JUSTICE FOR ALL “The execution of the European arrest warrant by the executing judicial authority may, by the law of the executing Member State, be subject to the following conditions: where the European arrest warrant has been issued for the purposes of executing a sentence or a detention order imposed by a decision rendered in absentia and if the person concerned has not been summoned in person or otherwise informed of the date and place of the hearing which led to the decision rendered in absentia, surrender may be subject to the condition that the issuing judicial authority gives an assurance deemed adequate to guarantee the person who is the subject of the European arrest warrant that he or she will have an opportunity to apply for a retrial of the case in the issuing Member State and to be present at the judgment.” Research conducted by partners on this topic showed that no additional safeguards were added de jure or de facto to ensure in absentia hearings were restricted or used as the last resort. The defendants do not have to be part of the hearing taking place before the surrender. Italy reported that, if the individual had knowledge of the trial or that they voluntarily evaded it, the courts could still proceed with the EAW and surrender the person, which follows the EAW FD’s spirit.439 In absentia hearings are also possible in Slovenia in the context of the fulfilment of an EAW.440 No information was found on the adequate assurance to guarantee the person will have an opportunity to apply for a retrial of the case, as found in the FD. Germany, on the other hand, appears to have adopted a more protective interpretation of the possibility to refuse to execute. In 2021, 26 Member States (13 of which did not record any cases) reported a total of 159 refusals to execute an EAW based on decisions rendered in absentia and Germany alone reported 105 cases.441 Member States which have refused to execute an EAW in the context of criminal proceedings involving irregular in absentia trial hearings in 2021 Member States which have refused to execute an EAW in the context of criminal proceedings involving irregular in absentia trial hearings in 2021 Austria Bulgaria Germany Italy Lithuania Slovenia 4 3 0 105 X 0 Regarding the ESO FD, the text does not provide for a consent requirement in the case of a hearing. Just like for the TP FD, the failure of the individual to appear if regularly summoned is not an obstacle to the consideration of the case, as stated in the Bulgarian research, even though it is a general rule.442 Germany also reported that, at the national level, when the supervision measure includes a transfer to another Member State as an optional provision, the individual could voice their agreement or disagreement. However, the courts will be the ultimate decision-maker in these cases, and are not bound by the individual’s choice.443 In general, consent was not an important part of the ESO FD and the concerned individual is rarely asked their opinion. The ESO also does not provide for specific safeguards for persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities and national legislations have not added protection in their transpositions of the framework decision. The specific PAS FD also does not provide for a specific safeguard for persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities regarding in absentia hearings. The text provides at Art 9 (1)(e)444 that in absentia hearings are a ground for non-recognition except when the concerned individual was informed by a competent authority of the time and place of the proceedings and did not attend it. This was also transposed at the national level, as was pointed out by Bulgaria, which stated that the failure of the person to appear when regularly summoned is not an obstacle to the consideration of the case.445Italy also transposed this article, allowing in absentia hearings if the individual has been officially informed but did not attend anyway and did not add any particular safeguards regarding vulnerable persons.446 101