Communicated on 15 February 2018
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 39434/17
Gorka MARTINEZ AHEDO against Spain
and 9 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.
Some of the applications also concern the Constitutional Court’s decision declaring the amparo appeals partially inadmissible for non-exhaustion of previous judicial remedies[3].
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Having regard to the Constitutional Court’s decisions declaring the amparo appeals lodged by the first, second, seventh, eight and tenth applicants partially inadmissible for non-exhaustion of previous judicial remedies, did these applicants have effective access to a court, as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, by way of comparison, Franek v. Slovakia, no. 14090/10, §§ 50-56)?
2. Did the domestic courts’ refusal to reduce the applicants’ sentences of imprisonment[4] 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. As regards the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eight and tenth applicants, is their imprisonment in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention and, if so, from which date? (see, by way of comparison, Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], cited above, §§ 123-132)?
APPENDIX
\* MERGEFORMAT No.
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
39434/17
23/05/2017
Gorka MARTINEZ AHEDO
13/04/1970
A Lama
Inaki GOIOAGA LLANO
41066/17
31/05/2017
Alvaro Juan ARRI PASCUAL
22/07/1969
Bilbao
Iñigo SANTXO URIARTE
41461/17
31/05/2017
Juan Luis RUBENACH ROIZ
18/09/1963
Saint Martin de Ré
Amaia IZKO ARAMENDIA
41463/17
06/06/2017
Juan Ramon CARASATORRE ALDAZ
28/04/1961
Albocasser
Amaia IZKO ARAMENDIA
43535/17
08/06/2017
Miguel Angel GIL CERVERA
07/03/1964
Pamplona
Amaia IZKO ARAMENDIA
43543/17
08/06/2017
Idoia MARTINEZ GARCIA
27/02/1968
A Lama
Inaki GOIOAGA LLANO
43555/17
08/06/2017
Angel Maria LOPEZ ANTA
11/07/1975
Huelva
Alfonso ZENON CASTRO
43600/17
05/06/2017
Ion GONZALEZ GONZALEZ
15/04/1974
Picassent
Inaki GOIOAGA LLANO
43614/17
13/06/2017
Fernando SILVA SANDE
13/03/1954
Madrid
Natalia CRESPO DE TORRES
75158/17
18/10/2017
Francisco Javier CHIMENO INZA
07/05/1972
Villena
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] I.e., for not filing a nullity plea as prescribed in Article 241 § 1 of the Organic Law on the Judiciary as regards the applicants’ complaint concerning the domestic courts’ refusal to seek a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union on the interpretation of the EU Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA.
[4] Concerning the first applicant, see, in particular, the Audiencia Nacional’s decision (auto) of 9 June 2015 and the Supreme Court’s judgment of 10 February 2016 (STS no. 81/2016); concerning the second applicant, see, in particular, the Audiencia Nacional’s decision (auto) of 15 April 2015 and the Supreme Court’s judgment of 19 October 2015 (STS no. 628/2015); concerning the third applicant, see, in particular, the Audiencia Nacional’s decision (auto) of 23 February 2015 and the Supreme Court’s judgment of 27 September 2015 (STS no. 562/2015); concerning the fourth applicant, see, in particular, the Audiencia Nacional’s decision (auto) of 9 June 2015 and the Supreme Court’s judgment of 9 February 2016 (STS no. 68/2016); concerning the fifth applicant, see, in particular, the Audiencia Nacional’s decision (auto) of 23 June 2015 and the Supreme Court’s judgment of 29 March 2016 (STS no. 241/2016); concerning the sixth applicant, see, in particular, the Audiencia Nacional’s decision (auto) of 9 June 2015 and the Supreme Court’s judgment of 7 July 2016 (STS no. 609/2016); concerning the seventh applicant, see, in particular, the Audiencia Nacional’s decision (auto) of 12 June 2015 and the Supreme Court’s judgment of 3 December 2015 (STS no. 772/2015); concerning the eighth applicant, see, in particular, the Audiencia Nacional’s decision (auto) of 15 January 2015 and the Supreme Court’s judgment of 26 May 2016 (STS no. 457/2016); concerning the ninth applicant, see, in particular, the Audiencia Nacional’s decision (auto) of 9 June 2015 and the Supreme Court’s judgment of 25 January 2016 (STS no. 12/2016); concerning the tenth applicant, see, in particular, the Audiencia Nacional’s decision (auto) of 1 April 2016 and the Supreme Court’s judgment of 3 November 2016 (STS no. 832/2016).
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy