howtocrackanut.com Report : Visit Site

Technical data of the howtocrackanut.com

Geo IP provides you such as latitude, longitude and ISP (Internet Service Provider) etc. informations. Our GeoIP service found where is host howtocrackanut.com. Currently, hosted in United States and its service provider is Squarespace Inc. .

HTTP Header Analysis

HTTP Header information is a part of HTTP protocol that a user's browser sends to called containing the details of what the browser wants and will accept back from the web server.

DNS

HtmlToText

-- search blog blogs i follow scholarship about me menu search blog blogs i follow scholarship about me this is a blog about eu law, with a focus on free movement, public procurement and competition law issues. i use it to publish my thoughts on recent developments and to comment on selected judgments of the court of justice of the eu. all comments are personal and in no way bind any of the institutions to which i am affiliated and, particularly, the university of bristol law school or the european commission. i hope to spur discussion and look forward to your feedback and participation. pausing the blog until 2019 may 24, 2018 dear how to crack a a nut readers and friends, i hope this finds you well. i am posting this announcement to let you know that i am pausing the blog until early 2019 for family reasons. these are happy reasons. i will become the father of my first child later this summer, which now requires me to dedicate additional time to my personal life to enjoy this exciting period, and to try to get as prepared as possible for such a transformative change. i also need to finish a number of research commitments before going on shared parental leave until the end of the year. so, all in all, i will not have time to keep the blog running. once i am back to work in early 2019, i will try to find time to reactivate the blog. i am not sure exactly when that will be, but i hope to find you here to continue exchanging views on public procurement, competition, eu internal market law and other issues of common interest. i will miss blogging during this period. maybe you will miss the blog too. best wishes, albert 15 comments bid rigging, self-cleaning, leniency and claims for damages: a beautiful procurement mess? (c-124/17) may 22, 2018 in his opinion of 16 may 2018 in vossloh laeis , c-124/17, eu:c:2018:316 (not available in english), advocate general campos sánchez-bordona has offered an interesting view on the interpretation of the grounds for discretionary exclusion of economic operators engaged in bid rigging. in particular, his proposed interpretation concerns the limitations of the contracting authority's ability to demand full and unrestricted cooperation from undertakings seeking to reassure them that they have self-cleaned after participating in collusive practices in public markets. this opinion and the forthcoming cjeu judgment in vossloh laeis will be relevant for the interpretation of article 57 of directive 2014/24/eu , as well as article 80 of directive 2014/25/eu , on which the case rests. in my view, the vossloh laeis opinion raises difficult questions about the coordination of enforcement of mechanisms to prevent bid rigging in the fields of public procurement and competition law. it also creates some functional tensions with recent cases such as generali-providencia biztosító , c-470/13, eu:c:2014:2469 ; and impresa di costruzioni ing. e. mantovani and rti mantovani e guerrato , c-178/16, eu:c:2017:1000 . thus, it deserves some close analysis. vossloh laeis - background this case concerns the aftermath of an investigation into bid rigging practices by the german competition authority (bundeskartellamt), which established that '[d] uring the period from 2001 to 2011 vossloh laeis concluded agreements with other companies on the supply of rails and switches to the detriment of local public transport companies, private, regional and industrial railway companies and construction companies. the aim of the agreements was to divide up tenders and projects among the members of the cartel '. this resulted in the imposition of a fine of just under 3.5 million euros on the company vossloh laeis in 2016 by the bundeskartellamt. in the case that triggered the reference to the cjeu, a contracting entity whose procurement is covered by directive 2014/25/eu (stadwerke münchen) sought to exclude vossloh laeis from its qualification system on the basis that it had been fined for its participation in the cartel. it is important to stress that the relevance of the cartel for stadwerke münchen was not simply remote or theoretical, but concerned it rather closely because this entity had been a victim of the anticompetitive practices carried out by vossloh laeis. this led stadwerke münchen to seek damages compensation from vossloh laeis in civil litigation, as well as to exclude it from its list of approved contractors. vossloh laeis sought to resist its exclusion from stadwerke münchen's qualification system on the basis that it had taken self-cleaning measures and should thus be reinstated in the list of approved contractors on the basis of article 57(6) of directive 2014/24, to which the applicable article 80 of directive 2014/25 refers. in particular, vossloh laeis sought to persuade the contracting entity that it had taken organizational and personnel measures to clarify the facts and prevent their future repetition. it also indicated that it would compensate the damage caused by its illicit behavior. stadwerke münchen rejected the claims of self-cleaning on the basis that (i) despite the uncovering of the cartel in 2011, vossloh laeis had not addressed the contracting entity or undertaken any initiative to clarify the facts as a whole; (ii) only in 2016 had vossloh laeis ceased to deny, in front of stadwerke münchen, its participation in the relevant collusive practices, and even then it stressed that it had challenged the decision imposing the fine. most importantly, stadwerke münchen took issue with vossloh laeis' behaviour because (iii) it had not agreed to furnish a copy of the bundeskartellamt's decision imposing the fine, so that stadwerke münchen could examine it. neither did vossloh laeis agree to cooperate with stadwerke münchen in clarifying the infringement committed, since it understood that his cooperation with the competition authority was sufficient. the vossloh laeis opinion states that ' [t]he referring court does not dispute (as it was stated in the sanctioning decision itself) that vossloh laeis had collaborated continuously and without restrictions with the german competition authority during the infringement procedure procedure ' (para 17, own translation from spanish). this creates a situation that may seem difficult to understand. why would an undertaking that has already cooperated unreservedly with the competition authority not take the same approach to cooperation with the contracting entity? is it a matter of opposition to red tape and duplication of effort? or is there any secret that the economic operator is seeking to protect? equally, on the side of the contracting entity, why is it so interested in the nitty-gritty details of the decision imposing the fine? could it not just accept that the economic operator was sanctioned and is now trying to move on? the importance of leniency programmes in this context even if the opinion of ag campos does not mention this at all, the dispute about access to the bundeskartellamt's decision and vossloh laeis' refusal to cooperate with stadwerke münchen in a parallel clarification of the facts needs to be placed in the context of the applicable leniency programme run by the bundeskartellamt, and the civil litigation around the action for damages against vossloh laeis. this is important to understand the position of the parties, as well as the shadows that loom over the approach taken by ag campos (discussed below). as part of a leniency programme (not only bundeskartellamt's, but those run by the contracting authorities of other member states and the european commission itself), economic operators that have participated in bid rigging offences can seek an exemption or reduction of the fines that would otherwise be applicable if they uncover the cartel and/or cooperate with the competition authority in its investigation (the degree of cooperation and the relevance of the information provided determining the level of 'discount' on the otherwise applicable fine). in return for t

