CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 décembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 16 December 2020 Published on 11 January 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 22084/19 Þórarinn JÓNASSON against Iceland lodged on 11 April 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE By judgment of 31 January 2018, the District Court of Reykjavík found for the defendant in defamation proceedings brought by the applicant. The judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 12 October 2018 and the Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to appeal on 22   November 2018. The applicant complains that the Court of Appeal had not been a “tribunal established by law” within the meaning of Article 6 §   1 of the Convention because one of the judges on the bench which ruled on his case had not been appointed in accordance with the domestic law. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES 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, Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland [GC], no.   26374/18, §§ 235-290, 1 December 2020)?