APPLICATION OF THE FRAMEWORK DECISIONS IN MEMBER STATES 5.4.2 COOPERATION Another obstacle observed was that, when the option of an FD was there or even when such reliance was mandatory, the national courts or relevant actors were sometimes reluctant to use them. Austria evoked first a lack of knowledge of other States’ judicial systems, but more importantly, a general tendency not to trust other Member States’ legal systems.479 This idea was notably brought forward by the Netherlands during the regional consultation workshop, where it was said there was a general belief that once you let a person go, the involved countries do not trust each other to bring the person back to the court (in time) for the hearing. In Germany, the same mindset was observed, added to a general defiance towards the level of sanctions applied by the other EU Member States. Germany indicated a certain fear that the person will no longer be punished to the extent provided for in the sentence after the transfer.480 This distrust extends to the point where some states choose not to respond at all to other States requesting the opening of cross-border proceedings. Lithuanian and Portuguese representatives, during the regional consultation workshop, notably evoked issues with cooperation with certain states. In Lithuania, there is a general understanding that communication with specific countries on this matter is poor and that nothing can be done about it. Even more serious was the issue of Member States which refused to rely on the framework decisions in general, even when all conditions were met, as was raised by a Lithuanian and a Romanian participant at the consultation workshop. The principles of mutual trust and mutual recognition which entail a presumption of fundamental rights’ application in Member States are notably at stake in the cases where countries have created their own presumptions towards other countries. Indeed, while the EU Court prioritises trust and strictly applies the presumption that States will respect fundamental rights 110 by relying on a very high threshold for its rebuttal, domestic courts have been found to generally use a different approach. At the EU level, the TEU provides for the possibility to rebut the presumption of fundamental rights’ application in the case where all the conditions found under Art 7 TEU are fulfilled. It states that: ”On a reasoned proposal by one third of the Member States, by the European Parliament or by the European Commission, the Council, acting by a majority of four fifths of its members after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2.481” Such values are: "respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail."482 However, we observe at the national level the rebuttal of such presumption with rules set at the domestic level, which change depending on the country and which do not always have to be based in law. In Austria, for instance, it was reported that the Ministry of Justice issued decrees on how to handle cross-border cases with the specific Member States where the risk of fundamental rights violations appears high. These may concern the conditions in detention as well as fair trial guarantees.483 Such inversion of the presumption exists also with the CPT, as was reported by Lithuania. Their report stated that some Lithuanian prisons were presumed to systematically infringe on the respect of fundamental rights.484 Germany evoked a domestic case in which a preliminary ruling was requested from the CJEU on the obligation to investigate potential fundamental rights violations for a person in a situation of vulnerability even without an