Supreme Court acknowledges mistakes: Did not exceed data

The Supreme Court of Iceland decided to reject the plaintiff on an appeal without having reviewed all the evidence of the case. The data was sent to the court, but they did not receive the judges for handworms.

It is worth noting that none of the three judges who were considering the case realized that the data was missing. It was despite the fact that the case had been on the list that followed the appeal request.

The data that was missing was for the most part a statement of the applicants of previous courts. It was repeatedly referred to her in other supporting documents that followed the court.

We find that the judges made a decision without the evidence of the case. The result was to reject a request for an appeal.

The Supreme Court acknowledged a mistake after the applicant in the case asked if the judges had received the missing data.

On that basis, the Supreme Court allowed the case to be dealt with by the court again. Three new judges got the case in their hands and rejected the case before the court, but this time after the review of all the data.

The President of the Supreme Court does not consider it material to comment on the judge’s procedure in the case.

The gnip case

The case itself is about years of dispute in the so -called Gnúp case after Lyflóm ehf. brought a case against Thordur Má Jóhannesson, investor and former CEO of Gnup, and former Minister of Justice Sólveig Pétursdóttir. Shareholders felt that they had been a barn and had compensation. Thórðr and Sólveig were acquitted in the district court and national law.

Supporting documentation in support of review

Explaining are three conditions needed for the Supreme Court to consider a case. That significant financial interests lie that cases are exemplary or if a judgment is clearly wrong.

Those who want the Supreme Court to consider a request for an appeal for three judges. Both the licensor and the counterparty submit an argument or a comment on why the judgment should be taken up. The documents that did not return to the judges were the supporting of the lawyers of the Pharmaceutical Flower, which is in support of the review.

Usually not supporting documentation

Benedikt Bogason, President of the Supreme Court, says that the documentation is usually not included in the appeal, but only justification for why the case is not a matter of consideration at the judgment. He did not consider it material to comment on the judges’ handling of the case.

« Usually, just a request for an appeal permit is received without it being accompanied by data. So the counterparty gets an opportunity for review, » says Benedikt. He says, however, that the parties submit data and rightly if the judges should not go over the right.

Let’s go over what is sent to us

« Of course we go over what is sent to us. However, there were mistakes and it was requested that this be done again with new judges. It was done and the case was re -examined, » says Benedikt.

Was this normal procedure in the judgment?

« In itself, there were certain mistakes and they were corrected with a new decision by the court that other judges stood for, » says Benedikt.

But this is a natural question as to whether the judges in the right are sufficiently reviewing the requests that come there. Isn’t it?

« Of course, people do. « The case was re -recorded so that it eventually received normal treatment with the same conclusion, » says Benedikt.

No accusations

Do the judges get over the court or something like that?

« No, this is just fixed and a new decision made where the data was available. It was not going to change anything in this case, » says Benedikt.