Criminal detention and alternatives: fundamental rights aspects in EU cross-border transfers their legal counsel and to the prosecutor.291 This is also the case in Austria.292 However, in some states, it is not clear who will furnish the information. Spanish law implementing the Framework Decision on transfer of prisoners does not indicate anything expressly. However, given that there is an obligation to always inform the convicted person of the transfer and any implications arising therefrom, this information should include the possible adaptation of the sentence pursuant to the law of the executing state.293 The Criminal Procedure Act of Croatia stipulates that all persons with legal interest shall be publicly informed regarding the content of a sentence/judgment. The verified copy of a judgment/decision must be delivered personally to the sentenced person. 294 Prisoners in the United Kingdom receive all relevant information provided by the executing state concerning the administration of the sentence in that state. The information is normally provided in the individual’s own language.295 However, in the absence of any practice, in some states it is not clear who will provide the information and how it will be provided. For example, respondents from Slovenia explicitly stated that, since the law does not regulate the issue, and the practice is very limited, the procedure is unclear.296 This is highlighted here but may be a more general issue across the areas covered by this report. 6.5. Verification of full understanding of transfer procedure Fully understanding the transfer procedure is a crucial element of suspects/sentenced persons providing informed consent or an informed opinion. This includes not only pure linguistic understanding but also an actual understanding of the facts and consequences. The decisions are silent about the duty to make sure that the affected persons fully understand 291 Lithuania, Law on mutual recognition and execution of judicial decisions in criminal matters of EU Member States (Lietuvos Respublikos įstatymas „Dėl Europos Sąjungos valstybių narių sprendimų baudžiamosiose bylose tarpusavio pripažinimo ir vykdymo“), 21 November 2014, Art. 7 (5). 292 Austria, Representative of the Austrian Federal Ministry of Justice. 293 Spain, Law 23/2014 of 20 November on mutual recognition of criminal judgments in the European Union, Art. 68. 294 Croatia, The Criminal Procedure Act (Zakon o kaznenom postupku) (2014), Official Gazette (Narodne novine), Nos. 152/08, 76/09, 80/11, 121/11, 91/12, 143/12, 56/13,145/13, and 152/14, 17 December 2014, Art. 108, 273 and 413. 295 United Kingdom, NOMS (England and Wales) (2014). 296 Slovenia, Representative of the District Court of Ljubljana. 92 the proceedings. However, this stems from the right to good administration,297 and ECtHR jurisprudence on Article 6 of the ECHR. As observed by the ECtHR, if defendants do not understand all the information provided in the course of criminal proceedings, they find themselves in a particularly vulnerable position that prevents them from fully participating in the proceedings. 298 Irrespective of the nature of the proceedings, this principle should be applicable to all official proceedings in which individuals’ rights are at stake. However, the Framework Decision on transfer of prisoners states in Recital 5 that, although there is a need to provide a sentenced person with adequate safeguards, “their involvement in the proceedings should no longer be dominant” by requiring their consent in all cases. Therefore, the decision itself does not require the full participation of a sentenced person in transfer proceedings. Nevertheless, at least six EU Member States (Bulgaria, France, Hungary, Lithuania, Slovenia and Spain) have practices for checking whether prisoners fully understand the transfer procedure in accordance with the Framework Decision on transfer of prisoners. Only three states (Lithuania, Slovenia and Spain) verify the individuals’ full understanding when coordinating transfers under the Framework Decision on probation and alternative sanctions and in the course of ESO proceedings. In Bulgaria,299 Hungary,300 Lithuania,301 Slovenia,302 and Spain303 relevant courts inform sentenced persons about the option to transfer and check if they fully understand it. In France this task belongs to the public prosecutor; when obtaining consent, they must confirm this by checking “comprehension of the transfer procedure”.304 Individuals’ full understanding of transfers of probation orders or supervision measure procedures is only checked in Lithuania,305 Slovenia306 and Spain.307 How297 European Union, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ C 326, Art. 41. 298 ECtHR, Salduz v. Turkey, No. 36391/02, 27 November 2008, para. 54. 299 Bulgaria, Supreme Prosecution Office of Cassation (2015), Letter No. 5676/2015 to the Center for the Study of Democracy. 300 Hungary, Representative of the Budapest Environs Regional Court and the Szeged Regional Court. 301 Lithuania, Law on mutual recognition and execution of judicial decisions in criminal matters of EU Member States, Art. 22. 302 Slovenia, Representative of the District Court of Ljubljana. 303 Spain, Law 23/2014 of 20 November on mutual recognition of criminal judgments in the European Union, Art. 67.1. 304 France, Representative of the Department for criminal matters and graces. 305 When the decision is taken by a prosecutor, the full understanding of the transfer is checked during interrogation. When the decision to transfer is taken by a court, the full understanding of the transfer is checked in the court proceedings. 306 Slovenia, Representative of the District Court of Ljubljana. 307 Spain, Law 23/2014 of 20 November on mutual recognition of criminal judgments in the European Union, Art. 67.1.