Iceland Thor Vilbjalmsson*
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Constitutional/Judicial Resistance to European Law in Iceland. Sovereignty and Constitutional Identity Vs. Access to Justice Under the EEA Agreement
Constitutional/judicial resistance to European Law in Iceland. Sovereignty and constitutional identity vs. access to justice under the EEA Agreement Professor M. Elvira MENDEZ-PINEDO1 Abstract In the context of occasional constitutional resistance to international and European Union (EU) law in other countries, we find a similar tension in Iceland vis-à-vis the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement and the Icelandic constitutional/statutory domestic system (EEA Act 2/1993). The authority and effectiveness of EEA law seem disregarded with negative consequences for the judicial protection of individual rights. The EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) sent official letters to Iceland in 2015, 2016 and 2017. In its view, in too many recent cases, the Supreme Court has discarded and set aside validly implemented EEA law in order to give precedence to conflicting Icelandic law. In some cases, individuals have no proper remedy to exercise their European rights (State liability for judicial breaches of EEA law not admissible). It is uncertain at this time whether actions for infringement of EEA law will be brought by ESA to the EFTA Court. This study reviews this sort of judicial, legislative and/or constitutional resistance to EEA law in Iceland and argues that the use of concepts such as sovereignty (public international law) and constitutional identity (EU law) can never justify the denial of access to justice and effective judicial protection under the EEA Agreement. Keywords: Iceland, European Economic Area law, constitutional resistance, access to justice. JEL Classification: K10, K33, K40 1. Introduction The European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement2 extends the internal market and other EU policies to three non-EU neighbouring countries. -
National Risk Assessment
2019 National Risk Assessment Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing National Commissioner of the Icelandic Police 1 April 2019 National Risk Assessment of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Table of Contents Preface Infrastructure Legal environment, police services, and monitoring Methodology Consolidated conclusions Risk classification summary Predicate offences Cash Company operations Financial market Specialists Gambling Trade and services Other Terrorist financing References 2 Preface Iceland is probably not the first country coming to mind when most people discuss money laundering and terrorist financing. In an increasingly globalised world, however, Iceland is nowhere near safe against the risks that money laundering and terrorist financing entail. Nor is it exempt from a duty to take appropriate and necessary measures to prevent such from thriving in its area of influence. In September 1991, Iceland entered into collaboration with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), which is an international action group against money laundering and terrorist financing. FATF has issued instructions on the measures member states shall take in response to the threat stemming from money laundering and terrorist financing. FATF's instructions have become global guidelines. For example, the European Union's directives have been in accordance with these guidelines. By joining FATF, Iceland obligated itself to coordinating its legislation with the action group's instructions. Regarding this, FATF's evaluation in 2017-2018 revealed various weaknesses in the Icelandic legislation. Iceland began responding, which, for example, entailed legalising the European Union's 4th Anti-money Laundering Directive. In accordance with the requirements following from FATF Recommendation no. 1, the above directive assumes that all member states shall carry out a risk assessment of the main threats and weaknesses stemming from money laundering and terrorist financing within the areas each member state controls. -
Commdh(2005)10 Original Version
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS _______________ BUREAU DU COMMISSAIRE AUX DROITS DE L´HOMME Strasbourg, 14 December 2005 CommDH(2005)10 Original version REPORT BY Mr. ALVARO GIL-ROBLES, COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, ON HIS VISIT TO THE REPUBLIC OF ICELAND 4 - 6 JULY 2005 for the attention of the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly CommDH(2005)10 2 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................3 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ..................................................................................................4 1. JUDICIARY ....................................................................................................................5 2. PRISON SYSTEM ..........................................................................................................7 3. PRE-TRIAL DETENTION............................................................................................8 4. HUMAN RIGHTS STRUCTURES.............................................................................10 5. TREATMENT OF ASYLUM SEEKERS..........................................................................12 6. INTEGRATION OF FOREIGNERS.................................................................................14 7. GENDER EQUALITY AND VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ....................................16 8. NON-DISCRIMINATION..................................................................................................18 9. TRAFFICKING -
