ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note is about the interaction between EU law and the direct tax rules of EU Member States, and in particular what happens where there is possible incompatibility between a national direct tax provision and an EU fundamental freedom. This Practice Note includes the impact that EU law had on the direct tax rules of the UK while it was bound by EU law, ie until the end of the Brexit implementation period on 31 December 2020 (IP completion day). References in this Practice Note to judgments of the EU Court of Justice are to judgments that were decided before IP completion day, unless stated otherwise. For information on the extent to which EU law continues to have an effect on direct tax rules in the UK after IP completion day until 31 December 2023, see Practice Note: Retained EU law and tax. For information on the position from 1 January 2024, see Practice Note:

The interbank market is the international money market in which banks lend each other large sums of money for periods between one night and six months

A person intercepts a communication in the course of its transmission by means of a telecommunication system if, and only if— (a) the person does a relevant act in relation to the system, and (b) the effect of the relevant act is to make any content of the communication available, at a relevant time, to a person who is not the sender or intended recipient of the communication.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. On 27 June 2018, the provisions of Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA 2000), relating to the unlawful interception of communications data were repealed and replaced by the provisions in Parts 1 and 2 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA 2016). This includes the repeal of offences of unlawful interception under RIPA 2000, s 1 which was replaced by the offences of unlawful interception and making unauthorised disclosures under IPA 2016, ss 3 and 59. For information on the regime relating to the interception of communications under IPA 2016, see Practice Note: Interception of communications under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. For information on the background and scope of IPA 2016, see Practice Note: The regulation of intelligence gathering—an introductory guide. Where an interception offence occurred before 27 June 2018, it may still be prosecuted under RIPA 2000 despite the fact that the provision has been repealed. Where an offence is committed on or after 27

The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA 2016) provides the legal framework governing the use of covert surveillance by public bodies, a framework which was previously largely, but not exclusively, set out by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA 2000). In May 2021, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights handed down its ruling in Big Brother Watch v UK, which concerned the previous use of RIPA 2000 to authorise bulk interception activities. The Grand Chamber endorsed the need for bulk interception and international data sharing in a democratic society but recommended various safeguards (such as independent authorisation and safeguards for confidential material) which are largely reflected in IPA 2016. See News Analysis: Another blow for UK’s intelligence gathering regime (Big Brother Watch and others v the United Kingdom). To the extent that these safeguards required legislative change (additional safeguards relating to selection for examination of confidential journalistic material or sources of journalistic material obtained under a bulk interception warrant), these were enacted in

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and is no longer maintained BREXIT: 11pm (GMT) on 31 December 2020 (‘IP completion day’) marked the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period entered into following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. Following IP completion day, key transitional arrangements come to an end and significant changes begin to take effect across the UK’s legal regime. This document contains guidance on subjects impacted by these changes. Before continuing your research, see: Brexit and financial services: materials on the post-Brexit UK/EU regulatory regime [Archived]. The Interchange Fee Regulation (an EU regulation on interchange fees for card-based payment transactions) ((EU) 2015/751) (the IFR) was enacted in response to the perceived anti-competitive effect of fees paid by merchants to banks for accepting payments made using credit or debit cards. The IFR imposes a cap on such fees and introduces a set of business rules aimed at prohibiting anti-competitive behaviour. It aims to increase competition, lower prices for consumers and increase opportunities for new entrants into the payments market. The IFR entered into effect on 8 June 2015. The

The linking (whether directly or indirectly by physical or logical means, or by a combination of physical or logical means) of one Public Electronic Communications Network to another for the purpose of enabling the persons using one of them to be able: (a) to communicate with users of the other one; or (b) to make use of services provided by means of the other one (whether by the provider of that Network or by another person).

This Agreement is made on [insert date]. Parties 1 [insert name] a company incorporated in [England and Wales] under number [insert registered number] whose registered office is at [insert address] (Party A); and 2 [insert name] a company incorporated in [England and Wales] under number [insert registered number] whose registered office is at [insert address] (Party B) (each of Party A and Party B being a party and together Party A and Party B are the parties). Background (A) The parties are operators of electronic communication networks in accordance with section 32 of the Communications Act 2003. (B) The parties wish to interconnect their networks so that they can send and receive electronic communications and provide each other with services. The parties have agreed such interconnection and services on the terms and conditions of this Agreement. the parties agree: 1 Definitions and interpretation 1.1 In this Agreement: Account Manager • means the primary point of contact for each party as notified by each party to the other on or before the date of this Agreement and as modified under clause 16; Affiliate • means any entity that directly or indirectly Controls, is Controlled by, or is under common Control

CASE HUB (NOTE–appeal lodged at the CAT by Intercontinental Exchange, Inc on 11/11/2016) ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 17 October 2016; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related cases. Case facts Outline UK merger investigation into the completed acquisition by Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (ICE) of Trayport. The transaction involves a vertical overlaps in relation to exchanges and clearinghouses and the provision of software which facilitates the trading of energy commodity and utility derivatives. Latest developments On 17 October 2016, the CMA issued is final report in its phase 2 investigation into the completed acquisition of Trayport by Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) and has ordered ICE to divest the whole of Trayport.  The CMA concluded that the transaction results in a SLC in the markets for the supply of trade execution services to energy traders and trade clearing services to energy traders in the EEA; the CMA has found that ICE could use its ownership of Trayport’s platform to reduce competition between ICE and its rivals for wholesale European

Sets out the agreement between various lenders, ranking their debt and security.

An agreement entered into by debt providers to a borrower governing the priority of repayment and security between them. Commonly found in syndicated facility transactions.

Rationale The importance of intercreditor agreements has grown with the increased use of different layers of debt by a company or group of companies. The aim of the intercreditor agreement is to try and deal with potential conflicts which will inevitably arise between the different classes of secured lender on an restructuring. Intercreditor agreements are particularly important in Europe where there are a range of possible restructuring processes, compared to the US where the chapter 11 process automatically provides for creditor releases and is fairly well established and predictable for creditors (see US chapter 11—overview). Accordingly, an increasing reliance is being placed on the contractual position. An intercreditor agreement typically covers the following: • priority of different classes of lender as regards payment and security including third-party debt, intra-group debt and structural debt • methods of enforcement (and identity of any Instructing Group) • standstill provisions for junior lenders prohibiting any enforcement action (including demands, acceleration, or litigation) whilst senior liabilities remain outstanding (usually ranging from 90 to 179 days, depending on the nature of