Neyðarlagadómarnir og friðhelgi eignarréttar

TY - JOUR

T1 - Neyðarlagadómarnir og friðhelgi eignarréttar

AU - Solnes, Valgerdur

PY - 2012/2

Y1 - 2012/2

N2 - On 6 October 2008 the Icelandic legislature enacted the Emergency Act no. 125/2008 as a response to an impending collapse of the State´s banking system. Clause 6 of the act amended the Icelandic Bankruptcy Act with regard to priorities of claims filed by creditors of financial institutions subject to bankruptcy proceedings, i.e. liquidation. Unsecured claims, e.g. claims for deposits and securities, were equal in terms of priority prior to the Emergency Act. However, Clause 6 entailed the suprepriority of claims for deposits over other unsecured claims. The provision was challenged by several unsecured creditors of the Icelandic bank Landbanki Íslands hf. who claimed they had thereby been deprived of their possessions. The Supreme Court of Iceland upheld the constitutionality of Clause 6 in the Case of the Financial Services Compenstion Scheme on 28 October 2011 (case no. 340/2011). To both illustrate and test the proprietary aspects of the Supreme Court´s findings, the article decribes the legal foundation of the right to property pursuant to Clause 72, Section 1 of the Icelandic Constitution and Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights and attempts to shed a light on the provisions´ scope, content and limitations by means of the Supreme Court of Iceland and the European Court of Human Rights.

AB - On 6 October 2008 the Icelandic legislature enacted the Emergency Act no. 125/2008 as a response to an impending collapse of the State´s banking system. Clause 6 of the act amended the Icelandic Bankruptcy Act with regard to priorities of claims filed by creditors of financial institutions subject to bankruptcy proceedings, i.e. liquidation. Unsecured claims, e.g. claims for deposits and securities, were equal in terms of priority prior to the Emergency Act. However, Clause 6 entailed the suprepriority of claims for deposits over other unsecured claims. The provision was challenged by several unsecured creditors of the Icelandic bank Landbanki Íslands hf. who claimed they had thereby been deprived of their possessions. The Supreme Court of Iceland upheld the constitutionality of Clause 6 in the Case of the Financial Services Compenstion Scheme on 28 October 2011 (case no. 340/2011). To both illustrate and test the proprietary aspects of the Supreme Court´s findings, the article decribes the legal foundation of the right to property pursuant to Clause 72, Section 1 of the Icelandic Constitution and Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights and attempts to shed a light on the provisions´ scope, content and limitations by means of the Supreme Court of Iceland and the European Court of Human Rights.

KW - Det Juridiske Fakultet

KW - Right to Property

KW - Protection of Property

KW - Constitution Law

M3 - Tidsskriftartikel

SN - 0493-2714

VL - 61

SP - 353

EP - 416

JO - Timarit Loegfraedinga

JF - Timarit Loegfraedinga

IS - 4

ER -