Republic of Iceland Constitutional Interpretations

DATE No. Content
1.)29. september 2005Case no. 141/2005 Murder. H was charged with homicide by now know that the former his partner, S, entered it four strokes with kúbeini in the head as of this ministry and life-threatening head injuries, wrapped taubelti three times around her neck and squeezed with the result that she died of strangulation. H admitted having committed the act and demanded dismissal of irresponsible than to warn that he would be sentenced to punishment gains are the most allowed by law. Where was concluded that H was fully culpable and had won a penalty for a violation of his. It was not informed of the reasons for reduction of sentence, which would be dealt with in Article 75. and 4. Art. Paragraph 1. Article 74. Penal Code no. 19/1940, would apply when the act was committed. In determining the sentence took into account that the assault was violent and treatment of the body inglorious. Then he denied guilt in front of and tried to mislead the police in the investigation. H was sentenced to imprisonment for 16 years.
2.)29. september 2005Case no. 115/2005 Vehicles. Compensation. Injury. Depreciation. The matter was debated when the four-year limitation period under. Article 99. Traffic no. 50/1987 had begun for damages G received in a traffic accident on June 4, 1993. It was thought that G could have been enforced its claim in 1997. It was agreed that the target should first period of medical treatment, which took place in 1999, due to infection of gerfilið, G had by accident. G a claim was statute barred, he appealed the case, and was O Pvt. and V hf. therefore found in favor of his claim.
3.)29. september 2005Case no. 495/2004 Real estate purchases. Galli. Compensation. Fjöleignarhús. Membership. A sf. built fjöleignarhús to Flétturima in Reykjavik. Completion of the finalization of the common parts of the building in November 1994, while sales of apartments took place between 1994 and 1997. In the opinion of residents were shortcomings at the finish of common property of the outdoors. On that occasion demanded Residents association fjöleignarhús then the A sf., E, A and O for compensation on the basis of court-appointed experts and the cost of repairs of share. Was not it agreed to húsfélagið by indifference would lose the right to claim damages for the issues that was discussed in the report from 1997 sent to sf. the same year. A sf., E, A and O were however acquitted of a claim for compensation for the completion of a balcony railings with reference to indifference, which was first found the item in October 1999. They were furthermore acquitted of claim residents' associations for compensation for repairs a balcony floors where the floor area belonged to private ownership in the house and could húsfélagið not a party to the claims of their repairs. It was, however, right to food A sf., E, A and O were liable for the costs of the more specific tasks. Was not informed that the implementation of the repair men had the same approach be applied and assessors appointed by a court assumed in its program. Allowances that are based on the amounts that would be reflected in the valuation process minus the amount corresponding to the correct residents' associations to refund the portion of VAT on work on the project.
4.)29. september 2005Case no. 421/2005 Complaints. Majority. Nothing District Court. B, A daughter, insisted on the matter, he would be deprived of financial autonomy temporarily where he was held alcoholism and misfæri greatly with money when he was under the influence of alcohol. A defender appointed protested not these claims and claim district court took into account B. It was believed that under Article 11. of Majority district judge had applied to intervene being available in case sufficient data on the circumstances of the claimant, such as a medical certificate about his alcoholism intended, before he accepted the claim for deprivation of financial autonomy. Since this was not done was inevitable that the unmarked appealed the ruling and proceedings before the District Court and submit to the district judge to take the case on its merits again ..
5.)29. september 2005Case no. 123/2005 An employment contract / employment contract. Termination. Transfer of undertakings. Challenge. The matter was undisputed that the purchase agreement December 31, 2003, the company bought DR inventory, a number of other assets and goodwill of the company D, there has been a transfer within the meaning of no. 72/2002 on the legal status of employees of the transfer of undertakings. Dispute was whether H had the legal status of an employee under the law and should therefore entitled to unpaid wages from hand DR. H had been with D from 1986, full time since 1994, but he had a stake in the company, at least on 2 March 2003. In January 2004 H worked similar jobs before, but it was terminated in D at the end of the month. Of the case file was not deduce his work in the month was in favor of DR, but not D. H was found to have the legal status of an employee within the meaning of no. 72/2002 and was holding his D not considered changing the result. H were awarded salary from hand DR for January 2004, and salaries during the notice period. It was not considered that DR could build right that H had not carried out his challenge of information over wages or other benefits during the notice period.
6.)29. september 2005Case no. 79/2005 Transport Agreement. S F craved for Storage of cargo containers S had moved to the country in 1999, and the yield for the period after the Supreme Court had by a court June 6, 2002 awarded the commitments S for the return of the consignment. S raised its claim that F had a letter from her lawyer June 22, 2002 request that the S storing said containers remain. It was believed that the letter would not be interpreted otherwise than that there was only lawyer sought an agreement with S of the outcomes of correspondents after the aforementioned Supreme Court ruling. S did not respond to the letter. Was not considered to between the parties has agreed on a new agreement in this respect, that changed their legal status from the included explicitly in the Supreme Court. F was therefore acquitted of claim S.
7.)29. september 2005Case no. 76/2005 Nothing District Court. Litigation. The District Court was unmarked and dismissed the case into the country to oral argument and delivery of a judgment again, which had not been followed instructions paragraph 1. Article 115. Act. 91/1991 of Civil Procedure.
8.)29. september 2005Case no. 70/2005 Salary. Settlement. H was dismissed with N and demanded he pay a three-month notice period from May 1, 2004. For lying to H did not listen to work with N in the cancellation period and the parties to a dispute tied to it, if H has by forfeited their wages for that period, the H claimed that n has rejected his work effort of the cancellation period. Counting was proven that H has unilaterally retire before the end of April 2004, as claimed by N. Then analyzed the party for what took place at the meeting of April 30, 2004, but was, however, agreed that the outcome of the meeting was that H would not work in the cancellation period. As the incident was organized was the N standing closer to finalize the secure and verifiable manner, if his understanding was that the outcome of the meeting would involve the payment during the notice period would expire, as N argued the case. That he had done and had to be carried by the deficit. H was claimed on wages in the three-month notice period from May 1, 2004 it accepted.
9.)29. september 2005Case no. 67/2005 Transport Agreement. Depreciation. F S craved for compensation for the damage she believed S caused by the result not of the correct delivery of products, the S undertook to import. It was the matter of the F The limitation according to Item 7. Paragraph 1. Article 215. Maritime. The Supreme Court's June 6, 2002, for resolving the disputes between the parties about the commitments S for the return of the product in question, S was obliged to return the product at Ólafsvík, where F had offices. S was obliged to fulfill this obligation immediately following the arrival of the goods into the country in the fall of 1999. The limitation period under the cited provision was then start to feel and it has long been the claim limitations when F filed the case on December 10, 2003. As of this reason was acquitted S of claim F.
10.)27. september 2005Case no. 402/2005 Complaints. Land tenure. Dismissal ruling canceled. D, J estate, requested the Commissioner to earth B would be sold by rules of law no. 90/1991 on the forced sale as provided for in paragraph 1. Article 8. Act, the Supreme Court had concluded in court that D was the sole owner of the farm. Sheriff's petition D and the earth was sold at auction since S was hæstbjóðandi. H demanded annulment of the sales process including on the grounds that it conflicted with his tenure. District H believed not have legitimate interests in the resolution of the case, which said the sale is not impaired the rights of the poem he held for the earth, see. 4th paragraph. Article 8. Act. 90/1991, and referred the case from the court. It was believed that the assumptions were the basis District Court could not rightly lead to dismissal of the case was appealed the verdict by an unmarked and submitted to the district judge to take the case to the case.
11.)20. nóvember 2003Case no. 176/2003 Children. Sexual offenses. Punitive damages. The case X convicted of having committed sexual offenses against three girls. Towards Y by having, when the girl was 11 to 16 years, repeatedly stroked her thighs and genital area inside and outside dressing, repeatedly tried to plug his tongue into her mouth and besides a number of times, after the girl had become 14 years, put his finger into her genitals. Against Z by now, when the girl was 11 to 16 years old, repeatedly stroked the breasts, stomach, thighs and her genitals outside the dressing, even wipe her genitals and breasts within the dressing and have repeatedly tried to plug his tongue into her mouth . Against D by having once when the girl var12 years taken on her chest outside dress and take her track and three times kissed her on the neck. X refused fault, but the girls' testimony, which was considered credible, formed the basis of his conviction. X was sentenced to 18 months in prison and payment of non-pecuniary damage.
12.)22. september 2005Case no. 60/2005 Fishermen. Fisheries. A construction contract. At insisted L paid a certain amount of wages due to billing. Resolution of the case was referred to the construction contract had been concluded between the L and R ehf., The operator of the ship that worked at the. It was not agreed to this arrangement, there was a certain, in contradiction with the mandatory provisions of law or that the agreement would otherwise not be valid. According to him bar R Pvt. At duties to other crew members and the payment of wages and other rights they were guaranteed by law and collective agreements. L was not a contractual relationship with any of his employment was cleared of claim.
13.)22. september 2005Case no. 86/2005 Fishermen. Fisheries. A construction contract. V insisted L ehf. paid a certain amount of wages due to billing. Then he demanded compensation for dismissal of the marine bed is said to wages for three months, see. Article 44. Seamen No. 35/1985. Resolution of the case was referred to the construction contract had been concluded between the owner of L ehf. and R ehf., the operator of a vessel V worked on. It was not agreed to this arrangement, there was a certain, in contradiction with the mandatory provisions of law or that the agreement would otherwise not be valid. According to him bar R Pvt. V duties to other crew members and the payment of wages and other rights they were guaranteed by law and collective agreements. L was Pvt. not a contractual relationship with the V of his employment and the company that denies a request V.
14.)22. september 2005Case no. 33/2005 Officials. Dismissal from office. Administration. Damages. Dissent. S was temporarily relieved of the office of head of Customs in Selfoss on suspicion that he had been involved in customs and criminal offenses in connection with customs clearance at certain specified vehicles. He was charged with part of the charges for these offenses in public office. Before the sentence was imposed on the dispute in question was decided to depart from S office in full on the basis of paragraph 2. Article 29. Act. 70/1996 on the rights and obligations of the employee's state of them had mentioned under. Article 27. the same Act concluded that would have been appropriate to replace him from his duties. S was acquitted of the items he was charged with the District Court South and as a result he craved the Icelandic government for compensation for unlawful dismissal. It was the right to stand would have been the right solution S from his duties. It was believed that the conduct had been referred to the S was removed from office, and charges made in the criminal case were not available, he would have ignored clear rules governing the customs clearance of imported goods or shipments. Was in many repeated blunders of the same kind of case that could not be attributed to inexperience S. was he with this obvious large-scale and repeatedly neglect and negligence in their work and responded to the trust, which it was shown. Against this background, it was agreed that may have been S depart from office in full. Icelandic state was denies a request S.
15.)22. september 2005Case no. 524/2004 Breach of trust. Embezzlement. Real estate agents. F was convicted of breach of trust and embezzlement. In determining the sentence F was respected him for the loading penalty for his offense was a major embezzlement and his offense committed under the cover of his status as a licensed real estate. It was stated that F had not happened before guilty of criminal conduct and that he would seek to compensate for their offenses by returning much of the funds he embezzled. His punishment was determined prison for 15 months.
16.)22. september 2005Case no. 87/2005 Fishermen. Fisheries. A construction contract. A insisted L ehf. paid a certain amount of wages due to billing. Then he demanded compensation for dismissal of the marine bed is said to wages for three months, see. Article 44. Seamen No. 35/1985. Resolution of the case was referred to the construction contract had been concluded between the owner of L ehf. and R ehf., the operator of the ship's worked on, but the latter company was owned by A. It was agreed that the arrangement that were determined, in contradiction with the mandatory provisions of law or the agreement does not otherwise be true. According to him bar R Pvt. A responsibility to other crew members and the payment of wages and other rights they were guaranteed by law and collective agreements. L was Pvt. not a contractual relationship with employment of his A and the company that denies a request A.
17.)22. september 2005Case no. 4/2005 Customs Offenses. Criminality. X was the board member and managing director of a particular company's alleged violation of the Customs Act by having provided the customs authorities false information in customs declarations and accompanying documents to the importation of two consignments on behalf of the company. It was considered proven that X had been the intention to act, nor to be X-rated charges against him on the basis of gross negligence, cf.. Paragraph 1. Article 126. Customs no. 55/1987. X was therefore acquitted. It was not content to accept the claim of the prosecution of recording.
18.)22. september 2005Case no. 51/2005 Communities. Schools. Children. Legal aid. Oh craved and walked away at byggðasamlagið B for payment of various costs arising from the way she had to have a second home schooling because of his daughter to a special school in the capital. Was not it agrees to Article 1. and Article 37. Act. 66/1995 on compulsory or regulation no. 389/1996 led to the duty on or B to pay the said costs, which he considered to be the cost of living, not the cost of schooling. A and B were found in favor of the claim Oh.
19.)22. september 2005Case no. 59/2005 Custody. Damages. Legal aid. S had been in custody for 10 days on suspicion that he was guilty of forgery and tax fraud in connection with imports of automobiles and in relation to alleged involvement of his fraud. With the South District Court, he was acquitted of the charges this. Subsequently, he demanded that the Icelandic government paid him compensation for the harm which he considered himself to have suffered as a result of the detention. It was the judgment of the cause for the S remand custody at the stage of investigation, the detention order was issued, and that the requirements of paragraph 1. Article 103. Act. 19/1991 of Criminal Procedure would otherwise have been met. It was not considered that the provisions of the Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights or other laws, the S referring to, should mean that he should be entitled to compensation from the State. Icelandic state was denies a request S.
