## Facts

- Iceland enacted the Judiciary Act 2016 creating a new 15-judge Court of Appeal, with an Evaluation Committee to rank candidates and statutory limits on ministerial deviations from the committee’s list.
- In the first appointments, the Minister of Justice proposed 15 candidates to Parliament, substituting four candidates (including A.E.) for higher-ranked committee selections.
- The Supreme Court of Iceland later found the Minister replaced candidates without an adequate independent assessment or reasons, and that Parliament voted on the list as a bloc rather than individually approving substituted candidates as required by law.
- Despite these defects, Parliament approved the slate and the President formally appointed the 15 judges.
- The applicant was convicted of traffic offenses, appealed, and the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction; A.E. sat on the three-judge panel.
- The applicant challenged the Court of Appeal as not a “tribunal established by law” due to appointment irregularities; the Supreme Court acknowledged serious breaches but upheld the conviction and treated the appointments as valid.
- The applicant brought proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights; a Chamber found a violation, and the case was referred to the Grand Chamber.

## Issues

1. Whether the applicant’s criminal case was determined by a “tribunal established by law” under Article 6 § 1 where a panel member’s appointment resulted from serious breaches of domestic appointment rules.
2. Whether Article 46 required reopening of all final cases decided by panels including irregularly appointed Court of Appeal judges.

## Decision

- The Grand Chamber held that Article 6 § 1 was violated because the appointment of judge A.E. was tainted by grave breaches of domestic law that undermined the legitimacy of the appointment process.
- The Court applied a three-part framework and found: (1) a manifest breach of domestic law; (2) breach of rules fundamental to limiting political influence and ensuring merit-based selection; and (3) insufficient effective domestic judicial review and redress.
- The Court concluded that the defects created objectively justified concerns about undue executive discretion and political motives and impaired the essence of the “tribunal established by law” guarantee.
- Under Article 46, the Court held the judgment did not require Iceland to reopen all similar cases that had become final; general measures had to balance redress with legal certainty and judicial tenure.

## Legal Principles

- “Tribunal established by law” includes compliance with domestic rules governing judicial appointments, not merely the formal existence of a court.
- Appointment irregularities can violate Article 6 § 1 where they (1) constitute a manifest breach of domestic law, (2) concern rules fundamental to the integrity of the appointment process (including protection against political influence), and (3) are not adequately addressed through effective national judicial review and remedies.
- The guarantee is closely connected to judicial independence and impartiality and protects public confidence in the administration of justice even absent proof of a judge’s personal bias.
- Article 46 remedial consequences need not require wholesale reopening of final judgments; states must adopt measures that prevent recurrence while preserving legal certainty and the principle of judicial irremovability.

## Conclusion

The Grand Chamber held that serious, unremedied breaches of statutory safeguards in appointing a Court of Appeal judge meant the applicant’s case was not decided by a tribunal “established by law” under Article 6 § 1, while declining to require reopening of all final cases under Article 46.


Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland, App. No. 26374/18 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Dec. 1, 2020) (GC)