Procedural aspects: Information and Consent those authorities in the issuing state. It follows that this question is to be regulated by domestic law. Figure 16 provides an overview of EU Member States in which there is a possibility to appeal decisions about transfers. A majority of EU Member States do not provide for the right to appeal against decisions to forward measures taken in the issuing state. Only 11 states provide for such a possibility in transfer of prisoners cases. However, in other states – as, for example, in Ireland – there might not be a need to appeal. Transfers only occur based on tripartite consent, so there is no requirement for an appeals mechanism. Consent can be revoked at any point.318 The opposite view was recently expressed by the Italian Court of Cassation. According to the court, a sentenced person is not a party to transfer proceedings because these are conducted on an international level and concern Member States, not individuals. A decision to transfer – more specifically, the certificate (Annex I of Framework Decision on transfer of prisoners) – is “an act addressed not to the detainee but to the foreign authority, clearly ancillary and secondary to the sentence that has to be executed.”319 Only six states provide a right to appeal in cases involving transfers of probation and supervision measures. This appears problematic with regard to transfers of probation: as the transfers themselves do not require the sentenced persons’ consent or opinion, in light of the absence of a right to appeal, individuals are practically deprived of any possibility to express their views. Transfers of supervision measures should only occur with suspects’ informed consent or upon their request – hence they have a chance to present their opinion. the specialty rule. Accordingly, sentenced persons should have a right to legal assistance when, after a transfer, they decide to renounce entitlement to the specialty rule (Article 18 (2) (f)). Apart from this, the decision is silent about legal assistance. The two other Framework Decisions do not mention the right to legal counsel at all. However, Member States are free to provide for legal assistance in their own domestic legal systems. Figure 17 provides an overview of executing states that afford legal assistance in relation to the Framework Decision on transfer of prisoners. In a  majority of EU Member States (22), sentenced persons have a right to legal counsel after a transfer under the Framework Decision on transfer of prisoners. The statistics are also promising in regard to the Framework Decision on probation and alternative sanctions (17 states) and the Framework Decision on the ESO (14 states). Article 11 of the Code of Enforcement of Punishments of the Republic of Lithuania320 guarantees the right to legal aid to every suspect and sentenced person. These persons may be advised by their chosen lawyer or, if they do not have sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, by a legal aid lawyer, in accordance with the procedure provided for by the law regulating the Figure 17: Framework Decision on transfer of prisoners: right to legal assistance in the executing state in EU Member States IT CY, LU, UK 6.9. Right to legal assistance in the executing state AT, BE, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, LT, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK The Framework Decisions do not provide for any right to legal assistance in the executing state. The Framework Decision on transfer of prisoners only states that sentenced persons have a right to legal counsel in relation to 318 Ireland, Representative of the Irish Council for Prisoners Overseas. 319 Italy, Circular Letter Ministry of Justice, Department of Prison Administration (2014), ‘Transfer of EU detainees in execution of a penalty toward the origin country in implementation of the Framework Decision 2008/909/ JHA’ (Circolare Ministero della Giustizia. Dipartimento Amministrazione Penitenziaria 18 aprile 2014 Trasferimento dei detenuti comunitari in esecuzione pena verso il loro paese di origine in attuazione della decisione quadro 2008/909/JHA), 18 April 2014, p. 3 (see attachment No. 2); judgment of the Joint Penal Chambers of the Court of Cassation No. 30769 of 21 June 2012 on European Arrest Warrant, filed on 27 July 2012, plaintiff: Caiazzo. BG, IE Provided in law Not provided No practice established Not implemented Source: FRA, 2015 320 Lithuania, Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (Lietuvos Respublikos Seimas) (2002), Code of the Enforcement of Punishments of the Republic of Lithuania (Lietuvos Republikos bausmių vykdymo kodeksas), No. IX-994, 27 June 2002. 97