Country report : non-discrimination : Iceland 2018.
Date: 2018-11-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers
Subjects: Iceland, age discrimination, anti-discriminatory measure, discrimination based on disability, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, equal treatment, ethnic discrimination, national law, religious discrimination, sexual discrimination, social policy

Iceland 

2018 

Including summaries in 
English, French and 
German 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers 
Directorate D — Equality and Union citizenship 
Unit D.1 Non-discrimination and Roma coordination 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Country report  

Non-discrimination 

Iceland 

Guðrún D. Guðmundsdóttir 

Reporting period 1 January 2017 – 31 December 2017 

2018 

Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-79-85227-5   

doi: 10.2838/024574 

DS-04-18-393-3A-N 

© European Union, 2018 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Iceland – 2018 

CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 5 
RÉSUMÉ ............................................................................................................ 13 
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG ........................................................................................ 22 
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 32 
GENERAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................. 36 
1 
THE DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION .................................................... 38 
2 
2.1  Grounds of unlawful discrimination explicitly covered ................................ 38 

2.1.1  Definition of the grounds of unlawful discrimination within the 

directives ................................................................................. 38 
2.1.2  Multiple discrimination ............................................................... 39 
Assumed and associated discrimination ....................................... 39 
2.1.3 
2.2  Direct discrimination (Article 2(2)(a)) ...................................................... 39 
2.2.1 
Situation testing ....................................................................... 40 
Indirect discrimination (Article 2(2)(b)) ................................................... 40 
Statistical evidence ................................................................... 41 
2.3.1 
2.4  Harassment (Article 2(3)) ...................................................................... 41 
2.5 
Instructions to discriminate (Article 2(4)) ................................................ 42 
2.6  Reasonable accommodation duties (Article 2(2)(b)(ii) and Article 5 Directive 

2.3 

2000/78) ............................................................................................. 42 
PERSONAL AND MATERIAL SCOPE ............................................................ 48 
3.1  Personal scope ..................................................................................... 48 

3.1.1 

EU and non-EU nationals (Recital 13 and Article 3(2) Directive 
2000/43 and Recital 12 and Article 3(2) Directive 2000/78) ........... 48 
3.1.2  Natural and legal persons (Recital 16 Directive 2000/43) ............... 48 
Private and public sector, including public bodies (Article 3(1)) ....... 48 
3.1.3 
3.2  Material scope ...................................................................................... 49 
Employment, self-employment and occupation ............................. 49 

3.2.1 
3.2.2  Conditions for access to employment, to self-employment or to 

3.2.3 

3.2.4 

occupation, including selection criteria, recruitment conditions and 
promotion, whatever the branch of activity and at all levels of the 
professional hierarchy (Article 3(1)(a)) ........................................ 49 
Employment and working conditions, including pay and dismissals 
(Article 3(1)(c)) ........................................................................ 50 
Access to all types and to all levels of vocational guidance, vocational 
training, advanced vocational training and retraining, including 
practical work experience (Article 3(1)(b)) ................................... 50 

3.2.5  Membership of, and involvement in, an organisation of workers or 

3.2.6 

employers, or any organisation whose members carry on a particular 
profession, including the benefits provided for by such organisations 
(Article 3(1)(d)) ........................................................................ 51 
Social protection, including social security and healthcare (Article 
3(1)(e) Directive 2000/43) ......................................................... 51 
Social advantages (Article 3(1)(f) Directive 2000/43) .................... 52 
Education (Article 3(1)(g) Directive 2000/43) ............................... 52 
Access to and supply of goods and services which are available to the 
public (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) .................................... 54 
3.2.10  Housing (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) ................................. 54 
EXCEPTIONS ............................................................................................. 56 
4.1  Genuine and determining occupational requirements (Article 4) .................. 56 
4.2  Employers with an ethos based on religion or belief (Article 4(2) Directive 

3.2.7 
3.2.8 
3.2.9 

2000/78) ............................................................................................. 56 

4.3  Armed forces and other specific occupations (Article 3(4) and Recital 18 

Directive 2000/78) ................................................................................ 56 
4.4  Nationality discrimination (Article 3(2)) ................................................... 56 
4.5  Work-related family benefits (Recital 22 Directive 2000/78) ....................... 57 

3 

3 

4 

 
 
4.6  Health and safety (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/78) .................................... 57 
4.7  Exceptions related to discrimination on the ground of age (Article 6 Directive 

2000/78) ............................................................................................. 58 
4.7.1  Direct discrimination ................................................................. 58 
4.7.2 

Special conditions for young people, older workers and persons with 
caring responsibilities ................................................................ 59 
4.7.3  Minimum and maximum age requirements ................................... 59 
4.7.4  Retirement ............................................................................... 60 
4.7.5  Redundancy ............................................................................. 62 
4.8  Public security, public order, criminal offences, protection of health, protection 
of the rights and freedoms of others (Article 2(5), Directive 2000/78) ......... 62 
4.9  Any other exceptions ............................................................................. 62 
POSITIVE ACTION (Article 5 Directive 2000/43, Article 7 Directive 
2000/78) .................................................................................................. 63 
REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT ................................................................. 64 
6.1 
Judicial and/or administrative procedures (Article 7 Directive 2000/43, Article 
9 Directive 2000/78) ............................................................................. 64 

6.2  Legal standing and associations (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/43, Article 9(2) 

Directive 2000/78) ................................................................................ 66 
6.3  Burden of proof (Article 8 Directive 2000/43, Article 10 Directive 2000/78) .. 68 
6.4  Victimisation (Article 9 Directive 2000/43, Article 11 Directive 2000/78) ...... 68 
6.5  Sanctions and remedies (Article 15 Directive 2000/43, Article 17 Directive 

2000/78) ............................................................................................. 68 

5 

6 

7 

8 

BODIES FOR THE PROMOTION OF EQUAL TREATMENT (Article 13 Directive 
2000/43) .................................................................................................. 71 
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES ........................................................................ 74 
8.1  Dissemination of information, dialogue with NGOs and between social partners
 .......................................................................................................... 74 
8.2  Compliance (Article 14 Directive 2000/43, Article 16 Directive 2000/78) ...... 74 
COORDINATION AT NATIONAL LEVEL ....................................................... 75 
9 
10  CURRENT BEST PRACTICES ....................................................................... 78 
11  SENSITIVE OR CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES .................................................. 79 
11.1  Potential breaches of the directives (if any) .............................................. 79 
11.2  Other issues of concern ......................................................................... 82 
12  LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN 2017 .............................................................. 83 
12.1  Legislative amendments ........................................................................ 83 
12.2  Case law .............................................................................................. 83 
ANNEX 1: TABLE OF KEY NATIONAL ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION ..... 86 
ANNEX 2: TABLE OF INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS ....................................... 90 

4 

 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  

1. Introduction 

Iceland’s  population  is  largely  homogenous  and  monocultural.  Historically,  the  most 
pronounced discrimination has been on the ground of gender. Although Icelandic women 
enjoy  a  relatively  high  standard  of  equality,  there  is  still  a  demonstrable  dichotomy 
between  their  high  level  of  education  and  qualifications  and  their  status  in  the  labour 
market and society as a whole.  

In recent years, a strengthened human rights dialogue has brought the position of various 
vulnerable  groups  and  minorities  to  the  fore.  However,  a  2014  study  on  attitudes  to 
equality and discrimination in the workplace reveals that 86 % of those polled thought that 
people  were  discriminated  against  on  one  of  the  following  grounds:  gender  (63.8 %), 
national  origin  (55.1 %),  age  (44.1 %),  disability  (38.6 %),  race  (38.8 %),  sexual 
orientation (22.4 %) and religion/beliefs (20.5 %).1  

The  formal  legal  status  of  people  with  disabilities  is  good,  although,  in  practice,  they 
habitually  suffer  discrimination  concerning  their  rights  to  education,  housing  and 
participation in public life, and form a large proportion of those living in poverty. According 
to the leading disability rights organisation, disability benefits are not adequate for a life 
of dignity, and only a quarter of people with disabilities are in work. Building and planning 
regulations require public buildings to be accessible. However, this is not always the case 
and sanctions are rare. No important judgments concerning disability were issued in 2017 
but  mention  should  be  made  of  an  important  2015  case  brought  by  a  deafblind  young 
person. The Reykjavik District Court ruled that state funding for and the organisation of 
sign language interpreting services was inadequate and discriminatory and was in breach 
of  the  right  to  minimum  assistance  as  enshrined  in  the  Constitution  and  in  the  equality 
provisions  of  administrative  law.  The  state  will  have  to  increase  its  funding  for  these 
services  and  make  legislative  changes  to  define  what  constitutes  minimum  rights  and 
adequate services when it comes to the right to sign language interpreting.2 Such changes 
are yet to be made.  

In 2017, another young person brought a case to the Supreme Court asking for the decision 
to deny her free sign language interpreting services for a summer camp stay abroad to be 
annulled. The Supreme Court found that the decision had been lawful and proportionate, 
based on the available funds, as the cost would have amounted to 18 % of the Centre’s 
budget  for  the  period  of  July-September  2017.  Paying  for  A’s  interpreting  needs  would 
have emptied the coffers and been discriminatory towards other applicants in need of free 
sign language interpreting services.3 

The  Labour  Directorate  estimates  that  at  the  end  of  2017  foreign  citizens  in  Iceland 
numbered approximately 38 000 or 11 % of all inhabitants, meaning that the number of 
immigrants  increased  by  25 %  in  2017.  This  percentage  has  never  been  higher. 
Significantly more men than women have moved to the country in the past three years. 
Poles are the most numerous, representing 46 % of foreign citizens on 1 January 2017. 
Lithuanians accounted for 8 %, Germans approximately 4 % and small numbers of people 
of various nationalities compose the rest.4  

1   Arnardóttir, E. and Haraldsson, R. H. (2014), Uppruni og fjölþætt mismunun, Ísafjörður: 

Fjölmenningarsetur. 

2  Reykjavik District Court, Snædís Rán Hjartardóttir v. the Communication Centre for the Deaf and Hard of 

Hearing and the Icelandic State and, in reserve, the City of Reykjavik, Case No. E-327/2015, 30 June 2015. 

3   Supreme Court of Iceland, Áslaug Ýr Hjartardóttir v. the Communication Centre for the Deaf and Hard of 

Hearing and the Icelandic State, Case No.464/2017, 9 November 2017. 

4   Iceland Statistical Agency, Press Release on Population, 16 June 2017. Available at:  
https://hagstofa.is/utgafur/frettasafn/mannfjoldi/mannfjoldi-eftir-bakgrunni-2017. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
The  number  of  children  of  immigrant  origin  has  increased  steadily  from  2004,  in  both 
kindergartens and compulsory education. In 2015, 2 435 kindergarten pupils had a mother 
tongue  other  than  Icelandic,  as  did  3 543  compulsory  education  pupils.  Limited  reading 
literacy of Icelandic hampers the studies of many of these children and the low number of 
youngsters of immigrant origin graduating from high school is a serious problem.5  

In 2016, 18.7 % of children in need of assistance from the Child Protection Services were 
of immigrant origin and 53 % of the women staying in the Shelter for Victims of Domestic 
Violence were foreigners. A total of 31 % of the women seeking general assistance at the 
shelter were foreigners; 14 % from EEA countries and 17 % from third countries. The fact 
that a disproportionate number of immigrant women seek assistance does not necessarily 
mean that violence against them is more common than towards Icelandic women, rather 
this may reflect the fact that they have weaker support networks, so they are forced to 
seek assistance from the shelter instead of from friends or family.6  

In general, the government has concluded that Icelandic society is becoming increasingly 
diverse  and  that  welfare  services  need  to  adapt  to  address  this  new  reality.7  It  is  also 
notable  that,  on  average,  the  income  of  immigrants  is  lower  than  that  of  the  general 
population and only a small minority hold jobs where their education is fully utilised; the 
majority work in construction, tourism, cleaning and care services. In 2017, of those with 
university degrees, 2/3 worked in low-skilled jobs, e.g. shop work and services; only 27 % 
did specialised or office work. Similarly, only 25 % of unemployed foreign nationals had 
previously  held  jobs  in  the  field  they  had  trained  for.  Unemployment  among  foreign 
nationals is  higher  than  for  Icelandic-born  citizens.  The  Directorate  of  Labour  estimated 
the rate at 4.5 % in 2017 compared to 2.2 % for the total population. Poles are the most 
afflicted, with 6 % on average in 2017. However, long-term unemployment of immigrants 
is the same as for locals.8 

According  to  a  study  conducted  by  the  Multicultural  Centre,  one  in  five  immigrants  in 
Iceland experiences negative attitudes on a regular basis because of their origin. Of those 
participating  in  the  study,  77 %  were  of  the  view  that  they  had  experienced  negative 
attitudes because of their limited knowledge of Icelandic and 54 % thought that negative 
attitudes towards them were based on their origin or nationality. It is an issue of concern 
that  14 %  had  experienced  negative  attitudes  when  interacting  with  staff  at  nursery 
schools, and 19 % when interacting with primary school staff. As part of the study, public 
officials  were  also  polled.  Some  55 %  of  state  officials  thought  that  immigrants  are 
sometimes  or  often  met  with  prejudice  in  their  dealings  with  public  bodies  and  43 %  of 
municipal employees were of the same view.9  

There are no specific legal provisions sanctioning age discrimination in the labour market. 
Limited research has been carried out on this topic, but the labour market participation of 
older  people  in  Iceland  is  among  the  highest  in  all  the  OECD  countries.  However, 
discrimination regarding employment is apparent, especially in correlation with gender. A 
2011 Eurobarometer study demonstrates that Icelanders have witnessed or experienced 

5   Multicultural Centre, Statistical Information on Foreign Citizens and Immigrants in Iceland 2016 

[‘Tölfræðilegar upplýsingar um erlenda ríkisborgara og innflytjendur á Íslandi 2016‘], September 2016, p. 
20. 

6   Multicultural Centre, Statistical Information on Foreign Citizens and Immigrants in Iceland 2016 

[‘Tölfræðilegar upplýsingar um erlenda ríkisborgara og innflytjendur á Íslandi 2016‘], September 2016, p. 
28. 

7   Aðgerðir til að vinna gegn fátækt; tillögur byggðar á skýrslunni Farsæld; Baráttan gegn fátækt á Íslandi. 

(2013). Reykjavík: Velferðarráðuneytið.  

8   Directorate of Labour, Foreign Citizens in the Icelandic Labour Market 2012-2017, [‘Erlendir ríkisborgarar á 

íslenskum vinnumarkaði 2012-2017‘], January 2018, p. 4. 

9   Arnardóttir, E. and Haraldsson, R. H. (2014). Uppruni og fjölþætt mismunun, Ísafjörður: 

Fjölmenningarsetur. 

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
more discrimination because of older age than the EU average: in the workplace, in relation 
to access to education and training, and in their leisure time.10 

On a positive note, although sexual orientation is not a specially protected ground in the 
field  of  employment,  Icelandic legislation  setting  out  the  rights  of  homosexual  people  is 
one of the world’s most progressive: all marriages have the same legal status, same-sex 
couples  can  adopt  children  and  lesbians  are  able  to  take  advantage  of  artificial 
insemination. One of the last remaining hurdles was the opposition of the National Church 
of  Iceland  (the  Lutheran  state  church)  to  conducting  the  same  religious  ceremonies  for 
heterosexual and same-sex marriages. Priests who are against gay marriage were allowed, 
referring to their religious conscience, to refuse to conduct marriage ceremonies for same-
sex couples. According to the Bishop of Iceland, only a very small minority of priests hold 
such  views  and  in  2015  the  National  Church  Congress  adopted  a  resolution  which  bars 
priests  from  refusing  to  conduct  same-sex  marriage  ceremonies.  In  general,  attitudes 
towards LGBTQIA people are very liberal and Gay Pride celebrations are a time of family 
festivities in Reykjavik. In addition, the legal status of transgender people was significantly 
strengthened through the Act on the Judicial Status of Transgender Persons No. 57/2012. 
A related positive development in 2014 was the amendment of the General Penal Code No. 
19/1940 to include gender identity as a ground for discrimination. Despite liberal attitudes, 
a small minority still holds traditional views. Two ground-breaking cases on hate speech 
towards  homosexual  people  were  decided  by  the  Supreme  Court  in  2017.11  This  is  a 
positive  development  as  hateful  comments  have  until  now  been  taken  lightly;  the 
convictions stress that hate speech is a crime for which perpetrators risk prosecution. 

The number of registered religious organisations grew from 14 in 1991 to 48 in 2017. Of 
these, more than half are Christian denominations. Some 69.9 % of the nation belongs to 
the  National  Church  of  Iceland.  Catholics  constitute  3.8  %  and,  of  the  non-Christian 
minority  faiths,  Ásatrú  (the  Norse  pagan  faith),  Zuists,  Buddhists  and  Muslims  are  the 
largest  denominations.  Siðmennt,  the  ethical  humanists,  have  been  gaining  ground  in 
recent years and just over 15.2 % of the population are undefined or are not members of 
religious organisations. No research has been carried out on the extent of discrimination 
in the workplace based on religion or belief, but in 2009, 23.4 % of Icelanders thought that 
general discrimination based on religion or belief was common.12  

In  2013,  the  Icelandic  Muslim  Association  was  finally  allocated  land  by  Reykjavik  City 
Council on which to build a mosque. The Association had first applied in 2000. This is a 
positive development, but indications of growing anti-Islamic sentiment in Iceland are an 
issue for concern. In November 2013, a group of people placed pig heads and a bloodied 
Koran  on  the  plot  designated  for  the  mosque.  One  individual  was  identified,  but  the 
investigation of the case concluded without a prosecution. More disconcertingly, in the last 
municipal elections of 2014, the Progressive Party gained eight percentage points and two 
seats on the Reykjavik Municipal City Council, campaigning on, inter alia, an anti-Islamic 
platform and stating that the allocation of land for the mosque should be withdrawn. On a 
positive  note,  the  two  city  councillors  have  not  actively  promoted  racist  or  anti-Islamic 
issues since taking office. 

2. Main legislation 

Iceland is party to the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement and is thus obliged to 
adopt the EU acquis related to the single market. Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC 
were not incorporated into the EEA Agreement and have therefore not been transposed 

10   Virkni aldraðra (2011). Eurobarometer study, accessible on the website of the Ministry of the Interior: 

www.velferdarraduneyti.is/media/frettatengt2012/Eurobarometer-active-ageing-2012.pdf, p. 2. 
11   Supreme Court of Iceland, The Prosecutor v. Sveinbjörn Styrmir Gunnarsson, Case No. 577/2017, 14 

December 2017 and The Prosecutor v. Carl Jóhann Lilliendahl, Case No. 415/2017, 14 December 2017.  

12   Capacent Gallup (2009). Könnun um viðhorf til mismununar. Reykjavík: Velferðarráðuneytið and 

Mannréttindaskrifstofa Íslands. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
into  domestic  law.  The  European  Commission  does  not  consider  Icelandic  legislation  as 
being in line with the directives, as ‘no detailed protection against discrimination is provided 
in  the  labour  market  nor  is  there  any  comprehensive  legislation  in  force  prohibiting 
discrimination on grounds of racial or ethnic origin outside the labour market’.13 

The  grounds  for  discrimination  covered  in  the  Icelandic  Constitution  are  sex,  religion, 
opinion,  national  origin,  race,  colour,  financial  status  and  parentage.  The  list  is  non-
exhaustive,  as  the  provision  also  sets  out  that  equality  before  the  law  and  non-
discrimination  shall  be  ensured,  irrespective  of  the  aforementioned  grounds  but  also 
irrespective of ‘other status’, which can be construed as including age.  

The only comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation in force is the Act on Equal Status 
and Equal Rights of Women and Men No. 10/2008 (Gender Equality Act), which is largely 
in  line  with  the  European  Union  acquis.  Anti-discrimination  in  other  fields  is  elementary 
and  fragmented,  as  only  a  handful  of  general  law  provisions  stemming  from  the 
constitutional equality provision are in force. These commonly do not contain an exhaustive 
enumeration  of  prohibited  grounds  for  discrimination  and  are  limited  to  a  particular law 
sector.  Provisions  on  equality  and/or  anti-discrimination  in  relation  to  the  grounds 
enumerated in Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC can be found in acts on the affairs 
of  older  people  and  acts  amending  legislation  to  eliminate  discrimination  against 
homosexual and transgender people.  

The  Act  on  the  Affairs  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  guarantees,  inter  alia,  the  right  to 
equality, the right to receive assistance to be enabled to live and work in society and the 
right to general national and municipal services as well as access to public spaces. The law 
also provides for positive action measures: people with disabilities have preference over 
other  applicants  for  government  employment  when  they  are  equally  qualified.  A  recent 
positive development is the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of 
Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) on 20 September 2016. Legislative amendments to bring 
Icelandic legislation in line with the provisions of the CRPD will significantly improve the 
legal status of people with disabilities.  

The  European  Convention on  Human Rights, which has been incorporated into domestic 
law, stipulates that the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in it shall be secured 
without  discrimination.  The  UN  Convention  on  the  Rights  of  the  Child  has  also  been 
incorporated into national law, setting out similar provisions. The General Penal Code, the 
Act on Administrative Procedure and the acts on primary schools, media and postal and 
municipal services also contain provisions touching upon equality and non-discrimination. 
In addition, the Act on the EEA Agreement prohibits discrimination based on citizenship in 
relation  to  the  provisions  of  the  agreement,  and  the  transposition  of  the  relevant  EU 
directives has led to the prohibition of discrimination regarding temporary and part-time 
employment as compared to full-time employment.  

3. Main principles and definitions 

The definitions set out in the directives have not been transposed into domestic law. No 
clear definitions of the protected grounds are found in national legislation and definitions 
of direct and indirect discrimination, harassment, victimisation, instruction to discriminate 
and  reasonable  accommodation  are  lacking  in  this  context.  No  exceptions  are  explicitly 
allowed  for  religious  organisations  and  the  law  is  silent  on  ‘genuine’  and  ‘determining’ 
occupational requirements. Certain exceptions concerning age requirements and physical 
fitness are found in national legislation, e.g. governing those working as police officers, fire 
fighters and prison guards.  

13   European Commission: DG Enlargement Screening report Iceland. Chapter 19 – Social policy and 

employment. 17 October 2011. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
No  national  rules  address  multiple  discrimination  and  no  cases  have  been  adjudicated 
dealing with such situations. 

4. Material scope 

Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC have not been transposed into national law and no 
comprehensive  anti-discrimination  law  applies  to  all  sectors  of  public  and  private 
employment  and  occupations  with  regard  to  the  grounds  listed  in  the  directives. 
Discriminatory  acts  in  the  private  sector  could  possibly  fall  under  the  scope  of  the  Tort 
Damages Act No. 50/1993, but no cases of this sort have been tried. For the public sector, 
the  Act  on  Administrative  Procedure  No.  37/1993  —  prohibiting  discrimination  between 
individual  parties  based  on  views  concerning,  inter  alia,  race,  colour,  national  origin, 
religion, political opinion, social status or family — could apply.  

No explicit prohibition of discrimination on the grounds covered by the directives in respect 
of occupational pensions and access to all types and levels of vocational training can be 
found. With regard to membership of and participation in workers’ organisations, the Act 
on Trade Unions and Trade Disputes No. 80/1938, which applies to both the private and 
the public sectors, sets out that membership of trade unions shall be open to all workers 
employed  in  the  respective  area.  Similarly,  professional  associations  and  employers’ 
organisations  are  open  to  all  enterprises  or  employers  operating  or  qualified  in  the 
respective fields. There is, however, no comprehensive anti-discrimination law in force in 
this sector and no  explicit prohibition of discrimination has been  enacted with regard to 
membership  of,  and  involvement  in,  workers’  or  employers’  organisations,  or  other 
professional organisations, and related benefits.  

National law does not set out exceptions for social security and healthcare based on religion 
or belief, age, disability or sexual orientation; neither does it distinguish between goods 
and services available to the public and those available to members of private associations. 
Provisions  prohibiting  discrimination  based  on  race  or  ethnic  origin  in  relation  to  ‘social 
advantages’  are  lacking,  but  in  the  public  sector,  discrimination  of  this  sort  is  likely  to 
constitute a breach of the equality principle codified in the Act on Administrative Procedure. 
In  the  private  sector,  a  case  could  possibly  be  brought  under  Article  26(b)  of  the  Tort 
Damages  Act  No.  50/1993,  which  stipulates  that  compensation  may  be  awarded  for 
personal  injury  from  unlawful  wrongdoing  that  breaches  the  freedom,  peace,  honour  or 
person of the victim.  

With regard to prohibition of discrimination in relation to education, the Primary School Act 
No. 91/2008 stipulates that, in the organisation of study and instruction and in producing 
and selecting study material, special efforts shall be made to ensure that all pupils have 
equal study opportunities and a chance to select subjects and learning approaches in their 
own education. The objectives and practice of study and instruction should aim to prevent 
discrimination  on  the  basis  of  origin,  gender,  sexual  orientation,  residence,  social  class, 
religion, health condition, disability or situation in general. Children with disabilities should 
attend mainstream schools and have assistance, if needed.  

No identified Roma have settled in Iceland so no patterns of segregation and discrimination 
in schools notably affect them.  

No explicit provisions have been adopted to ensure non-discrimination in relation to access 
to  housing  irrespective  of  race  or  ethnic  origin.  The  Act  on  the  Affairs  of  Persons  with 
Disabilities sets out that social services shall be available to disabled people to enable them 
to live in their own home, and to those using other housing options, in accordance with 
their needs and wishes, as far as possible. Local authorities have the obligation to ensure 
that housing suitable for disabled people is available and that the necessary services are 
provided. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5. Enforcing the law 

Directives  2000/43/EC  and  2000/78/EC  have  not  been  transposed  into  national  law.  No 
specific  procedures  have  been  established  to  deal  with  discrimination  on  the  grounds 
enumerated in the directives. The sole discrimination complaints body, the Gender Equality 
Complaints  Committee,  deals  with  gender  discrimination  only.  Numerous  administrative 
procedures are in place with the aim of guaranteeing citizens the right of recourse vis-à-
vis  public  authorities,  including  non-discrimination.  The  Act  on  Administrative  Procedure 
No.  37/1993  guarantees  the  right  to  lodge  an  appeal  against  decisions  made  by 
administrative authorities, such as public institutions or committees.  All the decisions of 
public  bodies,  or  bodies  vested  with  public  authority,  are  subject  to  review  by  a  higher 
authority, unless otherwise provided for by law. The decisions of independent authorities 
may in some cases be reviewed by ministers or special review boards/committees. Mention 
should  be  made  of  the  recently  established  Immigration  and  Asylum Appeals  Board.  Its 
objective includes ensuring an independent review of all the decisions of the Directorate of 
Immigration that were  taken  on the basis of the Act  on Foreign Nationals No. 96/2002. 
The  Board  began  receiving  cases  on  1  January  2015.  In  early  November  2017,  it  had 
published 650 decisions, mainly dealing with asylum decisions made by the Directorate of 
Immigration. In  some instances, decisions made by local authorities  may be  referred to 
the  relevant  ministry.  Furthermore,  complaints  concerning  discriminatory  administrative 
decisions  can  be  brought  to  the  Parliamentary  Ombudsman.  Finally,  the  courts  are 
competent to review any decision taken by the executive.  

The time limits for bringing complaints to review committees vary and some have no time 
limits. Complaints must be brought to the Parliamentary Ombudsman within one year of 
the date of the disputed decision or event. Judgments made by the civil courts are binding 
and enforceable. The decisions of the Parliamentary Ombudsman are not legally binding 
on the authorities and do not automatically invalidate a disputed decision. The decisions of 
administrative  committees  are  generally  non-binding,  except  for  the  Gender  Equality 
Complaints Committee, which can issue binding decisions. 

An association may apply to the courts for the recognition of certain rights of its members 
or to relieve its members of certain duties, if safeguarding the interests at stake forms part 
of the association’s mandate. However, few domestic organisations have the resources to 
assist victims of discrimination — only disability organisations have done this in relation to 
the  grounds  covered  by  the  directives  —  and  cases  are  as  a  rule  not  brought  to  the 
attention of the public. The burden of proof has not been shifted and situation testing and 
statistics have, to date, not been used.  

Breaches of Articles 125, 180 and 233a of the General Penal Code are subject to official 
indictment. Criminal proceedings commence with an investigation by the police either on 
their  own  initiative  or  pursuant  to  a  complaint.  If  the  investigation  reveals  that  a  crime 
may  have  been  committed,  the  matter  is  referred  to  a  prosecutor.  If  the  prosecutor 
considers that there is a prima facie case against the accused, an indictment charge will 
be brought by the prosecutor before a general court.  

No  discrimination  cases  relating  directly  to  the  scope  of  the  directives  were  decided  in 
2017. However, two ground-breaking Supreme Court judgments concerning hate-speech 
towards LGBTQIA people are a watershed for the LGBTQIA movement in Iceland. In April 
2015, Samtökin’78, the leading LGBTQIA  rights organisation in Iceland, filed complaints 
against ten people because of hateful remarks made on a radio show and on-line after the 
council of Hafnarfjörður Municipality decided to provide LGBTQIA education in its schools 
with  the  assistance  of  Samtökin’78.  The  complaints  fell  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Reykjavík Police and two other police districts. In September 2015, the Reykjavík Police 
dismissed  the  complaints  without  investigation,  considering  the  remarks  to  be 
constitutionally  protected  free  speech  (Article  73  of  the  Icelandic  Constitution). 
Samtökin’78 appealed this decision and in November 2015 the State Prosecutor ruled that 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
the complaints should be investigated. In November 2016, the State Prosecutor brought 
eight cases concerning violations of the hate speech provision of the General Penal Code 
No. 19/1940 to the District Courts. The District Courts acquitted one of the accused as the 
statute of limitations had passed. Five others were acquitted as intent was not proven and 
their comments were considered to fall within the remit of free-speech protected by the 
Constitution and the ECHR. In two appealed cases, the Supreme Court disagreed with the 
very narrow interpretation of the hate speech provision and overturned the acquittals. In 
a  third  case,  the  accused  was  found  to  have  publicly  insulted  homosexual  people  and 
expressed  prejudice,  but  the  comments  were  not  injurious  enough  to  amount  to  hate 
speech.  

Sanctions are not explicitly set out for discrimination based on the grounds enumerated in 
the directives, but discrimination could give rise to civil liability, falling under the general 
rules.  The  courts  may  rule  that  a  certain  act  or  omission  should  be  remedied  and  may 
award  the  victim  material  damages.  Violations  of  the  General  Penal  Code  provisions  on 
hate speech and discrimination in services and access to public places are subject to fines 
or imprisonment of up to two and a half years and six months, respectively. Violations of 
the  prohibition  of  public  insults  against  the  beliefs  or  religion  of  lawfully-established 
religious communities are subject to fines or imprisonment of up to three months. It should 
be noted that Articles 125 and 180 have never been applied. 

The  only  positive  measures  in  place  relating  to  the  scope  of  Directives  2000/43/EC  and 
2000/78/EC aim to strengthen the position of people with disabilities in the labour market. 
The Act on the Affairs of Persons with Disabilities No. 59/1992 aims to ensure equality for 
people with disabilities and living conditions comparable with those of other citizens and to 
provide conditions that enable them to lead a normal life. The act does not set quotas but 
establishes  that  people  with  disabilities  shall  be  given  assistance  in  holding  jobs  in  the 
labour market when necessary. This should be done through special personal support in 
the  workplace,  as  well  as  through  information  and  instruction  for  other  workers.  People 
with disabilities should also have access to vocational training in private enterprises and 
institutions, where this can be arranged. Each region should provide sheltered work in the 
general  labour  market  for  people  with  disabilities  and  operate  sheltered  workplaces. 
Sheltered  workplaces  provide  remunerated  training  to  enable  people  with  disabilities  to 
participate in the general labour market and they must also provide fixed, remunerated 
employment  for  people  with  disabilities.  Lastly,  people  with  disabilities  should  be  given 
priority  regarding  work  for  the  state  and  municipalities  when  their  qualifications  for  the 
post are greater than or equal to those of other applicants.  

There are no explicit provisions in national law on consultation with NGOs or social partners 
in relation to discrimination.  

6. Equality bodies 

No equality body has been established to promote equality and non-discrimination on the 
grounds of race or ethnic origin, religion or belief, age, disability or sexual orientation. No 
human rights commission has been established and the  sole  equality body in place, the 
Centre for Gender Equality, deals with gender only. The Parliamentary Ombudsman may 
deal  with  cases  concerning  equality  and/or  discrimination  in  relation  to  administrative 
procedure.  

The Icelandic Human Rights Centre has assumed many of the functions of a national human 
rights institution (NHRI), albeit without the relevant powers, independence and financing 
having  been  established  by  statute.  The  Multicultural  Centre  is  charged  with  facilitating 
communication between individuals from different backgrounds and enhancing the services 
provided to foreign citizens residing in Iceland and to those interested in moving to Iceland. 
The  Centre  assists  those  seeking  information  about  daily  life  in  Iceland,  provides 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
information about the administration and is of service to foreign citizens moving to or from 
the country.  

International human rights monitoring bodies have called for the establishment of an NHRI 
in  Iceland  and  the  government  has  pledged  to  do  so  to,  inter  alia,  monitor  the 
implementation of the CRPD as per Article 33 and to comply with the recommendations of 
international  human  rights  monitoring  bodies.  In  July  2016,  the  Ministry  of  the  Interior 
opened a consultation on a draft bill on the establishment of an Icelandic NHRI, but this 
work has petered out. 

7. Key issues 

There are no obvious breaches or controversial issues in Iceland relevant to the scope of 
the  directives.  However,  as  there  is  no  comprehensive  anti-discrimination  legislation  in 
place, cases are not brought, and thus discriminatory practices may not come to the fore. 

The directives have not been transposed. The principle of equality is enshrined in Article 
65  of  the  Icelandic  Constitution,  but  there  is  no  comprehensive  anti-discrimination 
legislation, ensuring protection against discrimination on grounds of race or ethnic origin, 
religion or belief, age, disability or sexual orientation. A handful of general law provisions 
stemming from the constitutional equality provision are in force, but these commonly do 
not  contain  an  exhaustive  enumeration  of  prohibited  grounds  for  discrimination  and  are 
limited to a particular law sector.  

No equality body has been established to promote equality and non-discrimination on the 
grounds of race or ethnic origin, religion or belief, age, disability or sexual orientation. The 
Centre for Gender Equality deals with gender discrimination only.  

No key legislative developments related to anti-discrimination are to be reported. The last 
government  identified  the  adoption  of  anti-discrimination  legislation  in  accordance  with 
Article  5  of  the  CRPD  and  Directives  2000/43/EC  and  2000/78/EC,  along  with  the 
establishment of an NHRI, as an obligation stemming from the ratification of the CRPD. In 
July  2016,  the  Ministry  of  the  Interior  opened  a  consultation  on  a  draft  bill  on  the 
establishment of an Icelandic NHRI on its website, but this work petered out.  

In April 2017, the Minister of Social and Equality Affairs presented two draft bills on equal 
treatment; one in relation to race and ethnic origin, and the other on equal treatment in 
the workplace covering race, ethnic origin, religion, opinion, disability, reduced capacity to 
work,  age,  sexual  orientation  and  gender  identity,  gender  expression  and  gender 
characteristics. The bills proposed that the Centre for Gender Equality would be charged 
with  implementation  and  monitoring  of  the  legislation  and  that  the  Gender  Equality 
Complaints Committee would receive complaints. The bills were presented in Parliament 
and  opened  for  consultation  by  stakeholders.  Unfortunately,  the  government  collapsed 
before the bills could progress. The bills will be presented again in 2018. 

No  discrimination  cases  relating  directly  to  the  scope  of  the  directives  were  decided  in 
2017. However, two ground-breaking Supreme Court judgments concerning hate speech 
towards LGBTQIA people represented a watershed for the LGBTQIA movement in Iceland.  

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RÉSUMÉ  

1. Introduction 

La  population  de  l’Islande  se  caractérise  par  sa  grande  homogénéité  et  son  caractère 
quasiment monoculturel. La discrimination la plus marquée a traditionnellement été fondée 
sur  le  genre  et,  même  si  les  femmes  islandaises  bénéficient  aujourd’hui  d’une  égalité 
relativement poussée, on observe encore une dichotomie incontestable entre leur niveau 
élevé d’instruction et de qualification et leur situation sur le marché du travail  ainsi que 
dans la société de façon plus générale.  

Le renforcement du dialogue sur les droits de l’homme met en évidence depuis quelques 
années la situation de  divers groupes et minorités vulnérables. Une étude consacrée  en 
2014 aux attitudes en  matière d’égalité et de  discrimination sur le lieu de travail révèle 
cependant que 86 % des personnes interrogées considèrent qu’il existe une discrimination 
fondée  sur  l’un  des  motifs  suivants:  genre  (63,8 %),  origine  nationale  (55,1 %),  âge 
(44,1%),  handicap  (38,6 %),  race  (38,8 %),  orientation  sexuelle  (22,4 %)  et 
religion/convictions (20,5 %).14  

Les personnes handicapées bénéficient officiellement d’une bonne protection juridique en 
droit  islandais  même  si,  dans  la  pratique,  elles  se  heurtent  couramment  à  une 
discrimination en termes de droits à l’éducation, au logement et à la participation à la vie 
publique, et forment une proportion importante de la population vivant dans la pauvreté. 
Selon  la  principale  organisation  de  défense  des  droits  des  personnes  handicapées,  les 
prestations  liées  à  l’invalidité  ne  suffisent  pas  pour  vivre  dans  la  dignité,  et  un  quart 
seulement  des  personnes  handicapées  exercent  une  activité  professionnelle.  Les 
règlementations  en  matière  de  construction  et  d’urbanisme  exigent  que  les  bâtiments 
publics soient accessibles, mais elles ne sont pas toujours appliquées et les sanctions sont 
rares. Aucun arrêt majeur en rapport avec le handicap n’a été prononcé en 2017, mais il 
convient de mentionner une importante affaire introduite en 2015 par une jeune personne 
sourde et aveugle, dans laquelle le tribunal de district de Reykjavik a dit pour droit que le 
financement  public  et  l’organisation  des  services  d’interprétation  en  langue  des  signes 
étaient  inadéquats  et  discriminatoires,  et  violaient  le  droit  à  une  assistance  minimale 
consacré  par  la  Constitution  et  par  les  dispositions  du  droit  administratif  en  matière 
d’égalité. L’État est tenu d’accroître son financement de ces services et de procéder à des 
modifications législatives pour définir ce qui constitue des droits minima et des services 
adéquats  lorsqu’il  s’agit  du  droit  à  une  interprétation  en  langue  des  signes.15  Ces 
changements doivent encore être effectués. 

En 2017, une autre jeune personne a saisi la Cour suprême en réclamant l’annulation de 
la décision de lui refuser des services gratuits d’interprétation en langue des signes dans 
le cadre d’un camp d’été à l’étranger. La Cour suprême a considéré que la décision prise 
était légale et proportionnée compte tenu des fonds disponibles, étant donné que les frais 
auraient représenté 18 % du budget du Centre pour la période juillet-septembre 2017. La 
prise en charge financière des besoins d’interprétation de A aurait vidé les caisses et aurait 
été  discriminatoire  vis-à-vis  d’autres  candidats  requérant  des  services  gratuits 
d’interprétation en langue des signes.16 

La Direction du travail estime que les ressortissants étrangers étaient environ 38 000 en 
Islande fin 2017, ce qui représente 11 % de l’ensemble de la population et une hausse de 
25 % du nombre d’immigrés en 2017 – un pourcentage qui n’a jamais été aussi élevé. Les 
femmes ont été sensiblement plus nombreuses que les hommes à venir dans le pays au 

14   Arnardóttir, E. & Haraldsson, R. H. (2014), Uppruni og fjölþætt mismunun, Ísafjörður: Fjölmenningarsetur. 
15   Tribunal de district de Reykjavik, Snædís Rán Hjartardóttir c. le Centre de communication pour les sourds et 
malentendants et l’État islandais et, en réserve, la ville de Reykjavik, affaire n° E-327/2015, 30 juin 2015. 

16   Cour suprême d’Islande, Áslaug Ýr Hjartardóttir c. le Centre de communication pour les sourds et 

malentendants et l’État islandais, affaire n° 464/2017, 9 novembre 2017. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
cours des trois dernières années. Les Polonais forment le groupe le plus important avec 
46 %  des  ressortissants  étrangers  au  1er janvier  2017.  Les  Lituaniens  en  représentaient 
8 %  et  les  Allemands  approximativement  4 %  –  le  solde  comprenant  une  série  de 
nationalités présentes en petits nombres sur le territoire islandais.17  

Le nombre d’enfants d’origine immigrée a régulièrement augmenté à partir de  2004 à la 
fois  dans  l’enseignement  préscolaire  et  dans  l’enseignement  obligatoire.  En  2015,  on 
recensait  2 435 élèves  de  l’enseignement  préscolaire  et  3 543  élèves  de  l’enseignement 
obligatoire  ayant  une  autre  langue  maternelle  que  l’islandais.  La  maîtrise  limitée  de  la 
lecture de l’islandais entrave les études de bon nombre de ces enfants, et le faible nombre 
de jeunes d’origine immigrée obtenant un diplôme de l’enseignement secondaire est une 
problématique très préoccupante.18  

En 2016, 18,7 % des enfants ayant besoin de l’assistance des services de protection de 
l’enfance étaient d’origine immigrée et 53 % des femmes séjournant dans le Foyer-refuge 
pour victimes de violence domestique étaient étrangères. Un total de 31 % des femmes se 
présentant  au  Foyer  en  quête  d’une  assistance  générale  étaient  des  ressortissantes 
étrangères (14 % originaires de pays de l’EEE et 17 % originaires de pays tiers). Le nombre 
disproportionné de femmes immigrées demandant de l’aide ne signifie pas nécessairement 
une violence plus courante à leur égard qu’à l’égard de femmes islandaises: il signifierait 
plutôt que ces femmes n’ont d’autre choix que de s’adresser au Foyer-refuge au lieu de 
demander de l’aide à des amis ou à des membres de leur famille car elles ne disposent pas 
de réels réseaux de soutien.19  

Le  gouvernement  a  tiré  pour  conclusion  générale  que  la  société  islandaise  connaît  une 
diversification  croissante  et  que  les  services  d’aide  sociale  doivent  s’adapter  à  cette 
nouvelle réalité.20 Il convient également de souligner que le revenu des immigrés est, en 
moyenne,  inférieur  à  celui  de  la  population  en  général  et  que  seule  une  petite  minorité 
d’entre eux occupent des emplois dans lesquels ils valorisent pleinement leur formation; 
la  plupart  d’entre  eux  travaillent  dans  les  secteurs  de  la  construction,  du  tourisme,  du 
nettoyage  et  des  soins.  En  2017,  les  deux-tiers  des  titulaires  d’un  diplôme  universitaire 
occupaient  des  emplois  peu  qualifiés  (commerces  et  services  notamment);  27 % 
seulement  effectuaient  un  travail  spécialisé  ou  de  bureau.  De  même,  seuls  25 %  des 
ressortissants  étrangers  au  chômage  avaient  antérieurement  occupé  un  emploi  dans  le 
domaine  pour  lequel  ils  s’étaient  formés.  Le  taux  de  chômage  est  plus  élevé  parmi  les 
ressortissants étrangers que parmi les citoyens nés en Islande. Selon les estimations de la 
Direction du travail, il s’établissait à 4,5 %  en  2017 contre 2,2 % pour l’ensemble de la 
population. Les Polonais sont les plus touchés avec 6 % en moyenne la même année. Le 
taux  de  chômage  de  longue  durée  des  immigrés  est  toutefois  identique  à  celui  de  la 
population de souche.21 

Selon une étude réalisée par le Centre multiculturel, un immigré sur cinq fait régulièrement 
l’objet en Islande d’attitudes négatives en raison de son origine. Parmi les participants à 
l’étude, 77 % considèrent que ces attitudes négatives sont liées à leur connaissance limitée 
de la langue islandaise et 54 % qu’elles se fondent sur leur origine ou leur nationalité. Il 
est préoccupant inquiétant de noter que 14 % des personnes interrogées se sont heurtées 

17   Institut national de la statistique, Communiqué de presse sur la population, 16 juin 2017. Disponible sur: 

https://hagstofa.is/utgafur/frettasafn/mannfjoldi/mannfjoldi-eftir-bakgrunni-2017. 

18   Centre multiculturel, Information statistique sur les ressortissants étrangers et les immigrés en Islande 

2016 [Tölfræðilegar upplýsingar um erlenda ríkisborgara og innflytjendur á Íslandi 2016], septembre 2016, 
p. 20. 

19   Centre multiculturel, Information statistique sur les ressortissants étrangers et les immigrés en Islande 

2016 [Tölfræðilegar upplýsingar um erlenda ríkisborgara og innflytjendur á Íslandi 2016], septembre 2016, 
p. 28. 

20   Aðgerðir til að vinna gegn fátækt; tillögur byggðar á skýrslunni Farsæld; Baráttan gegn fátækt á Íslandi. 

(2013). Reykjavík: Velferðarráðuneytið.  

21   Direction du travail, Ressortissants étrangers sur le marché islandais du travail 2012-2017 [Erlendir 

ríkisborgarar á íslenskum vinnumarkaði 2012-2017], janvier 2018, p. 4. 

14 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
à des attitudes négatives lors d’interactions avec le personnel d’écoles maternelles et 19 % 
lors d’interactions avec le personnel d’écoles primaires. Un sondage a également été réalisé 
auprès de fonctionnaires dans le cadre de cette étude: il révèle que selon quelque  55 % 
des agents de l’État, les immigrés font parfois, voire souvent, l’objet de préjugés dans leurs 
rapports avec des organismes publics, et que 43 % des employés municipaux partagent 
cet avis.22  

Aucune disposition légale ne sanctionne spécifiquement la discrimination fondée sur l’âge 
sur  le  marché  du  travail.  Peu  d’études  ont  été  réalisées  à  ce  sujet,  mais  le  taux  de 
participation des Islandais plus âgés au marché du travail est parmi les plus élevés de tous 
les pays de l’OCDE. Une discrimination en matière d’emploi n’en est pas moins manifeste, 
en rapport avec le genre plus particulièrement. Une étude Eurobaromètre de 2011 montre 
que  les  Islandais  ont  été  les  témoins  ou  ont  personnellement  expérimenté  une 
discrimination  fondée  sur  l’âge  qui  dépasse  la  moyenne  de  l’UE,  à  la  fois  sur  le  lieu  de 
travail, en matière d’accès à l’éducation et à la formation, et dans le cadre de leurs loisirs.23 

Sur  une  note  plus  positive,  bien  que  l’orientation  sexuelle  ne  soit  pas  un  motif 
spécifiquement  protégé  dans  le  domaine  de  l’emploi,  la législation islandaise  établissant 
les droits des personnes homosexuelles est l’une des plus progressistes au monde: tous 
les mariages ont le même statut juridique; les couples de même sexe peuvent adopter des 
enfants;  et  les  lesbiennes  peuvent  bénéficier  d’une  insémination  artificielle.  L’un  des 
derniers  obstacles  était  l’opposition  de  l’Église  d’Islande  (Église  d’État  de  confession 
luthérienne)  à  la  célébration  de  cérémonies  religieuses  identiques  pour  les  mariages 
hétérosexuels et homosexuels. Il était admis que, se référant à leur conscience religieuse, 
des prêtres demeurent opposés au mariage homosexuel et refusent de célébrer le mariage 
de  couples  de  même  sexe.  Selon  l’Évêque  d’Islande,  seule  une  très  faible  minorité  de 
prêtres  sont  dans  ce  cas  et,  en  2015,  le  Congrès  de  l’Église  nationale  a  adopté  une 
résolution  qui  interdit  aux  prêtres  de  refuser  de  célébrer  des  mariages  homosexuels. 
L’attitude à l’égard des personnes LGBTQIA est, de façon générale, très libérale et la Gay 
Pride est une journée de festivités familiales à  Reykjavik. De surcroît, le statut juridique 
des personnes transgenres a été considérablement renforcé par la loi n° 57/2012 relative 
à ces personnes. Une évolution positive connexe est intervenue en 2014 avec l’inclusion 
dans  le  code  pénal  général  n° 19/1940  de  l’identité  de  genre  en  tant  que  motif  de 
discrimination.  Ces  attitudes  libérales  n’empêchent  pas  qu’une  petite  minorité  de  la 
population maintienne des positions traditionnelles. La Cour suprême s’est prononcée en 
2017  dans  deux  affaires  sans  précédent  portant  sur  un  discours  haineux  envers  des 
personnes homosexuelles.24 Il s’agit d’une évolution positive car les propos haineux avaient 
été pris à la légère jusqu’ici; les condamnations soulignent que le discours haineux est un 
délit dont les auteurs peuvent faire l’objet de poursuites. 

Le nombre d’organisations religieuses enregistrées est passé de 14 en 1991 à 48 en 2017. 
Plus de la moitié d’entre elles sont de confession chrétienne. Quelque 69,9 % de la nation 
adhèrent à l’Église d’Islande. Les catholiques représentent 3,8 % et, parmi les confessions 
minoritaires non chrétiennes, l’Ásatrú (paganisme nordique), le zuisme, le bouddhisme et 
l’islam sont les plus représentées. Siðmennt, société éthique des humanistes en Islande, a 
gagné  en  importance  ces  dernières  années  tandis  qu’un  peu  plus  de  15,2 %  de  la 
population sont «indéfinis» ou n’appartiennent à aucune organisation religieuse. Aucune 
étude  n’a  été  consacrée  à  l’ampleur  de  la  discrimination  fondée  sur  la  religion  ou  les 
convictions  sur  le  lieu  de  travail,  mais  23,4 %  des  Islandais  estimaient  en  2009  qu’une 
discrimination générale fondée sur ce motif était courante dans le pays.25   

22   Arnardóttir, E. & Haraldsson, R. H. (2014). Uppruni og fjölþætt mismunun, Ísafjörður: Fjölmenningarsetur. 
23   Virkni aldraðra (2011). Étude Eurobaromètre qui peut être consultée sur le site web du ministère de 

l’intérieur: www.velferdarraduneyti.is/media/frettatengt2012/Eurobarometer-active-ageing-2012.pdf, p. 2. 

24   Cour suprême d’Islande, Ministère public c. Sveinbjörn Styrmir Gunnarsson, affaire n° 577/2017, 

14 décembre 2017; et Ministère public c. Carl Jóhann Lilliendahl, affaire n° 415/2017, 14 décembre 2017.  

25   Capacent Gallup (2009). Könnun um viðhorf til mismununar. Reykjavík: Velferðarráðuneytið and 

Mannréttindaskrifstofa Íslands. 

15 

 
 
 
                                                 
En 2013, le conseil municipal de Reykjavik a finalement attribué un terrain à l’Association 
musulmane d’Islande en vue de la construction d’une mosquée. La première demande de 
l’Association à cette fin remonte à 2000. Il s’agit d’une évolution positive, mais les signes 
de  la  montée  d’un  sentiment  anti-islamique  en  Islande  suscitent  aujourd’hui  certaines 
préoccupations. En novembre 2013, un groupe a déposé des têtes de porcs et un coran 
ensanglanté  sur  le  terrain  prévu  pour  la  mosquée.  Une  personne  a  été  identifiée,  mais 
l’enquête  a  été  clôturée  sans  donner  lieu  à  aucune  poursuite.  Il  est  plus  déconcertant 
encore  de  constater  que,  lors  des  dernières  élections  municipales  en  2014,  le  Parti 
progressiste a gagné huit points de pourcentage  et deux  sièges au conseil municipal de 
Reykjavik en appuyant notamment sa campagne sur une plateforme anti-islamique et en 
déclarant qu’il fallait retirer l’attribution de terrain pour la mosquée. Il est encourageant 
de constater cependant que les deux conseillers municipaux n’ont fait, depuis leur entrée 
en fonction, aucune promotion active de causes racistes ou anti-islamiques.   

2. Législation principale 

Étant signataire de l’Accord sur l’Espace économique européen (EEE), l’Islande est tenue 
d’adopter  l’acquis  de  l’UE  pour  ce  qui  concerne  le  marché  unique.  Les  directives 
2000/43/CE et 2000/78/CE n’ont pas été incorporées dans cet Accord et n’ont donc pas 
été  transposées  en  droit  interne.  La  Commission  européenne  estime  que  la  législation 
islandaise n’est pas conforme aux directives parce qu’aucune protection précise contre la 
discrimination n’est prévue sur le marché du travail et qu’aucune législation générale en 
vigueur n’interdit la discrimination fondée  sur l’origine raciale ou ethnique en dehors du 
marché du travail.26 

Les motifs de discrimination couverts par la Constitution islandaise sont le sexe, la religion, 
les opinions, l’origine nationale, la race, la couleur, la situation financière et la filiation. La 
liste n’est pas exhaustive, étant donné que la disposition précise également que l’égalité 
devant  la  loi  et  la  non-discrimination  sont  garanties  par  rapport  à  tous  les  motifs 
susmentionnés  mais  également  par  rapport  à  «toute  autre  situation»,  que  l’on  peut 
interpréter comme incluant l’âge.  

Le seul acte législatif exhaustif actuellement en vigueur en matière de non-discrimination 
est la loi n° 10/2008 relative à l’égalité de statut et de droits des hommes et des femmes 
(loi  sur  l’égalité  de  genre),  largement  conforme  à  l’acquis  de  l’Union  européenne.  Dans 
d’autres  domaines,  l’approche  anti-discrimination  reste  embryonnaire  et  fragmentée 
puisque  seules  quelques  dispositions  législatives  générales  découlant  de  la  disposition 
constitutionnelle en matière d’égalité sont d’application. Elles ne contiennent généralement 
pas de liste exhaustive de motifs de discrimination et se limitent à un domaine particulier 
du  droit.  Des  dispositions  en  matière  d’égalité/antidiscrimination  par  rapport  aux  motifs 
énumérés dans les directives 2000/43/CE et 2000/78/CE figurent dans des actes relatifs 
aux  personnes  âgées  et  dans  des  actes  modifiant  la  législation  en  vue  d’éliminer  la 
discrimination envers les personnes homosexuelles et transgenres.  

La loi sur les personnes handicapées garantit entre autres le droit à l’égalité, le droit de 
bénéficier  d’une  assistance  permettant  de  vivre  et  de  travailler  au  sein  de  la  société,  le 
droit  aux  services  généraux  nationaux  et  municipaux,  et  le  droit  d’accès  aux  espaces 
publics.  La  loi  prévoit  également  des  mesures  d’action  positive:  à  qualification  égale,  la 
préférence  est  accordée  à  des  personnes  souffrant  d’un  handicap  plutôt  qu’à  d’autres 
candidats  à  l’obtention  d’un  emploi  dans  la  fonction  publique.  La  ratification  de  la 
Convention des Nations unies relative aux droits des personnes handicapées (CDPH) le 20 
septembre  2016  constitue  une  avancée  récente  positive.  Les  amendements  législatifs 
destinés  à  harmoniser  la  législation  islandaise  avec  les  dispositions  de  la  CDPH  va 
considérablement améliorer le statut juridique des personnes handicapées.  

26   Commission européenne: DG Enlargement Screening report Iceland. Chapter 19 – Social policy and 

employment. 17 octobre 2011. 

16 

 
 
  
 
 
                                                 
La Convention européenne des droits de l’homme, qui a été transposée en droit national, 
dispose  que  la  jouissance  des  droits  et  des  libertés  qu’elle  énonce  s’exerce  sans 
discrimination. La Convention des Nations unies relative aux droits de l’enfant a également 
été transposée dans l’ordre juridique interne et contient des dispositions similaires. Le code 
pénal  général,  la  loi  sur  les  procédures  administratives  et  les  actes  relatifs  aux  écoles 
primaires, aux médias et aux services municipaux comportent également des dispositions 
touchant l’égalité et la non-discrimination. De surcroît, la loi relative à l’Accord EEE interdit 
la discrimination fondée sur la citoyenneté en rapport avec les dispositions de l’Accord, et 
la  transposition  des  directives  pertinentes  de  l’UE  a  donné  lieu  à  l’interdiction  d’une 
discrimination liée à l’occupation d’un emploi temporaire ou à temps partiel par rapport à 
un emploi à temps plein.    

3. Principes généraux et définitions 

Les définitions figurant dans les directives n’ont pas été transposées en droit interne. La 
législation nationale ne définit pas clairement les motifs protégés et des définitions de la 
discrimination  directe  et  indirecte,  du  harcèlement,  des  rétorsions,  de  l’injonction  de 
discriminer  et  de  l’aménagement  raisonnable  font  défaut  dans  ce  contexte.  Aucune 
dérogation n’est expressément autorisée en ce qui concerne les organisations religieuses, 
et  la  loi  est  muette  à  propos  des  exigences  professionnelles  «essentielles  et 
déterminantes». La législation nationale contient certaines exceptions relevant d’exigences 
liées  à  l’âge  et  à  l’aptitude  physique;  elles  concernent  notamment  les  policiers,  les 
pompiers et les gardiens de prison.   

Aucune règle nationale ne porte sur la discrimination multiple et aucun arrêt n’a été rendu 
dans des affaires impliquant ce type de situation.  

4. Champ d’application matériel 

Les  directives  2000/43/CE  et  2000/78/CE  n’ont  pas  été  transposées  en  droit  interne; 
aucune  législation  antidiscrimination  exhaustive  ne  s’applique  à  l’ensemble  des  secteurs 
de l’emploi et du travail, tant publics que privés, pour ce qui concerne les motifs qu’elles 
énumèrent.  Des  actes  discriminatoires  commis  dans  le  secteur  privé  pourraient 
éventuellement  relever  du  champ  d’application  de  la  loi  n° 50/1993  sur  les  dommages-
intérêts, mais il n’existe aucune jurisprudence. Quant au secteur public, la loi n° 37/1993 
sur les procédures administratives, qui interdit la discrimination entre parties individuelles 
fondée  entre  autres  sur  des  opinions  quant  à  la  race,  la  couleur,  l’origine  nationale,  la 
religion, l’opinion politique, le statut social ou la famille, pourrait être invoquée.  

Il n’existe aucune interdiction explicite de discrimination fondée sur les motifs visés par les 
directives  en  ce  qui  concerne  les  pensions  professionnelles  et  l’accès  à  la  formation 
professionnelle de quelque type et à quelque niveau que ce soit. Quant à l’appartenance 
et la participation à des organisations de travailleurs, la loi n° 80/1938 sur les syndicats et 
les conflits du travail, applicable à la fois au secteur privé et au secteur public, dispose que 
l’adhésion  à  un  syndicat  est  libre  pour  tous  les  travailleurs  occupés  dans  le  secteur 
concerné.  De  même,  l’accès  aux  associations  professionnelles  et  aux  organisations 
patronales est ouvert à toutes les entreprises ou employeurs qui exercent leur activité ou 
sont  qualifiés  dans  le  domaine  concerné.  Aucune  législation  antidiscrimination  n’est 
toutefois en vigueur à cet égard et aucune interdiction expresse de discrimination liée à 
l’affiliation et à la participation à des organisations de travailleurs ou d’employeurs, ou à 
d’autres  organisations  professionnelles,  y  compris  les  avantages  y  afférents,  n’a  été 
adoptée.  

La législation nationale ne prévoit pas en matière de sécurité sociale et de soins de santé 
d’exceptions fondées sur la religion ou les convictions, l’âge, le handicap ou l’orientation 
sexuelle;  elle  n’établit  pas  non  plus  de  distinction  entre  les  biens  et  services  mis  à  la 
disposition du public et ceux mis à la disposition de membres d’associations privées. Des 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
prescriptions  interdisant  la  discrimination  fondée  sur  la  race  ou  l’origine  ethnique  en 
rapport avec les «avantages sociaux» font défaut mais, dans le secteur public, ce type de 
discrimination pourrait constituer un non-respect du principe d’égalité codifié dans la  loi 
sur  les  procédures  administratives.  Dans  le  secteur  privé,  un  recours  pourrait  invoquer 
l’article 26 sous b) de la loi n° 50/1993 sur les dommages-intérêts, lequel dispose qu’une 
indemnisation peut être octroyée pour préjudice causé par une infraction portant atteinte 
à la liberté, la paix, l’honneur ou la personne de la victime.  

Pour  ce  qui  est  de  l’interdiction  de  discrimination  dans  le  domaine  éducatif,  la  loi 
n° 91/2008  sur  l’enseignement  primaire  requiert,  en  ce  qui  concerne  l’organisation  des 
études et l’instruction, ainsi qu’en ce qui concerne la production et la sélection du matériel 
pédagogique, qu’un effort spécial soit fait pour que tous les élèves bénéficient des mêmes 
chances en termes d’enseignement et qu’ils aient la possibilité de choisir les disciplines et 
les  approches  pédagogiques  de  leur  propre  apprentissage.    Les  objectifs  et  pratiques 
d’enseignement devraient veiller à prévenir la discrimination fondée sur l’origine, le genre, 
l’orientation sexuelle, la résidence, la classe sociale, la religion, l’état de santé, le handicap 
ou la situation en général. Les enfants handicapés devraient suivre leur scolarité dans des 
écoles ordinaires en bénéficiant d’une assistance, s’il y a lieu.   

Aucune communauté rom identifiée en tant que telle ne s’est établie en Islande de sorte 
qu’aucune  forme  de ségrégation  ni  de  discrimination  notoire  n’existe  dans  les 
établissements scolaires à l’égard des Roms.  

Aucune disposition n’a été expressément adoptée pour empêcher la discrimination fondée 
sur la race ou l’origine ethnique en termes d’accès au logement. La loi sur les personnes 
handicapées prévoit la mise à disposition de services sociaux à l’intention de ces personnes 
afin qu’elles puissent autant que possible habiter chez elles ou recourir à d’autres options 
de logement selon leurs besoins et leurs souhaits. Il incombe aux autorités locales de veiller 
à  ce  qu’un  logement  adéquat  et  les  services  nécessaires  soient  mis  à  la  disposition  des 
personnes handicapées. 

5. Mise en application de la loi 

Les  directives  2000/43/CE  et  2000/78/CE  n’ont  pas  été  transposées  en  droit  interne. 
Aucune procédure n’a été spécifiquement instituée pour traiter des discriminations fondées 
sur les motifs qui y sont énumérés. Seul organisme chargé des plaintes pour discrimination, 
la Commission des plaintes en matière d’égalité de genre ne peut être saisie qu’en cas de 
discrimination fondée sur ce motif. Plusieurs procédures administratives sont en place pour 
garantir le droit de recours des citoyens à l’encontre d’autorités publiques, y compris en 
cas de discrimination. La loi n° 37/1993 sur les procédures administratives confère le droit 
de  faire  appel  de  décisions  prises  par  des  autorités  administratives  telles  que  des 
institutions ou des commissions publiques. Sauf disposition contraire de la loi, toutes les 
décisions émanant d’instances publiques ou d’instances dotées de l’autorité publique sont 
soumises  au  contrôle  d’une  instance  supérieure.  Les  décisions  émanant  d’autorités 
indépendantes peuvent, dans certains cas, faire l’objet d’un contrôle de la part de ministres 
ou  de  conseils/commissions  spécialement  institués  à  cette  fin.  Il  convient  de  signaler  la 
création  récente  d’une  Commission  d’appel  de  l’immigration  et  de  l’asile,  chargée 
notamment  de  procéder  à  l’examen  indépendant  de  toutes  les  décisions  prises  par  la 
Direction  de  l’immigration  sur  la  base  de  la  loi  n° 96/2002  relative  aux  ressortissants 
étrangers. La Commission a commencé à recevoir des recours à partir du 1er janvier 2015. 
Début  novembre  2017,  elle  avait  publié  650  décisions  portant  pour  la  plupart  sur  des 
décisions prises en matière d’asile par la Direction de l’immigration. Il peut arriver aussi 
que des décisions prises par des autorités locales soient référées au ministère concerné. 
Des  plaintes  concernant  des  décisions  administratives  discriminatoires  peuvent  en  outre 
être déposées auprès du Médiateur parlementaire. Enfin, les juridictions sont habilitées à 
contrôler toute décision prise par le pouvoir exécutif.  

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Le  délai  pour  le  dépôt  d’une  plainte  devant  une  commission  de  contrôle  varie  et,  dans 
certains cas, aucun délai n’est fixé. Les plaintes auprès du Médiateur parlementaire doivent 
être  introduites  dans  les  douze  mois  qui  suivent  la  date  de  la  décision  contestée  ou  de 
l’évènement en cause. Les arrêts rendus par les juridictions civiles sont contraignants et 
exécutoires.  Les  décisions  du  Médiateur  parlementaire  ne  sont  pas  juridiquement 
contraignantes pour les autorités et n’invalident pas automatiquement la décision en cause. 
Les  décisions  des  commissions  administratives  sont  généralement  non  contraignantes, 
hormis dans le cas de la Commission des plaintes en matière d’égalité de genre, qui peut 
rendre des décisions ayant force de loi. 

Une association peut saisir la justice pour obtenir la reconnaissance de certains droits de 
ses  membres  ou  pour  libérer  ses  membres  de  certaines  obligations,  pour  autant  que  la 
sauvegarde  des  intérêts  en  jeu  fasse  partie  intégrante  de  son  mandat.  Rares  sont 
cependant les organisations nationales qui ont suffisamment de ressources pour venir en 
aide à des victimes de discrimination – à ce jour seules des organisations représentant les 
intérêts  de  personnes  handicapées  ont  fait  cette  démarche  en  rapport  avec  les  motifs 
couverts par les directives – et les affaires de ce type ne sont généralement pas portées à 
l’attention du grand public. Le renversement de la charge de la preuve n’est pas prévu et 
il n’a pas encore été fait usage du test de situation ni de statistiques.  

Le non-respect des articles 125, 180 et 233a du code pénal général donne lieu à un acte 
d’accusation officiel. La procédure pénale débute par une enquête menée par la police de 
sa propre initiative ou à la suite d’une plainte. Si l’enquête révèle qu’une infraction pénale 
pourrait avoir été commise, l’affaire est renvoyée au parquet. S’il estime que le grief est 
apparemment  justifié,  le  procureur  transmet  un  acte  d’accusation  à  une  juridiction  de 
compétence générale.  

Aucune décision n’a été prononcée en 2017 dans des affaires de discrimination  relevant 
directement du champ d’application des directives. Deux arrêts sans précédent rendus par 
la Cour suprême concernant le discours haineux envers des personnes LGBTQIA marquent 
néanmoins un tournant pour le mouvement LGBTQIA en Islande. Samtökin’78, principale 
organisation de défense des droits des personnes  LGBTQIA en Islande, a déposé plainte 
en avril 2015 à l’encontre de dix personnes en raison de remarques haineuses prononcées 
lors d’une émission de radio et en ligne après que le conseil municipal de Hafnarfjörður ait 
décidé de dispenser des cours sur la thématique LGBTQIA dans ses écoles avec l’appui de 
Samtökin’78. Les plaintes relevaient de la compétence de la police de Reykjavik et d’autres 
districts  de  police.  En  septembre  2015,  la  police  de  Reykjavik  a  rejeté  les  recours  sans 
enquête, estimant que les remarques bénéficiaient de la protection constitutionnelle de la 
liberté d’expression (article 73 de la Constitution islandaise). Samtökin’78 a fait appel de 
cette décision et en novembre 2015 le ministère public a déclaré que les plaintes devaient 
faire l’objet d’une enquête. En novembre 2016, le ministère public a saisi les tribunaux de 
district  dans  huit  cas  relatifs  au  non-respect  de  la  disposition  du  code  pénal  général 
n° 19/1940 concernant le discours haineux. Lesdits tribunaux ont acquitté l’un des accusés 
car le délai de prescription était échu. Cinq autres ont été acquittés parce que l’intention 
n’a pas été démontrée et que leurs propos ont été considérés comme relevant du champ 
d’application de la liberté de parole protégée par la Constitution et la CEDH. Dans deux cas 
ayant  fait  l’objet  d’un  appel,  la  Cour  suprême  a  rejeté  l’interprétation  très  étroite  de  la 
disposition  relative  au  discours  haineux  et  annulé  les  acquittements.  Dans  un  troisième 
cas, il a été établi que l’accusé avait publiquement insulté des personnes homosexuelles et 
exprimé des préjugés, mais que les propos tenus n’étaient pas suffisamment injurieux pour 
être assimilés à un discours haineux.  

Des sanctions ne sont pas explicitement prévues pour les cas de discrimination fondée sur 
les  motifs  énumérés  dans  les  directives,  mais  la  discrimination  peut  entraîner  une 
responsabilité  civile,  à  laquelle  les  règles  générales  s’appliquent.  Les  tribunaux  peuvent 
décider  qu’un  acte  particulier  ou  une  omission  particulière  doit  faire  l’objet  d’une 
réparation, et attribuer des dommages-intérêts matériels à la victime. Le non-respect des 

19 

 
 
 
 
dispositions du code pénal général relatives au discours haineux et à la discrimination en 
termes de services et d’accès à des lieux publics est passible d’amendes ou d’une peine 
d’emprisonnement pouvant aller respectivement jusqu’à deux ans et demi et jusqu’à six 
mois. Le non-respect de l’interdiction d’insultes publiques à l’encontre des convictions ou 
de la religion de communautés confessionnelles légalement constituées est passible pour 
sa part d’amendes et d’une peine d’emprisonnement de trois mois maximum. Il convient 
de noter que les articles 125 et 180 n’ont encore jamais été invoqués. 

Les seules mesures d’action positive adoptées en rapport avec le champ d’application des 
directives  2000/43/CE  et  2000/78/CE  visent  à  renforcer  la  position  des  personnes 
handicapées  sur  le  marché  du  travail.  La  loi  n° 59/1992  sur  les  personnes  handicapées 
vise à garantir à celles-ci une égalité ainsi que des conditions de vie comparables à celles 
des  autres  citoyens,  et  à  instaurer  des  conditions  leur  permettant  de  mener  une  vie 
normale. Cette loi ne fixe pas de quotas, mais établit que les personnes handicapées seront 
aidées, s’il y a lieu, à occuper un emploi sur le marché du travail. Cette assistance devrait 
se concrétiser par un soutien individuel spécialement adapté sur le lieu de travail, et par 
la  communication  d’informations  et  d’instructions  aux  autres  travailleurs.  Les  personnes 
handicapées  devraient  également  pouvoir  prendre  part  à  la  formation  professionnelle 
organisée  dans  des  entreprises  et  institutions  privées,  lorsque  cela  s’avère  possible. 
Chaque région devrait prévoir sur le marché général du travail des emplois protégés et des 
ateliers protégés à l’intention des personnes handicapées. Les ateliers protégés offrent une 
formation  rémunérée  permettant  aux  personnes  handicapées  de  participer  au  marché 
général du travail, ainsi que des emplois fixes et rémunérés à des personnes handicapées. 
Enfin, les personnes handicapées devraient bénéficier d’une priorité pour l’obtention d’un 
emploi  pour  l’État  ou  l’administration  municipale  lorsque  leur  qualification  pour  le  poste 
concerné est supérieure ou égale à celle d’autres candidats.  

La  législation  nationale  ne  comporte  aucune  disposition  expresse  concernant  la 
consultation des ONG ou des partenaires sociaux sur les questions de discrimination.  

6. Organismes de promotion de l’égalité de traitement 

Aucun  organisme  n’a  été  institué  pour  promouvoir  l’égalité  et  la  non-discrimination  en 
rapport avec les motifs de la race et de l’origine ethnique, de la religion et des convictions, 
de  l’âge,  du  handicap  ou  de  l’orientation  sexuelle.  Aucune  commission  des  droits  de 
l’homme  n’a  davantage  été  instituée  et  le  seul  organisme  en  place  dans  ce  domaine,  à 
savoir la Commission des plaintes en matière de genre, traite uniquement des questions 
d’égalité  hommes-femmes.  Le  Médiateur  parlementaire  peut  être  saisi  pour  sa  part 
d’affaires d’égalité/de discrimination liées à une procédure administrative. 

Le  Centre  islandais  des  droits  de  l’homme  assume  bon  nombre  des  fonctions  d’une 
Institution nationale des droits de l’homme (INDH) sans pour autant que ses compétences, 
son  indépendance  et  son  financement  aient  été  établis  par  voie  législative.  Le  Centre 
multiculturel est chargé de faciliter la communication entre personnes d’origines différentes 
et de promouvoir les services fournis aux ressortissants étrangers résidant en Islande ou 
désireux de s’y installer. Le Centre aide toute personne en quête d’informations concernant 
la vie quotidienne en Islande; fournit des renseignements concernant l’administration; et 
rend  des  services  utiles  aux  ressortissants  étrangers  qui  arrivent  dans  le  pays  ou  le 
quittent.  

Des  organes  internationaux  de  contrôle  des  droits  de  l’homme  ont  réclamé  la  création 
d’une  INDH  en  Islande, et le gouvernement a  pris un engagement dans ce sens  en vue 
notamment de surveiller la mise en œuvre de la CDPH conformément à l’article 33 et de 
se conformer aux recommandations des organes internationaux de contrôle des droits de 
l’homme. Le ministère de l’intérieur a ouvert en juillet 2016 une consultation concernant 
un  projet  de  loi  sur  la  mise  en  place  d’une  INDH  en  Islande,  mais  le  processus  s’est 
essouflé.  

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
7. Points essentiels 

Il  n’y  a  en  Islande  ni infraction  manifeste  ni  sujet  de  controverse  en  ce  qui  concerne  le 
champ  d’application  des  directives.  Ceci  étant  dit, 
législation 
antidiscrimination  exhaustive  a  pour  effet  que  les  instances  compétentes  ne  sont  pas 
saisies  d’affaires  liées  à  des  pratiques  discriminatoires  et  que  celles-ci  pourraient  donc 
demeurer dans l’ombre.     

l’absence  de 

Les directives n’ont pas été transposées. Le principe de l’égalité est consacré par l’article 65 
de  la  Constitution  islandaise,  mais  aucune  législation  antidiscrimination  exhaustive  ne 
garantit une protection contre la discrimination fondée sur la race ou l’origine ethnique, la 
religion  ou  les  convictions,  l’âge,  le  handicap  ou  l’orientation  sexuelle.  Une  série  de 
dispositions juridiques générales découlant de l’égalité consacrée par la Constitution sont 
en  vigueur  mais,  le  plus  souvent,  elles  ne  contiennent  pas  d’énumération  complète  des 
motifs de discrimination interdits et elles se limitent à un domaine juridique particulier.  

Aucun  organisme  spécialisé  n’a  été  mis  en  place  pour  promouvoir  l’égalité  et  la  non-
discrimination fondée sur la race ou l’origine ethnique, la religion ou les convictions, l’âge, 
le  handicap  ou  l’orientation  sexuelle.  Le  Centre  islandais  pour  l’égalité  des  sexes  traite 
uniquement des cas de discrimination fondée sur le genre.  

Aucune  avancée  législative  majeure  n’est  à  signaler  en  rapport  avec  la  lutte  contre  les 
discriminations.  Le  dernier  gouvernement  a  considéré  l’adoption  d’une  législation 
antidiscrimination  conforme  l’article 5  de  la  CDPH  et  aux  directives  2000/43/CE  et 
2000/78/CE, de même que la mise en place d’une INDH, comme une obligation découlant 
de la ratification de la CDPH. En juillet 2016, le ministère de l’intérieur a ouvert sur son 
site web une consultation concernant un projet de loi sur la mise en place d’une INDH en 
Islande, mais le processus s’est essouflé.  

En avril 2017, le ministre des affaires sociales et de l’égalité a présenté deux projets de loi 
relatifs à l’égalité de traitement, l’un en rapport avec la race et l’origine ethnique, et l’autre 
portant  sur  l’égalité  de  traitement  sur  le  lieu  de  travail  et  couvrant  la  race,  l’origine 
ethnique,  la  religion,  les  opinions,  le  handicap,  l’aptitude  réduite  au  travail,  l’âge, 
l’orientation  sexuelle  et  l’identité  de  genre,  l’expression  de  genre  et  les  spécificités  de 
genre. Les projets de lois proposaient que le Centre pour l’égalité des sexes soit chargé de 
la mise en œuvre et du suivi de la législation, et que la Commission des plaintes en matière 
d’égalité de genre soit saisie des griefs. Ils ont été soumis au parlement et ouverts à la 
consultation des parties prenantes – mais le gouvernement est malheureusement tombé 
avant que le processus puisse avancer. Ces projets de loi seront à nouveau présentés en 
2018. 

