Criminal detention and alternatives: fundamental rights aspects in EU cross-border transfers Table 12 shows that more than half of the Member States have established some procedures, either in law or in practice, regarding consent or opinion under the Framework Decision on transfer of prisoners. In general, the domestic laws or practices of those states are very flexible, and allow the interested persons to express their consent or opinion in writing or orally, which later is recorded in writing by officials. According to FRA’s research, in all states with established procedures, sentenced persons are informed by the competent authorities about the purpose and meaning of consent. They are informed that after a transfer, the sentence will be served in accordance with the law of the executing state, including possible eligibility for parole (this information is explicitly provided in Finland, for example). Some states – for example, Latvia – use special forms containing all the relevant information.308 Additionally, in Spain, prisoners subjected to transfer procedures must be assisted by a lawyer and an interpreter to ensure full understanding. Sentenced persons can express their consent either before prison authorities (Austria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden) or before law enforcement/judicial authorities (Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Spain). In Belgium, consent is expressed before the public prosecutor. Sentenced persons are informed that consenting to a transfer entails renouncing one’s entitlement to the rule of specialty in accordance with Article 18 (2) (e) of the Framework Decision on transfer of prisoners. Pursuant to this provision, when sentenced persons consent to transfers, the specialty rule will not apply to them, meaning they can be prosecuted, sentenced or detained in connection with offences committed before the transfer and not covered by the transfer decision. In addition, sentenced persons are informed that any remaining imprisonment sentence will be directly and immediately enforceable in the executing state, in accordance with the laws of that state. Finally, sentenced persons are informed that the executing state can adapt the sentence pronounced in Belgium if its duration or nature is incompatible with the laws of the executing state. The sentenced person’s consent is officially given in writing. 309 308 Latvia, Cabinet of Ministers Regulations No. 176 ‘Regulations on the form and content of a special document for co-operation in criminal proceedings with the Member States of the European Union’ (Ministru kabineta noteikumi Nr. 176 “Noteikumi par īpaša dokumenta formu un saturu krimināltiesiskajā sadarbībā ar Eiropas Savienības dalībvalstīm”), 17 March 2008, Annex 6. 309 Belgium, Act related to the application of the mutual recognition principle to custodial sentence or measure deprivative of liberty pronounced in a European Union Member State, Art. 6, para. 1 and Art. 33, paras. 1–2. 94 Similarly, opinions can be stated either before prison authorities (Austria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom) or before prosecutors or judges (Croatia, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Spain). Only five Member States have established a consent procedure – either in law or in practice – for transfers to be carried out in accordance with the Framework Decision on probation and alternative sanctions. However, it should be remembered that this decision does not explicitly require any consent. Nevertheless, the prosecutor of the Netherlands claims that since some EU countries set informed consent as a precondition for transfers, written consent of the sentenced person is always asked for.310 The states that have special procedures – namely Finland, Malta, Ireland, the Netherlands and Spain – allow for consent to be expressed before probation supervising officers (Finland, Malta and the Netherlands) or before the judicial authorities (Ireland and Spain). In Spain, before transmitting a judgment on probation, the judicial authority asks the convicted person if they want to return to the state of their residence, allowing them thirty days to answer. If a convicted person wants to have the measures transferred, the judicial authority contacts the competent authority of that state and ask for its consent to transmission of the judgment. Consent, even if expressed verbally, is always documented by the judge.311 The ESO has not been used much by Member States. Therefore, the research showed that, in numerous states, relevant procedures have not been established and it has been not determined how consent will be obtained. This is the case in Austria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Lithuania, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Romania. However, three states have clear guidelines on how to obtain suspects’ or accused persons’ informed consent to forwarding supervision measures to their home country. In Spain, suspects or accused persons are informed about the option by the court and given 30 days to decide. If the proceedings were held in various courts, the accused’s consent in one case applies to all others.312 In Hungary, the court must obtain the consent of the person concerned when it orders the supervision measure and fills out the model template 310 Netherlands, Representative of the Centre for International Legal Aid. 311 Spain, Law 23/2014 of 20 November on mutual recognition of criminal judgments in the European Union, Art. 98.2. 312 Ibid., Art. 114.3 and 4.