CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 février 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 29 February 2016   FIRST SECTION Application no 36292/14 Styrmir Por BRAGASON against Iceland lodged on 25 April 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE The application concerns the alleged violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial and the right of appeal in criminal matters due to his conviction for aiding and abetting in the crime of fraud by abuse of position ( umboðssvik ) of two other persons during a financial transaction in the form of a loan granted by a bank without sufficient collateral and in breach of the bank’s internal rules. QUESTIONS 1.     Did the applicant’s conviction by the Supreme Court, in its judgment of 31 October 2013, constitute a breach of his right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. In particular, did the Supreme Court assess the applicant’s guilt, in whole or in part, on the basis of testimony provided by the accused and witnesses before the District Court without the Supreme Court having itself directly heard the accused or the witnesses in question?   2.     Did the applicant’s conviction by the Supreme Court, in its judgment of 31 October 2013, constitute a violation of his right of appeal in criminal matters under Article 2 § 1 of Protocol no. 7 to the Convention?