Aucune décision n’a été prononcée en 2017 dans des affaires de discrimination  relevant 
directement du champ d’application des directives. Deux arrêts sans précédent rendus par 
la  Cour  suprême  concernant  le  discours  haineux  envers  des  personnes  LGBTQIA  ont 
néanmoins marqué un tournant pour le mouvement LGBTQIA en Islande. 

21 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG  

1. Einleitung 

Die  isländische  Bevölkerung  ist  weitgehend  homogen  und  monokulturell.  In  der 
Vergangenheit  waren  geschlechtsbezogene  Diskriminierungen  am  stärksten  ausgeprägt. 
Obwohl isländische Frauen ein relativ hohes Maß an Gleichberechtigung genießen, gibt es 
noch  immer  eine  nachweisbare  Diskrepanz  zwischen  ihrem  hohen  Bildungsstand,  ihren 
hohen Qualifikationen und ihrem Status auf dem Arbeitsmarkt und in der Gesellschaft als 
Ganzes. 

In den letzten Jahren hat ein verstärkter Menschenrechtsdialog die Situation verschiedener 
schutzbedürftiger Gruppen und Minderheiten in den Vordergrund gerückt. Eine Studie von 
2014  über  die  Einstellung  zum  Thema  Gleichbehandlung  und  Diskriminierung  am 
Arbeitsplatz zeigte jedoch, dass 86 % der Befragten der Meinung waren, dass Menschen 
basierend  auf  einem  der  folgenden  Gründe  diskriminiert  werden:  Geschlecht  (63,8 %), 
Nationalität (55,1 %), Alter (44,1 %), Behinderung (38,6 %), „Rasse“ (38,8 %), sexuelle 
Orientierung (22,4 %) und Religion/Glaube (20,5 %).27 

Der formal-rechtliche Status von Menschen mit Behinderungen ist gut, in der Praxis werden 
sie, was ihr Recht auf Bildung, Wohnraum und Teilnahme am öffentlichen Leben betrifft, 
jedoch  häufig  diskriminiert,  und  sie  stellen  einen  großen  Teil  der  in  Armut  lebenden 
Menschen.  Nach  Angaben  der  führenden  Organisation  für  die  Rechte  von  Menschen  mit 
Behinderungen reichen  Invalidenleistungen nicht aus, um  ein Leben in Würde zu führen 
und nur ein Viertel der Menschen mit Behinderungen geht einer Beschäftigung nach. Bau- 
und  Planungsvorschriften  erfordern,  dass  öffentliche  Gebäude  für  Rollstuhlfahrer 
zugänglich  sind.  Dies  ist  jedoch  nicht  immer  der  Fall,  aber  es  kommt  nur  selten  zu 
Sanktionen. 2017 wurden keine wichtigen Urteile zum Thema Behinderung gefällt, erwähnt 
werden  sollte  aber  ein  wichtiges  Verfahren  aus  dem  Jahr  2015,  in  dem  eine  taubblinde 
Person  geklagt  hatte.  Das  Bezirksgericht  Reykjavík  entschied,  dass  die  staatliche 
Finanzierung und Organisation von Gebärdensprachdolmetscherdiensten unzureichend und 
diskriminierend sei und gegen das in der Verfassung und in den Gleichheitsvorschriften des 
Verwaltungsrechts verankerte Recht auf ein Mindestmaß an Unterstützung verstoße. Der 
Staat wird mehr finanzielle Mittel für diese Dienste zur Verfügung stellen und gesetzliche 
Änderungen  vornehmen  müssen,  um  festzulegen,  was  Mindestrechte  und  angemessene 
Dienstleistungen 
auf 
es 
Gebärdensprachverdolmetschung geht.28 Bislang stehen diese Änderungen noch aus. 

Rechtanspruch 

wenn 

sind, 

den 

um 

ihr  den  kostenlosen  Gebärdensprachdolmetscherdienst 

2017  erhob  eine  weitere  Person  Klage  beim  Obersten  Gerichtshof  und  beantragte,  die 
Entscheidung, 
für  ein 
Sommerferienlager im Ausland zu verweigern, aufzuheben. Der Oberste Gerichtshof kam 
zu  dem  Ergebnis,  dass  die  Entscheidung,  ausgehend  von  den  verfügbaren  Mitteln, 
rechtmäßig und angemessen war, da sich die Kosten auf 18 % des Budgets des Zentrums 
für  den  Zeitraum  Juli-September  2017  belaufen  hätten.  Die  Bezahlung  des 
Dolmetscherdienstes  für  A  hätte  die  Kasse  geleert  und  andere  Antragsteller,  die  einen 
kostenlosen Gebärdensprachdolmetscherdienst benötigen, diskriminiert.29 

Nach  Schätzungen  der  Direktion  für  Arbeit  lebten  Ende  2017  etwa  38 000  ausländische 
Staatsbürger in Island und stellten damit 11 % der Gesamtbevölkerung. Dies bedeutete, 
dass die Zahl der Zugewanderten im Jahr 2017 um 25 % gestiegen war. Dieser Prozentsatz 

27   Arnardóttir, E. und Haraldsson, R. H. (2014), Uppruni og fjölþætt mismunun, Ísafjörður: 

Fjölmenningarsetur. 

28   Bezirksgericht Reykjavík, Snædís Rán Hjartardóttir gegen das Kommunikationszentrum für Gehörlose und 

Schwerhörige und den Isländischen Staat sowie ersatzweise die Stadt Reykjavík, Rechtssache 
Nr. E-327/2015, 30. Juni 2015. 

29   Oberster Gerichtshof Islands, Áslaug Ýr Hjartardóttir / Kommunikationszentrum für Taube und Schwerhörige 

und isländischer Staat, Rechtssache Nr. 464/2017, 9. November 2017. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
ist so hoch wie noch nie. In den letzten drei Jahren sind deutlich mehr Männer als Frauen 
in das Land gekommen. Polnische Zugewanderte stellten am 1. Januar 2017 mit 46 % aller 
ausländischen Staatsbürger die größte Gruppe. Litauer machten 8 % aus, Deutsche etwa 
4 %; der Rest setzt sich aus kleinen Gruppen unterschiedlicher Nationalitäten zusammen.30  

Die Zahl der Kinder mit Migrationshintergrund ist seit 2004 sowohl in den Kindergärten als 
auch im Pflichtschulbereich stetig gestiegen. 2015 hatten 2435 Kindergartenkinder sowie 
3543  Schülerinnen  und  Schüler  im  Pflichtschulbereich  eine  andere  Muttersprache  als 
Isländisch. Die eingeschränkte Lesekompetenz in der isländischen Sprache behindert die 
Lernfortschritte  vieler  dieser  Kinder,  und  die  geringe  Zahl 
junger  Leute  mit 
Migrationshintergrund, die Abitur machen, ist ein ernsthaftes Problem.31  

2016 hatten 18,7 % der Kinder, die Hilfe von den Kinderschutzbehörden benötigten, einen 
Migrationshintergrund  und  waren  53 %  der  Frauen,  die  in  der  Anlaufstelle  für  Opfer 
häuslicher Gewalt untergebracht waren, Ausländerinnen. Insgesamt 31 % der Frauen, die 
in der Anlaufstelle um allgemeine Hilfe nachsuchten, waren Ausländerinnen, 14 % kamen 
aus EWR-Ländern und 17 % aus Drittländern. Die Tatsache, dass eine unverhältnismäßig 
hohe Zahl von Zuwanderinnen um Hilfe nachsucht, bedeutet nicht zwangsläufig, dass diese 
Frauen  häufiger  Opfer  von  Gewalt  werden  als  isländische  Frauen.  Vielmehr  kann  dies 
Ausdruck der Tatsache sein, dass diese Frauen über schwächere Unterstützungsnetzwerke 
verfügen, so dass sie gezwungen sind, in der Anlaufstelle um Hilfe nachzusuchen anstatt 
bei Freunden oder der Familie.32  

Insgesamt ist die Regierung zu dem Schluss gekommen, dass die isländische Gesellschaft 
immer vielfältiger wird und dass die sozialen Dienste und Einrichtungen sich diesen neuen 
Gegebenheiten  anpassen  müssen.33  Auffallend  ist  auch,  dass  das  Einkommen  von 
Zugewanderten im Durchschnitt niedriger ist als das der Allgemeinbevölkerung und nur die 
wenigsten einer Beschäftigung nachgehen, die ihrem Ausbildungsstand voll entspricht; die 
meisten arbeiten auf dem Bau, im Tourismus, im Reinigungsgewerbe oder im Pflege- und 
Betreuungssektor.  2/3  der  Zugewanderten  mit  Hochschulabschluss  arbeiteten  2017  in 
gering  qualifizierten  Berufen,  z.B.  im  Einzelhandel  oder  im  Dienstleistungsgewerbe;  nur 
27 %  übten  Facharbeiten  oder  Bürotätigkeiten  aus.  Auch  hatten  nur  25 %  der 
erwerbslosen  Ausländer  zuvor  einen  Arbeitsplatz  in  dem  Bereich  gehabt,  für  den  sie 
ausgebildet worden waren. Unter Ausländerinnen und Ausländern ist  die Arbeitslosigkeit 
höher als unter isländischstämmigen Staatsbürgern. Nach Schätzungen der Direktion für 
Arbeit lag die Quote 2017 bei 4,5 %, im Vergleich zu 2,2 % bei der Gesamtbevölkerung. 
Polen  sind  mit  durchschnittlich  6  %  im  Jahr  2017  am  stärksten  betroffen.  Die 
Langzeitarbeitslosigkeit  ist  bei  den  Zugewanderten  jedoch  genauso  hoch  wie  bei  den 
Einheimischen.34 

Einer Studie des Multikulturellen Zentrums zufolge erlebt jeder fünfte Zuwanderer in Island 
regelmäßig  aufgrund  seiner  Herkunft  negative  Einstellungen  und  Verhaltensweisen  ihm 
gegenüber.  77 %  der  Studienteilnehmer  waren  der  Meinung,  dass  sie  aufgrund  ihrer 
begrenzten  Kenntnisse  der 
isländischen  Sprache  negative  Einstellungen  und 
Verhaltensweisen  erlebt  hatten,  54 %  glaubten,  dass  negative  Einstellungen  ihnen 
gegenüber auf ihrer Herkunft oder Nationalität basierten. Besorgniserregend ist, dass 14 % 

30   Isländische Statistikbehörde, Pressemitteilung zum Thema Bevölkerung, 16. Juni 2017; abrufbar unter: 

https://hagstofa.is/utgafur/frettasafn/mannfjoldi/mannfjoldi-eftir-bakgrunni-2017. 

31   Multikulturelles Zentrum, Tölfræðilegar upplýsingar um erlenda ríkisborgara og innflytjendur á Íslandi 2016 
(Statistische Daten über ausländische Staatsbürger und Zuwanderer in Island 2016), September 2016, 
S. 20. 

32   Multikulturelles Zentrum, Tölfræðilegar upplýsingar um erlenda ríkisborgara og innflytjendur á Íslandi 2016 
(Statistische Daten über ausländische Staatsbürger und Zuwanderer in Island 2016), September 2016, 
S. 28. 

33   Aðgerðir til að vinna gegn fátækt; tillögur byggðar á skýrslunni Farsæld; Baráttan gegn fátækt á Íslandi. 

(2013). Reykjavík: Velferðarráðuneytið.  

34   Direktion für Arbeit, Erlendir ríkisborgarar á íslenskum vinnumarkaði 2012-2017 (Ausländische Staatsbürger 

auf dem isländischen Arbeitsmarkt 2012-2017), Januar 2018, S. 4. 

23 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
im  Kontakt  mit  Kindergartenpersonal    und  19 %  im  Kontakt  mit  Grundschulpersonal 
negative  Einstellungen  erlebt  hatten. 
Im  Rahmen  der  Studie  wurden  auch 
Staatsbedienstete  befragt.  Rund  55 %  dieser  Gruppe  waren  der  Meinung,  dass 
Zugewanderte  in  ihrem  Umgang  mit  staatlichen  Stellen  manchmal  oder  häufig  mit 
Vorurteilen zu kämpfen haben, eine Ansicht, die von 43 % der kommunalen Angestellten 
geteilt wurde.35 

Es  gibt  keine  speziellen  gesetzlichen  Bestimmungen  für  die  Sanktionierung  von 
Altersdiskriminierung  auf  dem  Arbeitsmarkt.  Forschung  zu  diesem  Thema  wurde  nur  in 
begrenztem Umfang durchgeführt, jedoch zählt die Erwerbsbeteiligung älterer Menschen 
in  Island  zu  einer  der  höchsten  der  OECD-Länder.  Augenscheinlich  gibt  es  jedoch 
Diskriminierung im Beschäftigungsbereich, vor allem in Verbindung mit dem Geschlecht. 
Eine  Eurobarometer-Studie  des  Jahres  2011  zeigt,  dass  die 
Isländer  mehr 
Altersdiskriminierung erlebt oder erfahren haben als der EU-Durchschnitt: am Arbeitsplatz, 
in Bezug auf den Zugang zu allgemeiner und beruflicher Bildung sowie in der Freizeit.36 

der 

gleichen 

religiösen  Zeremonien 

Positiv  zu  vermerken  ist,  dass,  auch  wenn  sexuelle  Orientierung  im  Bereich  der 
Beschäftigung kein spezieller Schutzgrund ist, die isländischen Vorschriften über die Rechte 
von  Homosexuellen  zu  den  weltweit  fortschrittlichsten  gehören:  alle  Ehen  haben  den 
gleichen  rechtlichen  Status,  gleichgeschlechtliche  Paare  können  Kinder  adoptieren  und 
Lesben können sich künstlich befruchten lassen. Eine der letzten verbliebenen Hürden war 
der  Widerstand  der  Nationalen  Kirche  Islands  (die  lutherische  Staatskirche)  gegen  die 
Durchführung 
für  heterosexuelle  und 
gleichgeschlechtliche  Eheschließungen.  Priestern,  die  gegen  die  Homo-Ehe  sind,  war  es 
erlaubt, sich unter Berufung auf ihr religiöses Gewissen zu weigern, gleichgeschlechtliche 
Paare  zu  trauen.  Nach  Ansicht  des  Bischofs  von  Island  vertritt  nur  eine  sehr  kleine 
Minderheit  der  Priester  solche  Ansichten,  und  2015  verabschiedete  der  Kongress  der 
Nationalkirche 
Trauung 
gleichgeschlechtlicher  Paare  zu  verweigern.  Die  Einstellung  gegenüber  LSBTTIQ--
Menschen ist im Allgemeinen sehr liberal und Gay-Pride-Paraden werden in Reykjavik wie 
Familienfeste  gefeiert.  Darüber  hinaus  wurde  die  Rechtsstellung  von  Transgender-
Personen  durch  das  Gesetz  Nr. 57/2012  über  den  rechtlichen  Status  von  Transgender-
Personen erheblich gestärkt. Eine damit zusammenhängende positive Entwicklung war im 
Jahr 2014 die Änderung des Strafgesetzbuchs Nr. 19/1940, das nun Geschlechtsidentität 
als  Diskriminierungsgrund  enthält.  Liberalen  Einstellungen  zum  Trotz  hat  eine  kleine 
Minderheit  noch  immer  traditionelle  Ansichten.  Zwei  wegweisende  Verfahren  wegen 
„Hassreden" gegen Homosexuelle wurden 2017 vom Obersten Gerichtshof entschieden.37 
Dies  ist  eine  positive  Entwicklung,  da  Hasskommentare  bisher  auf  die  leichte  Schulter 
genommen  wurden;  die  Verurteilungen  unterstreichen,  dass  Hassreden  ein  Verbrechen 
sind, für das die Täter strafrechtliche Verfolgung riskieren. 

eine  Resolution, 

verbietet, 

Priestern 

die 

die 

es 

Die  Zahl  der  registrierten  religiösen  Organisationen  ist  von  14  im  Jahr  1991  auf  48  im 
Jahr 2017 gestiegen. Mehr als die Hälfte davon sind christliche Konfessionen. Rund 69,9 % 
der Bevölkerung gehören der Nationalkirche von Island an. Katholiken stellen 3,8 %, und 
unter  den  nichtchristlichen  religiösen  Minderheiten  zählen  Ásatrú  (germanisches 
Neuheidentum),  Zuisten,  Buddhisten  und  Muslime  zu  den  größten  Religionsgruppen. 
Sidmennt,  die  ethischen  Humanisten,  haben  in  den  letzten  Jahren  an  Boden  gewonnen, 
und etwas mehr als 15,2 % der Bevölkerung sind nicht näher definiert oder gehören keiner 
religiösen  Organisation  an.  Untersuchungen  über  das  Ausmaß  der  Diskriminierung  am 
Arbeitsplatz aus Gründen der Religion oder der Weltanschauung wurden bislang noch nicht 

35   Arnardóttir, E. und Haraldsson, R. H. (2014). Uppruni og fjölþætt mismunun, Ísafjörður: 

Fjölmenningarsetur. 

36   Virkni aldraðra (2011). Eurobarometer-Umfrage, abrufbar auf der Webseite des Innenministeriums: 
www.velferdarraduneyti.is/media/frettatengt2012/Eurobarometer-active-ageing-2012.pdf, S. 2. 
37   Oberster Gerichtshof Islands, Staatsanwaltschaft / Sveinbjörn Styrmir Gunnarsson, Rechtssache 

Nr. 577/2017, 14. Dezember 2017, und Staatsanwaltschaft / Carl Jóhann Lilliendahl, Rechtssache 
Nr. 415/2017, 14. Dezember 2017.  

24 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
durchgeführt,  im  Jahr  2009  waren  jedoch  23,4 %  der  Isländer  der  Meinung,  dass 
Diskriminierung aufgrund von Religion oder Weltanschauung häufig vorkommt.38 

2013  wurde  dem  Verband  isländischer  Muslime  schließlich  vom  Stadtrat  Reykjavíks  ein 
Grundstück  für  den  Bau  einer  Moschee  zugewiesen.  Der  Verband  hatte  bereits  im 
Jahr 2000  einen  Antrag  gestellt.  Dies  ist  eine  positive  Entwicklung,  jedoch  stellen  erste 
Anzeichen einer wachsenden anti-islamischen Stimmung in Island einen Grund zur Sorge 
dar. Im November 2013 legte eine Gruppe von Personen Schweineköpfe und einen blutigen 
Koran auf das für die Moschee vorgesehene Grundstück. Eine Person konnte identifiziert 
werden,  jedoch  kam  es  im  Zuge  der  Untersuchung  des  Falles  zu  keiner  Anklage.  Noch 
beunruhigender ist, dass bei den letzten Kommunalwahlen 2014 die Fortschrittspartei um 
acht Prozentpunkte  zulegte  und  zwei  Sitze  im  Stadtrat  von  Reykjavík  erhielt.  Die  Partei 
warb unter anderem auf einer anti-islamischen Plattform und forderte, die Zuteilung eines 
Grundstücks für die Moschee zu widerrufen. Positiv zu vermerken ist, dass beide Stadträte 
seit  ihrem  Amtsantritt  weder  rassistische  noch  antiislamische  Themen  aktiv  unterstützt 
haben. 

2. Wichtigste Rechtsvorschriften 

Island ist Vertragspartei des Europäischen Wirtschaftsraums (EWR) und somit verpflichtet, 
den EU-Besitzstand in Verbindung mit dem Binnenmarkt zu übernehmen. Die Richtlinien 
2000/43/EG  und  2000/78/EG  wurden  nicht  in  das  EWR-Abkommen  aufgenommen  und 
daher im innerstaatlichen Recht nicht umgesetzt. Die Europäische Kommission ist nicht der 
Ansicht,  dass  die  isländische  Gesetzgebung  den  Richtlinien  entspricht,  da  „kein 
ausführlicher Schutz vor Diskriminierung auf dem Arbeitsmarkt vorgesehen ist und zudem 
keine umfassenden Rechtsvorschriften zum Verbot der Diskriminierung aus Gründen der 
„Rasse“ oder der ethnischen Zugehörigkeit außerhalb des Arbeitsmarktes bestehen“.39 

Die in der isländischen Verfassung verankerten Diskriminierungsgründe sind Geschlecht, 
Religion, Meinung, Nationalität, „Rasse“, Hautfarbe, finanzieller Status und Herkunft. Die 
Liste  ist  nicht  abschließend,  da  die  Bestimmung  auch  festlegt,  dass  Gleichheit  vor  dem 
Gesetz und Nichtdiskriminierung zu gewährleisten ist, unabhängig von den oben genannten 
Gründen und auch unabhängig vom  „sonstigen Status“,  was so ausgelegt werden kann, 
dass auch Alter erfasst wird.  

im  Bereich  Nichtdiskriminierung 

Die  einzige  umfassende  Gesetzgebung 
ist  das 
Gesetz Nr. 10/2008  über  die  Gleichstellung  und  Gleichberechtigung  von  Frauen  und 
Männern  (Gleichstellungsgesetz),  das  weitgehend  im  Einklang  mit  dem  Besitzstand  der 
Europäischen  Union  steht.  Antidiskriminierung  in  anderen  Bereichen  ist  rudimentär  und 
fragmentiert,  da  nur  eine  Handvoll  der  allgemeinen  rechtlichen  Bestimmungen  des 
verfassungsrechtlichen  Gleichheitssatzes  tatsächlich  in  Kraft  ist.  Diese  enthalten  meist 
keine abschließende Aufzählung der verbotenen Diskriminierungsgründe und sind auf einen 
bestimmten Rechtsbereich beschränkt. Rechtsvorschriften zur Gleichbehandlung und/oder 
Bekämpfung  von  Diskriminierung  in  Bezug  auf  die  in  den  Richtlinien  2000/43/EG  und 
2000/78/EG  aufgeführten  Gründe  sind  in  Gesetzen  über  ältere  Menschen  sowie  in  den 
Rechtsakten zur Änderung der Rechtsvorschriften zur Beseitigung der Diskriminierung von 
Homosexuellen und Transgender-Personen zu finden.  

Das Gesetz über Menschen mit Behinderungen gewährleistet unter anderem das Recht auf 
Gleichheit, das Recht auf Unterstützung zur Ermöglichung des Lebens und Arbeitens in der 
Gesellschaft,  und  das  Recht  auf  allgemeine  staatliche  und  kommunale  Dienstleistungen 
sowie  den  Zugang  zu  öffentlichen  Räumen.  Das  Gesetz  sieht  auch  positive  Maßnahmen 
vor:  Menschen  mit  Behinderungen  werden  bei  der  Bewerbung  um  staatliche  Stellen 

38   Capacent Gallup (2009), Könnun um viðhorf til mismununar, Reykjavík: Velferðarráðuneytið and 

Mannréttindaskrifstofa Íslands. 

39   Europäische Kommission, DG Enlargement Screening report Iceland, Chapter 19 – Social policy and 

employment, 17. Oktober 2011. 

25 

 
 
 
  
 
 
                                                 
gegenüber  anderen  Bewerbern  bevorzugt,  wenn  sie  über  die  gleichen  Qualifikationen 
verfügen.  Eine  aktuelle  positive  Entwicklung  war  die  Ratifizierung  des  Übereinkommens 
der Vereinten Nationen über die Rechte von Menschen mit Behinderungen (CRPD) am 20. 
September 2016. Gesetzliche Änderungen, welche die isländischen Rechtsvorschriften mit 
den Bestimmungen der CRPD in Einklang bringen, werden die Rechtsstellung von Menschen 
mit Behinderungen erheblich verbessern. 

Die  Europäische  Menschenrechtskonvention,  die  im  nationalen  Recht  umgesetzt  wurde, 
sieht vor, dass die festgelegten Rechte und Freiheiten ohne Diskriminierung gewährleistet 
werden. Die UN-Konvention über die Rechte des Kindes wurde auch im nationalen Recht 
umgesetzt  und  sieht  ähnliche  Bestimmungen  vor.  Das  Strafgesetzbuch,  das 
Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz und die Gesetzgebungen in Bezug auf Grundschulen, Medien 
und  Postdienstleistungen  sowie  kommunale  Dienstleistungen  enthalten  allesamt 
Bestimmungen  über  Gleichheit  und  Nichtdiskriminierung.  Darüber  hinaus  verbietet  der 
Rechtsakt des EWR-Abkommens die Diskriminierung aus Gründen der Staatsangehörigkeit 
in  Bezug  auf  die  Bestimmungen  des  Abkommens,  und  die  Umsetzung  der  einschlägigen 
EU-Richtlinien  hat 
in  Zeit-  und 
Teilzeitarbeitsverhältnissen gegenüber Vollzeitbeschäftigung geführt. 

von  Diskriminierung 

einem  Verbot 

zu 

3. Wichtigste Grundsätze und Definitionen 

Die  in  den  Richtlinien  festgelegten  Definitionen  wurden  nicht  in  nationales  Recht 
umgesetzt.  In  den  nationalen  Rechtsvorschriften  sind  keine  klaren  Definitionen  der 
geschützten Gründe zu finden, und es fehlen in diesem Zusammenhang auch Definitionen 
von  unmittelbarer  und  mittelbarer  Diskriminierung,  Belästigung,  Viktimisierung, 
Anweisung  zur  Diskriminierung  sowie  angemessene  Vorkehrungen.  Für  religiöse 
Organisationen sind keine ausdrücklichen Ausnahmen vorgesehen und das Gesetz schweigt 
zu  „wesentlichen“  und  „entscheidenden“  beruflichen  Anforderungen.  In  der  nationalen 
Gesetzgebung  können  bestimmte  Ausnahmen  bezüglich  der  Altersanforderungen  und 
körperlichen  Fitness  gefunden  werden,  so  z. B.  für  Polizisten,  Feuerwehrleute  und 
Gefängniswärter.  

Keine der nationalen Regelungen befasst sich mit Mehrfachdiskriminierung und derartige 
Fälle wurden bisher auch noch nicht gerichtlich entschieden. 

4. Sachlicher Geltungsbereich 

Die Richtlinien 2000/43/EG und 2000/78/EG wurden nicht in nationales Recht umgesetzt 
und  es  gilt  kein  umfassendes  Antidiskriminierungsgesetz 
für  alle  Bereiche  der 
Beschäftigung und Berufe im öffentlichen und privaten Sektor im Hinblick auf die in den 
Richtlinien genannten Gründe. Diskriminierende Handlungen im privaten Sektor könnten 
gegebenenfalls  in  den  Geltungsbereich  des  Gesetzes  Nr. 50/1993  über  unerlaubte 
Handlungen fallen, jedoch wurden bisher noch keinerlei Fälle dieser Art entschieden. Im 
Bereich des öffentlichen Sektors könnte das Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz Nr. 37/1993 – 
Verbot  der  Diskriminierung  zwischen  einzelnen  Parteien  aufgrund  von  Ansichten  über 
„Rasse“,  Hautfarbe,  Nationalität,  Religion,  politische  Meinung,  sozialen  Stellung  oder 
Familie – Anwendung finden.  

Ein  ausdrückliches  Verbot  von  Diskriminierung  aus  den  in  den  Richtlinien  in  Bezug  auf 
Betriebsrenten und den Zugang zu allen Arten und Stufen der Berufsbildung abgedeckten 
Gründen  ist  nicht  zu  finden.  Hinsichtlich  der  Mitgliedschaft  und  Mitwirkung  in 
Arbeitnehmerorganisationen 
legt  das  Gesetz  über  die  Gewerkschaften  und 
Handelskonflikte Nr. 80/1938, das sowohl im privaten als auch im öffentlichen Sektor gilt, 
fest,  dass  allen  im  jeweiligen  Bereich  beschäftigten  Arbeitnehmern  die  Mitgliedschaft  in 
Gewerkschaften offensteht. Ebenso stehen Berufsverbände und Arbeitgeberorganisationen 
für  alle  in  den  entsprechenden  Bereichen  tätigen  oder  qualifizierten  Unternehmen  oder 
umfassendes 
Arbeitgeber 

diesem 

Jedoch 

Sektor 

offen. 

kein 

ist 

in 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Antidiskriminierungsgesetz  in  Kraft  und  es  besteht  kein  ausdrückliches  Verbot  der 
Diskriminierung im Hinblick auf die Mitgliedschaft und die Mitwirkung in Arbeitgeber- oder 
Arbeitnehmerverbänden oder anderen Berufsorganisationen sowie die damit verbundenen 
Vorteile.  

für 

sieht  keine  Ausnahmen 

Das  nationale  Recht 
soziale  Sicherheit  und 
Gesundheitsversorgung  aufgrund  der  Religion  oder  Weltanschauung,  des  Alters,  einer 
Behinderung  oder  der  sexuellen  Orientierung  vor;  es  unterscheidet  auch  nicht  zwischen 
Gütern und Dienstleistungen für die Öffentlichkeit und für die Mitglieder privater Verbände. 
Es  fehlen  Bestimmungen,  die  eine  Diskriminierung  aus  Gründen  der  „Rasse“  oder  der 
ethnischen Zugehörigkeit in Bezug auf die „sozialen Vorteile“ verbieten, jedoch stellt eine 
Diskriminierung dieser Art im öffentlichen Sektor wahrscheinlich einen Verstoß gegen den 
Gleichheitsgrundsatz im Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz dar. In der Privatwirtschaft könnte 
möglicherweise nach Artikel 26 (b) des Gesetzes Nr. 50/1993 über unerlaubte Handlungen 
geklagt werden, dem zufolge für Personenschäden, die sich aus unerlaubtem Fehlverhalten 
ergeben, das die Freiheit, den Frieden, die Ehre oder die Person des Opfers verletzt, eine 
Entschädigung zugesprochen werden kann. 

Was  das  Verbot  von  Diskriminierung  im  Bereich  der  Bildung  betrifft,  so  sieht  das 
Grundschulgesetz  Nr.  91/2008  vor,  dass  bei  der  Organisation  und  Durchführung  des 
Unterrichts  sowie  bei  der  Vorbereitung  und  Auswahl  von  Lehrmaterial  besondere 
Anstrengungen  unternommen  werden,  um  sicherzustellen,  dass  alle  Schüler  über  die 
gleichen  Lernmöglichkeiten  verfügen  und  die  Möglichkeit  erhalten,  Themen  und 
Lernansätze auszuwählen. Ziele und Praxis des Lernens und des Unterrichts sollten darauf 
ausgerichtet  sein,  Diskriminierung  aufgrund  von  Herkunft,  Geschlecht,  sexueller 
Orientierung, Wohnort, sozialer Zugehörigkeit, Religion, Gesundheitszustand, Behinderung 
oder allgemeinem Zustand zu verhindern. Kinder mit Behinderungen sollten Regelschulen 
besuchen und bei Bedarf Unterstützung erhalten. 

In Island haben sich keine ausgewiesenen Roma niedergelassen, so dass diese von keinen 
Formen der Segregation oder Diskriminierung in Schulen speziell betroffen sind.  

Ausdrückliche  Bestimmungen,  um  Nichtdiskriminierung  beim  Zugang  zu  Wohnraum 
unabhängig  von  „Rasse“  oder  ethnischer  Zugehörigkeit  zu  gewährleisten,  wurden  nicht 
beschlossen.  Das  Gesetz  über  Menschen  mit  Behinderungen 
fest,  dass 
Sozialdienstleistungen  verfügbar  sein  müssen,  um  es  Menschen  mit  Behinderungen  zu 
ermöglichen,  in  ihren  eigenen  Wohnräumen  oder  in  anderen  Wohnmöglichkeiten  im 
Einklang  mit  ihren  Bedürfnissen  und  Wüschen  zu  leben,  soweit  dies  möglich  ist.  Die 
kommunalen  Behörden  sind  verpflichtet,  dafür  zu  sorgen,  dass  für  Menschen  mit 
Behinderungen  geeigneter  Wohnraum  zur  Verfügung  steht  und  die  erforderlichen 
Dienstleistungen erbracht werden. 

legt 

5. Rechtsdurchsetzung 

Die  Richtlinien  2000/43/EG  und  2000/78/EG  wurden  noch  nicht  in  nationales  Recht 
umgesetzt.  Es  wurden  keine  besonderen  Verfahren  eingeführt,  die  sich  auf  die  in  den 
Richtlinien  genannten  Diskriminierungen  beziehen.  Die  einzige  Beschwerdestelle  für 
Diskriminierungsopfer,  der  Beschwerdeausschuss  für  Gleichstellungsfragen,  befasst  sich 
ausschließlich  mit  Diskriminierungen  aufgrund  des  Geschlechts.  Es  sind  zahlreiche 
Verwaltungsverfahren vorhanden, um Bürgern das Recht zu gewährleisten, persönlich in 
Behörden vorstellig zu werden. Darunter fällt auch das Recht der Nichtdiskriminierung. Das 
Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz  Nr.  37/1993  garantiert  das  Recht,  Beschwerde  gegen 
Entscheidungen von Verwaltungsbehörden, wie öffentliche Institutionen oder Ausschüsse, 
einlegen  zu  dürfen.  Alle  Entscheidungen  öffentlicher  Einrichtungen  oder  von  Stellen  des 
öffentlichen Rechts unterliegen der Überprüfung durch eine höhere Instanz, sofern nicht 
anders  vom  Gesetz  vorgesehenen.  Die  Entscheidungen  der  unabhängigen  Behörden 
können in manchen Fällen von Ministern oder besonderen Prüfungsausschüssen überprüft 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
werden. Erwähnt sei der kürzlich eingerichtete Beschwerdeausschuss für Einwanderungs- 
und Asylfragen. Sein Ziel ist es, eine unabhängige Überprüfung aller Entscheidungen der 
Einwanderungsbehörde zu gewährleisten, die auf der Grundlage des Gesetzes Nr. 96/2002 
über  ausländische  Staatsangehörige  getroffen  wurden.  Am  1. Januar  2015  nahm  der 
Ausschuss  seine  Arbeit  auf.  Anfang  November  2017  hatte  er  650 Entscheidungen 
veröffentlicht, in denen es vor allem um Asylentscheide der Einwanderungsbehörde ging. 
In  einigen  Fällen  können  durch  lokale  Behörden  getroffene  Entscheidungen  dem 
zuständigen  Ministerium  vorgelegt  werden.  Darüber  hinaus  können  Beschwerden  über 
diskriminierende  Verwaltungsentscheidungen  vor  den  parlamentarischen  Ombudsmann 
gebracht  werden.  Schließlich  sind  die  Gerichte  befugt,  Entscheidungen  der  Exekutive  zu 
überprüfen.  

Die Fristen für die Anrufung von Überprüfungsausschüssen variieren und für manche gibt 
es gar keine Fristen. Beschwerden müssen innerhalb eines Jahres nach dem Zeitpunkt der 
angefochtenen Entscheidung oder des Ereignisses beim parlamentarischen Ombudsmann 
eingebracht werden. Durch Zivilgerichte gefällte Urteile sind verbindlich und wirksam. Die 
Entscheidungen  des  parlamentarischen  Ombudsmanns  sind  für  die  Behörden  nicht 
rechtsverbindlich und annullieren nicht automatisch eine angefochtene Entscheidung. Die 
Entscheidungen  der  Verwaltungsausschüsse  sind  in  der  Regel  nicht  verbindlich,  mit 
Ausnahme  des  Beschwerdeausschusses  für  Gleichstellungsfragen,  welcher  verbindliche 
Entscheidungen treffen kann. 

Verbände können bei den Gerichten eine Anerkennung bestimmter Rechte ihrer Mitglieder 
beantragen oder ihre Mitglieder von bestimmte Aufgaben befreien, wenn die Wahrung der 
auf  dem  Spiel  stehenden  Interessen  Teil  des  Mandats  des  Verbands  darstellt.  Jedoch 
verfügen nur wenige inländische Unternehmen über die entsprechenden Ressourcen, um 
die  Opfer  von  Diskriminierungen  zu  unterstützen –  einzig  Behindertenverbände  haben 
diese  Schritte  im  Zusammenhang  mit  den  in  der  Richtlinien  erfassten  Gründen 
unternommen –, und in der Regel werden Fälle nicht an die Öffentlichkeit gebracht. Die 
Beweislast wurde nicht verlagert, Testing-Verfahren und Statistiken wurden bislang nicht 
eingesetzt.  

Verstöße gegen die Artikel 125, 180 und 233a des Strafgesetzbuchs unterliegen offizieller 
Anklage.  Strafverfahren  beginnen  mit  einer  Untersuchung  durch  die  Polizei,  zu  der  es 
entweder  aus  eigener  Initiative  oder  aufgrund  einer  Beschwerde  kommt.  Wenn  die 
Untersuchung  ergibt,  dass  eine  Straftat  begangen  worden  sein  könnte,  wird  die 
Angelegenheit  einem  Staatsanwalt  vorgelegt.  Sollte  der  Staatsanwalt  der  Ansicht  sein, 
dass  ein  Prima-Facie-Fall  gegen  den  Angeklagten  vorliegt,  wird  durch  den  Staatsanwalt 
eine Anklageschrift bei Gericht eingebracht. 

