Communicated on 2 September 2019

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 78004/17 Ólafur ÓLAFSSON against Iceland lodged on 14 July 2017

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the proceedings before a Parliamentary Investigation Commission (RNA) examining the role of a specific German bank as investor, when in 2003 the Icelandic Government had sold its 45.8% share in the Agricultural Bank of Iceland ( Búnaðarbanki ).

The applicant was compelled to give testimony as witness despite his objection and allegation that the investigation was in fact directed at his role in the transaction, and that therefore the proceedings before the RNA were to be considered criminal proceedings against him.

On 29 March 2017 the RNA published its report, concluding, inter alia , that a group of investors at the behest of the applicant had made secret deals behind the scenes to hide who actually owned the shares that the German bank purported to own. The actual owners of the shares were the applicant and others by way of offshore entities. The German bank was thus protected from any financial risk. The legal term “deception” ( blekking ) was explained, and the RNA stated, among other things, that:

“ ... the Icelandic authorities were deceived as regards the role of [the German bank] ... this report clearly and unequivocally shows who were behind that deception, introduced it and maintained it ever since, either by concealing their knowledge of the actual involvement of the bank or made claims of the opposite, in bad faith.”

RNA also noted that any alleged crimes committed had become time-barred.

On the same day, representatives of the RNA gave a television interview and a press conference about the outcome of the investigation.

The applicant complains that the proceedings before the RNA were de facto criminal proceedings against him, and that he was deprived of his rights as guaranteed by Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. He also relies on Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its criminal head applicable to the proceedings in the present case (see, inter alia , Ezeh and Connors v. the United Kingdom ([GC] nos. 39665/98 and 40086/98 , § 82, ECHR 2003 ‑ X)?

1a. If so, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge(s) against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, (see, among others, Beuze v. Belgium [GC], no. 71409/10, §§ 120-122, 9 November 2018) ?

1b. In particular, was the applicant ’ s right to silence and privilege against self-incrimination violated by compelling him to testify as witness? And was he afforded the rights set out in Article 6 § 3 of the Convention?

2. Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case (see, for example, Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25424/09, § 93, ECHR 2013)?

3. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see, inter alia , Mikolajová v. Slovakia , no. 4479/03 , §§ 53-55, 18 January 2011 and Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, § 83, 7 February 2012?

3. a If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?

4. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see, for example Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, § 65, 29 November 2016 (in respect of Article 6) and Voynov v. Russia , no. 39747/10 , § 38, 3 July 2018 (in respect of Article 8))?

5. Finally, the Government is invited to submit an English translation of the conclusions by the RNA, as well as an English transcript of the relevant passages relating to the applicant expressed by the representatives of the RNA during the television interview and the press conference.