CYIL Vol. 4, 2013

SOME GUARANTEES REGARDING CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS APPLICABLE … 2. This right may be subject to exceptions in regard to offences of a minor character, as prescribed by law, or in cases in which the person concerned was tried in the first instance by the highest tribunal or was convicted following an appeal against acquittal. According to the Explanatory Report to Protocol No. 7 43 (hereinafter referred as “the Explanatory Report”) Article 2 does not require that a person should be entitled to have both his or her conviction and sentence so reviewed in every case. Accordingly, for example, if the person convicted pleaded guilty to the offence charged, the right may be restricted to a review of his or her sentence. Pieter van Dijk considers that such a line of reasoning is not convincing and concludes that it would be better to use the word “and” instead of “or” between “conviction” and “sentence”, because in some cases it may be necessary to review the way the confession was obtained, that is the basis of the conviction, not only the sentence itself. 44 Some member states of the Council of Europe have a system according to which a person wishing to appeal to a higher tribunal must in certain cases apply for leave to appeal. The Explanatory Report makes it clear that the right to apply to a tribunal or an administrative authority for leave to appeal has to be regarded as a form of review within the meaning of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7. The second paragraph of Article 2 contains three exceptions to the rights laid down in the first paragraph; these are: 1) for offences of a minor character, as prescribed by law; 2) in cases in which the person concerned has been tried in the first instance by the highest tribunal – for example by virtue of his or her status as a minister, a judge or other holder of high office, or because of the nature of the offence; and 3) where the person concerned was convicted following an appeal against acquittal. Having discussed the main principles of the right under Article 2, let us move to the practice of the Court. The applicant in the case of Siglfirðingur ehf v. Iceland 45 was a company operating Icelandic fishing vessels. By its judgment the Labor Court found that the applicant company had violated provisions of the Labor Relations Act. Pursuant to Section 67 of this Act there did not exist any possibility to challenge this decision by applying to the Supreme Court. For this reason, the company complained of a violation of its right to have its conviction or sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal, as it has not been able to obtain a review by a superior court of the fine imposed, invoking Article 2 of § 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention in this respect. The Court was not able to declare an infringement of the Convention in the instant case, because the parties reached a friendly settlement agreement and the case was struck out of the Court’s list. Nevertheless, in its decision 46 of 7 September 1999, the Court declared the application of this NGO admissible and rejected objections of 43 Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ETS No. 117), para. 17. Available at http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Reports/Html/117.htm. 44 Van Dijk, P., Van Hoof, F., Van Rijn, A., Zwaak, L. eds. Theory and practice of the European Convention

on Human Rights . – 4th ed. – Antwerpen ; Oxford : Intersentia, 2006, p. 973. 45 Siglfirðingur ehf v. Iceland (friendly settlement), No. 34142/96, 30 May 2000. 46 Siglfirðingur ehf v. Iceland (dec), No. 34142/96, 7 September 1999.