THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 30750/17 Ingolfur HELGASON against Iceland

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 26 August 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Dmitry Dedov, President, Darian Pavli, Peeter Roosma, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 April 2017,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table.

The applicant was represented by Mr G. Sigurdsson , a lawyer practising in Reykjavik.

The applicant’s complaints under Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention relating to the criminal proceedings against him were communicated to the Icelandic Government (“the Government”).

THE LAW

The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The Government acknowledged a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicant the amount detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.

The Government also noted that the applicant had the possibility under the Icelandic law of applying to the Court on Reopening of Judicial Proceedings for the reopening of the criminal proceeding against him.

The applicant was sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration several weeks before the date of this decision. He objected to the terms of the declaration, maintaining notably that there had also been a violation of Article 7 of the Convention.

The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:

“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.

Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI).

Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application in the part covered by the unilateral declaration (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application in that part (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in the part covered by the unilateral declaration.

The Court has further examined the remaining complaints raised by the applicant and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the complaints under Article 7 do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the application in the part covered by the unilateral declaration out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;

Declares the remaining part of the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 16 September 2021.

{signature_p_2}

Viktoriya Maradudina Dmitry Dedov Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention

Application no. Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Representative’s name and location

Date of receipt of Government’s declaration

Date of receipt of applicant’s comments, if any

Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses

per applicant (in euros) [1]

30750/17

03/04/2017

Ingolfur HELGASON

1967Sigurdsson Grimur

Reykjavik

05/02/2021

08/03/2021

12,000

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant