CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 15 mai 1992

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }      EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS   Application No. 16130/90   Sigurour SIGURJONSSON   against   ICELAND   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 15 May 1992)   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                    page I.          INTRODUCTION            (paras. 1-4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1              A.     The application                  (paras. 2-4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1              B.     The proceedings                  (paras. 5-9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1              C.     The present Report                  (paras. 10-14) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2   II.         ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS            (paras. 15-42) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3              A.     The particular circumstances of the case                  (paras. 15-38) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3              B.Relevant domestic law                  (paras. 39-42) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8   III.        OPINION OF THE COMMISSION            (paras.   43-81). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34              A.     Complaint declared admissible                  (para. 43) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34              B.     Point at issue                  (para. 44) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34              C.     Article 11 of the Convention                  (paras. 45-71) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34              D.     Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention                  (paras. 72-74) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39              E.     Article 13 of the Convention                  (paras. 75-78) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39              F.     Recapitulation                  (paras. 79-81) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40   Dissenting opinion by Mr. S. Trechsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41   APPENDIX I        : HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . . . .42   APPENDIX II       : DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY. . . . . . . . . .43   I.    INTRODUCTION   1.     The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.     The Application   2.     The applicant is an Icelandic citizen, born in 1952. He is a taxi driver and resides in Reykjavík. In the proceedings before the Commission the applicant is represented by Mr. Jón Steinar Gunnlaugsson, a lawyer practising in Reykjavík.   3.     The application is directed against Iceland. The respondent Government are represented by their Agent, Mr. porsteinn Geirsson of the Ministry of Justice and Ecclesiastical Affairs.   4.     The case concerns the applicant's obligation to be a member of a trade union in order to obtain or keep a licence to operate a taxicab. The applicant considers that this obligation violates his right to freedom of association and he invokes Article 11 of the Convention or, in the alternative, Articles 9, 10 and 13 of the Convention.   B.     The Proceedings   5.     The application was introduced on 22 December 1989 and registered on 2 February 1990. On 2 July 1990 the Commission decided in accordance with Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite them to present, before 12 October 1990, their observations in writing on the admissibility and merits of the application.   6.     The Government submitted their observations on 11 December 1990 after two extensions of the time-limit. The applicant's written observations in reply were submitted on 28 January 1991.   7.     On 10 July 1991 the Commission decided to declare the application admissible and the parties were then invited to submit any additional observations on the merits which they wished to make. No further observations on the merits were received from the parties. 8.     Legal aid under the Addendum to the Commission's Rules of Procedure was granted to the applicant on 21 February 1992.   9.     After declaring the case admissible the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the case. Active consultations with the parties took place between 15 July 1991 and 20 January 1992. In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis upon which such a settlement can be effected.   C.     The Present Report   10.    The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission   in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:              MM.    C. A. NØRGAARD, President                  S. TRECHSEL                  F. ERMACORA                  E. BUSUTTIL                  A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H. G. SCHERMERS                  H. DANELIUS            Mrs.   G. H. THUNE            Sir    Basil HALL            MM.    F. MARTINEZ RUIZ                  C. L. ROZAKIS            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M. P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER   11.    The text of this Report was adopted on 15 May 1992 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   12.    The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, is:   i)     to establish the facts, and   ii)    to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose a       breach by the State concerned of its obligations under the       Convention.   13.    A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application as Appendix II.   14.    The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.   II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   A.     The Particular Circumstances of the Case   15.    On 26 September 1984 the applicant applied for a licence to operate a taxicab. The application was written on a printed form for the purpose and was, according to its printed text, addressed to the Frami Automobile Drivers' Association (hereafter called Frami). It stated inter alia that the applicant had until September 1984 operated, on behalf of another person, a taxicab accommodating up to eight passengers for more than seven years and furthermore contained the following declaration:         (translation)         "If an operating licence is granted to me I undertake the       obligation of operating my automobile as full-time       occupation. I also undertake the obligation of observing       the provisions of the said regulation in full detail, as       effective at any particular time, and I am aware that in       case I violate the regulation my professional licence may       be suspended or permanently revoked. I am also aware that       when becoming a member of the Frami Automobile Drivers'       Association I am obliged to pay to the association the       charges stipulated by its articles."   16.    The applicant's application was considered on the basis of Act No. 36/1970 on Motor Vehicles for Public Hire (lög Nr. 36/1970 um leigubifreidar) then in force, and Regulation No. 320/1983 issued by the Minister of Communications in accordance with Section 10 of the Act. This regulation provided for the implementation of the Act in further detail.   17.     Section 6 of the Regulation provided that operating licences should be issued by three persons called "licence allotters".   One of them was appointed by the directors of Frami, one by employees who did not own the taxicabs they operated, and the chairman by the Minister of Communications. Furthermore, Section 6 provided that the operating licences should be numbered and limited to the licence holders personally.   The licences should be deposited with Frami.   Section 7 of the Regulation obliged the licence allotters to supervise that the laws and regulations relating to motor vehicles for public hire were observed, and provided that, in cases of a violation by a licence holder, his licence could be suspended or, in cases of serious or repeated violations, permanently revoked.   A new Regulation (No. 293/1985) subsequently entered into force.   It did not amend the above provisions except for the fact that the "licence allotters" were now called the Committee for Taxicab Supervision (hereafter called the Committee).   18.    The decisions of the Committee suspending or revoking a licence could be appealed to the Minister of Communications.   19.    As regards a licence holder's affiliation with Frami, Section 8 of the Regulation stated:         (translation)         "A driver may not be granted an operating licence unless he       undertakes the obligation of operating his own taxicab as       full-time occupation and applies for membership of the       Frami Automobile Drivers' Association."   20.    On the basis of the above Act and Regulation the applicant was granted an operating licence by the then "licence allotters" (now the Committee). It was issued on 24 October 1984 as licence no. 1210 and contained inter alia the following:         (translation)         "This operating licence is issued in conformity with the       regulation in respect of limitation of taxicabs in Reykjavík and       the allocation of operating licences, and permits the licence       holder to operate a single taxicab accommodating up to eight       passengers, for service in Reykjavík from a taxi station approved       by the town council. If the licence holder violates the said       regulation, as effective at any particular time, the licence       allotter may revoke his operating licence temporarily, or       permanently in case of repeated violations."   21.    On the same day the applicant signed a declaration where he, inter alia, undertook to observe the provisions of the Regulation in full, and declared that he was aware that a violation of the Regulation could lead to a suspension or permanent revocation of his operating licence.   22.    Having received his operating licence, the applicant paid his membership fees to Frami.   This continued until August 1985 when he ceased paying his membership fees. In reply to Frami's notification of 5 February 1986 concerning the planned suspension of station services by reason of default on membership fees the applicant informed the association's directors by letter of 14 February 1986 as follows:         (translation)         "You know my stand with regard to the Frami interest       association and that it is not my desire to be a member of       such an association as Frami is. And I refuse completely to       put up with such oppression any longer as to be forced to       pay membership dues to you and to remain within the       association. The reason why I accepted an 'operating       licence' without first securing my legal position with       regard to membership was that I felt at the moment that I       was not financially capable of initiating the necessary       measures; as you know such action would have meant that I       would not have obtained an 'operating licence' until       judgment had been rendered, and trying one's best to avoid       time-consuming litigation is only natural. The reason why       I paid membership dues to Frami to August 1985 is the same.       ..."   23.    On 30 June 1986 the Committee informed the applicant that it had approved a request from Frami to revoke his licence as from July 1986. The reasons for this were that he had not paid membership fees and that he had "encouraged and/or tolerated, in his capacity as director of Steindór's Taxi Station, that persons were transported for charge in the delivery vans of Sendibílar Ltd.", a company which he owned in part and in which he was chairman of its board of directors.   24.    On 1 July 1986 the applicant complained to the Ministry of Communications of the revocation of his licence.   He expressed the opinion that there could be no justification for compelling him to be a member of Frami, and declared that he would refer the question of the revocation of his licence to the courts.   25.    The Ministry of Communications answered the applicant by letter of 17 July 1986, stating inter alia:         (translation)         "The Ministry hereby informs you that, following an       examination of the matter and with reference to the reasons       given by the Supervision Committee and to Sections 7 and 12       of Regulation No. 293/1985, the Committee's decision of       30 June, last, revoking your licence permitting you the       operation of taxicabs for the transport of persons, is       confirmed."   26.    The Ministry of Communications sent a copy of its letter to the Chief of Police of Reykjavík.   27.    The applicant refused, however, to accept this.   On 28 July 1986 he sent a letter to the Chief of Police of Reykjavík in which he explained that he regarded the revocation of his operating licence as unlawful. He stated his intention of bringing a lawsuit for a declaratory judgment confirming this view following the courts' summer recess.   His main arguments were set out in the letter and the police was requested not to interfere with his occupation as taxicab operator. The Chief of Police took no account of this request.   On 1 August 1986 the police stopped the applicant while driving, and removed the plates from his vehicle which identified it as a vehicle for public hire.   28.    On 18 September 1986 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Committee and the Minister of Communications in the Civil Court of Reykjavík.   The applicant maintained that the revocation of his taxi licence should be declared null and void.   29.    The applicant's claim in court was based, inter alia, on the argument that, with reference to Sections 69 and 73 of the Icelandic Constitution, the view could not be sustained that a person could be compelled to be a member of an association.   If people were free to form associations for any lawful purpose in accordance with their desires, opinions or interests, they would have to be granted the right to refuse membership of associations.   