Abstract
A new precedent set by the Spanish Supreme Court (known as the Parot doctrine) changed the method of applying remissions of sentences for work done in detention, postponing the date of final release of numerous inmates by several years. Retroactive application of such precedent has been held a violation of article 5 and article 7 of the Convention by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). This paper provides some keys in that regard to understanding both the Parot doctrine and related ECtHR Judgments.
Former Law Clerk at the Spanish Constitutional Court (2001–2013), Professor of Criminal Law at Universidad de Alcalá.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Court with jurisdiction in terrorist cases, sitting in Madrid, and responsible for the execution of sentences.
- 2.
- 3.
Among others, and as recognised at the Judgement, the STS of 8 March 1994, and the SSTS of 15 September 2005 and 14 October 2005.
- 4.
As pointed out by Landa Gorostiza (2012), p. 3: “the so-called Parot doctrine is a particular manifestation of the growing agitation which reigns in the criminal-legal treatment of the most serious criminality”, and of the tension between the demands of the Rule of Law and “the growing punitive claims, which point to a trend towards longer prison sentences, in harsher regimes, and even to bringing back life imprisonment or the death penalty”.
- 5.
Nistal Burón (2013), p. 4.
- 6.
El País, 2006.
- 7.
El País, 2006.
- 8.
Those signing the separate dissenting opinion were Judges José Antonio Martín Pallín, Joaquín Giménez García and Perfecto Andrés Ibáñez.
- 9.
ATC 179/2010 of 29 November 2010.
- 10.
The first Constitutional Court Judgement, which served as a guide on the remaining cases, was STC 39/2012 of 29 March 2012. This Judgement and SSTC 57/2012 and 62/2012, upheld the applications for “amparo” (protection). On the other cases where the applications were held to be inadmissible or dismissed. Alcacer (2012), pp. 933–935; Ortega Carballo (2012), p. 305.
- 11.
STC 39/2012 of 29 March 2012, FJ 3.
- 12.
STC 39/2012 of 29 March 2012, FJ 3.
- 13.
STC 39/2012 of 29 March 2012, FJ 3.
- 14.
In a similar sense, the individual concurring opinion of Judge Adela Asúa on STC 39/2012 of 29 March 2012.
- 15.
As the Judgement of the ECtHR Grand Chamber recalls, for the purposes of article 5 of the Convention, it is irrelevant to make a distinction between the penalty and the execution of the penalty (which is likewise applicable to article 17.1 SC).
- 16.
Section 4.2.2.
- 17.
ECHR Judgement of 10 July 2012, c Del Río Prada v. Spain and ECHR (GC) Judgement of 21 October 2013.
- 18.
Against those who fought for all types of delaying tactics, others clearly stated that it should be implemented immediately, and by the judges themselves. Among them, Gómez Benítez (2013).
- 19.
Rodríguez Montañés (2013).
References
Alcacer Guirao R (2012) La Doctrina Parot ante Estrasburgo: Del Río Prada c. España (STEDH 10.7.2012, N° 42750/09). Consideraciones sobre la aplicación retroactiva de la Jurisprudencia y la ejecución de las Sentencias del TEDH. Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo 43:929–952
Gómez Benítez JM (2013) El final de la doctrina Parot. El País, October 21
Landa Gorostiza JM (2012) Ejecución de penas y principio de legalidad ante el TEDH. InDret 4:1–25
Manzanares Samaniego JL (2011) Reflexiones sobre el caso Troitiño, la doctrina Parot y los vaivenes jurisprudenciales en materia de terrorismo. Diario La Ley 7654
Nistal Burón J (2013) El controvertido periplo judicial de la “doctrina Parot” (De la Sección 1ª de la Sala de lo Penal de la Audiencia nacional al Tribunal de Estrasburgo). Diario La Ley 8068
Ortega Carballo C (2012) Doctrina del Tribunal Constitucional durante el primer cuatrimestre de 2012 (with Requejo JL, Duque JC, Fossas E). Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional 95:263–310 (303–310)
Rodríguez Montañés T (2013) Doctrina Parot: ¿Podemos pasar página? eldiario.es, October 27
Rodríguez Montañés T (2014) Doctrina Parot: claves para entender las sentencias del TEDH en el caso Del Río Prada c. España. Eunomía 6:137–152
Sanz Morán A (2006) Refundición de condenas e imputación de beneficios penitenciarios. Revista de Derecho Penal 18:11–43
Vives Antón T (2006) Una sentencia discutible. El País, March 11
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Montañés, T.R. (2018). Rise and Fall of the Parot Doctrine: Multi-Level Protection of the Rights to Legality and to Liberty. 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_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63865-2_9
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)