus Heunicke showed that the Minister of Health had taken handwritten notes from the meeting in the coordination committee, where the decision had been made. He explained, among other things, that the head of department in the Ministry of Justice, Johan Legarth, had initiated the meeting by claiming that SSI had indicated that all mink should be culled for reasons of public health.^[113] This memo was contradicted by the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, Martin Justesen, who did not perceive that Legarth had made this statement, and he added that it would be highly unusual for an official to open such a meeting by presenting a conclusion.^[114]

Mette Frederiksen emphasised during her testimony that no one at the meeting on 3 November 2020 had mentioned the lack of legal authority and that this was a mistake. However, she did not want to blame anyone because, in her view, mistakes would be made during crisis management.^[115]

In the Ministry of the Environment and Food's statement with respect to the lack of legal authority, the date when Mogens Jensen knew of the lack of legal authority was given as 7 November 2020.^[116] During the hearings, a number of documents were presented in which the date of this knowledge was said to be 5 or 6 November 2020,^[117] and in a submitted text message correspondence from the period, Mogens Jensen himself believed the date to be 5 November 2020.^[118] Regarding the process surrounding the preparation of the Ministry of the Environment and Food's report, a number of documents with information about this had been classified by the government with reference to "the consideration of securing the government's internal and political decision-making process".^[119]

During the hearings, a department councilor in the Prime Minister's Ministry explained that on 7 November he had received an email from an office manager in his ministry that urgent legislation (hastelovgivning) was needed to secure the legal basis for mink culling, but that he did not inform Head of Department Barbare Bertelsen about this.^[120] It was also stated that on the morning of 7 November the Prime Minister had asked Health Minister Magnus Heunicke to call a new press conference, which took place that afternoon.^[121] At the press conference, Heunicke said that the cullings should "go quickly" and "be over by 16 November".^[122]

Deleted text messages

In connection with the questioning of a number of officials, serval text messages were presented, in which the Prime Minister's Head of Department Barbara Bertelsen indicated that the matter could be "life-threatening" for the government and called for the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Health to take responsibility^[123] On 1 November 2021 it was revealed that Mette Frederiksen and a number of advisers in the Ministry of the State had text messages automatically deleted after 30 days, and that a number of text messages exchanged during the mink process had therefore not been handed over to the Mink Commission, although this had already requested it on 29 April 2021.^[124]

At a press conference on 3 November 2021, the PM stated that the deletion began at the latest during the summer of 2020. This after advice from Barbara Bertelsen, which she confirmed during her hearing on 18 November 2021.^[111][112] Asked on a harsh tone in some of the published text messages between officials in ministries and agencies, Mette Frederiksen defended the officials, whose great work effort during the pandemic she praised. Continuing she added that Denmark would not have come through the pandemic so well without the country's officials, and continued "So yes, there may have been said stupid things and more than that. Live with it – live with it".^{[b][126][127][128]} The phrase "Live with it" (Lev med det) became famous as an example of the Prime Minister's blunt style.^[129][130] Frederiksen later described the wording as a mistake during the election campaign for the 2022 general election and repeated that it was intended as an attempt to defend the people who were in the middle of crisis management.^[131]

Police authority subsequently attempted to recover the text messages and announced to the public on November 12 that they had finished trying to recover them, but not the result.^[132] On the same day, the government received the results of the police's attempt in sealed envelopes. Monday 15 November at 9, a meeting was held between the Mink Commission, the Ministry of Justice, Mette Frederiksen and the three top officials in the Prime Minister's Office,^[c] who had switched on the automatic deletion of text messages after 30 days.^[133] On Wednesday 17 November, Mette Frederiksen published the result of the police investigation, which was that it had not been possible to recreate the deleted text messages.^[134] The Prime Minister was criticised for delaying the announcement of the result until Wednesday, the day after the municipal and regional elections of 2021, when she had the option to announce it immediately after the meeting on Monday at 9.^[135][136] This among others by Jakob Ellemann (V), who called it "convenient".^[137] When asked why she waited to announce the result until Wednesday, the prime minister replied, "It's because I've been occupied with some other things, it almost goes without saying".^[138]

Report (beretning)

The commission submitted its report on 30 June 2022, in which it appeared that the decision to cull all Danish mink was without legal authority. The commission concluded about the prime minister's role:^[139][140]

"The Commission thus finds that Mette Frederiksen's announcements at the press conference on 4 November 2020 were objectively grossly misleading, but that Frederiksen subjectively did not have knowledge of this or intention to do so. The Commission has therefore not made an assessment of whether there is gross negligence".

The commission also concluded that Frederiksen must have been aware that the KU meeting was organised and material prepared in a forced process.^[141] Moreover, her announcements at the press conference on 4 November, where she ordered all mink dead, were "grossly misleading and clearly illegal".^[142]

Regarding the Ministry of State as a whole it "assumed an overarching and governing role in the forced process". Here the commission assessed, "Overall, it is the commission's assessment that the Ministry of State has acted in a very criticisable manner in the process, which led to the gross misleading of mink breeders and the public and the clearly illegal instructions to the authorities in connection with the press conference on 4 November 2020".^[143][144] Furthermore, the Ministry of Food and Agriculture had acted "particularly criticisable".^[145] Frederiksen declared during the 2022 election campaign that she disagreed that it had been a forced process.^[146]

Unequivocally, the Mink Commission rejected the then-Minister of Food's explanation that he only became aware of the lack of legal authority on 7 November at 06:31 PM. The commission wrote, "Mogens Jensen received information earlier, namely on 5 November 2020. The commission thus finds that Mogens Jensen, at least during the consultation on 11 November 2020, delivered incorrect information". Mogens Jensen had thus spoken untruthfully to the Folketing and the public, as he had said at a consultation on 11 November that he was only made aware of the lack of authorisation "at the weekend" (the period from 6 to 8 November 2020.)^[147][148]

At the same time, the commission found that 10 officials had committed "official misconduct of such severity that there was a basis for the public authorities to seek to hold them accountable".^[149]

Consequences of the Mink Commission's report

Sanctioning of officials

The Mink Commission's report contained that 10 officials had committed "misconduct of such a seriousness that there are grounds for the public authorities to seek to hold them accountable". At the Prime Minister's press conference reacting to the Mink Commission's report on 1 July 2022, Frederiksen reported that the commission's assessments of officials would be reviewed primarily by the Danish Employee and Competence Agency (Medarbejder- og Kompetencestyrelsen).^[150] Based on the agency's review, Barbara Bertelsen, head of department in the Ministry of State, was issued a warning on 24 August. At the same time, Johan Legarth, head of department in the Ministry of Justice, was given a reprimand, while National Police Commissioner Thorkild Fogde and head of department in the Ministry of the Environment Henrik Studsgaard were relieved of duty and summoned to official interrogations.^[151]

The political independence of the Employee and Competence Agency was questioned by Jørgen Grønnegård Christensen, emeritus professor in political science (statskundskab) at Aarhus University calling Frederiksen's description of the agency as politically independent "literally ridiculous".^[152] The agency's lack of independence was backed by Eva Smith, professor at the University of Copenhagen's Faculty of Law who pointed out the agency consisted of officials "who rank lower in the hierarchy than the people whose responsibility they have to assess".^[153]

On 20 September, the Rigspoliti announced that officials Uffe Stormly and Birgitte Buch had received a warning. According to the Mink Commission, they had assisted in "breach of the duty of truth and the principle of legality in connection with the police's use of action cards on 6 November 2020".^[154] On 22 September, the Ministry of Food stated that the officials Tejs Binderup, Paolo Drostby, and Hanne Larsen had also received a warning.^[142] On the same day, Anne-Mette Lyhne Jensen was also given a warning in the Ministry of Justice.^[155][156] These decisions were also made on the basis of a review by the Danish Employee and Competence Agency.

Revoking of sanctions

On 30 December 2022 it was announced that Henrik Studsgaard would be new director in

Due to the Mink Commission's report of 30 June containing criticism against Mette Frederiksen and Mogens Jensen, on 5 June, a majority in the Folketing consisting of Socialdemokratiet (their own party), Radikale Venstre, Socialistisk Folkeparti, and Enhedslisten conferred on the two a so-called nose (næse) for their role in the case.^[167] The majority stated e.g. that the PM during the case had "behaved very criticisable, and the majority expresses a severe criticism of the Prime Minister".^[19]

Immediately after the Mink Commission had submitted its report, a majority of the Inquiry Committee^[e] announced that, after careful consideration, they had found no reason to bring charges before the Supreme Court (Rigsretten).^[19]

A minority in the Committee^[f] referred to the commission's lack of competence to legally assess the responsibility of ministers, which is why the commission "has not carried out an assessment of whether, among other things, there is gross negligence among the criticized ministers, including Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Minister of the Environment and Food Mogens Jensen", whereupon the minority concluded that "the only right thing is for the Folketing to have an impartial lawyer's assessment of the commission's report".^[19]

Despite the Radikale Venstre party being a part of the majority in the Inquiry Committee against setting up of a lawyer investigation, the party announced as a political consequence that if Mette Frederiksen did not call a general election at the latest by the

A central question in the public after it became clear that there had not been legal authority behind the original order to kill all mink was, weather the government and Frederiksen particularly had been aware of this and thus consciously breaking the law. This was therefore also a significant part of the Mink Commission's terms of reference to investigate how and when Frederiksen and the other ministers became aware of possible issues with legal authority.^[174] As previously mentioned, the commission concluded that the members of government only had been made aware of the problems after the decision was made and announced at the press conference on 5 November, thus not having committed gross negligence. In case they had, they would have violated the Ministerial Liability Act (ministeransvarlighedsloven) and the commission did not have a mandate to assess criminal liability of ministers.^[175] Following the presentation of the commission report this was discussed among legal experts who almost unanimously assessed that there was not a basis for convicting Frederiksen for gross negligence.^{[176][177][178]} Legal experts expressing this opinion were professor of administrative law at Aalborg University Sten Bønsing [da],^[176] professor of public law at Aarhus University Jørgen Albæk Jensen,^[177][178] professor of constitutional law at the University of Copenhagen Jens Elo Rytter [da],^[177] professor Kristian Lauta of the University of Copenhagen,^[177][179] emeritus professor of criminal law of the University of Copenhagen Jørn Vestergaard,^[177][178] professor Frederik Waage [da] of the University of Southern Denmark,^[180][181] emeritus professor in administrative law at the University of Copenhagen Carsten Henrichsen,^[182] emerita professor at the University of Copenhagen Eva Smith,^[182][183] and emeritus professor at the University of Copenhagen Ditlev Tamm [da].^[184] National judge (landsdommer) Bo Østergaard expressed the same analysis as well.^[185]

A single professor, Lasse Lund Madsen from the Department of Law at Aarhus University, found the immediate appearance of the Prime Minister's actions to fulfill the criteria of gross negligence.^[186][177] Lund Madsen added a few months later that he did not think with the then-present basis would make sense to conduct impeachment proceedings against Mette Frederiksen, and that he saw no reason to make an impartial lawyer's assessment focusing on the Prime Minister's liability, as he found the matter to be already as well illuminated as it could be.^[187]

Lund Elmer Sandager

After a majority in the Folketing at the beginning of July had refused to initiate an impartial lawyer's assessment of the legal liability of the ministers involved, the opposition party Nye Borgerlige collected funds for making an assessment of their own, hiring the law firm Lund Elmer Sandager for this.^[188] On 22 September, the law firm presented its legal assessment, in which they assessed that Mogens Jensen and Mette Frederiksen would be found guilty by impeachment, but acquitted other involved ministers.^[189][190] The lawyers' assessment was sharply criticised in numerous media by professor Jens Elo Rytter and professor emeritus Jørn Vestergaard, who believed that there were several gaps in the lawyers' legal assessment, pointed out that the lawyers behind the assessment were commercial lawyers and did not have the sufficient professional qualifications to assess the specific issue, and found it striking that they reached the exact opposite conclusion to what numerous independent legal experts had said publicly.^{[191][192][193][194]}