If not, people could be forced to work against their own desires, opinions or interests.   Least of all would it be possible to make a person's right to pursue an occupation conditional on the membership of an association of which he did not desire to be a member.   30.    The applicant referred to his political opinions maintaining that access to occupation should not be limited in the way done by the association.   Secondly, he was opposed to such restraints on account of his own interests, considering that he would be better able to pursue his occupation in a free market system.   31.    The applicant furthermore maintained that if the above arguments were rejected, a duty to be a member of an association would at least have to be based on statute law enacted by Parliament.   Provisions contained in a Regulation issued by a Minister of the Government would not suffice to legally establish such duty.   Finally, the applicant argued that failure to pay membership fees to Frami could not justify a revocation of his operating licence.   32.    Judgment was pronounced in the Civil Court of Reykjavík on 17 July 1987, rejecting the applicant's claims.   He appealed against the judgment to the Supreme Court of Iceland maintaining his above views. Judgment was pronounced by seven judges on 15 December 1988.   33.    The Supreme Court first examined the applicant's complaints under Section 73 of the Constitution. It rejected, unanimously, the applicant's argument that he could not, on account of this provision, be obliged to remain a member of Frami. The Court stated in this respect as follows:         (translation)         "This provision of the Constitution is unchanged in       substance from Section 55 of the Constitution relating to       Matters Particular to Iceland, of 5 January 1874, which in       turn was adopted from Section 92 of the Danish Constitution       of 5 June 1849. When interpreting this provision its       history must be kept in view, and its purpose at the time       when it entered into force, which was to secure the right       of the subjects to form associations without permits being       obtained from the authorities in advance. The provision was       only intended to protect the formation of associations as       such, but not a right of remaining outside associations.         The appellant has not demonstrated that Section 73 of the       Constitution conflicts with the provisions of the       international instruments to which he refers, which are       described in the judgment appealed from; neither would       this, by itself, affect the provisions of the Constitution       as they stand. The appellant's view that this       constitutional provision should now be construed as       providing for a person's right to refuse to become or       remain a member of an association cannot be sustained.       Neither can the inference be drawn from this constitutional       provision that a professional licence cannot lawfully be       made conditional upon the membership of an association."   34.    A majority of four judges, however, reversed the judgment of the lower instance finding that the matters referred to should be regulated by law and not by a Regulation issued by the Minister of Communications. In this respect the Supreme Court stated, inter alia:         (translation)         "... The (Act No. 36/1970 on Motor Vehicles for Public Hire)       does not provide for an obligation on the part of the licence       holder to be a member of a trade union, nor that only members of       automobile drivers' trade unions may be granted an operating       licence. ...         Thus, a provision in a Regulation to the effect that membership       of a trade union was a prerequisite for being granted an       operating licence, was unauthorised by law. Accordingly, a legal       basis for an obligation imposed on the appellant, against his       will, to be a member of the Frami Automobile Drivers'       Association, was lacking. Therefore depriving him of his       operating licence, as done when he ceased paying membership dues       and withdrew from the association, was unlawful.         ...         Accordingly, the applicant's appeal shall be allowed and the       decision of the Committee for Taxicab Supervision, notified to       him on 30 June 1986 and confirmed by the Minister of       Communications on 17 July 1986, revoking his licence to operate       a taxicab in Reykjavik, shall be invalidated."   35.    Three judges dissented, confirming as a whole the judgment of the Civil Court.   36.    