CASE OF GUÐMUNDUR ANDRI ÁSTRÁÐSSON v. ICELAND
Hearing: Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland (no. 26374/18) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2020-02-05 00:00:00)
Application no.: 26374/18
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2020-12-01 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:1201JUD002637418
Respondent state: ISL
Articles of the Convention: 6;6-1;41;46;46-2
Judges: Aleš Pejchal;Branko Lubarda;Egidijus Kūris;Georgios A. Serghides;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mārtiņš Mits;Paul Lemmens;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Robert Spano;Síofra O'Leary;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer;Georges Ravarani;Pere Pastor Vilanova;María Elósegui
Represented by: VILHJÁLMSSON V.H.
Issue: Section 10 of the Administrative Procedures Act no. 37/1993 ; Judiciary Act nos. 15/1998, 45/2010 and 50/2016 ; Equality Act no. 10/2008
Strasbourg case-law cited: A, B and C v. Ireland [GC], no. 25579/05, § 281, ECHR 2010;Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, 23 June 2016;Belilos v. Switzerland, 29 April 1988, § 64, Series A no. 132;Brumărescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 61, ECHR 1999 VII;Burmych and Others v. Ukraine (striking out) [GC], nos. 46852/13 et al, §§ 120-122, 12 October 2017;Carbonara and Ventura v. Italy, no. 24638/94, § 68, ECHR 2000 VI;Chim and Przywieczerski v. Poland, nos. 36661/07 and 38433/07, §§ 138-142, 12 April 2018;Coëme and Others v. Belgium, nos. 32492/96 and 4 others, ECHR 2000 VII;Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 63, 25 September 2018;DMD GROUP, a.s., v. Slovakia, no. 19334/03, 5 October 2010;Ezgeta v. Croatia, no. 40562/12, 7 September 2017;Fruni v. Slovakia, no. 8014/07, § 145, 21 June 2011;Garib v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 43494/09, § 137, 6 November 2017;Gorguiladzé v. Georgia, no. 4313/04, 20 October 2009;Gurov v. Moldova, no. 36455/02, §§ 36-37, 11 July 2006;Henryk Urban and Ryszard Urban v. Poland, no. 23614/08, 30 November 2010;Ilatovskiy v. Russia, no. 6945/04, §§ 38-42, 9 July 2009;Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (infringement proceedings) [GC], no. 15172/13, 29 May 2019;Jenița Mocanu v. Romania, no. 11770/08, 17 December 2013;Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, § 64, ECHR 2007-III (extracts);Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, § 190, 17 May 2016;Khrykin v. Russia, no. 33186/08, §§ 28-30, 19 April 2011;Kleyn and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], nos. 39343/98 and 3 others, § 193, ECHR 2003 VI;Kontalexis v. Greece, no. 59000/08, 31 May 2011;Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, §§ 114-115, 28 November 2002;Maktouf and Damjanović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 2312/08 and 34179/08, § 49, ECHR 2013;Medvedyev and Others v. France [GC], no. 3394/03, § 80, ECHR 2010;Miracle Europe Kft v. Hungary, no. 57774/13, 12 January 2016;Momčilović v. Serbia, no. 23103/07, 2 April 2013;Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 62, 11 July 2017;Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, § 128 ECHR 2015;Nejdet Şahin and Perihan Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 13279/05, § 56, 20 October 2011;Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210, ECHR 2005 IV;Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, no. 21722/11, §§ 152-156, ECHR 2013;OOO Link Oil SPB v. Russia (dec.), no. 42600/05, 25 June 2009;Pandjikidzé and Others v. Georgia, no. 30323/02, 27 October 2009;Pasquini v. San Marino, no. 50956/16, §§ 103 and 107, 2 May 2019;Posokhov v. Russia, no. 63486/00, §§ 39-44, ECHR 2003 IV;Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 149, 20 March 2018;Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos. 55391/13 and 2 others, 6 November 2018;Richert v. Poland, no. 54809/07, 25 October 2011;Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 52, ECHR 2003 IX;S., V. and A. v. Denmark [GC], nos. 35553/12 and 2 others, § 148, 22 October 2018;Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC], no. 931/13, § 164, 27 June 2017;Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 191, ECHR 2006 V;Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000 VIII;Sokurenko and Strygun v. Ukraine, nos. 29458/04 and 29465/04, 20 July 2006;Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 254, ECHR 2012;Sutyazhnik v. Russia, no. 8269/02, 23 July 2009;Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, § 107, ECHR 2012;Zand v. Austria, no. 7360/76, Commission’s report of 12 October 1978, Decisions and Reports (DR) 15, pp. 70-80;Zeynalov v. Azerbaijan, no. 31848/07, 30 May 2013
External sources: Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE), Opinion no. 1 on standards concerning the independence of the judiciary and the irremovability of judges (2001);Principle 8 of the Magna Carta of Judges (Fundamental Principles) (2010, CCJE);Council of Europe Group of States Against Corruption (Greco) Fourth Evaluation Report on Iceland (2013);European Charter on the Statute for Judges of 8-10 July 1998;General Assembly of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary, Dublin Declaration on Standards for the Recruitment and Appointment of Members of the Judiciary (May 2012);Latimer House Guidelines for the Commonwealth on Parliamentary Supremacy and Judicial Independence (1998);Recommendation 2010(12) of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities;Principle 10 of the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary (1985);UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment no. 32 on Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (2007);Fifth Periodic Report of the Government of Iceland to the UN Human Rights Committee on the implementation of the ICCPR (2010);Article 9 of the Universal Charter of the Judge (1999);Venice Commission, Rule of Law Checklist (2016);Venice Commission, Report on Judicial Appointments (2007)

Conclusion: Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Tribunal established by law);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46-2 - General measures)
Separate opinion: TRUE