Resolution ResDH(2000)111

concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 30 May 2000 in the case of Vilborg Yrsa Sigurđardóttir against Iceland

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 2 October 2000 at the 721st meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),

Having regard to the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Vilborg Yrsa Sigurđardóttir case delivered on 30 May 2000 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers the same day under Article 46 of the Convention;

Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 32451/96) against Iceland, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 15 May 1996 under former Article 25 of the Co n vention by Ms Vilborg Yrsa Sigurđardóttir, an Icelandic national, and that the Court, seized of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaint relating to the district court’s rejection of a request for compensation introduced by the applicant in respect of her arrest and detention on remand although she had been acquitted in the subsequent criminal proceedings;

Whereas in its judgment of 30 May 2000 the Court, after having taken formal note of a friendly settlement reached by the Government of the respondent State and the applicant, and having been satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided, unanimously to strike the case out of its list and took note of the parties’ undertaking not to request a re-hearing of the case before the Grand Chamber;

Whereas under the above-mentioned friendly settlement it was agreed that the Icelandic Government would pay the applicant 1 500 000 Icelandic Kroneer on an ex gratia basis and 1 800 000 Icelandic Kroneer in respect of legal costs;

Recalling that Rule 44, paragraph 2, of the Rules of the Court provides that the striking out of a case shall be effected by means of a judgment which the President shall forward to the Committee of Ministers once it has become final in order to allow it to supervise, in accordance with Article 46, paragraph 2 of the Convention, the execution of any undertakings which may have been attached to the discontinuance or solution of the matter;

Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of former Article 54 which are, for the time being, applicable by analogy to cases transmitted to it under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that on 17 May 2000, the Government of the respondent State had paid the applicant the sums provided for in the friendly settlement;

Whereas the Government of the respondent State indicated that measures had been taken following the present case (this information appears in the appendix to this resolution),

Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Iceland, that it has exe r cised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.

Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2000)111

Information provided by the Government of Iceland during the examination of the Vilborg Yrsa Sigurđardóttir case

by the Committee of Ministers

Following the lodging of the application before the organs of the European Convention on Human Rights, the contested section 150, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act No. 74/1974) was repealed by Act No. 36/1999, entered into force on 1 May 1999.

The new Section 175, paragraph 1, provides for compensation to accused persons in the following terms:

“A claim for indemnification according to this Chapter may be granted if investigation has been discontinued or an indictment not issued because the conduct allegedly committed by the accused was deemed not to be criminal or proof thereof could not be obtained, or if the accused was acquitted for this reason by a judgment from which appeal did not take place or could not have taken place.  Indemnification may however be rejected or reduced if the accused caused or contributed to the measures on which he bases his claim.”