CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 septembre 2021

.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 } .s2A91C753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } Published on 27 September 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 18580/19 Gunnlaugur BRIEM against Iceland lodged on 29 March 2019 communicated on 6 September 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns criminal proceedings against the applicant for tax violations. Following an audit by the Directorate of Tax Investigations, the applicant’s taxes were re-assessed with a 25% surcharge by the Directorate of Internal Revenue by a decision of 28 March 2012. That decision was referred by the applicant to the State Internal Revenue Board, which rendered its decision on 19 April 2013. On 3 May 2012 the Directorate of Tax Investigations referred the applicant’s case to the Special Prosecutor, who indicted the applicant on 22   January 2013 for major tax offences. By a ruling of 25 April 2018 the Reykjavik District Court dismissed the case for failure to comply with the requirements of the principle of ne bis in idem . The prosecution appealed against that ruling to the Court of Appeal, which vacated the ruling on 9 May 2018 on procedural grounds and remitted the motion to dismiss for a fresh examination. The motion to dismiss was heard again by the Reykjavik District Court, which proceeded to dismiss the case again on the same grounds by a ruling of 17 May 2018. The prosecution appealed against that ruling to the Court of Appeal, which overturned it on the merits on 4 October 2018 and remitted the case for a fresh examination. By a judgment of 4 January 2019, the Reykjavik District Court convicted the applicant of major tax violations. The determination of punishment was suspended on the condition that the applicant not commit a new offence during a suspension period of one year. The prosecution appealed against that judgment to the Court of Appeal. By a judgment of 18 December 2020, the Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s conviction but increased his sentence to eight months’ imprisonment and a fine, both of which were suspended for two years. The applicant did not seek leave to appeal against that judgment to the Supreme Court. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Court of Appeal had not been a “tribunal established by law” because one of the judges on the bench which ruled in his case on 4 October 2018 had not been appointed in accordance with domestic law. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the proceedings before the Court of Appeal resulting in the 4   October 2018 ruling 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)?