Criminal detention and alternatives: fundamental rights aspects in EU cross-border transfers that, in some cases, rehabilitation of non-citizens could be better achieved in Austria.102 Similar measures have also been adopted in Belgium, Hungary, Spain and the United Kingdom. Correspondingly, the executing state’s consent is required for transfers of probation measures/supervision measures upon request of the sentenced person/suspect to a state other than a state of residency (Article 5 (2) of the Framework Decision on probation and alternative sanctions and Article 9 (2) of Framework Decision on the ESO). As emerges from Recital 14 of the Framework Decision on probation and alternative sanctions, such consent may be given, with a view to social rehabilitation, where the sentenced person intends to move to another Member State to work, study, or join family members. Additionally, each decision contains a list of grounds based on which executing states can decide not to recognise judgments or decisions. The Framework Decision on transfer of prisoners and the Framework Decision on probation and alternative sanctions both list 12 grounds for such non-recognition (in Article 9 and Article 11, respectively). The Framework Decision on the ESO provides for nine grounds for non-recognition (in Article 15). The following grounds are common to all three decisions: • related to the certificate, which by law has to accompany the judgment or the decision – when it is incomplete or manifestly does not correspond to the judgment or decision, and has not been corrected within a set deadline; • related to the executing state – when the criteria for forwarding the judgment or decision have not been met and the judgment or decision cannot be forwarded to that state (for example, the sentenced person is not a national of that state or that state did not consent to transfer and such consent is necessary); • related to legal obstacles arising from the executing state’s domestic law, namely: • recognition of the judgment or decision would contravene the ne bis in idem principle • the act in question does not constitute an offence (except for acts of fiscal nature) • the enforcement of criminal prosecution is statute-barred • immunity prevents the executing state from supervising the measure 102 Austria, Federal law on judicial cooperation in criminal matters with the Member States of the European Union, Bundesgesetz über die justizielle Zusammenarbeit in Strafsachen mit den Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union (EU-JZG), para. 39 (1) 3; Explanatory Remarks on the Act Implementing Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA (1523 der Beilagen XXIV. GP - Regierungsvorlage - Vorblatt u. Erläuterungen). 46 • a person, owing to their age, could not be held criminally liable. Four procedural barriers are common to the Framework Decision on transfer of prisoners and the Framework Decision on probation and alternative sanctions: • less than six months of the sentence are to be served, or the probation or alternative sanction is of less than six months’ duration; • the judgment was rendered in absentia, unless the sentenced person was properly summoned; • the territorial jurisdiction of the executing state applies to the criminal offences addressed in the judgment or decision; • the judgment or decision refers to a psychiatric or health care measure that could not be executed or supervised in accordance with the law of the executing state. Additional grounds for non-recognition are specific to certain instruments: • when a certificate relates to measures that cannot be supervised by the executing state (the Framework Decision on probation and alternative sanctions, and the Framework Decision on the ESO); • when an issuing state does not give its consent for non-application of the specialty rule (the Framework Decision on transfer of prisoners); • if the executing state, in the case of a breach of the supervisory measures, would have to refuse to surrender the person concerned in accordance with the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant103 (Framework Decision on the ESO). According to FRA’s research, as of 1 June 2015, Bulgaria had refused several transfers as issuing state because its authorities did not accept the consequences that the adaptions of the sentences by potential executing states would have had.104 In Ireland, in respect of prisoners requesting to transfer out of the country, applications can be, and already have been, refused when substantial reductions in sentences can be expected or if there is good reason to believe that an applicant would not ordinarily reside in the jurisdiction he or she is applying to.105 Belgium has also refused numerous transfers as executing state when finding that an individual requested a  transfer for reasons incompatible with the law’s objectives (e.g. to benefit from a more flexible regime). 103 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, Art. 3 and Art. 4. 104 Bulgaria, Supreme Prosecution Office of Cassation (2015), Letter No. 5676/2015 to the Center for the Study of Democracy. 105 Ireland, Department of Justice and Equality (2015), p. 9.