20.)22. september 2005Case no. 57/2005 Assault. Narcotics. Dissent. G was convicted in the District Court for assault and purchase of drugs. In determining the sentence, the reference to Article 77. Penal Code and sentenced to three months' probation. Supreme Court demanded his acquittal of assault inside. With reference to the grounds of the District Court and the third paragraph. Article 159. Act. 19/1991 of Criminal Procedure, the District Court upheld.
21.)22. september 2005Case no. 49/2005 Privacy. Punitive damages. Legal aid. A strength, B, C and D for compensation according to Article 26. Damages no. 50/1993 for having violated his kynfrelsi by having had sexual intercourse with her against her will. As was the case was considered sufficiently proved that they had acted in breach of their freedom and identity in a way that it concerned the liability under b. paragraph 1. Article 26. Tort Liability. Were their actions in the courtyard of the interconnected that they were considered collectively responsible to the board. It was therefore awarded punitive damages in the amount of 1.1 million crowns.
22.)20. nóvember 2003Case no. 78/2003 Bankruptcy. Termination. Unusual form. E and G, the owners of the companies had been merged under the name of M, M lent money to favor the right. A few days later sold certain assets to M K, which was owned by E, and consideration should be £ 106 million., Which would be paid in part by the acquisition of K aforementioned loan amounting to E 56 million kr. but otherwise with money. Within one year of the conclusion of this agreement had estates of both companies, M and K, have been placed in liquidation. M bankruptcy estate demanded termination payment of debt to M E, 56 million kr., With reference to the debt would have been unusual form within the meaning of Article 134. Act. 21/1991. It was considered proven that the owners of M had agreed aforementioned E-lending and how the loan would be settled by delivery of property, both of which went by the following agreement. Was the prestigious not agreed to loan E have been paid in unusual form. It was not shown that the conditions were met to the requirements of the estate might be granted on the basis of Article 141 and 142. Act. 21/1991.
23.)22. september 2005Case no. 112/2005 Nothing. Home Reference. Representation. Bankruptcy estate S Pvt. insisted that certain payment to the Treasury would be terminated with reference to the provisions of the Act. 21/1991 on Bankruptcy. In the district court, accepted that the claim had been wrongly addressed to the Director of Customs in Reykjavik. So he was acquitted due to lack membership without example would be the other pleas of both parties. Supreme Court fell from Iceland argument concerning the lack of customs. The Supreme Court referred to the Icelandic State was a party to the interests of the bankruptcy estate demands for themselves. Was recognized by the part of the Directorate of Customs was right representative on behalf of the state in the case and would not be considered to be referred by the district court. Since it had not been awarded in the region other than membership and lack of reference to the role of the Supreme Court as the appellate court, the district court dismissed the case and unmarked into the country to litigation and adjudication again.
24.)22. september 2005Case no. 61/2005 Fishermen. Fisheries. A construction contract. V insisted L paid a certain amount of wages due to billing. Resolution of the case was referred to the construction contract had been concluded between the L and R ehf., The operator of the ship that V worked on. It was not agreed to this arrangement, there was a certain, in contradiction with the mandatory provisions of law or that the agreement would otherwise not be valid. According to him bar R Pvt. V duties to other crew members and the payment of wages and other rights they were guaranteed by law and collective agreements. L was not a contractual relationship with the V of his employment and was cleared of claims V.
25.)22. september 2005Case no. 66/2005 An employment contract. Salary. Notice. B, who had resigned in I, filed a lawsuit against the company and demanded wages for overtime, so-called frítökuréttar and wages for the notice period. Parties had not entered into a written contract. The controversy of whether the amount of the agreed monthly wages would be based on gross daytime or be independent of the supply of labor. Amenities include a reference to party B report and that he did not have a verifiable manner, a claim for payment for overtime until soon after retirement became unavoidable to think that payment for overtime work has been included in the fixed monthly salary. A precondition, however, was that the workload of B was within the normal and reasonable limits. Thought out looking for work B would have exceeded the limits. It was believed that the situation would be such that the provisions in the agreement for the leave entitlement would apply. In both cases, however, no adequate foundation laid by the B to be possible to determine which could be considered by the hour on one hand for overtime and the other daytime. Was both the requirements as vanreifaðar not had avoided referring to them by the court. It was in the light of the wording of the termination letter B thought that I ought to have understood that B did not wish to work the notice period. I was therefore acquitted of claim B on wages for the notice period.
26.)22. september 2005Case no. 401/2005 Complaints. Children. Temporary custody. Following the divorce M and K share the custody of their two children and ended the dispute in a court settlement in 2002, which provided for joint custody of the children and the older child had lögheimil with K younger than that of M. K filed proceedings to challenge the court settlement above and get one custody of both children. Then she demanded that it be obtained custody of the children temporary custody while the case was resolved before the District Court. It was believed that K had failed to demonstrate that the interests of the children would have led them to distort the situation, that there had been a settlement between the parties, while the custody case was under consideration before the District Court and was her claim rejected.
27.)22. september 2005Case no. 62/2005 Fishermen. Fisheries. A construction contract. A insisted L paid a certain amount of wages due to billing. Resolution of the case was referred to the construction contract had been concluded between the L and R ehf., The operator of the ship that A worked on, but the latter company was owned by A. It was not agreed to this arrangement, there was a certain, in contradiction with mandatory provisions of law or that the agreement would otherwise not be valid. According to him bar R Pvt. A responsibility to other crew members and the payment of wages and other rights they were guaranteed by law and collective agreements. L was not a contractual relationship with the A and his employment was cleared of claims V.
28.)26. júní 2020Case no. 5/2020 Reif On Demand T Bank. for damages for personal injuries as she was about to wall cabinet fell on top of her when she was working as a dental technicians Dental B slf. A had begun working for B slf. three weeks before the accident and the employment of its 70%. In the case disputant whether incurred had to employer liability T Bank. were to improve the liability and if so whether compensation for permanent disability should be calculated based on the annual income A principle in paragraph 1. Article 7. Damages no. 50/1993 or assess whether árslaunin particularly paragraph 2. the same article. The Supreme Court was referred to a lawyer T Bank. A lawyer had sent unqualified statement T Bank. that the decision to accept the court laws and the cause of action would have been disposed of the case and the appeal proceedings incompatible. Was the requirements of T hf. in aðalsök dismissed by the Supreme Court. It was believed that participation in the labor market in the years 2011 to 2013 would have been different from previous employment her. With regard to the A would be educational and unemployed part of this period, in addition to which she had been working part-time and worked for a time with one another, but she had to education, it was believed that her situation would have been unusual. Her salary over such a period was not considered to be representative of the future income of her and therefore was considered to evaluate its annual earnings would be specially authorized by the second paragraph. Article 7. Tort Liability. It was considered by the documentary evidence that might be expected that A would have increased their time when her children would be older as well as could be assumed that it would use its capacity to work with housework corresponding to curtailed employment than they were in accordance with paragraph 3. Article 1. Damages equated to earnings, see. Paragraph 2. Article 7. Act. Was agreed to by A to refer to its annual earnings with the wages that were with B slf. fulltime work.
29.)22. september 2005Case no. 418/2005 Complaints. Custody. Paragraph 2. Article 103. Act. 19/1991 District Court ruling that X ought to be continued detention on the basis of paragraph 2. Article 103. Act. 19/1991 of Criminal Procedure were approved.
30.)26. júní 2020Case no. 6/2020 Reif S Pvt. instituted proceedings against SP Pvt. and demanded compensation for damage to clothing in the store S Pvt. by stone dust that had been received into the shop due to actions of SP Pvt. in the surrounding shopping areas in the same shopping center. S Pvt. on the one hand made a claim for compensation for damage that was impossible to sell product cost and the other for consequential damages for lost margin on sales. Trial of the case raised S Pvt. both appraisal and appraisal of the cost of the damaged product and the extent of operational damage. The Supreme Court stated that where SP Pvt. had not appealed by national law on his part, could claim his pay lower amounts not feasibly. The outcome of the judgment appealed for compensation for damage S Pvt. it confirmed. In the opinion of the Supreme Court led in turn of assessment questions, the answers of assessors and the testimony of one of them before the District Court for the outcome of the appraisal of lost margin would only include an assessment of income S Pvt. could have had from selling the product became impossible to sell less the cost of acquisition and not its assessment of all the variable costs of collection revenues. Head model was not considered to reflect the extent of operational damage S Pvt. and was not the basis for determining compensation for consequential damages him. Although the scale of the derived loss under this was proven was agreed that the conditions to judge S ltd. compensation awards for such damage in the hand SP Pvt.
31.)23. júní 2020Case no. 4/2020 A plucked sued V hf. and B Pvt. and demanded recognition of liability for injuries he suffered at work in B Pvt. A fell from the staircase onto a concrete floor and broke a wrist when he was working with the turbine in their workplace. District Court's judgment, who was appointed specialists meðdómsmanni was recognized liability defendant V hf. the consequences of the accident at the Court considered that B Pvt. had failed to investigate or conduct investigations into the accident when it occurred. In a judgment national law, appointed the three official judges were V hf. and B Pvt. however, found in favor of a claim, but one of the judges returned dissent. The Supreme Court stated that in view of the situation and, as the case was available had domestic law bear to say goodbye to serfs mad meðdómsmann to discuss the merits of which were up for the deficiencies of the system that A worked with would cause the injured. National law would have done that and the food not to review the district court the effects expertise meðdómsmannsins would have on the outcome of the case. Was for this reason inevitable unmarked appealed the verdict and refer the matter to national law for the legal treatment and adjudication again.
32.)19. júní 2020Case no. 2/2020 Reif IS filed a lawsuit against the and made them claim to be incorporated expire Revenue ruling which rejected his request for reimbursement of the capital income tax withholding on dividends from its subsidiary I ehf. The controversy was whether dividends would have met the requirements of paragraph 1. Article 74. Act. 138/1994 on Private have been allocated from the free funds I ehf. and whether the Company's funds had been allocated to shareholders lawfully. Financial statements Pvt. were made by the equity according to Articles 40 and 41. Act. 3/2006 on the annual accounts and the dividends paid to the IS from profits of its subsidiaries in ehf. The Supreme Court stated that the provisions of paragraph 1. Article 74. Act. 138/1994 would only be distributed as dividends from profit private limited company under the approved annual accounts for the last financial year, profit brought forward from previous years and free funds after it had drawn from the loss had not been met and the funds under the law or the instruments should be placed in reserve or for other needs. The legislation was not authorized to feel more on distributions, including in cases of parent companies that use the equity method in its financial statements to law no. 3/2006. The Supreme Court can not be accepted that the judgment of the Court of 4 December 2014 in case no. 786/2013 should lead to the conclusion of the explanation of the provisions of Article 74. Act. 138/1994 to an accounting entry of profit-sharing from the subsidiary may form within the financial funds in the parent company dividends without such profit-sharing has actually been paid between companies in the form of dividends. Although the equity method would be applied to the settlement group I ehf. and its subsidiaries resulted in such financial statements no fewer restrictions on dividend payments than was down in the first paragraph. Article 74. Act. 138/1994. Was not considered eligible for refund of withholding tax on dividends distributed legally would have been the case for the IS.
33.)16. júní 2020Case no. 3/2020 Reif G sued and requirements for the payment of which was accumulated losses from the operation of the nursing Ísafold the years 2013 to 2015. Was the beginning of the suit G raised by contributions from the home with daily rates would not be sufficient for operating costs. The parties had reached an agreement in May 2010 for the construction of and participation in the rent nursing home for the elderly in Garðabæ. The agreement included noted that the parties would make agreement on nursing but such an agreement was never made. Referring to the Supreme Court considered that the had not committed to pay all the costs of operating the nursing home and the obligation to pay in would not be built in breach contractual obligations to G. Then considered appropriate that would shoulder the obligations of the law against G by to ensure local budgets in the budget of the said years. Was acquitted of the requirements G.
34.)9. júní 2020Case no. 57/2019 Reif S and G Pvt. and S filed suit against S hf. and insisted that the decision would be void shareholders' S hf. where it was agreed to sell Fox Pvt. building rights to Austurvegi 12 to 14 Hvolsvelli. They felt that the decision would have been suited to provide other improper interests at the expense of shareholders and the company. District had agreed to claim S and G ehf. and S and annulled the decision of the EGM on the sale of both the weights with the judgment appealed from national law was their claim considered part of the decision and void in terms of Baltic 12, the Supreme Court referred to paragraph 4. Article 96. Act. 2/1995 stating that if the results of court proceedings for shareholders' decision is considered invalid shall be declared null and void the decision or modify it. Amending Decision meeting is however only be done where one is required and the reach of the court is to decide how the decision should rightly have been. S and G Pvt. and S had proposed at the first, on the basis of their contention against S hf. that challenged the decision as a whole and S hf. from the beginning required dismissal of the claim. Neither party had the proceedings require changes to the henni.Var therefore considered that the outcome of the judgment appealed for annulment of the decision of the EGM on only one plot would have been contrary to paragraph 4. Article 96. In addition, it would have been contrary to paragraph 1. Article 111., See. Paragraph 1. Article 163. Act. 91/1991 of Civil Procedure. The case had been judged by the wrong basis and was the appealed judgment unmarked and the case referred back to national law for the legal treatment.
35.)8. júní 2020Case no. 56/2019 Reif S and E entered into an agreement in 2011 for the purchase of the former 51% stake in S hf. M began later and 66N respectively the rights and obligations of the buyer and seller under the contract. It was pronounced that the seller guarantee the buyer the option former CEO of S hf. would expire and that the Director should not have claims against the company. Supreme Court 25 September 2014 in case no. 84/2014 confirmed that warrants the former CEO of S hf. would not expire and the company to pay him a certain amount. S hf. paid the claim and filed a suit in court against M to refund the amount. Supreme Court March 23, 2017 in case no. 464/2016 was dismissed by the court where S hf. had not been party to such an agreement if he relate to the company's interests. Following the judgment appealed 66N this case for the recovery of the costs of S hf. due to the above Supreme Court judgment in case no. 84/2014. The Supreme Court stated that the obligations under the contract would involve the actual third person beats instrument incurred in legal relations of the parties and for the benefit of S hf. 66N had been the town to attend the planned interests fælust Convention against M but for the benefit of S hf. In addition, the beginning of the suit 66N had been sufficiently clear on this basis. Then the Supreme Court to 66N would be legally person's interest in the outcome, the end was undisputed that he had with the said contract purchased a 51% stake in S hf. Given that the agreement would involve the kind of third person beats instrument and that there were Legally protected interests 66N was rightly considered involved in the case. It was an M that the case had been filed in the wrong venue and necessity would be to samaðildar 66N and S hf. for filing in the case rejected. The Supreme Court held that the requirement under the Agreement had been established that M should pay S hf. by specified default interest.
36.)4. júní 2020Case no. 55/2019 Reif S hf. sued V hf., H hf. and R recourse insurance benefits S hf. had paid the húftryggingu L ehf. for damage that occurred during crane vehicle in possession L ehf. The circumstances were that L ehf. sought by the H hf. get R temporary basis to conduct specific crane vehicle to enter billable time work. When the damage was so-called R counterweights to lift the crane that was part of his equipment required for its use, but it depended on his side. Counterweights would seem twofold but were actually three parts and there was an additional 3.85 tons on the hook. The judgment was agreed that a national law that R had acted negligently by walking not sure who would be the weight andvægjanna he had been to haul and that since he had no further security extracted outriggers of the crane. The charges against the assessment to R was perceived as stated in the inspection report represented the Inspectorate of counterweights seemed to be split in two and R had not realized what had caused the accident until it was pointed out that they were in three parts, not two . With this in mind it was considered proven that R had on that occasion, exhibited gross negligence. It was a reference to a comprehensive assessment of the facts considered R within the meaning of the principle of employer responsibility had been an employee of L ehf. when the damage occurred if he had worked on the project in the work sold by H hf. and get paid by the félagi.Voru the H Pvt. and V hf. acquitted of claims S hf. It was considered unfair within the meaning of paragraph 3. Article 23. Damages to R would be required to provide compensation for damage
37.)4. júní 2020Case no. 39/2019 Tore the matter demanded N hf. recognition that laid down in the document for the plot Hagasmári 3, which was divided from the site Hagasmári 1, rested obligations on the sites of shared parking. The Supreme Court stated that the obligation of the property which include established by mutual agreement between the property owner and the person who receives rights under obligation. Whether obligation NIST laboratories on the basis decided by whether the rights which the Convention on the poem, could be considered inherently representational right and if so whether the intention of the Parties was to establish such object-oriented rights. The Court held that distinguished the case file to partition the land would not only include the geographical demarcation of a substituted plot, but had been expressly assumed the site lease holders had certain authorizations on the plot of each other. In the opinion of the Supreme Court was considered the clear willingness of the parties had been that obligation rests on the sites and had been established to rights by nature included representational rights over the property. Was a basis that would be established on a private basis the obligation of sharing parking at the sites.
38.)25. maí 2020Case no. 53/2019 Reif L hf. S demanded the payment of a specified amount on the basis of surety S on loan to S Pvt. the purchase of a specified property. S Pvt. disposed of the property later to S40 Pvt. who had undertaken to build a new house on the site. S built a dismissal of its claim, inter alia, that where the loan was secured by a third lien in the property L had hf. breach confidentiality obligations to the by allowing the payment of unsecured debt prior to the sale price of the property was disposed on the loan. The judgment was believed that an agreement between S Pvt. and S40 Pvt. the latter would have had custody of the assets sale and use of proceeds in collaboration with L hf. The agreement has to include S40 Pvt. had the power to dispose of sale proceeds in such a way that the claims against the company because of the building that were not inflation-indexed would be paid before other claims would be discharged. L hf. if it is appropriate to adopt the proceeds would be allocated to the payment of claims against the company, according to the accounts of the projects before the mortgage claim 3 mortgage would be paid. S was ordered to pay L hf. the requested amount.
39.)25. maí 2020Case no. 52/2019 A plucked filed a lawsuit against the demanding compensation for various actions the police and prosecution which had taken place during the period from 29 January 2010 to 18 February 2016 in connection with alleged violations of the law no. 87/1992 and rules established herein. Then demanded a pecuniary and non comments from prosecutors in the public sphere, both at baseline and thereafter. Also he demanded compensation for loss of employment that he considered himself to have suffered due to the investigation and prosecution of the case. Criminal proceedings had been instituted against A and three other members of the alleged violation in March 2013 but was dropped from half accusation trial of the case where lögáskilið ministerial approval had not been for the regulation no. 1130/2008 Foreign Exchange and therefore considered that the rules could not be considered sufficient punishment. District Court's judgment in December 2014, The four then acquitted of the charges that were remaining. The judgment was appealed to the Supreme Court the prosecution fell from the appeal in February 2016. The judgment was dismissed to allow a judge accused person punitive damages in response to the prosecution on the basis that he had to study and handling of the case suffered unlawful pathogenesis focused had against freedom, peace, honor or person of his subject. Paragraph 1. Article 26. Damages no. 50/1993. It was referred to the distinction would be made between comments asserting that defendant was guilty of certain acts and comments describing was a suspicion that he had committed the act. Comments by former tag would be considered contrary to the principle of paragraph 2. Article 6. ECHR but the latter did not. Considered it appropriate to comment said prosecutors would not involve the assertion of bribery or that they were otherwise so far burned to the duty to pay non-pecuniary damage had arisen as a result. Regarding the claim for compensation for investigative stated that if the conditions would have been to take the action and collateral arrangements Town nonetheless objective responsibility for them in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2. Article 246. Act. 88/2008 on Criminal Procedure. It was believed that the deposit that had lain on the seizure levied and quiet This money would not give him your and enough was revealed that he had suffered further financial damage because of the action. Compensation to certain opinions by mutinous own rules of tort law and subject to the provisions of Article 42. Act. 31/1990 detention, injunctions, etc. amounting to 600,000 crowns. Then was acquitted of claims for compensation for loss of employment when the ground that would not be necessary to conclude that the police and prosecution had not been informed of the lack of approval of the Minister for Regulation no. 1130/2008 until the expiration of the period on target with his claim. Was therefore sentenced to pay damages amounting to 600,000 crowns
40.)21. september 2005Case no. 248/2005 Complaints. Attachment. Málsvarnarlaun. ECHR. K was sentenced to pay fines and court costs in criminal proceedings. She had paid the fine but not accused costs. It was ómótmælt in the case that K was invalid a minimum. L demanded attachment for unpaid charges against costs and the end of the attachment as unsuccessful on the basis of declaration of assets K. solvent tempted K of the matter to a discussion attachment canceled since it would be contrary to paragraph 3. Article 168. Act. 19/1991 of Criminal Procedure, and c. paragraph 3. Article 6. ECHR to require her to pay legal costs in criminal proceedings already filled out that she had no ability to pay such costs. A district court judge had ruled in K partial and struck the creditor applies to the portion of legal costs pertaining to payment Legal fees legal counsel K. For K Supreme Court insisted only confirmation District Court so that its requirements regarding other legal costs were not resolved by the court. It was believed to be a clear third paragraph. Article 168. Act. 19/1991 with regard to c. paragraph 3. Article 6. ECHR and the explanation would be appropriate to consider how the European Court of Human Rights had clearly clause, if that court judgments were not binding under Icelandic law. The ECHR within the meaning of said provision of the Convention, reintroduce the Icelandic government to ensure that the citizens that it is possible to prove their incapacity to pay Legal fees in criminal proceedings to collect these costs. K had any authority in Section V Act. 90/1989 of execution to deliver value of the unsuccessful aðfarargerðar the judgment and where K was considered to have proved that it had neither property nor income to cover the payment Legal fees would be based on the above interpretation to confirm the District Court.
41.)20. maí 2020Case no. 7/2020 Reif appealed the ruling National law which requires children E promise that deposits in certain bank accounts in the United States fell under the public exchange of intestate E was taken into account. A wife, E, appealed the ruling national law to the Supreme Court and demanded recognition of the deposits in the bank accounts were not covered by the division of estates E. parties' dispute was whether to about ownership of funds in the accounts would depend on the provisions of Icelandic law or the laws of the South Carolina state in the United States called JTWROS which entailed the death of the first deceased partners in the spirit of complete ownership and all his property in case where a unitary to the surviving spouse. The Supreme Court stated that under the mutinous fasten its rules would be considered a general rule applicable to the inheritance would depend on the rules of the country where the testator was last resident. If the law of a foreign state, where the property is, lay down specific rules for such assets, which will replace the general rules, specific rules for the disqualification principle and should then be applied to the property law of the country where it is. When the cause of action or the parties have such relations with a foreign state, that the application of the rules of that State before the domestic courts of the dispute in question in whole or in part, has to apply the legal standards of the international legal regime in question to the right areas, but with such world record should generally guided by the law court of the country. If the foreign arrangements are very different from those in national courts or recognized, even though there may be questionable or double edged sword to apply it to other areas of law than that assumed in the foreign country where the rule of origin. May in the circumstances be justified to deviate from the principle of home entry to the field of law subject to the laws and courts of law, let it instead be determined by the laws of the foreign country. The Supreme Court held that A had submitted a court-appointed evaluation proved the existence and content of the US legal regime beginning of the suit it was built. Furthermore, the Supreme Court the said bank accounts had been created, recorded and maintained in financial institutions in the South Carolina county in accordance with American legislation on financial institutions and the aforementioned JTWROS rules under which the latter rules would have on the Death E become the sole owner of. A requirement was that the deposits in bank accounts in the United States were not covered by public division of estates by E taken into account.
42.)20. maí 2020Case no. 8/2020 Reif appealed the ruling National law which requires children E promises of certain real estate in the US fell under the public exchange of intestate E was taken into account. A wife, E, appealed the ruling national law to the Supreme Court and demanded recognition of the property does not fall under division of estates E. parties' dispute was whether the ownership of the property would depend on the provisions of Icelandic law or the laws of South Carolina, USA on called JTWROS which entailed the death of the first deceased partners in the spirit of complete ownership of his property in case where a unitary to the surviving spouse. The Supreme Court stated that under the mutinous fasten its rules would be considered a general rule applicable to the inheritance would depend on the rules of the country where the testator was last resident. If the law of a foreign state, where the property is, lay down specific rules for such assets, which will replace the general rules, specific rules for the disqualification principle and should then be applied to the property law of the country where it is. When the cause of action or the parties have such relations with a foreign state, that the application of the rules of that State before the domestic courts of the dispute in question in whole or in part, has to apply the legal standards of the international legal regime in question to the right areas, but with such world record should generally guided by the law court of the country. If the foreign arrangements are very different from those in national courts or recognized, even though there may be questionable or double edged sword to apply it to other areas of law than that assumed in the foreign country where the rule of origin. May in the circumstances be justified to deviate from the principle of home entry to the field of law subject to the laws and courts of law, let it instead be determined by the laws of the foreign country. The Supreme Court held that A had submitted a court-appointed evaluation proved the existence and content of the US legal regime beginning of the suit it was built. Furthermore, the Supreme Court found that A had proved that its ownership and E of the property was initially established in accordance with the present legal regime and ownership E had the time of his death spread integral over to her under the same rules. A requirement was that the property in the United States are not covered by public division of estates by E taken into account.
43.)13. maí 2020Case no. 11/2020 Reif V was convicted of burning and murder of claim 1, cf. Paragraph 2. Article 164. and Article 211. Penal Code no. 19/1940 with having caused a fire in a residential area with a more specific way with the result that two people died. The Supreme Court stated that V could not be hidden implications of a fire in the living room of the residential property might be. V had actual knowledge of criminal susceptible to the consequences of its conduct, but nonetheless made it into the light space available if the fire spread, with the result that men would be mortal peril equipped, large-scale property damage would likely be those who were on the upper floor of the building would become mired ahead and waited for death. In determining the sentence took into account the dire consequences of violations V. On the other hand, was perceived that the act deals have V had the lowest level of intention to both fragments. V was ordered to be imprisoned for 14 years. He was then ordered to pay the children and parents of the victims compensation.
44.)4. maí 2020Case no. 51/2019 Reif parties' dispute was whether A ehf. payment comparable to L ehf. because excess interest on bonds, S Pvt. had originally issued to D hf., the A ehf. later acquired and L ehf. undertake the payment by novation. The Supreme Court stated that the transfer of negotiable instruments would be making an exception to the principle claim right of subrogation to the transferee does not acquire better rights against the debtor than the transferor had. Debtor transferable securities can thus lost counterargument against bona fide assignee, if not apparent from the letter and intent of the rule is to facilitate trade in commercial paper and make the legal status of the transferee closer than the general rules of court claim lay down. Given the rules on securities trading involve significant departure from the general rules will make the stipulation that clearly identified the requirement is negotiable requirement. The Supreme Court held that in order for this condition was fulfilled would the new debtor is required to declare unilaterally and unconditionally that he promised to pay the claim and had the written statement required to be included in the letter itself that it could be considered as debt by the debtor times. Was not considered sufficient to L ehf. has signed a special declaration on another document that he undergone all the provisions of the letter and obligations accordingly. For this reason, it was considered that the claim has changed the debtor's transition from being required by a business letter in general capital requirement. L was Pvt. not believed to have lost their objections to the request and could thereby have further claims due to overpayment of interest on the bond to A ehf.
