Information Note on the Court’s case-law 52
April 2003
Pétur Thór Sigurðsson v. Iceland - 39731/98
Judgment 10.4.2003 [Section III]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Impartial tribunal
Indebtedness of judge's husband to a bank party to proceedings being dealt with by her: violation
Facts: The applicant brought proceedings against the National Bank of Iceland. The District Court dismissed his claim. On 31 May 1996 he appealed to the Supreme Court, which rejected the appeal in April 1997. It subsequently emerged that one of the judges and her husband had a financial relationship with the bank which, in the applicant's view, disqualified her from participating. In the spring of 1996 the judge's husband, who had acted as guarantor in respect of certain debts, had attempted to reach a settlement with the creditors, including the National Bank. On 30 May 1996 he had issued debt certificates to a financial institution owned by the National Bank, secured on two properties owned by his wife. The certificates had been sold to a private company on 4 June 1996. On 6 June 1996 the National Bank and the other main creditor had agreed to accept payment of 25% of the debts and to release the judge's husband from the remainder of his obligations. The applicant's petitions for reopening the proceedings were rejected by the Supreme Court.
Law: Article 6 § 1 – There was no evidence to suggest that the judge was personally biased and nothing to suggest that her personal interests were at stake in the proceedings brought by the applicant. Moreover, while the judge's husband was indebted to the National Bank when the Supreme Court gave its judgment, there was no reason to doubt the information provided by the Government to the effect that at that time the amount which he owed could reasonably be considered to be moderate. Consequently, there was nothing to suggest that this, on its own, could have constituted financial pressure capable of affecting the judge's impartiality. As to the debt certificates, the creditor as from 4 June 1996 was a private company and it did not appear that after that date the certificates as such established any direct financial link between the judge's husband and the National Bank that could shed negative light on the judge's impartiality. However, neither of these sets of circumstances could be dissociated from a third factor, namely the wider context of the settlement agreement of 6 June 1996. In that connection, the judge had played a role in facilitating the settlement achieved by her husband by putting her properties up as security in respect of amounts which were not negligible. The settlement released the husband from substantial financial obligations and the cancellation of 75% of the debts had to be regarded as favourable treatment. Furthermore, the applicant's case was already before the Supreme Court at that time. Against that background, there was at least the appearance of a link between the legal dispositions taken by the judge and the advantages obtained by her husband from the National Bank. While there was no reason to believe that either the judge or her husband had any direct interest in the outcome of the case between the applicant and the National Bank, the judge's involvement in the debt settlement, the favours received by her husband and his links to the National Bank were of such a nature and amplitude and were so close in time to the Supreme Court's examination of the case that the applicant could entertain reasonable fears that the court lacked the requisite impartiality.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant 25,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also made an award in respect of costs and expenses.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy