4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Fredriksberg, Denmark. The applicant was the CEO of one of Iceland’s largest banks, Glitnir, from September 1997 to the end of April 2007. 5.  On 30 July 2009 the Directorate of Tax Investigation (Skattrannsóknarstjóri ríkisins) initiated an audit of the applicant’s tax returns. The Directorate’s reason for initiating the investigation was to examine whether the applicant had declared profits from selling shares he received when he stepped down as the CEO of Glitnir. The applicant was questioned by the Directorate of Tax Investigation on 17 August and 2 October 2009. The investigation was concluded with a report issued on 5 October 2010. 6.  By a letter of 6 October 2010, the Directorate informed the applicant of its findings and that the case had been referred to the Directorate of Internal Revenue (Ríkisskattstjóri) for possible reassessment of his taxes. It also informed the applicant about the Directorate’s upcoming decision on possible criminal proceedings, listed possible ways of finalising the criminal proceedings in the case and gave the applicant 30 days to comment thereon. 7.  In an email of 11 November 2010, the Directorate of Tax Investigation stated that a decision on possible criminal proceedings would be postponed until the Directorate of Internal Revenue had issued its notification letter (boðunarbréf) on the re-assessment of the applicant’s taxes. 8.  By a letter of 2 May 2011, the Directorate of Internal Revenue notified the applicant that his taxes for the tax years 2007 to 2009 had been re‑assessed. The applicant objected to the re-assessment. 9.  On 16 January 2012, in the light of the applicant’s objections, the Directorate of Internal Revenue sent the applicant an amended notification letter (boðunarbréf) which stated that his taxes for the tax years of 2007 to 2009 had been re-assessed. The Directorate cancelled the prior re‑assessment of taxes relating to the profits for selling shares received when the applicant stepped down as the CEO of Glitnir. 10.  Based on the report issued by the Directorate of Tax Investigation, and taking into account the applicants’ objections, the Directorate of Internal Revenue, ruling on 15 May 2012, found that the applicant had failed to declare significant capital income received from 2006 to 2008. Therefore, it revised upwards the amount declared as capital in his tax returns for 2007 to 2009 and, consequently, re-assessed his taxes and imposed a 25% surcharge. The applicant paid the taxes owed and the imposed surcharge. 11.  The applicant did not appeal against the decision to the State Internal Revenue Board, which thus acquired legal force 3 months later, in August 2012, when the time-limit for an appeal had expired. 12.  On 1 March 2012 the Directorate of Tax Investigation reported the matter to the Special Prosecutor and forwarded its report concerning the applicant. The Directorate reported the full matter for investigation, including the possible tax violation related to profits for selling shares received when the applicant stepped down as the CEO of Glitnir. The applicant was informed by letter the same day. 13.  By email of 2 March 2012, the applicant’s lawyer protested at the case being sent to the Special Prosecutor. The lawyer argued that the deadline to object to the Directorate of Internal Revenue’s reassessment had not expired, that the referral was ill-founded and requested that it be withdrawn. 14.  By email of 5 March 2012, the Directorate of Tax Investigation replied and stated that the deadline for the applicant to express his opinion had expired as the Directorate of Internal Revenue’s notification letter (boðunarbréf) had already been issued and sent to the applicant on 16 January 2012 (see paragraph 9 above). Furthermore, it was stated that the Special Prosecutor would make an independent assessment of the applicant’s case, repeat an investigation and issue an indictment if there was reason to do so. Any questions about the procedure before the Special Prosecutor had to be taken up with the Special Prosecutor as he was responsible for the criminal proceedings in the case. 15.  On 26 September 2012 the applicant was interviewed by the Special Prosecutor. The applicant was informed that the investigation concerned the case as it was concluded by the Directorate of Internal Revenue. Certain aspects of the case reported to the Special Prosecutor had been dropped. 16.  On 17 December 2012 the Special Prosecutor indicted the applicant for aggravated tax offences. The applicant was indicted for having failed to declare income in his tax returns of 2007 to 2009. This included the failure to declare his capital income in the form of property sale profits, dividend payments, interest payments and foreign exchange rate gains, received from 2006 to 2008. 17.  The applicant requested that the case be dismissed, inter alia, on the basis of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention. By a ruling of 23 April 2013, the District Court rejected his claim. 18.  By a judgment of 28 June 2013, the District Court found that the applicant had acted with gross negligence, which was sufficient for criminal liability under the relevant provisions of the tax law, and thus convicted the applicant of the charges against him. The court sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, and the payment of a fine in the amount of 38,850,000 Icelandic Krónur (ISK; approximately 241,000 euro (EUR) at the material time). In fixing the fine the court had regard to the tax surcharges imposed, without describing any calculation made in this respect. 19.  The applicant lodged an appeal against the District Court’s judgment. 20.  By a judgment of 15 May 2014 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request to dismiss the case on the basis of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention. The court upheld the applicant’s conviction and confirmed the fine imposed by the District Court. However, the court sentenced the applicant to eight months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years.