CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 juin 2018

.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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 19 June 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 26374/18 Guðmundur Andri ÁSTRÁÐSSON against Iceland lodged on 31 May 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was convicted of a traffic offence by the District Court of Reykjaness on 23 March 2017. The conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 23 March 2018 and subsequently by the Supreme Court on 24   May 2018. The applicant invokes Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and alleges a violation of that provision on the basis that his case was not decided by a tribunal established by law as one of the three judges in the Court of Appeal, A.E, had not been appointed in accordance with the law. The applicant furthermore alleges a violation of his right to be heard by an independent and impartial tribunal under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the proceedings before the Court of Appeal violate the applicant´s right to be heard by a tribunal established by law guaranteed by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see, for example, Jorgic v Germany , no.   74613/01, 12 July 2007, § 64-65, Ilatovskiy v Russia , no. 6945/04, 9   July 2009, §§ 36 and 40-41)? In particular, in answering this question, what is, firstly, the relevance of the Supreme Court´s findings in the applicant’s case that in the appointment of A.E. the procedures in Parliament for election of judges to the newly constituted Court of Appeal did not conform with Article IV § 2 (temporary provision) of the Judiciary Act No. 50/2016, and, secondly, the relevance of the Supreme Court´s reference in the applicant’s case to its previous judgments of 19   December   2017, in cases No. 591/2017 and   592/2017, concluding that the proceedings by the Minister of Justice for the selection and nomination of fifteen judges to the Court of Appeal, a list of which was submitted to Parliament, had violated the law?   2.     Did the proceedings before the Court of Appeal violate the applicant´s right to be heard by an independent and impartial tribunal under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?