CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 mai 2022

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt }   Published on 30 May 2022   THIRD SECTION Application no. 29004/21 Þorvaldur Lúðvík SIGURJÓNSSON against Iceland lodged on 26 May 2021 communicated on 13 May 2022   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s prosecution and conviction for financial crimes following the financial crisis of 2008. The applicant was the CEO of investment bank Saga Capital from 2006 to 2011. On 16 November 2010 the applicant was arrested and interviewed as a suspect in an investigation conducted by the Special Prosecutor. The applicant was released shortly after, and was interviewed several more times. He was formally indicted on 10 February 2014, alongside two others. He was charged as an accomplice to the crime of fraud by abuse of position ( umboðssvik ) of one of his co-defendants. During the trial the co-defendant made four requests for access to certain documents. All four requests were refused by rulings of the District Court and later confirmed on appeal. The applicant submits that he supported the co-defendant’s position with regard to these requests. The applicant was convicted by the Reykjavik District Court on 21   December 2015. On 1 June 2017 the Supreme Court, upon appeal by the applicant, quashed the District Court’s judgment, and remitted the case for a fresh examination. The case was re-examined by the District Court, in a new composition. By a judgment of 21 December 2017, the applicant was convicted as charged, and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment. By a judgment of 26 June 2020 the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to 12 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 18 months, with reference to the length of criminal proceedings. The applicant’s leave to appeal was refused by the Supreme Court on 26   November 2020. The applicant complains firstly that he was granted insufficient access to the documents relating to the prosecution, resulting in a violation of his rights under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention. Secondly, he complains that his right to a trial within a reasonable time under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention has been violated.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the principle of the equality of arms and the applicant’s right to prepare his defence under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention due to restrictions on the applicant’s right to access to documents (see Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom , no. 28901/95, § 60, 16 February 2000, Natunen v. Finland , no. 21022/04, §§ 47-50, 31 March 2009, and Sigurður Einarsson and Others v. Iceland , no. 39757/17, §§ 85-93, 4 June 2019)? Has the applicant exhausted available domestic remedies in respect of this complaint as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? The parties are asked to submit copies of any relevant documents in this respect, such as submissions to the domestic courts and minutes of court hearings.   2.     Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see, for example, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999 ‑ II)? Were delays in hearing the case sufficiently remedied by the Court of Appeal’s suspension of the applicant’s sentence?