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

\* MERGEFORMAT 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 201 5 (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 201 6 (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 201 6 (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 201 6 (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 201 6 (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 201 6 (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).