Legal assessment from law professors

On 7 November 2022, the three professors Jens Elo Rytter, Jørn Vestergaard, and Jørgen Albæk Jensen published a 30-page memo entitled Legal assessment of the question of Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen's liability in the Mink Case (Retlig vurdering af spørgsmålet om statsminister Mette Frederiksens ansvar i Minksagen), which they handed over to the parties in the Folketing.^[195] The three professors from the Universities of Copenhagen and Aarhus had drawn up the memo on their own initiative, referring to the fact that there had been persistent requests from political parties for a legal assessment of the Prime Minister's liability in the case.^[196] In the assessment, they concluded that it could not be expected that Mette Frederiksen would be convicted for gross negligence under the Ministerial Liability Act, and that she would therefore not be found guilty in a possible impeachment case. They assessed that it was understandable and excusable that Frederiksen did not become aware of the legal issue, because no one in the civil service had in any way drawn her attention to the problem, and because she should rightly have confidence that the officials would have uncovered any relevant issues during the time available.^[193] They also pointed out that even for the responsible officials, the question of authority was a legally difficult challenge to clarify proving to require quite detailed investigations of a complicated legal basis.^[194]

Differentiation between different models for the industry

In the meeting material for the government's K-committee meeting, where the decision was made, two models were proposed^[197][198]

1. Putting the mink industry into hibernation. This would mean culling most mink, but allowing the breeding animals to survive, so that the mink industry could be revived after the coronavirus pandemic. (Such an option was, among other things, outlined by SSI at a meeting on 2 November.)
2. Shutting down the industry. That would mean culling all mink and banning mink farming.

It appeared from the appendices that there was most likely no legal authority backing any of them. The government said it chose a third model which consisted of a slaughter of all mink, but not a permanent ban on mink breeding. This model was also illegal without new legislation.^[199] In November 2020, Frederiksen stated i.a. in the before Parliament, "There is politics, and then there is law. The government has not made a decision to close down the mink industry. The government has made a decision that the mink must be culled. It is two different decisions".^[200] Law professor Kristian Lauta commented on this that "The only straw they have left is that there is a difference between culling all mink and completely and partially ending the industry. But I don't understand that there should be a difference. It is very difficult to run mink breeding without mink".^[201] Professor of administrative and constitutional law Frederik Waage assessed that the Frederiksen's statement that the decision to cull all mink was not the same as shutting down the industry was fairly correct, but that the two models would have the same effect^[202] In leaked internal documents from before the order was given at the press conference on November 4, 2020, officials and Mogens Jensen described the decision as a de facto closure of the industry.^[203]

The right to property

Section 73, subsection 1 of the Danish constitution reads, "The right to property is inviolable. No one can be forced to give up their property, except where the public good requires it. This can only be done according to law and against full compensation".^[204] The law professors Kristian Lauta,^[205] Mikael Rask Madsen,^[205] Henrik Palmer Olsen,^[205] Frederik Waage^[206] and Jens Elo Rytter^[206] as well as lawyer Jonas Christoffersen^[206] has criticized the order to cull all mink outside the original locally delimited zones as unconstitutional.^[205] Waage and Rytter points out simultaneously that it seen from a legal perspective is irrelevant, whether it was a breach of the constitution or just a "customary" breach of law, as it does not change the implications regarding responsibility.^[206]

Judicial experts have in their criticism asserted that a stricter requirement for legal basis (skærpet hjemmelskrav), is in place when the government gives an order with such great ramifications for the right to property.^[207][208]

On 27 October, the organisation Bæredygtigt Landbrug (lit. 'Sustainable Agriculture') sued the Danish state on behalf of three former mink breeders for violations against the European Convention on Human Rights, protocol 1, article 1, regarding respect for property rights in respect to the culling injunction for all mink without the necessary legal basis.^[209]

Duty of journalising (journaliseringspligten)

According to Section 15 of the Public Disclosure Act (offentlighedsloven), all documents "that have been received or sent by an administrative authority as part of administrative case processing (...) to the extent that the document is important for a case or the case processing in general" must be journalised.^[210][211] The Mink Commission did not take a decision on whether there had been a breach of this obligation in connection with the destruction of possible evidence in the form of the deleted text messages.^[212]

Professor Frederik Waage assessed that the deletion was by all accounts in violation with the duty of journalising and stated, "It is highly problematic that the Prime Minister and her Head of Department expose themselves to questions about compliance with the duty of journalising when, as here, it is about cleaning up after a clear violation of the law in relation to the culling of mink".^[213] Professor of administrative law Sten Bønsing endorsed the criticism and said that the fulfillment of this duty had "obviously" not taken place in the case of the deleted text messages.^[210]

Financial compensation

Compensation agreement

By the time of the announcement of the government's decision, no compensation agreement was prepared. On 25 January 2021 a compensation agreement for the mink breeders was adopted in the Folketing.^[h][214] The agreement included a framework of 1.8-2.8 billion kr. in direct compensation for the mink that were culled in 2020 without being furred. In addition, 8.9 billion kr. was given in compensation for loss of future source of income and compensation for the residual value of the production apparatus, which no longer had value for the mink breeder. A number of ancillary industries directly dependent on mink breeding – including feed centres, furriers, auction houses, and transport companies – were awarded compensation for the loss of the part of their business that concerned the Danish mink industry. It was estimated in the agreement to entail costs of 3-4 billion kr.^[215] According to its wording, the agreement was to provide full compensation to mink breeders and employees of mink dependent ancillary industries, regardless of whether the culling could legally be described as expropriation according to Section 73 of the Constitution.^[216] According to the think tank Kraka, the agreement entailed a compensation of between 11 and 13 million kr. for each mink breeder, a significant overcompensation for the industry.^[217] Researcher Henning Otte Hansen at the Institute of Food and Resource Economics (Institut for Fødevare- og Ressourceøkonomi) at the University of Copenhagen also believed that the substitutes were on the upper end of what was natural.^[218]

Implementation (udmøntning)

The compensation to the individual mink companies was to depend on assessments made by "a special compensation and valuation commission for handling the mink compensations".^[219] On 18 December 2021, the Ministry of Food announced, after the establishment of six compensation and assessment commissions, that the assessment of the mink companies would begin.^[220]

On 23 September 2022, based on SSI's assessment, the government decided to lift the ban on mink breeding from 1 January 2023.^[221] However, only 14 mink companies had applied for hibernation compensation and thus the possibility to resume mink breeding later against 1,223 who had applied for shutdown compensation^[222] equivalent to approx. 1% of the profession.^[223] Of this, it was Tage Pedersen's assessment in August of that year that between one and four would actually end up restarting.^[224] Mink breeders who chose to restart had to continue to comply with infection prevention measures, including testing of mink, use of protective equipment and hygiene course.^[225] The responsible minister, Rasmus Prehn, said about this, "It would not be possible for the mink industry to start up again without these measures. If we do not have these rules of the game, then it might be too big a risk to start up again".^[224]

According to the Ministry of Food, payments to the mink breeders as of 2 September 2022 had cost the Danish state 6.6 billion kr.^[226] However, the total cost of payments is expected to be in the region of 20 billion kr.^[227]

Officially, in June 2022, the Veterinary Food Administration expected that the valuation commissions would be completed in 2024.^[228] However, in September 2022, the Danish Transport Agency, which was the secretariat for the independent valuation commissions, informed the Ministry of Food and Agriculture that, based on the experience from the first 25 cases, it could take until 2027 before all mink breeders would be compensated.^[229]

Criticism by the opposition

NB), Alex Vanopslagh (LA

).

Criticisms from the political opposition restated to a high degree the legal and medical criticisms. The opposition parties in the blue block criticised the government for having ordered all mink in Denmark culled without legal basis, as well as the government in its subsequent actions to have brought the mink breeders in an uncertain judicial situation.^[230][231]

The opposition parties also criticised the government's decision-making for having been on an insufficient professional background, and that professionals within the SSI should not have had exclusive access to the data on preliminary studies,^[232] a so-called second opinion.^[233]

The government and the Prime Minister apologised on several occasions for the process with the lack of legal basis, but pointed out the background, where the government received a serious risk assessment and had a responsibility to act, not exclusively for the sake of the Danes but foreign countries as well. The government also underlined that the responsible officials during the undertaking were in an extremely physiologically stressful state of being and only endeavoured to act in accordance with interests of public health.^[234][235]

In an opinion poll conducted by Epinion for Altinget.dk in April 2022 on whether mink breeding should again be allowed in Denmark, 46% of respondents were in favor, 37% against and 16% answered "Don't know".^[i][236]

Mette Frederiksen as prime minister was criticised, among other things, by Venstre's chairman Jakob Ellemann-Jensen for showing absolute power (magtfuldkommenhed) during the process.^[237] In September 2022, Mette Frederiksen stated that, in her opinion, the criticism of her as being powerful could partly be attributed to her being a woman.^{[238][239][240]}

The party Liberal Alliance referred to the case as "the biggest political scandal in the history of Denmark".^[241] Mette Frederiksen stated on 24 August 2022 that she did not find reason to necessarily call the case a scandal, but that a mistake had been made, as there was a lack of legal basis for a decision that was otherwise necessary.^[242] After criticism from different sides, she clarified six days later that she indeed found it to be "a political scandal".^[243]

During the election campaign, the opposition politicians in the blue block announced that if the majority in the Folketing would shift after the election, they would initiate an impartial lawyer's assessment of prime minister Frederiksen's and other ministers' legal responsibilities in the case.^[244] Five days after the presentation of the Mink Commission's report, the party of Alternativet announced that they "of course" also supported a lawyer's assessment, which they ran on.^[245] Furthermore, the chairman of Moderaterne, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, in September referred to a lawyer's assessment of the Mink Commission's report as an ultimatum to support any government^[246] and repeated this during the election campaign in October, where he, among other things, stated, "I am sure that if we do not reach a dignified ending for this matter, we will be gambling with democracy, regardless of which government comes after this election".^[246]

2022 general election and afterwards

See also: 2022 Danish general election

The general election on 1 November gave Mette Frederiksen's ruling Social Democratic party their strongest showing in more than 20 years with 27.6% of the vote, which was viewed as a public vote of confidence in her handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.^[247] The party together with its supporting "red bloc" obtained a majority of seats without the blue bloc and Moderaterne.^[248] On the day following the election, the political leader of Alternativet, Franciska Rosenkilde, announced that the party would nevertheless not support a lawyer's assessment of the Mink Commission's report.^[249] On 3 November, after being overruled by her newly elected parliamentary group, Rosenkilde announced that her party once again supported a lawyer assessment.^[250][251] Simultaneously, Løkke Rasmussen also became ambiguous about the demand for a lawyer's assessment. Succeeding a new, during the government negotiations submitted, own-initiative lawyer's assessment compiled by three professors, in which it was concluded that Mette Frederiksen likely would not be convicted if going to the Supreme Court, Alternativet once again became ambiguous on the demand^[252] and said they would read the assessment and announce their position in "a couple of weeks".^[253] On 7 December the party announced their continued support for a lawyer's assessment.^[254]

