CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 janvier 2020

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 23 January 2020 Published on 10 February 2020   SECOND SECTION Applications nos. 60672/16 and 60704/16 Sigurthor Charles GUDMUNDSSON against Iceland and Margret GUDJONSDOTTIR against Iceland lodged on 14 October 2016 and 14 October 2016 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the applicants’ indictment and conviction for financial crimes, following the financial crisis of 2008. The first applicant is an auditor and was elected the auditor of the company Milestone ehf. (hereinafter “Milestone”). The second applicant is an auditor and audited the annual financial statement of Milestone. They were both indicted on 5 July 2013 on two counts, for major violations of the Annual Accounts Act No. 3/2006 and the Auditors’ Act No. 18/1997, in relation to Milestone’s annual accounts for 2006 and 2007. By a judgment of the District Court of Reykjavík of 17 December 2014, both applicants were acquitted. The case was appealed by the prosecution to the Supreme Court of Iceland. By a judgment of 28 April 2016, the Supreme Court partly overturned the District Court’s judgment and convicted both applicants on one count, but acquitted them on the other. They were each sentenced to nine-month’s imprisonment, suspended for two years, and deprived of their auditors’ licences for six months. The applicants complain that the Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s findings without hearing the defendants or the witnesses in person, and that in the process it reassessed the evidentiary value of witness statements it did not hear, violating their right to a fair trial.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants’ convictions by the Supreme Court constitute a breach of their right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the Supreme Court assess the applicants’ guilt, in whole or in part, by re-assessing the evidentiary value 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 (see, inter alia, Sigurþór Arnarsson v. Iceland , no. 44671/98, 15 July 2003, Botten v. Norway , 19 February 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 ‑ I, Styrmir Þór Bragason v. Iceland , no. 36292/14, 16 July 2019 and Júlíus Þór Sigurþórsson v. Iceland , no. 38797/17, 16 July 2019)?