Following this judgment the Minister of Communications presented a new Bill to Parliament concerning vehicles for public hire. This was passed as Act No. 77/1989 and took effect on 1 July 1989 (see below under B). This Act expressly enumerates as a condition for being granted an operating licence that an applicant shall be a member of the relevant trade union of drivers of motor vehicles transporting persons, or shall have applied for membership.   The Act furthermore authorises temporary revocation of operating licences if the holder of such a licence violates the provisions of laws or regulations relating to vehicles for public hire, and permanent revocation in cases of serious or repeated violations.   A new Regulation, No. 308/1989, has been issued on the basis of the new Act (see below under B).   37.    Following the entry into force of Act No. 77/1989 and Regulation No. 308/1989 the applicant sent the following letter of 4 July 1989 to Frami and the Minister of Communications:         (translation)         "With reference to the new legislation relating to vehicles       for public hire which took effect on 1 July, last, and the       concomitant Regulation on taxicab operation, I consider       myself obliged to be a member of the Frami Automobile       Drivers' Association, and therefore I accept that       membership fees be collected monthly with my station       charges at BSR.         I wish to state clearly that I am not a member of the Frami       Automobile Drivers' Association of my own free will, and       the fact remains unaltered that my interests are better       served outside the association than within it, since its       statute contains provisions which run counter to my       political opinions, and the association uses the membership       fees to work against my interests.   I am anything but       content with the legislation referred to, in particular due       to the fact that the conclusion of the judgment of the       Supreme Court pronounced in my case against the Ministry of       Communications on 15 December 1988 states that Section 73       of the Constitution does not prevent the legislator from       obliging motor vehicle operators by legislation to remain       members of the same association.   In my opinion the       legislation in question is incompatible with the Human       Rights Convention of the Council of Europe to which Iceland       is a party.         As I do not consider it necessary in a democratic society       to impose the obligation on all taxi drivers that they be       members of the same interest group, I shall lodge a       complaint relating to the legislation in question with the       Human Rights Commission and the European Court of Human       Rights."   38.    The applicant did not challenge the new legislation in the domestic courts.   B.     Relevant Domestic Law   39.    Sections 69 and 73 of the Icelandic Constitution reads as follows:         "Engin bönd má leggja á atvinnufrelsi manna, nema almenningsheill       krefji, enda parf lagabod til."         "Rétt eiga menn á ad stofna félög í sérhverjum löglegum tilgangi,       án pess ad sækja purfi um leyfi til pess. Ekkert félag má leysa       upp med stjórnarrádstöfun. pó má banna félag um sinn, en pá       verdur pegar ad höfda mál gegn félaginu, til pess ad pad verdi       leyst upp."         (translation)         "No restriction may be imposed upon individual freedom of       employment, unless legislated for as being required by the common       good."         "Societies may be formed for any lawful purpose, without previous       authorisation. No society may be dissolved by act of Government,       but it may be temporarily suspended, in which case an action for       dissolution must immediately be brought."   40.    The Act No. 77/1989 on Motor Vehicles for Public Hire now in force reads as follows:                                  "I. KAFLI                                Leiguakstur.                                    1.gr.         Lög pessi taka fólksbifreida, vörubifreida og sendibifreida sem       notadar eru til leiguaksturs. Fólksbifreidar, sem taka fleiri en       átta farpega, falla pó ekki undir lög pessi.         Leiguakstur fólksbifreida telst pad pegar fólksbifreid er seld       á leigu ásamt ökumanni fyrir tiltekid gjald til flutnings á       farpegum og farangri peirra.         Leiguakstur vörubifreida og sendibifreida telst pad pegar slík       bifreid er seld á leigu ásamt ökumanni til flutnings á vörum       fyrir tiltekid gjald par sem ökumadur eda eigandi bifreidarinn-       ar er hvorki eigandi, seljandi né kaupandi vörunnar sem flutt er.         Heimilt er med reglugerd ad kveda nánar á um mörkin milli       atvinnusvids fólksbifreida, vörubifreida og sendibifreida sem       notadar eru til leiguaksturs. Rísi ágreiningur um pessi mörk sker       samgönguráduneytid úr.         