CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 mai 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sBACB86A2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Communicated on 24 May 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 8802/17 Rafael CARIDE SIMÓN against Spain lodged on 19 January 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the domestic authorities’ refusal to reduce the applicant’s sentence of imprisonment on the basis, inter alia , of a new case-law adopted by the Supreme 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 implies the postponement of the applicant’s final release. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the Constitutional Court’s decision of 22 July 2016 declaring the amparo appeal lodged by the applicant inadmissible for non ‑ exhaustion of previous judicial remedies, did the applicant exhaust all domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Did the domestic courts’ refusal [3] to reduce the applicant’s sentence of imprisonment 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)?   [1] See the Supreme Court’s 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] See, in particular, the Supreme Court’s judgment of 7 May 2015 (STS no. 270/2015) and the Audiencia Nacional’s decision of 29 June 2015.