Grounds for refusal:
Mandatory
- The sentenced person was, at the time of the offence, under 14 years of age and thus lacked criminal responsibility under section 19 of the Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB) or was aged at least 14 but under 18 years of age (juvenile) and thus lacked criminal liability because they lacked the level of moral and intellectual maturity to understand the wrongfulness of the act and to conduct themselves in accordance with such understanding (section 90p (3) no. 1 Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (International Mutual Assistance Act, Internationales Rechtshilfegesetz, IRG).
- The person to be monitored has already had final judgment passed upon them by a Member State other than that in which the judgment was delivered for the same offence which gave rise to the judgment and, in the event of conviction, has had a sanction imposed and this has already been enforced, is currently being enforced or can no longer be enforced under the law of the sentencing state (section 90p (3) no. 2 International Mutual Assistance Act).
- In the case of offences for which Germany’s jurisdiction has also been established where prosecution would be statute-barred under German law (section 90p (3) no. 3 International Mutual Assistance Act).
- Execution would go against basic principles as set out in Article 6 of the Treaty on the European Union (section 73 sentence 2 International Mutual Assistance Act).
Optional
- The form included in Annex I to the Framework Decision on Supervision Orders, as amended, is incomplete and is not completed after a prior opportunity has been provided for the particulars to be corrected, or the particulars included in the form manifestly do not correspond to those in the court’s enforceable decision (section 90r no. 1 International Mutual Assistance Act).
- Extradition following reinstatement of the national arrest warrant and forwarding of a European arrest warrant would be ruled out (section 90r no. 2 International Mutual Assistance Act).
- It is anticipated that the person concerned will once more be required to leave Germany on account of the conduct of proceedings to terminate their residence in the Federal Republic of Germany (section 90r no. 3 International Mutual Assistance Act).
- Another Member State is better able to guarantee the supervision because the person to be monitored’s links to that state are stronger than their links to Germany (section 90r no. 4 International Mutual Assistance Act).