Resolution ResDH(2002)67
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 30 May 2000
in the case of Siglfirđingur EHF against Iceland
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 24 June 2002
at the 798th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),
Having regard to the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Siglfirđingur EHF case delivered on 30 May 2000 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention;
Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 34142/96) against Iceland, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 3 December 1996 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Siglfirđingur EHF, an Icelandic company, and that the Court, seized of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaint relating to the lack of a review by a superior court of a fine imposed by the Labour Court (Article 2, paragraph 1, of Protocol No. 7);
Whereas in its judgment of 30 May 2000 the Court, after having taken formal note of a friendly settlement reached by the government of the respondent state and the applicant, and having been satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided unanimously to strike the case out of its list and took note of the parties’ undertaking not to request a re-hearing of the case before the Grand Chamber;
Whereas under the above-mentioned friendly settlement it was agreed that the Government of Iceland would pay the applicant the sum of 1 600 000 Icelandic crowns in respect of legal costs and loss of opportunity;
Recalling that Rule 44, paragraph 2, of the Rules of the Court provides that the striking out of a case shall be effected by means of a judgment which the President shall forward to the Committee of Ministers once it has become final in order to allow it to supervise, in accordance with Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the execution of any undertakings which may have been attached to the discontinuance or solution of the matter;
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Whereas during the examination of the case, the government of the respondent state gave the Committee information about the measures taken preventing new violations of the same kind as that found in the present judgment (this information appears in the appendix to this resolution);
Having satisfied itself that on 16 May 2000, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant company the sums provided for in the friendly settlement,
Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Iceland, that the Committee of Ministers has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.
Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2002)67
Information provided by the Government of Iceland
during the examination of the Siglfirđingur EHF case
by the Committee of Ministers
The Icelandic authorities informed the Committee of Ministers that on 21 April 2001 the Althing adopted the Act amending the Trade Unions and Industrial Disputes Act No. 80/1938 allowing, under the circumstances covered by Section 67 of the Act, that the Labour Court’s decrees and judgments could be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Under Section 67 of the above-mentioned Act, as amended, “the Labour Court’s decrees and judgments are final and will not be appealed. Within a week of the pronouncement of judgment or decree the following may, however, be referred to the Supreme Court:
1.- A judgment or ruling of dismissal.
2.- A judgment of invalidation on the grounds that the case does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court.
3.- An order on the duty to witness, the swearing of oaths and fines for breaches of court procedure under Articles 60 and 63.
4.- A decision on the imposition of fines on parties under Article 65.”
In addition, the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights has been disseminated to all authorities concerned.
The Government of Iceland therefore considers that there is no risk of new situation similar to that found in the present case and that Iceland has consequently complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy