Communicated on 16 December 2020
Published on 11 January 2021
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 27350/19
Gísli REYNISSON
against Iceland
lodged on 16 May 2019
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant, along with several others, was investigated and subsequently indicted for financial crimes relating to foreign exchange trading. During the course of the criminal proceedings before the district court, some of the charges against the accused were dropped when it was discovered that the capital control rules issued by the Central Bank, which the accused had allegedly violated, had not received the requisite ministerial approval. By a judgment of 18 December 2014, the District Court of Reykjavik acquitted the applicant and his co-accused of the remaining charges. This acquittal was appealed against by the prosecution, but the appeal was subsequently discontinued at the prosecution’s initiative on 19 February 2016.
On 14 October 2016, the applicant demanded that high officials of the Central Bank, whose report had initiated the investigation into the applicant, be investigated for false accusations. On 11 November 2016, the Reykjavik Metropolitan Police announced that they would not undertake such an investigation and dismissed the applicant’s charges, as there was insufficient evidence that the high officials had deliberately misrepresented the facts and falsely accused the applicant. The applicant appealed against this decision to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who upheld it by decision of 21 February 2017.
The applicant challenged this dismissal before the District Court of Reykjavik, which ruled in his favour and invalidated the decision to dismiss the applicant’s charges by a judgment of 5 March 2018. The judgment was appealed against to the Court of Appeal, which overturned the District Court’s judgment and dismissed the case from the District Court after an examination on the merits, by a judgment of 16 November 2018. This judgment was appealed against to the Supreme Court, which upheld the Court of Appeal’s findings by a judgment of 20 December 2018. The Supreme Court held that, due to prosecutorial independence and the separation of powers, the courts could not substantively review a decision not to pursue an investigation; judicial review of such prosecutorial decisions was limited to alleged procedural flaws in the decision-making process, such as the lack of impartiality of the decision-maker. Finding that no such procedural flaws were present, the Supreme Court confirmed the Court of Appeal’s conclusion.
The applicant complains that his right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention has been violated as the Court of Appeal was not a “tribunal established by law” within the meaning of that provision, due to irregularities in the appointment of one of three judges who sat on the bench in his case.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant fulfilled the conditions for admissibility set forth in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? Notably, did the proceedings concern the applicant’s civil rights and obligations within the meaning of Article 6 § 1?
2. Did the proceedings before the Court of Appeal 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, 1 December 2020)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy