Communicated on 18 January 2017
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 65101/16
Santiago ARROZPIDE SARASOLA against Spain
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern, firstly, the Supreme Court’s refusal to reduce the applicants’ sentences of imprisonment on the basis of new case-law adopted by that court contrary to its previous approach[1] on the interpretation of the Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA[2] and, in particular, on taking into account a previous criminal conviction handed down and served in another EU Member State (in the instant case, France). This refusal implied the postponement of the applicants’ final release.
The applications also concern the Constitutional Court’s decisions declaring the amparo appeals inadmissible for non-exhaustion of previous judicial remedies (for not filing a nullity plea as prescribed in Article 241 § 1 of the Organic Law on the Judiciary).
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Having regard to the Constitutional Court’s decisions declaring the amparo appeals lodged by the applicants inadmissible for non-exhaustion of previous judicial remedies, did the applicants have effective access to a court, as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, by way of comparison, De la Fuente Ariza v. Spain, no. 3321/04, §§ 22-29, 8 November 2007?
2. Did the Supreme Court’s refusal to reduce the applicants’ sentences of imprisonment[3] amount to a breach of Article 7 of the Convention (see, by way of comparison, Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], no. 42750/09, §§ 91-93 and §§ 111-118)?
3.1. As regards the first applicant, was the applicant’s imprisonment from 27 January 2013 to 4 December 2014 in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see, by way of comparison, Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], cited above, §§ 123-132)? Additionally, is the applicant’s imprisonment as of 13 March 2015 in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see, by way of comparison, Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], cited above, §§ 123-132)?
3.2. As regards the second applicant, was the applicant’s imprisonment from 24 August 2013 to 4 December 2014 in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see, by way of comparison, Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], cited above, §§ 123-132)? Additionally, is the applicant’s imprisonment as of 10 March 2015 in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see, by way of comparison, Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], cited above, §§ 123-132)?
3.3. As regards the third applicant, is the applicant’s imprisonment as of 5 August 2016 in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see, by way of comparison, Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], cited above, §§ 123-132)?
No.
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
65101/16
04/11/2016
Santiago ARROZPIDE SARASOLA
02/02/1948
Topas
Iker URBINA FERNANDEZ
73789/16
23/11/2016
Alberto PLAZAOLA ANDUAGA
12/03/1956
Ciboure
Haizea ZILUAGA LARREATEGI
73902/16
21/11/2016
Francisco MUGICA GARMENDIA
19/11/1953
Zuera
Haizea ZILUAGA LARREATEGI
[1]. See Supreme Court judgment of 13 March 2014 (STS no. 186/2014).
[2]. Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings.
[3]. Concerning the first applicant, see Supreme Court judgment of 24 March 2015 (STS no. 178/2015); concerning the second applicant, see Supreme Court judgment of 24 March 2015 (STS no. 179/2015); concerning the third applicant, see Supreme Court judgment of 23 April 2015 (STS no. 235/2015).
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy