that notwithstanding the time frame envisaged by the FD, the actual transfer procedure takes much longer now than it did prior to the introduction of FD TOP. The effect of the bureaucratic in addition to practical hurdles is that a transfer process can take up to a year.49 1.3.3. framework decision 2008/947/jha on probation and alternative sanctions Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA on Probation and Alternative Sanctions50 (FD PAS) of 27 November 2008 allows a convicted person to return to the Member States of his/her nationality or another State with close ties (executing State) and to comply with probation measures or alternative sanctions imposed by another Member State (issuing State). The FD PAS was to be transposed by 6 December 2011. After a slow start regarding transposition across the EU51, as of May 2016, 26 Member States have transposed it, with the exception of Ireland52. The objective of the FD PAS is “to enhance the prospects of the sentenced person’s being reintegrated into society, by enabling that person to preserve family, linguistic, cultural and other ties, but also to improve monitoring of compliance with probation measures and alternative sanctions, with a view to preventing recidivism, thus paying due regard to the protection of victims and the general public.”53 The consent of the convicted person is essential since a forced return to another Member State would run contrary to the intention of FD PAS, which presumes that the person concerned has been released in the issuing State and may return to his/her home country in compliance with alternatives to detention and/or probation measures. Mutual trust as well as the existence of measures of alternatives to detention in all Member States are prerequisites for an effective application of the FD PAS. Article 4(1) may also have the effect of setting minimum standards, as it foresees specific measures as alternatives to detention. However, the modalities of probation, conditional sentencing and alternative sanctions in fact do not exist in each national legal system in an equal manner.54 Some Member States have also not transposed all mandatory measures as listed in the FD PAS in their national legal systems. Thus, a correct transposition into national law is required in order to ensure its effective application, especially in light of the fact that an increasing number of those sentenced in a Member State are non-nationals or non-residents.55 Similarly to the two above-mentioned Framework Decisions, there is no explicit fundamental rights refusal ground in the FD PAS. 49 Interview with Austrian Ministry of Justice 28th October 2016 50 Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgements and probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions (PAS), [2008] OJ 2008/L 337/102. 51 Only 14 MS had transposed the FD 2008/947/JHA on Probation and Alternative Sanctions by 2014. See European Commission, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation by the Member States of the Framework Decisions 2008/909/JHA, 2008/947/JHA and 2009/829/JHA on the mutual recognition of judicial decisions on custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty, on probation decisions and alternative sanctions and on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention, COM (2014) 57 final, 5 Feb. 2014, p.6 [hereinafter: European Commission, COM (2014) 57 final]. For the latest information on the implementation process see European Judicial Network, ‘Status of Implementation of Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA: Probation of 27 November 2008´, available at www.ejn-crimjust.europa.eu/ejn/EJN_library_statusOfImpByCat.aspx?CategoryId=36. 52 The UK having decided to Opt out of FD 947. 53 Recital 8 to the FD 2008/947/JHA. 54 European Commission, COM (2011) 327 final, p.7. 55 European Commission, COM (2014) 57 final, p.8. 22