Election researcher Niels Nørgaard Kristensen, Aalborg University, and the historian Christian Egander Skov assessed that the opposition parties during the election campaign had overestimated the impact of the Mink Case, and that the election result showed a "mink fatigue" to have set in among parts of the electorate, not perceiving it as an important election issue.^[255][256] After the election, Danish People's Party leader Morten Messerschmidt described it likewise as a mistake that the Blue Block had focued so much on the mink cull.^[257]

Frederiksen II Cabinet

See also: Frederiksen II Cabinet

The negotiations on a new government were formally initiated on 4 November at the Prime Minister's official residence

Deputy Prime Minister with Løkke becoming Minister of Foreign Affairs.^[260]

A poll by Danish analysis institute Megafon showed on 24 December that 65% of Venstre voters entirely or predominantly disagreeing with the decision not to have a lawyer's assessment with the number only being 47% for voters of Moderaterne and 5% for social democratic voters.[261]^[262]

In accordance with the Ministerial Liability Act, ministers' criminal liability expires after five years, meaning the case will be out of date from November 2025.^[263][264]

After the ban expired on 1 January 2023, the first mink entered Denmark again on 14 January as import from Norway to a mink breeder on Thyholm who was among the 13 mink breeders in total to have applied to restart the breeding.^[265]

On 20 June, Venstre minister Troels Lund Poulsen stated that after a long investigation, neither the Defence Intelligence Service nor the Center for Cyber Security had been able to revive Mette Frederiksen's deleted text messages.^[266][267]

See also

• Timeline of the 2020 Danish mink cull (in Danish)
• Political impact of the COVID-19 pandemic
• Impeachment of Inger Støjberg
• Instruction Commission (in Danish)
• Tamil Case
• Tibet flag case
• IC4 case (in Danish)
• Eritrea Case (in Danish)

Notes

1. ^ Among ministers participated Minister for Finance Nicolai Wammen, Minister for Foreign Affairs Jeppe Kofod, Minister for Taxation Morten Bødskov. Minister of Justice Nick Hækkerup was absent due to illness. Among officials participated Head of Department in the Ministry of Food Henrik Studsgaard, Head of Department in the Ministry of Justice Johan Legarth, and Head of Department in the Ministry of the State Barbara Bertelsen.^[17]
2. ^ Original Danish: "Så ja, der kan være røget en finke af panden og mere end det. Lev med det – lev med det". The first part directly translates to, "So yes, there may have fallen off a finch from the forehead. This is a Danish idiom meaning that someone has said something stupid or ill-conceived.^[125]
3. ^ Martin Justesen, Barbara Bertelsen, and Pelle Pape. Johan Kristian Legarth, its head of department, participated as representative of the Ministry of Justice.
4. ^ "Irettesættelse" with the closest English equivalents being reprimand (reprimande) or correction (korrektion) is a stronger expression of disapproval than simply a warning (advarsel).
5. ^ After number of seat per 1 June 2022: Socialdemokratiet (49), Radikale Venstre (14), Socialistisk Folkeparti (15), and Enhedslisten (13).
6. ^ After number of seat per 1 June 2022: Venstre (39), Det Konservative Folkeparti (13), Dansk Folkeparti (6), Nye Borgerlige (4), Liberal Alliance (3), and Frie Grønne (3).
7. ^ Due to the Folketing's rules of procedure this could practically only happen after the opening of the Folketing on 6 October,^[168] why Radikale Venstre postponed the deadline.^[169]
8. ^ Behind in the agreement were the Social Democrats, the Liberal Party, the Radical Liberal Party, the Socialist People's Party, and the Liberal Alliance.
9. ^ The remaining one % answered "Don't wish to answer".
10. ^ Enhedslisten (9), Socialistisk Folkeparti (15), Alternativet (6), Inuit Ataqatigiit (1), Siumut (1), Socialdemokratiet (50), Javnaðarflokkurin (1), Radikale Venstre (7), Moderaterne (16), Sambandsflokkurin (1), Det Konservative Folkeparti (10), Venstre (23), Liberal Alliance (14), Danmarksdemokraterne (14), Dansk Folkeparti (5), Nye Borgerlige (6).

