CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 septembre 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 } .sF2E0A612 { margin-top:48pt; 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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Communicated on 28 September 2020 Published on 19 October 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 30750/17 Ingólfur HELGASON against Iceland lodged on 3 April 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s indictment and conviction for financial crimes, following the financial crisis of 2008. The applicant was the CEO of Kaupthing bank hf. in Iceland. He was indicted on 15 March 2013 and charged on twelve counts of market manipulation and fraud by abuse of position ( umboðssvik ). By judgment of 26 June 2015, the District Court of Reykjavík convicted the applicant on four counts, and acquitted him on the other eight. He was sentenced to four and a half years’ imprisonment. The judgment was appealed against to the Supreme Court, which partly overturned the District Court’s judgment and found the applicant guilty as an accessory on the eight counts on which he had previously been acquitted. His sentence of four and a half years’ imprisonment was confirmed.   Firstly, the applicant complains of a violation of his rights under Article   7 due to the allegedly insufficient clarity of the legal provisions relevant to his prosecution. Secondly, he complains that the Supreme Court violated his right to a fair trial under Article 6 when it denied a request to seek an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court concerning the interpretation of provisions of EEA law. Thirdly, he complains that he was denied access to the documents of the case, allegedly violating the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms and his right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence. Fourthly, he complains 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 his right to a fair trial. Fifthly, he complains that his right to be heard by an independent and impartial tribunal was violated due to the alleged financial interests of Supreme Court Justices sitting on the panel in his case, namely I.E., M.S., Ó.B.Þ. and V.M.M.. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant’s conviction entail a violation of the principle of nullum crimen sine lege as guaranteed by Article 7 of the Convention? (see, inter alia, Haarde v. Iceland , no. 66847/12, § 127, 23 November 2017, and Kononov v. Latvia [GC], no. 36376/04, § 185, ECHR 2010).   2. Did the Supreme Court’s refusal to seek an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court violate the applicant’s right to a fair trial as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention? (see, inter alia , Ullens de Schooten and Rezabek v. Belgium , nos. 3989/07 and 38353/07, §§ 57-61, 20 September 2011, Vergauwen and others v. Belgium (dec.), no. 4832/04, §§ 89-91 10   April 2012, and Schipani and Others v. Italy , no. 38369/09, § 69, 21 July 2015).   3. Did the applicant’s conviction by the Supreme Court constitute a breach of his right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the Supreme Court assess the applicant’s 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).   4. Finally, the Government is invited to submit an English translation of the judgments by the District Court and the Supreme Court.