Leigubifreidar skulu audkenndar.                                  II. KAFLI                              Bifreidastödvar.                                   2. gr.         Bæjarstjórn er heimilt, ad fengnum tillögum hlutadeigandi       stéttarfélags bifreidastjóra, ad ákveda ad allar leigubifreidar       í kaupstadnum í hverjum flokki fyrir sig, p.e. fólksbifreidar,       vörubifreidar og sendibifreidar, skuli hafa afgreidslu á       bifreidastöd sem fengid hefur vidurkenningu bæjarstjórnar.       Á félagssvædum, par sem vidurkenndar bifreidastödvar eru       starfandi, er öllum, sem aka utan pessara stödva, bannad ad taka       ad sér eda stunda leiguakstur á vidkomandi svidi.                                    3.gr.         Bifreidastödvar fyrir leigubifreidar skulu, í samrádi vid       stéttarfélög leigubifreidastjóra, skipuleggja starfsemi sína med       peim hætti ad almenningi verdi veitt gód og örugg pjónusta. Hver       bifreidastöd skal fylgjast med pví ad ökumenn, sem par hafa       afgreidslu, fari eftir fyrirmælum laga og reglugerda um       leigubifreidar.                                 III. KAFLI                                 Takmörkun.                                   4. gr.         Samgönguráduneytinu er heimilt eftir beidni hlutadeigandi       stéttarfélags bifreidastjóra, hvort heldur um er ad ræda félag       fólksbifreidastjóra, vörubifreidastjóra eda sendibifreidastjóra,       ad takmarka fjölda leigubifreida á félagssvædinu, enda komi til       medmæli peirra bæjarstjórna og héradsnefnda er félagssvædid       fellur undir. Verdi bæjarstjórnir og héradsnefndir, sem       félagssvædi stéttarfélags bifreidastjóra fellur undir, eigi       sammála um hvort mæla skuli med takmörkun eda ekki eda pær greini       á um vid hvada bifreidafjölda takmörkun skuli mida skal       samgönguráduneytid skera úr.         par sem takmörkun er heimilud skal hún ákvedin af ráduneytinu med       reglugerd. Takmörkun á fjölda vörubifreida og sendibifreida, sem       midast vid ákvedna hámarkstölu, framkvæma félögin sjálf.       Takmörkun á fjölda fólksbifreida, sem midast vid ákvedna       hámarkstölu eda vidmidun vid íbúafjölda, ber ad framkvæma med       útgáfu atvinnuleyfa sem umsjónarnefnd fólksbifreida annast.                                    5.gr.         Á félagssvædi, par sem takmörkun er í gildi, skulu       bifreidastjórar í sömu grein vera í sama stéttarfélagi.         Á peim félagssvædum stéttarfélaga vörubifreidastjóra og       sendibifreidastjóra, par sem takmörkun er í gildi, er öllum       utanfélagsmönnum bannad ad taka ad sér eda stunda leiguakstur á       vörum.         Á peim félagssvædum stéttarfélaga fólksbifreidastjóra, par sem       takmörkun er í gildi, er öllum, sem eigi hafa atvinnuleyfi,       bannad ad taka ad sér eda stunda leiguakstur á fólki.                                    6.gr.         pegar heimild til takmörkunar á fjölda leigubifreida er veitt er       óheimilt ad skerda atvinnuréttindi peirra manna sem á lögmætan       hátt stunda leigubifreidaakstur og eru fullgildir félagar í       hlutadeigandi stéttarfélagi pá er takmörkun hefst.                                  IV. KAFLI                                Atvinnuleyfi.                                    7.gr.         Í pví skyni ad takmarka fjölda fólksbifreida til leiguaksturs á       peim félagssvædum, par sem samgönguráduneytid hefur veitt heimild       til takmörkunar, skal gefa út sérstök atvinnuleyfi. Grundvöllur       atvinnuleyfanna er ad sérhver leyfishafi eigi fólksbifreid og       hafi pad ad adalatvinnu ad aka henni sjálfur. Frá skilyrdum um       adalatvinnu má víkja á félagssvædum par sem íbúar eru færri en       5000. Fjöldi atvinnuleyfa á hverju félagssvædi midast vid pann       fjölda fólksbifreida sem takmörkunarreglugerd heimilar. Engum má       veita meira en eitt atvinnuleyfi.         Atvinnuleyfi er bundid vid nafn. Leyfishafa er óheimilt ad selja       atvinnuleyfi, leigja pad út eda rádstafa pví á annan hátt.       Atvinnuleyfishafi er hádur ákvædum laga og reglugerda um       leigubifreidar svo sem pau eru á hverjum tíma.                                    8.gr.         peir einir, sem fullnægja eftirtöldum skilyrdum, geta ödlast       atvinnuleyfi:       1. hafa fullnægjandi ökuréttindi samkvæmt umferdarlögum,       2. eru 20-65 ára ad aldri,       3. hafa eigi gerst sekir um alvarlegt refsilagabrot,       4. hafa fullnægjandi heilbrigdisvottord,       5. hafa starfsreynslu vid akstur á fólki,       6. eru félagsmenn í hlutadeigandi stéttarfélagi         fólksbifreidastjóra eda hafa sótt um inngöngu í pad.         pessum skilyrdum verdur atvinnuleyfishafi einnig ad fullnægja       eftir ad leyfi er fengid, sbr. pó 1. mgr. 9. gr.         