Criminal detention and alternatives: fundamental rights aspects in EU cross-border transfers (Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia). Only laws in Belgium and Finland explicitly provide for a right to legal assistance in the course of proceedings on transfers of probationary measures. Framework Decision on the ESO In at least 13 states (Denmark, Estonia, France, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Spain), all suspects benefit from a general right to legal assistance. As the Framework Decision on the ESO concerns transfers of measures alternative to detention, suspects are presumed to be free to hire a lawyer of their choice or apply for legal aid if they fulfil the criteria. According to FRA’s findings, only the legislation implementing the Framework Decision on the ESO in Finland actually includes provisions on access to legal assistance in the course of the transfer proceedings. A majority of states do not have procedures to ensure that the legal counsel speaks the same language as the suspect/sentenced person; however, eight states (Belgium, Germany, Finland, France, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland and Portugal) provide for the assistance of interpreters to facilitate communication between lawyers and foreign clients. 6.4. Duty to inform when a decision is adapted before transfer According to all three Framework Decisions, the authorities of the executing state may adapt a judgment or measure before the transfer. Article 8 of the Framework Decision on transfer of prisoners provides for such a possibility only when a sentence exceeds the maximum penalty for a similar offence under the national law of the executing state. The sentenced person’s situation should not get worse – the adapted sentence shall not aggravate the sentence imposed in the issuing state in terms of its nature and duration. It should be noted that, according to Article 17, the enforcement of a sentence, including the grounds for early or conditional release, are governed by the laws of the executing state. There is nevertheless a possibility to be conditionally released in accordance with the law of the issuing state (pursuant to Article 17 (4)); this provision could be useful when the law of the executing state is more severe for the sentenced person. 90 ECtHR on adapting judgments The ECtHR has examined the question of adapting judgments in several cases arising under the Council of Europe Transfer Convention. In two cases against Sweden, the applicants  – Hungarian citizens – were convicted in Sweden and subsequently transferred to Hungary to serve their ten-year sentences. In Sweden, they would have been eligible for parole after serving two-thirds of the sentence – that is, after six years and eight months. As a consequence of the judgment being adapted in Hungary, they were eligible for conditional release after having served four-fifths of the sentence – after eight years. The ECtHR concluded that the longer de facto term of imprisonment did not violate Article  5 of the ECHR on the right to liberty. The court reasoned that the deprivation of liberty in Hungary resulted from the conviction in Sweden, and the Hungarian courts converted the sentence into the same term of imprisonment without making any fresh assessments. Referring to the de facto longer term of imprisonment, the ECtHR noted that the additional period of detention in Hungary corresponded to 20 % of the time they could have expected to serve in Sweden. In the court’s opinion this was not disproportionate and did not amount to a breach of Article 5. Additionally, the ECtHR stated that Article 7, which prohibits punishment without law, was not violated. The court explained that the “penalty” of ten years’ imprisonment was imposed by a  Swedish court and did not exceed the maximum penalty under Hungarian law and no additional penalty was imposed. The court also reiterated that a primary objective of transferring sentenced foreigners to their native country is to further their social rehabilitation. The ECtHR reached the same conclusion in the case of a  Polish citizen sentenced to life imprisonment in Belgium. In Belgium, he would have been eligible for parole after ten years; following a transfer to Poland, he would only have been eligible after 25 years’ imprisonment. The court reinforced its view by explaining that Article 7 applies to the notion of “penalty” and that the conditions of release fall under the scope of “execution of a sentence”. Source: ECtHR, Csoszánszki v. Sweden, No. 22318/02, 27 June 2006; Szabó v. Sweden, No. 28578/03, 27 June 2006; Ciok v. Poland, No. 498/10, 23 October 2012 The Framework Decision on probation and alternative sanctions and the Framework Decision on the ESO prohibit increasing the severity of measures (reformatio in peius) in Articles 9 and 13, respectively. The executing state may adapt a measure if it is incompatible with its national laws; however, it must not be more severe or apply for a longer term than the measure originally imposed.