File #2470: "2018_Book_MultilevelProtectionOfThePrinc.pdf"
Testo
1|Preface|6
1|Contents|10
1|Abbreviations|12
1|Part I: Multilevel Protection of Fundamental Rights|14
2|Material Limits on the Criminal Legislator: Their Interpretation by the Spanish Constitutional Court and the European Court of...|15
3|1 Introduction|15
3|2 The Position of the SCC and of the ECtHR with Regard to the Criminal Legislator|17
4|2.1 The Position of the SCC with Regard to Criminal Law|17
4|2.2 The Position of the ECtHR with Regard to State Criminal Law|19
3|3 Case-Law of the SCC and the ECtHR on the Material Limits on the Criminal Law|21
4|3.1 The Case-Law of the Spanish Constitutional Court|21
5|3.1.1 The Principle of Proportionality as the Limit of Limits|21
5|3.1.2 Other Material Limits on the Criminal Legislator|23
4|3.2 The Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights|25
5|3.2.1 Interpretation of the Substantive Limits of the Convention|25
5|3.2.2 Limits to the Restrictions on Rights Imposed by Criminal Laws|27
5|3.2.3 Obligations of the Criminal Legislator to Protect the Rights of the Convention|29
3|4 Conclusions|30
3|References|31
2|The Conformation of Fundamental Rights by the Court of Justice of the European Union|33
3|1 Introduction|33
3|2 The Melloni Case|35
3|3 The Conclusions of the Advocate General|37
3|4 The Melloni Judgement, of 26 February 2013|39
3|5 Complements to the Melloni Judgement and Its Assessment|40
3|References|43
1|Part II: Multilevel Protection of the Principle of Legality in Criminal Law|45
2|A Dialogue Between Courts. The Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Spanish Constitutional Court on the Prin...|46
3|1 Preliminary Considerations|46
3|2 The ECtHR´s Doctrine on Art. 7 ECHR|48
3|3 The Formal Guarantee: The Criminal or Administrative Sanctioning Norm|50
4|3.1 Absolute ``Legal Reservation´´ in the Case of Art. 25.1 SC|50
4|3.2 The ECtHR´s Jurisprudence: The Criminal or Administrative Sanctioning Norm in Art. 7 ECHR|51
4|3.3 Two Standards for the Same Guarantee. A Proposal of Interpretation that Avoids Weakening the Guarantee of Art. 25.1 SC|55
3|4 The Material Guarantee. The Principle of Legal Certainty|56
4|4.1 The Standard of Art. 25.1 SC and ECtHR Case Law in Reference to Art. 7 ECHR|56
4|4.2 Two Divergent Standards Regarding the Principle of Legality|60
4|4.3 The Irruption of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Defence of Art. 49 CFREU|62
3|References|63
2|How Judges Are Bound by the Legal Definition of the Crime|65
3|1 Introduction|65
3|2 The Canon of the Spanish Constitutional Court|65
3|3 Open Questions|68
4|3.1 Semantic Reasonability|68
4|3.2 Axiological Reasonability|68
4|3.3 Methodological Reasonability|69
3|4 The Inter-American Court of Human Rights|70
3|5 The European Court of Human Rights|74
3|6 Any Conclusion?|81
3|References|82
2|``Ne bis in idem´´ in Spain and in Europe. Internal Effects of an Inverse and Partial Convergence of Case-Law (from Luxembourg...|84
3|1 Introduction: A Widely Recognized Right, with a Disparate Content|84
3|2 The Standard in Spanish Constitutional Case-Law|85
4|2.1 General Features|85
4|2.2 The Pre-Requirement of Prohibition: Identity|86
4|2.3 The Prohibition on Reiteration and the Discounting of the First Sanction|87
3|3 The Standard of the European Court of Human Rights|87
4|3.1 General Features|87
4|3.2 The Concept of Identity|88
4|3.3 The Discounting of the Sanction|90
3|4 The Standard of the European Court of Justice|91
4|4.1 Ne bis in idem and Restrictive Practices of Free Competition|91
4|4.2 Ne bis in idem and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters|93
5|4.2.1 Identity|94
5|4.2.2 Discounting|95
3|5 Comparing European and National Standards|96
4|5.1 A More Protective (Higher) European Standard|96
5|5.1.1 Summing Up|96
5|5.1.2 The Weak Points of Such an Understanding|97
6|5.1.2.1 ``Essential´´ Identity, Natural Facts and Legal Detriment; Relevance of the First Punitive Entity|97
6|5.1.2.2 The Irrelevance of the Discounting Technique|100
7|5.1.2.2.1 Primacy of the Prohibition on Double Prosecution or Trial Over the Prohibition of Dual Punishment|100
7|5.1.2.2.2 Effects on the Spanish Model of Concurrency of Administrative and Criminal Sanctions and on the European Union Regul...|101
4|5.2 A Less Protective (Lower) European Standard|103
3|References|104
2|The Principle of Legality in Criminal Law in the Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights|105
3|1 General Approach|106
3|2 The Requirements of the Principle of Legality|107
4|2.1 Retroactivity|107
5|2.1.1 The Principle of Non-Retroactivity of More Severe Criminal Laws|107
6|2.1.1.1 Retroactivity and Permanent Offenses|108
6|2.1.1.2 The Ban on Invoking Non-Retroactivity and Statutes of Limitations|113
5|2.1.2 Retroactivity of Favorable Laws|115
5|2.1.3 The Retroactive Application of Judicial Decisions|115
5|2.1.4 Retroactivity and Procedural Laws|116
4|2.2 The Principle of Criminal Matters Reserved to Law|118
4|2.3 Requirement of Legislative Precision|119
5|2.3.1 Blank Criminal Laws|121
5|2.3.2 Principle of Imposition of Punishment for Doing, Not for Being|121
5|2.3.3 Criminalization of Terrorist Acts|122
4|2.4 Judicial Subjection to Law|122
3|3 The non bis in idem Principle|123
3|4 Conclusions|125
3|References|125
1|Part III: Parot Doctrine|128
2|The Legal Scars of Terrorism: The Unreasonable Parot Doctrine|129
3|1 The Problem|132
3|2 The Reasons|133
4|2.1 No Limits to the Accumulation|133
4|2.2 Parot Doctrine|136
4|2.3 Non-Parot Doctrine|137
3|3 The Law|137
4|3.1 Earlier Spanish Penal Code (PC73)|137
4|3.2 Original Penal Code of 1995|138
4|3.3 Penal Code of 1995 After Organic Law LO/72003|138
3|4 The Interpretation in Case-Law|140
4|4.1 Period Before the Judgement of 28 February 2006 (Parot Case)|141
4|4.2 Period Following the Parot Judgement|141
4|4.3 Intervention of the ECtHR|143
3|5 Some Final Remarks|144
3|References|145
2|The Annulment of the Parot Doctrine by the European Court of Human Rights. ECtHR Judgement of 21 October 2013: Much Ado Over a...|147
3|1 Origin and Meaning of the So-called Parot Doctrine|147
3|2 The Point of View of the Spanish Constitutional Court on the Application of the Parot Doctrine|149
3|3 The Evaluation of the Parot Doctrine by the ECtHR|152
4|3.1 The Motives of the Appeal Presented Before the ECtHR|152
4|3.2 The Elements of the Principle of European Legality (Art. 7.1 ECHR)|153
4|3.3 The Application of the Former Criteria in the ECtHR Judgement of 21 October 2013: Special Consideration of the Distinction...|157
4|3.4 On the Violation of the Right to Liberty|161
3|4 Final Conclusions|162
3|References|163
2|Rise and Fall of the Parot Doctrine: Multi-Level Protection of the Rights to Legality and to Liberty|164
3|1 The Development of the Parot Doctrine and Its Scope|164
4|1.1 First Steps|164
4|1.2 The Supreme Court Judgement|165
4|1.3 What Effects were Entailed in this Change of Doctrine?|166
3|2 The Evasive Response of the Spanish Constitutional Court as an Example of Lack of Protection of the Fundamental Rights at St...|168
3|3 Was the Parot Doctrine in Accordance with the Constitution? Possible Approaches from the Spanish Constitution|170
4|3.1 The Principle of Legality and the Parot Doctrine|171
4|3.2 The Right to Liberty and the Parot Doctrine|173
3|4 The Protection of the European Court of Human Rights|174
4|4.1 The First Judgement of the ECtHR|174
4|4.2 The Grand Chamber Judgement|176
5|4.2.1 The Principle of Legality|177
5|4.2.2 The Right to Liberty|178
3|5 Concluding Remarks|179
3|References|180
2|On the Principle of Criminal Legality and Its Scope: Foreseeability as a Component of Legality|181
3|1 On the Foreseeability of Legal Consequences: Which Normative Provisions Are and Which Are Not Protected?|181
4|1.1 Which Expectations Are and Which Are Not Protected by Criminal Law?|181
4|1.2 Real Expectations or Foreseeability?|185
4|1.3 What Norms Are Taken into Consideration to Protect the Foreseeability of Their Effects?|187
3|2 Some Additional Considerations from the Ruling of the ECtHR in the Case of Del Río Prada and on the Relationship Between For...|190
4|2.1 Possible Interpretations|190
4|2.2 What (Possible) Knowledge Should Be Considered as Constituents of Protectable Foreseeability?|191
4|2.3 Do We Maintain Favourability and the Protection of Expectations in a Coherent Manner and in All Cases?|196
3|References|197
2|Chronicle of an Enforcement Foretold: The Effectiveness of the Del Río Prada ECtHR Judgement in Spain|198
3|1 The Position of the Judiciary Towards the Enforcement of ECtHR Judgements Up Until 2014|199
3|2 The Interpretative Effects of ECtHR Judgements in Spain|204
3|3 The Enforcement of the ECtHR Judgement in the Río Prada Case and Its Implications|205
4|3.1 The ECtHR Judgement in the Del Río Prada Case: An Uncomfortable Judgement for Spain|205
4|3.2 The Audiencia Nacional Before the ECtHR Judgement in the Del Río Prada Case: Its Direct and Indirect Effects|206
4|3.3 The Supreme Court Before the ECtHR Judgement in the Del Río Prada Case: The Extension of Its Effects|209
4|3.4 And So Too Subsidiarity|210
3|4 The Judicial Review as a Means of Internal Enforcement of the Judgements of the ECtHR|211
3|5 Legal Changes Towards the End of 2015 and the Incorporation of a Legal Mechanism of Enforcement of the Judgements of the ECt...|213
3|References|215
2|The ``Del Río Prada´´ Judgements and the Problem of the Enforcement of ECtHR Decisions|216
3|1 The Operative Part of the ECtHR Judgements from 10th July 2012 (Chamber) and 21st October 2013 (Grand Chamber)|217
4|1.1 The ECtHR judgements are not enforceable according to the Convention|217
4|1.2 The Del Río Prada judgement blurs the nature of the ECtHR judgements|217
4|1.3 Questions raised by the Del Río Prada judgement|219
3|2 The Convenience of a Request for an Interpretation or a Revision of the ``Del Río Prada´´ Judgment|220
4|2.1 Eventual Request for an Interpretation from the Respondent State|220
4|2.2 Eventual Request from the Committee of Ministers for an ECtHR Interpretation|221
4|2.3 Request by the State Respondent for Revision of the Judgement|222
3|3 The Non-Enforceability of the ECtHR Judgements in the European Law|223
4|3.1 The Convention established an obligation ``to abide to´´, but not ``to enforce´´ the ECtHR judgements|223
4|3.2 The pretended ``precedents´´ to the Del Río Prada case|224
4|3.3 The nature of the ECtHR judgements according to the ECJ of the European Union|226
