CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 juin 2017

.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 } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sEA75BD01 { width:106.24%; border-collapse:collapse } .s7D765F8C { width:8.38%; 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 } .s857E6C3D { width:17.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEA591250 { width:28.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s284B66B0 { width:8.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s3FA4A79A { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .sE74C84FB { width:20.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55307A23 { width:17.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFBF8C3F1 { width:28.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .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 16 June 2017     THIRD SECTION Applications nos 33637/17 and 34083/17 Ismael BERASATEGUI ESCUDERO against Spain and Rufino ARRIAGA ARRUABARRENA against Spain lodged on 28 April 2017 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 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 applicants partially 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.     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.     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                 33637/17 28/04/2017 Ismael BERASATEGUI ESCUDERO 15/06/1969 Villena Onintza OSTOLAZA ARRUABARRENA                 34083/17 28/04/2017 Rufino ARRIAGA ARRUABARRENA 04/04/1956 Sevilla Onintza OSTOLAZA ARRUABARRENA   [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 25 February 2016 (STS no. 145/2016); concerning the second 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. 858/2016).