45.)4. maí 2020Case no. 50/2019 Tore the matter demanded H Pvt. In recognition of the liability for financial loss which he thought he had suffered by having not received income from continuing fishing when fishing days lumpfish season in 2017 was increased by 10 days by Regulation No. 374/2017. The regulation took effect after H Pvt. had stopped lumpfish fishing where permitted hunting season for his team and applied to inshore fishing. The Supreme Court considered sufficiently shown that some inconvenience would be of the H Pvt. and those who were in the same position to resume fishing for lumpfish after they had been stopped. In order to be considered that the government had taken various measures to cater to those who had received permits for lumpfish and reduce power by the distortion of relative equality between them. Would among other things be added to the Regulation provisions provisionally until the boats, which had stopped fishing and pick up their nets before hunting days were increased, was authorized to start fishing again in spite of Article 3. Regulation no. 164/2017 of continuous fishing, as well as the Directorate had announced to postpone the start date could inshore fishing. Was referred to doubt if could have played on Fisheries authorized to allow fishing for lumpfish in such cases would have H Pvt. have themselves without penalty to keep fishing as he had not been able to get out of the issue decided in advance. Came right to the conclusion that the increase in the number of days by the aforementioned regulation had not infringed the law. The lack of compliance requirements was accused principle of unlawful conduct in such liability would be eliminated in the. For this reason was the appealed judgment upheld.
46.)28. apríl 2020Case no. 30/2019 Reif J brought this case against L and demanded the annulment of the Appellate Committee of Attorneys, where he was made to suffer reminder of specific conduct its dealings with the presiding judge of the District Court of Reykjavik. In the case identified the party as to whether L had the authority to file a complaint against the Disciplinary Committee for Social Affairs. The Supreme Court stated that the first paragraph. Article 27. Act. 77/1998 on Lawyers was any thought that the lawyer had in his work done on time share with conduct contrary to law or code of conduct to contribute for the Lawyers' Disciplinary Committee complaint against a lawyer because. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the wording of the provision, it would not explain such that accordingly could one fault that would, as that would also set conditions for that same thought that had been done in "their share". Would not have believed that the provision would involve deviation from the general rules of administrative necessity of direct, substantial, specific and legitimate interests of the complainant. Was not likely to in paragraph 1. Article 27. Act. 77/1998 entailed sufficiently clear legal basis for L to make a complaint because the alleged conduct J nor the interests of the company because it was such that the company was considered to have been right. Was the appealed verdict and upheld the ruling canceled.
47.)31. mars 2020Case no. 1/2020 Reif appealed the ruling National law where the case against N M and L ehf. was dismissed by the district court. In case N demanded revocation of licenses of Fisheries had given L ehf. sjókvíaeldis for the operation of salmon in the plant. The Supreme Court stated that N would lawsuit association under Article 19. a. Act. 91/1991 on civil, the larger fishing association stated. Interests related to the utilization of salmon benefits were not part of the fishing keeps its members under Article 5. Act. 61/2006 on salmon and trout. Given the objectives of the latter Act and to consider the veiðiréttarhöfum would be required to have a private company in order would be achieved, would form the basis of the fishing associations might shelter proxies attended court requirements that apply to the fishing rights of their members and they had legitimate interests of the resolution of the court, see. Paragraph 3. Article 25. Act. 91/1991. Would this not contrary to the statutory role Angling or, in the case would be resolved, laid bare by their hunting companion who was doing the N. The Court was referred to the fact that members of the fishing companies or companies as such had participated in the administrative case on the issue of the said license . Right N to be referred to the court whether they had been law when issuing the licenses would not be built on their membership in administrative proceedings. When considering was whether the person had indirect interest in the resolution of administrative proceedings could have the legitimacy of an administrative structure to the courts would take into account whether the interests of the decision would be a significant and greater than any other in the community, such as its proximity to to license decision permitting authority. Noted right to remain silent not move together in the interests of those engaged in aquaculture and their fishing rights under the law of salmon and trout fishing legislature would decide that the interests of aquaculture should depart in a manner that more would be laid down in law. Looking to the amount of the salmon rivers in question in the case was sjókvíaeldinu from the plant, based on the provisions of Regulation no. 105/2000, said An assessment of the would not change that N could not raise its authorization for bringing actions for annulment of the said operating rules of center right, see. reference to the Supreme Court ruling June 9, 2005 in case no. 20/2005 and June 3, 2004 in case no. 171/2004. Finally, it was stated that in order to satisfy the conditions of the legitimate interests of paragraph 2. Article 25. Act. 91/1991 N would demonstrate or make probable that his members had been harmed by the activity concerned, but it would not do. The outcome of the impugned ruling that confirmed the case and dismissed by the district court.
48.)10. mars 2020Case no. 12/2020 Reif confirmed the ruling National law which denied the claim and T H of the two national law judges and former district court judge recuse in their case against the.
49.)10. mars 2020Case no. 58/2019 Reif BH demanded that the A and B would be deprived of custody of their two children with reference to a., C. and d. paragraph 1. Article 29. Child Protection no. 80/2002. The case was among other things, the opinion of a psychologist custody ability B where B was considered to lack sufficient ability to have custody of the children. Also lay out an evaluation of a court-appointed assessor stating that the children will be very clear that they did not live with A and B. The District Court had ruled in the BH A and B, however, were acquitted of claims BH national law. At the conclusion of the Supreme Court stated that the right to family life, which was protected by paragraph 1. Article 71. the Constitution, should always be estimated from the child's best interests and their right to privacy and the privacy of paragraph 3. Article 76. her. This would involve also looking for competent, as far as was possible, and look for the child's will in resolving the issues of. It was considered with reference to the case-file, in particular the evaluation court-appointed assessor, children experience significant fear, so that their health and development would be in danger in his care because his conduct was liable to cause serious harm to children. The evidence in the case was considered to show that custody would impair the ability B and B was easy to see, it was possible to build a relationship and trust with children again. Due to this and the kids have shown a strong will to continue living with foster parents was considered their best interests to accept the claim BH depriving parents of custody on the basis d. paragraph 1. Article 29. Child Protection Act.
50.)12. febrúar 2020Case no. 49/2019 Tore the case had both the District Court and National law acceptable to claim that B of A would be deprived of custody of two of their children on the basis of a. and d. paragraph 1. Article 29. Child Protection no. 80/2002. The Supreme Court was only debated whether unmarked competent judgment national law. Based on that procedure for domestic law had been lacking since the expert meðdómsmaður had not been summoned to sit in judgment as a legal obligation by paragraph 1. Article 54. Child Protection Act. In its judgment, the Supreme Court stated traced the provisions of Art. 91/1991 of Civil Procedure and the changes in them had been made by law no. 49/2016 and the relevant provisions of the Child Protection Act and changes to them had been made by law no. 80/2011. It was believed that the treatment deprived of custody issues, which were conducted before the District Court pursuant to Article 29. Child Welfare competent judge pursuant to paragraph 1. Article 54. Act be called serfs mad meðdómsmann or meðdómsmenn, but we should exceptions that referred to therein. The Supreme Court referred to the law on judicial appointments country assumed the expert meðdómsmaður or as the case may meðdómsmenn could take place in the domestic law of the case in court when the order would be needed. By no exception would be made in law from the arrangement when forsjársviptingarmál would run for national law applied principle also applies to the operation of such a case in court, but we should the exceptions identified in the provision. Was in accordance with the principle of paragraph 1. Article 54. Child Protection considered to bear would be called serfs mad meðdómsmann the proceedings for the legislation. Since it had not been done had changed the national laws of the proceedings not be in accordance with the stipulation of law and appealed the judgment was unmarked and the case referred back to national law for the legal treatment.
51.)20. september 2005Case no. 308/2005 Complaints. Dismissal of a district court canceled part. Copyright. In a case brought against A H demanded her punishment and non-pecuniary damage due to alleged violations of copyright H deceased husband A, but she sat in the joint estate after him. A district court judge dismissed it by the whole of Reykjanes. The Supreme Court stated that the issue was a private criminal proceedings and would not be in such a case made similar claims to the pleadings in policy and made for the prosecution in a criminal case. If approved would be in a district court judge to lighting Condi policy was an abstract sense it was thought that the idea was not held any errors that should result in dismissal, as would not see the expected blur in claims A was such that H could not be taken to prevent normal quit. A non-pecuniary damage also demanded the hand H on the basis of paragraph 2. Article 56. No copyright. 73/1972, but also insisted she benefits under paragraph 3. the same Article. In the latter Law provides for the right to claim compensation if correct distortions have been committed innocence. A built on that in the case of alleged violations H had been committed intentionally or at least gross negligence. Nothing indicates that A had made no attempt to underpin his claim for compensation under the said paragraph 3. Article 56. Copyright Act, as the same may not be simultaneously conduct grandson and good faith. A claim for compensation under paragraph 3. Article 56. Copyright was the vanreifuð and was dismissed, but submitted to the district court judge to make claims on the merits.
52.)5. febrúar 2020Case no. 19/2019 Reif G filed suit against L hf. for repayment of interest that she thought he had overpaid in connection with the two mortgage bonds issued by her husband of 10 March 2001 and November 27, 2003 and secured by mortgage G. The main dispute case concerns the interpretation of the agreement borrower and L hf. on the settlement of the obligations under the mortgage bonds are and G statement issued the same day. On the basis of the agreement and the declaration set forth G payments the second half of 2016, which it considered have included the payment of claims that had been partly limitations. The Supreme Court was referred to, given that the borrower had previously invoke the interest on loans would be depreciated agreement understood that he had waived the objection and agreed final and binding effect on how financial statements would be made. It was noted that G was not directly involved in the said settlement agreement and had not undergone duties accordingly to L hf. a statement that it had issued or by other means. As a result she could sustain any objections that existed against the demands of L hf., As was the judgment that the mortgagor independent principles of commercial law. However, a G, in order not to raise objections against the demands of L hf., Disbursed payments to him without reservation. That would have been important occasion in the run-up light which included, among other things, the L hf. turned to her dunning letters. Also it would provide two named persons empowered to get any information about debt in L hf. resting on her property and nothing had occurred in the case to indicate that information by the L hf. had been lacking. With this in mind it was thought that G could not make up unannounced at L hf. veðskuldina confidence that can later direct recourse to him. The L hf. it denies a request G.
53.)29. janúar 2020Case no. 31/2019 Reif J filed a lawsuit against the G, M and db. GB and demanded compensation for damages he believed he might have suffered due to sale G, M and GB on a particular parcel of 18 December 2008 J argued further that two thirds. The case had its roots in a dispute about ownership of the parcel of land Hroar ​​Holts which had been held by GKG his death in October 2007. GKG was the father of G, M and GB and stepfather J. In February 2008 M wrote on his behalf and under GB statement agreed to GKG had a mortality gift given J parcel of ground possession and had a waiver to that effect was issued on May 3 that year. Day before the G, M and GB obtained the private settlement of the estate was GKG parcel Dunni disposed switch statement for the three equal share in spite of the above statement. In October 2008, the cards Dunni then divided into two parts. G, M and GB memory cards sold GBS drumming, playing those discussed in this matter, with the purchase agreement on December 18, 2008. The larger part of the cards were down M and G GB sold December 19, 2008 the Supreme Court April 3, 2014 in case no . 87/2010 was recognized owners J two-thirds of the parcel. J appealed so this issue of minority down cards that had been sold to GBS policy on October 9, 2015. in dispute before the Supreme Court bent particular whether a claim for damages J was statute barred. The Supreme Court stated that distinguished the case file would be acceptable to a national law that J would have a claim for damages against the G, M and db. GB due to the aforementioned disposal of memory cards Dunni on the right J according to a statement Feb. 8, 2008 and the waiving of May 3 that year. Was it based on a claim for damages J had arisen at the time when the property was disposed of by the said purchase contract and went on the expiration of the claim by Act no. 105/2007 of Expiration of, see. Article 28. Act. It also emerged that J had filed a lawsuit because of the larger cards down against G policy published June 25, 2009 and in contention J in that case he would have attributed to lower a spot that this issue concerned had been sold to a third party specified in the connection data of the disposal had he accordingly at the latest we had the case been necessary information indicated the damage and who would be responsible for it. Was considered that the claim was statute barred J when he filed a criminal complaint in December 2015 just over six years after the starting date of the limitation period.
54.)22. janúar 2020Case no. 41/2019 J fleece etc. filed suit against H and G, demanding the annulment of a decision where H adopted the amendment to the local plan to allow the demolition of the houses protected Hellubraut 7 and the new houses would be built in place and to allow the construction of the house and demanded Hellubraut 5 J o .fl. the cast would be the value of a building H decisions to accept applications for building land and issue building permits them. Turned share party including whether the Agency's would be authorized to issue licenses to the demolition of the building conditions on the basis of Articles 29 and 30. Act. 80/2012 of the cultural J etc. argued that the site plan amendment would breach the organization. The Supreme Court stated that the Agency's conditions constituted a restriction on local planning authority in accordance with Article 78. the Constitution, see. Paragraph 3. Article 3. Planning Act. 123/2010. The conditions might lead to restrictions on the constitutionally guaranteed property means property owner, see. Paragraph 1. Article 72. her, but doubt it would be clear in his favor. Authorized to administrative conditions must be guided by a clear and unambiguous legal authority in view of the law be compatible with the rules of the Constitution and legality of the rule. Where there is such a case was thought that the organization had broken authorized to permit these requirements. It was believed that the local plan amendment would not be contrary to the second paragraph. Article 37. Planning Act, which is laid down by the local plan should form a coherent unit, nor the current master plan, see. Paragraph 3. Article 37. and 7. 12. Act. Finally, it was thought that J etc. had not demonstrated that with an H on the utilization of the above land had been no violation of Article 11. Administrative Act. 37/1993. G and H were found in favor of the claims J etc.
