Corte di giustizia UE/2021

62020CO0648 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) 13 April 2021 ( *1 ) (Rectification of judgment) [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑648/20 PPU-REC, REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), made by decision of 26 November 2020, received at the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 1 December 2020, in the proceedings relating to the execution of a European arrest warrant issued for PI, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), composed of J.-C. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], R. Silva de Lapuerta, Vice-[OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], L. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], C. Toader (Rapporteur) and N. Jääskinen, Judges, [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: J. Richard de la [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], after hearing the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], makes the following [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1 On 10 March 2021, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) delivered the judgment in PI ( C‑648/20 PPU , EU:C:2021:187 ). 2 That judgment contains, in the version in the language of the case, errors which it is appropriate for the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to rectify at the request of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], pursuant to Article 103(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice. On those grounds, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) hereby orders: 1. Paragraph 55 of the judgment of 10 March 2021, PI ( C‑648/20 PPU , EU:C:2021:187 ), shall be rectified as follows: – ‘As to the fact that, in its written answer to questions put by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] states that, after the surrender of the requested person following the execution of a European arrest warrant, that person will immediately be brought before a court which will examine the need to impose a preventive measure involving deprivation or restriction of liberty and will thus also review the proportionality of that warrant, that practice is not, however, such as to ensure that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] procedural system is in conformity with the requirements arising from [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2002/584.’ 2. Paragraph 56 of that judgment shall be rectified as follows: – ‘It should be stated, as the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] observes in points 33 and 34 of his Opinion, that, by the judgment of 13 January 2021, MM ( C‑414/20 PPU , EU:C:2021:4 ), the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] did not rule directly on the question whether the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] procedure for the issuing of a European arrest warrant by a prosecutor during the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings satisfied the requirements inherent in effective judicial protection, but confined itself to holding that, where the law of the issuing [OSCURATO:PERSONA] does not contain a separate legal remedy, EU law confers jurisdiction on a court of that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to review indirectly the validity of the European arrest warrant. Accordingly, it cannot be inferred from that judgment that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ruled that the existence of such a possibility of ex post judicial review was such as to satisfy the requirements inherent in the effective judicial protection of the rights of the requested person.’ 3. The original of this order shall be annexed to the original of the rectified judgment. A note of this order shall be made in the margin of the original of the rectified judgment. Luxembourg, 13 April 2021. A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] J.-C. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ( *1 ) Language of the case: English.