2017 wurden keine Diskriminierungsfälle entschieden, die in direktem Zusammenhang mit 
dem Anwendungsbereich der Richtlinien stehen. Zwei bahnbrechende Urteile des Obersten 
Gerichtshofs zum Thema „Hassreden“ gegen LSBTTIQ-Menschen stellen für die LSBTTIQ-
Bewegung  in  Island  jedoch  einen  Einschnitt  dar.  Im  April  2015  stellte  Samtökin'78,  die 
führende  Organisation  für  die  Rechte  von  LSBTTIQ-Menschen  in  Island,  gegen  zehn 
Personen  Anzeige  wegen  Hasskommentaren,  die  in  einer  Radiosendung  und  online 
gemacht wurden, nachdem der Rat der Gemeinde Hafnarfjörður beschlossen hatte, in den 
Schulen  der  Gemeinde  mit  Unterstützung  von  Samtökin'78  LSBTTIQ-Unterricht 
durchzuführen.  Die  Anzeigen  fielen  in  die  Zuständigkeit  der  Polizei  von  Reykjavík    und 
zweier  anderer  Polizeireviere.  Im  September 2015  stellte  die  Polizei  von  Reykjavík  die 
Verfahren ohne Untersuchung mit der Begründung ein, dass die Bemerkungen unter die 
verfassungsrechtlich geschützte Redefreiheit (Art. 73 der isländischen Verfassung) fielen. 
Gegen  diese  Entscheidung  legte  Samtökin'78  Rechtsmittel  ein,  und  im  November  2015 
entschied  die  Staatsanwaltschaft,  dass  die  Anzeigen  untersucht  werden  sollten.    Im 
November  2016  erhob  die  Staatsanwaltschaft  in  acht  Fällen  Anklage  vor  den 
Bezirksgerichten  wegen  Verstößen  gegen  die  Bestimmung  des  Strafgesetzbuchs 
Nr. 19/1940  über  „Hassreden“.  Einer  der  Beschuldigten  wurde  freigesprochen,  da  die 

28 

 
 
 
 
Verjährungsfrist  abgelaufen  war.  Fünf  weitere  wurden  freigesprochen,  da  ihnen  kein 
Vorsatz  nachgewiesen  werden  konnte  und  davon  ausgegangen  wurde,  dass  ihre 
Äußerungen unter die im Rahmen der Verfassung und der EMRK geschützte Redefreiheit 
fielen. In zwei Berufungsfällen stimmte der Oberste Gerichtshof der sehr engen Auslegung 
des Hate-Speech-Paragraphen nicht zu und hob die Freisprüche auf. In einem dritten Fall 
wurde  festgestellt,  dass  die  beschuldigte  Person  homosexuelle  Menschen  öffentlich 
beleidigt  und  Vorurteile  geäußert  hatte,  die  Äußerungen  jedoch  nicht  verletzend  genug 
waren, um als Hassrede eingestuft zu werden. 

Sanktionen für Diskriminierungen, basierend auf den in der Richtlinie genannten Gründen, 
wurden  nicht  ausdrücklich  festgelegt,  jedoch  kann  Diskriminierung  auf  Grundlage  der 
allgemeinen  Bestimmungen  zu  zivilrechtlicher  Haftung  führen.  Die  Gerichte  können 
entscheiden, dass eine bestimmte Handlung unterlassen oder eine Unterlassung behoben 
werden  sollte  und  dem  Opfer  Schadensersatz  zusprechen.  Verstöße  gegen  die 
Bestimmungen  des  Strafgesetzbuchs  in  Bezug  auf  Hassreden  und  Diskriminierungen  im 
Dienstleistungsbereich  und  den  Zugang  zu  öffentlichen  Räumen  können  zu  Geldstrafen 
oder Freiheitsstrafen bis zu zweieinhalb Jahren und sechs Monaten führen. Verstöße gegen 
das  Verbot  öffentlicher  Beleidigungen  des  Glaubens  oder  der  Religion  von  rechtmäßig 
etablierten Religionsgemeinschaften können zu Geldstrafen oder Freiheitsstrafen von bis 
zu drei Monaten führen. Es sei darauf hingewiesen, dass die Artikel 125 und 180 noch nie 
angewendet wurden. 

Ziel  der  einzigen  existierenden  positiven  Maßnahmen  im  Geltungsbereich  der  Richtlinien 
2000/43/EG und 2000/78/EG ist es, die Position von Menschen mit Behinderungen auf dem 
Arbeitsmarkt zu stärken. Das Gesetz Nr. 59/1992 über Menschen mit Behinderungen zielt 
darauf  ab,  Menschen  mit  Behinderungen  gleichzustellen  und  Lebensumstände  zu 
gewährleisten,  die  vergleichbar  mit  denen  anderer  Bürger  sind  und  es  ihnen  zu 
ermöglichen, ein normales Leben zu führen. Das Gesetz sieht keine Quoten vor, legt jedoch 
fest, dass Menschen mit Behinderungen bei Bedarf Unterstützung erhalten, um auf dem 
Arbeitsmarkt  einer  Beschäftigung  nachgehen  zu  können.  Dies  soll  durch  spezielle 
persönliche  Betreuung  am  Arbeitsplatz  geschehen,  sowie  durch  Anweisungen  und 
Informationen für andere Arbeitnehmer. In Privatunternehmen und Institutionen, in denen 
dies  möglich  ist,  sollen  Menschen  mit  Behinderungen  zudem  Zugang  zu  beruflicher 
Weiterbildung  haben.  Jede  Region  soll  für  Menschen  mit  Behinderungen  beschützte 
Arbeitsplätze  auf  dem  regulären  Arbeitsmarkt  zur  Verfügung  stellen  und  beschützte 
Werkstätten betreiben. Beschützte Arbeitsplätze verschaffen Menschen mit Behinderungen 
eine vergütete Ausbildung, um es ihnen zu ermöglichen, sich am allgemeinen Arbeitsmarkt 
zu beteiligen, und müssen Menschen mit Behinderungen außerdem eine feste, vergütete 
Beschäftigung  bieten.  Schließlich  sollte  Menschen  mit  Behinderungen  bei  Stellen  in  der 
staatlichen  oder  kommunalen  Verwaltung  Vorrang  eingeräumt  werden,  sofern  ihre 
entsprechenden  Qualifikationen  denen  anderer  Bewerber  entsprechen  oder  diese 
übersteigen. 

Das isländische Recht  enthält keine ausdrücklichen Vorschriften über Konsultationen mit 
NROs oder Sozialpartnern in Bezug auf Diskriminierung. 

6. Gleichbehandlungsstellen 

Es  wurde  keine  Gleichbehandlungsstelle  zur  Förderung  der  Gleichheit  und 
Nichtdiskriminierung  aus  Gründen  der  „Rasse“  oder  der  ethnischen  Zugehörigkeit,  der 
Religion  oder  Weltanschauung,  des  Alters,  einer  Behinderung  oder  der  sexuellen 
Ausrichtung eingerichtet. Es wurde keine Menschenrechtskommission eingerichtet und die 
einzig  bestehende  Gleichbehandlungsstelle,  das  Zentrum  für  Geschlechtergleichstellung, 
befasst  sich  ausschließlich  mit  geschlechtsbezogenen  Themen.  Der  parlamentarische 
Ombudsmann  kann  Fälle  im  Bereich  der  Gleichstellung  und/oder  Diskriminierung  im 
Zusammenhang mit Verwaltungsverfahren behandeln. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Das  isländische  Zentrum  für  Menschenrechte  hat  viele  der  Funktionen  einer  nationalen 
Menschenrechtsinstitution  übernommen,  ohne  dass  ihre  Kompetenzen,  Unabhängigkeit 
und  Finanzierung  jedoch  gesetzlich  fixiert  worden  wären.  Aufgabe  des  Multikulturellen 
Zentrums 
ist  es,  die  Kommunikation  zwischen  Personen  mit  unterschiedlichen 
Hintergründen  zu  vereinfachen  und  die  Dienstleistungen  für  ausländische  Bürger  mit 
Wohnsitz  in  Island  sowie  Personen,  die  nach  Island  ziehen  wollen,  zu  verbessern.  Das 
Zentrum  unterstützt  Menschen,  die  Informationen  über  das  tägliche  Leben  in  Island 
benötigen,  stellt  Informationen  über  die  Verwaltungsprozesse  zur  Verfügung  und  ist  ein 
Dienstleister für alle ausländischen Bürger, die nach Island oder ins Ausland ziehen. 

Internationale Organe zur Überwachung der Menschenrechte haben die Einrichtung einer 
nationalen  Menschenrechtsinstitution  in  Island  gefordert,  und  die  Regierung  hat  sich 
verpflichtet,  dem  nachzukommen,  um  unter  anderem  die  Umsetzung  der  CRPD  gemäß 
Artikel  33  zu  überwachen  und  den  Empfehlungen  der  internationalen  Organe  zur 
Überwachung  der  Menschenrechte  zu  entsprechen.  Im  Juli  2016 
leitete  das 
Innenministerium  Konsultationen  über  einen  Gesetzentwurf  zur  Einrichtung  einer 
isländischen  nationalen  Menschenrechtsinstitution  ein;  diese  Initiative  verlief  jedoch  im 
Sande. 

7. Zentrale Punkte 

Offensichtliche  Verstöße  oder  strittige  Fragen,  die  den  Geltungsbereich  der  Richtlinien 
betreffen, gibt es in Island nicht. Da keine umfassende Antidiskriminierungsgesetzgebung 
existiert,  kommen  Fälle  jedoch  nicht  zur  Anklage  und  diskriminierende  Praktiken  somit 
möglicherweise nicht zum Vorschein. 

verankert, 

Verfassung 

Die  Richtlinien  wurden  nicht  umgesetzt.  Der  Gleichheitsgrundsatz  ist  in  Artikel 65  der 
isländischen 
umfassende 
Antidiskriminierungsgesetzgebung  zum  Schutz  gegen  Diskriminierung  aus  Gründen  der 
„Rasse“ oder der ethnischen Zugehörigkeit, der Religion oder Weltanschauung, des Alters, 
einer  Behinderung  oder  sexueller  Orientierung.  Eine  Handvoll  allgemeiner  rechtlicher 
Bestimmungen  des  verfassungsrechtlichen  Gleichheitssatzes  sind  in  Kraft,  jedoch 
enthalten diese keine umfassende Aufzählung der verbotenen Diskriminierungsgründe und 
sind auf einen bestimmten Rechtsbereich beschränkt.  

jedoch 

keine 

gibt 

es 

Es  wurde  keine  Gleichbehandlungsstelle  zur  Förderung  der  Gleichheit  und 
Nichtdiskriminierung  aus  Gründen  der  „Rasse“  oder  der  ethnischen  Zugehörigkeit,  der 
Religion  oder  Weltanschauung,  des  Alters,  einer  Behinderung  oder  der  sexuellen 
Ausrichtung  eingerichtet.  Das  Zentrum  für  Geschlechtergleichstellung  befasst  sich 
ausschließlich mit geschlechtsbezogener Diskriminierung. 

Wesentliche Entwicklungen im Antidiskriminierungsbereich wurden nicht verzeichnet. Die 
letzte Regierung bezeichnete die Verabschiedung von Antidiskriminierungsvorschriften in 
Einklang mit Artikel 5 CRPD und den Richtlinien 2000/43/EG und 2000/78/EG sowie die 
Einrichtung einer nationalen Menschenrechtsinstitution als eine Verpflichtung, die sich aus 
der  Ratifizierung  der  CRPD  ergab.  Im  Juli  2016  führte  das  Innenministerium  auf  seiner 
Webseite  eine  Konsultation  über  einen  Gesetzentwurf  zur  Einrichtung  einer  isländischen 
nationalen Menschenrechtsinstitution durch; diese Initiative verlief jedoch im Sande.  

Im April 2017 legte der Minister für Soziales und Gleichstellung zwei Gesetzentwürfe zum 
Thema Gleichbehandlung vor; einer bezog sich auf „Rasse“ und ethnische Zugehörigkeit, 
der  andere  auf  Gleichbehandlung  am  Arbeitsplatz  in  Bezug  auf  „Rasse“,  ethnische 
Zugehörigkeit,  Religion,  Anschauungen,  Behinderung,  eingeschränkte  Arbeitsfähigkeit, 
Alter,  sexuelle  Orientierung  und  Geschlechtsidentität,  Geschlechtsausdruck  und 
für 
Geschlechtsmerkmale.  Die  Gesetzentwürfe  sehen  vor,  dass  das  Zentrum 
Geschlechtergleichstellung  mit  der  Umsetzung  und  Überwachung  der  Rechtsvorschriften 
beauftragt werden und der Beschwerdeausschuss für Gleichstellungsfragen Beschwerden 

30 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
entgegennehmen soll. Die Entwürfe wurden dem Parlament vorgelegt und es wurde eine 
Konsultation der Interessengruppen eingeleitet. Leider brach die Regierung auseinander, 
bevor die Gesetzentwürfe vorankamen. Sie sollen 2018 erneut vorgelegt werden. 

Rechtsstreite  wegen  Diskriminierung,  die  sich  direkt  auf  den  Geltungsbereich  der 
Richtlinien bezogen, wurden im Jahr 2017 keine entschieden. Zwei bahnbrechende Urteile 
des  Obersten  Gerichtshofs  zum  Thema  „Hassreden“  gegen  LSBTTIQ-Menschen  stellten 
indes einen Wendepunkt für die LSBTTIQ-Bewegung in Island dar. 

31 

 
 
 
INTRODUCTION 

The national legal system 

The Icelandic legal system is based on the civil law tradition. Principal sources of law include 
the Constitution of the Republic of Iceland and statutory legislation and regulations, as well 
as legal precedents and customary law. Iceland is party to the  European Economic Area 
(EEA) Agreement and is thus obliged to adopt the EU acquis related to the single market. 
Directives  2000/43/EC  and  2000/78/EC  have  not  been  incorporated  into  the  EEA 
Agreement and have therefore not been transposed into domestic law. 

The legal system is structured into legal fields (criminal law, civil law, administrative law, 
etc.), with many fields governed by specific procedural codes. Primary legislation consists 
of the Constitution and enacted acts, which take precedence over other sources of law such 
as regulations issued by ministers, rules, notices and other legislative decrees published in 
the Government Gazette. The latter, on the other hand, generally take precedence over 
common law, case law, analogy, collective agreements, legal principles and the tradition 
of culture. 

The Icelandic judiciary consists of two levels: the Supreme Court and eight district courts. 
In May 2016, the Parliament adopted legislation that will establish a third, middle tier, the 
Court of Appeal, Landsréttur, which will commence operation on 1 January 2018. The aim 
is, inter alia, to guarantee the use of first-hand evidence in appeals procedures, in line with 
international human rights standards and the constitutional provision on fair trial; to lighten 
the  workload  of  the  Supreme  Court  and  improve  its  work;  and  to  facilitate  quality 
judgments in technically complex cases. In addition to the district courts and the Supreme 
Court,  the  Labour  Court  can  be  convened  and,  exceptionally,  the  Impeachment  Court, 
which  addresses  criminal  actions  brought  by  the  Parliament  against  sitting  and  former 
government ministers.  

The judiciary is competent to review administrative decisions and the constitutionality of 
legislation.  It  is  established  custom  that  Icelandic  courts  are  competent  to  review  the 
constitutionality of all laws. District courts, the Appeals Court and the Supreme Court may 
decide  that  legislation  they  find  incompatible  with  the  Constitution,  e.g.  its  equality 
provisions, cannot be applied. The Supreme Court, the Appeals Court and the district courts 
are also competent to review decisions taken by the executive, albeit only on procedure.  

The Parliamentary Ombudsman monitors the administrative functions of public and local 
authorities  and  safeguards  the  rights  of  the  citizens  vis-à-vis  administrative  authorities. 
The  ombudsman  should  ensure  that  the  principle  of  equality  is  observed  and  that 
administration is conducted in conformity with the law and good administrative practice. 
The ombudsman investigates administrative cases based on complaints, or on his or her 
own  initiative.  The  ombudsman  may  also  examine  whether  laws  conflict  with  the 
Constitution, e.g. the equality provision, or are flawed in other respects.  

Iceland is a dualist country. International treaties do not automatically become domestic 
law  when  ratified;  until  they  are  incorporated  into  national  law  they  are  simply  binding 
under  international  law.  Consequently,  international  law  that  has  not  been  incorporated 
into Icelandic law cannot be directly applied by the courts. It is a principle of the Icelandic 
legal  system  that  domestic  law  should  be  interpreted  in  accordance  with  international 
obligations, however, in cases of divergence, domestic law generally takes precedence. In 
recent years, the Supreme Court of Iceland has sought to interpret Icelandic law, as far as 
possible, in conformity with Iceland’s international obligations. The court has made several 
references to international obligations undertaken by Iceland, and it has interpreted both 
the Constitution and other laws in the light of such obligations.  

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR)  and the 
United Nations Covenant on the Rights of the Child have been incorporated into domestic 
law, and Iceland is party to all major human rights and International Labour Organization 
(ILO) conventions. In the field of anti-discrimination, Iceland has yet to ratify Protocol 12 
to the ECHR, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the 
revised European Social Charter. 

List of main legislation transposing and implementing the directives 

The  directives  have  not  been  implemented,  but  below  is  a  table  listing  the  relevant 
legislation containing anti-discrimination provisions in fields related to the directives. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Constitution  of  the  Republic  of  Iceland  No.  33/1944  of  17  June  1944,  entry 
into  force  17  June  1944,  latest  amendments  18  July  2013.  Grounds  covered:  sex, 
religion,  opinion,  national  origin,  race,  colour,  financial  status,  parentage  or  other 
status. Material scope: general. 
Act incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic 
law No. 62/1994 of 19 May 1994, entry into force 30 May 1994, latest amendments 
1 June 2010. Grounds covered: sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other 
opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth 
or other status. Material scope: limited to rights enshrined in the ECHR. 
Administrative  Procedures  No.  37/1993  of  30  April  1993,  entry  into  force  1 
January 1994, latest amendments 1 January 2013. Grounds covered: inter alia, race, 
colour,  national  origin,  religion,  political  opinion,  social  status  and  family  origins. 
Material scope: administrative decisions. 
General Penal Code No. 19/1940 of 12 February 1940, entry into force 12 August 
1940, latest amendments 30 September 2017. Grounds covered: nationality, colour, 
race,  religion,  sexual  orientation,  gender  identity.  Material  scope:  harassment  and 
hate speech, service or provision of goods, access to any public area or place intended 
for public use and public insults towards religious communities. 
Act  on  Primary  Schools  No.  91/2008  of  12  June  2008,  entry  into  force  1  July 
2008, latest amendments 1 July 2016. Grounds covered: national origin, sex, sexual 
orientation, residence, social class, religion, health, disability or other status. Material 
scope: primary education. 
Act on the Rights of Patients No. 74/1997  of 28 May 1997, entry into force 1 
July  1997,  latest  amendments  1  January  2015.  Grounds  covered:  sex,  religion, 
opinion, ethnic origin, race, colour, property, family origins or other status. Material 
scope: access to healthcare. 
Postal Service Act No. 19/2002 of 3 March 2002, entry into force 18 March 2002, 
latest  amendments  30  September  2011.  Grounds  covered:  political,  religious  or 
ideological belief Material scope: postal service. 
Act on the Media No. 38/2011 of 20 April 2011, entry into force 21 April 2011, 
latest amendments 12  April 2013. Grounds covered:  race,  sex,  sexual orientation, 
religion, nationality, opinion or cultural, economic social or  other status in society. 
Material scope: organisation and work of the media. 
Act on the Affairs of  Persons  with Disabilities  No. 59/1992  of  2  June  1992, 
entry into force 1 September 1992, latest amendments 31 December 2016. Grounds 
covered:  disability.  Material  scope:  living  conditions,  employment,  housing, 
assistance, education, etc. 
Act on Rights Advocates for People with Disabilities No. 88/2011 of 23 June 
2011, entry into force  1 July 2011, latest amendments 28  October 2016. Grounds 
covered:  disability.  Material  scope:  social  services  and  rights  of  people  with 
disabilities. 
Act on Municipal Social Services No. 40/1991 of 27 March 1991, entry into force 
18  March  2002,  latest  amendments  1  January  2017.  Grounds  covered:  disability. 
Material scope: social services. 

33 

 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

Act on the Affairs of the Elderly No. 125/1999 of 31 December 1999, entry into 
force  11  January  2000,  latest  amendments  31  December  2017.  Grounds  covered: 
age. Material scope: services, housing, healthcare, etc. 
Act  Amending  Laws relating  to  the  Judicial  Status  of  Homosexual  Persons 
No.  65/2006  of  14  June  2006  entry  into  force  27  June  2006,  no  amendments. 
Grounds  covered:  sexual  orientation.  Material  scope:  equality  before  the  law  in 
various areas. 
Act on Mandatory Pension Insurance and the Operations of Pension Funds 
No.  129/1997  of  23  December  1997  entry  into  force  1  July  1998,  latest 
amendments 31 December 2017. Grounds covered: health, age, civil status, family 
size or gender. Material scope: non-discrimination in access to occupational pension 
schemes.  
Act on Workers’ Terms of Employment and Pensions No. 55/1980 of 9 June 
1980  entry  into  force  16  June  1980,  latest  amendments  30  June  2010.  Grounds 
covered: sex, nationality and length of contract. Material scope: non-discrimination 
in terms of employment. 
Act  incorporating  the  Convention  on  the  Rights  of  the  Child  into  domestic 
law  No.  19/2013  of  20  February  2013,  entry  into  force  6  March  2013,  no 
amendments.  Grounds  covered:  race,  colour,  sex,  language,  religion,  political  or 
other  opinion,  national,  ethnic  or  social  origin,  property,  disability,  birth  or  other 
status. Material scope: limited to rights enshrined in the Convention. 

The  European  Commission  does  not  consider  Icelandic  legislation  as  being  in  line  with 
Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC as ‘no detailed protection against discrimination is 
provided  in  the  labour  market  or  any  comprehensive  legislation  in  force  prohibiting 
discrimination on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin outside the labour market’.40 During 
his  June  2016  fact-finding  mission  to  Iceland,  the  Council  of  Europe  Commissioner  for 
Human  Rights,  Nils  Muižnieks,  reiterated  previous  recommendations  on  legislative  and 
institutional  reforms  made  by  his  predecessor  in  2012,41  in  relation  to  adopting 
comprehensive equal treatment legislation and creating adequate institutional mechanisms 
to promote its implementation in all spheres of life. Current non-discrimination provisions 
in Icelandic law do not protect all vulnerable groups of people to the same extent; people 
with disabilities, older people, members of ethnic and religious minorities and transgender 
people  would  benefit  from  stronger  guarantees  against  discrimination,  ‘equal  treatment 
legislation should cover all the relevant grounds of discrimination in all walks of life’.42  

Similarly, the European Committee of Social Rights, monitoring the implementation of the 
European Social Charter, has concluded that the situation in Iceland is not in conformity 
with the Charter as e.g. legislation prohibiting discrimination in employment on grounds 
other than sex is inadequate and there is no legislation explicitly prohibiting discrimination 
on the ground of disability in education and training.43 The UN Human Rights Committee 
has  also  urged  Iceland  to  ‘take  steps  to  adopt  comprehensive  anti-discrimination 
legislation, addressing all spheres of life and providing effective remedies in judicial and 
administrative proceedings.’44 Similarly, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural 
Rights  has  called  for  comprehensive  anti-discrimination  legislation,  adding  that  Iceland 

40   European Commission: DG Enlargement Screening report Iceland. Chapter 19 – Social policy and 

employment. 17 October 2011. 

41   Council of Europe: Press release by Nils Muižnieks, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of 

Europe, following his visit to Iceland (8-10 June 2016). Available at: www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-
/iceland-ratify-the-disabilities-convention-and-strengthen-the-human-rights-protection-system. 

42   Council of Europe: Press release by Thomas Hammarberg, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of 

Europe, following his visit to Iceland (7-9 January 2012). Available at: 
www.coe.int/web/commissioner/country-report/iceland.  

43   See e.g. Council of Europe: European Committee of Social Rights, Conclusions XXI-1, Iceland, Article 1-2, 

Doc. XXI-1/def/ISL/1/2/EN, 9 December 2016. Available at: http://hudoc.esc.coe.int/eng?i=XXI-
1/def/ISL/1/2/EN.  

44   Human Rights Committee: Concluding observations adopted by the Human Rights Committee at its 105th 

session, 9-27 July 2012, Iceland, CCPR/C/ISL/CO/5. 

34 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
should ensure that measures are taken to combat and prevent discrimination, especially 
against  people  with  disabilities,  in  particular  with  respect  to  the  right  to  education  and 
housing, as well as social assistance.45 Finally, the European Commission against Racism 
and  Intolerance  regularly  reiterates  its  recommendation  that  the  Icelandic  government 
adopt comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation.46  

Despite  these  recommendations  triggering  some  debate  and  government  pledges  to 
remedy the situation — draft bills on anti-discrimination were to be presented in Parliament 
in 2014, in 2015 and in spring 2016 — comprehensive legislation on anti-discrimination is 
still to be adopted. In April 2017, the Minister of Social Affairs and Equality presented two 
draft bills on equal treatment; one in relation to race and ethnic origin, and the other on 
equal treatment in the workplace covering race, ethnic origin, religion, opinion, disability, 
reduced capacity to work, age, sexual orientation and gender identity, gender expression 
and gender characteristics. The bills proposed that the Centre for Gender Equality would 
be  charged  with  implementation  and  monitoring  of  the  legislation  and  that  the  Gender 
Equality  Complaints  Committee  would  receive  complaints.  The  bills  were  presented  in 
Parliament  and  opened  for  consultation  by  stakeholders.  Unfortunately,  the  government 
collapsed before the bills could progress. The bills will be presented again in 2018. 

45   Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding observations on the fourth report of 
Iceland, adopted by the Committee at its 49th session (12-30 November 2012), E/C.12/ISL/CO/4. 

46   Council of Europe, European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, ECRI Report on Iceland, from 28 

February 2017. Available at: http://hudoc.ecri.coe.int/eng#_Toc469293161.  

35 

 
 
                                                 
1 

GENERAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK  

Constitutional provisions on protection against discrimination and the promotion 
of equality  

The Icelandic Constitution includes the following articles dealing with non-discrimination:  

Article 65 

Article 65, which is modelled on Article 26 ICCPR and Article 14 ECHR,47 stipulating that: 
‘Everyone shall be equal before the law and enjoy human rights irrespective of sex, religion, 
opinion, national origin, race, colour, financial status, parentage or other status. Men and 
women shall have equal rights in every respect.’48  

In the explanatory notes on the draft bill to amend the Constitution, it is stated that the 
scope  of  Article  65  is  wider  than  that  of  Article  14  ECHR  and  that  it  shall  apply  to  all 
legislation and ensure equal protection for everyone.49 The Supreme Court has confirmed 
this,  interpreting  the  article  as  a  broad  equality  provision  guaranteeing  not  only  formal 
equality,  but  also  substantive  equality,  placing  the  obligation  on  the  state  to  respect, 
protect  and  promote  equality.  An  example  is  the  Supreme  Court  decision  of  4  February 
1999,50  where  the  court  interpreted  the  provisions  of  the  legislation  on  the  affairs  of 
persons with disabilities in light of Article 65 and Article 14 of the ECHR with respect to the 
right to education (cf. Article 2 Annex 1 ECHR) to entail the obligation of the state to ensure 
the same rights for people with disabilities as for other citizens. Thus interpreted, Article 
65  enshrines  not  only  the  obligation  to  apply  the  law  in  the  same  manner  in  similar 
circumstances, but also the positive duty of the state to promote the rights of persons with 
disabilities.  

A  similar  conclusion  was  reached  in  Case  No.  125/2000,51  where  the  court  ruled  that 
changes made to the Social Security Act No. 100/2007,52 adversely affecting social security 
payments  to  persons  with  disabilities  married  to  able-bodied  people  with  an  income, 
conflicted  with  Article  76(1)  (the  law  shall  guarantee  everyone  the  assistance  that  they 
require in the case of sickness, disability, infirmity due to old age, unemployment or similar 
circumstances) and Article 65 of the Constitution.  

The  constitutional  equality  provision  guarantees  equality  before  the  law  and  non-
discrimination  with  regard  to  human  rights  regardless  of  sex,  religion,  opinion,  national 
origin, race, colour, financial status, parentage or other status. The explanatory notes to 
the draft bill set out that the grounds enumerated in the article are not exhaustive; ‘other 
status’  is  meant  to  encompass  other  grounds  not  listed  in  the  provision,  such  as,  for 
example  ‘health  or  physical  state’,53  and  sexual  orientation  could  clearly  be  included, 
although no cases regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation have been heard. 
Similarly, age would clearly fall under the provision, as argued by the claimant in Supreme 
Court Case No. 484/2007.54 The explanatory note further elaborates that although the aim 
of Article 65 is above all to ensure equality irrespective of the grounds enumerated and 
other  status,  it  is  not  its  aim  to  preclude  legal  conditions  for  rights  or  obligations  from 
taking these grounds into account, provided that objective criteria form the basis for these 
conditions. Here, age limits are a relevant example. 

47   Alþt. 1994-1995, A-deild, doc. 389, p. 2086. 
48   The Constitution of the Republic of Iceland, Act No. 33/1944, as amended. 
49   Alþt. 1994-1995, A-deild, doc. 389, p. 2086. 
50   Supreme Court of Iceland, Ragna Kristín Guðmundsdóttir v. University of Iceland, Case No. 177/1998, 4 

February 1999.  

51   Supreme Court of Iceland, Icelandic Federation of Disabled People v. Republic of Iceland, Case No. 

125/2000, 19 December 2000. 

52    Iceland, Social Security Act [Lög um almannatryggingar], No. 100/2007, 11 May 2007. 
53   Alþt. 1994-1995, A-deild, doc. 389, p. 2086. 
54   Supreme Court of Iceland, X v. Y, Case No. 484/2007, 25 September 2008. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Article 63 

Article 63 of the Constitution protects the right to form religious associations and to practise 
religion in conformity with individual convictions. This right can be limited for the protection 
of morals or public order.  

Article 64(1) 

Religious freedom is protected in Article 64(1), which states that ‘no one may lose any civil 
or national rights  because of his or her religion, nor may anyone refuse to perform any 
generally applicable civil duty on religious grounds.’ The right to remain outside religious 
associations is also protected, as well as the right to be exempt from paying dues to any 
religious association of which a person is not a member. 

These  provisions  apply  to  all  areas  covered  by  the  directives.  Their  material  scope  is 
broader than that of the directives. 

The constitutional anti-discrimination provisions are directly applicable. The commentary 
to the draft bill introducing the constitutional anti-discrimination provision explains that the 
aim is on the one hand to set out  equality as an important policy objective and general 
constitutional  principle,  and  on  the  other  hand,  to  lay  down  a  directly  applicable  legal 
provision upon which an individual can base rights in a particular case.  

The  constitutional  equality  clauses  can  be  enforced  against  private  actors  (as  well  as 
against the state). The primary objective of the human rights provisions of the Constitution 
is to set the limits of the intervention of public authorities on individual freedoms. They 
thus constitute rules on the activities of public authorities, setting out their obligations vis-
à-vis individuals, and are consequently binding on the state. Although most cases where 
the  constitutional  provisions  come  into  play  are  brought  against  state  actors,  in  recent 
years,  the  Supreme  Court  has  heard  cases  brought  against  private  actors  alleging  the 
unconstitutionality of  civil law provisions or claiming that these should be interpreted in 
light of the human rights provisions of the Constitution. Examples include cases won by 
individuals  against  insurance  companies,  alleging  that  the  provisions  of  tort  law  are  in 
breach  of  the  equality  principle  enshrined  in  Article  65  of  the  Constitution.55  Although 
jurisprudence  demonstrates  that  constitutional  provisions  can  come  into  play  in  civil 
proceedings, Icelandic courts have not ruled definitively whether and to what extent private 
individuals and entities are bound by constitutional provisions in their relations in the field 
of civil law. 

55   See Supreme Court of Iceland, Elfa Þöll Grétarsdóttir v. Vátryggingafélag Íslands, Case No. 317/1997, 4 

June 1998 and Supreme Court of Iceland, Brynjólfur Hauksson v. Tryggingamiðstöðin hf. Case No. 10/2006, 
15 June 2006. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2 

THE DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION  

2.1  Grounds of unlawful discrimination explicitly covered  

Discrimination on the following grounds is explicitly prohibited in national law: sex, sexual 
orientation, gender identity, religion, opinion, national origin, race, colour, financial status, 
parentage and other status.  

The grounds covered in the Icelandic Constitution are sex, religion, opinion (e.g. political), 
national origin, race, colour, financial status and parentage. The list is non-exhaustive, as 
the  provision  also  sets  out  that  equality  before  the  law  and  non-discrimination  shall  be 
ensured irrespective of the aforementioned grounds, but also irrespective of ‘other status’. 
The explanatory notes on the draft bill to amend the Constitution set out that ‘other status’ 
is  meant  to  encompass  other  grounds  not  listed  in  the  provision,  such  as,  for  example, 
‘health or physical state’.56 Sexual orientation could also clearly be included, although no 
cases regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation have been heard. Similarly, age 
would clearly fall under the provision, as argued by the claimant in Supreme Court  Case 
No. 484/2007.57 The explanatory note further elaborates that, although the aim of Article 
65 is above all to ensure equality irrespective of the grounds enumerated and other status, 
it  is  not  its  aim  to  preclude  legal  conditions  for  rights  or  obligations  from  taking  these 
grounds into account, provided that objective criteria form the basis for these conditions. 
Here, age limits are a relevant example. 

The explanatory notes also state that the scope of Article 65 is wider than that of Article 
14  ECHR,  and  that  it  shall  apply  to  all  legislation  and  ensure  equal  protection  for 
everyone.58  The  Supreme  Court  has  confirmed  this,  interpreting  the  article  as  a  broad 
equality  provision  guaranteeing  not  only  formal  equality,  but  also  substantive  equality, 
placing an obligation on the state to respect, protect and promote equality. An example is 
the  Supreme  Court  decision  of  4  February  1999,59  where  the  court  interpreted  the 
provisions of the legislation on the affairs of persons with disabilities in the light of Article 
65 and Article 14 of the ECHR with respect to the right to education (cf. Article 2 Annex 1 
ECHR)  to  entail  the  obligation  of  the  state  to  ensure  the  same  rights  for  people  with 
disabilities  as  for  other  citizens.  Thus  interpreted,  Article  65  enshrines  not  only  the 
obligation  to  apply  the  law  in  the  same  manner  in  similar  circumstances,  but  also  the 
positive  duty  of  the  state  to  promote  the  rights  of  people  with  disabilities.  A  similar 
conclusion was reached in Case No. 125/2000,60 where the court ruled that changes made 
to the Social Security Act No. 100/2007 that adversely affected social security payments 
to  people  with  disabilities  married  to  able-bodied  people  with  an  income  conflicted  with 
Article 76(1) (which says that the law shall guarantee everyone the assistance that they 
require in the case of sickness, disability, infirmity by reason of old age, unemployment or 
similar circumstances) and Article 65 of the Constitution.  

2.1.1  Definition of the grounds of unlawful discrimination within the directives 

National law does not provide a definition of the following grounds of discrimination covered 
by the directives: religion or belief, disability, age, sexual orientation, race or ethnic origin, 
and there are no recognised ethnic or national minorities. Although no clear definition of 
disability or explicit prohibition of disability discrimination  has been codified, Article 2 of 

56   Alþt. 1994-1995, A-deild, doc. 389, p. 2086. 
57   Supreme Court of Iceland, X v. Y, Case No. 484/2007, 25 September 2008. 
58   Alþt. 1994-1995, A-deild, doc. 389, p. 2086. 
59   Supreme Court of Iceland, Ragna Kristín Guðmundsdóttir v. University of Iceland, Case No. 177/1998, 4 

February 1999.  

60   Supreme Court of Iceland, Icelandic Federation of Disabled People v. Republic of Iceland, Case No. 

125/2000, 19 December 2000. 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
the Act on the Affairs of Persons with Disabilities No. 59/199261 sets out that an individual 
is  entitled  to  services  and  support  under  the  act  if  he  or  she  has  a  mental  or  physical 
disability  that  calls  for  special  services  or  assistance,  including  intellectual  disability, 
psycho-social disability, reduced mobility, visual or hearing impairment. Disability may also 
be the result of an accident or prolonged illness.  In addition, Article 1 of the Act on the 
Affairs of Persons with Disabilities No. 59/1992 stipulates that in the implementation of the 
act, reference shall be made to  the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons 
with  Disabilities.  This  would  include  the  concept  of  disability  as  set  out  in  Article  1, 
paragraph 2 of the Convention.  

The  only  comprehensive  anti-discrimination  legislation  in  force  is  in  the  field  of  gender 
equality: the Act on Equal Status and Equal Rights of Women and Men No. 10/2008 (the 
Gender  Equality  Act),  which  is  ‘largely  in  line  with  the  European  Union  acquis.’62  Anti-
discrimination legislation in other fields is elementary and fragmented, as only a handful 
of general law provisions stemming from the constitutional equality provision are in force. 
These  commonly  do  not  contain  an  exhaustive  enumeration  or  definitions  of  prohibited 
grounds of discrimination and are limited to a particular law sector.  

2.1.2  Multiple discrimination 

In Iceland, prohibition of multiple discrimination is not included in national law and there 
is no case law dealing with multiple discrimination. 

2.1.3  Assumed and associated discrimination 

a)  Discrimination by assumption 

In Iceland, there is no national law (including case law) prohibiting discrimination based 
on the perception or assumption of what a person is. 

b)  Discrimination by association 

There is no national law (including case law) prohibiting discrimination based on association 
with people with particular characteristics. 

2.2  Direct discrimination (Article 2(2)(a)) 

a) 

Prohibition and definition of direct discrimination 

In Iceland, the only definition of direct discrimination is found in the Gender Equality Act. 
Direct gender discrimination is where an individual ‘is, has been or would be treated less 
favourably than another of the opposite sex in a comparable situation.’63  

Anti-discrimination  legislation  in  other  fields  is  elementary  and  fragmented,  as  only  a 
handful of general law provisions stemming from the constitutional equality provision are 
in  force.  These  commonly  do  not  contain  an  exhaustive  enumeration  of  grounds  or 
definitions of prohibited direct or indirect discrimination and are limited to a particular law 
sector.  

61    Iceland, Act on the Affairs of Persons with Disabilities [Lög um málefni fatlaðs fólks], No. 59/1992, 2 June 

1992. 

62   European Commission (2010), Commission Opinion on Iceland’s Application for Membership of the European 
Union COM. Commission Staff Working Document. Analytical Report accompanying the Communication from 
the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: 62, p. 53. 

