NATIONAL TRANSPOSITION OF THE FRAMEWORK DECISIONS disabilities, like Art 8(1) (d) and (e) ESO FD.391 Bulgaria reported that the national legislation indeed left aside the possibility to supervise therapeutic treatment or treatment for addiction measures and that health conditions were not taken into account when criminal legal capacity was being assessed.392 Germany also did not transpose the exact words of the ESO FD, notably leaving aside the commitment to undergo therapy. The report, however, stated the country later acknowledged that therapeutic treatment and treatment for addiction could be monitored, provided that the person concerned consents in a notification to the European Council in 2016, a non-binding document.393 Slovenia, for its part, reported that the national legislation transposing the ESO FD did not contain any provisions regarding the applicability or the manner of application of the ESO FD to persons with intellectual and/ or psychosocial disabilities or in general to persons in a situation of vulnerability.394 Regarding the PAS FD, some states have reported incomplete transpositions with direct consequences for persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities. Slovenia, for its part, did not transpose Recital 5 of the PAS FD which protects individuals from discrimination in the context of the PAS proceedings. Although this provision does not expressly include disability as a ground for non-application, it could still have been interpreted in a broader way to encompass any form of discrimination by national courts. Slovenia also did not fully transpose Recital 16 dealing with the possibility of not recognising a judgement that is rendered against an individual who was found not criminally responsible; the Recital gives the example of a "mentally ill person" or where the probation involves medical treatment which would run contrary to the legislation of the executing state.395 Slovenia’s legislation, however, while evoking the possibility to refuse the sentence when it includes medical treatment that would go against national law, does not make a reference to the wording: “judgment concerned was issued against a person who has not been found guilty, such as in the case of a mentally ill person”.396 96 4.2.1.2 ADDITIONAL OBLIGATIONS Shortcomings in national transpositions can emanate from altered or missing provisions and from a different wording. In other cases, issues can also come from added provisions that conflict with fundamental rights application. Concerning the TP FD, Austria created the obligation of equivalency of the measure concerning the TP proceedings. This “adapted” measure should correspond to the original measure and must not be more severe than the latter. If the sentence is higher than the maximum sentence under Austrian law, the court has to reduce the sentence to the maximum sentence, but not more.397 If the measures cannot be adopted, the court may refuse to execute. To be in line with the TP FD, a broad interpretation is required, thus also including proceedings concerning persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities who, because of their disability, are subjected to other proceedings.398 Some challenges arose in practice due to the specific rules applicable for persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities who are found criminally responsible but still subjected to security measures (see Section 2.5). As not all countries provide for this type of measure, the execution of a sentence in another country may be hindered and thus the transfer refused. Expert interviews have, however, revealed that there have been transfers in the past despite this rule. Therefore, persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities can be at a disadvantage because of the fragmented legislation at the national level in the EU. This is to add to the general problem of the lack of specific provisions about defendants with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities in the TP FD, just like for the EAW FD. 4.2.2 ADDITIONAL SAFEGUARDS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL 4.2.2.1 REFUSAL OF THE PROCEEDINGS As seen above, transposition gives States the possibility to adapt the EU provisions and, notably, to make it more efficient at the