OVERVIEW ON EU CROSSBORDER PROCEEDINGS AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS by Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union and reflected in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Chapter VI thereof. Nothing in this Framework Decision may be interpreted as prohibiting refusal to surrender a person for whom a European arrest warrant has been issued when there are reasons to believe, on the basis of objective elements, that the said arrest warrant has been issued for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on the grounds of his or her sex, race, religion, ethnic origin, nationality, language, political opinions or sexual orientation, or that that person's position may be prejudiced for any of these reasons.” Art 1(3) also is a provision common to all four framework decisions (“common article”), stating that: “This Framework Decision shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union.” In 2021, fundamental rights issues led to 86 refusals reported by ten of the 25 replying Member States. 64 of these refusals were registered in Germany alone. By way of comparison, ten Member States reported 108 refusals in 2020, 73 of those being registered in Germany alone, as was found by the European Commission for the year 2021.321 Refusal to execute an EAW based on general fundamental rights grounds in 2021 (Article 1.3 EAW FD)322 Austria Bulgaria Germany Italy Lithuania Slovenia 0 2 64 4 X 0 3.1.2 EAW AND PERSONS WITH INTELLECTUAL AND/OR PSYCHOSOCIAL DISABILITIES The EAW FD is the only one of the four framework decisions that does not contain any provisions concerning persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities. However, the 2013 Recommendation calls upon Member States to strengthen certain procedural rights of suspects in situations of vulnerability or accused persons in criminal proceedings and of persons in situations of vulnerability who are subject to European Arrest Warrant proceedings.323 It provides that: “The executing Member State should ensure that a vulnerable person who is subject to European arrest warrant proceedings has the specific procedural rights referred to in this Recommendation upon arrest.”324 Concerning persons with intellectual and/ or psychosocial disabilities vis-à-vis the principles established by the UNCRPD and its Committee, more entry points could be 84 considered at the EU level. For example, the Charter enshrines fair trials rights, especially the presumption of innocence and the rights of defence under Art 48. In this sense, it may be particularly interesting to note that the CJEU has interpreted the Directive (EU) 2016/343 as applying to proceedings covering committal to a security measure/psychiatric hospital, where the person is declared to be not criminally responsible but is subjected to a detention measure justified on therapeutic and safety grounds (See Section 2.4.).325 One could thus question if the transfer of a defendant with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities to countries that do not interpret the presumption of innocence in such a way could in principle be in violation of Art 48 EU Charter (presumption of innocence and the rights of defence) and could thus amount to a ground for refusal under Art 1(3) EAW FD. In conclusion, the EAW FD is the most used of all four FD and does offer protection to individuals involved in these proceedings vis-à-vis