CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 janvier 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 }   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).