CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 février 2018

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .s529BF6EF { page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .sEDC5336B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s4EFEAD { width:14.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 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 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).