URL analysis for howtocrackanut.com

http://www.howtocrackanut.com/blog/2015/01/exclusive-rights-state-aid-and-lottery.html
http://www.howtocrackanut.com/blog/2018/1/29/timing-of-brexit-cjeu-case-and-substantive-public-procurement-rules
http://www.howtocrackanut.com/blog/2015/05/short-break.html
http://www.howtocrackanut.com/blog/2012/07/anystate-aid-implications-in-ofcoms-4g.html
http://www.howtocrackanut.com/blog/2015/05/ag-jaaskinen-confirms-gc-and-cjeu.html
http://www.howtocrackanut.com/blog/2016/8/19/does-outsorcing-procurement-contribute-to-public-sector-productivity-dunleavy-2015
http://www.howtocrackanut.com/blog/2016/10/19/launch-of-the-procuring-for-growth-balanced-scorecard-some-initial-thoughts
http://www.howtocrackanut.com/blog/2013/01/a-bunch-of-perfectly-useless-deposit.html
http://www.howtocrackanut.com/blog/2014/06/could-intel-challenge-its-1bn-euro-fine.html
http://www.howtocrackanut.com/blog/2015/10/cjeu-makes-interesting-points-regarding.html
http://www.howtocrackanut.com/blog/2017/11/15/lcgt5igr7k66p0l1on5whfn2xgy1we?rq=c%e2%80%91523%2f16
http://www.howtocrackanut.com/blog?month=january-2014
http://www.howtocrackanut.com/?tag=art+16+charter+of+fundamental+rights
http://www.howtocrackanut.com/blog/2017/3/1/using-cultural-fitness-as-evaluation-criteria-breaches-eu-and-uk-public-procurement-law
http://www.howtocrackanut.com/blog/2018/3/19/recording-of-seminar-on-procurement-damages-post-fosen-linjen-available#comments-5aafb028352f533ca58aaa61
policypress.co.uk
blogs.lse.ac.uk
hartpub.co.uk