55.)20. desember 2019Case no. 36/2019 Reif V ltd. B craved for payment under invoices for work on new construction, construction site B built. B raised their demand for dismissal of the written agreement had not been concluded between the parties on construction management V ehf., Cf. Paragraph 2. Article 27. Act. 160/2010 of structures, the contractor S Pvt. would be responsible for and undertake to pay V Pvt. Consideration for construction management. The Supreme Court stated that the agreement would be formalized to assess in each case the effect it would have if it were not in the form required would be. With regard to the fact that not reflected in the above legal provisions to force an agreement between the owner of the construction and the construction site was placed under because he was writing would not be acceptable to a B deal could not have been in if it had not been taken to make his writing. Rich réttlætisrök recommended that the owner could avoid paying compensation for services rendered solely. Then it is nothing in the contract V Pvt. the S Pvt. contract documents or the cost of construction management would be included in the work wages. This system of developers paid for the building management was the role illsamrýmanlegt construction site to be a professional representative of the owner of the construction sector and act on their behalf. Would be less considered that this statutory regulation could serve its purpose if the developer not only square, construction site, but also paid him for his services. Would have had to negotiate directly so if it should be considered. It was believed that dealers owner, construction site had requested a B to V Pvt. would be a construction of the houses and would therefore be a basis that he had hired V Pvt. to work so that a contract had arisen between them. The requirement V Pvt. it accepted.
56.)16. desember 2019Case no. 40/2019 Reif With the decision in 2017 was F E hf. alleged to have violated paragraph 1. Article 122. Act. 108/2007 on securities transactions, by having failed to disclose inside information in due time, and made a fine amounting to 50 million crowns. E hf. appealed the case mainly for annulment of the decision of F and refund of the fine but it configured its cancellation or reduction. Specifically, in the case of data available in the first draft of the quarterly report May 20, 2016 the much improved operating results for the first quarter of 2016. In a judgment of the national laws of the District Court's conclusion, to reject claims E hf., Confirmed. The judgment was, like the District Court, referred to in the case law it had been stated that a single event or situation process involving several steps could alone include sufficiently precise information to the definition of inside information in accordance with Article 120. Act. 108/2007. The draft interim report could clearly be considered an event of such a process involving several steps with the goal of adoption and publication of his. It was also noted that the information in the forecast E hf. would not have the same relevance in assessing the existence of inside information and actual operating figures. Said information had by May 20, 2016 have been adequately identified and likely by themselves to have a significant impact on the market value of E hf. It was referred to under paragraph 1. Article 122. Act must disclose inside information as soon as possible. It was noted that the narrowing of the scope of the rule, as implied by paragraph 3. Article 5. Regulation no. 630/2005 on inside information and market, should not have a legal basis in the said legal provisions. The notification would be the principle active when formed inside. F were acquitted and the requirements of E hf.
57.)9. desember 2019Case no. 25/2019 Reif G brought this case against the AG and O Pvt. 30 due to defend his comments AG published in the specified media. Reykjanes District Court's judgment was acquitted of AG requirements G with reference to the fact that he had in his review did not go beyond the boundaries of permissible expression under paragraph 3. Article 73. Constitution. In the judgment appealed from was, however, believed that the AG had 23 of his comments weighed so that G protection of privacy in violation would have been the first paragraph. Article 71. Constitution. Comments were deemed null and void and AG ordered to pay punitive damages G, as well as provisions for the disclosure of assumptions and judgment word in the media O Pvt. the imposition of daily fines. The Supreme Court were not resolved in the case of seven, saying that the aim had been due in the region. The Supreme Court stated that in the comments that were discussed had been named G nowhere but the district court policy would be not at all been made aware of how comments to individual items would include defamation in his yard. So would it not be described why the count should those who had read the said articles and seen or heard stories where the round and conserve comments had been made could have concluded that G was the unnamed man who caused His death A. Accordingly, would be not at all been made aware of why they should consider the many comments as referring to G so that he had legitimate interests at stake because they would be unmarked. It was considered that the basis of the case had been placed in such non-compliance with the instructions e. paragraph 1. Article 80. Act. 91/1991 of Civil Procedure and the case dismissed automatically from the district court.
58.)27. nóvember 2019Case no. 38/2019 Tore in December 2016 was K ehf. placed an injunction on the E ehf. continued production, marketing and sale of ice cream for food under the brand top. The company filed a suit in this case to confirm the injunction and for the recognition of their rights. The District Court rejected the confirmation of the injunction and acquitted E ehf. recognition of the claim, as well as the Court upheld the counterclaim E ehf. the cancellation of the registration of the said trademark in Marks. With the court the national laws of the District Court's conclusion confirmed. In its judgment, the Supreme Court noted that the injunction had expired under paragraph 2. Article 39. Act. 31/1990 detention and injunctions, etc. RV by the parties to a dispute about the approval requirement K ehf. and E claim ltd. the cancellation of the registration of the trademark. Came right to the conclusion that the trademark top did not meet the requirements of Article 13. Act. 45/1997 on trademarks since it lacked the uniqueness and distinctiveness. Had the brand initially been registered contrary to the provisions of the Act. Was particularly referred to in the word top inherent general description of the type of product and that it lacked the necessary qualities to create a specific product characteristics that in the public mind that it would be indicated by any party product posed. It was not acceptable to the trade mark had acquired distinctiveness through use so that the monopoly would be created by virtue of its use within the meaning of the second sentence of the second paragraph. Article 3. Act. Was the appealed judgment that upheld.
59.)20. nóvember 2019Case no. 22/2019 Reif O hf. instituted proceedings against V hf. and demanded to be recognized to be legitimate and binding on the parties annex from 2011, which concluded the contract between O hf. and V hf., as provided for in article V hf. changes in the calculation of pension O hf. excess paid increases in pension liabilities would be 60%. Case was rooted to the year 2008, the HS hf. divided into two separate public limited companies, O hf. and V hf., the division said pension liabilities are rested on HS hf. The Supreme Court stated that the second paragraph. Article 133. Act. 2/1995 was provided to the partition plan company, according to Article 120. would be an accurate description of the assets and liabilities transferred and should be assigned to each of the recipient companies. Had the decision on allocation of HS hf. the two companies have been based on audited financial statements and may reduced interim. Then would come out in the report of the program to accompany it reviewed partition balance sheet showing all assets and liabilities in the companies. All these contemporary data had pension commitments would be considered a liability in O hf. The same could occur in the financial statements O hf. and notes with him. Without prejudice to the strict rules governing the designation of assets and liabilities in the partition plan was considered to make would be the basis for the division of them in every respect in a way that was provided for, as was the objective of the clear statement of assets and liabilities no doubt leaked the division. Would be its legal division of a company by Act no. 2/1995 not change afterward, except by repeating the division process by legal authorization. It was believed that the decision V hf. the acquisition of the said pension with annex from 2011 was unlawful and non-binding for him, see. Paragraph 2. Article 76. and the first paragraph of paragraph 1. Article 77. Act. 2/1995. The V hf. it denies a request O hf.
60.)18. nóvember 2019Case no. 47/2019 Reif appealed the ruling National law where the case against N M and L ehf. was dismissed by the district court and ordered to pay N M and L ehf. costs in the region and national law. District Court's judgment was M and L ehf. found in favor of the N claim Costs deleted. The Supreme Court stated that M was in domestic law only pleadings in court. It was believed that by making N to pay the M costs in the region and for domestic law had National law exceeded the requirement M on costs, as well as not could feasibly judge M costs in the province where the case was not overwhelm appeal of his part. Was the appealed verdict and the unmarked case is referred back to national law for the legal treatment.
61.)30. október 2019Case no. 46/2019 Verified tore the results of the Labor dismissal primary and varakröfu AÍ the hands of a court, as well as the last resort AÍ claim was also dismissed. Reference was made to AÍ sought by primary and varakröfu time to get accepted to a competent fulfill pension obligations to members A. was believed that these claims were directed not to the resolution of disputes relating to the interpretation of a collective agreement or its validity, see. 2. paragraph 1 of article. Article 44. Act. 80/1937 on Trade Unions and Industrial Disputes. Then the Supreme Court of last resort requirement AÍ also excluded stipulation aforementioned legal provision where the statement that it was based on was not considered to contain a commitment to the collective agreement can be considered part of certain rights or obligations.
62.)16. september 2005Case no. 416/2005 Complaints. Custody. Paragraph 2. Article 103. Act. 19/1991. District Court ruling that X ought to be continued detention on the basis of paragraph 2. Article 103. Act. 19/1991 of Criminal Procedure were approved.
63.)30. október 2019Case no. 21/2019 Reif F demanded to be eliminated from the force ruling the Appeals Committee welfare 27 May 2016 confirming the decision to reject B F application for permission to take the child into permanent foster care. In the case disputant whether B was entitled to refuse F for permission to take the child in foster care without giving her the opportunity to attend classes in accordance with Article 9. Regulation no. 804/2004 of the fetus. District Court's judgment was acquitted B of Subpart F and in the judgment appealed from was found opposite conclusion. Supreme Court referred to the resolution of the case would first look to B would decide that F does not fulfill the general conditions that foster parents need to be enforced under Article 6. Regulation no. 804/2004 and has taken a decision in the case was contrary to the result of the statutory consultation, the Family Garðabæjar, without calling F on the aforementioned courses. It was believed that if reviews of child protection committees were not binding B were the important data in the survey on the ability of the applicant and the circumstances were up to handling the communications B F had been reached on the question whether it meets the general requirements of Article 6. said regulation. Furthermore, in another place believed that the assessment of an individual's ability to meet the requirements made for a foster parent under II. section of Regulation No. 804/2004 were not clear. The regulation would not impose conditions for the applicant to attend classes under Article 9. after receiving a favorable opinion Child Protection Committee, where it was stated that the applicant would have to download the said course before permission was granted. Then we got the result that would give F the opportunity to go to that other courses before the decision on its application, support manual B. believed to be correct in the case of F were applied to the assessment that took place to look specifically for the purpose of the Act the disabled to F would be the resolution of a case created for the star comparable conditions and non-disabled people without them would distort the fundamental interests of the child for what would be the best was always in the forefront. It was considered that the decision to refuse B F for permission to become a foster parent at this stage without giving it prior opportunity to attend courses in question were contrary to Article 10 investigation. Administrative Act. 37/1993. Was the result of the judgment appealed confirmed.
64.)30. október 2019Case no. 18/2019 Tore the matter demanded RF. recognition of the right to compensation from the R Pvt. on the basis that the latter has not respected the rights of the former contractor for the construction of the underground garage of the building squares 1 and 2 on the grounds that Austurbakki 2 in Reykjavik. In hf. built his claim mainly on the Framework March 9, 2006 had incurred the obligation lot rights in the form of the right to subcontracting subsequent assignee lot of rights was bound to respect. For products based investment company. to agreements with R Pvt. the purchase of a plot privilege has R ehf., knowing the right RF. for contracting the upcoming construction on the property, agreed to take over the present commitment. The Supreme Court stated that the resolution of the case is decided in the first instance whether the rights framework contract was awarded could be considered inherently object-oriented rights. Was the actual time secondly matter whether the intention of the parties was to enter into such an object-specific rights. Was referred to the framework agreement had not been specified that the parties considered that they be eignarréttarlega obligation. Also, the amendment agreements rather bear signs of the receivable had been discussing among other things, which refers to the "requirements" In hf. fell against its counterparties in a certain way and expected to be a commitment to provide the Bank. with contractual rights to control contractor should overtaken by those who would gain the right property for transfer, the provision that would be unnecessary if the obligation was to be the case. The Supreme Court held that the rights framework contract was awarded did not fulfill the conditions that can be considered inherently representational rights to the property but was involved in court claim for a debt mutual respect. Finally, referring to the acquisition of R Pvt. the construction of the fields if he has not agreed to accept the obligation to respect the right of the Bank. to contracting staff. Had not novation and time in this context does not matter if R Pvt. if the purchases knew or should have known about the right hf. to contracting organism under the Framework Convention. Was the appealed judgment that upheld the acquittal R Pvt.
65.)23. október 2019Case no. 17/2019 Reif D Pvt. instituted proceedings against L ehf. and demanded payment in the amount of 49,652,855 crowns for their own work and the expenses of the work involved in the preparation for construction projects on the plot of Lithe 1-7 L ehf. Site and building rights was over. The Supreme Court stated that under the shareholders agreement since its acquisitions of Pvt., Ltd. sister company Th., All the shares of L ehf. would be required for the approval of both the Board of Directors of L ehf. needed for such costs would be incorporated in the company. From what has been shown in the case would not cope th Pvt. had obtained the approval of L ehf. for the said costs. It was believed that it is irrelevant that L ehf. would have been clear that D Pvt. incurred costs of the project and it was not acceptable that the base had reached an oral agreement on the dos that were made. It was not acceptable to the L ehf. had with their indifference approved a specific account or claim Th Pvt. could be realized from other sources. Was the appealed judgment that upheld the acquittal L ehf.
66.)15. október 2019Case no. 45/2019 Reif confirmed national law ruling which was denied claim that expert meðdómsmaður objection in the case of a counter X and Y.
67.)9. október 2019Case no. 44/2019 Reif M demanded that G would direct enforcement carried out further a particular property. With the District Court was required M considered. The ruling National law, which was upheld by the Supreme Court with regard to its premises, stated that the delivery model had already taken place. It was believed that G had no legitimate interest in the appealed verdict would be reviewed and the case referred by national law.
