CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 15 avril 1997

.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                               SECOND CHAMBER                          Application No. 22103/93                             Sigurdur Georgsson                                   against                                   Iceland                          REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                         (adopted on 15 April 1997)                              TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                    Page   INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1   PART I   :   STATEMENT OF THE FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3   PART II :   SOLUTION REACHED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4                                INTRODUCTION   1.     This Report relates to the application introduced under Article 25 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Sigurdur Georgsson against Iceland on 3 May 1993.   It was registered on 21 June 1993 under file No. 22103/93.   2.     The applicant was represented by Mr Magnús Thoroddsen, a lawyer practising in Reykjavik.   3.     The Government of Iceland were represented by their Agent, Mr Thorsteinn Geirsson, Secretary General of the Ministry of Justice and Ecclesiastical Affairs.   4.     On 16 October 1996 the Commission (Second Chamber) declared the application admissible in so far as it concerns the applicant's right to freedom of expression.   It then proceeded to carry out its task under Article 28 para. 1 of the Convention which provides as follows:   5.     "In the event of the Commission accepting a petition       referred to it:         a.    it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts,       undertake together with the representatives of the parties       an examination of the petition and, if need be, an       investigation, for the effective conduct of which the       States concerned shall furnish all necessary facilities,       after an exchange of views with the Commission;         b.    it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal       of the parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly       settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for Human       Rights as defined in this Convention."   6.     The Commission (Second Chamber) found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 15 April 1997 it adopted this Report, which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention, is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.   7.     The following members were present when the Report was adopted:              Mrs.   G.H. THUNE, President            MM.    J.-C. GEUS                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  J.-C. SOYER                  H. DANELIUS                  F. MARTINEZ                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  P. LORENZEN                  E. BIELIUNAS                  E.A. ALKEMA                  A. ARABADJIEV                                   PART I                           STATEMENT OF THE FACTS   8.     The applicant is an Icelandic citizen, born in 1946 and resident in Reykjavik. He is a lawyer by profession.   9.     Following the publication of a newspaper article in which the applicant had commented on a Probate Court judge's handling of a case the Board of the Icelandic Bar Association decided, on 14 October 1992, to admonish the applicant on account of certain of the applicant's expressions in the newspaper article. The applicant appealed against this decision to the Supreme Court which, by judgment of 17 December 1992, upheld the decision.   10.    Before the Commission the applicant complained, under Article 10 of the Convention, that his right to freedom of expression had been infringed in that he had been admonished for his comments quoted in the newspaper article.                                   PART II                              SOLUTION REACHED   11.    Following the decision on the admissibility of the application, the Commission (Second Chamber) placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties to submit any proposals they wished to make.   12.    In accordance with the usual practice, the Chamber Secretary, acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.   13.    By letter of 6 December 1996 the parties indicated their willingness, in principle, to reach a friendly settlement and by letter of 2 April 1997 submitted a copy of the following settlement:   (Translation from Icelandic)         "We, the Government of Iceland and Mr Sigurdur Georgsson       hereby conclude the following                                 Settlement:         By a decision of the Board of the Icelandic Bar Association       rendered [14] October 1992, the Supreme Court lawyer       Mr Sigurdur Georgsson was admonished in accordance with       Article 18 of the Association's Code of Ethics and Section       8, subsection 3, of the Legal Representation Act, No.       61/1942, on account of statements quoted after him in the       weekly Pressan relating to the functions of       Mr Már Pétursson, district court judge, as a probate judge       in a certain case. Mr Georgsson appealed against the       admonition to the Supreme Court, which confirmed it, by       reference to the decision appealed from, in a judgment       rendered 17 December 1992. Mr Georgsson complained of this       to the European Commission of Human Rights on the grounds       that this had involved a violation of his freedom of       expression guaranteed in Article 10 of the European       Convention on Human Rights. In a letter dated       22 January 1997 the European Commission of Human Rights       proposed that the matter be settled by the Republic of       Iceland paying Mr Georgsson the equivalent of 5,000 French       Francs in addition to a reasonable amount on account of the       procedure before the Commission.         By reference to the above the Government of Iceland and       Mr Sigurdur Georgsson are in agreement to bring their       differences to a conclusion on the following terms:         1.    That the Icelandic State Treasury reimburse       Mr Georgsson for the costs he has incurred in connection       with the case, ISK 510,990.-, and in addition pay him the       equivalent of French Francs 5,000, or ISK 62,905.-, cf. the       letter of the European Commission of Human Rights dated       22 January 1997, total ISK 573,895.-, wherein value added       tax on lawyer's fees is included.         2.    That Mr Georgsson undertakes, following payment of the       stated amount and without being entitled to damages or       other payments from the Icelandic State Treasury, to revoke       his application to the European Commission of Human Rights       and not to take legal action against the Republic of       Iceland on account of the above matter before the courts of       Iceland or international tribunals.              The attitude of the Icelandic Government that the       provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights have       not been violated remains unchanged, and this Settlement       does not entail a recognition that such a violation has       taken place by the Republic of Iceland.              In signing this Settlement, Mr Sigurdur Georgsson       furthermore declares that he approves that this Settlement       be submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights in       confirmation of the fact that he revokes his application       against the Icelandic Government."   14.    At its session on 15 April 1997, the Commission noted that the parties had reached an agreement regarding the terms of a settlement. It further considered, having regard to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, that the friendly settlement of the case had been secured on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.   15.    For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.           M.-T. SCHOEPFER                         G.H. THUNE            Secretary                             President       to the Second Chamber                of the Second Chamber