5. This Article shall not preclude closer or future bilateral agreements between parties with a common border. The Parties shall inform each other of such agreements. Judgment of 17.07.2007 in Case C-288/05 (Jürgen Kretzinger) ( ) External sources: InfoCuria 1. In this respect, although it is for the competent national courts to carry out the final assessment.2. For the purposes of Article 54, a sentence imposed by a court of a Contracting State has been “enforced” or “is actually being enforced” if the defendant has been sentenced to a suspended prison sentence.3. For the purposes of Art. 54 IPR shall not be considered to be “executed” or “effectively executed” a sentence imposed by a court of a State party if the accused has been held in police custody for a short period of time and/or remanded in custody until the main trial and, in accordance with the law of the sentencing State, that penalty would be charged to the subsequent execution of the prison sentence.4. The fact that a Member State in which a person has been the subject of a final and final conviction under its national law may issue a European arrest warrant against that person in order to execute the sentence provided for in Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States cannot compromise the interpretation of the concept of “execution” within the meaning of Article 54 IPR.
– In view of the risks associated with security and illegal immigration, Ministers and Secretaries of State stress the need for effective controls at the external borders, in accordance with the uniform principles set out in Article 6. In order to implement these uniform principles, the Contracting Parties must in particular promote the harmonisation of working methods in the field of border control and control. .