68.)9. október 2019Case no. 32/2019 Reif appealed the ruling National law which was taken into account requirement R Pvt. to the District Commissioner in the capital would be required to move in þinglýsingabók obligation on authorized activities in the property to Hallarmúla 2 as it had been described before Congress expressed document from 1975 and bring a note of it in your registered waiver for the property in 2018. The site of Hallarmúla 2 a part of the land Suðurlandsbraut 2 but rose on the plot in three houses þinglýsingabók were identified as holding, II and III. The house of Hallarmúla 2 identified as holdings III. The obligation for authorizing activities in the real estate was combined with the obligations of the option supported by a statement owner of a plot of 1974 which was not registered and entered in an officially renounces from 1975. In the letter F hf., The then owner of the shares I and II, 1993 was declared the company fell from his stock options on shares III and on the basis of statements of the obligations of the option as well as an obligation for permitting operation of the canceled shares. In the case disputant whether mistakes had been with the registration when that obligation was eradicated from þinglýsingabók in 1993 and if so, whether the requirement would be conditions of paragraph 1. Article 27. No Property Records. 39/1978 to correct the error. The judgment was believed to R Pvt. would have sufficiently clearly tempted to consume remedy under these statutory provisions of his mission to the sheriff and was therefore rejected the argument H Pvt. pertaining to the opposite. H Pvt. based on the fact that it was a mistake to register the obligation at the beginning and it was the right of the registry director to correct them with cancellation obligation in 1993 as a primary it would be a statement from 1974, cited would be willing Deed from 1975, but the statement did not been registered. Was considered to registration rules would not stand in the way of a Deed of 1975 would, in combination with the transfer of property rights, have been established for obligations that should apply to permanently authorize the operations of the property. It also emerged that R Pvt. should legitimate interests to guard against the decision in the case where R Pvt. led right to his inheritance I and II from those who had been the beneficiary obligation at the beginning, was unequivocal waiver of any property since 1975 meant, any party concerned the document and any materials that would be otherwise. It was considered clear that the obligation for authorizing activities in the property to Hallarmúla 2 had also been canceled according to the land register on the basis of statements F hf., Where the company fell from stock options, would have been gone breach of the first paragraph. Article 39. Property Records. Was the appealed ruling that upheld.
69.)30. september 2019Case no. 27/2019 Reif V, who served as head chef canteen staff S hf. the tunnel from November 2013 to May 2016, claiming the company for six months after retirement to pay the unexercised leave entitlement in accordance with the provisions in the agreement. Was undisputed that which would have been the V for gross per month against what he saw to the food and snack would be available at specified times in the canteen. V was free to decide how he organized his working hours and how to coordinate their work and work attendant who worked with him. The Supreme Court stated that in IX. Act no. 46/1980 working conditions, health and safety at work would include Article 53. their working hours and minimum staff, V built his case. In the third paragraph of Article 52. a. Act, which was in the same section, would, however, that its provisions did not apply to senior managers or others who ruled their own working hours. The same principle was laid down in that provision was in the contract December 30, 1996 the Federation of Labor and the Confederation of Icelandic Employers on certain aspects of the organization of working time, both parties cited in the agreement would stipulate that he should be regarded as part of collective bargaining and member companies of these federations. Accordingly, and with reference to the third paragraph of Article 52. a. Act. 46/1980 was thought that would clarify the provisions on minimum wage agreement in the instruments governing employment V so that they did not apply to employees in the same position and V, which was hired for a fixed monthly salary and ruled their working hours and work organization themselves. The S hf. it denies a request V.
70.)25. september 2019Case no. 23/2019 Tore the matter demanded fisherman A recognition of liability B hf. as a result of an accident that he was on a ship owned by B hf. when he slipped and fired a left foot under the head in his cell. This was a wound on the little toe that caused osteomyelitis and bone loss in the toe and foot and had subsequently removing the toe and part of the metatarsal. B hf. argued among other things that the conditions for a causal effect and probably would not be met and that the cause of the injury that was before was diabetes that afflicts him and his negligence of his wound. The Supreme Court stated that clearly was on was involved in an accident within the meaning of paragraph 1. Article 172. Maritime Act. 34/1985. It was a no alleged to have shown gross negligence within the meaning of the second sentence of the provision. In assessing whether conditions were to incorporate the B hf. liability according to legal regulations injury A and therefore the risk that offshore due to their illness be more vulnerable than the general population for the slight injury of the foot could prompt them as it did, the Supreme Court to look would be mainly to three factors. First, A had been suffering from a disease before he had his accident, secondly, that the disease had not given our reduced capacity to work his or inhibit him in any other way than that he was subject to periodic compliance and in the third case the wound, A won by accident, actually made the risk that his illness had caused. Finally, it was believed that the consequences of the accident could not be considered so far-fetched that there would be beyond the bounds of what B hf. would be able to cover. Taking account of these items were considered sufficient power due to injury for the accident so that B hf. would be dead liable for it. A claim was therefore accepted.
71.)23. september 2019Case no. 43/2019 Reif ALC insisted that a permit would be to get an aircraft take direct enforcement of the custody of the Service. and delivered them. With the District Court was required ALC taken into account provided that the appeal adjourned no enforcement inside. The ruling National law, which was upheld by the Supreme Court with regard to its premises, showed that ALC had already gained control of the aircraft. Was the thought that I plc. would no longer legitimate interest in reverse the District Court and the case dismissed under domestic law.
72.)18. september 2019Case no. 26/2019 J fleece etc. insisted that firstly mainly recognized would have to contract holders earth K and hot HR 6 November 1998 had granted OR and V plc. temporary right to drill for hot water on the planet and activate and utilize geothermal energy in 25 years, and they were such measures prohibited by that date. Alternatively demanded J etc. agreements were set aside and its content amended so that the exploitation rights would be temporary for 25 years from the award of the contract. Second insisted J etc. shall mainly be recognized payment OR and V plc. the utilization of hot water in excess of 5,256 cubic meters a year from the planet K the years 2012 to 2016, to warn that the contract would be set aside and its content amended to OR and V plc. would be allowed to make use of said amount of hot water a year. The Supreme Court stated that the contract had been defined what rights would be disposed of him but never talked to measure the geothermal rights in the country K would be temporary in one way or another. They would no orders have been in agreement on how to address expected by means of geothermal project on the ground that the alleged contract completed, it was clear that HR had made a substantial investment to exploit geothermal energy. The parties had agreed to before the agreements were registered would seek the approval of the Minister jarðanefndar the Court held that it had not been made for purposes other than to obtain permission to leave permanently geothermal energy from the ground, see. Paragraph 1. Article 12. Act. 57/1998 on the exploration and exploitation of resources in the ground. Such approval was granted in June 1999. It was regarded as the agreement has geothermal earth K rights have been waived permanently to HR. It also stated that the reference to the Convention in 5256 cubic meters had been part of the decision is available under the agreement that had been evaluated in monetary terms the value of the water that would otherwise have been delivered permanently to the owners of the farm as consideration for geothermal energy. Was referred to it had not been disputed the OR and V plc. the said amount of hot water would only be sufficient for heating within ten villas in the area know HR and considered absurd to district heating system had reached an agreement that would represent only the right to utilize such an insignificant amount of water. Was verified result of the judgment appealed to justify OR and V plc. also by subsequent temperature main claim J, etc. Regarding product requirements J etc. referred to the Court that they had not brought any convincing argument for the components of the contract, based Party, incident to the contract, or it could later occurrences under Article 36. Act. 7/1936 on contracts, power of attorney and invalid legal instruments meant that the courts would now move to change the permanent disposal of property rights had taken place with the agreement of the interim measure. It was believed that in view of the aforementioned result of temperature main claim J, etc. on the recognition of the agreement constituted a restriction of the use of OR and V plc. could not feasibly be changed to the state under Article 36. abovementioned laws. Were the OR and V plc. J. acquitted of claims etc.
73.)15. september 2005Case no. 26/2005 Plea. Real estate purchases. Galli. Cross-appeal. A and E filed suit against N Pvt. the recovery of the balance of the purchase price of a property. The district court had agreed to discount for N Pvt. Therefore, defects in the property but him to pay a certain amount and E as he did. A and E an appeal to the Supreme Court and appealed data N Pvt. him. The judgment was a reference to N Pvt. had not brought gagnsök in the region noted that the cross appeal N Pvt. had no significance, other than a claim for costs in the province. Do not be surmised from the documentary evidence that the N Pvt. had settled its debt under the sentence of the District Court without prejudice to the cross appeal. Formerly the company by now, appealing to the District Court for his part, was evidence that the matter dismissed by the Supreme Court. Also counted N Pvt. have accepted the District Court of the factors discount the claim that there was declined. Regarding the claim that the district court took into account the amount of which is not considered diminish the value of the property so some concerned within the meaning of Article 18. Act. 40/2002 for real estate purchases. It was also not hired from the documentary evidence that A and E were given N Pvt. special liability for the condition of the property or exhibited criminalize conduct in its dealings with N Pvt. Was acceptable to claim A and E.
74.)20. nóvember 2003Case no. 419/2003 Complaints. Estate. The official time. Private House. A public demanded change of the estate of their parents. Initial claims his to this effect was submitted to the District Court on May 16, 2002. That claim was not mentioned that the heirs had previously been granted permission for a private, cf.. conditions first paragraph of paragraph 1. Article 42. Act. 20/1991. In addition, A had failed to send the sheriff a copy of the claim as is required in paragraph 3. Article 42. the same law. Neither B nor sister parties were invited for session, where A request was made for, in the manner prescribed in Article 43. Act. 20/1991. Then the commissioner first informed of the deceased's estate, had been placed in receivership six days after he signed the genetic financial report of its acceptance. Commissioner was therefore not aware of the requirement for official time when he received an erfðafjárskýrslu present nor when he endorsed her for confirmation. With reference to the above was considered to have one magistrate June 14, 2002 was the division of estates X and Z finished, see. Paragraph 1. Article 95. Act. 20/1991. Had not agree to a district court and confirmed.
75.)29. ágúst 2019Case no. 33/2019 Reif parties to the dispute on the validity of a surety that K had undertaken by signing the two bonds of debt to J L. J estates had been declared bankrupt and K paid the debt subject to the right to recourse. After J K died declared claim of his estate, but the proceedings for domestic law was informed that the request had been approved at a meeting. Then lay the matter to be transferred would further specified amount of the escrow account because of it. It was believed that where the lay claim to K obtained fully paid from the assets of the estate would have K no longer legitimate interest in obtaining a judgment on their claims. The case was dismissed by the national law.
76.)27. júní 2019Case no. 29/2019 Reif appealed the ruling National law but it confirmed a decision of the district court rejected the claim that the ALC would be allowed to receive specified aircraft take direct enforcement of the custody of the Service. and delivered them. I ltd. domestic law had required that the court order would be upheld, other than for legal costs but mainly ALC had demanded that the matter be referred there by the court and to spare confirmation of the award. In the impugned ruling rejected the Land Right of temperature main claim ALC he took after that to review assumptions District Court which was upheld a decision to. The Supreme Court stated that if the ALC would also appeal a district court for its part to laws and require that the change would result would have been to take a District Court on the individual merits of the parties for review by the principle inherent in paragraph 1. Article 98. Act. 91/1991 of Civil Procedure for approval of the parties requests made by the other party focused on him will not be in court ruling evaluated Condi behind the claim or part of it, but will be built on the outcome of the approval alone. For the purposes of clause fyrrefnds involved varakröfu ALC national law for the approval of the aspects of the requests made by I plc. pertaining to acceptance District Court to refuse ALC authorizing the enforcement proceedings. By national law would be applied to the requirements of the Service. and upheld the ruling on this issue without in any way stand the arguments for it and only resolve the parties' dispute as to costs. It was considered that the impugned ruling had been materially departed from due process and the inevitable without requiring an unmarked decision and refer the matter back to national law for the legal treatment.
77.)26. júní 2019Case no. 10/2019 Reif Oh sf. the developer and V hf. the buyer made a contract for the construction of Vaðlaheiði tunnel portals and its associated road construction. V to claim hf. Oh decreased sf. accounts by 1.2% over a given period due to the reduction in the VAT ratio from 25.5% to 24%. Parties to the dispute revolved around whether and to what extent the reduction in VAT should lead to a reduction in the agreed unit prices of construction contract that would have been determined, including VAT and will be improved by the construction cost index. Referred Oh sf. according to the prospectus unit price would be binding on the total cost and V hf. not be allowed to change the consideration for the work to its advantage. The Supreme Court stated that it was clear that the total price of the contract could change if certain criteria changed despite the wording in the prospectus said the work. It was referred to in Article 31.12 IST 30 poems clear that both parties could require changes to the contract as a result of changes in laws and / or administrative. It was believed that the aforementioned analytical tool to both increase and decrease the cost of the contractor's work. It was pointed out that the reduction in VAT could have affected the cost of the work under Article standard except that only should look to what effect the reduction would have on the cost of the rules on price changes in the agreement reflected not like the expression in the closing words of the article. It was estimated that the total impact of tax changes beneficial to the O Ports. would amount to 13,989,939 currency and the amount was deducted from requests made by O Ports. It was claimed Oh sf. taken into account partially. Then the interest claim Oh sf. dismissed by the District Court of Reykjanes.
