Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The “Del Río Prada” Judgements and the Problem of the Enforcement of ECtHR Decisions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Multilevel Protection of the Principle of Legality in Criminal Law

Abstract

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) Grand Chamber judgement of October 21st 2013 upholding a previous Court Chamber judgement of July 10th 2012 on the case of Del Río Prada presents two sets of problems. The first is related to the substantial discussion on whether the Spanish State violated articles 5 and 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The second related with the procedural aspects of the case. Although the former is of clear interest, the procedural questions raised by the latter are even more important. In this contribution, after (1) considering the content of the operative part of the judgement, (2) I suggest how referral of the case to the ECtHR might have been to request an interpretation of that operative part. Then, I will argue the thesis of the lack of executive enforcement of the ECtHR judgements (3) in European Law and (4) in Spanish Law. Subsequently I will examine (5) the irregular enforcement of this ECtHR judgement in Spain, and finally, (6) the developement of Spanish Law in its enforcement of ECtHR judgements.

Professor of Constitutional Law at Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    ECtHR (GC) Judgement of 21st October 2013, c. Del Río Prada v. Spain, par. 137–139. The judgement of the Chamber (ECtHR Judgement of 10th July 2012, c. Del Río Prada v. Spain, par. 81–83) has a similar but not the same content:

    81. (…) the respondent State is under a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction under Article 41, but also to take the necessary general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures. The Court’s judgements being essentially declaratory in nature, the respondent State remains free, subject to monitoring by the Committee of Ministers, to choose the means by which it will discharge its legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention, provided that such means are compatible with the conclusions set out in the Court’s judgement (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], (…), and Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], (…).

    82. Nevertheless, exceptionally, with a view to assisting the respondent State in fulfilling its obligations under Article 46, the Court has sought to indicate the type of measure that might be taken to put an end to the situation identified (see, for example, Broniowski v. Poland [GC], (…). In other exceptional cases, the nature of the violation found may be such as to leave no real choice as to the measures required to remedy it and the Court may decide to indicate only one such measure (see Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], (…), Alexanian v. Russia, (…), and Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, (…).

    83. The Court considers that the present case belongs to this last-mentioned category. Having regard to the particular circumstances of the case and to the urgent need to put an end to the violation of Articles 7 and 5.1 of the Convention (…), the Court considers it incumbent on the respondent State to ensure that the applicant is released at the earliest possible date.

    The judgement of the Chamber was done in French and then translated into English. The French text of the last sentence of paragraph 83 says “(la Cour) estime qu’il incombe à l’État défendeur d’assurer la remise en liberté de la requérante dans les plus brefs délais”.

  2. 2.

    The last sentence of par. 139 in the French version says “(La Cour) estime qu’il incombe à l’État défendeur d’assurer la remise en liberté de la requérante dans les plus brefs délais”.

  3. 3.

    French text: “qu’il incombe à l’État défendeur d’assurer la remise en liberté de la requérante dans les plus brefs délais”. The operative part of the judgement of the Chamber says that the Court “5. Holds that the respondent State is to ensure that the applicant is released at the earliest possible date (see paragraph 83 above)”. French text: “5. Dit qu’il incombe à l’État défendeur d’assurer la remise en liberté de la requérante dans les plus brefs délais (paragraphe 83 ci-dessus)”.

  4. 4.

    See Communication de l’Espagne relative à l’affaire Del Río Prada contre Espagne (Requête n° 42,750/09)—Informations mises à disposition en vertu de la Règle 8.2.a des Règles du Comité des Ministres pour la surveillance de l’exécution des arrêts et des termes des règlements amiables [DH-DD (2013)1248].

  5. 5.

    Europa Press (12-II-2006) and El Mundo (12-II-2016). http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2006/02/12/espana/1139745259.html [Accessed October 6th 2016].

  6. 6.

    There is a wide bibliography on this issue as well in Spain as in the European literature. The two main books in the Spanish literature are Ruiz Miguel (1997) and Bujosa Vadell (1997). Many articles have been written on this question too: Liñán Nogueras (1985), Morenilla Rodríguez (1989), Escobar Hernández (1992), Soria Jiménez (1992, 1995), Izquierdo Sans (1997), Rodríguez (2001–2002), De Juan Casadevall (2005), Torralba Mendiola (2007) and Ripol Carulla (2010).

  7. 7.

    ECtHR (GC) Judgement of 13 July 2000, c. Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy par. 249; and ECtHR (GC) Judgement of 17 September 2009, c. Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2), par. 147.

  8. 8.

    ECtHR Judgement of 28 October 1998, c. Castillo Algar v. Spain, par. 60.

  9. 9.

    ECtHR Judgement of 13 June 1979, c. Marckx v. Belgium, para. 58. The Court has never explicitely overruled this doctrine.