References

1. ^
   Danmarks Statistik
   . 26 January 2021. Retrieved 21 October 2022.
2. ^ ^{a b} "FACTS: Denmark is the world's largest producer of mink fur" (in Danish). Nord News. 5 November 2020. Retrieved 8 November 2020.
3. ISBN 978-1-84162-359-7
   . Retrieved 11 June 2013.
4. Danmarks Statistik. Archived
   from the original on 2 October 2022. Retrieved 3 October 2022.
5. ^ ^{a b} "Faktaark: Minkbranchen" (PDF). Finansministeriet. Erhversministeriet og Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri. 25 January 2021. Archived (PDF) from the original on 7 October 2022. Retrieved 25 September 2022.
6. ^ ^{a b} Huang, Pien. "Dutch Minks Contract COVID-19 – And Appear To Infect Humans". All Things Considered. No. 25 June 2020. National Public Radio, Inc. Retrieved 3 October 2020.
7. ^ "Mutant coronaviruses found in mink spark massive culls and doom a Danish group's research". www.science.org. Retrieved 4 January 2023.
8. ^ "Not fur sale: COVID-19 brings Dutch mink farming to an end". The Economist. No. 5-11 September 2020. The Economist Newspaper Limited.
9. ^ "Coronavirus rips through Dutch mink farms, triggering culls to prevent human infections". www.science.org. Retrieved 4 January 2023.
10. ^ Cahan, Eli (18 August 2020). "COVID-19 hits U.S. mink farms after ripping through Europe". Science. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved 3 October 2020.
11. ^ ^{a b} "Mutationer i minkvirus". Statens Serum Institut. 5 November 2020. Archived from the original on 7 January 2021. Retrieved 18 November 2020.
12. ^ ^{a b} "MFVM har anmodet SUM om en risikovurdering ift. human sundhed, hvis minkavlere efter aflivning af smittede dyr eller pelsning i 2020-sæsonen, fortsætter minkproduktionen ind i 2021 som normalt. Der er alene brug for en vurdering af risiko, ikke forslag til mulige løsninger. (Bilag 1)" (PDF). Statens Serum Institut. 3 November 2020. Archived (PDF) from the original on 6 January 2022. Retrieved 3 October 2022.
13. ^
    Den Store Danske. Archived
    from the original on 28 August 2022. Retrieved 28 August 2022.
14. ^ "Denmark to Cull One Million Mink Due to Coronavirus". United States Department of Agriculture. 8 October 2020. Retrieved 20 October 2022.
15. ^ Prakash, Thomas (13 October 2020). "Statens Serum Institut: Mink med muteret virus kan ødelægge effekten af vaccine". DR. Archived from the original on 8 September 2022. Retrieved 8 September 2022.
16. ^ "Heunicke bekræftede på centralt møde: Alle mink skal aflives". AgriWatch. 28 October 2021. Archived from the original on 8 September 2022. Retrieved 8 September 2022.
17. ^ Janus Østergaard, Jonas Sahl og Kristian B. Larsen (13 November 2020). "Cand.lur: Topjurister snorksov i minkskandale". Ekstra Bladet. Archived from the original on 13 November 2020. Retrieved 5 March 2021.
18. ^ Grønning, Pernille (11 December 2021). "Detektor: Mette Frederiksen og mindst 25 andre kunne have læst minkbilag". DR. Archived from the original on 8 September 2022. Retrieved 8 September 2022.
19. ^
    Den Store Danske. Archived
    from the original on 8 October 2022. Retrieved 7 October 2022.
20. ^ Kragelund, Michael; Moestrup, Jonas H. R. (9 October 2021). "Afgørende møde i regeringen blev holdt uden referat - problematisk, mener professor". TV 2. Archived from the original on 2 October 2022. Retrieved 3 October 2022.
21. ^ https://www.ft.dk/samling/20211/almdel/REU/bilag/301/2602662.pdf Archived 13 October 2022 at the Wayback Machine Side 735
22. ^ Hjøllund, Michael (4 November 2021). "Embedsmænd i undren over minkhast: Kunne de ikke vente én dag?". Jyllands-Posten. Archived from the original on 7 October 2022. Retrieved 6 October 2022.
23. ^ Arp, Andreas; Korsgaard, Kristine (28 June 2022). "Det vigtigste fra Minkkommissionen dag for dag: "Dette er ikke en almindelig sag. Det er en sag, der kan koste en eller flere ministre deres politiske liv. I bedste fald. Kan også blive meget værre, who knows"". Altinget. Retrieved 17 October 2022.
24. ^ Friberg, Jacob; Leonhard, Anders (11 November 2020). "B.T. afslører: Mette F. havde ansvaret for beslutning om ulovlig ordre". B.T. Archived from the original on 7 October 2022. Retrieved 6 October 2022.
25. Statsministeriet. 4 November 2020. Archived
    from the original on 2 September 2022. Retrieved 6 October 2022.
26. ^ Pressemøde den 4 November 2020 Archived 25 April 2021 at the Wayback Machine Statsministeriet.
27. ^ Andersen, Lasse Skou; Abrahamsen, Sebastian; Bahn, Martin (5 November 2020). "Myndighederne frygter, at Nordjylland bliver et nyt Wuhan: Alle mink skal aflives". Information. Archived from the original on 20 November 2020. Retrieved 6 October 2022.
28. ^ ^{a b c} Foghsgaard, Lasse (8 October 2022). "Professor i ny bog: SSI's virusforsøg, som fik minkskandalen til at rulle, hvilede på et tyndt videnskabeligt grundlag". Politiken. Retrieved 16 October 2022.
29. Folketinget
    . 13 December 2021. Retrieved 21 October 2022.
30. Folketinget
    . 13 December 2021. Retrieved 21 October 2022.
31. ^ "Oversigt over minkaflivninger i efteråret 2020" (PDF). ft.dk. Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri. 10 December 2021. Retrieved 22 October 2022.
32. ^ Ritzau (8 November 2022). "Vanopslagh om vurdering af minksag: Alt er til forhandling". Berlingske. Retrieved 15 January 2023.
33. ^
    Folketinget. Miljø- og Fødevareministeriet. 18 November 2020. Archived
    (PDF) from the original on 16 June 2022. Retrieved 28 September 2022.
34. ^ Birk, Christian; Pedersen, Lars Nørgaard (15 November 2021). "Heunickes højre hånd afviste at give Folketinget afgørende oplysninger timer før minkaflivning. Hidtil ukendt e-mail sætter forløbet i helt nyt lys". Berlingske. Archived from the original on 6 October 2022. Retrieved 6 October 2022.
35. ^ Birk, Christian; Pedersen, Lars Nørgaard (4 November 2021). "Mette Frederiksens nye forsøg på at tale minktrussel op mødes med hovedrysten fra eksperter: »Regeringen stod ikke på en brændende platform«". Berlingske. Archived from the original on 6 October 2022. Retrieved 6 October 2022.
36. Berlingske.dk. 11 February 2021. Archived
    from the original on 9 October 2022. Retrieved 9 October 2022.
37. ^ Østergaard, Andreas; Stampe, Camilla; Frøkjær, Sofie; Arve, Nikolaj (17 November 2020). "Detektor: Regeringen besluttede at aflive mink uden at spørge central myndighed". DR. Archived from the original on 28 September 2022. Retrieved 6 October 2022.
38. Folketinget. Lægemiddelstyrelsen. 9 November 2020. Archived
    (PDF) from the original on 4 April 2021. Retrieved 6 October 2022.
39. ^ Rasmussen, Lars Igum (9 November 2020). "Kåre Mølbak om massiv debat om mutation i mink: »Det er mere i det politiske landskab, der er lagt meget fokus på cluster-5«". Politiken. Archived from the original on 7 October 2022. Retrieved 6 October 2022.
40. ^ Ringgaard, Anne; Salomonsen, Jonas (13 November 2020). "Overdrev regeringen faren ved mutationen cluster 5? Her er citaterne fra mink-pressemødet". Videnskab.dk. Archived from the original on 6 October 2022. Retrieved 6 October 2022.
41. ^ Jensenius, Jens Christian (29 October 2021). "Regeringens panikagtige nedlukning af minkerhvervet hvilede kun på en tolkning af foreløbige undersøgelser". Jyllands-Posten. Archived from the original on 6 October 2022. Retrieved 6 October 2022.
42. ^ Rasmussen, Lars Igum (9 October 2022). "Aflivning af mink: »Det var helt vildt. Og jeg vidste intet. Jeg kendte jo ikke det faglige grundlag, som Kåre havde«". Politiken. Retrieved 16 October 2022.
43. ^ Birk, Christian (9 October 2022). "Trumps coronarådgiver ringede til topforsker for at forstå dansk minkpanik: Tiltag blev opfattet som »et radikalt skridt«". Berlingske. Retrieved 18 October 2022.
44. ^ Jepsen, Helene (11 November 2020). "Det er ikke vores anbefaling at aflive alle mink, siger WHO". TV 2 Fyn. Retrieved 5 November 2022.
45. ^ Andersen, Keld Vrå (12 November 2020). "Anthony Fauci: Dansk minksmitte truer næppe en vaccine". TV 2. Ritzau. Retrieved 5 November 2022.
46. Den Store Danske. Archived
    from the original on 8 October 2022. Retrieved 7 October 2022.
47. ^
    Folketinget. Miljø- og Fødevareministeriet. 18 November 2020. Archived
    (PDF) from the original on 16 June 2022. Retrieved 28 September 2022.
48. ^ Jensen, Laura Bejder; Lønstrup, Katrine Falk (30 June 2022). "Få overblikket: Det skriver Minkkommissionen om de centrale ministre". Altinget. Archived from the original on 20 September 2022. Retrieved 17 September 2022.
49. ^ Vinkel, Emma B.; Degenkolv, Peter (8 November 2020). "Mogens Jensen om mink-aflivning: Kunne ikke afvente lovgivning". Ekstra Bladet. Retrieved 29 October 2022.
50. ^ Cordes, Torsten (9 November 2020). "Mogens Jensen: Situationen var så alvorlig, at der ikke kunne ventes på ny lovgivning". Berlingske. Retrieved 29 October 2022.
51. ^ ^{a b} "Skiftende forklaringer: Her er alt, der er blevet sagt i minksagen". TV 2 Lorry. TV 2. 12 November 2020. Retrieved 29 October 2022.
52. ^ Risbro, Jakob (8 December 2020). "SDU-professor: - Det var lovligt at aflive fynske mink". TV 2 Fyn. Archived from the original on 7 October 2021. Retrieved 7 October 2021.
53. ^ Andersen, Lasse Skou (10 December 2020). "Var beslutningen om at aflive alle mink lovlig eller ulovlig? Vi forsøger at rede trådene ud". Dagbladet Information. Archived from the original on 7 October 2021. Retrieved 2 October 2021.
54. ^ Ritzau (7 December 2020). "Topembedsmand bag dyrelov: Der var hjemmel til minkaflivning". Berlingske. Archived from the original on 7 October 2021. Retrieved 7 October 2021.
55. ^ ^{a b} Martin Borre og Michael Alsen (29 October 2021). "Frederiksens og Bertelsens advokater smider opsigtsvækkende notat på bordet: Påstår der alligevel var hjemmel til at aflive alle mink". Berlingske. Archived from the original on 3 October 2022. Retrieved 3 October 2022.
56. ^ ^{a b} Statsministeriets bisiddere betvivler, at det overhovedet var ulovligt at slå minkene ihjel Archived 3 October 2022 at the Wayback Machine, Information 30 October 2021
57. ^ Wismann, Ida Marie Lomholt (22 September 2022). "Yderligere tre embedsmænd får advarsel i minksagen". TV 2. Archived from the original on 22 September 2022. Retrieved 22 September 2022.
58. ^ Szumski, Charles (5 October 2022). "Danish PM called snap elections following mink-gate scandal". Euractiv.
59. ^ Mogens Jensen trækker sig som fødevareminister efter minkskandale Archived 30 November 2020 at the Wayback Machine (dr.dk, 2020-11-18)
60. ^ Frost, Karl Emil (19 November 2020). "Statsministeren splitter omstridt ministerium i to". Altinget. Retrieved 23 October 2020.
61. ^ "Rasmus Prehn bliver ny fødevareminister". Finans. Ritzau. 19 November 2020. Retrieved 23 October 2022.
62. ^ Ødegaard, Allan (17 February 2021). "Minksagen fældede Mogens Jensen: Nu drømmer han om comeback som minister". TV Midtvest. Retrieved 21 October 2022.
63. ^ "Lov om aflivning af og midlertidigt forbud mod hold af mink". Retsinformation. 29 December 2020. Retrieved 20 October 2022.
64. ^ "SSI's svar til høring over L 77 vedr. aflivning af og midlertidigt forbud mod hold af mink" (PDF). Statens Serum Institut. 26 November 2020. Archived (PDF) from the original on 23 December 2020. Retrieved 5 April 2021.
65. ^ "L 77 - svar på spm. 134 om kommentar til høringssvar fra SSI, fra ministeren for fødevarer, landbrug og fiskeri" (PDF). 7 December 2020. Archived (PDF) from the original on 23 April 2021. Retrieved 5 April 2021.