78.)26. júní 2019Case no. 11/2019 Reif Kraft V hf. and B for compensation for an accident that it was the B drove his car over to the wrong side of the road and turned on the left front corner of the vehicle was a passenger in. In the case demanded a non-pecuniary damage on the basis of a. paragraph 1. Article 26. Damages no. 50/1993 and shared by the parties on whether B would conduct exhibited gross negligence within the meaning of the provision. The judgment was considered proven that B had been using a mobile phone or reaching for him when the accident occurred. It was also considered proven that people had of him to driving. On the other hand, was considered proven by medical evidence and the testimony of B himself that he had been badly called to driving. He, among other things been badly nourished for a few days before the accident, likely to be badly Sofia. In addition, mental and physical condition B had driven him beyond the maximum would be both violations of the rules of care Traffic Act no. 50/1987 and in particular the first paragraph. Article 37. them and had gone to the wrong side of the road which would be a violation of paragraph 1. Article 14. and the first paragraph. 19. Act as stated. and the first paragraph. Article 4. them. It was thought that B had shown gross negligence that occasion. Accordingly, should be entitled to non-financial benefits were considered sufficiently specific 2,000,000 crowns.
79.)21. júní 2019Case no. 28/2019 Reif confirmed national law ruling which was denied claim 12.12.2017 ltd. of N Inc. would be required to provide insurance cover expenses in case N Inc. and J for 12/12/2017 Pvt.
80.)12. júní 2019Case no. 20/2019 Reif appealed the ruling National law invalidating a decision of the creditors' meeting, held on the winding-up of SC hf. in April 2016, the payment of commission to the dissolution of the Board of Directors. The Supreme Court stated that according to Article 128. Act. 21/1991 on Bankruptcy could be in bankruptcy proceedings to contest the validity of a meeting of commission, the trustee considers that he is entitled to because of his work, and looking as appropriate judicial resolution under Article 171. same act of dissent on the matter. On the other hand, resulted in the provisions of Art. 21/1991 and 161/2002 not available, although the winding-up company which has operated financial institution would be a precursor to bankruptcy that the trustee or a meeting of the bankruptcy estate would be more than ever competent to decide on the validity of commission, the former representative of the company , as the case may wear board, had made him pay for his work in its favor prior to the bankruptcy proceedings had come. It was thought that the legitimacy of such action would be absurd resolved in a court case, which was operated by Section 5 of the Act. 21/1991, but would bankrupt estate company, would not accept such a measure, looking at her termination by the rules XX. of the Act and the recovery of payment. No support was for the aforementioned law to practice in the suit that the defendant chose to dress the dispute over the said commission. For this reason the case was dismissed by the district court.
81.)12. júní 2019Case no. 8/2019 Reif dispute in this case was whether B would be permitted to terminate the rights of use of the ground at the Cliffs, B had the basic rights of ownership of, and demand that she veered off the ground and handed control of the goods B for payment. Parties to the dispute as to whether the conditions had been to the cancellation of part B and if so whether the withdrawal would extend to all nations of the earth or only parts of it. Built B authorization to the ground one in four genetic leases concluded in the years 1932 to 1939, however, the building letter from 1951. Description buildings letter signals enabling rose substantially both to the land of the earth who rented the genetic lease agreements and construction letter but B said the tenure of the planet in 2009 and 2011 only by reference to the construction of the letter. It was believed that when one considers how rich the right genetic lease agreement lessees and that nowhere in the construction of the letter was mentioned that abolished hereditary lease contract four had B does not prove that there had been expectation Parties buildings letter freed genetic lease agreements superseded. Had the waiver so rich had the right to bring out clearly and unambiguously in the construction of the letter. Having obtained the conclusion was thought that B claims, if proved correct, could only be taken to be made at the turn from the part of the earth as buildings took the letter, but not the entire planet as claimed B took note of. Because of this discrepancy in contention B case was dismissed by the district court.
82.)6. júní 2019Case no. 24/2019 Reif confirmed the ruling National law which rejected the claim X to national law judge on the case of the prosecution against him.
83.)5. júní 2019Case no. 9/2019 Tore the matter demanded D to be recognized for business operations which it had acquired in V hf. because of his work as a realtime strategy to the detriment of which he was held responsible for the Supreme Court October 6, 2016 in case no. 64/2016. The Supreme Court was referred to the judgment of 2016 had the right clearly based on the conclusion that that been had the basis for liability D in that case, would essentially mean a construction contract and had not been for the purchase or sale property involved. It was believed that D would not in this case shown in any way that the incident had in this regard in fact other than the above. Had the Supreme Court judgment of October 6, 2016 that constitute about those facts, see. 4th paragraph. Article 116. Act. 91/1991 of Civil Procedure. Was used as a basis of the resolution of the case that the service that D had undertaken to provide the above-mentioned transaction in case no. 64/2016, should probably focus on making contract for construction of the house, which had not been made. The resolution of whether the business operations of D V hf. had been confined to his duties in connection with real estate purchases or whether it could also have gone through his service in the preparation of construction contract, took into account the provisions of the Act, as valid had earlier and later on the work of real estate agents, their rights and duties, were in essentially all turned exclusively to trade in real estate. It was believed a realtor, who have had authorization to operate in part on the basis of his education, could be regarded as an expert on the purchase, sale or exchange of real estate, including the award of contracts for such measures, but on that basis alone he could on the other hand can not be considered an expert on business or documentation in unrelated areas. In light was laid the understanding of Article 5. then current Act. 99/2004 on the sale of real estate, companies and vessels terms V hf. for business operations D recalled that business operations by the provisions were to cover operating real estate agents in their area of ​​expertise, but not to other works, he might undertake as regards the subject to other provisions of the parties may purchase or exchange of real estate . Wherein said a contract for the construction of the house would be so irrelevant Act no. 99/2004 and the objectives of the housing purchases the P hf. denies a request D.
84.)4. júní 2019Case no. 6/2019 Reif FV hf. instituted proceedings against B and demanded compensation for damages that the company thought he had been the purchase of shares in Landsbanki. December 19, 2007 for a total of 237,709,297 crowns. FV built hf. his claim that B would have caused the damage by having maliciously concealed information about the company in his portfolio would effectively controlled in Landsbanki. FV built hf. that the company did not own shares in the bank at the point in time when they became worthless October 7, 2008 was unlawful and criminalize conduct B not come. With the decision of a judge in a court hearing November 30, 2017, the cause of action case divided so that the first would be resolved if the intended requirement FV hf. was statute barred. Country upheld the District Court's finding that this was acquitted and B claim FV hf. The Supreme Court stated that as the matter encircled the court was unable to take a position on expiry alleged claim for FV hf. but first would be resolved if she had been to, on what grounds it happened and when. Alternatively represented the conclusion of a getsakir, as applicable, optional, whether the claim for which it was not to establish whether there has been to has fallen below expiration. It was considered that the conditions had broken all to replace the matter in dispute in the case on the basis of Article 31. Act. 91/1991 of Civil Procedure. It was therefore inevitable that the unmarked appealed the judgment of the District Court and in the case and refer it into the country for the legal treatment.
85.)15. september 2005Case no. 481/2004 Cohabit. Demands. Penalty. M instituted proceedings against K in the wake of the dissolution of the union of the world will. The share of M requirements for renovation of the apartment and for payments on its debt repayments that K took the union time to finance the purchase of the apartment. It was accepted by M that he had set aside funds for the renovation of the apartment and made repayments of loans, taken to acquire it, on the assumption that the parties were unmarried and he was to provide funds to asset accumulation for the benefit of both parties. It was not dangerous to believe prove that the apartment had increased in value by at least the equivalent of the amounts M submitted for this purpose. K was therefore ordered to pay 1,067,101 M cent.
86.)4. júní 2019Case no. 5/2019 Reif V hf. instituted proceedings against B and demanded compensation for damages that the company thought he had been the purchase of shares in Landsbanki. February 16, 2006 and December 19, 2007 for a total of 368,805,018 crowns. Built V hf. his claim that B would have caused the damage by having maliciously concealed information about the company in his portfolio would effectively controlled in Landsbanki. Built V hf. that the company did not own shares in the bank at the point in time when they became worthless October 7, 2008 was unlawful and criminalize conduct B not come. With the decision of a judge in a court hearing November 30, 2017, the cause of action case divided so that the first would be resolved if the intended requirement V hf. was statute barred. Country upheld the District Court's finding that this was acquitted and B of requirements V hf. The Supreme Court stated that as the matter encircled the court was unable to take a position on expiry alleged claim for V hf. but first would be resolved if she had been to, on what grounds it happened and when. Alternatively represented the conclusion of a getsakir, as applicable, optional, whether the claim for which it was not to establish whether there has been to has fallen below expiration. It was considered that the conditions had broken all to replace the matter in dispute in the case on the basis of Article 31. Act. 91/1991 of Civil Procedure. It was therefore inevitable that the unmarked appealed the judgment of the District Court and in the case and refer it into the country for the legal treatment.
87.)31. maí 2019Case no. 7/2019 Tore the matter demanded E ehf. recognition of liability K hf. because of inadequate procedures on hf. in relation to their investment in Z Pvt. A hf. ran with V hf. and K Bank. then took over the rights and obligations V hf. the merger of 2017. reckon E ehf. they have been harmed as consultant hf. had two points not been examined with due diligence Z Pvt. On the one hand the shortcomings had been in financial statements and tax returns of the company due to wrongly had been done thus expensed financial company that would lead in 2013 to a substantial increase in the income of criminal charges in a given period. However, had not been seen for financing leases between Z Pvt. and L hf. where payments in local currency had been associated with the exchange rate. E reckon ehf. that having undertaken to do your due diligence and through the acquisition would have on the Bank. served to examine all the factors that impact could have had on the value of the company. Rejected K hf. liability including reference to the A hf. and E ehf. had not established a contractual relationship where A hf. would only act on behalf of institutional investors, fund A slf. and although the contractual relationship had come to if employees A hf. the acquisition not made liable for negligence. The Supreme Court stated that by HF. A slf would help. the search for joint investors, as well as the processing and preparation of promotional materials for such investors and negotiations between them and the A slf., as well as various other communications with a representative E ehf. A would hf. E sold Pvt. service but behind it would have been very nature deal if he had not been documented. It was referred to the fact that it was neither invented nor listed in the law acquis demarcation of what was supposed to due diligence in business would be stored. Would not other to rely on the data of the promises A hf. could have given. Was it based on the representation man E ehf. was the signing of investment promise held the annex containing the count of items that due diligence was intended to cover, but the count would have been fairly accurate and do not give rise to decisions to explore should have such identification. The K hf. it denies a request E ehf.
88.)28. maí 2019Case no. 3/2019 Reif dispute in this case was whether S ses. was on the basis of pre-emptive rights in R hf. redeemed shares as M ehf. acquired by K hf. Had R hf. S announced ses. of the transaction and S ses. email to R hf. confirmed that he fell from its rights issue. The same day as the deadline to take advantage of first refusal expired Send ses. notification to R hf. where he said that because of changed circumstances have decided to exercise its option to purchase from the sale of the shares. And institutions in part on whether the S ses. had a binding effect on pre-emption rights. Then they quarreled about the adequacy had been driving a notice of application for pre-emptive R hf. the M ehf. argued that S ses. would have had to send it to K hf. the seller of the shares in accordance with the shareholders agreement further specified its R hf. It was considered shown that R hf. had been granted on behalf of K Bank. as a seller of shares in the company to take a binding way to notices from the shareholders pre-emptive keeper. Should it pursuant to the principles of contract law and would not violate the rules of part IV. Act no. 2/1995. It was believed that the pre-emption S ses. had lapsed when he said the announcement R hf. by e-mail to pre-emptive years would be not consumed one would form the basis of such a response would depend on the objectives of the so decided that it had the legal effect since it came to the recipient. Was taken into account demand M ehf. the recognition that he was the rightful owner of the shares.
89.)28. maí 2019Case no. 4/2019 Reif dispute in this case was whether S ses. was on the basis of pre-emptive rights in R hf. redeemed shares as M ehf. bought by SIS. By email to R hf. was announced in favor of the acquisition of SIS M ehf. the SIS parts of the company and calls on the shareholders of R hf. would be presented to the purchase of pre-emptive them. A day later sent R hf. the announcement of the transaction S ses. , S ses. email to R hf. that he had decided to exercise its option to purchase the shares. Separated the parties as to whether the deadline to enter the purchase had been passed when S ses. declared. It was believed that under the provisions of unqualified b. paragraph 1. Article 22. Act. 2/1995 would limit pre-emptive beyond what is normal start to feel the SIS email about the purchase receipt R hf. S ses deadline. to exercise their option had it been passed when its notification to this effect to the company but consider comparable number of days relative to the time of day that supposedly was from when it was available. Was taken into account demand M ehf. the recognition that he was the rightful owner of the shares.
90.)21. maí 2019Case no. 15/2019 Reif of a certain district court was A hf. Oh ordered to pay a certain amount of unlawful termination of their employment contract. The company appealed the judgment of the estate was then placed in liquidation. Supreme Court the case was automatically referred get right where THB. A hf. had not given a guarantee for the payment of legal costs in accordance with a court decision to comply with the request o such insurance. Based on the above judgments declared Oh claim bankruptcy proceedings A hf., Totaling 8,996,327 crowns, and demanded that it be placed in priority according to Article 112. Act. 21/1991 on Bankruptcy The trustee rejected the claim would enjoy such a priority and considered it a general requirement in accordance with Article 113. Act. With the District Court's finding was confirmed receivers but with the impugned ruling National law came to the opposite conclusion and took claim Oh considered. Parties to a dispute before the Supreme Court bent only how to apply should the second paragraph. Article 112. Act. 21/1991 of the decision on the status of the priority claim Oh. Specifically, the share of a judgment within the meaning of that provision would have to include a resolution on the matter, as THB. A hf. basis for, or whether there might also be the judgment, which states only the cancellation of the case or the dismissal of the higher court, like Oh thought that applied to his claim. The Supreme Court stated that the purpose of paragraph 2. Article 112. Act. 21/1991 was to counter the priority claim would be canceled if the claimant would be compelled to take legal action to her world, as he did within the prescribed time limit. That the aforementioned Supreme Court, where the case was automatically dismissed by the court because of events that concerned only THB. A hf., Had been first for the final outcome of the claim Oh District Court trays unaffected. It was believed that if the Supreme Court had not discussed the substance of the claim to be construed CONCLUSION paragraph 2. Article 112. Act. 21/1991, that requirement should under clause if the case of the dismissal of the case for it from a higher court exchange within six months before the deadline, or later, as represented other conclusion that the debtor might have in his hand to be a priority for the claim pass by by creating an environment that matter to complete the higher court without judgment is the subject of it. Was the appealed ruling that upheld.