Constitutional Bill
Revised translation 11.12.2012 by Anna Yates, certified translator Constitutional Bill for a new constitution for the Republic of Iceland From the majority of the Constitutional and Supervisory Committee (VBj, ÁI, RM, LGeir, MSch, MT). Preamble We, the people of Iceland, wish to create a just society with equal opportunities for everyone. Our different origins enrich the whole, and together we are responsible for the heritage of the generations, the land and history, nature, language and culture. Iceland is a free and sovereign state which upholds the rule of law, resting on the cornerstones of freedom, equality, democracy and human rights. The government shall work for the welfare of the inhabitants of the country, strengthen their culture and respect the diversity of human life, the land and the biosphere. We wish to promote peace, security, well-being and happiness among ourselves and future generations. We resolve to work with other nations in the interests of peace and respect for the Earth and all Mankind. In this light we are adopting a new Constitution, the supreme law of the land, to be observed by all. Chapter I. Foundations Article 1 Form of government Iceland is a Republic governed by parliamentary democracy. 1 Article 2 Source and holders of state powers All state powers spring from the nation, which wields them either directly, or via those who hold government powers. The Althing holds legislative powers. The President of the Republic, Cabinet Ministers and the State government and other government authorities hold executive powers. The Supreme Court of Iceland and other courts of law hold judicial powers. -
Elements of Nature Relocated the Work of Studio Granda
Petur H. Armannsson Elements of Nature Relocated The Work of Studio Granda "Iceland is not scenic in the conventional European sense of The campus of the Bifrost School of Business is situated in the word - rather it is a landscape devoid of scenery. Its qual- Nordurardalur Valley in West Iceland, about 60 miles North ity of hardness and permanence intercut v/\1\-i effervescent of the capital city of Reykjavik. Surrounded by mountains elements has a parallel in the work of Studio Granda/" of various shapes and heights, the valley is noted for the beauty of its landscape. The campus is located at the edge of a vast lava field covered by gray moss and birch scrubs, w/ith colorful volcanic craters forming the background. The main road connecting the northern regions of Iceland with the Reykjavik area in the south passes adjacent to the site, and nearby is a salmon-fishing river with tourist attracting waterfalls. The original building at Bifrost was designed as a res- taurant and roadway hotel. It was built according to plans made in 1945 by architects Gisli Halldorsson and Sigvaldi Thordarson. The Federation of Icelandic Co-op- eratives (SIS) bought the property and the first phase of the hotel, the restaurant wing, was inaugurated in 1951. It functioned as a restaurant and community center of the Icelandic co-operative movement until 1955, when a decision was made to move the SIS business trade school there from Reykjavik. A two-story hotel wing with Armannsson 57 Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/thld_a_00361 by guest on 24 September 2021 hotel rooms was completed that same year and used as In subsequent projects, Studio Granda has continued to a student dormitory in the winter. -
REPORT on MEASURES to COMBAT DISCRIMINATION Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC
European network of legal experts in the non-discrimination field REPORT ON MEASURES TO COMBAT DISCRIMINATION Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC COUNTRY REPORT 2013 ICELAND Guðrún D. Guðmundsdóttir State of affairs up to 1st January 2014 This report has been drafted for the European Network of Legal Experts in the Non-discrimination Field (on the grounds of Race or Ethnic Origin, Age, Disability, Religion or Belief and Sexual Orientation), established and managed by: Human European Consultancy Migration Policy Group Maliestraat 7 Rue Belliard 205, Box 1 3581 SH Utrecht 1040 Brussels Netherlands Belgium Tel +31 30 634 14 22 Tel +32 2 230 5930 Fax +31 30 635 21 39 Fax +32 2 280 0925 [email protected] [email protected] www.humanconsultancy.com www.migpolgroup.com All reports are available on the website of the European network of legal experts in the non-discrimination field: http://www.non-discrimination.net/law/national-legislation/country-reports-measures- combat-discrimination This report has been drafted as part of a study into measures to combat discrimination in the EU Member States, funded by the European Community Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity – PROGRESS (2007-2013). The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the European Commission. European network of legal experts in the non-discrimination field TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 3 0.1 The national legal system ........................................................................... 