Communicated on 10 January 2020

Published on 27 January 2020

SECOND SECTION

Applications nos. 42672/16 and 34850/17 Sindri SVEINSSON against Iceland and Sindri SVEINSSON against Iceland lodged on 20 July 2016 and 2 May 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 trader in the proprietary trading division of Landsbanki Íslands hf. (hereinafter “ Landsbanki ”). He was indicted on 15 March 2013 and charged on one count of market manipulation (count I). By judgment of the District Court of Reykjavík of 19 November 2014, he was acquitted. By judgment of 4 February 2016, the Supreme Court overturned the applicant ’ s acquittal, convicted him and sentenced him to nine 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 his righ t to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1. Secondly, the applicant complai ns that his right under Article 7 was violated due to the allegedly insufficient clarity of the legal provisions relevant to his prosecution and the alleged overturning of the burden of proof.

In addition, in a subsequent application lodged on 2 May 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 case, namely E.T. 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. Did the applicant ’ s conviction entail a violation of the principle of nullum crimen sine lege as guaranteed by Article 7 of the Convention (see, inter alia, Haarde v. Iceland , no. 66847/12, § 127, 23 November 2017, and Kononov v. Latvia [GC], no. 36376/04, § 185, ECHR 2010)?

3. In respect of the complaints regarding the independence and impartiality of the Supreme Court panel, has the applicant complied with the six-month time-limit in accordance with Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? 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 E.T. 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 two of the five Supreme Court Justices who decided the criminal case against the applicant on appeal, namely E.T. 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?