Communicated on 18 January 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 65101/16 Santiago ARROZPIDE SARASOLA against Spain and 2 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.

The applications also concern the Constitutional Court ’ s decisions declaring the amparo appeals inadmissible for non-exhaustion of previous judicial remedies (for not filing a nullity plea as prescribed in Article 241 § 1 of the Organic Law on the Judiciary).

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the Constitutional Court ’ s decisions declaring the amparo appeals lodged by the applicants inadmissible for non-exhaustion of previous judicial remedies, did the applicants have effective access to a court, as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, by way of comparison, De la Fuente Ariza v. Spain , no. 3321/04, §§ 22-29, 8 November 2007?

2. D id the Supreme Court ’ s 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)?

3 .1 . As regards the first applicant, was the applicant ’ s imprisonment from 27 January 2013 to 4 December 2014 in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see, by way of comparison, Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], cited above, §§ 123-132)? Additionally, is the applicant ’ s imprisonment as of 13 March 2015 in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see, by way of comparison, Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], cited above, §§ 123-132)?

3.2. As regards the second applicant, was the applicant ’ s imprisonment from 24 August 2013 to 4 December 2014 in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see, by way of comparison, Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], cited above, §§ 123-132)? Additionally, is the applicant ’ s imprisonment as of 10 March 2015 in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see, by way of comparison, Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], cited above, §§ 123-132)?

3.3. As regards the third applicant, is the applicant ’ s imprisonment as of 5 August 2016 in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see, by way of comparison, Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], cited above, §§ 123-132)?

No.

Application no.

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Represented by

65101/16

04/11/2016

Santiago ARROZPIDE SARASOLA

02/02/1948

Topas

Iker URBINA FERNANDEZ

73789/16

23/11/2016

Alberto PLAZAOLA ANDUAGA

12/03/1956

Ciboure

Haizea ZILUAGA LARREATEGI

73902/16

21/11/2016

Francisco MUGICA GARMENDIA

19/11/1953

Zuera

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 cou rse of new criminal proceedings.

[3] . Concerning the first applicant, see Supreme Court judgment of 24 March 2015 (STS no. 178/2015); concerning the second applicant, see Supreme Court judgment of 24 March 2015 (STS no. 179/2015); concerning the third applicant, see Supreme Court judgment of 23 April 2015 (STS no. 235/2015).