CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 août 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 30 August 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 44260/17 Ólafur ÓLAFSSON against Iceland lodged on 2 June 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE By a Supreme Court judgment of 12 February 2015, the applicant was convicted of market manipulation and sentenced to four years and six months’ imprisonment (see also application no. 39757/15). The applicant complains of a violation of his right to be heard by an independent and impartial tribunal and his right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty due to Justices M.S, and A.K., two of the five Supreme Court Justices which decided the criminal case against the applicant on appeal, having financial interests/owning shares in one or more of the three collapsed Icelandic banks, Landsbanki, Glitnir and Kaupthing . QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant complied with the applicable six-month time-limit in accordance with Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In light of the nature of the applicant’s complaint, on which date did the time limit commence for the applicant to lodge a complaint before the Court?   2.     Has the applicant exhausted available domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, what was the available domestic remedy with respect to the applicant’s complaint related to the alleged impartiality of Justices M.S. and A.K.? If so, at what time did the remedy become available for the applicant? What relevance in this respect should be ascribed to the procedure which was then in force under Article 9 of the Rules No. 463/2000, on Additional Functions of District Court and Supreme Court Judges and their Ownership in Companies and Undertakings, for requesting information on the ownership of serving judges in companies from the Committee on Judicial Functions ( nefnd um dómarastörf )?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicant´s right to be heard by an independent and impartial tribunal under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did two of the five Supreme Court Justices, which decided the criminal case against the applicant on appeal, namely M.S. and A.K. have financial interests in one or more of the three collapsed Icelandic banks, Landsbanki, Glitnir and Kaupthing , when the events occurred which formed the basis for the applicant´s conviction? If so, what was the relevance for the assessment of their alleged impartiality of the condition in Article 7 § 3 of Rules No. 463/2000 (see above), then in force, that a serving judge was required to seek permission from the Committee on Judicial Functions to own more than 3,000,000 ISK in a company, listed on the stock exchange, or to hold more than a 5% share in other companies?