3|4 The Non-Enforceability of the ECtHR Judgements in the Spanish Law|226
4|4.1 Constitutional Analysis|226
5|4.1.1 Constitutional provisions concerning the judiciary and the treaties|226
5|4.1.2 Spain did not vest the ECtHR to enforce its judgements|227
4|4.2 The Question of the Enforceability of ECtHR Judgements Enforceability in the Constitutional Case Law|228
5|4.2.1 The first time where the question was raised: the Barberà case|228
5|4.2.2 The SCC contradicts its previous judgment in the seconde time that deals with the issue: the Ruiz-Mateos case|229
5|4.2.3 The Supreme Court denies the revision of a case despite an ECtHR ruling: the Castillo Algar case|229
5|4.2.4 The Supreme Court denies again a revision of a Spanish judgement: the Riera Blume case|230
5|4.2.5 The Supreme Court refuses to annul a judgement that the ECtHR declared in violation of the Convention: the Perote case|230
5|4.2.6 An ordinary court refuses the revision of a case despite an ECtHR ruling: the Fuentes Bobo case|231
3|5 The Irregular (Partial) Enforcement of the ECtHR Del Río Prada|231
4|5.1 An Incorrect Understanding of the Convention and the ECtHR Judgement|232
4|5.2 Enforcement Without Official Translation of the Judgement|232
4|5.3 Enforcement in the Absence of Any Legal Provision Allowing Revision or Annulment|232
4|5.4 The Denial of the Payment of the ``Just Satisfaction´´ and ``Costs and Expenses´´|233
4|5.5 The Misenforcement of Del Río Prada as a Pilot-Judgement|234
3|6 The Unconstitutional Agreement of the Supreme Court of 21 October 2014 and the New Organic Statute 7/2015 and Statute 41/2015|234
4|6.1 The Unconstitutional Agreement of the Supreme Court of 21st October 2014|235
4|6.2 The New Organic Statute 7/2015 and Statute 41/2015|236
3|References|236
1|Contents|10
1|Abbreviations|12
1|Part I: Multilevel Protection of Fundamental Rights|14
2|Material Limits on the Criminal Legislator: Their Interpretation by the Spanish Constitutional Court and the European Court of...|15
3|1 Introduction|15
3|2 The Position of the SCC and of the ECtHR with Regard to the Criminal Legislator|17
4|2.1 The Position of the SCC with Regard to Criminal Law|17
4|2.2 The Position of the ECtHR with Regard to State Criminal Law|19
3|3 Case-Law of the SCC and the ECtHR on the Material Limits on the Criminal Law|21
4|3.1 The Case-Law of the Spanish Constitutional Court|21
5|3.1.1 The Principle of Proportionality as the Limit of Limits|21
5|3.1.2 Other Material Limits on the Criminal Legislator|23
4|3.2 The Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights|25
5|3.2.1 Interpretation of the Substantive Limits of the Convention|25
5|3.2.2 Limits to the Restrictions on Rights Imposed by Criminal Laws|27
5|3.2.3 Obligations of the Criminal Legislator to Protect the Rights of the Convention|29
3|4 Conclusions|30
3|References|31
2|The Conformation of Fundamental Rights by the Court of Justice of the European Union|33
3|1 Introduction|33
3|2 The Melloni Case|35
3|3 The Conclusions of the Advocate General|37
3|4 The Melloni Judgement, of 26 February 2013|39
3|5 Complements to the Melloni Judgement and Its Assessment|40
3|References|43
1|Part II: Multilevel Protection of the Principle of Legality in Criminal Law|45
2|A Dialogue Between Courts. The Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Spanish Constitutional Court on the Prin...|46
3|1 Preliminary Considerations|46
3|2 The ECtHR´s Doctrine on Art. 7 ECHR|48
3|3 The Formal Guarantee: The Criminal or Administrative Sanctioning Norm|50
4|3.1 Absolute ``Legal Reservation´´ in the Case of Art. 25.1 SC|50
4|3.2 The ECtHR´s Jurisprudence: The Criminal or Administrative Sanctioning Norm in Art. 7 ECHR|51
4|3.3 Two Standards for the Same Guarantee. A Proposal of Interpretation that Avoids Weakening the Guarantee of Art. 25.1 SC|55
3|4 The Material Guarantee. The Principle of Legal Certainty|56
4|4.1 The Standard of Art. 25.1 SC and ECtHR Case Law in Reference to Art. 7 ECHR|56
4|4.2 Two Divergent Standards Regarding the Principle of Legality|60
4|4.3 The Irruption of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Defence of Art. 49 CFREU|62
3|References|63
2|How Judges Are Bound by the Legal Definition of the Crime|65
3|1 Introduction|65
3|2 The Canon of the Spanish Constitutional Court|65
3|3 Open Questions|68
4|3.1 Semantic Reasonability|68
4|3.2 Axiological Reasonability|68
4|3.3 Methodological Reasonability|69
3|4 The Inter-American Court of Human Rights|70
3|5 The European Court of Human Rights|74
3|6 Any Conclusion?|81
3|References|82
2|``Ne bis in idem´´ in Spain and in Europe. Internal Effects of an Inverse and Partial Convergence of Case-Law (from Luxembourg...|84
3|1 Introduction: A Widely Recognized Right, with a Disparate Content|84
3|2 The Standard in Spanish Constitutional Case-Law|85
4|2.1 General Features|85
4|2.2 The Pre-Requirement of Prohibition: Identity|86
4|2.3 The Prohibition on Reiteration and the Discounting of the First Sanction|87
3|3 The Standard of the European Court of Human Rights|87
4|3.1 General Features|87
4|3.2 The Concept of Identity|88
4|3.3 The Discounting of the Sanction|90
3|4 The Standard of the European Court of Justice|91
4|4.1 Ne bis in idem and Restrictive Practices of Free Competition|91
4|4.2 Ne bis in idem and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters|93
5|4.2.1 Identity|94
5|4.2.2 Discounting|95
3|5 Comparing European and National Standards|96
4|5.1 A More Protective (Higher) European Standard|96
5|5.1.1 Summing Up|96
5|5.1.2 The Weak Points of Such an Understanding|97
6|5.1.2.1 ``Essential´´ Identity, Natural Facts and Legal Detriment; Relevance of the First Punitive Entity|97
6|5.1.2.2 The Irrelevance of the Discounting Technique|100
7|5.1.2.2.1 Primacy of the Prohibition on Double Prosecution or Trial Over the Prohibition of Dual Punishment|100
7|5.1.2.2.2 Effects on the Spanish Model of Concurrency of Administrative and Criminal Sanctions and on the European Union Regul...|101
4|5.2 A Less Protective (Lower) European Standard|103
3|References|104
2|The Principle of Legality in Criminal Law in the Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights|105
3|1 General Approach|106
3|2 The Requirements of the Principle of Legality|107
4|2.1 Retroactivity|107
5|2.1.1 The Principle of Non-Retroactivity of More Severe Criminal Laws|107
6|2.1.1.1 Retroactivity and Permanent Offenses|108
6|2.1.1.2 The Ban on Invoking Non-Retroactivity and Statutes of Limitations|113
5|2.1.2 Retroactivity of Favorable Laws|115
5|2.1.3 The Retroactive Application of Judicial Decisions|115
5|2.1.4 Retroactivity and Procedural Laws|116
4|2.2 The Principle of Criminal Matters Reserved to Law|118
4|2.3 Requirement of Legislative Precision|119
5|2.3.1 Blank Criminal Laws|121
5|2.3.2 Principle of Imposition of Punishment for Doing, Not for Being|121
5|2.3.3 Criminalization of Terrorist Acts|122
4|2.4 Judicial Subjection to Law|122
3|3 The non bis in idem Principle|123
3|4 Conclusions|125
