The defendants were prosecuted for trawl fishing without any catch entitlement for the fishing gear used. The prosecution, furthermore, requested that their company, Hymó Ltd be fined and that a confiscation order should be directed at the defendants and Hymó Ltd for the value of 33,623 kg of cod, i.e. 3,786,602. The defendants requested to be free of all charges.

The defendants agreed on the facts of the case and stated that they had neglected to buy catch quota because it was too expensive. Instead they intended to pay a percentage of the value of the catch directly to the state. One of the defendants meant that the quota exchange did not fill it’s purpose and that he, as an Icelandic citizen should be entitled to the fish stocks within Icelandic territory on an equal basis with other fishers. The defendants meant that the quota system in place in Iceland was not in line with the constitution. The first provision referred to by the defendants was Article 75 of the Constitution establishing a right to employment, meaning that the quota system interfered with this right. The provision can, however, be limited by law if so required by the public good. The public interest in question was that of limiting catch to a level constituting the optimum yield of utilised stocks and protecting the Icelandic fish stocks. This is also required by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The second provision referred to by the defendants was Article 65 of the Constitution, stipulating that everyone shall be equal before the law. The right to pursue an occupation of choice on equal terms is protected by this provision. The defendants questioned the system through which the catch quota was distributed based on previous catches.

The Supreme Court found the defendants guilty and came to the conclusion that the manner of distributing quotas was constitutionally valid. Limiting catches was necessary for international commitments and constituted a valid public interest. As the quota was distributed on the basis of catch history, this was a fair basis, equal for all.