Whois Information

Whois is a protocol that is access to registering information. You can reach when the website was registered, when it will be expire, what is contact details of the site with the following informations. In a nutshell, it includes these informations;

Domain Name: HOWTOCRACKANUT.COM
Registry Domain ID: 1930721811_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.tucows.com
Registrar URL: http://www.tucowsdomains.com
Updated Date: 2018-03-06T07:09:32Z
Creation Date: 2015-05-20T15:53:18Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2026-05-20T15:53:18Z
Registrar: Tucows Domains Inc.
Registrar IANA ID: 69
Registrar Abuse Contact Email:
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone:
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientUpdateProhibited
Name Server: DNS1.P01.NSONE.NET
Name Server: DNS2.P01.NSONE.NET
Name Server: DNS3.P01.NSONE.NET
Name Server: DNS4.P01.NSONE.NET
DNSSEC: unsigned
URL of the ICANN Whois Inaccuracy Complaint Form: https://www.icann.org/wicf/
>>> Last update of whois database: 2018-07-25T04:58:51Z <<<

For more information on Whois status codes, please visit https://icann.org/epp

NOTICE: The expiration date displayed in this record is the date the
registrar's sponsorship of the domain name registration in the registry is
currently set to expire. This date does not necessarily reflect the expiration
date of the domain name registrant's agreement with the sponsoring
registrar. Users may consult the sponsoring registrar's Whois database to
view the registrar's reported date of expiration for this registration.

TERMS OF USE: You are not authorized to access or query our Whois
database through the use of electronic processes that are high-volume and
automated except as reasonably necessary to register domain names or
modify existing registrations; the Data in VeriSign Global Registry
Services' ("VeriSign") Whois database is provided by VeriSign for
information purposes only, and to assist persons in obtaining information
about or related to a domain name registration record. VeriSign does not
guarantee its accuracy. By submitting a Whois query, you agree to abide
by the following terms of use: You agree that you may use this Data only
for lawful purposes and that under no circumstances will you use this Data
to: (1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass
unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via e-mail, telephone,
or facsimile; or (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes
that apply to VeriSign (or its computer systems). The compilation,
repackaging, dissemination or other use of this Data is expressly
prohibited without the prior written consent of VeriSign. You agree not to
use electronic processes that are automated and high-volume to access or
query the Whois database except as reasonably necessary to register
domain names or modify existing registrations. VeriSign reserves the right
to restrict your access to the Whois database in its sole discretion to ensure
operational stability. VeriSign may restrict or terminate your access to the
Whois database for failure to abide by these terms of use. VeriSign
reserves the right to modify these terms at any time.

The Registry database contains ONLY .COM, .NET, .EDU domains and
Registrars.

  REGISTRAR Tucows Domains Inc.

SERVERS

  SERVER com.whois-servers.net

  ARGS domain =howtocrackanut.com

  PORT 43

  TYPE domain

DOMAIN

  NAME howtocrackanut.com

  CHANGED 2018-03-06

  CREATED 2015-05-20

STATUS
clientTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
clientUpdateProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientUpdateProhibited

NSERVER

  DNS1.P01.NSONE.NET 198.51.44.1

  DNS2.P01.NSONE.NET 198.51.45.1

  DNS3.P01.NSONE.NET 198.51.44.65

  DNS4.P01.NSONE.NET 198.51.45.65

  REGISTERED yes

Mistakes

The following list shows you to spelling mistakes possible of the internet users for the website searched .