- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-568/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürtingen — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Faiz Rasool (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Payment services — Directive 2007/64/EC — Article 3(e) and (o) — Article 4(3) — Annex — Point 2 — Scope — Operation of multifunctional terminals enabling cash withdrawals in gaming arcades — Consistency of the practice of the national authorities in bringing prosecutions — Confiscation of sums obtained by means of an unlawful activity — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 17)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016CA0568
62016CA0568
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
14.5.2018
Official Journal of the European Union
C 166/14
(Case C-568/16) (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Payment services - Directive 2007/64/EC - Article 3(e) and (o) - Article 4(3) - Annex - Point 2 - Scope - Operation of multifunctional terminals enabling cash withdrawals in gaming arcades - Consistency of the practice of the national authorities in bringing prosecutions - Confiscation of sums obtained by means of an unlawful activity - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 17))
(2018/C 166/17)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Party to the main proceedings
Other party to the proceedings: Rasool Entertainment GmbH
Operative part of the judgment
Article 4(3) of Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC, read in conjunction with point 2 of the annex to the directive, must be interpreted as meaning that a cash withdrawal service offered by a gaming arcade operator to his customers by means of multifunctional terminals in those arcades is not a ‘payment service’ within the meaning of that directive, where the operator does not carry out any operation on those customers’ payment accounts and the activities he performs on that occasion are confined to making the terminals available and loading them with cash.
*
Language of the case: German.
* * *
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.