CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 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 } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 13 February 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 4752/18 Jon Mirena SAN PEDRO BLANCO against Spain lodged on 10 January 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE The application concerns, firstly, the Supreme Court’s refusal to reduce the applicant’s sentence 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 applicant’s final release.   The application also concerns the Constitutional Court’s decision declaring the amparo appeal partially inadmissible for non-exhaustion of previous judicial remedies [3] . QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the Constitutional Court’s decision declaring the amparo appeal lodged by the applicant partially inadmissible for non-exhaustion of previous judicial remedies, did the applicant 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 applicant’s sentence 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.     Is the applicant’s 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)? [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 applicant’s 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] See, in particular, the Audiencia Nacional ’s decision ( auto ) of 7 November 2016 and the Supreme Court’s judgment of 12 May 2017 (STS no. 344/2017).