66. ^ "Regeringen opgiver hastelov om mink". Berlingske. 9 November 2020. Archived from the original on 28 September 2022. Retrieved 28 September 2022.
67. Statsministeriet. 4 November 2020. Archived
    from the original on 25 April 2021. Retrieved 5 April 2021.
68. ^ Justitsminister Nick Hækkerup: Uklart hvorfor Politiet hjalp i minkaflivning Archived 25 November 2021 at the Wayback Machine Børsen
69. ^ Friberg, Jacob (29 November 2020). "Hemmelige detaljer om Operation Mink: Sådan blev Mettes ulovlige ordre udført". B.T. Retrieved 22 October 2022.
70. ^ Anders Byskov Svendsen, Rasmus Lindegaard Hansen, Andreas Nygaard Just (1 December 2020). "Politiet tilføjede kontroversiel besked til minkavlere ved aflivningsopkald". DR. Archived from the original on 27 January 2022. Retrieved 25 November 2021.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
71. ^ "Redegørelse for forløbet vedrørende manglende hjemmel til at udvide den hidtidige indsats med aflivning af mink til hele landet" (PDF). Miljø- og Fødevareministeriet. 18 November 2020. Archived (PDF) from the original on 19 November 2020. Retrieved 5 April 2021.
72. ^ Thomas Prakash (19 November 2020). "Ekspert: 'Fuldstændigt uforståeligt', at politiet udførte ulovlig ordre". DR. Archived from the original on 19 November 2020. Retrieved 20 November 2020.
73. ^ Anders Byskov Svendsen, Nicolas S. Nielsen, Mette Viktoria Pabst Andersen, Søren Larsen (19 November 2020). "Rigspolitichef under pres: Vidste i flere dage, at aflivningsordre var ulovlig". DR. Archived from the original on 20 November 2020. Retrieved 20 November 2020.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
74. Folketinget. 22 April 2021. Archived
    (PDF) from the original on 10 May 2021. Retrieved 9 May 2021.
75. ^ Anders Leonhard (21 April 2021). "Nu skal 'minkskandalen' kulegraves: Gemmer Mette Frederiksen på sandheden?". B.T. Archived from the original on 21 April 2021. Retrieved 21 April 2021.
76. ^ ^{a b c} Claus Guldager (8 October 2021). "Beretning om undersøgelse af politiets brug af actioncards i Minksagen" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 8 October 2021. Retrieved 7 November 2021. s. 130
77. ^ Claus Guldager (14 October 2021). "Sammenfatning af beretning om undersøgelse af politiets brug af actioncards i Minksagen" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 8 December 2021. Retrieved 8 December 2021.
78. ^ Kragelund, Michael; Moestrup, Jonas H. R. (8 October 2021). "Vildledende actioncard kom ikke fra politiets ledelse, konkluderer minkundersøgelse". TV 2. Archived from the original on 29 August 2022. Retrieved 29 August 2022.
79. ^ Jacob Friberg (20 October 2021). "Advokatundersøgelse modsiger Mette Frederiksens forsvar i minksagen". B.T. Archived from the original on 7 November 2021. Retrieved 7 November 2021.
80. Folketinget. 19 November 2021. Archived
    from the original on 8 December 2021. Retrieved 8 December 2021.
81. ^ Mysteriet om actioncard er opklaret Archived 1 September 2022 at the Wayback Machine DR.
82. ^ Jørgensen, Lars Bach (27 November 2020). "Flertal i Folketinget vil have millioner af mink gravet op". TV Midtvest. Archived from the original on 20 February 2021. Retrieved 28 August 2022.
83. ^ "Beslutningsgrundlag vedrørende nedgravede mink" (PDF). Fødevarestyrelsen. 13 December 2020. Archived (PDF) from the original on 28 August 2022. Retrieved 28 August 2022.
84. ^ "Aflivede mink graves ned". Politiet. 7 November 2020. Archived from the original on 28 August 2022. Retrieved 28 August 2022.
85. ^ Sand, Pernille Keller (12 May 2021). "Kranfører er klar til at brænde tonsvis af døde mink: - Jeg frygter det ikke". TV Midtvest. Archived from the original on 28 August 2022. Retrieved 28 August 2022.
86. ^ Askvig, Brian (10 November 2020). "Døde mink kan forurene grundvandet". Ekstra Bladet. Archived from the original on 28 August 2022. Retrieved 28 August 2022.
87. ^ Ritzau (2 December 2020). "Ministre skal forklare minknedgravning på samråd". Berlingske. Archived from the original on 28 August 2022. Retrieved 28 August 2022.
88. ^ "Flertal i Folketinget beslutter model for opgravning af mink". LandbrugsAvisen. 21 December 2020. Archived from the original on 28 August 2022. Retrieved 28 August 2022.
89. ^ Ritzau (5 May 2021). "Opgravning af mink begynder i næste uge – kan medføre store lugtgener". TV 2. Archived from the original on 28 August 2022. Retrieved 28 August 2022.
90. ^ Langberg, Maja (10 May 2021). "Nu skal fire millioner døde mink graves op igen". TV 2. Archived from the original on 28 August 2022. Retrieved 28 August 2022.
91. ^ "Arkiveret kopi". 19 April 2021. Archived from the original on 28 August 2022. Retrieved 28 August 2022.
92. ^ Svendsen, Anders Byskov; Andersen, Mette Viktoria Pabst (9 December 2020). "Forbrændingsanlæg havde masser af plads, mens grave blev fyldt op med millioner af døde mink". DR. Archived from the original on 28 August 2022. Retrieved 28 August 2022.
93. ^ Fonager, Olav (13 May 2021). "Minister kalder det "pinligt" at mink skal graves ned og op igen". TV Midtvest. Archived from the original on 28 August 2022. Retrieved 28 August 2022.
94. ^ Ritzau (25 November 2020). "Eksperter sår tvivl om lovligheden af minkgrave". Berlingske. Archived from the original on 28 August 2022. Retrieved 28 August 2022.
95. ^ "Minister kalder det "pinligt" at mink skal graves ned og op igen". TV Midtvest (in Danish). 13 May 2021. Retrieved 26 December 2022.
96. Folketinget. 22 April 2021. Archived
    (PDF) from the original on 10 May 2021. Retrieved 9 May 2021.
97. ^ Pernille A. Truelsen og Karen-Margrethe Schebye (8 October 2021). "Advokatundersøgelsen om nedgravning af aflivede mink" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 7 November 2021. Retrieved 7 November 2021.
98. ^ ^{a b} Pernille A. Truelsen og Karen-Margrethe Schebye (8 October 2021). "PowerPoint Beretning om Advokatundersøgelse nedgravning af aflivede mink" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 8 December 2021. Retrieved 8 December 2021.
99. ^ Kristine Korsgaard (11 November 2020). "Folketingsudvalg sætter gang i uvildig undersøgelse af minksagen". Altinget.
100. ^ Jørgensen, Anna Sol (10 December 2020). "Minksagen kan nu undersøges af en ny kommission, der kan indkalde både ministre og embedsfolk som vidner". DR Nyheder.
101. ^ Udvalget for Forretningsordenen; Granskningsudvalget (23 April 2021). "Kommissorium for en granskningskommission om sagen om aflivning af mink" (PDF). Folketinget. Archived (PDF) from the original on 23 October 2021. Retrieved 8 September 2022.
102. ^ ^{a b} Udvalget for Forretningsordenen; Granskningsudvalget (23 April 2021). "Kommissorium for en granskningskommission om sagen om aflivning af mink" (PDF). Folketinget. Archived (PDF) from the original on 23 October 2021. Retrieved 8 September 2022.
103. ^ Udvalget for Forretningsordenen; Granskningsudvalget (19 November 2021). "Tillægskommissorium af 19 November 2021 for Granskningskommissionen om sagen om aflivning af mink" (PDF). Folketinget. Retrieved 19 November 2021.
104. ^ "Udspørger udpeget til Granskningskommission". Folketinget (in Danish). Retrieved 4 April 2023.
105. ^ Lars Trier Mogensen: Minkskandalen kan udvikle sig livsfarligt for Mette Frederiksen Archived 3 October 2022 at the Wayback Machine, Information, 23 October 2021
106. ^ Topfolk i Justitsministeriet var "oprigtigt i tvivl" om hjemmel, men stålsat retschef gav sig ikke Archived 3 October 2022 at the Wayback Machine. DR, 5 November 2021. Hentet 12 November 2021.
107. Politiken. Archived
     from the original on 3 October 2022. Retrieved 3 October 2022.
108. ^ Anders Rostgaard (27 January 2022). "Juraprofessor slår fast: Der var ikke hjemmel til nedslagtning af alle mink". Landbrugsavisen. Archived from the original on 3 October 2022. Retrieved 3 October 2022.
109. ^ Svendsen, Anders Byskov; Chor, Jakob (11 November 2021). "Intern mail: Barbara Bertelsen arbejdede for, at aflivning ikke måttes kaldes for nedlukning". DR. Archived from the original on 2 October 2022. Retrieved 28 September 2022. Det har den samme effekt. Man kunne måske godt teoretisk forestille sig, at man straks efter minkene var aflivet, fik lov til at hende nogle nye mink i et andet land og begyndte at opdrætte dem. Det er bare et meget teoretisk scenarie.
110. ^ Persongalleri: Minkkommissionen bevæger sig tættere på den ulovlige ordre Archived 3 October 2022 at the Wayback Machine, Politiken 14 November 2021.
111. ^ ^{a b} Efter afhøringen af Barbara Bertelsen er der stadig ingen klare beviser mod Statsministeriet Archived 2 October 2022 at the Wayback Machine, Martine Amalie Krogh i Information 19 November 2021
112. ^ ^{a b} Barbara Bertelsen om centralt bilag: »Jeg læser det stadig sådan, at der ikke står, at der ikke er hjemmel til aflivning af alle mink« Archived 2 October 2022 at the Wayback Machine, Politiken 19- november 2021
113. ^ Få dage før sin afhøring har Magnus Heunicke afleveret håndskrevne noter om forløb med aflivning af alle mink. Archived 3 October 2022 at the Wayback Machine AvisenDk 26 November 2021
114. ^ Krogh, Martine Amalie (4 December 2021). "Martin Justesen holdt regeringens linje og blev »mistænkeliggjort« af kommissionen" Archived 6 October 2022 at the Wayback Machine. Information.
115. ^ Ritzau (9 December 2021). "Mette Frederiksen: Nogen skulle have advaret inden aflivning af mink". Fyens Stfftstidende. Archived from the original on 3 October 2022. Retrieved 3 October 2022.
116. ^ "Redegørelse for forløbet vedrørende manglende hjemmel til at udvide den hidtidige indsats med aflivning af mink til hele landet" (PDF). Miljø- og Fødevareministeriet. 18 November 2020. Archived (PDF) from the original on 19 November 2020. Retrieved 5 April 2021.
117. ^ Henrik Jensen og Martin Borre (11 November 2021). "En række hidtil ukendte dokumenter sår tvivl om central forklaring fra Mogens Jensen". Berlingske. Archived from the original on 3 October 2022. Retrieved 3 October 2022.
118. ^ Ritzau (9 December 2021). "Sms fra fortiden fra Mogens Jensen sår tvivl om minkforklaring". Jyllands-Posten. Archived from the original on 3 October 2022. Retrieved 3 October 2022.
119. ^ Jacob Friberg (27 January 2022). "Oplysninger om kritiseret mink-redegørelse mørklægges: 'Skal holdes i snæver kreds'". B.T. Archived from the original on 3 October 2022. Retrieved 3 October 2022.
120. ^ Anders Rostgaard (6 January 2022). "Topembedsmand i Statsministeriet: Opfattede ikke information om manglende lovgrundlag som problematisk". Landbrugsavisen. Archived from the original on 3 October 2022. Retrieved 3 October 2022.
121. ^ Maiken Brusgaard Christensen (28 January 2022). "Mette Frederiksens slettede sms'er fremlagt i Minkkommissionen: - Få styr på det". TV 2 Nyhederne. Archived from the original on 3 October 2022. Retrieved 3 October 2022.
122. TV2 Nord. Archived
     from the original on 3 October 2022. Retrieved 3 October 2022.
123. ^ Lars Trier Mogensen: Minkskandalen kan udvikle sig livsfarligt for Mette Frederiksen, Information, 23. oktober 2021
124. ^ Olivia, Høj (1 November 2021). "Minkkommissions ønske om sms'er fra Statsministeriet blev først besvaret efter 132 dage". DR. Archived from the original on 3 October 2022. Retrieved 29 August 2022.
125. ^ Fr, Johs Nørregaard; sen (16 December 2019). "Derfor ryger der en finke af panden". Kristeligt Dagblad (in Danish). Retrieved 30 December 2022.
126. Statsministeriet. 3 November 2021. Archived
     from the original on 1 July 2022. Retrieved 3 October 2022.
127. ^ Korsgaard, Kristine (4 November 2021). "Mette Frederiksen forsvarer embedsmænd i minksagen: "Lev med det"". Altinget. Archived from the original on 3 October 2022. Retrieved 3 October 2022.
128. ^ Søe, Carl-Emil; Barfoed, Christian Krabbe (3 November 2021). "Statsminister om barske sms'er: Lev med det". TV 2. Archived from the original on 2 October 2022. Retrieved 3 October 2022.
129. ^ Astrup, Peter (4 November 2021). "Søs Marie Serup: 'Lev med det' er typisk Mette Frederiksen". Ekstra Bladet. Archived from the original on 3 October 2022. Retrieved 3 October 2022.
130. ^ Holst, Emma Qvirin; Overgaard, Jonas Wiinblad (7 October 2022). "Valgkampens første rigtige dag blev brugt i maratondebat: Her er de seks vigtigste pointer". TV 2. Retrieved 16 October 2022.
131. ^ Trolle, Jakob Slyngborg (6 October 2022). "'Lev med det' var en fejl - det var det ikke at slå minkene ned, siger Mette Frederiksen". DR. Archived from the original on 10 October 2022. Retrieved 10 October 2022.
132. ^ Busk Stie, Hans-Henrik (12 November 2021). "Politiet er færdig med forsøg på at genskabe sms'er". TV 2. Archived from the original on 9 September 2022. Retrieved 9 September 2022. Minkkommissionen, Justitsministeriet og om muligt de pågældende personers bisiddere vil nu drøfte den videre proces herfor. Det er således endnu ikke muligt at oplyse, om det er lykkedes at genskabe relevant materiale.
133. ^ Miles, James Kristoffer; Larsen, Kristian B. (22 November 2022). "Kommission: Mette F. og co. gemte sms-bombe til EFTER valget". Ekstra Bladet. Archived from the original on 9 September 2022. Retrieved 9 September 2022.
134. ^ Friberg, Jaob; Sinnbeck, Peter (15 November 2021). "Regeringen nægter at oplyse om sms-beskeder er genskabt". BT. Archived from the original on 20 August 2022. Retrieved 29 August 2022.
135. ^ Campbell, Miklas Ravn (22 November 2021). "Mette Frederiksen besluttede at udskyde sms-nyt til efter valg". Se & Hør. Archived from the original on 2 October 2022. Retrieved 29 August 2022.
136. ^ Friberg, Jacob; Andersen, Nicolai Grau (17 November 2021). "Søren Pape kræver nyt forsøg på at genskabe Mette Frederiksens slettede sms-beskeder". B.T. Archived from the original on 13 October 2022. Retrieved 2 October 2022.
137. ^ Larsen, Julie Almann (17 November 2021). "Venstre raser mod regeringen: - Undskyld, men hvor dumme tror de, vi er?". TV 2. Archived from the original on 13 October 2022. Retrieved 2 October 2022.
138. ^ Wismann, Ida Marie Lomholt; Nielsen, Morten (23 November 2021). "Mette Frederiksen åbnede først kuvert om sms'er onsdag: - Jeg var optaget af andre ting". TV 2. Archived from the original on 9 September 2022. Retrieved 9 September 2022. I de dage, hvor Mette Frederiksen kunne have brugt tid på at åbne kuverten, var hun blandt andet i Hjørring og Aarhus for at vise sin støtte til de socialdemokratiske kandidater.
139. ^ Beretning Kapitel 8-9, afsnit 9.2.2.23.6. Archived 13 October 2022 at the Wayback Machine Side 739
140. ^ Ishøy, Søren Kjellberg (30 January 2022). "Ti embedsmænd risikerer fyring: Mette F. slipper foreløbigt". bt.dk. Berlingske Media. Archived from the original on 8 July 2022. Retrieved 11 August 2022.
141. ^ Få overblikket: Det skriver Minkkommissionen om de centrale ministre Archived 11 August 2022 at the Wayback Machine Altinget
142. ^ ^{a b} Wismann, Ida Marie Lomholt (22 September 2022). "Yderligere tre embedsmænd får advarsel i minksagen". TV 2. Archived from the original on 22 September 2022. Retrieved 22 September 2022.
143. ^ Kommission: Statsministeriets departementschef kan drages til ansvar i minksagen Archived 2 October 2022 at the Wayback Machine Jyllands-Posten
144. ^ Henriksen, Morten; Svendsen, Anders Byskov (30 June 2022). "Minkkommissionen: Grov vildledning af Mette Frederiksen på pressemøde om minkaflivning". DR Nyheder. Archived from the original on 30 June 2022. Retrieved 30 January 2022.
145. ^ Alsen, Michael; Reinwald, Tobias (23 January 2022). "Medie: Minkkommission kommer med sønderlemmende kritik". Berlingske. Archived from the original on 3 October 2022. Retrieved 3 October 2022.
146. ^ Nesheim, Sabina Louise; Christensen, Maiken Brusgaard (6 October 2022). "Mette Frederiksen erkender fejl i coronahåndtering - men ikke i minksagen". TV 2. Archived from the original on 10 October 2022. Retrieved 10 October 2022. Mens Mette Frederiksen altså er enig i kommissionens vurdering af, at hun ikke var vidende om manglende lovhjemmel, er hun uenig i, at der var tale om en "forceret proces"
147. ^ Kristiansen, Cecilie Lund; Skærbæk, Morten; Larsen, Johan Blem (30 January 2022). "Mogens Jensens forklaring forkastet: Har talt usandt i Folketinget". Politiken. Archived from the original on 2 October 2022. Retrieved 17 September 2022.
148. ^ Jensen, Laura Bejder; Lønstrup, Katrine Falk (30 January 2022). "Få overblikket: Det skriver Minkkommissionen om de centrale ministre". Altinget. Archived from the original on 20 September 2022. Retrieved 17 September 2022.
149. ^ Minkkommissionen: Disse ti embedsfolk kan drages til ansvar Archived 28 August 2022 at the Wayback Machine TV2
150. ^ "Arkiveret kopi". Archived from the original on 13 October 2022. Retrieved 4 September 2022.
151. ^ Høj, Olivia; Uldall, Rosa (24 August 2022). "Barbara Bertelsen får advarsel efter minksag - flere topembedsmænd fritaget fra tjeneste". dr.dk. DR Nyheder. Archived from the original on 24 August 2022. Retrieved 24 August 2022.
152. ^ Sune Dam, Philip (25 August 2022). "Eksperter korrigerer regeringen, der kalder styrelse »uafhængig": "Det er noget vitterligt vås«". Berlingske. Archived from the original on 3 September 2022. Retrieved 17 September 2022.
153. ^ Smith, Eva (26 August 2022). "Eva Smith: Minkkommissionen og Folketinget er til grin". Altinget. Archived from the original on 3 September 2022. Retrieved 17 September 2022.
154. ^ Emilie Haaber, Lynggaard; Ritzau (20 September 2022). "To embedsmænd slipper med advarsel i Minksagen". TV 2. Archived from the original on 22 September 2022. Retrieved 22 September 2022.
155. ^ "Afgørelse i personalesag som opfølgning på Minkkommissionens beretning". Justitsministeriet. 22 September 2022. Archived from the original on 22 September 2022. Retrieved 22 September 2022.
156. ^ Graversen, Mathilde (22 September 2022). "Justitsminister giver embedsmand advarsel i minksagen". TV 2. Archived from the original on 22 September 2022. Retrieved 22 September 2022.
157. ^ "Jobskifte lukker sag for hovedperson i minksag". DR (in Danish). 30 November 2022. Retrieved 1 December 2022.
158. ^ "Undersøgelse af hovedperson i minksag stopper efter jobskift - TV 2". nyheder.tv2.dk (in Danish). 30 November 2022. Retrieved 1 December 2022.
159. ^ Pressevagt (10 February 2023). "Rigspolitichef Thorkild Fogde genindtræder i tjenesten". Justitsministeriet (in Danish). Retrieved 15 February 2023.
160. ^ februar 2023, Fredag d 10; artikel, kl 13 06 Del denne artikel Del denne (10 February 2023). "Rigspolitichef Thorkild Fogde genindtræder i tjeneste". Berlingske.dk (in Danish). Retrieved 15 February 2023.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
161. ^ "Thorkild Fogde genindtræder som rigspolitichef". Jyllands-Posten (in Danish). 10 February 2023. Retrieved 15 February 2023.
162. ^ "Rigspolitichef Thorkild Fogde genindtræder - TV 2". nyheder.tv2.dk (in Danish). 10 February 2023. Retrieved 15 February 2023.
163. ^ "Ansættelsesretlig opfølgning på Minkkommissionens beretning". Statsministeriet (in Danish). Retrieved 4 April 2023.
164. ^ "Bombe i minksagen: Barbara Bertelsens advarsel trukket tilbage". DR (in Danish). 24 March 2023. Retrieved 4 April 2023.
165. ^ "Yderligere to disciplinære minkadvarsler tilbagekaldes". Berlingske.dk (in Danish). ritzau. 2 June 2023. Retrieved 19 November 2023.
166. ^ Lønstrup, Katrine Falk; Jensen, Laura Bejder (24 August 2022). "Her er Minkkommissionens kritik af ti embedsmænd". Altinget. Archived from the original on 28 August 2022. Retrieved 28 August 2022.
167. ^ Mette Frederiksen får en næse for sin rolle i minksagen Archived 3 October 2022 at the Wayback Machine, DR, 5 July 2022
168. ^ Frost, Signe Marie; Westersø, Rikke Struck (2 October 2022). "Torsdag vælter de radikale Mette Frederiksen, hvis hun ikke udskriver valg – her er scenarierne". TV 2. Archived from the original on 2 October 2022. Retrieved 3 October 2022. Ifølge Folketingets forretningsorden kan partierne ikke fremsætte forslag til vedtagelse – i dette tilfælde et mistillidsvotum – under Folketingets åbning. Dermed kan Radikale Venstre altså reelt ikke vælte regeringen før åbningsdebatten 6 October.
169. ^ Ritzau (4 October 2022). "Radikale Venstre giver Mette F. en ekstra dag til at udskrive valg". TV 2. Archived from the original on 4 October 2022. Retrieved 4 October 2022. Hvis ikke valget bliver udskrevet inden for de næste dage, vil partiet stille mistillid ved åbningsdebatten 6 October, som er første mulighed for Radikale Venstre efter deadline.
170. ^ Henriksen, Morten (2 July 2022). "Radikale freder Mette Frederiksen – men vil have hurtigt folketingsvalg". DR. Archived from the original on 27 September 2022. Retrieved 27 September 2022.
171. ^ Ritzau (4 October 2022). "Radikale Venstre giver Mette F. en ekstra dag til at udskrive valg". TV 2. Archived from the original on 4 October 2022. Retrieved 4 October 2022.
172. ^ Eller, Emil (5 October 2022). "Mette Frederiksen udskriver folketingsvalg: Afholdes 1 November". DR. Archived from the original on 5 October 2022. Retrieved 5 October 2022.
173. ^ Pedersen, Mette Stender (19 November 2020). "Mette Frederiksen: Jeg havde gjort det samme, hvis jeg vidste, det var ulovligt". TV 2 Nord. Archived from the original on 2 October 2022. Retrieved 2 October 2022.
174. ^ "Kommissorium for en granskningskommission om sagen om aflivning af mink". Minkkommissionen. Retrieved 8 October 2022.^{[permanent dead link]}
175. ^ Birk, Christian; Larsen, Jonathan Lundgren; Borre, Martin; Reinwald, Tobias (1 July 2022). "Juraprofessorer i tvivl: To afviser rigsret – og en tredje kommer med bekymrende melding for statsministeren". Berlingske. Archived from the original on 8 October 2022. Retrieved 8 October 2022.
176. ^ ^{a b} Rytgaard, Nikolaj; Jensen, Vilas Holst (2 July 2022). "Minksagen: De Radikale freder Mette Frederiksen fra juridisk efterspil - men kræver valg efter sommer og er klar til mistillid". Jyllands-Posten. Archived from the original on 8 October 2022. Retrieved 8 October 2022. Fem juraprofessorer vurderer over for Jyllands-Posten og Information, at Mette Frederiksen ikke kan straffes for grov uagtsomhed, hvis Minkkommissionens beretning lægges til grund. Primært fordi statsministeren var i god tro... Lasse Lund Madsen, professor i strafferet ved Københavns Universitet, er uenig og hælder til, at der foreligger grov – og dermed strafbar – uagtsomhed fra statsministerens side.
177. ^
     Berlingske Tidende. Archived
     from the original on 13 October 2022. Retrieved 8 October 2022. Juraprofessor Lasse Lund Madsen står tilsyneladende relativt alene med sin vurdering af, at statsminister Mette Frederiksens ageren i minksagen kan være strafbar. Flere juraprofessorer hælder kollegaens centrale argumenter ned ad brættet og anklager ham for at politisere.
178. ^ ^{a b c} Geist, Anton; Dahlin, Ulrik (2 July 2022). "Juraprofessorer: Det er svært at forestille sig Mette Frederiksen dømt for grov uagtsomhed". Dagbladet Information. Archived from the original on 8 October 2022. Retrieved 8 October 2022. Det var ikke grov uagtsomhed, at Mette Frederiksen ikke aktivt spurgte til hjemlen, da regeringen besluttede, at samtlige mink skulle aflives. Sådan lyder den umiddelbare vurdering fra tre professorer på baggrund af Minkkommissionens beretning.
