Paul has a litigation and advisory practice concentrating on financial and private client disputes, most notably pensions, financial services and trusts. A substantial proportion of Paul’s practice also involves advising on and acting in liability and negligence disputes involving professionals.
As well as representing some of the highest profile pension schemes in the UK and several major life insurers, Paul has acted for The Pensions Regulator, the PPF and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. He has been heavily involved in advising on, and appearing in cases relating to, various provisions of the Pensions Act 2004 and he also has extensive experience of advising and litigating on various public sector and industry-wide pension schemes.
An increasing amount of Paul’s work relates to Self-Invested Personal Pension Schemes (or SIPPs). Paul acts for investors, providers and trustees in respect of claims for mis-selling of SIPPs and mis-investments within SIPPS.
A substantial proportion of Paul’s work has involved dealing with errors in pension schemes, and he has used this experience to produce a book, A Practitioner’s Guide to Correcting Mistakes in Pension Schemes, which was published by Bloomsbury Professional in March 2022. For this, Paul was awarded the prestigious Wallace Medal by the Association of Pension Lawyers.
Paul is the founder and general editor of www.pensionsbarrister.com, a website featuring articles from pensions barristers and podcast interviews with prominent pensions practitioners.
Paul regularly acts in contentious private and commercial trust disputes both in the UK and overseas, particularly Jersey and the Caribbean, involving the role of protectors, claims by beneficiaries and the duties of trustees.
Paul has an interest in legal history and is a member of the Selden Society. In his spare time, he is researching for a part-time PhD at the London School of Economics on the topic of law reporting in the Georgian era, for which he has been awarded a London Arts & Humanities Partnership Research Studentship.
Paul has regularly advised some of the largest UK pension schemes and FTSE 100 companies on various pensions issues, often of a highly technical nature. He is consistently ranked in the legal directories as a band 1 pensions silk.
Paul’s new book, A Practitioner’s Guide to Correcting Mistakes in Pension Schemes, was published by Bloomsbury Professional in March 2022. For this, Paul was awarded the prestigious Wallace Medal by the Association of Pension Lawyers.
Paul is a former Chairman of the Trustees of the Bar Council Staff Pension & Life Assurance Fund.
Paul has assisted a major firm of City solicitors with the development of detailed advice for trustee clients on how to implement GMP equalisation following the recent Lloyd’s Bank judgments, in respect of both existing and transferred members.
In addition, Paul has spent much time over recent years dealing with cases involving the equalisation of retirement ages, many of which are now the leading authorities in this area, including:
ICM Computer Group Ltd v Stribley  EWHC 2995 (Ch). Paul successfully argued in a construction application for certain words to be inserted into an equalisation amendment which had been omitted by mistake.
HR Trustees Ltd v Wembley  EWHC 2974 (Ch). The court accepted Paul’s argument that a defect in compliance with the pension scheme’s amendment power could be cured by the application of equitable principles.
Smithson v Hamilton  1 WLR 1453. The leading case on the court’s jurisdiction to correct mistakes in pension scheme documentation.
Trustee Solutions Ltd v Dubery  1 All ER 308 (affd. sub nom Cripps v Trustee Solutions Limited  Pens LR 237). This case concerned the validity of scheme amendments, group estoppels, and the effect of Barber window service on statutory winding-up priority categories.
Harland & Wolff Pension Trustees Ltd v Aon Consulting  Pens LR 201. This case concerned the effect of retrospective amendments on the Barber window service.
Paul has extensive experience of advising and acting in cases involving the rectification of pension scheme provisions, including acting for IBM in IBM United Kingdom Pensions Trust Limited v IBM United Kingdom Holdings Limited  Pens LR 469. Paul has also obtained rectification of provisions of a number of pension schemes by way of summary judgment, such as in Lloyds Bank Plc v Lloyds Banking Group Pensions Trustees Ltd  Pens LR 215, CIT Group (UK) Ltd v Gazzard  EWHC 2557 (Ch) and CitiFinancial Europe plc v Davidson  Pens LR 625.
Paul has also been involved in the successful resolution of rectification claims involving pension schemes operated by Hewlett Packard, Citibank and Lloyds Bank, BNP Paribas and is currently involved in a number of other similar cases.
Paul has obtained directions from the Court under s.48 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 for permission to administer several pension schemes, on the basis of a particular construction of their governing provisions, which has proved in suitable cases a cheaper means of obtaining a more definitive clarification of ambiguities in pension schemes than rectification. An example of such a case – the first reported case of its kind – is Re BCA Pension Plan  4 WLR 5.
Insolvency and pensions
The effect of corporate insolvency on pension schemes has long been a particular interest of Paul’s, stemming from the aftermath of the last recession, and given new impetus by the Pensions Act 2004, and in particular the establishment of the PPF.
Paul has recently advised the trustees of a scheme operated by a major airline in connection with the moratorium and restructuring provisions of the Corporate and Insolvency Governance Act 2020.
More recently, Paul successfully acted for the trustees of two high-profile insolvent schemes in groundbreaking court applications, in the Isle of Man and in England, to obtain directions for the provision of benefits in the winding-up of the schemes in a different form to those set out in the schemes’ rules.
Notable cases in this field include:
Bridge Trustees Ltd v Yates  Pens LR 261 revsd. Sub nom Houldsworth v Bridge Trustees Ltd  Pens LR 101) (the meaning of ‘underpin benefits’ in the context of the statutory priority order in s.73 of the Pensions Act 1995.
L v M Ltd  Pens LR 11 (whether agreements which operate prior to the triggering of a S 75 debt, and which reduce that debt, jeopardise the entry of the scheme into the PPF).
Phoenix Venture Holdings v Independent Trustee Services Ltd  Pens LR 379. A case involving the MG Rover Pension Scheme and the interaction of section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995 and the PPF.
Re TXU Europe plc  Pens LR 175. Whether assets set aside to fund unapproved pension arrangements are subject to a trust or equitable charge.
Paul has considerable experience of advising on the restructuring of pension scheme debts within corporate groups, following his involvement in L v M Ltd.
Paul also acted for members of the ASW Pension Scheme in their case against the UK Government in the European Court of Justice alleging breach of the 1980 EU Insolvency Directive (Robins v SoS for Work & Pensions  Pens LR 55).
Paul has acted in some of the leading cases on the construction of various provisions of the Pensions Acts, including:
Engineering Construction Industry Training Board v Swift (unreported, 29 July 2016). Whether a hybrid scheme constituted a segregated scheme for the purposes of the Employer Debt Regulations.
Industry-Wide Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme Coordinator Ltd v IWCSS Ltd  Pens LR 55. A claim to rectify drafting mistake in pensions legislation.
Hearn v Dobson  EWHC 1620 Ch. Meaning of ‘employer’ in Scheme Funding Regulations 2005.
British Vita Unlimited v British Vita Pension Fund Trustees Ltd  Pens LR 157. Relationship between the scheme specific funding provisions of the Pensions Act 2004 and scheme contributions rules.
Aon Trust Corporation Ltd v KPMG  Pens LR 301. Definition of money purchase scheme; interpretation of s.67 of the Pensions Act 1995.
Parlett v Guppy’s (Bridport) Ltd (No.2)  Pens LR 195. Court of Appeal guidance on the meaning of ‘occupational pension scheme’ in s.1 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993.
South West Trains Ltd v Wightman  Pens LR 113. First case on s.67 of the Pensions Act 1995.
Pensions Ombudsman appeals
Paul has long and extensive experience of conducting appeals from determinations of the Pensions Ombudsman, involving subjects such as:
The effect of explanatory literature on a Royal Mail Pension Scheme member’s entitlements (Royal Mail Pensions Trustees Ltd v Gosling  Pens LR 85).
The trustee’s application of surplus on a winding up (Alexander Forbes Trustee Services Ltd v Halliwell  Pens LR 269).
The incidence of costs of a successful appeal (Moores (Wallisdown) Ltd v Pensions Ombudsman (No.2)  1 WLR 1649).
The consequences of a switch of members from a final salary to a money purchase scheme Moores (Wallisdown Ltd v Pensions Ombudsman  Pens LR 73).
