CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 24 mars 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s9A223E1B { width:11.03pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s595A57E4 { width:85.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3CED24E9 { width:27.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   242 24.3.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar     CHAMBER HEARING VÖRĐUR ÓLAFSSON v. ICELAND   The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Chamber hearing today Tuesday   24   March 2009 at 9 a.m. on the merits in the case of Vörđur Ólafsson v. Iceland (application no. 20161/06).   The hearing will be broadcast from 2.30 p.m. on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     The applicant   The case concerns an application brought by an Icelandic national, Vörður Ólafsson who was born in 1961 and lives in Reykjavik. He is a Master Builder and a member of the Master Builders’ Association (“the MBA”).   Summary of the facts   Pursuant to the Industry Charge Act No. 134/1993 (“the 1993 Act”) he was under an obligation to pay a levy, the so-called “Industry Charge”, to the Federation of Icelandic Industries (“the FII”), an organisation of which the applicant was not a member and to which the MBA was not affiliated.   The 1993 Act provided that a charge of 0.08% should be levied on all industrial activities in Iceland with some exceptions in particular in the meat processing, milk processing and fish processing industries. State-owned companies established by special statute were not covered. Revenues from the Industry Charge were to be transferred to the FII and should be used for industrial development. More than 10,000 persons (legal persons and self-employed individuals) paid the Industry Charge. The FII’s membership comprised between 1,100 and 1,200 members.   On 8 November 2004 Mr Ólafsson initiated proceedings against the State with the Reykjavik District Court requesting an order to invalidate the charges imposed on him in respect of the years 2001 to 2004. By a judgment of 13 July 2005 the District Court found in favour of the State and rejected the applicant’s action. Mr Ólafsson then appealed to the Supreme Court of Iceland, arguing in particular that section 3 of the 1993 Act in fact meant that all individuals and companies engaged in particular business activities had to pay a membership due to the FII, irrespective of whether they were members. He considered that Article 14 of the Articles of the Federation, which provided for the membership charge, clearly reflected its nature in that, as was provided therein, FII members paying an Industry Charge transferring to FII should have that part deducted from their membership fees. Thus by the levy and collection of the charge, membership of the FII was in fact made compulsory for others, although they enjoyed no rights vis-à-vis the FII. Mr Ólafsson argued that the compulsory membership of the FII was incompatible with his right to freedom of association as protected by Article 74 § 2 of the Constitution and Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In addition he considered that by virtue of the 1993 Act he was unjustifiably taxed in excess of other. Finally, he submitted that the imposition of the charge amounted to discrimination in breach of Article 65 of the Constitution, as the taxation was dependent upon the ownership structure of an enterprise, and the enumeration of activity code numbers, on which the taxation was based, was haphazard in nature.   By a judgment of 20 December 2005 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal and upheld the District Court’s judgment.   Complaints   Mr Ólafsson complains under Articles 11 (freedom of assembly and association), 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights that the imposition of an obligation by law to pay the Industry Charge to the FII did not pursue a legitimate aim and was not necessary in a democratic society.   He further complains that, in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, the Industry Charges in effect amounted to a separate taxation being imposed on a restricted group of citizens on top of their ordinary tax. This was without any condition that it be used for their benefit. On the contrary, the levy was to be transferred to another restricted group of citizens for the benefit of their interests.   Finally, the applicant complains that he had been the victim of discrimination in the sense of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention in that there was no objective and reasonable justification for the selection of enterprises that were included in the list of those liable to pay the Industry Charge and of those which were excluded from such liability. There had thus been a violation of this provision, taken in conjunction with Articles 9, and/or 10, and/or 11 and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 16 May 2006 and declared admissible on 2 December 2008.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by a Chamber composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (the United Kingdom), President , Giovanni Bonello (Malta), David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland), Ján Šikuta (Slovakia), Päivi Hirvelä (Finland), Ledi Bianku (Albania), Nebojša Vučinić (Montenegro), judges , Lech Garlicki (Poland), Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova), substitute judges , and also Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government :   Bjorg Thorarensen , Agent ,   Skarphedinn Thorisson , Counsel ,   Gunnar Narfi Gunnarsson, Elín Flygering , Advisers ;   Applicant :   Tony Child , Einar Halfdanarson , Counsel ;   Clare Murray , Adviser.     ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date [1] .   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.