91.)21. maí 2019Case no. 12/2018 Tore through a Supreme Court judgment in case no. 74/2012 J and T were convicted further specified fraction of its own tax purposes and for tax matters in activity B hf. In a ruling reopening Committee in April 2018 was agreed to their request for the reopening of the case on the basis d. paragraph 1. Article 228., See. Paragraph 1. Article 232. Act. 88/2008 Code of Criminal Procedure which provides for the authorization of a convicted person to seek reopening if it is demonstrated that a significant defects have been on a proceeding that had affected the outcome of that. Committee referred to the European Court of Human Rights had May 18, 2017 concluded that the said judgment had been violated J and T pursuant to Article 4. 7. Protocol ECHR, see. Act no. 62/1994, where they have been tried and punished twice for the same or substantially the same conduct in two separate cases that have not been associated with in a satisfactory manner. The Supreme Court stated that the principles first sentence of Article 60. Constitutional Court was to rule on decisions reopening of the Committee and would be taking a position on whether the law has been rightly to the conclusion that the Commission found in its ruling. It was stated that membership of the European Convention Contracting States had not undergone the international obligation to ensure that, as the European Court of Human Rights considers to have been violated in any proceedings before a national court, just to get re-open the case. Neither was in law no. 88/2008 or other domestic law should expressly provided for by reopening a case after the judgment of the Court. Retrial would not be built in the direct legal authority. It was not believed that the provision d. paragraph 1. Article 228. Act. 88/2008 authorized the reopening of the case. A reference was made to not be seen that the purpose of the legislation enacting this provision has been providing ECHR more weight than they had before following the outcome of the court to have been violated ECHR proceedings in court. Such a fundamental change in Icelandic legislation would have to come out unequivocally for the legislation and the provision would not have construed broadly considered nor analogy provides for reopening the case with the above conditions. It will also look to a resolution to impartial and independent court has reached a decision in the matter dómfelldu in accordance with the provisions of Article 61. the Constitution, see. the aforementioned Supreme Court judgment in case no. 74/2012. It specifically discussed Article 4. Annex 7 of the Convention and concluded that the proceedings would not be contrary to the clause so that the dismissal concerned. According to Article 2. Act. 62/1994 were ECHR rulings are not binding local legislation. Submit be the basis that this was the legislator reiterated that despite the ratification of the Convention would be in this country is founded on the principle of duality national legislation and international law. Was involved in a court that they had a legal doctrine actually lay down amendments in advance for such purposes they would go beyond the limits set polity powers; cf.. Article 2. and the first sentence of Article 61. Constitution. The case was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
92.)21. maí 2019Case no. 33/2018 Reif Áfrýjendurnir AV, NV and SV older and younger defendant SV, which together were half of the V ehf., Made a shareholder agreement on March 1, 2010. In May 2014 gave SV over all its shares in V Pvt. to N Ltd. and in December of that year were the shares transferred to D Ltd. The former company was mostly owned by him but the latter altogether. In August 2016 declared SV junior termination of the shareholders agreement on the basis that it would be in default of such significant items that termination would be permitted, as well as assumptions that were no longer valid and the specific provisions of invalidation. In the case demanded AV, NV, SV older and D Ltd. the avoidance would be invalid. The Supreme Court stated that the above measures SV older parts of his V Pvt. has been permitting the basis of the shareholders' agreement of all shareholders in the company since 2008, as it was later changed, and its statutes in May 2014. On the other hand, would be to ensure that the shareholders agreement by March 1, 2010 would have been restricted to freedom its members to transfer their shares in V Pvt. So if none of them may dispose of its shares in the company without the consent of all the others as well as a new shareholder would have to undergo the agreement. Neither N Ltd. or D Ltd. had undergone the said shareholders' agreement as well as no material was to believe that SV would work under approved transfer of shares to D Ltd. When these reasons was a basis for SV against SV older younger had failed to comply with its obligations under the shareholder agreement. In assessing the significance of this non-compliance was seen to said shares would have answered to 34.5% of the shares in V Pvt. and had it been the owner of 69% of the votes of the decisions agreement was reached. On the basis of these shares would therefore their owner on its own to interpret the level V Pvt. did any party shareholders agreement. If SV younger had significant interest because of who had authority over these things in his V ehf., But no guarantee if he bothered to D Ltd. would not get owned by other than SV older. When these reasons it was considered to breach SV older would be significant and termination SV younger consequently permitted. He was acquitted of the claim AV, NV, SV older and D Ltd.
93.)14. maí 2019Case no. 34/2018 Reif Act no. 139/2012 of an amendment to Article 18. Act. 4/1995 on Municipal Revenues which involved the addition of the third sentence of the article and laid down in the Regulation would be allowed to provide that the municipalities that had total tax revenue from the income tax and property taxes that would be considered significantly above the national average should not enjoy certain contributions from the Equalization Fund. Then applicable regulations of the Municipal Equalization Fund No. 960/2010 was amended on the basis of the above authorization by Regulation No. 1226/2012. Was laid for a new article in The legal base inside under which compulsory contributions to their local tax revenues as a whole were at least 50% above the national average, it is income tax and property tax per capita in full exercise of their revenue streams are canceled. G was one of the five municipalities that accept cancellation of equalization contributions for this reason. G filed suit against the demanding payment corresponding to the amount he received in 2013 and 2016 if it had not been for the Minister's decision on suspension of payments. The Supreme Court stated that the explanations provided in the bill of Act. 97/1995 with the regulatory purposes of paragraph 2. Article 78. it was stated that its purpose was to be firm about the decision of the Municipal Revenues should the legislative and therefore not subject to the executive. Given the constitutional position of local and provisions of paragraph 2. Article 78. would be compatible with the laws rule provision not be interpreted otherwise than that it was not entitled to cancel the Municipal Revenues in whole or in part without the law. Would it not make a regulation. In addition, said the provisions of paragraph 3 of Article 18. Act. 4/1995 firstly for authorizing the Minister to determine whether incorporation would equalization down or not and secondly to determine what counts competent significantly above the national average. Minister had been assigned the decision on whether to curtail municipal revenues would or not, contrary to what was explicitly stated in the preparatory works of the second paragraph. Article 78. Constitution. It was considered clear that the Minister was not bound by the plan provided in the bill, which later became Act No. 139/2012, of 50% was considered significantly above the national average. It was believed that the transfer of the legislature in the third sentence of Article 18. Act. 4/1995 on the authority to waive the above sources of revenue for G would run counter to the laws be compatible with the rule of paragraph 2. Article 78. Constitution. The requirement that G be recognized.
94.)4. apríl 2019Case no. 16/2019 Reif H Pvt. appealed the verdict national law where the relevant F and G against the company was dismissed by the district court. The Supreme Court stated that according to a. paragraph 1. Article 167. Act. 91/1991 would be allowed without permission to appeal to the Supreme Court ruling and reviews national law if there would be recommended for the dismissal of the case by the District Court or national law. Nature, could other than those issues that have brought, had no legitimate interest in the appeal ruling or judgment to the effect. It was believed that H Pvt. had broken the right to appeal against the judgment of national law and the case was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
95.)27. mars 2019Case no. 31/2018 Reif On Demand S hf. to pay the leave entitlement because of reduced rest periods and reduced rights to weekly holidays. Share sides of the recording of working hours A would reflect his hours worked in a given period or whether in the number of hours would be classes that were supposed to compensate for the deterioration of the rights. Was not considered to S hf. had succeeded proof that the registration had not taken into account hours worked and would therefore form the basis of A would be remunerated accordingly. In assessing whether A might require S hf. further payment for his contribution would have to consider that A had applied to the District Court that he had never in his tenure commented on wages and overview their pay slips. He would also renew an employment relationship with S hf. by signing a new contract without making comments to the mechanism that was common in S hf. registration hours and payment of wages. A union would have first contacted S hf. relating to alleged unpaid wages in after his retirement and 15 months after the season ended that his claim turned to. The case had been filed so when passed was about six months from retirement A. Finally, it was thought that look would be that A had been steward of their workplace and served further specified duties as such subject. Paragraph 2. Article 10. Act. 80/1938 on Trade Unions and Industrial Disputes. Accordingly, and to stake a claim for confidentiality and mutual consideration on the part of both parties contractual relationship was believed that A had for the sake of indifference forfeited to exhibit their claim. The S hf. it denies a request A.
96.)15. september 2005Case no. 75/2005 Real estate purchases. Pre-emptive rights. Enrichment claim. H hf. who had rented housing owned by S Pvt. decided to take pre-emptive rights to the property under a lease party. Thought H hf. that the S Pvt. had enriched unduly since the purchase price was higher than the estimated market value in the opinion of the court-appointed assessors. It was believed that H hf. had not shown that S Pvt. had become rich at the expense of H hf. and the S Pvt. therefore acquitted.
97.)26. mars 2019Case no. 14/2019 Reif confirmed national law ruling which was denied claim LBX ltd. of national law judge on the case against Landsbanki hf.
98.)22. mars 2019Case no. 29/2018 Tore the autumn of 2017 appeared in the weekly magazine while and online in the same magazine extensive news coverage of business Prime Minister and his relatives to G Pvt. preceding the banking collapse in October 2008. It was pointed out that the information about the transaction would occur in the data that could be attributed to its predecessor G Pvt. U Pvt. had in its possession and worked out in cooperation with R Pvt. and British fjölmiðilinn The Guardian. In October 2017 received G Pvt. placed an injunction on the O Pvt. published news or other coverage, which would be based on or derived from the data or systems G Pvt. which were subject to confidentiality under Article 58. Act. 161/2002,. District and Land Rights rejected the confirmation of the injunction and the granting of permission to appeal the Supreme Court stated that the injunction had expired under paragraph 2. Article 39. Act. 31/1990 detention, injunctions, etc. On the other hand, the Supreme Court agreed to take to resolve the dispute parties on the one hand whether journalists O Pvt. would be made to answer in court the more specific questions pertaining to the existence, content and possession of data that news coverage would take and whether the discussion would involve a violation of Article 58. Act. 161/2002, Article 71. Constitution and Article 8. ECHR. In terms of the aforementioned dispute, the Supreme Court noted that under literally be based on a protection. paragraph 2. Article 53. Act. 91/1991 on civil procedure and provisions of Article 25. Act. 38/2011 of media primarily that may not be informed of the identity of the authorized person within the meaning of the Act. Having regard to the notes to the latter provision, the provisions of Article 73. Constitution and Article 10. ECHR and the case law prestigious European Court was considered an authority Protect Journalists was intended more liberal translation than that. It would involve also the stipulation that the journalist would not be obliged to provide information that could lead to the identification would be applied to the source. That would believe a journalist significant flexibility to assess whether the answers to questions related to the existence of such data could potentially provide evidence of who the source was. It was agreed with the District Court and the domestic law of the witnesses would not be obliged to answer the said questions. What concerned the latter dispute, the Supreme Court of Article 58. Act. 161/2002 satisfies the requirements of paragraph 3. Article 73. Constitution and Article 10. Convention for the incapacity clause would involve the speech had a legal basis in law and summoned to a legitimate aim. In assessing the need for the restrictions, which involved the recognition of a claim G Pvt. prohibiting the dissemination of data and information from them, vægjust on freedom of the media to make the public aware of the information contained therein was right customers and G Pvt. to bank secrecy and privacy. Reference was made to assess the discussion would have healed a bigger danger than when the injunction was put in had only 12 days to be elected would be to Parliament. The brunt of coverage had been subject to trade Prime Minister and its representatives. Emphasizing that the right to discuss publicly the issue of elected politicians would be less restrictive than otherwise, as well as one had in mind was originally Pvt. and R Pvt. the media and the role they play in a democratic society. It was also agreed with the District Court and the domestic law of the said news coverage O Pvt. and R Pvt. has been permitted.
99.)21. mars 2019Case no. 13/2019 Reif confirmed the ruling of the Labor Court which rejected the claim in that case S against him be dismissed. Raised in their claim that the case was not subject to the Labor Court where the framework agreement, the S base their claims on, was not a collective agreement between the parties within the meaning of paragraph 3, paragraph 1. Article 26. Act. 94/1986 on public sector collective bargaining. It was believed that with the agreement and S amending and extension of the current collective agreement between them would further specified provisions of the framework agreement on the so-called drift insurance become part of the current collective agreement between the parties was S that under that legal provisions may be referred to the Labor Court dispute over the contract terms.
100.)19. mars 2019Case no. 12/2019 Reif appealed the ruling National law where the case against K T was dismissed by the district court. In the case demanded that K would invalidate T refusal of his application for income-related payments to working parents by law no. 22/2006 on payments to parents of chronically ill children and serious. The ruling National law, which was upheld by the Supreme Court with regard to its premises, it was thought that the underlying financial claims that K could seek to sustain as a result of the annulment of decisions T, were terminated prior to expiry when the case was filed. K lacked the legitimate interests of obtaining a judgment of annulment of their claims. It was also believed that K had no legitimate interest in obtaining further specified decision T annulment which he had not demanded the annulment of the Appellate Committee for Maternity and Parental which were a final ruling in the case of government and the parking unaffected.
Go to top