3 0.2 Overview/State of implementation .............................................................. 4 0.3 Case-law ..................................................................................................... 5 1 GENERAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................... 9 2 THE DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION ........................................................ -
Independence of the Justice System
Factsheet – Independence of the justice system July 2021 This Factsheet does not bind the Court and is not exhaustive Independence of the justice system Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial – independent tribunal) of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”): “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. (...)”. Independence and right to a fair trial Remli v. France 23 April 1996 This case concerned an Assize Court’s refusal of an application by a French defendant of Algerian origin to have formal note taken of a racist remark allegedly made by one of the jurors outside the courtroom and which had been recorded in a written witness statement. The applicant complained in particular that he had not had a hearing by an impartial tribunal. The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It noted in particular that Article 6 § 1 imposed an obligation on every national court to check whether, as constituted, it was “an impartial tribunal” where, as in the applicant’s case, this was disputed on a ground that did not immediately appear to be manifestly devoid of merit. In the instant case, however, the Assize Court had not made any such check, thereby depriving the applicant of the possibility of remedying, if it proved necessary, a situation contrary to the requirements of the Convention. This finding, regard being had to the confidence which the courts must inspire in those subject to their jurisdiction, sufficed for the Court to hold that there has been a breach of Article 6 § 1. -
Fm A51 Alþingi Rilri>5J International ÓOÐ
5/15/2014 FOAcasetext fm A51 Alþingi rilri>5J International ÓOÐ. ynodí Erindi m Þ N 2/tw a J l y í » Labour FromotmgjobSp kommdagur fy.S- 2 ö H Organization protecting ptople NORMLEX Information System on Internationa! Labour Standards Search | User guide Definitive Report - Report No 330, March 2003 Case No 2170 (lceland) - Complaint date: 22-JAN-02 - Closed Display in: French - Spanish Goto: INTRODUCTION | A The complainants’ aliegations | B.The Government’s repíy | C. The Committee’s concíusions I The Committee's recommendations Allegations: The complaxnants allege that the Government unduly interfered in trade union activities by enacting a law whereby a legal strike was prohibited and compulsory arbitration imposed on the parties to an interest dispute. 8 5 5 - The complaints are set out in a communication from the Icelandic Federation of Labour (its Icelandic acronym being ASÍ) dated 22 January 2002 aswell asin a communication from the Merchant Navy and Fishing Vessel Officers Guild (its Icelandic acronym being FFSI) dated 24 January 2002. In communications dated respectively 30 January and 1 February 2002, the Mternational Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) and the International Confederatiön of Free Trade ITnions (ICFTU) expressed the wish to be associated with the complaint presentedby the FFSI. 856. The Government replied in communicationsdated 3 September 2002 and3 March 2003. 857- Iceland has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), andthe Right toOrganise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). _______________ A . The compiainants’ allcgations_________________ 8 5 8 , Ih itscomplaint dated22 January 2002, the ASÍailegesthat thepassing by theAlthing (Iceland’s Parliament) ofthe Act on físhermen’s wages andterms (etc.) No. -
The 2008 Icelandic Bank Collapse: Foreign Factors
The 2008 Icelandic Bank Collapse: Foreign Factors A Report for the Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs Centre for Political and Economic Research at the Social Science Research Institute University of Iceland Reykjavik 19 September 2018 1 Summary 1. An international financial crisis started in August 2007, greatly intensifying in 2008. 2. In early 2008, European central banks apparently reached a quiet consensus that the Icelandic banking sector was too big, that it threatened financial stability with its aggressive deposit collection and that it should not be rescued. An additional reason the Bank of England rejected a currency swap deal with the CBI was that it did not want a financial centre in Iceland. 3. While the US had protected and assisted Iceland in the Cold War, now she was no longer considered strategically important. In September, the US Fed refused a dollar swap deal to the CBI similar to what it had made with the three Scandinavian central banks. 4. Despite repeated warnings from the CBI, little was done to prepare for the possible failure of the banks, both because many hoped for the best and because public opinion in Iceland was strongly in favour of the banks and of businessmen controlling them. 5. Hedge funds were active in betting against the krona and the banks and probably also in spreading rumours about Iceland’s vulnerability. In late September 2008, when Glitnir Bank was in trouble, the government decided to inject capital into it. But Glitnir’s major shareholder, a media magnate, started a campaign against this trust-building measure, and a bank run started. -