179. ^ Reinwald, Tobias; Birk, Christian (22 September 2022). "Førende juraprofessor i angreb på Nye Borgerliges advokatvurdering af Mette Frederiksen: »Grænseoverskridende" og "inkriminerende«". Berlingske. Archived from the original on 13 October 2022. Retrieved 8 October 2022. Som de første jurister herhjemme konkluderer Nye Borgerliges betalte advokater torsdag, at statsminister Mette Frederiksen med »høj grad af sikkerhed« kunne stilles for en eventuel rigsret efter sin ulovlige ordre i minksagen. Advokaterne står helt alene med deres vurdering, og juraprofessor sår nu tvivl om deres kompetence og påpeger afgørende huller i deres juridiske vurdering. Advokaterne afviser kritikken.
180. ^ Andersen, Hans Skovgaard (20 July 2022). "Juraprofessoren ifører sig nu en mediemundkurv". Berlingske. Men ligegyldigt hvordan jeg vender og drejer det, kan jeg ikke finde afgørende argumenter i betænkningen for, at hun (Mette Frederiksen, red.) skulle have handlet groft uagtsomt,« siger Waage, der uddyber: »Ud fra betænkningen mener jeg ikke, man med nogen form for sikkerhed kan slå fast, at statsministeren vil blive dømt ved en rigsret.
181. ^ Hjøllund, Michael; Jørgensen, Steen A. (22 September 2022). "Advokater går stik imod andre jurister: Frederiksen kan straffes ved Rigsretten". Jyllands-Posten. Archived from the original on 8 October 2022. Retrieved 8 October 2022. "De indledte ydmygt med at slå fast, at jura ikke er en »eksakt videnskab«. Men da to advokater fra firmaet Lund Elmer Sandager torsdag fremlagde deres juridiske vurdering af minksagen, var det alligevel med en konklusion, der var både opsigtsvækkende, selvsikker, og som bringer dem på kollisionskurs med en stribe juridiske eksperter".
182. ^ ^{a b} Vestergaard, Jørn; Rytter, Jens Elo; Jensen, Jørgen Albæk (7 November 2022). "Retlig vurdering af spørgsmålet om statsminister Mette Frederiksens ansvar i Minksagen" (PDF). static-curis.ku.dk. Retrieved 12 November 2022.
183. ^ DR Detektor (26 August 2022). "Mettes ansvar og dansk Tour-feber". DR Detektor. Retrieved 12 November 2022.
184. Berlingske Tidende
     . Retrieved 22 December 2022. ...som jeg ser det, kan det ikke regnes som grov uagtsomhed, at statsministeren ikke rejser spørgsmålet om hjemmel, hvis ikke embedsmændene har taget det op. Og det er i hvert fald lidt tyndt til en rigsretssag.
185. Berlingske Tidende. Archived
     from the original on 8 October 2022. Retrieved 8 October 2022. ...Det er på den baggrund usandsynligt, at en advokatvurdering vil gå ud på, at der på baggrund af Minkkommissionens bevisresultat er en rimelig formodning for domfældelse af statsministeren for overtrædelse af ministeransvarlighedsloven. En række juridiske professorer ligger på samme linje. Der er således ikke noget sagligt behov for en advokatvurdering.
186. ^ Lasse Lund, Madsen (20 August 2022). "Juraprofessor har vendt hver en sten: Kan statsministeren straffes for sin rolle i minksagen?". Berlingske. Archived from the original on 13 October 2022. Retrieved 22 September 2022. Skal statsministeren så for en rigsret? Tja, bum, bum! For taler sagens alvorlige substans og statsministerens kritisable adfærd, der umiddelbart forekommer at være groft uagtsom. Imod taler, at det er vanskeligt at sige med en så tilstrækkelig høj grad af sikkerhed, som Rigsrettens omkostningstunge apparat tilsiger.
187. ^ Geist, Anton (14 November 2022). "Professor bag kritisk vurdering af Mette Frederiksen: Jeg kan ikke anbefale en rigsretssag". Dagbladet Information. Retrieved 22 December 2022.
188. ^ Ritzau (13 July 2022). "Nye Borgerlige hyrer advokatfirma til at vurdere minksag". AdvokatWatch. Archived from the original on 6 October 2022. Retrieved 6 October 2022.
189. ^ Høpner, Henrik; Nielsen, Morten Schwartz; Andersen, Kasper S. R. (22 September 2022). "RETLIG VURDERING – Belysning af spørgsmålet om ministres ansvar på baggrund af Minkkommissionens beretning" (PDF). Nye Borgerlige. Lund Elmer Sandager. Archived (PDF) from the original on 22 September 2022. Retrieved 22 September 2022.
190. ^ Frost, Signe Marie (22 September 2022). "Advokatvurdering på bestilling af Nye Borgerlige: Mette Frederiksen kan blive dømt ved rigsret". TV 2. Archived from the original on 22 September 2022. Retrieved 22 September 2022.
191. ^ Reinwald, Tobias; Birk, Christian (22 September 2022). "Førende juraprofessor i angreb på Nye Borgerliges advokatvurdering af Mette Frederiksen: »Grænseoverskridende" og "inkriminerende«". Berlingske. Archived from the original on 13 October 2022. Retrieved 8 October 2022. Som de første jurister herhjemme konkluderer Nye Borgerliges betalte advokater torsdag, at statsminister Mette Frederiksen med »høj grad af sikkerhed« kunne stilles for en eventuel rigsret efter sin ulovlige ordre i minksagen. Advokaterne står helt alene med deres vurdering, og juraprofessor sår nu tvivl om deres kompetence og påpeger afgørende huller i deres juridiske vurdering. Advokaterne afviser kritikken.
192. ^ Klint, Leonora Marienlund; Vestergaard, Sine Furbo; Bang-Udesen, Helena (22 September 2022). "Advokater betalt af Nye Borgerlige mener, Mette F. kan komme for rigsret - det giver professorer ikke meget for". Dagbladet Børsen. Archived from the original on 8 October 2022. Retrieved 8 October 2022. "Advokater er jo vant til at varetage en klients interesse. Så hvis du får et opdrag og nogle hundredtusinder kroner fra Nye Borgerlige, er man godt klar over, hvad de gerne vil have, man kommer frem til. Og så er det tre angiveligt uvildige advokater, der ikke har nogle særlige forudsætninger for at lave rapporten," siger (Jens Elo Rytter).
193. ^ ^{a b} Geist, Anton (8 November 2022). "Professorer i nyt notat: Der er ikke grundlag for en rigsretssag mod Mette Frederiksen". Dagbladet Information. Retrieved 12 November 2022. I deres notat lægger de tre professorer især vægt på, at en minister ifølge de forfatningsretlige og forvaltningsretlige normer på området bør kunne gå ud fra, at embedsværket har styr på spørgsmål om hjemmel og anden jura.
194. ^ ^{a b} Nielsen, Jakob (8 November 2022). "Tre professorer har gennemgået minksagen og lægger rigsretsspekulationer mod Mette Frederiksen i graven". Altinget.dk. Retrieved 12 November 2022. Politikere skal kunne stole på, at deres embedsfolk advarer dem, hvis der ikke er lovhjemmel til at træffe en beslutning. Derfor kan der med "stor sikkerhed" ikke gøres noget retligt ansvar gældende overfor Mette Frederiksen i minksagen, vurderer tre af landets førende juraprofessorer.
195. ^ Dam, Philip Sune; Birk, Christian (8 November 2022). "Tre af landets tungeste juraprofessorer har nu sendt en grundig »uvildig« vurdering til Folketinget: Kan Mette Frederiksen stilles for en rigsret?". Berlingske. Retrieved 12 November 2022. Et stort politisk ønske i minksagen har været at få foretaget en uvildig retlig vurdering af, om Mette Frederiksen (S) kan stilles for en rigsret og blive dømt for »grov uagtsomhed«. Nu har tre juraprofessorer fra to forskellige danske universiteter på eget initiativ foretaget en grundig vurdering.
196. ^ Hjøllund, Michael; Rytgaard, Nikolaj (8 November 2022). "Jurister har vurderet minksagens centrale spørgsmål på ny". Jyllands-Posten. Retrieved 12 November 2022. de tre jurister...konkluderer »med en høj grad af sikkerhed«, at der ikke findes »tilstrækkelige holdepunkter« i Minkkommissionens beretning for alvorligt at bebrejde Mette Frederiksen, at der manglede lovgrundlag til at kræve alle mink aflivet, da hun først var med til at beslutte det og siden melde det ud på et pressemøde den 4. november 2020.
197. ^ Jensen, Henrik; Borre, Martin (26 November 2020). "Intet sted i regeringens 24 sider lange redegørelse nævnes skriftligt notat om ulovlig beslutning: »Det skriger til himlen«". Berlingske. Archived from the original on 2 October 2022. Retrieved 28 September 2022.
198. ^ Rytgaard, Nikolaj; Broberg, Mads Bonde; Hjøllund, Michael (11 December 2020). "Mødereferat sår tvivl om statsminister Mette Frederiksens forklaringer i minksagen". Finans. Archived from the original on 2 October 2022. Retrieved 6 October 2022.
199. ^ Svendsen, Anders Byskov (6 November 2021). "Kronvidne advarede om manglende lovhjemmel: "Vi skriver rimelig tydeligt, at der ikke er hjemmel til at slå dyrene ned"". DR. Archived from the original on 3 October 2022. Retrieved 28 September 2022.
200. ^ Pedersen, Lasse Ege (26 November 2020). "Mette Frederiksen: Regeringen har ikke lukket minkerhvervet". Effektivt Landbrug. Archived from the original on 2 October 2022. Retrieved 2 October 2022.
201. ^ Hyltoft, Vibe (20 November 2020). "Jens Rohde skyder helt centralt argument ned fra justitsministeren: »Det er en søgt sondring«". Berlingske. Archived from the original on 2 October 2022. Retrieved 28 September 2022.
202. ^ Svendsen, Anders Byskov; Chor, Jakob (11 November 2021). "Intern mail: Barbara Bertelsen arbejdede for, at aflivning ikke måttes kaldes for nedlukning". DR. Archived from the original on 2 October 2022. Retrieved 28 September 2022. Det har den samme effekt. Man kunne måske godt teoretisk forestille sig, at man straks efter minkene var aflivet, fik lov til at hende nogle nye mink i et andet land og begyndte at opdrætte dem. Det er bare et meget teoretisk scenarie.
203. ^ Friberg, Jacob (17 December 2020). "Afsløring: Fortrolige dokumenter modsiger Mette Frederiksens forklaring". B.T. Retrieved 23 October 2022.
204. ^ "Grundloven § 73" (in Danish). Dansk Love. Archived from the original on 12 September 2022.
205. ^ ^{a b c d} Hjøllund, Michael (7 October 2020). "Jurister: Ifølge jurister blev grundloven brudt – nu skal en kommission finde ud af, hvem der har ansvaret". Jyllands-Posten. Archived from the original on 8 September 2022. Retrieved 6 September 2022.
206. ^ ^{a b c d} Dahlin, Ulrik (3 December 2020). "Jurister: Ja, det var grundlovsbrud – men det gør ikke minkskandalen større". Information. Archived from the original on 8 September 2022. Retrieved 6 September 2022.
207. ^ Juraeksperter er ikke i tvivl: På disse tre punkter brød regeringen Grundloven i minkskandalen Archived 12 September 2022 at the Wayback Machine Indblik.
208. ^ Ritzau (18 November 2020). "Justitsminister afviser grundlovsbrud i sag om minkaflivning". B.T. Archived from the original on 20 February 2021. Retrieved 21 November 2020.
209. ^ Fischer, Cecilie (27 October 2022). "Tidligere minkavlere sagsøger staten for brud på menneskerettighederne". Altinget. Retrieved 27 October 2022.
210. ^ ^{a b} Høberg, Jesper (3 November 2021). "Eksperten savner stadig svar: Hvorfor blev sms-beskeder ikke journaliseret?". Jyllands-Posten. Archived from the original on 2 October 2022. Retrieved 2 October 2022.
211. ^ "Bekendtgørelse af lov om offentlighed i forvaltningen". Retsinformation. Justitsministeriet. 24 February 2020. Retrieved 16 October 2022.
212. ^ Lund-Hansen, Christoffer; Arp, Andreas (3 November 2021). "Minkkommissionen afviser at vurdere journaliseringspligt i sag om Statsministeriets sms'er". Altinget. Archived from the original on 2 October 2022. Retrieved 2 October 2022.
213. ^ Stie, Hans-Henrik Busk (27 October 2021). "Ekspert kalder det "stærkt problematisk", at Mette Frederiksens sms'er blev slettet". TV 2. Archived from the original on 2 October 2022. Retrieved 2 October 2022.