3|References|125
1|Part III: Parot Doctrine|128
2|The Legal Scars of Terrorism: The Unreasonable Parot Doctrine|129
3|1 The Problem|132
3|2 The Reasons|133
4|2.1 No Limits to the Accumulation|133
4|2.2 Parot Doctrine|136
4|2.3 Non-Parot Doctrine|137
3|3 The Law|137
4|3.1 Earlier Spanish Penal Code (PC73)|137
4|3.2 Original Penal Code of 1995|138
4|3.3 Penal Code of 1995 After Organic Law LO/72003|138
3|4 The Interpretation in Case-Law|140
4|4.1 Period Before the Judgement of 28 February 2006 (Parot Case)|141
4|4.2 Period Following the Parot Judgement|141
4|4.3 Intervention of the ECtHR|143
3|5 Some Final Remarks|144
3|References|145
2|The Annulment of the Parot Doctrine by the European Court of Human Rights. ECtHR Judgement of 21 October 2013: Much Ado Over a...|147
3|1 Origin and Meaning of the So-called Parot Doctrine|147
3|2 The Point of View of the Spanish Constitutional Court on the Application of the Parot Doctrine|149
3|3 The Evaluation of the Parot Doctrine by the ECtHR|152
4|3.1 The Motives of the Appeal Presented Before the ECtHR|152
4|3.2 The Elements of the Principle of European Legality (Art. 7.1 ECHR)|153
4|3.3 The Application of the Former Criteria in the ECtHR Judgement of 21 October 2013: Special Consideration of the Distinction...|157
4|3.4 On the Violation of the Right to Liberty|161
3|4 Final Conclusions|162
3|References|163
2|Rise and Fall of the Parot Doctrine: Multi-Level Protection of the Rights to Legality and to Liberty|164
3|1 The Development of the Parot Doctrine and Its Scope|164
4|1.1 First Steps|164
4|1.2 The Supreme Court Judgement|165
4|1.3 What Effects were Entailed in this Change of Doctrine?|166
3|2 The Evasive Response of the Spanish Constitutional Court as an Example of Lack of Protection of the Fundamental Rights at St...|168
3|3 Was the Parot Doctrine in Accordance with the Constitution? Possible Approaches from the Spanish Constitution|170
4|3.1 The Principle of Legality and the Parot Doctrine|171
4|3.2 The Right to Liberty and the Parot Doctrine|173
3|4 The Protection of the European Court of Human Rights|174
4|4.1 The First Judgement of the ECtHR|174
4|4.2 The Grand Chamber Judgement|176
5|4.2.1 The Principle of Legality|177
5|4.2.2 The Right to Liberty|178
3|5 Concluding Remarks|179
3|References|180
2|On the Principle of Criminal Legality and Its Scope: Foreseeability as a Component of Legality|181
3|1 On the Foreseeability of Legal Consequences: Which Normative Provisions Are and Which Are Not Protected?|181
4|1.1 Which Expectations Are and Which Are Not Protected by Criminal Law?|181
4|1.2 Real Expectations or Foreseeability?|185
4|1.3 What Norms Are Taken into Consideration to Protect the Foreseeability of Their Effects?|187
3|2 Some Additional Considerations from the Ruling of the ECtHR in the Case of Del Río Prada and on the Relationship Between For...|190
4|2.1 Possible Interpretations|190
4|2.2 What (Possible) Knowledge Should Be Considered as Constituents of Protectable Foreseeability?|191
4|2.3 Do We Maintain Favourability and the Protection of Expectations in a Coherent Manner and in All Cases?|196
3|References|197
2|Chronicle of an Enforcement Foretold: The Effectiveness of the Del Río Prada ECtHR Judgement in Spain|198
3|1 The Position of the Judiciary Towards the Enforcement of ECtHR Judgements Up Until 2014|199
3|2 The Interpretative Effects of ECtHR Judgements in Spain|204
3|3 The Enforcement of the ECtHR Judgement in the Río Prada Case and Its Implications|205
