introduction Article 3(2) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) stipulates that the European Union (EU) shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ) without internal frontiers, thus guaranteeing them free movement across EU Member States. The AFSJ was achieved largely by establishing systems of cooperation between the national legal systems of Member States, while at the same time working on the establishment of common minimum standards. This includes cooperation in criminal matters to prevent an accused or convicted person avoiding a trial or a sentence by crossing borders, and also to ensure the effectiveness of national criminal laws in a Union without internal borders. To address this, and to replace a previously more cumbersome process of extradition, the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant (FD EAW) established an automated procedure for surrender, as well as Framework Decision 909 on the Transfer of Prisoners, Framework Decision 829 on the European Supervisory Order (FD ESO) and Framework Decision 947 on Probation and Alternative Sanctions (FD PAS). These measures enable an individual to carry out their sentence, whether one of imprisonment or a probation measure, in an EU Member State other than where the sentence was handed down. In addition, they provide also for supervision measures, which allow for the pre-trial supervision of an individual awaiting trial to be carried out in an EU Member State, where they normally reside, and where there are employment or family links and not in the country where the trial would take place. The Framework Decisions are based on the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions. This principle is considered to be the “cornerstone”1 of judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the EU, coupled with the principle of mutual trust, which embodies an understanding and recognition among EU Member States that all, in line with the European Convention of Human Rights, respect and protect fundamental rights. However, mutual trust between Member States has been called into question in the past due to perceived differences in the protection of fundamental rights in the EU. Judges in some Member States have refused to execute a surrender due to the risk of exposing an individual to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (ill-treatment) upon return, in violation of the principle of non-refoulement prescribed by Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (CFREU). While it has been recognised, inter alia, by the CJEU that mutual trust cannot be equated to ‘blind trust’2 and that Member States must be able to refuse the surrender or transfer of individuals where serious fundamental rights concerns arise, it remains to be seen how such a conflict between the duty to implement EU law and the respect of fundamental rights can be adequately resolved in practice. This conflict does not only have implications on the fundamental rights of individuals but also on the future of the principles of mutual recognition and mutual trust and thus the effective judicial cooperation between EU Member States. This Study therefore will consider the principle of mutual trust and recognition in light of the varying standards of prison conditions across the EU, and the reality being that often prison conditions fall below the minimum standards required to ensure compliance with Article 3 ECHR. To this end the Study will consider how executing judicial authorities can equip themselves with information to ensure that while implementing the Framework Decisions on detention, the rights of the individual concerned are vindicated. In terms of the executing judicial authorities, the Study takes into account the different systems across the EU. In particular the different role of judges. For the most part, it is judges whether in the District Court or High Court that determine the issuing and executing of EAWs and ESOs, while the Transfer of Prisoners under the Framework Decision generally are decided by 1 European Council, Conclusion of the Presidency, Tampere 15 and 16 October 1999, SN 200/1/99 Rev.1, para. 33. 2 Costello, Catherine, Dublin Case: NS/ME Finally and end to Blind Trust across the EU available at http://www.ejtn.eu/ Documents/About%20EJTN/Independent%20Seminars/Asylum%20Law%20Seminar%2012-13%20December%202013/ CostelloNSMENote2012.pdf 12