Communicated on 23 January 2020 Published on 10 February 2020

SECOND SECTION

Applications nos. 61464/16 and 30987/17 Karl Emil WERNERSSON against Iceland and Karl Emil WERNERSSON against Iceland lodged on 19 October 2016 and 12 April 2017 respectively

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

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

The applicant was a shareholder in the company Milestone ehf . ( hereinafter “Milestone”) and served as the chairman of its board. He was indicted on 5 July 2013 on three counts, for fraud by abuse of position ( umboðssvik ) and major violations of the Accounting Act No. 145/1994 and the Annual Accounts Act No. 3/2006. By a judgment of the District Court of Reykjavík of 17 December 2014, the applicant was acquitted. The case was appealed by the prosecution to the Supreme Court of Iceland. By a judgment of 28 April 2016, the Supreme Court overturned the applicant ’ s acquittal and convicted him on all counts. He was sentenced to three years and six months ’ imprisonment.

The applicant firstly complains that the Supreme Court reversed the District Court ’ s findings without hearing the defendants or the witnesses in person, and that in the process it reassessed the evidentiary value of witness statements it did not hear, violating their right to a fair trial. Secondly, he complains that his trial was not conducted within a reasonable time, in violation of Article 6 § 1.

In addition, in a subsequent application lodged on 12 April 2017, the applicant complains that his 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 his cases, namely G.B., M.S., Ó.B.Þ. and V.M.M.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant ’ s conviction by the Supreme Court constitute a breach of his right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the Supreme Court assess the applicant ’ s guilt, in whole or in part, by re-assessing the evidentiary value of testimony provided by the accused and witnesses before the District Court without the Supreme Court having itself directly heard the accused or the witnesses in question (see, inter alia, Sigurþór Arnarsson v. Iceland , no. 44671/98, 15 July 2003, Botten v. Norway , 19 February 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 ‑ I, Styrmir Þór Bragason v. Iceland , no. 36292/14, 16 July 2019 and Júlíus Þór Sigurþórsson v. Iceland , no. 38797/17, 16 July 2019 )?

2. Was the length of the criminal proceedings in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, inter alia, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999 ‑ II) ?

3. In respect of the complaints regarding the independence and impartiality of the Supreme Court panel, has the applicant complied with the applicable six-month time-limit in accordance with Article 35 § 1 of the Convention as regards each of the two Supreme Court judgments against him? In the light of the nature of these complaints, on which date did the time-limit for the applicant to lodge a complaint before the Court commence?

In respect of the complaints regarding the independence and impartiality of the Supreme Court panel, has the applicant exhausted available domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, what was the available domestic remedy with respect to the applicant ’ s complaints related to the alleged impartiality of Justices G.B., M.S., Ó.B.Þ. and V.M.M.? At what time did the remedy become available to the applicant? What relevance in this respect should be ascribed to the procedure which was then in force under Article 9 of the Rules No. 463/2000, on Additional Functions of District Court and Supreme Court Judges and their Ownership in Companies and Undertakings, for requesting information on the ownership in companies of serving judges from the Committee on Judicial Functions ( nefnd um dómarastörf ) ?

Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to be heard by an independent and impartial tribunal under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, inter alia, Pétur Þór Sigurðsson v. Iceland , no. 39731/98, ECHR 2003 ‑ IV and Sigur ð ur Einarsson and Others v. Iceland , no. 39757/15, 4 . June 2019)? In particular, did three of the five Supreme Court Justices who decided the criminal case against the applicant on appeal, namely G.B., M.S., Ó.B.Þ. and V.M.M., have financial interests in one or more of the three collapsed Icelandic banks, Landsbanki , Glitnir and Kaupthing , when the events occurred which formed the basis for the applicant ’ s convictions? If so, what was the relevance for the assessment of their alleged impartiality of the condition in Article 7 § 3 of Rules No. 463/2000 (see above), then in force, that a serving judge was required to seek permission from the Committee on Judicial Functions to own more than ISK 3,000,000 in a company listed on the stock exchange, or to hold more than a 5% share in other companies?