4|3.1 The ECtHR Judgement in the Del Río Prada Case: An Uncomfortable Judgement for Spain|205
4|3.2 The Audiencia Nacional Before the ECtHR Judgement in the Del Río Prada Case: Its Direct and Indirect Effects|206
4|3.3 The Supreme Court Before the ECtHR Judgement in the Del Río Prada Case: The Extension of Its Effects|209
4|3.4 And So Too Subsidiarity|210
3|4 The Judicial Review as a Means of Internal Enforcement of the Judgements of the ECtHR|211
3|5 Legal Changes Towards the End of 2015 and the Incorporation of a Legal Mechanism of Enforcement of the Judgements of the ECt...|213
3|References|215
2|The ``Del Río Prada´´ Judgements and the Problem of the Enforcement of ECtHR Decisions|216
3|1 The Operative Part of the ECtHR Judgements from 10th July 2012 (Chamber) and 21st October 2013 (Grand Chamber)|217
4|1.1 The ECtHR judgements are not enforceable according to the Convention|217
4|1.2 The Del Río Prada judgement blurs the nature of the ECtHR judgements|217
4|1.3 Questions raised by the Del Río Prada judgement|219
3|2 The Convenience of a Request for an Interpretation or a Revision of the ``Del Río Prada´´ Judgment|220
4|2.1 Eventual Request for an Interpretation from the Respondent State|220
4|2.2 Eventual Request from the Committee of Ministers for an ECtHR Interpretation|221
4|2.3 Request by the State Respondent for Revision of the Judgement|222
3|3 The Non-Enforceability of the ECtHR Judgements in the European Law|223
4|3.1 The Convention established an obligation ``to abide to´´, but not ``to enforce´´ the ECtHR judgements|223
4|3.2 The pretended ``precedents´´ to the Del Río Prada case|224
4|3.3 The nature of the ECtHR judgements according to the ECJ of the European Union|226
3|4 The Non-Enforceability of the ECtHR Judgements in the Spanish Law|226
4|4.1 Constitutional Analysis|226
5|4.1.1 Constitutional provisions concerning the judiciary and the treaties|226
5|4.1.2 Spain did not vest the ECtHR to enforce its judgements|227
4|4.2 The Question of the Enforceability of ECtHR Judgements Enforceability in the Constitutional Case Law|228
5|4.2.1 The first time where the question was raised: the Barberà case|228
5|4.2.2 The SCC contradicts its previous judgment in the seconde time that deals with the issue: the Ruiz-Mateos case|229
5|4.2.3 The Supreme Court denies the revision of a case despite an ECtHR ruling: the Castillo Algar case|229
5|4.2.4 The Supreme Court denies again a revision of a Spanish judgement: the Riera Blume case|230
5|4.2.5 The Supreme Court refuses to annul a judgement that the ECtHR declared in violation of the Convention: the Perote case|230
5|4.2.6 An ordinary court refuses the revision of a case despite an ECtHR ruling: the Fuentes Bobo case|231
3|5 The Irregular (Partial) Enforcement of the ECtHR Del Río Prada|231
4|5.1 An Incorrect Understanding of the Convention and the ECtHR Judgement|232
4|5.2 Enforcement Without Official Translation of the Judgement|232
4|5.3 Enforcement in the Absence of Any Legal Provision Allowing Revision or Annulment|232
4|5.4 The Denial of the Payment of the ``Just Satisfaction´´ and ``Costs and Expenses´´|233
4|5.5 The Misenforcement of Del Río Prada as a Pilot-Judgement|234
3|6 The Unconstitutional Agreement of the Supreme Court of 21 October 2014 and the New Organic Statute 7/2015 and Statute 41/2015|234
4|6.1 The Unconstitutional Agreement of the Supreme Court of 21st October 2014|235
4|6.2 The New Organic Statute 7/2015 and Statute 41/2015|236
3|References|236