The United Nations Human Rights Committee ruled the Icelandic authorities obliged to revise the fisheries management system og pay two fishermen compensation for not having been allocated quota
The Human Rights Committee has taken a stance in the Commitee’s case nr. 1306/2004: Erlingur Sveinn Haraldsson and Örn Snævar Sveinsson vs. Iceland, 24. October 2007. The complaints relate to the fisheries management system and whether Icelanders are being discriminated in an illegitamate way, the majority of the Committee ruled that there had been a violation of Article 26 of the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights by Iceland:
All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discriminatoin to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
The main issue before the Committee is whether the authors, who are lawfully obliged to pay money to fellow citizens in order to acquire quotas necessary for exercising commercial fishing of certain fish species and thus to have access to such fish stocks that are the common property of the Icelandic nation, are victims of discrimination in violation of article 26 of the Covenant. The Committee firstly notes that the authors’ claim is based on the differentiation between groups of fishers. The first group received for free a quota share because they engaged in fishing of quota-affected species during the period between 1 November 1980 and 31 October 1983. Members of this group are not only entitled to use these quotas themselves but can sell or lease them to others. The second group of fishers must buy or rent a quota share from the first group if they wish to fish quota affected species for the simple reason that they were not owning and operating fishing vessels during this reference period. The Committee concludes that such distinction is based on grounds equivalent to those of property.
While the Committee finds that the aim of this distinction adopted by the State party, namely the protection of its fish stocks which constitute a limited resource, is a legitimate one, it must determine whether the distinction is based on reasonable and objective criteria. The Committee notes that every quota system introduced to regulate access to limited resources privileges, to some extent, the holders of such quotas and disadvantages others without necessarily being discriminatory. At the same time, it notes the specificities of the present case: On the one hand, the first Article of the Fisheries Management Act No 38/1990 states that the fishing banks around Iceland are common property of the Icelandic nation. On the other hand, the distinction based on the activity during the reference period which initially, as a temporary measure, may have been a reasonable and objective criterion, became not only permanent with the adoption of the Act but transformed original rights to use and exploit a public property into individual property: Allocated quotas no longer used by their original holders can be sold or leased at market prices instead of reverting to the State for allocation to new quota holders in accordance with fair and equitable criteria. The State party has not shown that this particular design and modalities of implementation of the quota system meets the requirement of reasonableness. While not required to address the compatibility of quota systems for the use of limited resources with the Covenant as such, the Committee concludes that, in the particular circumstances of the present case, the property entitlement privilege accorded permanently to the original quota owners, to the detriment of the authors, is not based on reasonable grounds. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 26 of the Covenant.
In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the authors with an effective remedy, including adequate compensation and review of its fisheries management system.
Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognised the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant or not, and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognised in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy in case a violation has been established, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s Views.
It has been claimed that in Iceland, the conclusions of the Human Rights Committee are not binding.
Iceland has adopted, signed and ratified the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights and has the duty under international law to adhere to the ruling of the Human Rights Committee in appeals of alleged breach of the Convention.
Úr Þskj. 575 — 339. máli, 135. löggjafarþing 2007–2008.
European Week Against Racism 
The Human Rights Education Project