  10. 10.

    ECtHR (GC) Judgement of 21 October 2013, c. Del Río Prada v. Spain, par. 138; ECtHR Judgement of 10 July 2012, c. Del Río Prada v. Spain, par. 82.

  11. 11.

    ECtHR (GC) Judgement of 8 April 2004, c. Assanidze v. Georgia, par. 202–03 and § 14(a) of the operative part of the judgement.

  12. 12.

    ECtHR Judgement of 22 April 2010, c. Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, par. 103.

  13. 13.

    ECtHR Judgement of 22 April 2010, c. Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, par. 176–77, and 6 of the operative part of the judgement.

  14. 14.

    ECtHR Judgement of 22 December 2008, c. Aleksanyan v. Russia, par. § 40.

  15. 15.

    ECtHR Judgement of 17 January 2008, c. Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, par. 35 and ff.

  16. 16.

    Alcácer Guirao (2012), p. 938; Andrés Sáenz De Santamaría (2014), p. 212.

  17. 17.

    Committee of Ministers, 1265 meeting (DH), 20–21 September 2016, CM/Del/Dec (2016)1265, 22 September 2016.

  18. 18.

    ECJ (Full Court) Opinion 2/13, of 18 December 2014, par. 20.

  19. 19.

    Figueruelo Burrieza (2014), p. 121.

  20. 20.

    STC 303/1993 of 25 October 1993 (FJ 8).

  21. 21.

    Even the above mentioned author who presumes to recognize the enforceability of ECtHR judgements by virtue of Article 117.1 of the Constitution acknowledges this fact. See Figueruelo Burrieza (2014), p. 121.

  22. 22.

    STS (Chamber 2) 4th April 1990, Aranzadi 3157. This judgement upholds the earlier considerations exposed before (15th February 1990) presented by Morenilla, Supreme Court Justice and later Spanish ECtHR Justice (Morenilla Rodríguez 1989).

  23. 23.

    STC 245/1991 of 16 December 1991, related to ECtHR Judgement of 6 December 1988, c. Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain.

  24. 24.

    ECtHR Judgement of 23 June 1993, c. Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain, 23 June 1993.

  25. 25.

    Orders (Providencias) of the Constitutional Court, 31 January 1994 (applications for amparo 2291/93 and 2292/93). The text of those orders is not public, but I reproduced them, see Ruiz Miguel (1997), pp. 180–183. For a commentary on those orders, see Ruiz Miguel (1997), pp. 152–153.

  26. 26.

    ECtHR Judgement of 28 October 1998, c. Castillo Algar v. Spain.

  27. 27.

    Order of the Constitutional Court, 11 March 1999.

  28. 28.

    STS (Chamber 5), 27 January 2000.

  29. 29.

    ATC 96/2001, of 24 April 2001.

  30. 30.

    ECtHR Judgement of 14 October 1999, c. Riera Blume and Others v. Spain.

  31. 31.

    ATS (Chamber 2), of 27 July 2000.

  32. 32.

    STC 240/2005 of 10 October 2005 (FJ 8).

  33. 33.

    ECtHR Judgement of 25 July 2002, c. Perote Pellon v. Spain.

  34. 34.

    STC 313/2005 of 12 December 2005 (FJ 3).

  35. 35.

    ECtHR Judgement of 29 February 2000, c. Fuentes Bobo v. Spain.

  36. 36.

    STS (Chamber 4), 20 November 2001.

  37. 37.

    STC 197/2006 of 3 July 2006 (FJ 4). In his dissenting opinion Justice Pérez Tremps pointed this argument.

  38. 38.

    STC 197/2006 of 3 July 2006 (FJ 6).

  39. 39.

    Auto (Order) 61/2013, 22 October 2013, Criminal Chamber of the Audiencia Nacional (en banc).

  40. 40.

    See Alcácer Guirao (2012), pp. 946–947; Ripol Carulla (2010), p. 93.

  41. 41.

    Communication de l’Espagne relative à l’affaire Del Río Prada contre Espagne (Requête n° 42,750/09)—Informations mises à disposition en vertu de la Règle 8.2.a des Règles du Comité des Ministres pour la surveillance de l’exécution des arrêts et des termes des règlements amiables [DH-DD (2013) 1248].

  42. 42.

    Monitoring of the payment of sums awarded by way of just satisfaction: an overview of the Committee of Ministers’ present practice [CM/Inf/DH(2008)7 final, 15 January 2009].

  43. 43.

    Decision of the Committee of Ministers, of 5 December 2013, on the case No. 19, against Spain, [CM/Del/OJ/DH(2013)1186/19].

  44. 44.

    See Ruiz Miguel (1997), pp. 39–41.

  45. 45.

    Boletín Oficial de las Cortes Generales. Congreso de los Diputados (VII legislatura), Serie D: general, 7 June 2002, núm. 365, p. 26.

  46. 46.

    http://www.consejo-estado.es/pdf/Europa.pdf.

  47. 47.

    http://www.poderjudicial.es/cgpj/es/Poder_Judicial/Noticias_Judiciales/ci.Acuerdo_de_la_Sala_General_de_lo_Penal_del_Supremo_sobre_la__Doctrina_Parot__tras_la_sentencia_del_TEDH.formato3.

  48. 48.

    http://www.poderjudicial.es/cgpj/es/Poder-Judicial/En-Portada/El-TS-establece-el-recurso-de-revision-como-cauce-para-ejecutar-las-sentencias-del-Tribunal-Europeo-de-Derechos-Humanos.

  49. 49.

    ATS (2nd Chamber), of 5 November 2014 (in the procedure n° 20,321/2013).

  50. 50.

    Some time ago, the SSC introduced the “in camera” examination of certain evidences of the intelligence service, a practice not covered by any statute. See Ruiz Miguel (2002), pp. 260–265, for a critique on this practice.

References

  • Alcácer Guirao R (2012) La ‘doctrina Parot’ ante Estrasburgo: Del Río Prada c. España (STEDH 10.7.2012 n° 42750709). Consideraciones sobre la aplicación retroactiva de la jurisprudencia y la ejecución de las sentencias del TEDH. Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo 43:929–952

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrés Sáenz De Santamaría P (2014) Acerca del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos y de la tentación de desacreditar al mensajero [a propósito de la STEDH (Gran Sala) en el asunto Del Río Prada c. España]. Teoría y Realidad Constitucional 33:199–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Bujosa Vadell L (1997) Las sentencias del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos y el ordenamiento español. Tecnos, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • De Juan Casadevall J (2005) La problemática ejecución de sentencias del TEDH en el Derecho español. Revista de las Cortes Generales 66:93–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Escobar Hernández C (1992) Problemas planteados por la aplicación en el ordenamiento español de la sentencia Bultó. Revista de Instituciones Europeas 19-1:139–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Figueruelo Burrieza A (2014) Diálogo entre tribunales: la sentencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos de 21-X-2013 (Caso Sra. Del Río Prada contra el Reino de España). Revista Europea de Derechos Fundamentales 23:107–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Izquierdo Sans C (1997) El carácter no ejecutivo de las Sentencias del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos. Derecho Privado y Constitución 11:351–378

    Google Scholar 

  • Liñán Nogueras DJ (1985) Los efectos de las sentencias del Tribunal Europeo de derechos Humanos en Derecho español. REDI Revista española de Derecho Internacional 37-2:355–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Morenilla Rodríguez JM (1989) La ejecución de las sentencias del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos. Poder Judicial 15:53–92 [also in (1990) BIMJ Boletín Informativo del Ministerio de Justicia 1554:935–969]

    Google Scholar 

  • Ripol Carulla S (2010) La ejecución de las sentencias del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos en el ordenamiento español. Revista Europea de Derechos Fundamentales 15:75–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez A (2001–2002) Los efectos internos de las resoluciones del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos y la vinculación del juez español a su jurisprudencia. Teoría y Realidad Constitucional 8-9:201–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz Miguel C (1997) La ejecución de las sentencias del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos. Un estudio sobre la relación entre el Derecho nacional y el internacional. Tecnos, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz Miguel C (2002) Servicios de inteligencia y seguridad del Estado constitucional. Tecnos, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Soria Jiménez A (1992) La problemática ejecución de las sentencias del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos. Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional 36:313–358

    Google Scholar 

  • Soria Jiménez A (1995) Algunas reflexiones en torno a la ejecución de las Sentencias de Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos. Anuario Español de Derecho Internacional 11:327–352

    Google Scholar 

  • Torralba Mendiola EC (2007) Sobre la eficacia en España de las resoluciones del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos. Derecho Privado y Constitución 21:313–330

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Campus Sur USC, 15782, Santiago de Compostela, A Coruña, Spain

    Carlos Ruiz Miguel

Authors
  1. Carlos Ruiz Miguel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carlos Ruiz Miguel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Mercedes Pérez Manzano

  2. Faculty of Law, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Juan Antonio Lascuraín Sánchez

  3. Faculty of Law, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Marina Mínguez Rosique

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ruiz Miguel, C. (2018). The “Del Río Prada” Judgements and the Problem of the Enforcement of ECtHR Decisions. In: Pérez Manzano, M., Lascuraín Sánchez, J., Mínguez Rosique, M. (eds) Multilevel Protection of the Principle of Legality in Criminal Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63865-2_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63865-2_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-63864-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-63865-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation