Communicated on 28 September 2020 Published on 19 October 2020

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 24493/17 Bj ö rk Þ ORARINSD Ó TTIR against Iceland lodged on 28 March 2017

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the applicant ’ s indictment and conviction for financial crimes, following the financial crisis of 2008.

The applicant was the director of the domestic corporate banking division of Kaupthing Bank hf. in Iceland, as well as sitting on the group credit committee. She was indicted on 15 March 2013 and charged with fraud by abuse of position ( umboðssvik ) on five counts, which concerned loans granted by the bank to two companies prior to the financial crisis. Four out of five counts were dismissed by the District Court by ruling of 13 June 2013. By judgment of 26 June 2015, the District Court of Reykjavík acquitted the applicant of the remaining charge, finding that her approval had in fact not been necessary to pay out the loan in question. This judgment was appealed against to the Supreme Court, which overturned the District Court ’ s judgment and convicted the applicant of a useless attempt to commit fraud by abuse of position, finding that the applicant had given her approval to pay out the loan, believing her approval to be necessary. No punishment was imposed on her.

Firstly, the applicant complains under Article 6 that the District Court and the Supreme Court mixed up her roles as director of Kaupthing Bank ’ s corporate banking division and as member of the group credit committee.

Secondly, she complains of a violation of her rights under Article 7 due to the allegedly insufficient clarity of the legal provisions relevant to her prosecution.

Thirdly, she complains that her right to be heard by an independent and impartial tribunal was violated due to the alleged financial interests of Supreme Court Justices sitting on the panel in her case, namely I.E., M.S., Ó.B.Þ. and V.M.M. .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant ’ s conviction entail a violation of Article 6 or of the principle of nullum crimen sine lege as guaranteed by Article 7 of the Convention, notably due to the applicant ’ s double role in the bank or due to lack of clarity of the relevant legal provisions and the domestic courts ’ judgments in the applicant ’ s case (see, inter alia, Haarde v. Iceland , no. 66847/12, § 127, 23 November 2017, and Kononov v. Latvia [GC], no. 36376/04, § 185, ECHR 2010)?

2. The Government is invited to submit an English translation of the judgments by the District Court and the Supreme Court.