Requested by: Iceland, Prime Minister

Recommended Measures:
The following main recommendations are made concerning the draft bill the President and functions of the executive: - A procedure of revocation of an act by the Caretaker Cabinet which is in breach of the principle of “necessity” in draft Article 23(3) should be envisaged in the Constitution; - Concerning the criminal liability of the ministers, draft Article 14 delegates too much power to the future legislation. The constitutional provision should provide rules as to the investigations, indictments, and judicial proceedings in cases of alleged misconduct in office by ministers; - Concerning the status of director of public prosecutions, draft Article 30 goes too far in favour his/her independence, as it assimilates its status to the protection given to judges. A more careful wording is needed based on the notion of “autonomy” of public prosecution. Concerning the draft amendments on referendums, the clear intention to enhance citizens’ opportunities to influence legislation and more generally the decision-making on issues of key interest for the public is welcome. This aim appears to be entirely legitimate and understandable in the specific socio-economic and political context of Iceland. The following main recommendations are made: - Harmonisation should be made between the provisions concerning the referendum triggered by a veto of the President and the abrogative referendum provided in the bill; - The meaning of the expressions “laws that are passed to implement international obligations” and “resolutions that have legal effect or represent an important policy issue” should be determined in a clearer manner; - A provision should be introduced to the effect that the Althing may not adopt, for the running election period at least, an essentially identical piece of legislation after the referendum has taken place or after the act has been repealed by the Althing; - The approval quorum should be removed. The draft bills on natural resources and on the environmental protection are welcome as they aim to constitutionally entrench the use and protection of natural resources, as well as the protection of the environment. The amendments are generally positive and in line with the applicable standards. The following main recommendations are made: - the relationship of the bill on natural resources with the bill on environmental protection should be clarified; Concerning the draft bill on natural resources: - the meaning of the notion “national ownership” and its relation to the right to property should be determined in a clear manner; - issues related to the natural resources, including the economic issues in the draft provision such as fees and commercial exploitation should be covered by judicial control. Concerning the draft bill on environmental protection: - The meaning of the notions used in the draft provision, “precaution” and “long-term vision guided by sustainable development” should be clarified; - The scope of “individual responsibility” for environment protection and its relationship to “shared responsibility” should be clarified; the duty of the state and its overall responsibility for the protection of the environment and nature could be further emphasised; - The scope and the nature of the right to a healthy environment, as well as the rights and obligations which derive from this right should be clarified; - The enforcement mechanisms, including the judicial control of the rights and obligations related to the environment protection should be provided explicitly in the text of the Constitution.