Overall goals and fundamental rights Figure 3: Criteria issuing states use to assess prospects for social rehabilitation Detention conditions 10 EU Member States • CZ, DE, DK, FR, HR, HU, LT, SE, SI, UK Humanitarian concerns 12 EU Member States • Health condition: BE, FR, PT • Not specified: CZ, DE, DK, HU, IE, LT, MT, SI, UK Family and social ties 22 EU Member States • Language: EE • Citizenship: AT • Presence of children: SE • Bond with executing State: EE, NL • Not specified: AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, DK, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LV, MT, PL, PT, SI, SK, UK Note: A number of EU Member States refer to more than one criterion, so they are listed repeatedly in the chart. Source: FRA, 2015 humanitarian concerns or detention conditions in the executing state (12 and 10, respectively). It appears that some states presume that all EU Member States comply with the minimum standards – as reflected in the Slovenian statement that “there is a common understanding that conditions in all EU Member States are comparable to the ones in Slovenia”.101 2.3. Fundamental rights refusal grounds States have numerous options to refuse a transfer, both as issuing state and as executing state. Under the Framework Decision on transfer of prisoners, an issuing state might refuse to initiate proceedings requested by the executing state or the sentenced person (Article  4  (5) of the Framework Decision on transfer of prisoners). The issuing state might refuse to forward a judgment and certificate if, after consultations with the executing state, it is not satisfied that enforcement of the sentence by the executing state would serve the purpose of facilitating the sentenced person’s social rehabilitation (Article 4 (2)). Additionally, the issuing state might refuse a transfer after considering the opinion of the sentenced person (Article 6 (3)). Moreover, the issuing state may withdraw a certificate from the executing state, giving reasons for doing so, as long as 101 Slovenia, Representative of the District Court of Ljubljana. enforcement of the sentence in the executing state has not begun (Article 13). Under the Framework Decision on probation and alternative sanctions and the Framework Decision on the ESO, an issuing state might refuse to initiate proceedings when requested by the sentenced person or suspect (Article 4 (2) and Article 9 (2), respectively). Issuing states might also withdraw a certificate without giving reasons, provided that supervision in the executing state has not yet begun (Article 9 (4) of the Framework Decision on probation and alternative sanctions, Article 13 (3) of the Framework Decision on the ESO). As stated in Chapter 1, while reading the summary of findings, it should be noted that not all Member States had implemented all three Framework Decisions at the time of data collection. The executing state’s consent is required when a transfer is directed to a Member State other than a state of nationality where the sentenced person lives or where they will be deported (Article 4 (1) (c) the Framework Decision on transfer of prisoners). States should take into account the purpose of facilitating the sentenced person’s social rehabilitation (Article 4 (6)). Pursuant to this provision, some states have adopted specific measures based on which the competent authorities make their decisions. For example, Austria recognises 45