CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 juin 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 } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .sF182E884 { height:82.25pt } .s646E089D { height:88.9pt } .s4EFEAD { width:14.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBD5EE884 { height:85.15pt } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt } .sD6DE1560 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 16 June 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 17988/17 Jose Javier ZABALETA ELOSEGUI against Spain and 15 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the domestic courts’ refusal to reduce the applicants’ sentences 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 applicants’ final release. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the domestic courts’ 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)?   2.     Is the applicants’ 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 No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   17988/17 24/02/2017 Jose Javier ZABALETA ELOSEGUI 05/12/1950 Zuera Haizea ZILUAGA LARREATEGI   17996/17 24/02/2017 Aitzol GOGORZA OTAEGUI 17/09/1975 Bizkaia Onintza OSTOLAZA ARRUABARRENA   23690/17 17/03/2017 Juan Carlos SUBIJANA IZQUIERDO 21/02/1964 Vitoria-Gasteiz Iker URBINA FERNANDEZ   24259/17 17/03/2017 Jose Ramon LOPEZ DE ABECHUCO LIQUINIANO 09/10/1949 Villabona Iker URBINA FERNANDEZ   25477/17 28/03/2017 Jose Maria ARREGUI EROSTARBE 27/03/1946 Alicante Onintza OSTOLAZA ARRUABARRENA   25731/17 27/03/2017 Idoia MENDIZABAL MUJICA 19/06/1977 Picassent Haizea ZILUAGA LARREATEGI   25733/17 27/03/2017 Josu ARKAUZ ARANA 28/06/1957 Murcia Onintza OSTOLAZA ARRUABARRENA   29068/17 06/04/2017 Juan Luis AGUIRRE LETE 30/05/1963 Zuera Iñigo IRUIN SANZ   30460/17 06/04/2017 Inaki BILBAO BEASKOETXEA 04/06/1950 Castelló Inaki GOIOAGA LLANO             30545/17 12/04/2017 Agurtzane DELGADO IRIONDO 01/11/1958 Granada Iñigo IRUIN SANZ             33238/17 28/04/2017 Oscar CELARAIN ORTIZ 02/08/1974 Castellón de la Plana Haizea ZILUAGA LARREATEGI             33640/17 28/04/2017 Xabier ZABALO BEITIA 19/07/1973 Cádiz Haizea ZILUAGA LARREATEGI             33642/17 28/04/2017 Ainhoa BARBARIN YURREBASO 07/08/1971 Picassent Onintza OSTOLAZA ARRUABARRENA             33643/17 28/04/2017 Balbino SAENZ OLARRA 08/05/1962 Picassent Haizea ZILUAGA LARREATEGI             34084/17 28/04/2017 Andoni OTEGI ERASO 28/06/1975 Almeria   Haizea ZILUAGA LARREATEGI             35242/17 04/05/2017 Julen ATXURRA EGURROLA 03/02/1959 Puerto de Santa Maria Inaki GOIOAGA LLANO   [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] Concerning the first applicant, see, in particular, the Audiencia Nacional ’s decision ( auto ) of 9 June 2015 and the Supreme Court’s judgment of 14 December 2015 (STS no. 804/2015); concerning the second applicant, see, in particular, the Audiencia Nacional’s decision ( auto ) of 9 June 2015 and the Supreme Court’s judgment of 26 January 2016 (STS no. 16/2016); concerning the third applicant, see, in particular, the Audiencia Nacional’s decision ( auto ) of 9 June 2015 and the Supreme Court’s judgment of 11 December 2015 (STS no. 854/2015); concerning the fourth applicant, see, in particular, the Audiencia Nacional ’s decision ( auto ) of 9 June 2015 and the Supreme Court’s judgment of 11 February 2016 (STS no. 85/2016); concerning the fifth applicant, see, in particular, the Audiencia Nacional ’s decision ( auto ) of 9 June 2015 and the Supreme Court’s judgment of 7   December 2015 (STS no. 789/2015); concerning the sixth applicant, see, in particular, the Audiencia Nacional ’s decision ( auto ) of 9 June 2015 and the Supreme Court’s judgment of 25   November 2015 (STS no. 829/2015); concerning the seventh applicant, see, in particular, the Audiencia Nacional ’s decision ( auto ) of 10 July 2015 and the Supreme Court’s judgment of 3   February 2016 (STS no. 50/2016); concerning the eighth applicant, see, in particular, see, in particular, the Audiencia Nacional’s decision ( auto ) of 5 June 2015 and the Supreme Court’s judgment of 10 February 2016 (STS no. 76/2016); concerning the ninth applicant, see, in particular, the Audiencia Nacional’s decision ( auto ) of 2 December 2014 and the Supreme Court’s judgment of 24 May 2015 (STS no. 336/2015); concerning the tenth applicant, see, in particular, the Audiencia Nacional’s decision ( auto ) of 2 June 2015 and the Supreme Court’s judgment of 20 April 2016 (STS no. 333/2016); concerning the eleventh applicant, see, in particular, the Audiencia Nacional’s decision ( auto ) of 15 April 2015 and the Supreme Court’s judgment of 18 November 2015 (STS no. 763/2015); concerning the twelfth 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 thirteenth applicant, see, in particular, the Audiencia Nacional’s decision ( auto ) of 9   June 2015 and the Supreme Court’s judgment of 22 December 2015 (STS no. 818/2015); concerning the fourteenth applicant, see, in particular, the Audiencia Nacional’s decision ( auto ) of 23 June 2015 and the Supreme Court’s judgment of 23 December 2015 (STS no. 868/2015); concerning the fifteenth applicant, see, in particular, the Audiencia Nacional’s decision ( auto ) of 15 April 2015 and the Supreme Court’s judgment of 18 November 2015 (STS no. 763/2015); concerning the sixteenth applicant, see, in particular, the Audiencia Nacional’s decision ( auto ) of 9 June 2015 and the Supreme Court’s judgment of 21 January 2016 (STS no. 8/2016).