on the enforcement of decisions rendered in absentia and amending Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders, and Framework Decision 2008/./JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement ...[+++]in the European Union

on the initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany with a view to adopting a Council Framework Decision on the enforcement of decisions rendered in absentia and amending Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders and Framework Decision 2008/./JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgmen ...[+++]ts in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union

If the administering State adopts the procedure of conversion of the penalty, that State (a) will be bound by the findings as to the facts in so far as they appear explicitly or implicitly in the judgment handed down in the sentencing State; (b) may, unless it has made a declaration to the contrary, convert a custodial penalty into a financial penalty if the penalty is less than or equal to a period of six months; and (c) may not aggravate the penal position of the sentenced person and will not be bound by any minimum penalty which ...[+++]its own law may provide for the offence or offences committed (Article 8(5)).

But the first limit on the court's freedom at the sentencing stage flows from the basic principle that penalties must be provided for by law, so that where it holds that an offence has been committed it must pass a sentence provided for by the law for that offence.

At the reconvened hearing, the court may exempt the defendant from penalty (while still recognising his guilt), [150] or impose the penalty set out by law, or defer sentencing once more (Article 132-61 of the Criminal Code).

(d) when the person could be liable to a penalty or a measure not involving the deprivation of liberty, in particular a financial penalty or a measure in lieu thereof, even if the penalty or measure may give rise to a restriction of his or her personal liberty;