do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-303/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 24 May 2017 — Headlong Limited v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Központi Irányítása
Date: 2017-05-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet, administrative sanction, electronic document management, fine, freedom to provide services, game of chance, gaming establishment, ownership, right to justice, service concession








C_2017269EN.01000601.xml










14.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/6





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 24 May 2017 — Headlong Limited v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Központi Irányítása
(Case C-303/17)
(2017/C 269/08)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Headlong Limited

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Központi Irányítása

Questions referred







1.


Is it relevant, for the purposes of the reply to be given to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling in Case [C-3/17] by the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság, that the administrative penalty does not consist of a fine but of temporary inaccessibility of electronic data for a period of 90 days, a penalty which is fundamentally different (for example the provision of the service is temporarily suspended, the penalty decision is not notified and it is not subject to appeal) and which the national authority may also impose cumulatively, in the same act, as well as a fine?










2.


In view of the nature, seriousness and method of imposing the administrative penalty of temporary inaccessibility of electronic data for a period of 90 days, and, above all, of the impossibility of appealing against it, can it be considered, in accordance with Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), that that penalty is in itself a disproportionately serious restriction of Article 56 TFEU and of Article 17(1) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, a restriction which, in its current form, cannot be justified by the objectives of consumer protection established by the Member State in the field of games of chance?










3.


Is it relevant, for the purposes of the reply to be given to the sixth question referred for a preliminary ruling in Case [C-3/17] by the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság that the Member State does not ensure the adoption of the rules necessary for obtaining — either by call for tenders for the award of licences, or submitting a tender [to contract] — a licence to organise online casino games, and for this reason service providers cannot obtain the necessary administrative licences for offering the service?
Case C-300/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 24 May 2017 — Hochtief AG v Budapest Főváros Önkormányzata
Date: 2017-05-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative order, award of contract, civil proceedings, damages, judicial proceedings, tendering








C_2017269EN.01000401.xml










14.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/4





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 24 May 2017 — Hochtief AG v Budapest Főváros Önkormányzata
(Case C-300/17)
(2017/C 269/06)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Hochtief AG

Defendant: Budapest Főváros Önkormányzata

Questions referred







1.


Does EU law preclude a procedural provision of a Member State which makes the possibility of asserting any civil right of action resulting from an infringement of a public procurement provision conditional on a final declaration by a public procurement arbitration committee or a court (hearing an appeal against an award of the public procurement arbitration committee) that the provision has been infringed?










2.


Can a provision of a Member State providing, as a condition for being able to assert a claim for compensation, that a public procurement arbitration committee or a court (hearing an appeal against an award of the public procurement arbitration committee) must have made a final declaration that a provision has been infringed be replaced by another provision in accordance with EU law? In other words, can the injured party prove the infringement of the provision by other means?










3.


In an action seeking compensation for damage, is a procedural provision of a Member State which allows judicial proceedings to be brought against an administrative decision only on the basis of the legal arguments submitted in proceedings before the public procurement arbitration committee — and the injured party can rely, as a ground for the alleged infringement, on the unlawfulness, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice, of his exclusion on the basis of a conflict of interest only in a manner which, in accordance with the actual rules of the negotiated procedure, result in his exclusion from the contract award procedure for another reason, as there has been a change in his application — contrary to EU law and, in particular, to the principles of effectiveness and equivalence, or capable of having an effect which runs counter to that law or those principles?
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2017-05-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2017164EN.01000101.xml










24.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/1





Euro exchange rates (1)

23 May 2017
(2017/C 164/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1215 




JPY


Japanese yen


124,62 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4440 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86463 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,7403 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0912 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,3760 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,483 




HUF


Hungarian forint


308,48 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1980 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5543 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,9971 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4939 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5104 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7337 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5929 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5569 




KRW


South Korean won


1 260,51 




ZAR


South African rand


14,8080 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7277 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4323 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 916,24 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8152 




PHP


Philippine peso


55,832 




RUB


Russian rouble


63,3563 




THB


Thai baht


38,557 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,6718 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,8753 




INR


Indian rupee


72,7795 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-304/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 24 May 2017 — Helga Löber v Barclays Bank PLC
Date: 2017-05-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, liability, securities








C_2017269EN.01000602.xml










14.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/6





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 24 May 2017 — Helga Löber v Barclays Bank PLC
(Case C-304/17)
(2017/C 269/09)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Helga Löber

Defendant: Barclays Bank PLC

Question referred

Under Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, (1) in non-contractual claims based on prospectus liability where






—


the investor took his investment decision caused by the defective prospectus at the place where he is domiciled










—


and, on the basis of that decision, he transferred the purchase price for the security acquired on the secondary market from his account held with an Austrian bank to a clearing account held with another Austrian bank, from where the purchase price was subsequently transferred to the seller by order of the applicant,










(a)


does jurisdiction lie with the court within whose area of jurisdiction the investor is domiciled,










(b)


does jurisdiction lie with the court within whose area of jurisdiction the seat/the account-keeping branch of the bank with which the applicant has his bank account from which he transferred the amount invested to the clearing account is located,










(c)


does jurisdiction lie with the court within whose area of jurisdiction the seat/the account-keeping branch of the bank which keeps the clearing account is located,










(d)


does jurisdiction lie with one of those courts at the choice of the applicant,










(e)


does jurisdiction lie with none of those courts?






(1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/923 of 24 May 2017 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Traditional Welsh Cider (PGI))
Date: 2017-05-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: United Kingdom, Wales, cider, designation of origin, labelling, product designation








L_2017140EN.01000401.xml










31.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 140/4








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/923
of 24 May 2017
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Traditional Welsh Cider (PGI))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the United Kingdom's application to register the name ‘Traditional Welsh Cider’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Traditional Welsh Cider’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Traditional Welsh Cider’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.8. — Other products listed in Annex I to the Treaty (spices, etc.), as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 24 May 2017.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 29, 28.1.2017, p. 27.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).