The treaty asks us to go further than that, and the result is the last half of clause 6, which essentially excludes the application of the Criminal Code provisions and replaces them with specific enactments for aiding and abetting, counselling, conspiracy, attempting, and being an accessory after the fact.

9. Notes that patent challenges are often commercial disputes and is concerned that applying ACTA civil enforcement provisions to patents may increase investment risk, market uncertainty and threaten technological innovation, particularly in sectors where infringement is difficult to determine, slow down the diffusion of green technology essential to global efforts to combat climate change, threaten effective knowledge sharing, development of the economy of the commons and the vitality of the public domain, and shift the balance against the public interest with respect to enforcement of patents on living things, indigenous products and t ...[+++]raditional medicines; asks the Commission to address, before the initialling of the Agreement, the far ranging concerns listed in this motion with regards to the option of applying civil provisions to patents and subsequently present a report to Parliament;

4. Points to the remark made by the Court of Auditors in Annex 11.2 of its annual report to the different approach of the EESC (as well as of the Parliament) when applying the provisions of the Staff Regulations as regards the multiplication factor; points out that the EESC thereby grants its staff a financial advantage not granted by the other institutions, and that that results in higher expenses; reiterates that the provisions of the Staff Regulations concerning the multiplication ...[+++] factor should be interpreted and implemented by all the institutions in the same way; notes the EESC's intention to adapt its practice in conformity with the awaited Civil Service Tribunal's ruling;

4. Points to the remark made by the Court of Auditors in Annex 11.2 of its annual report to the different approach of the EESC (as well as the Parliament) when applying the provisions of the Staff Regulations as regards the multiplication factor; points out that the EESC thereby grants its staff a financial advantage not granted by the other institutions, and that that results in higher expenses; reiterates that the provisions of the Staff Regulations concerning the multiplication ...[+++] factor should be interpreted and implemented by all the institutions in the same way; notes the EESC's intention to adapt its practice in conformity with the awaited Civil Service Tribunal's ruling;

considers that the Commission should come forward with legal clarifications, guidelines and principles on a number of problematic topics, in particular including the application of internal market and competition rules in the field of SGIs and SGEIs while ensuring democratic accountability on the application of rules to SGIs and SGEIs to the Member States, regional, and local authorities; notes that there is a need to clarify how responsibilities are shared between the EU and Member States and considers that the sectoral approach which takes into account the specific situati ...[+++]on in the relevant sectors should be an important element in this respect; underlines in this context, that after a due evaluation of the Treaty and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice SGIs remain to be defined by the Member States; notes, moreover, that there is no legal basis for a proposal seeking the non-application of the relevant EC Treaty provisions to particular services;

If, by contrast, those rules do not constitute restrictions on freedom of movement because they concern questions of purely sporting interest and, as such, have nothing to do with economic activity, that fact means neither that the sporting activity in question necessarily falls outside the scope of the provisions of Community competition law nor that the rules do not satisfy the specific requirements of those provisions.