Language of document : ECLI:EU:C:2021:265

ORDER OF THE COURT (First Chamber)

13 April 2021 (*)

(Rectification of judgment)

In Case C‑648/20 PPU-REC,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Westminster Magistrates’ Court (United Kingdom), made by decision of 26 November 2020, received at the Court on 1 December 2020, in the proceedings relating to the execution of a European arrest warrant issued for


THE COURT (First Chamber),

composed of J.-C. Bonichot, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, Vice-President of the Court, L. Bay Larsen, C. Toader (Rapporteur) and N. Jääskinen, Judges,

Advocate General: J. Richard de la Tour,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

after hearing the Advocate General,

makes the following


1        On 10 March 2021, the Court (First Chamber) 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 Court to rectify at the request of the Bulgarian Government, pursuant to Article 103(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.

On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby orders:

1.      Paragraph 55 of the judgment of 10 March 2021, PI (C648/20 PPU, EU:C:2021:187), shall be rectified as follows:

–        ‘As to the fact that, in its written answer to questions put by the Court, the Bulgarian Government 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 Bulgarian procedural system is in conformity with the requirements arising from Framework Decision 2002/584.’

2.      Paragraph 56 of that judgment shall be rectified as follows:

–        ‘It should be stated, as the Advocate General observes in points 33 and 34 of his Opinion, that, by the judgment of 13 January 2021, MM (C414/20 PPU, EU:C:2021:4), the Court did not rule directly on the question whether the Bulgarian 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 Member State does not contain a separate legal remedy, EU law confers jurisdiction on a court of that Member State to review indirectly the validity of the European arrest warrant. Accordingly, it cannot be inferred from that judgment that the Court 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. Calot Escobar


J.-C. Bonichot



President of the First Chamber

*      Language of the case: English.