Heimilt er ad halda námskeid fyrir umsækjendur um atvinnuleyfi       og má pá gera prófárangur ad skilyrdi fyrir pví ad leyfi verdi       veitt. Heimilt er ad taka sérstaklega tillit til umsókna um       atvinnuleyfi frá öryrkjum, enda uppfylli peir skilyrdi pessarar       greinar og ætla megi ad leiguakstur henti peim. Um heimild pessa       má ákveda nánar í reglugerd.                                    9.gr.         Atvinnuleyfi fellur úr gildi vid lok 70 ára aldurs leyfishafa.         Atvinnuleyfi fellur úr gildi vid andlát leyfishafa. pó má dánarbú       hans eda eftirlifandi maki nyta leyfid í allt ad prjú ár par á       eftir.         Heimilt er ad svipta leyfishafa atvinnuleyfi tímabundid ef hann       brytur gegn ákvædum laga og reglugerda um leigubifreidar, en       fyrir fullt og allt ef um alvarleg eda ítrekud brot er ad ræda.         Veita má leyfishafa tímabundnar undanpágur frá akstri eigin       bifreidar vegna:       a. orlofs, veikinda eda annarra forfalla,       b. vaktaskipta á álagstímum,       c. vidgerdar eda endurnyjunar á bifreid.         Stéttarfélag fólksbifreidastjóra annast pessar undanpáguveitingar       eftir nánari fyrirmælum í reglugerd.         Um atvinnuleyfi, úthlutun peirra, nytingu og brottfall skal setja       nánari ákvædi í reglugerd.                                  V. KAFLI                        Umsjónarnefnd fólksbifreida.                                   10.gr.         Á öllum félagssvædum, par sem takmörkun fólksbifreida til       leiguaksturs hefur verid ákvedin, sbr. 4. gr., skal starfa       umsjónarnefnd fólksbifreida. Samgöngurádherra skipar       umsjónarnefndir fólksbifreida. Hver nefnd skal skipud premur       mönnum. Hlutadeigandi stéttarfélag fólksbifreidastjóra tilnefnir       einn nefndarmanna, annan tilnefnir sveitarfélag eda sveitarfélög       sameiginlega á félagssvædi og hinn pridja skipar rádherra án       tilnefningar og er hann formadur nefndarinnar. Sömu adilar velja       hver um sig einn varamann.         Umsjónarnefnd fólksbifreida hefur med höndum umsjón og eftirlit       med framkvæmd laga og reglugerda um leigubifreidar á       félagssvædinu, úthlutun atvinnuleyfa og afturköllun peirra, svo       og eftirlit med pjónustu fólksbifreidastödva. Ad ödru leyti       verdur starfssvid umsjónarnefnda ákvedid í reglugerd.         Samgöngurádherra ákvedur laun nefndarmanna. Laun peirra og annan       kostnad af störfum umsjónarnefnda greidir ríkissjódur.                                  VI. KAFLI                                Ymis ákvædi.         ...                                   13.gr.         Brot gegn lögum pessum og reglugerdum, sem settar verda samkvæmt       peim, varda sektum nema pyngri refsing liggi vid eftir ödrum       lögum og skal farid med mál út af brotum á lögum pessum ad hætti       opinberra mála.                                 14.gr.         Lög pessi ödlast gildi 1. júlí 1989. Jafnframt falla úr gildi lög       um leigubifreidar, nr. 36 1970, lög nr. 47/1988 og 66.gr. laga       nr. 108/1988, um breytingu á peim lögum.         prátt fyrir ákvædi 1. mgr. 5.gr. laga pessara er rádherra heimilt       ad veita undanpágu frá ákvædinu par sem önnur tilhögun hefur       tídkast.         Prátt fyrir ákvædi 5. lidar 8.gr. skulu launpegar í       leigubifreidastjórastétt hafa forgang vid veitingu atvinnuleyfa       næstu prjú ár frá gildistöku pessara laga, sbr. pó 3.mgr. 8.gr.         Prátt fyrir ákvædi 1.mgr. 9.gr. er heimilt ad veita peim, sem eru       66 ára eda eldri vid gildistöku pessara laga, heimild til ad       halda atvinnuleyfi í allt ad fimm ár til vidbótar enda uppfylli       peir ad ödru leyti skilyrdi pessara laga. Pó verdi ekki heimilt       ad framlengja atvinnuleyfi lengur en til 75 ára aldurs       leyfishafa.         Vid gildistöku laga pessara haldast vidurkenningar á       bifreidastödvum samkvæmt eldri lögum par til ödruvísi verdur       ákvedid af réttum adilum.         Peir, sem hafa atvinnuleyfi eda njóta takmörkunar vid gildistöku       laga pessara, eru hádir peim breytingum á réttarstödu sem lög       pessi hafa í för med sér."         (translation)                               "CHAPTER I                 Operation of Motor Vehicles for Public Hire                                  Section 1         This Act applies to automobiles for the transport of persons or       goods, and to delivery vans when operated for hire. Automobiles       for more than eight passengers are however excluded from the       scope of this Act.         For the purposes of this Act operation of a taxicab shall mean       letting out an automobile on lease, with its operator, for a       specified charge