Published on 24 July 2023

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 44000/22 BÍLABÚĐ BENNA EHF against Iceland lodged on 8 September 2022 communicated on 5 July 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The case concerns alleged partiality of a District Court judge sitting in a civil dispute between the applicant company (a car dealership) and Ó.F.

Due to Ó.F.’s husband being a judge at the Reykjavik District Court, the chief judge of that court decided on 7 October 2019 to declare all the judges of the Reykjavik District Court ineligible to sit in that case. In a meeting of the Judicial Administration on 14 October 2019, the case was exceptionally allocated to judge K.H. of the Reykjanes District Court. On 6 November 2019, the applicant raised the issue of K.H.’s partiality before the Reykjavik District Court, demanding that he should withdraw from the consideration of the case due to Ó.F.’s position at the time as the chief executive officer (CEO) of the Judicial Administration. Judge K.H. dismissed that request and the applicant did not appeal against this decision. H.H., chief judge of the North ‑ west Iceland District Court, and one expert lay judge were also appointed to sit on the applicant’s case.

On 20 July 2020, the Reykjavik District Court in a composition of the above three judges ruled in favour of Ó.F. The applicant appealed against this judgment to the Court of Appeal. Upon appeal, the applicant asked the Court of Appeal to consider the appointment of ad hoc judges to decide the case. On 21 January 2022, the Court of Appeal in a composition of two regularly appointed judges, and one expert lay judge, upheld the District Court judgment. On 15 February 2022, the applicant company sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. In its request, the alleged partiality of K.H. was not raised among the grounds of appeal. On 9 May 2022, the applicant company’s leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was denied.

After the conclusion of the proceedings at the domestic level, at an unspecified time, the applicant company became aware of the minutes of the Judicial Administration’s meeting of 14 October 2019. The minutes indicated Ó.F. having been present at the meeting in which judge K.H. was appointed.

The applicant company alleges a violation of its right to be heard by an impartial tribunal under Article 6 of the Convention. It considers the first ‑ instance court’s judge K.H. to have been partial on account of Ó.F. having participated in the meeting of the Judicial Administration in which he was appointed as a judge in the civil dispute in question.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. When did the applicant company become aware or ought to have become aware of the minutes of the Judicial Administration’s meeting of 14 October 2019? In that connection, has the applicant company complied with the time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Has the applicant company exhausted all available domestic remedies under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention as regards its complaint about the alleged partiality of judge K.H. on account of Ó.F. having been present at the meeting of 14 October 2019 where K.H. was appointed as a judge in the civil dispute in question (in this regard, see Sigríður Elín Sigfúsdóttir v. Iceland , no. 41382/17, §§ 35-37, 25 February 2020)?

3. Having regard to the applicant company’s allegations, can judge K.H. be said to have been impartial when examining the civil dispute in question, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? May it be considered that the issue of the alleged lack of impartiality of K.H. was cured on appeal following the review of the case by the Court of Appeal (see Rustavi 2 Broadcasting Company Ltd and Others v. Georgia , no. 16812/17, § 345, 18 July 2019 and Ranson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 14180/03, 2 September 2003)?

4. The applicant company is asked to provide its written submissions before the Court of Appeal in case no. 510/2020 dated 21 January 2022.