Executive summary and FRA Opinions This report deals with fundamental rights issues related to three European Union (EU) instruments: the Framework Decision on transfer of prisoners (Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA), the Framework Decision on probation and alternative sanctions (Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA), and the Framework Decision on the European Supervision Order (ESO) (Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA). The Framework Decision on transfer of prisoners outlines rules on the recognition of judgments “imposing custodial sentences or [other] measures involving the deprivation of liberty”. By providing for such transfers across Member States, the Framework Decision has the overall purpose of facilitating social rehabilitation. This is also the overall purpose of the Framework Decision on probation and alternative sanctions, which additionally aims to improve the protection of victims as well as the general public. It applies to a variety of probation measures or alternative sanctions. As specified in Article 4 of the instrument, these include “an obligation for the sentenced person to inform a specific authority of any change of residence or working place”; “an obligation not to enter certain localities, places or […] areas”; “an obligation containing limitations on leaving the territory”; instructions on “behaviour, residence, education and training, leisure activities”, etc.; “an obligation to compensate financially for the prejudice caused by the offence”; “an obligation to carry out community service”; “an obligation to cooperate with a probation officer”; and “an obligation to undergo thera­ peutic treatment or treatment for addiction”. Improving victim protection is also one of the main objectives of the third instrument analysed in this report – the Framework Decision on the European Supervision Order. This instrument aims to facilitate the “recognition of decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to […] detention”. Article 8 specifies that it applies to measures such as “an obligation to inform [authorities] of any change of residence”; “an obligation not to enter certain localities or defined areas”; “an obligation to report at specified times to specific authorities”; or “an obligation to avoid contact with specific persons”. Social rehabilitation is a relatively open-ended term. The Framework Decisions do not offer an explicit definition, but Recital 9 of the Framework Decision on transfer of prisoners refers to social rehabilitation as including elements such as “the person’s attachment to the executing State, whether he or she considers it the place of family, linguistic, cultural, social or economic and other links to the executing State”. The EU’s and its Member States’ actions must be consistent with international standards. The leading global instrument – the United Nations (UN) Standard Minimum Rules for Treatment of Offenders, as revised in December 2015 – stresses that the purpose of prison sentences “can be achieved only if the period of imprisonment is used to ensure, so far as possible, the reintegration of such persons into society upon release so that they can lead a law-abiding and self-supporting life.” Accordingly, Rules 4 (2) and 59 state that “[p]risoners shall be allocated, to the extent possible, to prisons close to their homes or their places of social rehabilitation.” It thus appears that social rehabilitation – or at least the similar concept of ‘reintegration’, in the language of the rules – entails a process that starts during detention and is facilitated by being detained as close to ‘home’ as possible. The three Framework Decisions supplement each other by covering different aspects of cross-border transfers: • The Framework Decision on the European Supervision Order encourages using and transferring alternatives to pre-trial detention to permit individuals to maintain ‘social connections’ (such as family, work, or education) in an EU Member State while awaiting trial – by way of monitoring them with means other than detention in that Member State, typically the ‘home’ state. • The Framework Decision on probation and alternative sanctions encourages monitoring of early releases and using alternatives to post-trial detention, for reasons similar to those underlying the ESO (i.e. family, work, or education). • The Framework Decision on transfer of prisoners encourages having post-trial detainees serve their sentences ‘closer to home’. This report aims to identify barriers to, and opportunities for, the protection, promotion and fulfilment of fundamental rights in the implementation and application of the three Framework Decisions. This is achieved by taking as a base the existing standards in international human rights law and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), as they apply to transfers under the three Framework Decisions and related issues. The national laws and practices in effect in the 28 EU Member States are also considered, showing how states are implementing common standards, and how promising practices have developed. The research was undertaken based on a request from the European Commission to better understand the fundamental rights challenges and opportunities the three 9