An Analysis of the Icelandic Supreme Court Judgement on the Health Sector Database Act Dr Renate Gertz *
Volume 1, Issue 2, June 2004 An analysis of the Icelandic Supreme Court judgement on the Health Sector Database Act * Dr Renate Gertz Abstract Six years after the Icelandic Health Sector Database Act came into force, the Supreme Court of Iceland as court of appeal was asked to give a judgement on the constitutionality of the Act. The appellant had unsuccessfully applied to the Director General of Public Health to prevent the transfer of her deceased father’s medical records to the Health Sector Database. The court of first instance, the Reykjavik District Court, dismissed the case for lack of legal standing. The Icelandic Supreme Court decided that the appellant had legal standing due to the fact that from the data related to hereditary characteristics of her father information about the plaintiff herself could be inferred. The Icelandic Supreme Court further discussed privacy and data protection issues with regard to the Health Sector Database, coming to the conclusion that the one-way encryption system was a sufficiently safe mechanism for data protection, but that due to the richness of data to be entered into the Health Sector Database, individuals could be identifiable. DOI: 10.2966/scrip.010204.241 © Renate Gertz 2004. This work is licensed through SCRIPT-ed Open Licence (SOL) . * Research Fellow, AHRB Centre, School of Law, University of Edinburgh. Acknowledgement: The author would like to thank Dr G T Laurie for his advice. Any mistakes, of course, are the author’s own. (2004) 1:2 SCRIPT-ed 242 1. Introduction November 27, 2003 was a triumphant day for the opponents of the Icelandic Health Sector Database project. -
Iceland's Fifth Periodic Report on Implementation of the International
Iceland’s Fifth Periodic Report on Implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Pursuant to Article 40 of the Covenant Government of Iceland Ministry of Justice and Human Rights April 2010 1 CONTENTS Paragraphs I. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS 1 - 57 1. Introduction 1 – 3 2. Analysis of the European Commission of Iceland's current situation with respect to human rights and democracy 4 – 6 3. The status of the Covenant in Icelandic law and its effect on legislation and judicial practice 7 – 14 4. Legislation in fields coming under the scope of the Covenant 15 5. International agreements ratified or signed by Iceland 16 6. Conclusions of the European Court of Human Rights in cases against Iceland 17 – 19 7. Views of the Human Rights Committee concerning communication No. 1306/2004 and measures taken 20 – 27 8. Recommendations made by Human Rights Committee in its concluding observations of 2005 28 - 57 II. INFORMATION RELATING TO INDIVIDUAL PROVISIONS OF PARTS I, II AND III OF THE COVENANT 58 – 205 Article 1 58 – 59 Article 2 60 – 65 Article 3 66 – 82 Article 4 83 Article 5 84 Article 6 85 – 86 Article 7 88 – 93 Article 8 94 – 99 Article 9 100 – 107 Article 10 108 – 114 Article 11 115 Article 12 116 – 117 Article 13 118 – 126 Article 14 127 – 147 Article 15 148 – 149 Article 16 150 Article 17 151 – 155 Article 18 156 – 163 Article 19 164 – 166 Article 20 167 2 Article 21 168 - 170 Article 22 171 - 177 Article 23 178 – 180 Article 24 181 – 188 Article 25 189 - 193 Article 26 194 - 198 Article 27 199 – 204 3 Iceland’s Fifth Periodic Report on the Implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Pursuant to Article 40 of the Covenant I. -
Yearbook of Muslims in Europe the Titles Published in This Series Are Listed at Brill.Com/Yme Yearbook of Muslims in Europe Volume 5
Yearbook of Muslims in Europe The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/yme Yearbook of Muslims in Europe Volume 5 Editor-in-Chief Jørgen S. Nielsen Editors Samim Akgönül Ahmet Alibašić Egdūnas Račius LEIDEN • boSTON 2013 This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, IPA, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 1877-1432 ISBN 978-90-04-25456-5 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-25586-9 (e-book) Copyright 2013 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper. CONTENTS The Editors ........................................................................................................ ix Editorial Advisers ...........................................................................................