CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 mars 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } , Communicated on 2 March 2016   FIRST SECTION Application no 68273/14 Gestur JONSSON against Iceland lodged on 16 October 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE The application concerns the alleged violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial, the right not to be punished without law and the right of appeal in criminal matters due to the imposition of a fine for contempt of court ( réttarfarssekt ). QUESTIONS 1.     Did the Supreme Court’s judgment of 28 May 2014, confirming the District Court’s judgment of 12 December 2013, imposing a fine of 1,000,000 Icelandic krona on the applicant for contempt of court, violate the applicant’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant tried and convicted by the District Court in absentia ? If so, was the Supreme Court capable of remedying on appeal the defects of the District Court’s proceedings?   2.     Has the applicant exhausted domestic remedies with respect to his complaint under Article 7 of the Convention? If so, did the Supreme Court’s judgment, confirming the District Court’s judgment of 12 December 2013, imposing a fine of 1,000,000 Icelandic krona on the applicant for contempt of court, violate the applicant’s right not to be punished without law under Article 7?   3.     Has the applicant exhausted domestic remedies with respect to his complaint under Article 2 of Protocol 7 to the Convention? If so, assuming that the applicant was tried and convicted by the District Court in absentia , did the Supreme Court, by confirming the District Court’s judgment and thus not referring the case back to the District Court for a retrial, violate the right of the applicant to appeal in criminal matters under Article 2 of Protocol 7 to the Convention?