had been critical of the prison conditions of Member States, and were wary of further sanctions in the context of FD. Of concern was the fact that other members of the expert group referring to countries where the prison conditions had been the subject of criticism, indicated, that “they will nevertheless issue requests aimed at transferring prisoners to those countries.”189 Practice in and among EU Member States At the moment there is little concrete data available detailing the Europe-wide transfer of prisoners under the Framework Decision,190 the level of consideration given to rehabilitation, and the effect of the transfer. The issue of prison conditions and the risk of a violation of Article 3 ECHR remains relevant and the due process that surrounds the transfer constitutes a necessary aspect that must be further examined, as it can help or hinder the prevention of Article 3 ECHR. The Europris Expert Group noted that the procedures of applying the FD, and the level of scrutiny addressing the prison conditions and the merits of the transfer in terms of rehabilitation vary greatly among the EU MS. There are however good practices. For example in the Netherlands visits are conducted to prisoners abroad to assess the prisoner and determine whether rehabilitation in the Netherlands is appropriate.191 The visits are undertaken by policy officers, specially tasked with the Framework Decisions on detention. This level of consideration is not common across the EU. In Austria, the Ministry for Justice (Bundesministerium für Justiz) oversees the implementation of FD TOP. They reported that in 2015, 102 transfers were made, an increase from 84 in 2014. During the course of an interview with representatives from the Ministry, they indicated that approximately 55% do not consent initially, but rarely is a decision to transfer without consent ever challenged in the courts. The main cause for an objection from prisoners relates to prison conditions, separation from family members, and the length of the sentence on transfer. Although it is foreseen that the transfer procedure should take 90 days the process takes up to one year. This is a much slower transfer process than under the previous legislation, owing in part to the different levels of implementation across the EU, as well as the varying requests for information sought from country to country, and the different bodies responsible across the EU, whether the Ministry of Justice, or the Courts. At the Europris expert group the issues surrounding time limits were considered. The reasons suggested for the delays included interpretation requirements, with some courts requesting a translation of the judgment in full.192 In this regard the Expert group noted that judgments from different jurisdictions will naturally appear in different formats, and that the executing authority will have to understand the judgment in order to enforce it. However, it is not the case that the executing authority should look to evaluate it as that could risk ‘a second judgement of the person.’ 189 The Europris Expert Group on the Framework Decision 909, page 14 available at http://www.europris.org/wp-content/ uploads/EP_FrameworkDecisions_Report.pdf. 190 European Commission supported project of Europris is currently working with an Expert group gather data in this area. See http://www.europris.org/expert-groups/framework-decision-2008909jha-transfer-of-prisoners/. 191 The Europris Expert Group on the Framework Decision 909, page 7. 192 Europris Expert Working Group May 2016 p11. 47