214. ^ Friis, Lasse (25 January 2021). "Aftale om erstatning til minkavlere på plads: Staten betaler gigantisk beløb". Berlingske. Archived from the original on 25 September 2022. Retrieved 25 September 2022.
215. ^ "Faktaark: Samlet erstatning mv. til minkavlere og følgeerhverv" (PDF). Finansministeriet. Erhvervsministeriet og Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri. 25 January 2021. Archived (PDF) from the original on 16 August 2022. Retrieved 25 September 2022.
216. ^ "Aftale mellem regeringen (Socialdemokratiet), Venstre, Radikale Venstre, Socialistisk Folkeparti og Liberal Alliance om erstatning mv. til minkavlerne og følgeerhverv berørt af COVID-19" (PDF). Finansministeriet. 25 January 2021. p. 3. Retrieved 21 October 2021. "Aftalepartierne er enige om, at der ydes fuldstændig erstatning til minkavlere og minkafhængige følgeerhverv uanset om der juridisk set er tale om ekspropriation efter grundlovens § 73 eller ej.
217. ^ "Cheføkonom: - Det er en markant overkompensation til minkavlerne" (in Danish). TV 2 Syd. 26 January 2021. Retrieved 21 October 2022.
218. ^ Jensen, Mikkel (26 January 2021). "19 milliarder er mange penge - men hvor mange er det til hver? 6 ting, du skal vide om minkaftalen". DR. Retrieved 5 November 2022.
219. ^ "Aftale om erstatning mv. til minkavlerne og følgeerhverv berørt af COVID-19" (PDF). Folketinget. 25 January 2021. Archived (PDF) from the original on 12 April 2021. Retrieved 25 September 2022.
220. ^ "Reglerne er klar: Nu begynder vurderingen af landets minkvirksomheder". Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri. 18 December 2021. Archived from the original on 25 September 2022. Retrieved 25 September 2022.
221. ^ "Det midlertidige forbud mod hold af mink udløber ved årsskiftet". Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri. 23 September 2022. Archived from the original on 23 September 2022. Retrieved 23 September 2022.
222. ^ "Udbetaling til minkavlere". Fødevarestyrelsen. Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri. 23 September 2022. Archived from the original on 23 October 2022. Retrieved 23 October 2022.
223. ^ Wismann, Ida Marie Lomholt (23 September 2022). "Fra nytår må der avles mink igen". TV 2. Archived from the original on 23 September 2022. Retrieved 23 September 2022.
224. ^ ^{a b} "Regeringen vil igen tillade minkavl efter nytår". Politiken. Ritzau. 23 September 2022. Retrieved 23 October 2022.
225. ^ "Regeringen vil igen tillade minkavl efter nytår". Berlingske. 23 September 2022. Archived from the original on 23 September 2022. Retrieved 23 September 2022.
226. ^ "Status på udbetalingerne". Fødevarestyrelsen. 30 September 2022. Archived from the original on 4 September 2022. Retrieved 4 September 2022.
227. ^ Dokumentar kan få betydning, når ansvaret for minksagen skal placeres Archived 4 September 2022 at the Wayback Machine TV 2. Hentet 4. september 2022
228. ^ https://nyheder.tv2.dk/samfund/2022-06-12-nu-er-vaerdiansaettelse-for-milliarder-i-gang-men-minkavlere-er-utaalmodige Archived 4 September 2022 at the Wayback Machine 12. juni 2022.
229. ^ "Minkavlere risikerer at skulle vente flere år på erstatning". Berlingske. Ritzau. 6 September 2022. Retrieved 11 November 2022.
230. ^ Peter Astrup (13 November 2020). "Chokerer i interview: 'Det kan hun ikke bestemme'". B.T. Archived from the original on 25 November 2021. Retrieved 25 November 2021.
231. ^ Henrik Jensen (15 November 2020). "Alle partier i blå blok sender åbent brev til statsministeren: »Stop omgående med at presse avlere til at aflive usmittede minkbesætninger«". Berlingske. Archived from the original on 25 November 2021. Retrieved 25 November 2021.
232. ^ Christian Birk og Lars Nørgaard Pedersen (15 February 2021). "Partiformænd og sundhedsordførere: Afgørende oplysninger blev tilbageholdt i minkforløb". Berlingske. Archived from the original on 10 May 2021. Retrieved 9 May 2021.
233. ^ Nyboe McGhie, Steffen; Türker, Selin (8 November 2020). "Regeringen vil slå alle landets mink ned, men har endnu ikke lovgivningen på plads". Berlingske. Archived from the original on 8 November 2020. Retrieved 6 September 2022. Der skal være et rimeligt forhold mellem omkostninger og risiko. Og lige nu vil det være mere fornuftigt at trykke på bremsen, og få en videnskabelig second opinion samt mere viden om, hvor udbredte disse mutationer er, før man foretager sig noget, der er så drastisk som at udslette et helt erhverv.
234. ^ Ritzau (10 November 2020). "Mette Frederiksen beklager ulovligt påbud til minkavlere om at slå alle danske mink ihjel". Politiken. Retrieved 16 October 2022. Statsminister Mette Frederiksen (S) beklager tirsdag forløbet omkring manglende lovhjemmel bag aflivningen af alle syge og raske mink i Danmark. Hun gentager sin store medfølelse overfor alle, der står i en svær situation på grund af coronakrisen. »Jeg skal beklage forløbet i spørgsmålet om lovhjemmel overfor Folketinget og overfor minkavlerne«.
235. ^ Hukiær, Jens (1 July 2022). "Mette erkender massiv kritik - kan ikke sige, om det får konsekvenser for embedsmænd". Nordjyske. Retrieved 16 October 2022. Mette Frederiksen startede med at erkende den massive kritik i Minkkommissionens konklusioner, og hun beklagede de fejl, der var sket. Hun bedyrede i den sammenhæng, at regeringen ville lære af de fejl, som var blevet begået, såfremt Danmark en anden gang skulle blive kastet ud i en lignende pandemi.
236. ^ Lund-Hansen, Christoffer (29 April 2022). "Ny måling: Knap halvdelen af danskerne vil tillade minkavl igen". Altinget. Retrieved 23 October 2022.
237. ^ Ellemann efter debat med statsministeren: Magtfuldkommenheden er uden sidestykke Archived 12 September 2022 at the Wayback Machine TV 2
238. ^ Scheef, Manne (27 September 2022). "Mette F.: Mit køn spiller en rolle". Ekstra Bladet. Archived from the original on 27 September 2022. Retrieved 27 September 2022.
239. ^ Schuldt, Laura Kongsmark (27 September 2022). "Mette Frederiksen om magtkritik: Det har at gøre med, at jeg er kvinde". TV 2. Archived from the original on 27 September 2022. Retrieved 27 September 2022.
240. ^ "Det Sidste Måltid, Mette Frederiksen". R4dio. 27 September 2022. Archived from the original on 27 September 2022. Retrieved 27 September 2022.
241. ^ Minkskandalen Archived 12 September 2022 at the Wayback Machine Liberal Alliance.
242. ^ Ritzau (24 August 2022). "- Jeg vil gerne diskutere, om der er tale om en skandale". TV 2. Archived from the original on 27 September 2022. Retrieved 6 October 2022.
243. ^ Mette Frederiksen trækker i land: - Det er en politisk skandale Archived 2 September 2022 at the Wayback Machine TV 2.
244. ^ Straarup, Birgit (6 October 2022). "Samlet blå blok ønsker uvildig advokatvurdering af minksagen". AdvokatWatch. Archived from the original on 13 October 2022. Retrieved 10 October 2022. Jakob Ellemann-Jensen (V), Søren Pape Poulsen (K), Inger Støjberg (DD), Morten Messerschmidt (DF), Pernille Vermund (NB) og Alex Vanopslagh (LA) skriver i en fælles pressemeddelelse, at hvis der bliver et borgerligt flertal efter valget, vil Folketinget igangsætte en uvildig advokatvurdering af statsminister Mette Frederiksens og andre ministres retlige ansvar i minksagen.
245. ^ Nielsen, Kristian Stoffer (2 November 2022). "Alternativet afliver flertal for en advokatvurdering af Mette Frederiksens rolle i minksagen". Jyllands-Posten. Retrieved 4 November 2022.
246. ^ ^{a b} Mansø, Rikke Gjøl; Munksgaard, Pia Glud; Buhl, Thomas (28 September 2022). "Løkke kræver advokatvurdering af minksagen, hvis han skal pege på Mette Frederiksen". DR. Archived from the original on 13 October 2022. Retrieved 10 October 2022.
247. ^ Henley, Jon (2 November 2022). "Denmark election result keeps Social Democrats at the helm". The Guardian. Retrieved 26 November 2023.
248. ^ Hansen, Louise Bolvig (3 November 2022). "Aldrig brugt paragraf gav rød blok flertallet, selvom blå blok og Løkke fik flest stemmer". TV 2. Retrieved 4 November 2022.
249. ^ Skærbæk, Morten (2 November 2022). "Begår Alternativet valgets første løftebrud i minksagen? »Du må sådan set kalde det, hvad du vil«". Politiken. Retrieved 4 November 2022.
250. ^ Palle, Frederik; Svendsen, Anders; Trolle, Jakob Slyngborg (4 November 2022). "Rosenkilde underkendt i folketingsgruppe - flertal for advokatvurdering i minksag". DR. Retrieved 4 November 2022.
251. ^ Christensen, Maiken Brusgaard (4 November 2022). "Alternativet i dobbelt kovending: Støtter alligevel advokatvurdering af minksagen". TV 2. Retrieved 4 November 2022.
252. ^ Kristensen, William Rønfeldt (11 November 2022). "Alternativet genovervejer advokatvurdering i minksag efter indspark fra juraprofessorer". AdvokatWatch. Retrieved 17 November 2022.
253. ^ Astrup, Peter (16 November 2022). "Alternativet om advokatvurdering: »Der går i hvert fald et par uger«". www.bt.dk (in Danish). Retrieved 27 November 2022.
254. ^ "Alternativet vil diskutere mulig grundlovsændring og fjerne Folketingets magt til at gennemtrumfe advokatvurderinger". Altinget.dk (in Danish). 7 December 2022. Retrieved 10 December 2022.
255. ^ "Straffen udeblev i Nordjylland. Er det lykkedes Mette Frederiksen at lægge minksagen bag sig?". Dagbladet Børsen. 3 November 2022. Retrieved 22 December 2022.
256. ^ "Socialdemokratiets valgresultat udstiller, at de borgerlige partiers magtkritik har fejlet". Dagbladet Information. 4 November 2022. Retrieved 22 December 2022.
257. ^ Andersen, Hans Skovgaard; Reinwald, Tobias (9 January 2023). "DF-formand kritiserer blå bloks valgstrategi: Her begik man en afgørende fejl". Berlingske.dk (in Danish). Retrieved 4 April 2023.
258. ^ Lønstrup, Katrine Falk Lønstrup (4 November 2022). "I dag begynder forhandlingerne om en ny regering. Især tre partier er interessante for Mette Frederiksen". Altinget. Retrieved 4 November 2022.
259. ^ "Mette Frederiksen slår rekorden - de længste forhandlinger om en regering i moderne tid". DR (in Danish). 6 December 2022. Retrieved 17 December 2022.
260. ^ Bigum, Christian (15 December 2022). "Danmarks nye regering: Her er ministerlisten". Jyllands-Posten (in Danish). Retrieved 17 December 2022.
261. ^ "Danskerne splittet om droppet advokatvurdering af minksagen - TV 2". nyheder.tv2.dk (in Danish). 24 December 2022. Retrieved 26 December 2022.
262. ^ Af Anders Hoppe Thomassen (14 December 2022). "Venstre-vælgere skuffede over Ellemann". ekstrabladet.dk (in Danish). Retrieved 26 December 2022.
263. ^ Lund, Sine Riis (18 March 2022). "Regeringen vil se på fristen for at retsforfølge ministre". Altinget. Retrieved 16 November 2022.
264. Frederik IX (15 April 1964). "Ministeransvarlighedsloven". Retsinformation
     . Retrieved 16 November 2022. § 8. Ministres strafansvar forældes efter borgerlig straffelovs §§ 93-95. Forældelsesfristen er dog i intet tilfælde mindre end 5 år.
265. ^ "I dag ankom de første mink til Danmark. Men flere partier er klar til igen at forbyde minkavl". DR (in Danish). 14 January 2023. Retrieved 15 January 2023.
266. ^ "Kan Apple finde Mette Frederiksens gamle sms'er? It-ekspert synes, statsministeren skal gøre et forsøg". DR (in Danish). 20 June 2023. Retrieved 27 November 2023.
267. ^ "It-konsulent: Apple kan ikke gendanne Mette Frederiksens slettede beskeder". Politiken (in Danish). 20 June 2023. Retrieved 27 November 2023.

External links

(All in Danish)

• Minksagen on Den Store Danske
• Minksagen on DR
• Minksagen on TV 2
• Minksagen on TV Midtvest
• Minksagen in Politiken
• Minksagen in Berlingske
• Minksagen in Jyllands-Posten
• Minksagen in Information