63   Iceland, Act on Equal Status and Equal Rights of Women and Men No. 10/2008 [Lög um jafna stöðu og 

jafnan rétt kvenna og karla], 6 March 2008, Article 2(1). 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
b) 

Justification of direct discrimination 

No  explicit  provisions  permitting  justification  of  direct  discrimination,  generally  or  in 
relation  to  particular  grounds  enumerated  in  the  directives,  are  found  in  national 
legislation.  The  constitutional  equality  provision  guarantees  equality  before  the  law  and 
non-discrimination  with  respect  to  human  rights  regardless  of  sex,  religion,  opinion, 
national origin, race, colour, financial status, parentage or other status. The explanatory 
notes to the draft bill elaborate that although the aim of Article 65 is above all to ensure 
equality  irrespective  of  the  grounds  enumerated  and  other  status,  it  is  not  its  aim  to 
preclude legal conditions for rights or obligations from taking these grounds into account, 
provided that objective criteria form the basis for these conditions. Here age limits are a 
relevant example; see e.g. Supreme Court Case No. 484/2007, where the court rejected 
the applicant’s argument that legislation setting certain age limits for in-vitro fertilisation 
(IVF) treatment was unlawful and in breach of the equality provision of the Constitution. 
The court found that age limits in relation to IVF treatment were not contrary to Article 65 
of the Constitution as they  were based on  ‘general, objective and legitimate grounds’.64 
Furthermore,  the  Act  on  the  Affairs  of  Persons  with  Disabilities65  (AAPD)  provides  for 
positive measures to promote the employment participation of people with disabilities, inter 
alia, in Article 32, which stipulates that people with disabilities shall have priority for jobs 
with the state and local authorities when they  are equally or better qualified than other 
applicants. No similar provisions are in place in relation to age, religion or belief, race or 
sexual orientation. 

2.2.1  Situation testing 

a) 

Legal framework 

In Iceland, the law is silent on situation testing.  

b) 

Practice 

In  Iceland,  situation  testing  is  not  used  in  practice.  The  Icelandic  Human  Rights  Centre 
carried out one pilot test in relation to the effects of race/ethnic origin on access to bars 
and restaurants and job interviews but the results were not used in litigation. 

2.3  Indirect discrimination (Article 2(2)(b)) 

a) 

Prohibition and definition of indirect discrimination 

In Iceland, the only explicit prohibition and definition of indirect discrimination is found in 
the  Gender  Equality  Act,  under  which  indirect  gender  discrimination  occurs  ’where  an 
apparently  neutral  provision,  criterion  or  practice  would  put  persons  of  one  sex  at  a 
particular  disadvantage  compared  with  persons  of  the  other  sex,  unless  that  provision, 
criterion or practice is objectively justified by a legitimate aim, and the means of achieving 
that aim are appropriate and necessary.’66 

Anti-discrimination  legislation  in  other  fields  is  elementary  and  fragmented,  as  only  a 
handful of general law provisions stemming from the constitutional equality provision are 
in  force.  These  commonly  do  not  contain  an  exhaustive  enumeration  of  grounds  or 
prohibitions or definitions of direct or indirect discrimination and are limited to a particular 
law sector.  

64   Supreme Court of Iceland, X v. Y, Case No. 484/2007, 25 September 2008. It should be noted that the age 

limits have now been abolished.  

65   Iceland, Act on the Affairs of Persons with Disabilities [Lög um málefni fatlaðs fólks], No. 59/1992, 1 

September 1992. 

66   Iceland, Act on Equal Status and Equal Rights of Women and Men [Lög um jafna stöðu og jafnan rétt 

kvenna og karla] No. 10/2008, 6 March 2008, Article 2(2). 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
b) 

Justification test for indirect discrimination 

No cases concerning indirect discrimination have been heard in Iceland and the explanatory 
notes to the Act  on Equal Status and Equal Rights of Women and Men No. 10/2008  are 
silent on what test must be satisfied to justify indirect discrimination. Similarly, no case 
law  exists  where  appropriate  and  necessary  measures,  pursuing  a  legitimate  aim,  were 
deemed to justify indirect discrimination based on  age, disability, ethnic or racial origin, 
religion or belief or sexual orientation.  

c) 

Comparison in relation to age discrimination 

National law does not contain provisions specific to age discrimination, therefore there is 
no definition based on ‘less favourable’ treatment in relation to age discrimination. 

2.3.1  Statistical evidence 

a) 

Legal framework 

In Iceland, there are national rules permitting data collection. Data collection is permitted, 
subject to strict conditions set out in the Act on the Protection of Privacy as regards the 
Processing  of  Personal  Data  No.  77/2000  (Data  Protection  Act).67  The  act  covers  all 
personal data, that is, information that can be traced to an individual. Processing is defined 
as  any  operation  or  set  of  operations  performed  on  personal  data.  All  processing  must 
meet the criteria set out in Article 8 (consent of the data subject and other conditions). 
Article  9  sets  out  the  additional  criteria  to  be  met  for  the  processing  of  sensitive  data, 
which is defined as all data concerning, inter alia, race or ethnic origin, political opinions, 
religious  or  philosophical  beliefs,  trade  union  membership,  health  (including  information 
on  addiction)  and  sexual  behaviour.  Data  on  whether  a  person  has  been  suspected  of, 
indicted  for,  prosecuted  for  or  convicted  of  a  punishable  offence  is  also  considered 
sensitive. Article 4 of the Act on the Affairs of Persons with Disabilities sets out that the 
use of personal data, handled in connection with the implementation of the act, shall be in 
accordance with the Data Protection Act, and that it shall be ensured that access to the 
data is restricted and secure.  

In Iceland, national law does not explicitly permit or prohibit the use of statistical evidence 
to establish indirect discrimination. In principle, statistical data collection for the purposes 
of  litigation  and  positive  action  is  allowed,  subject  to  the  conditions  set  out  in  the  Data 
Protection Act. To date, statistical data has not been formally used to design positive action 
measures to promote equality and combat discrimination on the grounds enumerated in 
the directives. 

b) 

Practice 

In Iceland, statistical evidence is not used in practice to establish indirect discrimination.  

2.4  Harassment (Article 2(3)) 

a) 

Prohibition and definition of harassment 

In  Iceland,  harassment  is  only  prohibited  in  national  law  in  relation  to  gender 
discrimination. The only definition is found in Article 2(3) of the Gender Equality Act, which 
sets  out  that  ‘gender-based  harassment  is  any  unwanted  unreasonable  and/or  insulting 
behaviour, related to the gender of the person, which has the effect of violating the dignity 
of  the  person,  and  is  continued  despite  clear  expression  that  it  is  unwanted.  The 

67   Iceland, Act on the Protection of Privacy as regards the Processing of Personal Data [Lög nr. 77/2000 um 

persónuvernd og meðferð persónuupplýsinga] No. 77/2000, 10 October 2011. 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
harassment  can  be  physical,  verbal  or  symbolic.  A  single  incident  can  constitute 
harassment,  if  sufficiently  serious.’  The  Gender  Equality  Act  also  defines  and  prohibits 
sexual harassment. 

In  Iceland,  harassment  does  not  explicitly  constitute  a  form  of  discrimination  on  the 
grounds listed in the directives. However, mention should be made of Article 233a of the 
General  Penal  Code  No.  19/1940,  which  stipulates  that  any  person  who,  by  mockery, 
slander, insult, threat or other means, publicly attacks a person or group of persons on the 
grounds  of  their  nationality,  colour,  race,  religion,  sexual  orientation  or  gender  identity 
shall be liable to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. The Supreme 
Court  has  decided  three  cases  concerning  violations  of  Article  233a.  In  the  first  case,  it 
upheld the conviction of the accused for publicly attacking an anonymous group of persons 
by  derision,  vilification  and  denigration  in  a  newspaper  interview  because  of  their 
nationality,  colour  and  race.68  Two  ground-breaking  cases  were  decided  in  2017,  where 
the  Supreme  Court  overturned  the  Reykjavik  District  Court  acquittals  of  two  people 
charged with hate speech against homosexual people.69 See Section 12.2. 

b) 

Scope of liability for harassment 

There is no general anti-discrimination legislation in force specifically banning harassment. 
It is an established rule that an employer is liable for damage caused by any tortious acts 
or omissions of his or her employees in the course of their work, but no cases have been 
brought against employers or service providers for discriminatory acts perpetrated by their 
workers.  Employers  cannot  generally  be  held  liable  for  the  acts  of  third  parties  and, 
similarly, trade unions and professional associations cannot be held liable for the actions 
of their members. 

2.5  Instructions to discriminate (Article 2(4)) 

a) 

Prohibition of instructions to discriminate 

In Iceland, national law does not explicitly prohibit instructions to discriminate in relation 
to  age,  disability,  racial  or  ethnic  origin,  sexual  orientation  or  age  and  instructions  to 
discriminate do not explicitly constitute a form of discrimination. There is no definition of 
the term ‘instructions’ in this regard. 

b) 

Scope of liability for instructions to discriminate 

There is no general anti-discrimination legislation in force specifically banning instructions 
to discriminate. It is an established rule that an employer is liable for damage caused by 
any tortious acts or omissions of his or her employees in the course of their work, but no 
cases  have  been  brought  against  employers  or  service  providers  for  discriminatory  acts 
perpetrated by their workers. Employers cannot generally be held liable for the acts of third 
parties and, similarly, trade unions and professional associations cannot be held liable for 
the actions of their members. 

2.6  Reasonable  accommodation  duties  (Article  2(2)(b)(ii)  and  Article  5 

Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Implementation  of  the  duty  to  provide  reasonable  accommodation  for  people  with 
disabilities in the area of employment 

In Iceland, the duty to provide reasonable accommodation is not set out in national law 
and there is no definition of the term ‘reasonable accommodation’. Article 29 of the Act on 

68   Supreme Court of Iceland, Prosecutor v. Hlynur Freyr Vigfússon, Case No. 461/2001, 24 April 2002. 
69   Supreme Court of Iceland, Prosecutor v. Carl Jóhann Lilliendahl, Case No. 415/2017, 14 December 2017 

and Prosecutor v. Sveinbjörn Styrmir Gunnarsson, Case No. 577/2017, 14 December 2017. 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
the Affairs of Persons with Disabilities 59/1992 simply states that people with disabilities 
shall be given assistance when necessary in holding jobs on the labour market. This should 
be done through special personal support in the workplace, as well as through information 
and instruction for other workers. People with disabilities should have access to vocational 
training  in  private  enterprises  and  institutions  where  possible.  In  that  event,  a  special 
agreement should be concluded, setting out, inter alia, the period of  training and costs. 
The costs incurred because of special assistance in the workplace shall be paid by the State 
Treasury. 

b) 

Practice 

No explicit duty to provide reasonable accommodation is set out in national legislation thus 
there is no assessment to be made of ‘reasonable’ or ‘disproportionate burden’. 

c) 

Definition of disability and non-discrimination protection 

National law does not explicitly set out the duty of employers to take reasonable measures 
to  accommodate  people  with  disabilities.  There  is  no  specific  definition  of  disability  in 
relation to reasonable accommodation or protection from non-discrimination in general. 

Although no clear definition of disability has been codified, Article 2 of the Act on the Affairs 
of Persons with Disabilities No. 59/1992 sets out that an individual is entitled to services 
and  support  under  the  act  if  he  or  she  has  a  mental  or  physical  disability  that  calls  for 
special  services  or  assistance,  including  intellectual  disability,  psycho-social  disability, 
reduced  mobility,  visual  or  hearing  impairment.  Disability  may  also  be  the  result  of  an 
accident or prolonged illness.  

In  addition,  Article  1  of  the  Act  on  the  Affairs  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  No.  59/1992 
stipulates  that, in  the  implementation  of  the  act,  reference  shall  be made  to  the  United 
Nations  Convention  on  the  Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities.  This  would  include  the 
concept  of  disability  as  set  out  in  Article 1,  paragraph  2,  of  the  Convention.  The  United 
Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was ratified on 23 September 
2016. As a result, Icelandic legislation is to be brought into line with the provisions of the 
Convention  e.g.  through  amendments  to  legislation  on  municipal  services;  on  social 
services for people with disabilities; and on sex education, abortion and sterilisation. Anti-
discrimination legislation in line with the directives will be adopted and a National Human 
Rights  Institution  established.  This  is  to  be  done  as  soon  as  possible  but  no  fixed  time-
frame has been presented. 

According to the Social Security Act No. 100/2007, entitlement to a disability pension from 
the social security pension insurance scheme is based on the length of residence in Iceland, 
the age of the applicant and medical disability. Not everyone falling under the provisions 
of the Social Security Act will fall under the provisions of the Act on the Affairs of Persons 
with Disabilities. The definition of disability in this context (i.e. for entitlement to a disability 
pension) is simply a medical assessment (cf. Article 18), which states that disability must 
be at least 75 % long-term due to the consequences of medically recognised diseases or 
disability. It remains to be seen whether the coexistence of the Convention on the Rights 
of People with Disabilities (CRPD) and social security definitions will be problematic. 

d)  Duties  to  provide  reasonable  accommodation  in  areas  other  than  employment  for 

people with disabilities 

In  Iceland,  there  is  no  explicit  general  duty  to  provide  reasonable  accommodation  for 
people with disabilities outside the field of employment. However, Article 7 of the Act on 
the Affairs of Persons with Disabilities No. 59/1992 states that people with disabilities are 
entitled to all general services provided by the state and the local authorities. It shall be 
endeavoured to provide services in accordance with the general legislation on education, 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
health and social services, but where the needs exceed the scope of general legislation, 
services  shall  be  provided  on  the  basis  of  the  AAPD.  The  Act  on  Secondary  Schools  No. 
92/200870  sets  out  a  form  of  reasonable  accommodation  for  students  with  disabilities. 
Article 34 stipulates that students with special needs shall be provided with assistance and 
the necessary equipment/accommodation as required. They should study alongside able-
bodied students whenever possible. 

Although  there  is  no  explicit  legal  provision  setting  out  the  duty  to  provide  reasonable 
accommodation  for  people  with  disabilities  in  areas  outside  employment  as  such,  the 
Supreme  Court  has  interpreted  the  general  equality  provisions  of  the  Constitution,  the 
ECHR and the AAPD to  include a reasonable accommodation duty. In the field of higher 
education, the University of Iceland is obliged to accept students with disabilities and to 
make  the  necessary  arrangements  and  to  take  the  general  measures  necessary  to 
accommodate them and to ensure they can avail themselves of the same services as other 
students at the department of their choosing. This was established in the case of  Ragna 
Kristín Guðmundsdóttir v. the University of Iceland, where the court found that, although 
the  needs  of  the  claimant  had  been  accommodated  to  some  extent,  the  lack  of  general 
measures,  a  comprehensive  plan  or  general  guidelines  on  how  to  assist  her  had  led  to 
problems and that she had been forced to personally insist on reasonable accommodation. 
This  entailed  a  breach  of  her  personal  rights  and  the  right  to  education,  and  she  was 
awarded non-pecuniary damages.71  

e) 

Failure to meet the duty of reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities 

In Iceland, failure to meet the duty of reasonable accommodation does not clearly count 
as discrimination. 

Although national legislation does not contain an explicit provision setting out the duty to 
provide  reasonable  accommodation  for  people  with  disabilities  in  areas  outside 
employment, the Supreme Court has interpreted the  provisions of the legislation on the 
affairs of persons with disabilities in the light of Article 65 of the Constitution and Article 
14 of the ECHR with respect to the right to education (cf. Article 2 Annex 1 ECHR) to entail 
a positive duty of the state to promote the rights of people with disabilities.72  

Article 42 of the Act on Municipal Social Services No. 40/199173 sets out a positive duty for 
the authorities to work towards ensuring equality for people with intellectual, psycho-social 
and physical disabilities, and towards ensuring living conditions comparable with those of 
other citizens. People with disabilities shall be ensured conditions that enable them to lead 
as normal a life as possible. There is no definition of direct or indirect discrimination enacted 
in relation to the protected grounds. No specific sanction for the failure to meet the duty 
to provide reasonable accommodation is set out in national law. 

f) 

Duties to provide reasonable accommodation in respect of other grounds 

In  Iceland,  there  is  no  duty  to  provide  reasonable  accommodation  in  respect  of  other 
grounds in the public or the private sector. 

70  Iceland, Act on Secondary Schools [Lög um framhaldsskóla], No. 92/2008, 12 June 2008. 
71   Supreme Court of Iceland, Ragna Kristín Guðmundsdóttir v. University of Iceland, Case No. 177/1998, 4 

February 1999. 

72   Supreme Court of Iceland, Berglind Stefánsdóttir and Félag heyrnalausra v. State Broadcasting Service, 

Case No. 151/1999, 6 May 1999. 

73   Iceland, Act on Municipal Social Services [Lög um félagsþjónustu sveitarfélaga], No. 40/1991, 27 March 

1991. 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
g) 

Accessibility of services, buildings and infrastructure  

In  Iceland,  national  law  requires  services  available  to  the  public,  buildings  and 
infrastructure to be designed and built in a disability-accessible way. However, failure to 
comply with accessibility requirements would not explicitly constitute discrimination.  The 
Icelandic  Federation  of  Disabled  People  (Öryrkjabandalag  Íslands  –  ÖBÍ)  has  called  for 
inspections to monitor compliance with accessibility requirements to be enhanced.  

Article  34  of  the  Act  on  the  Affairs  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  states  that  municipalities 
shall  address  the  accessibility  issues  of  people  with  disabilities  systematically,  including 
through  the  adoption  of  plans  on  improving  accessibility  in  public  buildings  and  service 
institutions, in accordance with planning and building laws and secondary legislation based 
thereon. 

The Planning Act No. 123/2010,74 and the secondary legislation, Planning Regulation No. 
90/2013 as amended,75 and the Building Act No. 160/2010 and the secondary legislation, 
the  Building  Regulation  No.  112/2012  as  amended,76  set  out  numerous  requirements  in 
relation to buildings and urban planning to ensure accessibility for people with disabilities 
and universal design. Article 1(e) of the Planning Act stipulates that the aim of the law is, 
inter alia, to ensure the professional preparation of buildings and infrastructure regarding 
e.g. structure and universal access, and Article 2 contains definitions of universal design 
and access. Article 1(e) of the Building Act stipulates that its aim is, inter alia, to ensure 
universal access and the provisions in Article 3 (1) and (2) contain definitions of universal 
access and universal design.  

In  Iceland,  national  law  does  not  contain  a  general  duty  to  provide  accessibility  by 
anticipation for people with disabilities.  

An  important  case  where  it  was  determined  that  a  lack  of  accessibility  constituted 
discrimination concerned the right to political participation. The Supreme Court ruled that 
the National Broadcasting Company (Ríkisútvarpið – RÚV), had a duty to interpret political 
candidates’ speeches simultaneously into sign language on the night before elections. It 
was obliged to ensure equality when carrying out its legally prescribed role in relation to 
elections  (cf.  Article  15  of  the  Broadcasting  Act  No.  68/198577),  not  only  in  respect  of 
candidates  and  political  parties,  but  also  in  respect  of  viewers.  Therefore,  RÚV  should 
arrange the broadcast of candidates’ speeches in a manner accessible to deaf people (cf. 
also  the  AAPD).  In  this  case,  the  court  ruled  that  RÚV  had  not  sufficiently  justified  the 
discrimination  entailed  in  its  decision  not  to  provide  sign-language  interpreting  of  the 
candidates’ speeches, as it was clear that this was technically feasible and the broadcast 
was to take place the day before elections.78 

h) 

Accessibility of public documents 

The Act on the Status of the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language No. 61/2011 
stipulates  that  Icelandic  Braille  is  the  first  written  language  of  those  who  rely  on  it  for 
expression and communication. People using Braille are entitled to all public information in 
Braille79 and have the right to ask the National Institute for the Blind, Visually Impaired 
and Deafblind [Þjónustu- og þekkingarmiðstöð fyrir blinda, sjónskerta og einstaklinga með 
samþætta sjón- og heyrnarskerðingu] — a public body governed by the Ministry of Welfare 

74   Iceland, Planning Act [Skipulagslög], No. 123/2010, 27 March 2010. 
75   Iceland, Planning Regulation [Skipulagsreglugerð], No. 90/2013, 16 January 2013. 
76   Iceland, Building Regulation [Byggingarreglugerð], No. 112/2012, 24 January 2012.  
77   Iceland, Broadcasting Act [Útvarpslög], No. 68/1985, 27 June 1985.  
78   Supreme Court of Iceland, Berglind Stefánsdóttir and Félag heyrnalausra v. State Broadcasting Service, 

Case No. 151/1999, Supreme Court Judgment of 6 May 1999. 

79   Iceland, Act on the status of the Icelandic language and Icelandic sign language [Lög um stöðu íslenskrar 

tungu og íslensks táknmáls] No. 61/2011, 7 June 2011, Article 3. 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
— to convert text to Braille when needed, free of charge. However, as all public documents 
and information are available in digital form, the use of refreshable Braille display or Braille 
terminals to access information is more common.  

The Act on the status of the Icelandic language and Icelandic sign language No. 61/2011 
stipulates that the Icelandic sign language is the first language of those who rely on it for 
expression  and  communication,  and  of  their  children.80  Central  and  local  authorities  are 
obliged to ensure that all those who need Icelandic sign language services have access to 
them.81 Article 5 paragraph 4 of the Act on the Rights of Patients No. 74/199782 also sets 
out the right to interpreting services in relation to health services.  

The Communication Centre for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing83 — a public body under the 
auspices  of  the  Ministry  of  Education,  Science  and  Culture  —  provides  sign  language 
interpreting  services  for  deaf  people.  Interpreting  services  relating  to  all  public  services 
are  provided  when  needed,  free  of  charge.  In  the  private  sphere,  e.g.  in  relation  to 
employment issues, participation in courses and residents’ association meetings, fees for 
interpreting  services  may  be  covered  by  a  special  state  fund.  In  practice,  private 
organisations providing ‘public services’, such as homes for the elderly, private universities 
and alcohol and drug rehabilitation centres, do not always consider that their institutions 
are obliged to cover the cost of interpreting.  

An important case concerning the right to interpreting services, Snædís Rán Hjartardóttir 
v.  the  Communication  Centre  for  the  Deaf  and  Hard  of  Hearing  and  the  Icelandic  State 
and, in reserve, the City of Reykjavík, was decided in June 2015.84 Article 76, paragraph 1 
of the Icelandic Constitution sets out that the law shall guarantee everyone the assistance 
that they require in case of sickness, disability, infirmity due to old age, unemployment or 
similar  circumstances.  Deafblind  people  such  as  the  applicant  rely  on  the  services  of 
specialised tactile sign interpreters to communicate and are entitled to certain minimum 
assistance regardless of means – cf. Article 76 and the equality provision of the Constitution 
(Article 65). The Communication Centre for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing is charged with 
providing sign language interpreting services for deaf  and deafblind people. Interpreting 
services  relating to all public services are to be provided where  they  are needed free of 
charge. However, in recent years, the annual allocation of funds from the state budget to 
the centre has not been sufficient to cover  its needs. The centre’s policy was to provide 
interpreting  services  on  application,  without  any  discrimination  and  free  of  charge,  until 
the funds ran out. The result was that those in need of services early in the year got them, 
but those with the same or greater need applying later in the year did not.  

In this case, the applicant claimed that the Communication Centre for the Deaf and Hard 
of Hearing had unlawfully denied free sign language interpreting from 7 October 2014. The 
District  Court  of  Reykjavík  found  that,  in  all  likelihood,  the  constitutionally  protected 
minimum services that users were entitled to in 2014 could not be covered by the limited 
funds  allocated  to  the  centre.  As  national  law  did  not  clearly  define  what  constitutes 
minimum assistance, all applications for interpreting services were accepted until the funds 
ran  out,  leaving  those  in  need  later  in  the  year,  such  as  the  applicant,  to  pay  for  the 
services  themselves.  Because  of  this  approach,  the  distinction  between  constitutionally 
protected  minimum  social  assistance,  to  be  provided  free  of  charge  and  without 
discrimination, and other services which applicants paid for was blurred in the case of free 

80   Iceland, Act on the status of the Icelandic language and Icelandic sign language [Lög um stöðu íslenskrar 

tungu og íslensks táknmáls] No. 61/2011, 7 June 2011, Article 4. 

81   Iceland, Act on the status of the Icelandic language and Icelandic sign language [Lög um stöðu íslenskrar 

tungu og íslensks táknmáls] No. 61/2011, Article 13. 

82   Iceland, Act on the Rights of Patients [Lög um réttindi sjúklinga], No. 74/1997, 28 May 1997. 
83   Iceland, Act on the Communication Centre for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing [Lög um Samskiptamiðstöð 

heyrnarlausra og heyrnarskertra] No. 31/1990, 31 December 1990. 

84   Reykjavik District Court, Snædís Rán Hjartardóttir v. the Communication Centre for the Deaf and Hard of 
Hearing and the Icelandic State and, in reserve, the City of Reykjavík, Case No. E-327/2015, Judgment of 
30 June 2015.  

46 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
sign  language  interpreting  services.  Furthermore,  this  procedure  discriminated  between 
applicants based on what time of year they needed the services, in violation of the equality 
provisions of the Constitution and constitutional and administrative law.  

Taking into account the failure of the state to regulate the minimum rights of people with 
disabilities to adequate sign language interpreting services, the court found that the state 
should bear the cost of the services provided to the applicant after October 2014. Because 
she  had  been  refused  free  interpreting  services,  the  applicant’s  right  to  minimum 
assistance in accordance with Article 76, paragraph 1 of the Constitution had been violated. 
This right trumps provisions in the state budget governing allocations to free interpreting 
services. The court also awarded the applicant ISK 550 000 (approx. EUR 3 750) in non-
pecuniary damages, as the state had failed to fulfil its obligation to establish a system to 
guarantee her minimum assistance (cf. Art. 76, para.1), resulting in a diminished quality 
of life and in social exclusion.85  

A recent case worth mention in this context is Áslaug Ýr Hjartardóttir v. the Communication 
Centre for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing and the Icelandic State, No.464/2017 decided on 
9 November 2017. A asked that the decision of the Communication Centre for the  Deaf 
and Hard of Hearing to deny her free sign language interpreting services for a summer-
camp stay abroad be annulled. The Supreme Court agreed with the District Court that the 
decision had been lawful and proportionate, based on the available funds, as the cost would 
have  amounted  to  18  %  of  the  Centre’s  budget  for  the  period  of  July-September  2017. 
Paying for A’s interpreting needs would have emptied the coffers and been discriminatory 
towards other applicants in need of free sign language interpreting services. 

85   Reykjavík District Court, Snædís Rán Hjartardóttir v. Communication Centre for the Deaf and Hard of 

Hearing and the Icelandic State and, in reserve, the City of Reykjavík, Case No. E-327/2015, 30 June 2015.  

47 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3 

PERSONAL AND MATERIAL SCOPE  

3.1  Personal scope 

3.1.1  EU  and  non-EU  nationals  (Recital  13  and  Article  3(2)  Directive  2000/43 

and Recital 12 and Article 3(2) Directive 2000/78) 

In  Iceland,  there  are  no  residence  or  citizenship/nationality  requirements  for  protection 
under the relevant national laws transposing the directives. The directives have not been 
transposed. However, general equality and non-discrimination provisions would apply to 
non-EEA citizens in relation to the grounds enumerated, e.g. disability, sexual orientation, 
race, etc. 

3.1.2  Natural and legal persons (Recital 16 Directive 2000/43) 

a) 

Protection against discrimination 

In Iceland, the personal scope of anti-discrimination law does not cover (certain) natural 
and/or legal persons for the purpose of protection against discrimination. 

In  Iceland,  the  directives  have  not  been  transposed  and  there  is  no  general  anti-
discrimination legislation in force. National legislation does not provide special protection 
for legal persons where they suffer discrimination on  the grounds of the racial or ethnic 
origin of their members (or on any other grounds), nor explicit provisions distinguishing 
between natural and legal persons for the purposes of protection against discrimination. 
In  this  context,  it  should  be  noted  that  any  individual,  association  or  institution,  which 
bears  rights  or  duties  under  national  law,  can  be  party  to  a  court  case.86  The  general 
principle concerning legal standing is that for an application to be admissible, the claimant 
must  satisfy  the  requirement  of  having  a  personal,  direct  interest,  that  is,  a  ‘legally 
protected interest’. 

b) 

Liability for discrimination  

In Iceland, the personal scope of anti-discrimination law does not cover (certain) natural 
and/or legal persons for the purpose of liability for discrimination. 

The  directives  have  not  been  transposed  and  there  is  no  general  anti-discrimination 
legislation in force. National legislation does not provide explicit provisions distinguishing 
between natural and legal persons for the purposes of liability for discrimination. In this 
context, it should be noted that any individual, association or institution, which bears rights 
or duties under national law, can be party to a court case.87  

3.1.3  Private and public sector, including public bodies (Article 3(1)) 

a) 

Protection against discrimination 

In  Iceland,  the  personal  scope  of  national  law  covers  the  private  and  public  sectors, 
including public bodies, for the purpose of protection against discrimination.  

The  directives  have  not  been  transposed  and  there  is  no  general  anti-discrimination 
legislation in force. However, some discriminatory acts in relation to the protected grounds 
could fall under the scope of Article 26 of the Tort Damages Act No. 50/1993,88 although 
no cases of this sort have been tried. For the public sector, Article 11 of the Administrative 

86   Iceland, Act on Civil Procedure [Lög um meðferð einkamála] No. 91/1991, 32 December 1991, Article 16(1).  
87   Iceland, Act on Civil Procedure [Lög um meðferð einkamála] No. 91/1991, 32 December 1991, Article 16(1).  
88   Iceland, Tort Damages Act [Skaðabótalög], No. 50/1993, 19 May 1993.   

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
Procedures Act No. 37/199389 stipulates that administrative authorities shall ensure legal 
harmony  and  equality  in  decisions,  and  that  discrimination  between  individual  parties 
based on views relating to, inter alia, race, colour, national origin, religion, political opinion, 
social  status  or  family  origins,  is  prohibited.  Discrimination  on  the  basis  of  nationality, 
colour,  race,  religion,  sexual  orientation  and  gender  identity  could  also  fall  under  the 
General Penal Code No. 19/1940.90 

b) 

Liability for discrimination 

In  Iceland,  the  personal  scope  of  anti-discrimination  law  covers  the  private  and  public 
sectors, including public bodies, for the purpose of liability for discrimination. 

The  directives  have  not  been  transposed  and  there  is  no  general  anti-discrimination 
legislation in force. However, some discriminatory acts in relation to the protected grounds 
could fall under the scope of Article 26 of the Tort Damages Act No. 50/1993, although no 
cases of this sort have been tried. For the public sector, Article 11 of the Administrative 
Procedures  Act  No.  37/1993  stipulates  that  administrative  authorities  shall  ensure  legal 
harmony  and  equality  in  decisions,  and  that  discrimination  between  individual  parties 
based on views relating to, inter alia, race, colour, national origin, religion, political opinion, 
social  status  or  family  origins,  is  prohibited.  Discrimination  on  the  basis  of  nationality, 
colour,  race,  religion,  sexual  orientation  and  gender  identity  could  also  fall  under  the 
General Penal Code No. 19/1940. 

3.2  Material scope 

3.2.1  Employment, self-employment and occupation  

In  Iceland,  national  legislation  does  not  apply  to  all  sectors  of  private  and  public 
employment,  self-employment  and  occupation,  including  contract  work,  military  service 
and holding statutory office, for the five grounds.  

The  directives  have  not  been  transposed  into  national  law.  No  comprehensive  anti-
discrimination legislation applies. There is no military in Iceland.  

3.2.2  Conditions for access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation, 
including  selection  criteria,  recruitment  conditions  and  promotion, 
whatever  the  branch  of  activity  and  at  all  levels  of  the  professional 
hierarchy (Article 3(1)(a))  

In  Iceland,  national  legislation  does  not  prohibit  discrimination  in  the  following  areas: 
conditions for access to employment, self-employment or occupation, including selection 
criteria, recruitment conditions and promotion, whatever the branch of activity and at all 
levels  of  the  professional  hierarchy,  for  the  five  grounds,  in  both  the  private  and  public 
sectors,  as  described  in  the  directives.  There  are  no  provisions  specifically  prohibiting 
discrimination  against  migrants  when  it  comes  to  employment.  Studies  show  that,  on 
average, the income of immigrants is lower than that of the general population and only a 
small  minority  hold  jobs  where  their  education  is  fully  utilised.  See  11.1  for  further 
information. 

Some discriminatory acts in relation to the aforementioned fields could fall under the scope 
of Article 26 of the  Tort Damages Act  No. 50/1993,  although no cases of this sort have 
been  tried.  For  the  public  sector,  Article  11  of  the  Administrative  Procedures  Act  No. 
37/1993 stipulates that administrative authorities shall ensure legal harmony and equality 
in decisions, and that discrimination between individual parties based on views relating to, 

89   Iceland, Administrative Procedures Act [Stjórnsýslulög], No. 37/1993, 30 April 1993.  
90   Iceland, [Almenn hegningarlög], No. 19/1940, 12 February 1940.  

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
inter  alia,  race,  colour,  national  origin,  religion,  political  opinion,  social  status  or  family 
origins is prohibited. 

3.2.3  Employment and working conditions, including pay and dismissals (Article 

3(1)(c)) 

In  Iceland,  national  legislation  prohibits  discrimination  in  the  following  areas:  working 
conditions including pay and dismissals, for all five grounds and for both private and public 
employment. 

The directives have not been transposed. Working conditions are, however, dealt with in 
the Act on Workers’ Terms of Employment and Pensions No. 55/1980,91 Article 1, which 
stipulates that wages and other working terms agreed between the social partners shall be 
considered minimum terms, independent of sex, nationality or term of appointment, for all 
wage  earners  in  the  relevant  occupation  within  the  area  covered  by  the  collective 
agreement.  Contracts  made  between  individual  wage  earners  and  employers  on  less 
favourable working terms than those specified in the general collective agreement shall be 
void. This is a general rule, which would apply in relation to the grounds of discrimination 
covered  by  the  directives.  In  addition,  it  should  be  noted  that  Article  2  of  the  Act  on 
Mandatory  Pension  Insurance  and  the  Operations  of  Pension  Funds  No.  129/199792 
stipulates  that it is  prohibited  to  deny  a  person  membership  of  an  occupational  pension 
fund on the grounds of health, age, civil status, family size or gender. Neither disability 
nor sexual orientation are enumerated, but disability could in some instances come under 
‘health’. 

3.2.3.1  Occupational pensions constituting part of pay 

National  law  does  not  explicitly  prohibit  discrimination  on  all  the  grounds  covered  by 
Directive 2000/78/EC. However, working conditions are dealt with in the Act on Workers’ 
Terms  of Employment and Pensions No. 55/1980, Article 1, which stipulates that  wages 
and other working terms agreed between the social partners shall be considered minimum 
terms, independent of sex, nationality or term of appointment, for all wage earners in the 
relevant occupation within the area covered by the collective agreement. Contracts made 
between  individual  wage  earners  and  employers  on  less  favourable  working  terms  – 
including on occupational pensions constituting part of pay  – than those specified in the 
general collective agreement are void. This is a general rule, which would apply in relation 
to the grounds of discrimination covered by the directives. In addition, it should be noted 
that Article 2 of the Act on Mandatory Pension Insurance and the Operations of Pension 
Funds  No.  129/1997  stipulates  that  it  is  prohibited  to  deny  a  person  membership  of  an 
occupational pension fund on the grounds of health, age, civil status, family size or gender. 
Neither  disability  nor  sexual  orientation  are  enumerated,  but  disability  could  in  some 
instances fall under ‘health’. 

3.2.4  Access  to  all  types  and  to  all  levels  of  vocational  guidance,  vocational 
training,  advanced  vocational  training  and  retraining,  including  practical 
work experience (Article 3(1)(b)) 

In  Iceland,  national  anti-discrimination  legislation  does  not  apply  to  vocational  training 
outside the employment relationship, such as adult lifelong learning courses or vocational 
training provided by technical schools or universities.  

Access to vocational training based on the employment relationship would be governed by 
collective agreement and thus by the Act on Workers’ Terms of Employment and Pensions 

91  Iceland, Act on Workers’ Terms of Employment and Pensions [Lög um starfskjör launafólks og 

skyldutryggingu lífeyrisréttindi], No. 55/1980, 9 June 1980. 

92   Iceland, Act on Mandatory Pension Insurance and the Operations of Pension Funds [Lög um skyldutryggingu 

lífeyrisréttinda og starfsemi lífeyrissjóða], No. 129/1997, 23 December 1997. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
No.  55/1980,  Article  1,  which  stipulates  that  wages  and  other  working  terms  agreed 
between  the  social  partners  shall  be  considered  minimum  terms,  independent  of  sex, 
nationality or term of appointment, for all wage earners in the relevant occupation within 
the area covered by the  collective agreement. Contracts made between individual wage 
earners and employers on less favourable working terms than those specified in the general 
collective agreement are void. This is a general rule, which would apply in relation to the 
grounds of discrimination covered by the directives. 

3.2.5  Membership  of,  and  involvement  in,  an  organisation  of  workers  or 
employers,  or  any  organisation  whose  members  carry  on  a  particular 
profession,  including  the  benefits  provided  for  by  such  organisations 
(Article 3(1)(d)) 

In  Iceland,  national  legislation  does  not  prohibit  discrimination  in  the  following  areas: 
membership of, and involvement in workers’ or employers’ organisations as formulated in 
the directives for all five grounds and for both private and public employment. 

Directives  2000/78/EC  and  2000/43/EC  have  not  been  transposed.  The  Act  on  Trade 
Unions  and  Trade  Disputes  No.  80/1938,93  which  applies  to  both  the  private  and  public 
sectors, sets out that membership of trade unions shall be open to all workers employed 
in  the  respective  area  (cf.  Article  2).  In  practice,  trade  unions  accept  all  applicants, 
irrespective  of  nationality,  origin,  religion  or  sexual  orientation.  Foreign  nationals  may 
stand for election and participate in union work on an equal footing with citizens. Similarly, 
professional 
all 
enterprises/employers operating or qualified in the respective fields. There is, however, no 
comprehensive  anti-discrimination  law  in  force  in  this  sector,  and  no  prohibition  of 
discrimination  has  been  enacted  with  regard  to  membership  of,  and  involvement  in, 
organisations for workers  or  employers, or other professional organisations, and related 
benefits. 

organisations 

associations 

employers’ 

open 

and 

are 

to 

3.2.6  Social protection, including social security and healthcare (Article 3(1)(e) 

Directive 2000/43) 

In  Iceland, national legislation does not explicitly prohibit discrimination in the following 
areas:  social  protection,  including  social  security  and  healthcare,  as  formulated  in  the 
Racial  Equality  Directive.  There  are  no  provisions  specifically  prohibiting  discrimination 
against migrants when it comes to access to social security and healthcare. 

Directive  2000/43/EC  has  not  been  transposed.  No  comprehensive  legislation  on 
discrimination has been adopted, but an anti-discrimination provision can be found relating 
to healthcare in Article 1 of the Act on the Rights of Patients No. 74/1997, which provides 
that any discrimination between patients on the grounds of sex, religion, opinion, ethnic 
origin, race, colour, property, family origins or other status is prohibited. The commentary 
to the draft law states that ‘other status’ includes disability and age. In relation to social 
protection, Article 42 of the Act on Municipal Social Services No. 40/1991 sets out that the 
authorities shall work towards ensuring equality for persons with intellectual, psycho-social 
and physical disabilities, including living conditions comparable with those of other citizens. 
Persons with disabilities shall be ensured conditions that enable them to lead as normal a 
life as possible. 

3.2.6.1  Article 3.3 exception (Directive 2000/78) 

National law does not set out exceptions for social security and healthcare based on religion 
or belief, age, disability or sexual orientation. 

93   Iceland, Act on Trade Unions and Trade Disputes [Lög um stéttarfélög og vinnudeilur], No. 80/1938, 11 

June 1938. 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.2.7  Social advantages (Article 3(1)(f) Directive 2000/43) 

In Iceland, national legislation does not prohibit discrimination in the following area: social 
advantages as formulated in the Racial Equality Directive.  

The lack of definition of social advantages does not raise problems per se, as there is no 
legislation in place prohibiting discrimination in the provision of social advantages. 

In Iceland, national law does not prohibit discrimination based on race or ethnic origin in 
relation to ‘social advantages’. In the public sector, discrimination of this sort is likely to 
constitute  a  breach  of  the  equality  principle  codified  in  Article  11  of  the  Administrative 
Procedures Act. In the private sector, a case could possibly be brought under Article 26(b) 
of the  Tort  Damages Act No. 50/1993.  The Article stipulates that compensation may be 
awarded  for  personal  injury  from  unlawful  wrongdoing,  which  breaches  the  freedom, 
peace, honour or person of the victim. 

3.2.8  Education (Article 3(1)(g) Directive 2000/43) 

In  Iceland,  national  legislation  does  not  prohibit  discrimination  in  the  following  area: 
education  as  formulated  in  the  Racial  Equality  Directive.  However,  provisions  on  anti-
discrimination  can  be  found  in  a  number  of  laws  and  policies  and  these  apply  to  non-
nationals  on  an  equal  footing  with  nationals.  There  are  no  special  policies  in  place  to 
address discrimination against non-nationals in education and no cases in this field have 
been adjudicated.  

Article  24  of  the  Act  on  Compulsory  Schools  No.  91/200894  stipulates  that  in  the 
organisation  of  study  and  instruction,  and  in  producing  and  selecting  study  materials, 
special effort shall be made to ensure that all pupils have equal study opportunities and a 
chance to select subjects and learning approaches in their own education. The objectives 
and practice of study and instruction shall be organised so that discrimination on the basis 
of  origin,  gender,  sexual  orientation,  residence,  social  class,  religion,  health  condition, 
disability or situation in general is prevented. There are no sanctions set out for breaches 
of this provision. 

The  national  curricula  for  primary  schools,  compulsory  schools  and  upper  secondary 
schools  set  out  the  framework  and  conditions  for  learning  and  teaching  based  on  the 
principles  of  existing  laws,  regulations  and  international  conventions.  The  curricula 
stipulate that equality is a fundamental pillar of the Icelandic education system. Equality 
shall be guaranteed in the substance of education on the one hand and the study methods 
and learning environment on the other.  Characteristics  to be taken into account include 
age,  class,  culture,  origin,  gender,  disability,  language,  nationality,  life  views,  race, 
religion, residence and sexual orientation.95 There are no specific sanctions set out in this 
context. 

In relation to integration, it should be noted that the legislation governing compulsory and 
secondary education (Acts Nos. 91/2008 and 92/2008) contains provisions on the rights 
of children with a mother tongue other than Icelandic to special classes in Icelandic as a 
second language, as well as support to maintain knowledge of their mother tongue through 
elective classes, distance learning or other means. There is no segregation in the education 
system. Schools should also adopt special ‘reception plans’ for migrant children, containing 
information  on  school  activities,  interpreters,  etc.  The  number  of  children  of  immigrant 
origin has increased steadily from 2004, in both kindergartens and compulsory education. 
In 2015, 2 435 kindergarten pupils had a mother tongue other than Icelandic, as did 3 543 

94   Iceland, Act on Compulsory Schools [Lög um grunnskóla], No. 91/2008, 12 June 2008.  
95   The curricula can be found in English on the website of the Icelandic Ministry of Education, Science and 

Culture: www.menntamalaraduneyti.is/utgefid-efni/namskrar/adalnamskra-framhaldsskola/. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
compulsory education pupils. Recent studies show that, despite the efforts in the education 
system, limited reading literacy in Icelandic hampers the studies of many of these children 
and the low numbers of young people of immigrant origin graduating from high school is 
a serious problem.96 

The  main  Icelandic  universities,  both  public  and  private,  have  adopted  comprehensive 
equality policies. These generally include  prohibition of  discrimination on the grounds of 
sex,  sexual  orientation,  age,  disability,  colour  and  religion.  The  largest  institution,  the 
public  University  of  Iceland,  adds  gender  identity  and  expression,  nationality,  health, 
origin, opinion, culture and other status. 

a) 

Pupils with disabilities 

In  Iceland,  the  general  approach  to  education  for  pupils  with  disabilities  does  not  raise 
problems.  

The policy on education for children with disabilities is based on the principle of inclusive 
education: they should attend mainstream schools. Article 7 of the Act on the Affairs  of 
Persons  with  Disabilities  No.  59/1992  stipulates  that  people  with  disabilities  shall  be 
entitled to all general services provided by central and local government. Attempts shall 
be made at all times to provide them with services according to general statutes in the 
field  of  education  and  health  services  and  social  services.  If  the  needs  of  a  person  with 
disabilities prove to be too great to be met within the framework of general services, the 
individual should receive services under the Act on the Affairs of Persons with Disabilities.  

Children are entitled to attend nursery school and compulsory schooling in the municipality 
in  which  they  have  legal  residence.  Article  19  of  the  Act  on  the  Affairs  of  Persons  with 
Disabilities  stipulates  that  children  with  disabilities  are  entitled  to  schooling  in  general 
nursery schools and that they shall be provided with the necessary support to make this 
possible. Article 17 of the Act on Compulsory Schools No. 91/2008 stipulates that students 
with special needs are entitled to services in inclusive general schools, without distinction 
based  on  physical  or  mental  ability.  Pupils  with  disabilities  should  receive  support,  if 
needed.  

Secondary school pupils with special needs should have access to specialist assistance and 
study alongside other students, as far as possible (cf. Article 34 of the Act on Secondary 
Schools No. 92/2008). Many secondary schools have special departments, vocational study 
programmes and other courses specifically designed for students with disabilities. Children 
with  hearing  impairments  are  entitled  to  classes  teaching  Icelandic  sign  language  and 
visually impaired children are entitled to classes teaching Braille.  

It should be noted that, in practice, the implementation of inclusive education has been 
challenging.  Concerns  have  been  raised  that  schools  need  more  financial  and  human 
resources to give pupils with disabilities the support they need to be able to study in the 
general education system.  

Although  there  is  no  explicit  legal  provision  setting  out  the  duty  to  provide  reasonable 
accommodation  for  people  with  disabilities  in  areas  outside  employment,  the  Supreme 
Court has interpreted the general equality provisions of the Constitution, the ECHR and the 
Act  on  the  Affairs  of  People  with  Disabilities,  to  include  a  duty  to  provide  reasonable 
accommodation. In the case of Ragna Kristín Guðmundsdóttir v. the University of Iceland, 
the Supreme Court established that the University of Iceland is obliged to accept students 
with disabilities and to make the necessary arrangements and to take the general measures 

96   Multicultural Centre, Statistical Information on Foreign Citizens and Immigrants in Iceland 2016 

[‘Tölfræðilegar upplýsingar um erlenda ríkisborgara og innflytjendur á Íslandi 2016‘], September 2016, p. 
20. 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
necessary  to  accommodate  them  and  to  ensure  they  can  avail  themselves  of  the  same 
services  as  other  students,  in  the  department  of  their  choosing.97  The  court  found  that 
although the needs of the claimant, a student with disabilities, had been accommodated 
to some extent, the lack of general measures, a comprehensive plan or general guidelines 
on how to assist her had led to problems, and that she had been forced to personally insist 
on reasonable accommodation. This entailed a breach of her personal rights and the right 
to education and she was awarded non-pecuniary damages.  

b) 

Trends and patterns regarding Roma pupils 

In  Iceland,  there  are  no  specific  patterns,  such  as  segregation,  existing  in  education 
regarding Roma pupils.  

No identified Roma have settled in Iceland, so they are not formally acknowledged as an 
ethnic minority. In relation to integration, it should be noted that the legislation governing 
compulsory  and  secondary  education  (the  aforementioned  Acts  Nos.  91/2008  and 
92/2008)  contains  provisions  on  the  rights  of  children  with  a  mother  tongue  other  than 
Icelandic to special classes in Icelandic as a second language, as well as support to maintain 
knowledge  of  their  mother  tongue  through  elective  classes,  distance  learning  or  other 
means.  Schools  should  also  adopt  special  ‘reception  plans’  for  immigrant  children, 
containing information on school activities, interpreters, etc.  

3.2.9  Access to and supply of goods and services which are available to the public 

(Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) 

In  Iceland,  national  legislation  prohibits  discrimination in  access  to  and  supply  of  goods 
and services as formulated in the Racial Equality Directive. 

Article 180 of the General Penal Code No. 19/1940 provides that denying a person service, 
or access to any public area or place intended for public use, on account of that person’s 
nationality,  colour,  race,  religion,  sexual  orientation  or  gender  identity  is  punishable  by 
fines or imprisonment  of up to six months. Neither age nor disability are  covered under 
this provision. 

3.2.9.1  Distinction between goods and services available publicly or privately 

In Iceland, national law does not distinguish between goods and services available to the 
public (e.g. in shops, restaurants, banks) and those only available privately (e.g. limited 
to members of a private association). 

3.2.10  Housing (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) 

In Iceland, national legislation does not prohibit discrimination in housing as formulated in 
the  Racial  Equality  Directive.  No  explicit  provisions  have  been  adopted  to  ensure  non-
discrimination in relation to access to housing irrespective of race or ethnic origin.  

It  should,  however,  be  noted  in  this  context  that  a  2014  study  conducted  by  the 
Multicultural Centre demonstrated that 31 % of the respondents (who were immigrants), 
or  someone  close  to  them,  had  experienced  negative  attitudes  when  trying  to  rent  an 
apartment.98 Studies have shown that immigrants are more likely to live in rented housing 
compared to other residents. A 2015 study of Polish people (the largest immigrant group 
in Iceland), demonstrated that 63 %  of the respondents lived in rented flats (the figure 

97   Supreme Court of Iceland, Ragna Kristín Guðmundsdóttir v. University of Iceland, Case No.177/1998, 4 

February 1999.  

98   Arnardóttir, E. and Haraldsson, R. H. (2014), Uppruni og fjölþætt mismunun, Ísafjörður: 

Fjölmenningarsetur.  

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
was  14  %  for  Icelandic  households  in  2013).99  There  is  also  considerable  difference  in 
housing ownership based on origin. Reykjavík, where most non-nationals live, is currently 
suffering  a  severe  housing  crisis.  This  and  discriminatory  attitudes  have  left  some 
immigrants struggling to find adequate rented housing. When it comes to home ownership, 
in 2015, 81.2 % of people born in Iceland owned their homes, 20 % of them debt-free. 
For foreign-born citizens, the figure was 56.5 %, of whom 20 % were debt-free. When it 
comes  to  equity,  there  is  considerable  difference  between  foreign  and  Icelandic-born 
people; foreign nationals have 25 % less equity and the gap has been growing since 2007. 
Similarly, the number of Icelanders struggling with a ‘housing cost burden’ (40 % or more 
of disposable income goes towards paying for housing) has decreased from 13.1 % in 2006 
to 7.9 % in 2014, while this percentage fluctuates for foreign-born inhabitants and in 2014 
was approximately 8 %.100 One of the actions set out in the government’s National Action 
Plan on Immigration 2016-2019 aims to ensure that immigrants have the same access to 
the housing market as other residents.101 

There is no prohibition of discrimination on the basis of disability in relation  to access to 
housing. Chapter VI of the Act on the Affairs of Persons with Disabilities simply stipulates 
that social services should, as far as possible, be available to enable people with disabilities 
to live in their own homes, and to those using other housing options, in accordance with 
their needs and wishes. Municipalities must ensure that suitable housing is available and 
that the necessary  services are provided. Special housing may be  operated by NGOs  or 
other private entities in residential areas and as close to general public services as possible. 
The Regulation on Home Services for Persons  with Disabilities No. 369/2016 sets  out in 
greater detail the requirements and system governing housing.102  

The Act on the Affairs of the Elderly No. 125/1999103 aims to guarantee that older people 
can  enjoy  a  normal  home  life  for  as  long  as  possible,  but  that  institutional  services  are 
available when necessary. These include care facilities, assisted living and flats designed 
to meet the needs  of the elderly (cf. Article 14 of the Act  on  the Affairs of the Elderly). 
There is no explicit prohibition of discrimination on the basis of age.  

It should be noted that the General Penal Code No. 19/1940 stipulates in Article 180 that 
denying  a  person  a  service  because  of  that  person’s  nationality,  colour,  race,  religion, 
sexual orientation or gender identity is punishable by fines or imprisonment  of up to six 
months.  This  could  include  housing.  No  case  law  exists  to  clarify  what  constitutes  a 
‘service’. 

3.2.10.1  Trends and patterns regarding housing segregation for Roma 

In  Iceland,  there  are  no  discernible  patterns  of  housing  segregation  and  discrimination 
against the Roma as no identified Roma have settled in Iceland.  

99   Ministry for Welfare, Skýrsla félags- og húsnæðismálaráðherra um stöðu og þróun í málefnum innflytjenda 

árið 2016, May 2016, p. 23. 

100   Multicultural Centre, Statistical Information on Foreign Citizens and Immigrants in Iceland 2016 

[‘Tölfræðilegar upplýsingar um erlenda ríkisborgara og innflytjendur á Íslandi 2016‘], September 2016, p. 
28. 

101  Iceland, Parliamentary Resolution on a National Action Plan on Immigration 2016-2019 [‘Þingsályktun um 

aðgerðaáætlun í málefnum innflytjenda 2016-2019‘], adopted at the 145th Session, 20 September 2016. 

102  Iceland, Regulation on Home Services for People with Disabilities [Reglugerð um þjónustu við fatlað fólk á 

heimili sínu] No. 369/2016, available here: www.reglugerd.is/interpro/dkm/WebGuard.nsf/key2/1054-2010.  

103   Iceland, Act on the Affairs of the Elderly [Lög um málefni aldraðra], No. 125/1999, 31 December 1999. 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4 

EXCEPTIONS 

4.1  Genuine and determining occupational requirements (Article 4) 

In  Iceland,  national  legislation  does  not  provide  for  an  exception  for  genuine  and 
determining occupational requirements.  

4.2  Employers with an ethos based on religion or belief (Article 4(2) Directive 

2000/78) 

In  Iceland,  national  law  does  not  provide  for  an  exception  for  employers  with  an  ethos 
based on religion or belief.  

The Act on Registered Religious Associations No. 108/1999104 does not contain provisions 
to this end. Neither does the Act on the Status, Governing and Functioning of the National 
Church  of  Iceland  No.  78/1997105.  However,  although  no  explicit  provision  sets  this 
condition,  it  is  clear  that  to  be  appointed  to  a  senior  post,  such  as  that  of  bishop,  the 
incumbent would have to be a member of the National Church of Iceland. 

4.3  Armed  forces  and  other  specific  occupations  (Article  3(4)  and  Recital  18 

Directive 2000/78) 

In Iceland, national legislation does not provide for an exception for the armed forces in 
relation to age or disability discrimination (Article 3(4), Directive 2000/78) as Iceland has 
no military. 

4.4  Nationality discrimination (Article 3(2)) 

a)  Discrimination on the ground of nationality 

In Iceland, national law allows difference of treatment based on nationality. However, this 
is generally not framed in the context of an exception to the rule of equality. No provisions 
address discrimination based on statelessness. Iceland is not party to the 1954 and 1961 
UN Statelessness Conventions.  

In Iceland, nationality (as in citizenship) is not explicitly mentioned as a protected ground 
in national anti-discrimination law, but mention should be made of Article 1 of the Act on 
Workers’ Terms of Employment and Pensions No. 55/1980, which sets out that wages and 
other  conditions  negotiated  by  social  partners  shall  be  the  minimum  conditions  for  all 
workers, irrespective of sex, nationality and length of contract, in the relevant occupation 
within the area covered by the collective agreements. Contracts setting out worse working 
terms than those specified in the collective agreements shall be void.106  

It  should  be  noted  that  the  European  Commission  expressed  the  view  that  the  current 
rules107 allowing citizens from the other Nordic countries to vote in municipal elections after 
a  three-year  residence,  whilst  requiring  five-years’  residence  for  other  EU  citizens,  is 

104  Iceland, Act on Registered Religious Associations [Lög um skráð trúfélög og lífsskoðunarfélög], No. 

108/1999, 28 December 1999. 

105  Iceland, Act on the Status, Governing and Functioning of the National Church of Iceland [Lög um stöðu, 

stjórn og starfshætti þjóðkirkjunnar], No. 78/1997, 26 May 1997. 

106  Iceland, Working Terms and Pension Rights Insurance Act [Lög um starfskjör launafólks og skyldutryggingu 

lífeyrisréttinda] No. 55/1980, 9 June 1980. 

107  Iceland, Act on General Elections for Municipal Government [Lög um kosningar til sveitarstjórna] No. 

5/1998, 6 March 1998.  

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
incompatible with the EU acquis.108 So far, the government has not proposed any changes 
to this system. 

It  should  be  noted  that  the  European  Commission  against  Racism  and  Intolerance  has 
urged the government to bring integration measures and services for refugees from the 
asylum system to similar levels as for quota refugees under the new  action plan on  the 
integration  of  non-nationals,  especially  as  concerns  access  to  housing,  employment 
and Icelandic language classes.  

b) 

Relationship between nationality and ‘race or ethnic origin’ 

There is no clear relationship between nationality and race or ethnic origin in the context 
of indirect discrimination, as indirect discrimination on these grounds has not been defined, 
or  explicitly  prohibited  in  national  law.  The  Supreme  Court  has  decided  only  one  case 
concerning race and ethnic origin. The court upheld the conviction of a member of a racist 
organisation for publicly attacking an anonymous group of people in a newspaper interview. 
He  was  found  to  have  derided,  vilified  and  denigrated  Africans  on  the  basis  of  their 
nationality, colour and race. In the interview, the accused expressed his opinions on the 
superiority  of  the  white  race  and  enumerated  various  negative  qualities  he  thought 
characterised Africans. The court ruled that his comments were clearly punishable under 
Article  233a  of  the  General  Penal  Code,  but  did  not  elaborate  on  the  interplay  between 
nationality and ethnicity.109 

4.5  Work-related family benefits (Recital 22 Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Benefits for married employees 

In Iceland, it would constitute unlawful discrimination in national law if an employer only 
provides  benefits  to  employees  who  are  married.  In  the  public  sector,  limiting  certain 
benefits  to  married  employees  would  constitute  a  breach  of  the  principle  of  equality 
enshrined in Article 11 of the Administrative Procedures Act and the Constitution. For the 
private sector, discriminatory granting of benefits could fall under the scope of Article 26 
of the Tort Damages Act No. 50/1993, but no cases of this sort have been tried. 

b) 

Benefits for employees with opposite-sex partners 

In Iceland, it would constitute unlawful discrimination in national law if an employer only 
provides benefits to employees with opposite-sex partners. The civil status of homosexual 
and heterosexual partnerships is the same under national law. In the public sector, limiting 
certain  benefits  to  heterosexual  partners  would  constitute  a  breach  of  the  principle  of 
equality enshrined in Article 11 of the Administrative Procedures Act and the Constitution. 
In the private sector, discriminatory granting of benefits could fall under the scope of Article 
26 of the Tort Damages Act No. 50/1993, but no cases of this sort have been tried.  

4.6  Health and safety (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Exceptions in relation to disability and health/safety 

In Iceland, there are no exceptions in relation to disability and health and safety as allowed 
under Article 7(2) of the Employment Equality Directive. Article 40(b) of the Act on Health 
and  Safety  at  Work  No.  46/1980110  provides  that  the  responsible  minister  may  ask  the 

108  Screening report Iceland, Chapter 23 – Judiciary and fundamental rights, 1 July 2011, available on the DG 

ENLARGE website: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/iceland/key-
documents/screening_report_23_is_internet_en.pdf.  

109  Supreme Court of Iceland, Prosecutor v. Hlynur Freyr Vigfússon. Case No. 461/2001, 24 April 2002. 
110  Iceland, Act on Health and Safety at Work [Lög um aðbúnað, hollustuhætti og öryggi á vinnustöðum], No. 

46/1980, 28 May 1980.  

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Board  of  the  Administration  of  Occupational  Health  and  Safety  to  adopt  rules  on  the 
employment  of  people  with  physical  or  mental  disabilities  for  certain  jobs,  where  their 
disability, disease or age may entail an increased risk of accidents or disease. To date, no 
regulations have been issued under this article. 

There are no exceptions in national law concerning health and safety in relation to other 
grounds,  for  example,  ethnic  origin  or  religion  where  there  may  be  issues  of  dress  or 
personal appearance (turbans, hair, beards, jewellery, etc.). 

4.7  Exceptions related to discrimination on the ground of age (Article 6 Directive 

2000/78) 

4.7.1  Direct discrimination 

In Iceland, there is no general provision against age discrimination. National law provides 
for exceptions for direct discrimination on the ground of age. The exceptions take the form 
of generally justified maximum and minimum age limits with reference to the occupation 
in  question,  unlike  the  situation  dealt  with  by  the  European  Court  of  Justice  in  Case  C-
144/04, Mangold. 

a) 

Justification of direct discrimination on the ground of age 

In  Iceland,  it  is  possible  —  generally  or  in  specific  circumstances  —  to  justify  direct 
discrimination on the ground of age. These exceptions take the form of generally justified 
maximum and minimum age limits with reference to the occupation in question and appear 
to be in line with Article 6, Directive 2000/78/EC.  

b) 

Permitted differences of treatment based on age 

In Iceland, national law permits differences of treatment based on age for activities within 
the material scope of Directive 2000/78/EC.  

The general age limit for entry into the labour market is 16 years. However, to sign valid 
employment contracts, workers must have reached the age of majority, which is 18. The 
Act on Health and Safety at Work No. 46/1980 stipulates that children under the age of 15 
may not be employed, except in exceptional circumstances, e.g. to participate in cultural 
events, sports or advertising activities.111  

Domestic  law  contains  various  provisions  setting  out  age  limits  in  relation  to  specific 
functions and professions. Examples include Article 33 of the Act on the Rights and Duties 
of State Employees No. 70/1996, which stipulates that, to be appointed or hired as a state 
employee,  a  person  must  have  reached  the  age  of  18.  Exceptions  can  be  made  for 
internships,  cleaning  jobs,  couriers  and  certain  other  roles.112  Employees  and  public 
servants (including healthcare professionals) are generally to be relieved of their duties at 
the end of the month after they turn 70 (cf. Article 43).113 However, Article 26 of the Act 
on  Healthcare  Professionals  No.  34/2012  stipulates  that  healthcare  professionals  are 
generally  not  allowed  to  run  private  clinics  after  the  age  of  75.  Nevertheless,  the 
Directorate of Health can prolong permits on application, initially for three years and then 
subsequently for one year at a time.  

111  Iceland, Act on Health and Safety at Work [Lög um aðbúnað, hollustuhætti og öryggi á vinnustöðum] No. 

46/1980, 28 May 1980, Chapter X. 

112  Iceland, Act on the Rights and Duties of State Employees [Lög um réttindi og skyldur starfsmanna ríkisins] 
No. 70/1996, 11 June 1996, Article 6. See also the Act on Health and Safety at Work [Lög um aðbúnað, 
hollustuhætti og öryggi á vinnustöðum] No. 46/1980, 28 May 1980, which contains special provisions on 
work by young people. 

113  Iceland, Act on the Rights and Duties of State Employees [Lög um réttindi og skyldur starfsmanna ríkisins] 

No. 70/1996, 11 June 1996, Article 43. 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  Act  on  the  Police  No.  90/1996  sets  a  minimum  age  limit  for  entry  into  the  Police 
Academy (20 years of age). Entry to senior positions (Head of National Police, Director of 
Police, etc.) is limited to those  who have reached the age of 30. Police officers must be 
relieved of their duties when they reach the age of 65. The Aviation Act No. 60/1998 sets 
the general retirement age for professional pilots and air traffic controllers at 60, with a 
possible  extension  to  65.  Similar  provisions  may  be  found  in  other  laws  governing  the 
rights and duties of specific professions.  

Article  40(b)  of  the  Act  on  Health  and  Safety  at  Work  No.  46/1980  provides  that  the 
Ministry of Welfare may ask the Board of the Administration of Occupational Health and 
Safety to adopt rules on the employment of people with physical or mental disabilities for 
certain jobs, where their disability, disease or age may entail an increased risk of accidents 
or disease. To date, the minister has not issued any regulations under this article. Some 
employment  sectors  set  physical  fitness  requirements  for  workers.  These  include,  inter 
alia, the Act on the Crews of Fishing Vessels, Coast Guard Vessels, Leisure and other Boats 
No.  30/2007114  and  the  Aviation  Act  No.  60/1998.115  These  provisions  clearly  come  into 
play in relation to older workers. 

Rights and services for ‘older people’ are generally provided for people aged 67 and older. 
The Act  on Social Security No. 100/2007, dealing with pensions, sets  the age  of 67 (cf. 
Article 17) (60 for sailors fulfilling special criteria) and the Act on the Affairs of the Elderly 
No. 125/1999 sets out the services to which people aged 67 and older are entitled. Act No. 
113/1994 on Pensions for the Elderly sets out pensions for certain groups of retired people 
born in or before 1914, aged 70 years or above and for all persons falling under the law 
who have reached the age of 75.116 

c) 

Occupational pension schemes’ fixed ages for admission or entitlements 

In Iceland, national law allows occupational pension schemes to fix ages for entitlement to 
benefits, in line with the option provided for by Article 6(2). Everyone active in the labour 
market is obliged to be a member of an occupational pension fund from the age of 16 to 
70.117 Payments must be received from the funds from the age of 70 at the latest.118 

4.7.2  Special conditions for young people, older workers and persons with caring 

responsibilities  

In Iceland, there are no special conditions set by law for older or younger workers in order 
to promote their vocational integration, or for persons with caring responsibilities to ensure 
their protection.  

4.7.3  Minimum and maximum age requirements 

In Iceland, minimum and maximum age requirements in relation to access to employment 
(notably in the public sector) and training are permitted. See 4.7.1 for more examples. 

The Act on Health, and Safety at Work No. 46/1980 sets out the general rule that children 
under the age of 15 or in compulsory education cannot be employed. Exceptions can be 
made for artistic, cultural or sports events and advertisements, but if the child is under 13, 
the Administration of Occupational Safety and Health must grant a permit before the child 

114  Iceland, Act on the Crews of Fishing Vessels, Coast Guard Vessels, Leisure and other Boats [Lög um áhafnir 

íslenskra fiskiskipa, varðskipa, skemmtibáta og annarra skipa], No. 30/2007, 23 March 2007.  

115  Iceland, Aviation Act [Lög um loftferðir], No. 60/1998, 10 June 1998.  
116  Iceland, Act on Pensions for the Elderly [Lög um eftirlaun til aldraðra] No. 113/1994, 28 June 1994, Article 

2. 

117  Iceland, Act on Mandatory Pension Insurance and the Operations of Pension Funds [Lög um skyldutryggingu 

lífeyrisréttinda og starfsemi lífeyrissjóða] No. 129/1997, 23 December 1997, Article 1, para. 3.  

118  Iceland, Act on Mandatory Pension Insurance and the Operations of Pension Funds [Lög um skyldutryggingu 

lífeyrisréttinda og starfsemi lífeyrissjóða] No. 129/1997, 23 December 1997, Article 4, para. 1. 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
is engaged. Children aged 14 and older can participate in educational/occupational training 
and they can be hired for simple jobs. Children aged 13 can be hired for simple jobs, such 
as gardening or service jobs for a limited number of hours a week.  

Young people between 16 and 18 can hold jobs suited to their age and maturity and where 
their health and safety is guaranteed.119 To sign valid employment contracts, workers must 
have reached the age of majority, which is 18. When children and young people work, their 
parents or legal guardians sign the work contracts on their behalf. The Act on the Rights 
and Duties of State Employees No. 70/1996 contains the general rule that, for appointment 
or  hiring  as  a  state  employee,  a  person  must  have  reached  the  age  of  18,  the  age  of 
majority in Iceland.120 Exceptions can be made for internships, cleaning jobs, couriers and 
certain other roles.121  

There  is  no  fixed  retirement  age  set  out  in  collective  agreements  or  law  in  the  private 
sector,  but  public  employees  are  to  be  relieved  of  their  duties  at  the  end  of  the  month 
when they turn 70.122 They are, however, not barred from working part-time after the age 
of 70. No requirements relating to minimum and maximum ages are found in relation to 
training.  

4.7.4  Retirement  

a) 

State pension age 

In  Iceland, there is a state pension age, at which individuals must begin to collect their 
state pensions. The state pension scheme is regulated by the Act on Social Security No. 
100/2007. The pensionable age is 67 (60  for  sailors  fulfilling special criteria) (cf. Article 
17).  The  scheme  provides  flat-rate  cover  for  residents,  but  with  income-tested  benefits 
depending on duration of residence. A person must have been resident in Iceland for at 
least three years between the ages of 16 and 67 to be entitled to receive a state pension. 
Act No. 113/1994 on Pensions for the Elderly governs pensions for certain groups of retired 
people born in or before 1914, aged 70 or above and for all persons falling under the law 
who have reached the age of 75.123 

An individual can collect a pension and still work, but the general rule is that their pension 
will be reduced. A person can also defer their pension rights until the age of 80.124 

The Icelandic pension system is based on three pillars: first, a tax-financed state old-age 
pension (social security benefits); secondly, mandatory occupational pension funds; and 
thirdly, voluntary individual pension savings with tax incentives.  There is no case law on 
retirement  in  relation  to  the  directive  requirements,  nor  are  there  obvious  problems  or 
conflicts with these requirements.  

119  Iceland, Act on Health, and Safety at Work [Lög um aðbúnað, hollustuhætti og öryggi á vinnustöðum] No. 

46/1980, 28 May 1980, Chapter X addresses the work of children and young people. 

120  Iceland, Act on Legal Competence [Lögræðislög] No. 71/1997, Article 1. 
121  Iceland, Act on the Rights and Duties of State Employees [Lög um réttindi og skyldur starfsmanna ríkisins] 

No. 70/1996, Article 6.  

122  Iceland, Act on the Rights and Duties of State Employees [Lög um réttindi og skyldur starfsmanna ríkisins] 

No. 70/1996, Article 44. 

123  Iceland, Act on Pensions for the Elderly [Lög um eftirlaun til aldraðra] No. 113/1994, 28 June 1994, Article 

2. 

124  Iceland, Act on Social Security [Lög um almannatryggingar] No. 100/2007, 11 May 2005, Article 17.  

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
b)  Occupational pension schemes 

In  Iceland,  there  is  no  fixed  age  when  people  can  begin  to  receive  payments  from 
occupational  pension  schemes  and  other  employer-funded  pension  arrangements,  but 
payments must be received from the funds from the age of 70 at the latest.125 

If  one  wishes  to  work  longer,  payments  from  occupational  pension  schemes  can  be 
deferred. An individual can collect a pension and still work. 

There  is  no  fixed  retirement  age  set  out  in  collective  agreements  or  law  in  the  private 
sector,  but  public  employees  are  to  be  relieved  of  their  duties  at  the  end  of  the  month 
when they turn 70.126 They are, however, not barred from working part-time after the age 
of 70 and then collect reduced pensions. It is also permitted to defer collecting the pension 
up to the age of 72. 

c) 

State-imposed mandatory retirement ages 

In Iceland, there is a state-imposed mandatory retirement age for the public sector. There 
is no fixed retirement age set out in collective agreements or law in the private sector, but 
public employees are to be relieved of their duties at the end of the month when they turn 
70.127 They are, however, not barred from working part-time after the age of 70.  

The  Act  on  Mandatory  Pension  Insurance  and  the  Operations  of  Pension  Funds  No. 
129/1997 stipulates that all employees, self-employed people and employers are obliged 
to ensure their pension rights through membership of an occupational pension fund from 
the age of 16 to 70. Contributions to pension benefits are determined in special legislation, 
in  collective  agreements,  in  employment  contracts  or  by  other  comparable  means.  The 
general rule is that members begin to receive old-age pensions at the age of 67, but it is 
possible to start collecting a reduced pension as early as 60, or as late as 70, with additional 
benefits,  depending  on  the  funds.  For  state  employee  occupational  pension  funds,  the 
general pension age is 65. The general rule is that people can work longer, either deferring 
pension rights until the age of 80 or receiving reduced pensions. 

d) 

Retirement ages imposed by employers 

In Iceland, national law permits employers to set retirement ages (or ages at which the 
termination of an employment contract is possible) by contract and collective bargaining. 

The general retirement  age is 67 in both the public and private  sectors, but people  can 
work longer.  In the public sector, the mandatory  retirement age is 70. No  specific legal 
provisions  govern  the  retirement  age  in  the  private  sector,  which  can  therefore  be 
negotiated  by  the  employer  and  employee.  However,  the  Act  on  Mandatory  Pension 
Insurance and the Operations of Pension Funds No. 129/1997 stipulates that the payment 
of pensions shall commence at the age of 65–70. The common retirement age is 67, but 
the pension funds can generally delay or expedite payments by five years at the request 
of the member. 

125  Iceland, Act on Mandatory Pension Insurance and the Operations of Pension Funds [Lög um skyldutryggingu 

lífeyrisréttinda og starfsemi lífeyrissjóða] No. 129/1997, 23 December 1997, 11 June 1996, Article 4, para. 
1. 

126  Iceland, Act on the Rights and Duties of State Employees [Lög um réttindi og skyldur starfsmanna ríkisins] 

No. 70/1996, 11 June 1996, Article 44. 

127  Iceland, Act on the Rights and Duties of State Employees [Lög um réttindi og skyldur starfsmanna ríkisins] 

No. 70/1996, 11 June 1996, Article 44. 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
e) 

Employment rights applicable to all workers irrespective of age 

The law on protection against dismissal and other laws protecting employment rights apply 
to all workers irrespective of age, if they remain in employment on attaining pensionable 
age or another age.  

f)  Compliance of national law with CJEU case law 

In Iceland, national legislation appears to be in line with CJEU case law on age regarding 
compulsory retirement, but judicial interpretation is required. 

4.7.5  Redundancy 

a) 

Age and seniority taken into account for redundancy selection 

In  Iceland,  national  law  does  not  permit  age  or  seniority  to  be  taken  into  account  in 
selecting workers for redundancy. However, a national collective agreement (þjóðarsátt) 
concluded  in  1990  provides  for  longer  notice  periods  for  employees  with  seniority.  For 
those who have worked continuously for 10 years at a company, the notice period is four 
months when the employee has reached the age of 55, five months if the employee is 60 
and six months at the age of 63. 

b) 

Age taken into account for redundancy compensation 

In Iceland, national law provides compensation for redundancy. Such compensation is not 
affected by the age of the worker.  

4.8  Public  security,  public  order,  criminal  offences,  protection  of  health, 
protection  of  the  rights  and  freedoms  of  others  (Article  2(5),  Directive 
2000/78) 

In Iceland, national law does not include exceptions that seek to rely on Article 2(5) of the 
Employment Equality Directive. 

4.9  Any other exceptions 

In  Iceland,  there  are  no  other  exceptions  to  the  prohibition  of  discrimination  (on  any 
grounds) provided in national law. 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5 

POSITIVE ACTION (Article 5 Directive 2000/43, Article 7 Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Scope for positive action measures 

In  Iceland,  positive  action  in  respect  of  racial  or  ethnic  origin,  religion  or  belief,  age  or 
sexual  orientation  or  supporting  migrants  is  not  permitted  in  national  law.  It  is  unclear 
what scope is provided for such action, as no cases have been heard, nor has any legal 
and/or political discussion taken place on this topic. The only positive measures in place, 
relating  to  the  scope  of  Directives  2000/43/EC  and  2000/78/EC,  aim  to  strengthen  the 
position  of  people  with  disabilities  in  the  labour  market.  In  addition,  mention  should  be 
made of the Act on Equal Status and Equal Rights of Women and Men No. 10/2008, which 
permits positive measures to combat gender discrimination. 

b)  Main positive action measures in place at national level 

The only positive measures in place, relating to the scope of Directives 2000/43/EC and 
2000/78/EC, aim to strengthen the position of people with disabilities in the labour market. 
The Act on the Affairs of Persons with Disabilities No. 59/1992 aims to ensure equality for 
people with disabilities and living conditions comparable with those of other citizens, and 
to provide conditions that enable them to lead a normal life.128 The act does not set quotas, 
but establishes that people with disabilities shall be given assistance in holding jobs in the 
labour  market  when  necessary.  This  should  be  implemented  through  special  personal 
support in the workplace, as well as through information and instruction for other workers. 
People with disabilities must also have access to vocational training in private enterprises 
and institutions, where this can be arranged.129 Each region must provide sheltered work 
in the general labour market for people with disabilities and operate sheltered workplaces. 
Sheltered  workplaces  provide  remunerated  training  to  enable  people  with  disabilities  to 
participate in the general labour market and they should also provide fixed, remunerated 
employment for people with disabilities.130 Lastly, people with disabilities should be given 
priority  regarding  work  for  the  state  and  municipalities  when  their  qualifications  for  the 
post are greater than or equal to those of other applicants.131  

No positive action measures have been taken in respect of racial or ethnic origin, religion 
or  belief,  age  or  sexual  orientation  and  no  cases  have  been  heard.  It  is  thus  not  clear 
whether such measures would be held compatible with the equality principle. No specific 
positive  measures  have  been  put  in  place  for  the  benefit  of  Roma  or  other  minorities. 
National  minorities,  as  defined  by  Recommendation  1201  (1993)  of  the  Parliamentary 
Assembly of the Council of Europe, are not present in Iceland. 

It should be noted that the Act on Equal Status and Equal Rights of Women and Men No. 
10/2008  sets  out  positive  measures  in  relation  to  gender,  including  gender  quotas  for 
public company boards.132 On 1 January 2018, the Equal Pay Certification legislation will 
enter  into  force,  requiring  companies  and  institutions  employing  25  or  more  workers  to 
obtain  annual  equal  pay  certification.  The  purpose  is  to  enforce  the  current  legislation 
prohibiting gender discrimination and ensure that women and men working for the same 
employer are paid equal wages and enjoy equal terms of employment for the same jobs 
or jobs of equal value. It is envisaged that the standard could be used in relation to other 
discrimination grounds in the future.  

128  Iceland, Act on the Affairs of Persons with Disabilities [Lög um málefni fatlaðs fólks] No. 59/1992, 2 June 

1992, Article 1. 

129   Iceland, Act on the Affairs of Persons with Disabilities [Lög um málefni fatlaðs fólks] No. 59/1992, 2 June 

1992, Article 29. 

130   Iceland, Act on the Affairs of Persons with Disabilities [Lög um málefni fatlaðs fólks] No. 59/1992, 2 June 

1992, Article 30. 

131   Iceland, Act on the Affairs of Persons with Disabilities [Lög um málefni fatlaðs fólks] No. 59/1992, 2 June 

1992, Article 32. 

132  Iceland, Act No. 13/2010 amending the Act on Limited Liability Companies No. 2/1995 and the Act on 
Private Limited Companies No. 138/1994 [Lög um breytingu á lögum um hlutafélög og lögum um 
einkahlutafélög (eignarhald, kynjahlutföll og starfandi stjórnarformenn)].  

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
6 

REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT  

6.1  Judicial  and/or  administrative  procedures  (Article  7  Directive  2000/43, 

Article 9 Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Available procedures for enforcing the principle of equal treatment 

In Iceland, no specific procedures have been established to deal with discrimination on the 
grounds enumerated in the directives. The sole discrimination complaints body, the Gender 
Equality Complaints Committee, deals with gender discrimination only. 

Judicial procedure 

Discrimination could give rise to civil liability, falling under the general rules. The  courts 
may rule that a certain act or omission133 should be remedied and award the victim material 
damages. Moral damages can only be awarded on the basis of a specific legal provision, 
e.g.  Article  31  of  the  Gender  Equality  Act.  At  the  district  court  level,  proceedings  are 
generally  initiated  by  the  claimant  filing  a  summons  and  complaint  with  the  court.  The 
claimant  pays  court  fees  and  the  case  is  registered.  The  defendant  is  served  with  a 
summons, which must state the facts of the case and its merits, and set out the claimant’s 
demands  and  legal  arguments.  The  summons,  once  issued,  cannot  be  amended.  The 
general principle is that all arguments must be introduced and submitted in the summons. 
Other arguments are excluded unless the new arguments are accepted by the defendant. 
Where the defendant appears before the court and holds a defence, his or her claims, facts 
and  legal  arguments  shall  be  stated  in  a  separate  submission,  which  is  to  be  filed  with 
supporting evidence within a certain time limit. The case and dossier are then assigned to 
a judge. As a rule, the parties can continue to gather evidence during the proceedings if 
this is done without undue delay.  

When the gathering of the evidence has been completed by the parties, the judge sets a 
date  for  the  final  hearing  (trial)  of  the  case.  At  the  final  hearing,  parties  and  witnesses 
appear and give oral statements of facts. The parties plead the case orally. In civil cases, 
judgments are to be rendered within one month. Judgments must be in writing and contain 
a description of the claims and arguments of the parties, the facts, the findings of the court 
and  its  ruling.  Icelandic  courts  are  generally  relatively  efficient.  District  court  case 
proceedings  take  on  average  approximately  one  year.  Each  party  bears  its  own  costs 
incurred by the litigation, but the losing party must reimburse the other party’s counsel’s 
fees. The amount is decided by the judge and, unfortunately, rarely covers the actual costs. 
Legal aid is available from the state for the very poor and in cases where the litigation has 
significant general importance or concerns significant matters relating to the employment, 
social status or other personal issues regarding the person in question.  

Administrative procedures 

Numerous administrative procedures are in place with the aim of guaranteeing citizens the 
right  of  recourse  vis-à-vis  public  authorities.  The  Administrative  Procedures  Act  No. 
37/1993 guarantees the right to lodge an appeal against  the decisions of administrative 
authorities,  such  as  public  institutions  or  committees.  All  decisions  by  public  bodies,  or 
bodies  vested  with  public  authority,  are  subject  to  review  by  a  higher  authority,  unless 
otherwise provided for by law. The decisions of independent authorities may in some cases 
be reviewed by ministers or special review boards or committees.  

133  See, e.g. Supreme Court of Iceland, Berglind Stefánsdóttir and the Association of the Deaf v. State 

Broadcasting Services, Case No. 151/1999, 6 May 1999, where the court held, inter alia, with reference to 
the duty of the State Broadcasting Service to broadcast election debates set out in the Broadcasting Act, 
and Article 65 of the Constitution, that the State Broadcasting Service was to ensure broadcasting of such 
debates in sign language.  

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
The Act on Rights Advocates for Disabled People No. 88/2011134 stipulates that an advocate 
of  the  rights  of  people  with  disabilities  shall  be  appointed  for  each  service  region.  The 
advocate is charged with monitoring the situation of people with disabilities in his or her 
area and assists individuals when needed, e.g. in relation to personal finances, rights and 
services. Violations of the rights of a disabled person should be brought to the attention of 
the advocate, who can investigate the case in cooperation with the victim. Where needed, 
the advocate may ask the perpetrator to remedy the situation within a certain time limit. 
If the advocate’s suggestions for improvements are not followed, the advocate can in some 
instances bring a complaint to the administrative Complaints Committee on Social Affairs 
and Housing or to the Ministry of Welfare. The Gender Equality Complaints Committee, a 
specialised  committee  under  the  Ministry  of  Welfare,  addresses  complaints  alleging 
violations of the Gender Equality Act. In some instances, decisions by local authorities may 
be referred to the relevant ministry. Lastly, the courts are competent to review any decision 
taken by the executive.  

The  Parliamentary  Ombudsman  may  receive  complaints  concerning  discriminatory 
administrative decisions. The ombudsman monitors the administrative functions of public 
and  local  authorities  and  safeguards  the  rights  of  citizens  vis-à-vis  administrative 
authorities.  The  ombudsman  ensures  that  the  principle  of  equality  is  observed  and  that 
administration is conducted in conformity with the law and good administrative practice. 
The ombudsman investigates administrative cases based on complaints, or on his or her 
own  initiative.  He  or  she  may  also  examine  whether  laws  are  in  conflict  with  the 
Constitution, e.g. the equality provision, or are flawed in other respects.  

The  Ombudsman  for  the  Citizens  of  Reykjavík  may  receive  complaints  concerning 
discriminatory administrative decisions by city authorities or bodies, although it should be 
noted  that  employment  issues  fall  outside  this  mandate.  The  ombudsman  gives 
complainants advice on their legal status and issues legal opinions. In addition to dealing 
with  complaints,  the  Ombudsman  is  tasked  with  assisting  authorities  to  improve  their 
service and he or she investigates administrative cases based on complaints, on the basis 
of information provided by the administration, or on his or her own initiative. 

Criminal proceedings 

Breaches  of  Articles  180  and  233a  of  the  General  Penal  Code  are  subject  to  official 
indictment. Criminal proceedings commence with an investigation by the police either on 
their  own  initiative  or  pursuant  to  a  complaint.  If  the  investigation  reveals  that  a  crime 
may  have  been  committed,  the  matter  is  referred  to  a  prosecutor.  If  the  prosecutor 
considers that there is a prima facie case against the accused, an indictment will be brought 
by the prosecutor before a general court. 

b) 

Barriers and other deterrents faced by litigants seeking redress 

The lack of anti-discrimination legislation covering the scope of Directives 2000/43/EC and 
2000/78/EC can be considered the main barrier for effective anti-discrimination action. In 
general, the high fees of lawyers and the fact that the party that loses pays costs can act 
as a deterrent for those wishing to bring discrimination cases before the courts. It should 
be noted that legal aid is means-tested and limited to the very poor. Complaints brought 
to  complaints  committees  and  the  Parliamentary  Ombudsman  and  Ombudsman  of  the 
Citizens of Reykjavík are not costly, these do not call for the instruction of a lawyer and 
are  relatively  simple.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  ombudsmen  and  the  complaint 
committees  generally  deal  with 
concerning  decisions  of  public 
complaints 
bodies/authorities. However, one exception is the Gender Equality Complaints Committee, 
which also deals with discrimination by private bodies.  

134  Iceland, Act on Rights Advocates for Disabled People [Lög um réttindagæslu fyrir fatlað fólk], No. 88/2011, 

23 June 2011. 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
c) 

Number of discrimination cases brought to justice 

In Iceland, there are no available statistics on the number of cases related to discrimination 
brought to justice. 

d) 

Registration of discrimination cases by national courts 

In Iceland, discrimination cases are not registered as such by national courts.  

6.2  Legal standing and associations (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/43, Article 9(2) 

Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Engaging on behalf of victims of discrimination (representing them) 

In  Iceland,  associations,  organisations  and  trade  unions  are  entitled  to  act  on  behalf  of 
their members who have been victims of discrimination. 

Article  70  of  the  Constitution  sets  out  the  principle  that  everyone  shall,  for  the 
determination  of  his  or  her  rights  and  obligations,  be  entitled  to  the  resolution  of  an 
independent and impartial court of law. This right is also guaranteed through Article 6(1) 
of the Act on the European Convention on Human Rights No. 62/1994.135 According to the 
Act on Civil Procedure No. 91/1991, any individual, association or institution, which bears 
rights or duties under national law, can be party to a court case.136 The general principle 
concerning  legal  standing  is  that  for  an  application  to  be  admissible,  the  claimant  must 
satisfy  the  requirement  of  having  personal,  direct  interest,  that  is,  a  ‘legally  protected 
interest’  (lögvarðir  hagsmunir).  This  rule  is  founded  on  Article  24(1)  of  the  Act  on  Civil 
Procedure, setting out that the competence of courts is limited to issues governed by the 
law and Article 25(1), which states that courts do not resolve legal questions.  

An exception to the rule on direct ‘legally protected interest’ is provided for in Article 25(3) 
of the Act on Civil Procedure No. 91/1991, which allows associations to apply to the courts 
for the recognition of certain rights of their members or to relieve their members of certain 
duties, if safeguarding the interests at stake forms part of the association’s mandate. 137 
Three  conditions  are  thus  set:  that  the  interest  at  stake  forms  part  of  the  association’s 
mandate,  that  the  case  concerns  the  legally  protected  interests  of  the  majority  of  the 
association’s members, and that the case concerns the recognition of certain rights or the 
relief  of  duties.  An  example  is  a  landmark  case  brought  by  the  Icelandic  Federation  of 
People with Disabilities against the Icelandic State, for the recognition of the fact that  it 
was  unlawful  and  in  breach  of  the  Constitution  to  reduce  social  security  payments  to 
married people with disabilities based on their spouse’s income, as it did not guarantee the 
minimum rights set out in Article 76 (the law guarantees everyone the assistance that they 
require in the case of sickness, disability, infirmity by reason of old age, unemployment or 
similar circumstances) and thus prevented those affected from fully enjoying their rights 
as  set  out  in  Article  65  (equality  provision).  The  Supreme  Court  found  in  favour  of  the 
Federation, and the legislation on social security was amended to reflect the judgment.138 

Labour  unions  or  umbrella  organisations  have  standing  on  behalf  of  their  members  in 
labour disputes, and enterprises, institutions and non-governmental organisations can — 
either in their own name or on behalf of their members who consider they are victims of 

135  Iceland, Act on the European Convention on Human Rights [Lög um mannréttindasáttmála Evrópu], No. 

62/1994, 19 May 1994.  

136  Iceland, Act on Civil Procedure [Lög um meðferð einkamála] No. 91/1991, 26 March 1991, Article 16(1).  
137  Iceland, Act on Civil Procedure [Lög um meðferð einkamála] No. 91/1991, 26 March 1991, Article 25(3).  
138  Supreme Court of Iceland, Icelandic Federation of People with Disabilities v. Republic of Iceland, Case No. 

125/2000, 19 December 2000. 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
gender discrimination — submit a case to the Gender Equality Complaints Committee.139 
In practice, however, individuals bring cases to the committee. No complaints have been 
lodged by NGOs or associations on behalf of victims since the current gender equality law 
came into force in 2008. 
No explicit provisions have been adopted concerning membership, e.g. on permanency or 
the  number  of  members  generally.140  No  rules  stipulate  that  non-governmental 
organisations need to be registered, but they can be included in the Directorate of Internal 
Revenue  Company  Directory.  This  is,  however,  not  a  precondition  for  engaging  in  legal 
proceedings.  Legitimate  interest  is  not  defined  in  legal  statutes;  it  is  for  the  courts  to 
establish whether a ‘legally protected interest’ is at stake.141 

b) 

Engaging in support of victims of discrimination 

In Iceland, associations, organisations and trade unions are entitled to act in support of 
victims of discrimination.  

According  to  the  Act  on  Civil  Procedure  No.  91/1991,  any  individual,  association  or 
institution, which bears rights or duties under national law, can be party to a court case.142 
Associations may apply to the courts for the recognition of certain rights of their members 
or to relieve their members of certain duties, if safeguarding the interests at stake forms 
part of the association’s mandate.143 However, there are no explicit provisions setting out 
the  right  of  organisations  to  act  in  support  of  victims  in  discrimination  cases.  Judicial 
interpretation is required on this issue but it is clear that, in any case, the victim would 
have  to  be  a  member  of  the  association,  which  would  have  to  have  a  ‘legally  protected 
interest’,  and  a  case  could  only  be  brought  in  order  to  recognise  certain  rights  of  the 
member or to relieve the member of certain duties. 

c) 

Actio popularis 

In Iceland, national law does not allow associations, organisations and trade unions to act 
in the public interest on their own behalf, without a specific victim to support or represent 
in cases concerning discrimination falling under the scope of the directives.  

For  actio  popularis  to  be  allowed,  it  has  to  be  specially  provided  for  by  law.  Examples 
include  the  Act  on  Municipal  Elections  No.  5/1998144  that  provides  for  complaints 
concerning elections, and the Act on the Review Committee on Environmental Issues and 
Resources  No.  130/2011145  which  provides  for  actio  popularis  in  relation  to  certain 
administrative decisions for environmental and outdoor activity organisations with at least 
30 members. 

139  Iceland, Act on Equal Status and Equal Rights of Women and Men [Lög um jafna stöðu og jafnan rétt 

kvenna og karla] No. 10/2008, 5 March 2008, Article 6.  

140  See, however, the discussion on actio popularis under c), where certain criteria on membership and setup 

apply.  

141  See, Supreme Court of Iceland, Icelandic Federation of People with Disabilities v. Republic of Iceland, Case 
No. 125/2000, 19 December 2000 and Supreme Court of Iceland, Atli Jónsson et al. and the Icelandic 
Nature Conservation Society v. Icelandic State, Case No. 231/2002, 12 June 2002, where a nature 
conservation organisation was not deemed to have a ‘legally protected interest’ in a case concerning an 
administrative decision permitting a large damming project, simply with reference to their aim of nature 
conservation. 

142  Iceland, Act on Civil Procedure [Lög um meðferð einkamála] No. 91/1991, 26 March 1991, Article 16(1).  
143  Iceland, Act on Civil Procedure [Lög um meðferð einkamála] No. 91/1991, 26 March 1991, Article 25(3). 
See e.g. Supreme Court of Iceland, Icelandic Federation of People with Disabilities v. Republic of Iceland, 
Case No. 125/2000, 19 December 2000. 

144  Iceland, Act on Municipal Elections [Lög um kosningar til sveitarstjórna], No. 5/1998, 6 March 1998. 
145  Iceland, Act on the Review Committee on Environmental Issues and Resources [Lög um úrskurðarnefnd 

umhverfis- og auðlindamála], No. 130/2011, 28 September 2011. 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
d) 

Class action 

In Iceland, national law allows associations, organisations and trade unions to act in the 
interest of more than one individual victim (class action) for claims arising from the same 
event.  

Amendments made to the Act on Civil Procedure in 2010 provide for a form of class action. 
Three or more people who have claims against a party stemming from the same incident, 
situation, etc. can establish an ‘action association’ (málsóknarfélag) which can bring the 
case on the claimants’ behalf.146  

6.3  Burden of proof (Article 8 Directive 2000/43, Article 10 Directive 2000/78) 

In Iceland, national law neither requires nor permits a shift of the burden of proof from the 
complainant to the respondent.  

No provisions setting out the shift of the burden of proof in discrimination cases concerning 
the grounds enumerated in the directives are found in national law. The Gender Equality 
Act provides for the shift of the burden of proof in gender discrimination cases. 

6.4  Victimisation (Article 9 Directive 2000/43, Article 11 Directive 2000/78) 

In  Iceland, there are no legal measures  of protection against victimisation in relation to 
the protected grounds under Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC.  

The only provision concerning discrimination cases and victimisation is found in Article 27 
of the Gender Equality Act. Employers may not dismiss employees for demanding redress 
on  the  basis  of  the  act.  Furthermore,  employers  shall  ensure  that  employees  are  not 
subjected to injustice in their work – e.g. as regards job security, terms of employment or 
performance assessment – on the grounds  of having submitted a complaint or provided 
information  regarding  gender-based  or  sexual  harassment,  or  sexual  discrimination.  If 
there  is  reason  to  believe  that  this  provision  has  been  violated,  the  employer  shall 
demonstrate  that  the  dismissal,  or  alleged  injustice,  is  not  based  on  the  employee’s 
demand  for  redress,  complaint  or  provision  of  information  regarding  gender-based  or 
sexual  harassment,  or  sexual  discrimination.  This  shall  not  apply  if  the  dismissal  takes 
place more than one year after the employee made his or her demand for redress. To date, 
this provision has not been applied.  

6.5  Sanctions and remedies (Article 15 Directive 2000/43, Article 17 Directive 

2000/78) 

a) 

Applicable sanctions in cases of discrimination — in law and in practice 

Directives  2000/43/EC  and  2000/78/EC  have  not  been 
transposed.  However, 
discrimination could give rise to  civil liability, falling under the general rules. The  courts 
may rule that a certain act or omission147 should be remedied and award the victim material 
damages. Moral damages can only be awarded on the basis of a specific legal provision, 
e.g. Article 31 of the Act on Equal Status and Equal Rights of Women and Men No. 10/2008. 

Complaints concerning violations of the  Act on the Affairs of People with Disabilities  No. 
59/1992 and the Act on the Affairs of the Elderly No. 125/1999 in relation to services can 

146  Iceland, Act on Civil Procedure [Lög um meðferð einkamála] No. 19/1991, 26 March 1991, Article 19a. 
147  See, e.g. Supreme Court of Iceland, Berglind Stefánsdóttir and the Association of the Deaf v. State 

Broadcasting Services, Case No. 151/1999, 6 May 1999, where the court held, inter alia, with reference to 
the duty of the State Broadcasting Service to broadcast election debates set out in the Broadcasting Act, 
and Article 65 of the Constitution, that the State Broadcasting Service was to ensure broadcasting of such 
debates in sign language.  

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
be brought to the Complaints Committee on Social Affairs and Housing or to the Ministry 
of Welfare. There are no prescribed sanctions; the committee simply decides on whether 
the administrative decision in question is in accordance with the law and if not, asks the 
institution or body to provide the service in accordance with the relevant law. 

Violations  of  the  General  Penal  Code  provisions  on  hate  speech  and  discrimination  in 
services are subject to fines or imprisonment of up to two and a half years and six months, 
respectively.  Violations  of  prohibition  of  public  insults  against  the  beliefs  or  religion  of 
lawfully  established  religious  communities  are  subject  to  fines  or  imprisonment  of  up  to 
three months. Fines are determined based on the guilty party’s income, assets, financial 
status and commitments, and other factors that may influence their ability to pay, as well 
as the financial gain or savings that the criminal act entailed or that had been envisaged.148 
The Supreme Court has convicted three people of crimes under Article 233a (none under 
Articles 180 or 125). In the first case, the youth and clean criminal record of the accused, 
the fact that the derogatory statements were  made in the name  of an organisation and 
that he did not initiate the media interview where the statements were made, was taken 
into account when the punishment of a fine of ISK 100 000 (approximately EUR 820) or 
six days in prison was issued.149 In the other two cases, the perpetrators were ordered to 
pay fines of ISK 100 000 (approximately EUR 820).  

b) 

Ceiling and amount of compensation 

Directives  2000/43/EC  and  2000/78/EC  have  not  been  transposed  and  no  explicit 
provisions set out the compensation for discrimination. In the Icelandic system, there is 
no ceiling on the maximum amounts of damages awarded – although rules on the amounts 
of damages because of disability are fixed – as the aim of damages is to compensate the 
victim  for  all  material  damage  suffered.150  The  Icelandic  legal  system  does  not  issue 
punitive  damages.  The  ordinary  rules  on  damages  would  apply  in  cases  concerning 
prohibited  discrimination.  The  general  principle  concerning  damages  is  that  a  person  is 
liable for damages if the following conditions apply: the act is illegal and the damage done 
is a probable consequence of his or her actions and harms interests protected by rules on 
damages.  Furthermore,  it  is  also  a  condition  that  subjective  mitigating  factors,  such  as 
youth or limited mental capacity, do not apply. 

In determining damages, the judge can consider factors such as the claimant’s contributory 
fault  and  failure  to  mitigate  loss.  Ordinary  damages  can  be  reduced  if  justified  by  the 
situation of the respondent or in other extraordinary circumstances. In such a case, the 
extent and nature of the damages, the situation of the victim, the interests of the victim, 
insurance and other relevant factors should be taken into account.151  

The Act on Payment from the State Treasury of Damages to Victims of Crime No. 69/1995 
stipulates that the State Treasury will pay damages incurred under the General Penal Code, 
with some exceptions.152 The act does not apply to moral damages under Article 233a of 
the  General  Penal  Code.  In  criminal  proceedings  based  on  Articles  233a  and  180  of  the 
General Penal Code, in theory, the court may also handle claims for damages. 

148  Iceland, General Penal Code [Almenn hegningarlög] No. 19/1940, 12 February 1940, Articles 180, 233a and 

51.  

149  Supreme Court of Iceland, Prosecutor v. Hlynur Freyr Vigfússon, Case No. 461/2001, 4 April 2002. 
150  See e.g. Supreme Court of Iceland, Ragna Kristín Guðmundsdóttir v. University of Iceland, Case No. 

177/1998, 4 February 1999, where the court ruled that the failure on the part of the University of Iceland to 
take adequate special measures to ensure that a student with disabilities could study there violated the 
legislation on the rights of persons with disabilities and Article 65 of the Constitution. The student was 
awarded compensation.  

151  Iceland, Act on Damages [Skaðabótalög] No. 50/1993, 19 May 1993, Article 24.  
152  Act on Payment from the State Treasury of Damages to Victims of Crime [Lög um greiðslu ríkissjóðs á 

bótum til þolenda afbrota] No. 69/1995, 10 March 1995, Article 1.  

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
Anyone who, deliberately or through negligence, violates the Gender Equality Act shall be 
liable  to  pay  compensation  according  to  the  ordinary  rules.  Furthermore,  the  party  in 
question may be sentenced to pay the affected party compensation for non-pecuniary loss, 
if  appropriate,  in  addition  to  compensation  for  financial  loss.153  The  majority  of  cases 
brought on the basis of the Gender Equality Act concern appointments. The Supreme Court 
has established that if an appointment procedure is not in accordance with the law and is 
conducted in an inconsiderate manner, this may give rise to a claim for moral damages.154 

c) 

Assessment of the sanctions 

Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC have not been transposed — no explicit provisions 
set out sanctions for discrimination. As very few discrimination cases have been heard, an 
assessment of whether sanctions are effective, proportionate or dissuasive is difficult.  

153  Act on Equal Status and Equal Rights of Women and Men [Lög um jafna stöðu og jafnan rétt kvenna og 

karla] No. 10/2008, 6 March 2008, Article 31.  

154  See e.g. Supreme Court of Iceland, Judgments H1997:1544, H1999:3985, H2000:869 and Judgment of 18 

March 2004 (Case No. 275/2003). 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
7 

a) 

BODIES FOR THE PROMOTION OF EQUAL TREATMENT (Article 13 Directive 
2000/43) 

Body/bodies  designated  for  the  promotion  of  equal  treatment  irrespective  of 
racial/ethnic origin according to Article 13 of the Racial Equality Directive 

No specialised body has been established for the promotion of equal treatment irrespective 
of  racial  or  ethnic  origin.  The  Parliamentary  Ombudsman  may  deal  with  equality  and/or 
discrimination in relation to administrative procedure. No human rights commission is in 
place. 

The  Icelandic  Human  Rights  Centre,  an  NGO,  has  assumed  many  of  the  functions  of  a 
national human rights institution (NHRI), albeit without the relevant powers, independence 
and financing being established by statute. A special Multicultural Centre, established by 
the  state,  is  charged  with  facilitating  communications  between  individuals  of  different 
backgrounds, and enhancing the services provided to foreign citizens residing in Iceland 
and to those interested in moving to Iceland. The Multicultural Centre assists those seeking 
information about daily life in Iceland, provides information about the administration and 
is of service to foreign citizens moving to or from the country.  

It  should  be  noted  that  the  European  Commission  against  Racism  and  Intolerance  has 
strongly  recommended  that  Iceland  establish  a  specialised  body  to  combat  racism  and 
discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, language, religion, nationality or national or 
ethnic origin, which could form part of a body with wider objectives in the field of human 
rights  generally.155  Two  Council  of  Europe  Commissioners  for  Human  Rights  have  also 
urged Iceland to adopt comprehensive equal treatment legislation and set up an effective 
and independent national equality body to promote its implementation.156 Similarly, United 
Nations human rights bodies such as the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of 
All  Forms  of  Discrimination  against  Women,  the  Committee  on  the  Elimination  of  Racial 
Discrimination  and  the  Human  Rights  Committee  have  urged  Iceland  to  adopt  ant-
discrimination legislation and to formally establish a national human rights institution  to, 
inter alia, combat racism and provide a complaints mechanism.157  

In  July  2016,  the  Ministry  of  the  Interior  opened  a  consultation  on  a  draft  bill  on  the 
establishment of an Icelandic NHRI on its website but this work petered out. In April 2017, 
the Minister of Social Affairs and Equality presented two draft bills on equal treatment. The 
bills proposed that the Centre for Gender Equality would be charged with implementation 
and monitoring of the legislation and that the Gender Equality Complaints Committee would 
receive complaints. The bills were presented in Parliament and opened for consultation by 
stakeholders. Unfortunately, the government collapsed before the bills could progress. The 
bills will be presented again in 2018. 

b) 

Political, economic and social context for the designated body 

No specialised body has been established for the promotion of equal treatment irrespective 
of racial or ethnic origin. There is no strong political pressure for the establishment of such 

155  Council of Europe, European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, ECRI Report on Iceland, from 28 

February 2017. Available at: http://hudoc.ecri.coe.int/eng#_Toc469293161.  

156  Council of Europe: press release by Nils Muižnieks, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of 

Europe, following his visit to Iceland (8-10 June 2016). Available at: www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-
/iceland-ratify-the-disabilities-convention-and-strengthen-the-human-rights-protection-system and press 
release by Thomas Hammarberg, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, following his 
visit to Iceland (7-9 January 2012). Available at: www.coe.int/web/commissioner/country-report/iceland. 
157  United Nations, Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, Concluding 
Observations on the Combined Seventh and Eighth Periodic Reports of Iceland, CEDAW/C/ISL/CO/7-8, 
2016, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding Observations; Iceland, 
CERD/C/ISL/CO/19-20, 2010 and Concluding observations adopted by the Human Rights Committee at its 
105th session, 9-27 July 2012, Iceland, CCPR/C/ISL/CO/5. 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
a body as, if that had been the case, the work on anti-discrimination legislation would not 
have petered out in Parliament for the last few years. There has not been any significant 
popular debate on this issue.   

c) 

Institutional architecture 

No specialised body has been established for the promotion of equal treatment irrespective 
of racial or ethnic origin. 

d) 

Status of the designated body/bodies – general independence 

No specialised body has been established for the promotion of equal treatment irrespective 
of racial or ethnic origin. 

e)  Grounds covered by the designated body/bodies 

No specialised body has been established for the promotion of equal treatment irrespective 
of racial or ethnic origin. 

f) 

Competences of the designated body/bodies  – and their independent and effective 
exercise  

In  Iceland,  there  is  no  designated  body  with  the  competence  to  provide  independent 
assistance to victims, or to conduct independent surveys and publish independent reports, 
or to issue independent recommendations on discrimination issues. 

g) 

Legal standing of the designated body/bodies 

In Iceland, there is no designated body for the promotion of equal treatment irrespective 
of racial or ethnic origin. 

h)  Quasi-judicial competences 

In Iceland, there is no designated body for the promotion of equal treatment irrespective 
of racial or ethnic origin. 

i) 

Registration by the body/bodies of complaints and decisions 

In Iceland, there is no designated body for the promotion of equal treatment irrespective 
of racial or ethnic origin. 

j) 

Planning 

No specialised body has been established for the promotion of equal treatment irrespective 
of racial or ethnic origin. 

k) 

Stakeholder engagement  

No specialised body has been established for the promotion of equal treatment irrespective 
of racial or ethnic origin. 

l) 

Accessibility  

No specialised body has been established for the promotion of equal treatment irrespective 
of racial or ethnic origin. 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
m)  Roma and Travellers 

No specialised body has been established for the promotion of equal treatment irrespective 
of racial or ethnic origin. 

73 

 
 
 
 
8 

IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES  

8.1 

 Dissemination  of  information,  dialogue  with  NGOs  and  between  social 
partners 

As  the  directives  have  not  been  transposed,  no  specific  action  has  been  taken  to 
disseminate information about legal protection against discrimination to the general public, 
to encourage dialogue with NGOs or to promote dialogue with social partners in line with 
the directives. However, in this context reference can be made to Article 1(2) of the Act 
on  the  Affairs  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  No.  59/1992,  where  it  is  set  out  that  the 
authorities  shall  ensure  that  the  national  associations  of  persons  with  disabilities  shall 
influence all policies and decisions that have an impact on them. Similar provisions are not 
found in other acts governing the affairs of disadvantaged groups such as the elderly and 
foreign nationals. 

There  is  no  designated  body  or  organisation  appointed  at  the  national  level  to  address 
Roma issues. 

8.2 

 Compliance (Article 14 Directive 2000/43, Article 16 Directive 2000/78) 

a)  Mechanisms 

As the directives have not been transposed no specific mechanisms have been put in place 
to ensure that contracts, collective agreements, internal rules of undertakings and the rules 
governing  independent  occupations,  professions,  workers’  associations  and  employers’ 
associations do not conflict with the principle of equal treatment on the basis of Article 14 
Directive 2000/43/EC and Article 16 Directive 2000/78/EC. 

b) 

Rules contrary to the principle of equality 

Although Icelandic anti-discrimination legislation is fragmented and incomplete, no laws, 
regulations or rules in force are clearly in breach of the principle of equality with respect 
to the grounds enumerated in the directives.  

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9 

COORDINATION AT NATIONAL LEVEL 

The Ministry of Social Affairs and Equality is responsible for coordinating issues regarding 
anti-discrimination  in  relation  to  the  grounds  covered  by  Directives  2000/43/EC  and 
2000/78/EC. There is currently no anti-discrimination action plan in force and work on a 
comprehensive anti-discrimination law has been underway for several years. In April 2017, 
the Minister of Social Affairs and Equality presented two draft bills on equal treatment; one 
in relation to race and  ethnic origin, and the other  on equal treatment in the workplace 
covering  race,  ethnic  origin,  religion,  opinion,  disability,  reduced  capacity  to  work,  age, 
sexual orientation and gender identity, gender expression and gender characteristics. The 
bills proposed that the Centre for Gender Equality would be charged with implementation 
and monitoring of the legislation and that the Gender Equality Complaints Committee would 
receive complaints. The bills were presented in Parliament and opened for consultation by 
stakeholders. Unfortunately, the government collapsed before the bills could progress. The 
bills will be presented again in 2018. 

Although the directives have not been transposed into national law, Iceland has adopted 
various measures aimed at improving the status of the disadvantaged groups listed in the 
directives. Although a specific anti-racism action plan has not been adopted, the National 
Action Plan on Immigration 2016-2019, adopted through a parliamentary resolution on 20 
September  2016,  contains  some  measures  to  combat  racism.  One  action  listed  is  to 
increase research into violence against immigrants and violence in immigrant communities. 
The aim is to gather data that can serve as a basis for measures to combat violence, which 
in this context includes hate speech and harassment based on racial or ethnic origin.  

Regular  studies  will  also  be  carried  out  on  the  views  of  immigrants  and  Icelanders  and 
these will be used as the basis for awareness-raising, to promote multiculturalism, combat 
prejudice  and  highlight  the  positive  contribution  of  immigrants  to  Icelandic  society.  In 
addition, to improve access for immigrants to public services, public employees will receive 
multicultural-awareness  training.158  A  special  fund  also  exists  to  support  research  and 
development projects related to immigration issues. Furthermore, it has been stated that 
preparations  are  under  way  for  the  ratification  of  the  Framework  Convention  for  the 
Protection of National Minorities. 

Local  authorities  are  placing  increased  emphasis  on  immigration  issues.  The  Icelandic 
Association of Local Authorities (all Icelandic municipalities are members) has adopted a 
policy on immigration and many municipalities have adopted individual policies based on 
this  document.159  Such  policies  aim  to  ensure  that  the  interests  of  immigrants  are 
guaranteed  and  that  they  know  their  rights  and  obligations  as  citizens  and  have  easy 
access  to  municipal  services.  The  key  objectives  are  for  immigrants  to  enjoy  the  same 
status as other residents and to participate fully in the community in each municipality. 

Mention should also be made of the establishment of the Immigration and Asylum Appeals 
Board.  Its  objective  includes  ensuring  an  independent  review  of  all  the  decisions  of  the 
Directorate  of  Immigration  taken  on  the  basis  of  the  Act  on  Foreign  Nationals  No. 
96/2002.160 The board started receiving cases on 1 January 2015. In early November 2017, 
it  had  published  650  decisions,  mainly  dealing  with  asylum  decisions  made  by  the 
Directorate of Immigration. 

The Act on the Affairs of Persons with Disabilities No. 59/1992 was amended in 2011 to, 
inter alia, transfer the responsibility for matters relating to people with disabilities from the 
state to local authorities on 1 January 2012. The Minister of Social Affairs and Equality is 

158  Icelandic, Parliamentary Resolution on a National Action Plan on Immigration 2016-2019 [Þingsályktun um 
aðgerðaáætlun í málefnum innflytjenda 2016-2019], adopted at the 145th Session, 20 September 2016. 
159  Stefnumótun í málefnum innflytjenda, 2009. Available on the website of the Icelandic Association of Local 

Authorities: www.samband.is/media/stefnumotun-sambandsins/Stefnumotun_innflytjendur.pdf.  

160  Iceland, Act on Foreign Nationals No. 80/2016, Article 6. 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
responsible  for  policy-making  in  cooperation  with  the  Icelandic  Association  of  Local 
Authorities. The national interest associations of people with disabilities must be consulted 
regarding  all  decisions  and  policies  that  concern  people  with  disabilities.  In  conjunction 
with the amendments to the Act on the Affairs of Persons with Disabilities, the Act on Rights 
Advocates  for  Persons  with  Disabilities  No.  88/2011  was  adopted.  The  law  provides 
measures to safeguard the rights of people with disabilities and a large-scale pilot project 
on the implementation of personal assistance services is, in 2017, still underway.  

In May 2017, the Parliamentary resolution on a new Plan of Action on Disabled Persons’ 
Affairs 2017-2021 was adopted.161 The Plan stipulates that respect for diversity shall be a 
founding  principle  of  Icelandic  society  and  that  disability  is  one  facet  of  diversity.  The 
human rights of people with disabilities will be strengthened, protected and guaranteed on 
an equal basis with others and disabled people enabled to live independently, on their own 
terms. People with disabilities should enjoy fundamental freedoms and their human dignity, 
autonomy  and  independence  must  be  respected.  The  provisions  of  the  CRPD  will  be 
transposed  into  all legislation  and  policy  so  that  people  with  disabilities,  young  and  old, 
can live an independent life with dignity. Human rights and the prohibition of discrimination 
will be placed at the forefront so that rights and freedoms can be enjoyed and people with 
disabilities will receive support for this purpose. People with disabilities will be able to make 
use of all public measures, e.g. in the field of housing, education, social security and in the 
labour market. The aims of the Plan are to:  

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 

ensure equal access to society; 
increase the labour market participation of people with disabilities;  
improve the general health of people with disabilities; 
foster positive attitudes towards disability issues; 
ensure equal educational opportunities for people with disabilities; 
guarantee equal human rights, including the right to live independently; 
ensure  that  services  for  people  with  disabilities  foster  independence  and  equal 
participation in society.  

The plan sets out several actions in different fields aimed at ensuring full participation by, 
and equality for, people with disabilities. It includes measures to support universal design 
and  accessibility  to  buildings,  information  and  public  transport.  Measures  to  increase 
employment  participation  include  studies  to  assess  the  current  situation,  increased 
cooperation with employers, counselling and support to help young people enter the labour 
market  after  graduation,  individual  support  and  the  provision  of  aids  in  the  workplace. 
Furthermore, in the field of education, the draft plan sets out several measures aimed at 
facilitating access to education and broadening educational opportunities for people with 
disabilities.  

In  September  2016,  the  United  Nations  Convention  on  the  Rights  of  Persons  with 
Disabilities  was  ratified.  Several  legislative  acts  have  already  been  revised  in  order  to 
prepare  for  the  ratification  but  listed  outstanding  legislative  amendments  include  the 
adoption  of  anti-discrimination  legislation  in  accordance  with  Article  5  of  the  CRPD, 
Directive 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC and the establishment of a national human rights 
institution (NHRI) to, inter alia, monitor the implementation of the CRPD as per Article 33 
and to comply with the recommendations of international human rights monitoring bodies. 
A draft bill on the establishment of an Icelandic NHRI was presented for consultation but 
this work has petered out. 

For  some  time,  preparations  were  underway  to  transfer  responsibility  for  the  affairs  of 
elderly  people  from  the  state  to  local  authorities,  but  the  complexities  arising  from  the 

161  Icelandic Parliament, Resolution on a Plan of Action on Disabled Persons’ Affairs 2017-2021[Þingsályktun um 
stefnu og framkvæmdaáætlun í málefnum fatlaðs fólks fyrir árin 2017–2021]. Available on the website of 
the Parliament: www.althingi.is/altext/146/s/1000.html.  

76 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
implementation of services for disabled people and inadequate funding from the state have 
undermined these efforts.  

Lastly, the adoption of the Act on the Judicial Status of Transgender Persons No. 57/2012 162 
in 2012 was a welcome development, and in 2014 the General Penal Code  No. 19/1940 
was  amended  to  include  gender  identity  as  a  ground  for  discrimination.  Article  233a 
stipulates that any person who, by mockery, slander, insult, threat or other means, publicly 
attacks  a  person  or  group  of  persons  on  the  grounds  of  their  nationality,  colour,  race, 
religion, sexual orientation or gender identity shall be liable to a fine or imprisonment for 
a  term  not  exceeding  two  years.  Similarly,  Article  180  of  the  General  Penal  Code  No. 
19/1940  provides  that  denying  a  person  service,  or  access  to  any  public  area  or  place 
intended  for  general  public  use,  on  account  of  that  person’s  nationality,  colour,  race, 
religion, sexual orientation or gender identity is punishable by fines or imprisonment of up 
to six months.163 

162  Iceland, Act on the Judicial Status of Transgender Persons [Lög um réttarstöðu einkstaklinga með 

kynáttunarvanda], No. 57/2012, 25 June 2012. 

163  Iceland, Act amending the General Penal Code No. 19/1940, as amended (discrimination based on gender 
identity and protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights on cybercrime) [Almenn hegningarlög 
(kynvitund)] No. 13/2014, 10 February 2014. Available at: www.althingi.is/altext/stjt/2014.013.html. 

77 

 
 
 
                                                 
10  CURRENT BEST PRACTICES 

There is no comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation in place based on the directives. 
As a result, there are no best practice examples to be listed.  

78 

 
 
 
 
11  SENSITIVE OR CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES 

11.1 Potential breaches of the directives (if any) 

There  are  no  obvious  breaches  or  controversial  issues  relevant  to  the  scope  of  the 
directives. However, as there is no comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation in place, 
cases are not brought, and thus discriminatory practices are not made public or sanctioned.  

The  Labour  Directorate  estimates  that  at  the  end  of  2017  foreign  citizens  in  Iceland 
numbered  approximately  38 000  or  11 %  all  inhabitants,  meaning  that  the  number  of 
immigrants  increased  by  25 %  in  2017.  This  percentage  has  never  been  higher.164 
Significantly more men than women have moved to the country in the past  three years. 
Poles are the most numerous, representing 46 % of foreign citizens on 1 January 2017. 
Lithuanians accounted for 8 %, Germans approximately 4 % and a small number of people 
of various nationalities compose the rest.165  

The  number  of  children  of  immigrant  origin  has  increased  steadily  from  2004,  in  both 
kindergartens and compulsory education. In 2015, 2 435 kindergarten pupils had a mother 
tongue  other  than  Icelandic,  as  did  3 543  compulsory  education  pupils.  Recent  studies 
show that, despite the efforts in the education system, limited reading literacy of Icelandic 
hampers  the  studies  of  many  of  these  children  and  the  low  number  of  young  people  of 
immigrant origin graduating from high school is a serious problem.166  

In 2016, 18.7 % of children in need of assistance from the Child Protection Services were 
of immigrant origin and 53 % of the women staying in the Shelter for Victims of Domestic 
Violence  were  foreigners.  A  total  of  31 %  of  women  seeking  general  assistance  at  the 
shelter were foreigners; 14 % from EEA countries and 17 % from third countries. The fact 
that a disproportionate number of immigrant women seek assistance does not necessarily 
mean that violence against them is more common than towards Icelandic women, rather 
this  may  reflect  the  fact  that  they  have  weaker  support  networks  so  they  are  forced  to 
seek assistance from the shelter instead of from friends or family.167  

In general, the government has concluded that Icelandic society is becoming increasingly 
diverse and that welfare services need to adapt to address this new  reality.168  It is also 
notable  that,  on  average,  the  income  of  immigrants  is  lower  than  that  of  the  general 
population and only a small minority hold jobs where their education is fully utilised; the 
majority work in construction, tourism, cleaning and care services. In 2017, of those with 
university degrees, 2/3 worked in low-skilled jobs, e.g. shop work and services; only 27 % 
did specialised or office work.  Similarly, only 25 % of unemployed foreign nationals had 
previously  held  jobs  in  Iceland  in  the  field  they  had  trained  for.  Unemployment  among 
foreign  nationals  is  higher  than  for  Icelandic  born  citizens.  The  Directorate  of  Labour 
estimated the rate at 4.5 % in 2017 compared to 2.2 % for the total population. Poles are 
the  most  afflicted,  with  6 %  on  average  in  2017.  However,  long-term  unemployment 
among immigrants is the same as for locals.169 

164  Iceland Statistical Agency, Press Release on Population, 16 June 2017. Available at: 
https://hagstofa.is/utgafur/frettasafn/mannfjoldi/mannfjoldi-eftir-bakgrunni-2017.  

165  Directorate of Labour, Foreign Citizens in the Icelandic Labour Market 2012-2017, [‘Erlendir ríkisborgarar á 

íslenskum vinnumarkaði 2012-2017‘], January 2018, p. 2. 

166  Multicultural Centre, Statistical Information on Foreign Citizens and Immigrants in Iceland 2016 

[‘Tölfræðilegar upplýsingar um erlenda ríkisborgara og innflytjendur á Íslandi 2016‘], September 2016, p. 
20. 

167  Multicultural Centre, Statistical Information on Foreign Citizens and Immigrants in Iceland 2016 

[‘Tölfræðilegar upplýsingar um erlenda ríkisborgara og innflytjendur á Íslandi 2016‘], September 2016, p. 
28. 

168  Aðgerðir til að vinna gegn fátækt; tillögur byggðar á skýrslunni Farsæld; Baráttan gegn fátækt á Íslandi. 

(2013). Reykjavík: Velferðarráðuneytið.  

169  Directorate of Labour, Foreign Citizens in the Icelandic Labour Market 2012-2017, [‘Erlendir ríkisborgarar á 

íslenskum vinnumarkaði 2012-2017‘], January 2018, p. 4. 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
A study carried out by the Icelandic Red Cross in 2014, reveals that, of those polled, 44 % 
thought  that  people  of  immigrant  origin  were  the  group  that  suffers  most  prejudice  in 
Iceland.170 Another 2014 study, carried out by the Multicultural Centre, reveals that one in 
five immigrants experience negative attitudes  on a regular basis because of their origin. 
Of  those  participating  in  the  study,  77 %  were  of  the  view  that  they  had  experienced 
negative attitudes because of their limited knowledge of Icelandic and 54 % thought that 
negative attitudes towards them were based on their origin or nationality. It is an issue of 
concern  that  14 %  had  experienced  negative  attitudes  when  interacting  with  staff  of 
nursery schools and 19 % when interacting with primary school staff. As part of the study, 
public officials were also polled; 55 % of state officials participating in the study thought 
that immigrants are sometimes or  often met  with prejudice in their dealings with public 
bodies  and  43 %  of  municipal  employees  were  of  this  view.  When  it  comes  to  housing, 
31 % of the respondents, or someone close to them, had experienced negative attitudes 
when  trying  to  rent  accommodation.171  On  a  positive  note,  the  government’s  National 
Action Plan on Immigration 2016-2019 sets out numerous actions to combat prejudice and 
discrimination against immigrants.172 

Similarly,  in  2014  the  Centre  for  Gender  Equality  conducted  a  study  on  the  attitudes  of 
heads  of  companies/bodies  with  more  than  25  employees  towards  equality  and 
discrimination in the Icelandic labour market and in their respective enterprises in 2013. 
The study  reveals that 90.6 %  of men thought that their workplace was very  equal and 
74.7 %  of  women  were  of  this  view.  However,  when  asked  about  discrimination  in  the 
labour market in general, 86 % thought that people were discriminated against on one of 
the following grounds: gender (63.8 %), national origin (55.1 %), age (44.1 %), disability 
(38.6 %), race (38.8 %), sexual orientation (22.4 %) and religion/belief (20.5 %).173  

A  comprehensive  study  from  2009  reveals  similar  trends:  56.9 %  of  Icelanders  thought 
discrimination  and/or  harassment  based  on  race  or  ethnic  origin  was  common,  41.3 % 
discrimination  based  on  sexual  orientation,  35.9 %  discrimination  based  on  disability, 
25.4 %  age  discrimination  (older  than  60),  25.3 %  gender  discrimination  and  23.4 % 
discrimination  based  on  religion  or  belief.174  A  Eurobarometer  study  published  in  2011 
further demonstrates that Icelanders have witnessed or experienced more discrimination 
because  of  older  age  than  the  EU  average  in  the  workplace,  in  relation  to  access  to 
education and training, and in their leisure time.175  

According  to  a  2014  study,  half  of  Icelandic  people  with  disabilities  live  in  poverty  and 
50 % of people with disabilities do not participate in the labour market or activities outside 
the home during the day. Only 20 % receive services from the municipalities; 78 % say 
they do not receive services, whilst 40 % find that they need services.176 Another study 
from 2010 demonstrates that 44 % of respondents experienced some (and 26 % severe) 
social exclusion. Of the respondents, 45 % experienced prejudice because of their disability 
and 76 % experienced prejudice against people with disabilities in society in general.177  

170   Hvar þrengir að? Könnun á hvaða hópar í samfélaginu eigi helst undir högg að sækja, (2014). Reykjavík: 

Rauði kross Íslands. 

171  Arnardóttir, E. and Haraldsson, R. H. (2014). Uppruni og fjölþætt mismunun, Ísafjörður: 

Fjölmenningarsetur.  

172  Iceland, Parliamentary Resolution on a National Action Plan on Immigration 2016-2019 [Þingsályktun um 

aðgerðaáætlun í málefnum innflytjenda 2016-2019], adopted at the 145th Session, 20 September 2016. 

173  Einarsdóttir, M. (2014). Jafnrétti á vinnustöðum á Íslandi; Rannsókn á viðhorfi stjórnenda fyrirtækja til 

jafnréttis og mismununar. Akureyri: Rannsóknarsetur Háskólans á Akureyri.  

174  Capacent Gallup (2009). Könnun um viðhorf til mismununar. Reykjavík: Velferðarráðuneytið and 

Mannréttindaskrifstofa Íslands.  

175  Virkni aldraðra (2011). Eurobarometer study, accessible on the website of the Ministry of the Interior: 

www.velferdarraduneyti.is/media/frettatengt2012/Eurobarometer-active-ageing-2012.pdf, p.2. 

176  Fatlað fólk og öryrkjar sem íbúar sveitarfélaga (2014). Study carried out for the Icelandic Association of 

Disabled People. Reykjavík: Háskóli Íslands.  

177   Hannesdóttir, G., Thorlacius, S. and Ólafsson, S. Örorka og virk velferðarstefna (2010). Reykjavík: Háskóli 

Íslands.  

80 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
The Communication Centre for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing — a public body under the 
auspices  of  the  Ministry  of  Education,  Science  and  Culture  —  provides  sign  language 
interpreting  services  for  deaf  people.  Interpreting  services  relating  to  all  public  services 
should be provided where needed, free of charge. In the private sphere, e.g. in relation to 
employment  issues,  participation  in  courses  or  residents’  association  meetings,  fees  for 
interpreting  services  can  be  covered  by  a  special  state  fund.  It  should  be  noted  that  in 
some years not all requests for interpreting have been fulfilled as sufficient funds have not 
been available. It should also be stressed that disability benefits and old-age pensions are 
significantly lower than the minimum income considered necessary to cover normal living 
costs as calculated by the Ministry of Welfare. 

In 2013, the Icelandic Muslim Association was finally allocated land to build a mosque by 
the Reykjavík City Council and is now raising funds for the construction. The association 
first applied in 2000. This is a positive development, but indications of growing anti-Islamic 
sentiment are an issue of concern. In November 2013, a group of people placed pig heads 
and a bloodied Koran on the plot designated for the mosque. One individual was identified, 
but the investigation of the case concluded without prosecution.178 More disconcertingly, 
in the municipal elections of 2014, the Progressive Party gained eight percentage points 
and two seats on the Reykjavík Municipal City Council, campaigning on, inter alia, an anti-
Islamic  platform  and  stating  that  the  allocation  of  land  for  the  mosque  should  be 
withdrawn. On a positive note, the two city councillors have not actively promoted racist 
or anti-Islamic issues since taking office. 

Religious communities have also consistently complained that the differentiated payments 
to  registered  religious  organisations,  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  the  National  Church  of 
the  other,  constitute  unlawful  discrimination. 
Iceland  (the  state  church),  on 
Ásatrúarfélagið, the Norse pagan organisation, brought a court case arguing that Articles 
62  and  65  of  the  Constitution  should  be  interpreted  together  to  mean  that  under  the 
constitutional  equality  provision,  it  was  unlawful  to  discriminate  between  religious 
organisations in legislation regarding financial support to them. The Supreme Court ruled 
that as the functions of Ásatrúarfélagið and its duties towards the community (cf. the Act 
on Registered Religious Associations No. 108/1999) were not comparable with those of the 
legally-prescribed functions and obligations of the National Church of Iceland, funding from 
the State Treasury to the National Church to an extent over and above that received by 
other religious communities did not constitute a violation of the rule of equality set out in 
Article 65 of the Constitution. In short, the  court ruled that state support and protection 
for  the  National  Church  of  Iceland,  according  to  Article  62  of  the  Constitution,  does  not 
constitute a violation of the freedom of religion and the principle of equality.179 

The reality described above is not reflected in the current legislation, and no cases alleging 
discrimination based on race, religion, belief or age were heard in 2017.  

On a positive note, although sexual orientation is not a specially protected ground in the 
field  of  employment,  Icelandic legislation  setting  out  the  rights  of  homosexual  people  is 
one of the world’s most progressive: all marriages have the same legal status, same-sex 
couples  can  adopt  children  and  lesbians  are  able  to  take  advantage  of  artificial 
insemination. One of the last remaining hurdles was the opposition of the National Church 
of  Iceland  (the  Lutheran  state  church)  to  conducting  the  same  religious  ceremonies  for 
heterosexual and same-sex marriages. Priests who are against gay marriage were allowed, 
referring to their religious conscience, to refuse to conduct marriage ceremonies for same-
sex couples. According to the Bishop of Iceland, only a very small minority of priests hold 
such  views  and  in  2015  the  National  Church  Congress  adopted  a  resolution  which  bars 
priests  from  refusing  to  conduct  same-sex  marriage  ceremonies.  In  general,  attitudes 
towards LGBTQIA people are very liberal and Gay Pride celebrations are a time of family 

178  As there was no prosecution, no case can be cited. 
179  Supreme Court of Iceland, Ásatrúarfélagið v. the Icelandic State, Case No. 109/2007, 25 October 2007.  

81 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
festivities  in  Reykjavík.  Despite  liberal  attitudes,  a  small  minority  still  holds  traditional 
views.  Two  ground-breaking  cases  on  hate  speech  towards  homosexual  people  were 
decided  by  the  Supreme  Court  in  2017—  see  12.2  Case  law  below.  This  is  a  positive 
development as hateful comments have until now been taken lightly. The convictions stress 
that hate speech is a crime for which perpetrators risk prosecution.  

11.2 Other issues of concern  

The directives have not been transposed. The principle of equality is enshrined in Article 
65  of  the  Icelandic  Constitution,  but  comprehensive  anti-discrimination  legislation, 
ensuring protection against discrimination on the grounds of race or ethnic origin, religion 
or belief, age, disability or sexual orientation, is lacking. A handful of general law provisions 
stemming from the constitutional equality provision are in force, but these commonly do 
not  contain  an  exhaustive  enumeration  of  prohibited  grounds  of  discrimination  and  are 
limited to a particular law sector.  

No equality body has been established to promote equality and non-discrimination on the 
grounds of race or ethnic origin, religion or belief, age, disability or sexual orientation. The 
Centre  for  Gender  Equality  deals  with  gender  discrimination  only.  There  is  no  National 
Human Rights Institution. 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
12  LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN 2017 

Two draft bills on equal treatment were presented in 2017; one relating to race and ethnic 
origin,  and  the  other  on  equal  treatment  in  the  workplace  covering  race,  ethnic  origin, 
religion, opinion, disability, reduced capacity to work, age, sexual orientation and gender 
identity,  gender  expression  and  gender  characteristics.  The  bills  were  opened  for 
consultation  by  stakeholders  but  the  government  collapsed  before  the  bills  could  be 
adopted.  Nevertheless,  this  is  the  most  headway  work  on  anti-discrimination  legislation 
has made to date. The bills will be presented again in 2018. 

12.1 Legislative amendments 

There were no important legislative developments related to anti-discrimination in 2017. 

12.2 Case law 

No  discrimination  cases  relating  directly  to  the  scope  of  the  directives  were  decided  in 
2017. However, two ground-breaking Supreme Court judgments concerning hate speech 
towards LGBTQIA people represent a watershed for the LGBTQIA movement in Iceland. In 
April  2015,  Samtökin’78,  the  leading  LGBTQIA  rights  organisation  in  Iceland,  filed 
complaints against ten people because of hateful remarks made on a radio show and online 
after the council of Hafnarfjörður Municipality decided to provide LGBTQIA education in its 
schools with the assistance  of  Samtökin’78. The complaints fell under  the jurisdiction of 
the Reykjavík Police and two other police districts. In September 2015, the Reykjavík Police 
dismissed  the  complaints  without  investigation,  considering  the  remarks  to  be 
constitutionally  protected  free  speech  (Article  73  of  the  Icelandic  Constitution). 
Samtökin’78 appealed this decision and in November 2015 the State Prosecutor ruled that 
the complaints should be investigated. In November 2016, the State Prosecutor brought 
six cases concerning violations of the hate speech provision of the General Penal Code No. 
19/1940 to the District Courts.  

In one case the statute of limitations had expired,180 but in the remaining five the District 
Court acquitted the accused  as it found that  intent was not proven and their comments 
were considered to fall within the remit of free speech protected by the Constitution and 
the ECHR.181 The Supreme Court disagreed with the very narrow interpretation of the hate 
speech provision and overturned the acquittals in two cases which were appealed.182 In a 
third  case,  the  accused  was  found  to  have  publicly  insulted  homosexual  people  and 
expressed  prejudice  but  the  comments  were  not  injurious  enough  to  amount  to  hate 
speech.183  

Name of court: Supreme Court of Iceland 
Date of decision: 14 December 2017 
Names of the parties: The Prosecutor v. Sveinbjörn Styrmir Gunnarsson 
Reference number: Case No. 577/2017 
Link: www.haestirettur.is/domar/domur/?id=9ac88d78-68b1-4026-9d53-c869ea830270   
Brief summary: S was charged with hate speech under Article 233a of the General Penal 
Code  No.19/1940  because  of  remarks  made  in  the  comments  section  on  a  newspaper 
website  reporting  on  the  decision  of  the  council  of  Hafnarfjörður  Municipality  to  provide 
LGBTQIA  education  in  its  schools  with  the  assistance  of  Samtökin’78  (the  Icelandic 
LGBTQIA  Association).  The  Court  found,  after  examining  the  preparatory  notes,  the 

180  Reykjavik District Court, The Prosecutor v. A, Case No. S-834/2016, 28 April 2017.  
181  Reykjavik District Court, The Prosecutor v. A, Case No. S-835/2016, 28 April 2017. Reykjavik District Court, 
The Prosecutor v. A, Case No. S-840/2016, 24 April 2017; Reykjavik District Court, The Prosecutor v. X, 
Case No. S-839/2016, 10 April 2017. 

182  Supreme Court of Iceland, The Prosecutor v. Sveinbjörn Styrmir Gunnarsson, Case No. 577/2017, 14 

December 2017 and The Prosecutor v. Carl Jóhann Lilliendahl, Case No. 415/2017, 14 December 2017.   

183  Supreme Court of Iceland, The Prosecutor v. X, Case No. 354/2017, 14 December 2017.  

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
rationale behind Article 233a and its history, that to fall under it, comments would have to 
express loathing, disgust, contempt or condemnation to such a degree that they amounted 
to hate speech towards the person or persons at whom they were directed. The comments 
made by S on educating children about homosexuality and his using the word ‘kynvillingur’ 
(which can loosely be translated as ‘sexual deviant’) in this context was deemed to be hate 
speech within the scope of the provision. The Court also deemed the online venue to be a 
public forum and considered that the posting entailed intent, as required by the General 
Penal Code. When determining whether limiting the constitutionally protected freedom of 
expression of S was warranted, the Court found that, although the comments were part of 
a broader, rather unreasonable and unrestrained public debate, his comments had been 
grave,  grossly  injurious  and  prejudiced.  Such  means  of  expression,  constituting  hate 
speech,  were  completely  unnecessary  for  S  to  express  his  opinions  publicly.  The  Court 
noted  that,  in  addition  to  protecting  the  freedom  of  expression,  cf.  Article  73  of  the 
Constitution, the legislator had the responsibility to protect the right to respect for private 
and family life, cf. Article 71, and to protect those who are at risk of harassment or hate 
because of their situation or characteristics. The Court found that the interests that Article 
233a was meant to protect were more important than the right of S to express himself in 
the  manner  he  did.  S  was  convicted  and  ordered  to  pay  a  fine  of  ISK 100 000 
(approximately EUR 820). 

Name of court: Supreme Court of Iceland 
Date of decision: 14 December 2017 
Names of the parties: The Prosecutor v. Carl Jóhann Lilliendahl 
Reference number: Case No. 415/2017 
Link: www.haestirettur.is/domar/domur/?id=3180406e-2245-4c88-8563-7ca65cc6bf31 
Brief summary: C was charged with hate speech under Article 233a of the General Penal 
Code  No.19/1940  because  comments  made  online  about  the  decision  of  the  council  of 
Hafnarfjörður Municipality to provide LGBTQIA education in its schools with the assistance 
of Samtökin’78 (the Icelandic LGBTQIA Association). The Court found, after examining the 
preparatory notes, the rationale behind Article 233a and its history, that to fall under  it, 
comments would have to express loathing, disgust, contempt or condemnation to such a 
degree that they amounted to hate speech towards the person or persons at whom they 
were directed. The Court found that comments made by C were directed at homosexual 
people and were about homosexuality and the wording fell within the scope of Article 233a. 
The  Court  also  deemed  the  online  venue  to  be  a  public  forum  and  considered  that  the 
posting entailed intent, as required by the General Penal Code. When determining whether 
limiting the constitutionally protected freedom of expression of C was warranted, the Court 
found  that,  although  the  comments  were  part  of  a  broader,  rather  unreasonable  and 
unrestrained  public  debate,  his  comments  had  gone  far  beyond  the  original  topic  of 
discussion  and  had  been  grave,  grossly  injurious  and  prejudiced.  Such  means  of 
expression,  constituting  hate  speech,  were  completely  unnecessary  for  C  to  express  his 
opinions publicly. The Court noted that, in addition to protecting the freedom of expression, 
cf. Article 73 of the Constitution, the legislator had the responsibility to protect the right to 
respect  for  private  and  family  life,  cf.  Article  71,  and  protect  those  who  are  at  risk  of 
harassment or hate because of their situation or characteristics. The Court found that the 
interests that Article 233a was meant to protect were more important than the right of C 
to  express  himself  in  the  manner  he  did.  C  was  convicted  and  ordered  to  pay  a  fine  of 
ISK 100 000 (approximately EUR 820). 

Name of court: Supreme Court of Iceland 
Date of decision: 14 December 2017 
Names of the parties: The Prosecutor v. X 
Reference number: Case No. 354/2017 
Link: www.haestirettur.is/domar/domur/?id=42097e93-adaf-46de-9fc7-6e210e033a06  
Brief summary: X was charged with hate speech under Article 233a of the General Penal 
Code  No.19/1940  because  of  remarks  made  online  on  the  decision  of  the  council  of 
Hafnarfjörður Municipality to provide LGBTQIA education in its schools with the assistance 

84 

 
 
of Samtökin’78 (the Icelandic LGBTQIA Association). The Court found, after examining the 
preparatory notes, the rationale behind Article 233a and its history, that to fall under  it, 
comments would have to express loathing, disgust, contempt or condemnation to such a 
degree that they amounted to hate speech towards the person or persons at whom they 
were directed. The Court found that the comments insulted homosexual people and were 
prejudicial but that they were not injurious enough to amount to hate speech and X was 
acquitted. 

Mention should also be made of a case concerning free sign language interpreting services 
to enable a deaf-blind person to go to a summer camp abroad.  

Name of court: Supreme Court of Iceland 
Date of decision: 9 November 2017 
Names of the parties: Áslaug Ýr Hjartardóttir v. the Communication Centre for the Deaf 
and Hard of Hearing and the Icelandic State 
Reference number: Case No. 464/2017 
Link: www.haestirettur.is/default.aspx?pageid=347c3bb1-8926-11e5-80c6-
005056bc6a40&id=ce2ad6f4-899f-4f84-ae6b-c3a25d63526f  
Brief summary: A asked for the decision of the Communication Centre for the Deaf and 
Hard of Hearing to deny her free sign language interpreting services for a summer camp 
stay  abroad  to  be  annulled.  The  Supreme  Court  agreed  with  the  District  Court  that  the 
decision had been lawful and proportionate, based on the available funds, as the cost would 
have  amounted  to  18 %  of  the  Centre’s  budget  for  the  period  of  July-September  2017. 
Paying for A’s interpreting needs would have emptied the coffers and been discriminatory 
towards other applicants in need of free sign language interpreting services. 

85 

 
 
   
 
ANNEX 1: TABLE OF KEY NATIONAL ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION 

The main transposition and anti-discrimination legislation. 

Country:  
Date:   

Iceland 
1 January 2018 

Title of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)  

Title of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)  

Title of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)  

Title of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)  

Title of the law: Constitution of the Republic of Iceland No. 33/1944. 
Abbreviation: The Constitution. 
Date of adoption: 17.06.1944 
Latest amendments: 18.07.2013 
Entry into force: 17.06.1944 
Web link: www.althingi.is/lagas/nuna/1944033.html.  
Grounds  covered:  Sex,  religion,  opinion,  national  origin,  race,  colour, 
financial status, parentage or other status. 

Constitution. 
Material scope: General. 
Principal content: Equality before the law and in the enjoyment of human 
rights. 
Title of the law: Act incorporating the ECHR into domestic law No. 62/1994. 
Abbreviation: None. 
Date of adoption: 19.05.1994 
Latest amendments: 01.06.2010 
Entry into force: 30.05.1994 
Web link: www.althingi.is/lagas/144a/1994062.html.  
Grounds  covered:  Sex,  race,  colour,  language,  religion,  political  or  other 
opinion,  national  or  social  origin,  association  with  a  national  minority, 
property, birth or other status. 
Civil law. 
Material scope: Limited to rights enshrined in the ECHR. 
Principal  content:  Prohibition  of  discrimination  in  the  enjoyment  of  the 
rights set out in ECHR. 
Title of the law: Administrative Procedures Act No. 37/1993. 
Abbreviation: None. 
Date of adoption: 30.04.1993 
Latest amendments: 01.01.2013 
Entry into force: 01.01.1994 
Web link: www.althingi.is/lagas/nuna/1993037.html. 
Grounds covered: Inter alia, race, colour, national origin, religion, political 
opinion, social status and family origins. 
Administrative law 
Material scope: Administrative decisions. 
Principal content: Prohibition of discriminatory administrative decisions. 
Title of the law: General Penal Code No. 19/1940. 
Abbreviation: None. 
Date of adoption: 12.02.1940 
Latest amendments: 30.09.2017 
Entry into force: 12.08.1940 
Web link: www.althingi.is/lagas/nuna/1940019.html. 
Grounds  covered:  Nationality,  colour,  race,  religion,  sexual  orientation, 
gender identity. 
Criminal law. 
Material scope:  

  Harassment and hate speech. 
  Services  or  access  to  any  public  area  or  place  intended  for  general 

public use. 

86 

 
 
 
 
 

Public insults towards religious communities. 

Principal content:  

Prohibition of harassment and hate speech. 

 
  Criminalisation of denying a person a service or access to any public 

area or place intended for general public use. 

  Criminalisation of publicly insulting a religious community. 

Title of the law: Act on Primary Schools No. 91/2008. 
Abbreviation: None. 
Date of adoption: 12.06.2008 
Latest amendments: 01.07.2016 
Entry into force: 01.07.2008 
Web link: www.althingi.is/lagas/nuna/2008091.html.  
Grounds covered: National origin, sex, sexual orientation, residence, social 
class, religion, health, disability or other status. 
Civil law. 
Material scope: Primary education. 
Principal content: Prohibition of discrimination in education. 
Title of the law: Act on the Rights of Patients No. 74/1997. 
Abbreviation: None. 
Date of adoption: 28.05.1997 
Latest amendments: 01.01.2015 
Entry into force: 01.07.1997 
Web link: www.althingi.is/lagas/nuna/1997074.html. 
Grounds  covered:  Sex,  religion,  opinion,  ethnic  origin,  race,  colour, 
property, family origins or other status. 
Civil law. 
Material scope: Access to healthcare. 
Principal  content:  Prohibition  of  discrimination  in  the  provision  of 
healthcare. 
Title of the law: Postal Service Act No. 19/2002.    
Abbreviation: None. 
Date of adoption: 03.03.2002 
Latest amendments: 30.09.2011 
Entry into force: 18.03.2002 
Web link: www.althingi.is/lagas/nuna/2002019.html. 
Grounds covered: Political, religious or ideological nature. 
Civil law. 
Material scope: Postal service. 
Principal  content:  Prohibition  of  discrimination  in  provision  of  postal 
services. 
Title of the law: Act on the Media No. 38/2011. 
Abbreviation: None. 
Date of adoption: 20.04.2011 
Latest amendments: 12.04.2013 
Entry into force: 21.04.2011 
Web link: www.althingi.is/lagas/nuna/2011038.html. 
Grounds  covered:  Race,  sex,  sexual  orientation,  religion,  nationality, 
opinion or cultural, economic social or other status in society. 
Civil law. 
Material scope: Organisation and work of the media. 
Principal content: Anti-hate speech. 
Title of the law: Act on the Affairs of Persons with Disabilities No. 59/1992.  
Abbreviation: None. 
Date of adoption: 02.06.1992 
Latest amendments: 31.12.2016 
Entry into force: 01.09.1992 

Title of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)  

Title of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)  

Title of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)  

Title of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)  

Title of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)  

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Web link: www.althingi.is/lagas/nuna/1992059.html 
Grounds covered: Disability. 
Civil law. 
Material  scope:  Living  conditions,  employment,  housing,  assistance, 
education, etc. 
Principal  content:  Provision  of  services,  assistance,  etc.  to  people  with 
disabilities. 
Title of the law: Act on Municipal Social Services No. 40/1991.    
Abbreviation: None. 
Date of adoption: 27.03.1991 
Latest amendments: 01.01.2017 
Entry into force: 17.04.1991 
Web link: www.althingi.is/lagas/nuna/1991040.html. 
Grounds covered: Disability. 
Civil law. 
Material scope: Social services. 
Principal content: Provision and organisation of social services. 
Title of the law: Act on the Affairs of the Elderly No. 125/1999.   
Abbreviation: None. 
Date of adoption: 31.12.1999 
Latest amendments: 31.12.2017 
Entry into force: 11.01.2000 
Web link: www.althingi.is/lagas/nuna/1999125.html.  
Grounds covered: Age. 
Civil law. 
Material scope: Services, housing, healthcare, etc. 
Principal content: Provision and organisation of services, housing, etc. for 
older persons. 
Title  of  the  law:  Act  Amending  Laws  relating  to  the  Judicial  Status  of 
Homosexual Persons No. 65/2006. 
Abbreviation: None. 
Date of adoption: 14.06.2006 
Latest amendments: None. 
Entry into force: 27.06.2006 
Web link: www.althingi.is/altext/132/s/1445.html.  
Grounds covered: Sexual orientation. 
Civil law. 
Material scope: Equality before the law in various areas. 
Principal content: Amending legislation to ensure equality for homosexual 
persons. 
Title of the law: Act on Mandatory Pension Insurance and the Operations 
of Pension Funds No. 129/1997. 
Abbreviation: None. 
Date of adoption: 23.12.1997 
Latest amendments: 31.12.2017 
Entry into force: 01.07.1998 
Web link: www.althingi.is/lagas/nuna/1997129.html. 
Grounds covered: Health, age, civil status, family size or gender. 
Civil law. 
Material  scope:  Non-discrimination  in  access  to  occupational  pension 
schemes. 
Principal content: Organisation, set-up and requirements for functioning of 
pension funds and mandatory pension insurance. 
Title of the law: Act on Workers’ Terms of Employment and Pensions No. 
55/1980.  
Abbreviation: None. 

Title of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)  

Title of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)  

Title of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)  

Title of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)  

Title of 
legislation  

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(including 
amending 
legislation)  

Title of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)  

Title of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)  

Date of adoption: 09.06.1980 
Latest amendments: 30.06.2010 
Entry into force: 16.06.1980 
Web link: www.althingi.is/lagas/nuna/1980055.html.  
Grounds covered: Sex, nationality and length of contract. 
Labour law. 
Material scope: Non-discrimination in terms of employment. 
Principal  content:  Minimum  wages  and  conditions  negotiated  by  social 
partners. 
Title of the law: Act incorporating the Convention on the Rights of the Child 
into domestic law No.19/2013. 
Abbreviation: None. 
Date of adoption: 20.02.2013 
Latest amendments: None. 
Entry into force: 06.03.2013 
Web link: www.althingi.is/altext/141/s/1045.html.  
Grounds  covered: Race, colour,  sex, language, religion, political or  other 
opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other 
status. 
Civil law. 

Material scope: Limited to rights enshrined in the Convention. 

Principal  content:  Prohibition  of  discrimination  in  the  enjoyment  and 
respect for the rights set out in the Convention.  
Title  of  the  law:  Act  on  Rights  Advocates  for  People  with  Disabilities  No. 
88/2011. 
Abbreviation: None. 
Date of adoption: 23.06.2011 
Latest amendments: 28.10.2016 
Entry into force: 01.07.2011 
Web link: www.althingi.is/lagas/nuna/2011088.html. 
Grounds covered: Disability. 
Civil law. 

Material scope: Social services and rights of people with disabilities. 

Principal content: Establishment of system of rights advocates for people 
with disabilities.  

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2: TABLE OF INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS 

Country:  
Date:   

Iceland 
1 January 2018 

Instrument  Date of 

signature  

Date of 
ratification  

Right of 
individual 
petition 
accepted? 

Can this 
instrument 
be directly 
relied upon 
in domestic 
courts by 
individuals? 

Derogatio
ns/ 
reservatio
ns 
relevant 
to 
equality 
and non-
discrimina
tion 
No 

Yes, the ECHR 
has been 
incorporated 
into domestic 
law. 
N/A 

European 
Convention on 
Human Rights 
(ECHR) 

Protocol 12, 
ECHR 

Revised 
European 
Social Charter 

International 
Covenant on 
Civil and 
Political 
Rights 
Framework 
Convention 
for the 
Protection of 
National 
Minorities 
International 
Covenant on 
Economic, 
Social and 
Cultural 
Rights 
Convention on 
the 
Elimination of 
All Forms of 
Racial 
Discrimina-
tion 
Convention on 
the 
Elimination of 
Discrimina-

04.11.1950  29.06.1953 

Yes 

04.11.2000  Not ratified.  N/A 

N/A 

04.11.1998  Not ratified.  N/A 

30.12.1968  22.08.1979 

No 

N/A 

Ratified 
collective 
complaints 
protocol? 

No 
Yes 

No 

01.02.1995  Not ratified. 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

30.12.1968 

22.08.1979 

No 

No 

No 

14.12.1966  13.03.1967 

No 

Yes 

No 

24.07.1980 

18.6.1985 

No 

Yes 

No 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Instrument  Date of 

signature  

Date of 
ratification  

Right of 
individual 
petition 
accepted? 

Can this 
instrument 
be directly 
relied upon 
in domestic 
courts by 
individuals? 

Derogatio
ns/ 
reservatio
ns 
relevant 
to 
equality 
and non-
discrimina
tion 

tion Against 
Women 

ILO 
Convention 
No. 111 on 
Discrimination 
Convention on 
the Rights of 
the Child 

Convention on 
the Rights of 
Persons with 
Disabilities  

29.07.1964 

29.07.1963 

No 

N/A 

No 

26.01.1990 

28.10.1992 

No 

N/A 

30.03.2007 

23.09.2016 

No 

No 

Yes, the 
Convention 
has been 
incorporated 
into domestic 
law. 
No 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

•  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

•  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries 
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) 
or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

(*)  The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may 
charge you). 

Priced publications: 

•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu)  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
D
S
-
0
4
-
1
8
-
3
9
3
-
3
A
-
N

PDF 

ISBN: 978-92-79-85227-5 

doi: 10.2838/024574