Paul acted for the Pensions Ombudsman in the first appeal following his decision to become more involved in appeals from his determinations: Police and Crime Commissioner for Greater Manchester v Butterworth (unreported, 10 November 2016).
Paul also successfully represented the Cabinet Office in the Court of Appeal restoring a decision of the Ombudsman relating to the meaning of “resignation” in the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme: Ellis v Cabinet Office  Pens LR 379.
Paul is currently representing the Pensions Ombudsman in a pending appeal relating to the scope of his jurisdiction.
Paul has acted regularly on behalf of The Pensions Regulator in both an advisory capacity and before the Determinations Panel and the Upper Tribunal. He acts in a wide range of matters in this respect, from the issue of financial support directions and contribution notices to the appointment of independent trustees of schemes, most notably in the context of attempted ‘pensions liberation’ exercises. Paul acted for the Pensions Regulator in a successful application to strike out a reference to the Upper Tribunal: Quarters Trustees Ltd v Pensions Regulator  Pens LR 415.
Paul’s other regulatory work in the pensions field includes:
Acting for ITV in relation to the Pensions Regulator’s determination in the Boxclever proceedings.
Acting for a major car manufacturer in a dispute relating to its use of contingent assets to quantify its PPF levy liabilities.
Representing a prominent businessman in contribution notice proceedings at a Determinations Panel hearing and at a forthcoming hearing of a reference to the Upper Tribunal.
Acting for the US creditors committee of Sea Containers, the administrators of the Lehman Brothers Group and the US division of the Nortel Networks Group in relation to the financial support directions issued by the Pensions Regulator, appearing in Nortel and Lehman v The Pensions Regulator at first instance ( Pens LR 37), in the Court of Appeal ( Pens LR 201) and in the Supreme Court ( AC 209).
Acting for a very prominent businessman in connection with contribution notice proceedings issued by the Pensions Regulator.
Acting for the PPF in relation to the ‘Crown Guarantee’ claimed by the BT Pension Scheme.
Acting for individual and corporate trustees in investigations by The Pensions Regulator into alleged mis-investment of scheme assets.
Acting for the National Employment Savings Trust on various issues regarding its establishment, funding and administration.
Acting for a large US private equity firm in relation to moral hazard issues arising from a potential takeover of a business from an insolvent UK corporate group.
Public sector schemes
Paul’s local government and public sector work includes acting for several administering authorities and participating employers of the various funds of the UK Local Government Pension Scheme, most notably representing South Tyneside BC in a judicial review of the Ministry of Justice’s refusal to meet the cost of benefits for non-active members (R v Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice  EWHC 2984 (Admin);  ICR 1352 (CA)). In addition, Paul appeared in the Northern Ireland High Court in a similar case involving the Northern Ireland Local Government Pension Scheme.
Most recently in this area, Paul has been advising a number of public sector schemes in relation to the government’s proposed remedy for the discriminatory effects of the 2015 reforms pursuant to the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022.
Paul also represented the Pensions Ombudsman in an appeal from a determination concerning benefit entitlements of an employee of a police commissioner, under the Local Government Pension Scheme: Police and Crime Commissioner for Greater Manchester v Butterworth (unreported, 10 November 2016).
Paul has been heavily involved in advising local authorities and collective investment entities on issues arising out of the Government’s proposals for asset pooling within the Local Government Pension Scheme.
Paul regularly advises the Civil Nuclear Police Authority on issues arising from pension schemes related to the civil nuclear industry.
In addition, Paul has been representing employers and administering authorities in disputes relating to the recent changes in the Local Government Pension Scheme exit credit regime.
Paul is also advising a number of UK universities and colleges in relation to their membership of the Universities Superannuation Scheme.
Paul has acted extensively in cases involving particular issues thrown up by industry-wide centralised pension schemes, such as:
The scope of the provision of ill-health early retirement benefits in the Merchant Navy Ratings’ Pension Fund, which is the subject of ongoing litigation.
The deficit repair regime for which the Trustee of the Merchant Navy Ratings’ Pension Fund sought approval of the High Court: Merchant Navy Ratings Pension Fund Trustees Ltd v Stena Line Ltd  Pens LR 239.
An attempt by the employers of the Industry-Wide Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme to rectify the terms of the delegated legislation establishing the scheme following privatisation: Industry-Wide Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme Coordinator Ltd v IWCSS Ltd  Pens LR 55.
The various issues relating to the funding of the Pilots’ National Pension Fund, as decided by Warren J ( Pens LR 261).
The application of the Scheme Funding Regulations to industry-wide schemes (Hearn v Dobson  EWHC 1620 (Ch)).
The meaning of employer participation in the Merchant Navy Officers’ Pension Fund (MNOPF Trustees Ltd v FT Everard & Sons Ltd  Pens LR 225).
The application of statutory pension increases to industry-wide schemes (BEC Pension Trustee Ltd v Sheppeck  3 All ER 154).
Paul has been commissioned to write a report on the administration practices of a major industry-wide scheme, involving an investigation into its governance and procedures over the past 30 years.
Taxation of pension schemes
Paul has been retained on behalf of several very high-profile private clients, most notably members of the UK judiciary, to advise on pension issues arising out of the tax simplification regime introduced in the Finance Act 2004.
Paul has also advised a major life assurance firm on how to mitigate the tax consequences of mistaken unauthorised payments to members of insured schemes.
Paul has also recently advised several major life assurance firms as to the taxation consequences of adding critical illness benefits to relevant life policies.
Paul also appeared for the successful appellant in Coats UK Pension Scheme Trustees v Styles  EWHC 35 (Ch), which concerned whether the old Inland Revenue limits continued to apply to pension increases following A-Day.
Paul represented the trustees of the Ford Pension Schemes and the National Association of Pension Funds in the Finance and Tax Tribunal on a key test case on the liability to VAT of pension scheme fund management charges, which was subsequently referred to the ECJ: Wheels Common Investment Fund Trustees v HMRC  Pens LR 387.
Paul has advised several entities, including major accountancy firms, in connection with the establishment, operation and regulation of master trust pension schemes.
Personal pension schemes
For many years Paul was heavily involved in the litigation arising from the review into the mis-selling of personal pensions. He acted for a wide range of insurers and financial advisers. Including:
Representing a large Canadian insurer on a five-year, £80m dispute with another Canadian insurer over the conduct of a mis-selling review, which culminated in a two week arbitration.
Representing a financial adviser in a dispute over limitation in relation to a mis-selling claim: Loosemore v Financial Concepts  Lloyd’s Rep PN 235.
More recently, Paul has acted for investors, providers and trustees in claims relating to SIPPs, both on the advice to enter into the SIPP and on the investment of SIPPs assets. In addition, Paul acts for the Financial Services Compensation Scheme in claims against SIPPs providers and trustees assigned by investors following payment of compensation to them. Most recently, he has been advising the Scheme following the high-profile administration of Hartley Pensions Ltd.
Pensions and divorce
Paul has acted in several high net worth divorce cases involving claims for pension sharing orders in respect of domestic and overseas pension schemes.
Other recent/notable cases include:
Punter Southall Governance Services Ltd v Benge  EWHC 193 (Ch) in which Paul successfully argued for the approval of a decision by the pension scheme trustee to pay a death benefit to one of the scheme’s members, in the face of opposition by another member.
Keymed Ltd v Hillman  EWHC 485 (Ch), in which Paul successfully argued that pension scheme trustees owe no duties to the scheme employer with regard to the investment of pension scheme assets.
Spirit Energy Resources Ltd v Marathon Oil  EWCA Civ 11: whether pension deficit contributions were payable under an oil and gas joint venture agreement.
Shannan v Viavi Solutions UK Ltd  Pens LR 344: the extent to which the presumption of regularity and the Re Duomatic principle can validate the substitution of a principal employer of a pension scheme.
Dutton v FDR Ltd  Pens LR 221: the first case to consider how an underpin operates in relation to the rate of increases for pensions in payment under a pension scheme’s rules, following a defective trust deed executed in 1991 which purported to change the rate at which pensions in payment were increased from 3% to 5% LPI.
Granada Group Ltd v Law Debenture Pension Trust Corp Plc  BCC 57: concerning whether a secured unfunded retirement benefits scheme required shareholder approval under s.320 of the Companies Act 1985.
Sterling Insurance Trustees Ltd v Sterling Insurance Group Ltd  EWHC 2665 (Ch): concerning the proper interpretation of a limitation on an amendment power where an attempt had been made to break the final salary link to benefits on the closure of a pension scheme.
Briggs & Ors v Gleeds (Head Office) & Ors  Ch 212: concerning the consequences of the invalidity of a number deeds seeking to amend a pension scheme.
Acting for IBM on the leading case on the employer’s duty of good faith: IBM UK Holdings Ltd v Dalgeish  Pens LR 335;  Pens LR 99.
Acting for several schemes in disputes with Aviva relating to the construction of a deferred annuity policy.
Acting for a group of policyholders seeking to block the transfer of the long-term insurance business of Axa Equity & Law (Re Axa Equity & Law Life Assurance Society Ltd  1 All ER Comm 1010).
Advising Scottish Widows on the scope of the amendment powers in its schemes.
Advising the Prudential on alterations made to its structured buyout policies.
Advising Scottish Equitable on issues arising on the calculation of transfer values under its section 32 buyout policies.
Paul has regularly acted for The Pensions Regulator in pensions liberation cases, including hearings before the Determinations Panel.
A Practitioner’s Guide to Correcting Mistakes in Pensions Schemes – book review
Paul Newman KC‘s book: ‘A Practitioner’s Guide to Correcting Mistakes in Pension Schemes’, has been reviewed in the latest issue of Private Client Business. Reviewer Mark Herbert states in his opening line: “This book is graced with a foreword by... Read more
The Omniscient Draftsman – the answer to Virgin Media?
Paul Newman KC has written an article on the principles of statutory construction, which might be relevant to the interpretation of a term of art used in a statutory instrument – such as “accrued rights” in the contracting-out legislation recently... Read more
Union challenge to imposition of McCloud costs on members rejected by High Court
Paul Newman KC has written a summary of the decision published earlier this week in R (aoa Fire Brigades Union) v HM Treasury/ R (oao The British Medical Association) v HM Treasury. To read Paul's article, please click here
Repocussions? Legal claims arising out the liquidity crisis
Paul Newman KC looks at leveraged LDIs and repo contracts, the statutory prohibition on borrowing and potential misselling claims in this article. This article was first published on Paul’s website pensionsbarrister.com Read “Repocussions? Legal claims arising out of the liquidity... Read more
Paul has appeared in international arbitrations, most recently a UNICITRAL arbitration in Bermuda concerning a breach of warranty claim in a share sale agreement involving a major multinational telecommunications company. The case involved extensive cross-examination of factual and expert witnesses.
Paul’s work in this area has also involved a number of international commercial and private trust disputes of a highly confidential nature.
Paul has extensive experience of acting for and against professionals in claims concerning the failure to equalise the retirement ages of pension scheme members, relating to schemes operated by companies such as Group 4, Harland & Wolff, MFI, Fujitsu, Life Sciences International, IMG, Hewlett Packard, BNP Paribas, Honda, Siemens and Sopra Steria. Paul has been consistently recommended as a leading silk in Chambers & Partners.
Recent/notable cases include:
Acting for a national firm of solicitors in a dispute with the Pension Protection Fund relating to the drafting of contingent asset documents.
Acting for a well-known firm of solicitors defending a claim for not identifying a failure by other advisers properly to equalise male and female member pension benefits.
Acting for a firm of consulting actuaries defending a claim for several million pounds from an employer following the failed conversion of a final salary scheme to a money purchase arrangement, which resulted in a very favourable settlement for the firm.
Acting for the trustees of a scheme against benefits consultants over the failure properly to implement proposed pension increases, resulting in a settlement worth several millions of pounds to the scheme.
Acting for the trustees of the Royal Doulton Pension Scheme in a claim for negligence against the scheme actuaries relating to anti-franking legislation.
Acting for trustees of settlements in negligence proceedings arising out of a failed attempt to secure Beddoe directions for proceedings against former trustees.
Acting for a policyholder in a £1m dispute with the Prudential Plc, concerning the validity of a deferred annuity contract taken out when the policyholder earned no UK-taxable income.
Acting for a firm of insurance brokers in a £6m dispute with the actuary of its pension scheme, relating to his mis-calculation of the scheme’s FRS 17 liabilities.
Acting for Stagecoach Group in a dispute with a firm of solicitors regarding advice given on the pension scheme liabilities of a target company.
Paul has considerable experience acting in Private and Commercial Trust matters. His experience in this area dates back to his early years in practice working on cases relating to Lloyds Names’ Premium Trust Deeds. Paul’s expertise includes advising and acting on trust matters, both in the UK and overseas, particularly Jersey and the Caribbean, involving disputes concerning the role of protectors, claims by beneficiaries and the role and duties of trustees.
Notable/recent cases include:
Acting for a very high profile overseas-resident businessman in connection with a dispute relating to several family trusts.
Acting for one of the professional trustees in the long-running litigation involving the Blenkinsopp estate in Northumberland: Howell v Lees-Millais.
Acting in the heavily-contested trust litigation involving proceedings in Switzerland, Liechtenstein and the UK worth over £75 million, which led to a Court of Appeal decision on an important point of procedure: Labrouche v Frey  1 WLR 3160.
Acting for the life tenant of a £15m settlement in a breach of trust claim brought against the trustees.
Representing corporate defendants in a £400m intellectual property/breach of confidence claim, in which proprietary interests are claimed over the corporate defendants’ property.
Acting for the estate of the settlor of a trust of the proceeds of a life assurance policy worth £5m, in a dispute over the distribution of the policy proceeds.
Advising a Jersey trustee company on various issues raised by a disgruntled beneficiary of a sizable discretionary trust.
To read and download this piece as a pdf, please click here. Commentary by Paul Newman QC We all make mistakes; and we are often judged, not by the mistake itself, but by how we respond to it. In my... Read more
In the course of his extensive pensions practice, Paul has gained considerable experience in advising and representing clients on pension taxation issues, particularly since the introduction of the tax simplification regime by the Finance Act 2004. Amongst his high-profile clients in this area are members of the UK judiciary, for whom Paul acted in their discussions with the Ministry of Justice over the effect of that regime on the Judicial Pension Scheme.
Other notable cases include:
Advising a major life assurance firm on how to mitigate the tax consequences of mistaken unauthorised payments to members of insured schemes.
Advising other major life assurance firms as to the taxation consequences of adding critical illness benefits to relevant life policies.
Appearing for the successful appellant in Coats UK Pension Scheme Trustees v Styles  EWHC 35 (Ch), which concerned whether the old Inland Revenue limits continued to apply to pension increases following the introduction of the new tax regime.
Appearing for the trustees of the Ford Pension Schemes and the National Association of Pension Funds in the Finance and Tax Tribunal on a key test case on the liability to VAT of pension scheme fund management charges, which was subsequently referred to the ECJ: Wheels Common Investment Fund Trustees v HMRC  Pens LR 387.
Advising the trustees in bankruptcy of a prominent professional footballer on the tax consequences of bringing assets held in a Guernsey Retirement Annuity Trust Scheme onshore for the benefit of his creditors.
An Enlightened Approach to Taxpayer Confidentiality: The Story of the First Income Tax
To download and read this piece as a PDF, please click here. Commentary by Paul Newman QC Confidentiality is a fundamental concept at the heart of the modern taxation system. The need to strike a balance between the taxpayer’s right to... Read more
Paul is a contributor to leading practitioners’ works on pensions law and on the law of corporate receivers (Lightman & Moss)
He has written several articles on pensions and financial services topics, including an influential analysis of rectification issues as they relate to pension schemes, published in Trust Law International
Paul was responsible for the chapter on expert witnesses in Chambers’ Guide to the Civil Procedure Rules
Paul is the founder and General Editor of www.pensionsbarrister.com, a website featuring articles from pensions barristers and podcast interviews with prominent pensions practitioners.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookies should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
Statistic cookies help website owners to understand how visitors interact with websites by collecting and reporting information anonymously.
Keeping this cookie enabled helps us to improve our website.
Please enable Strictly Necessary Cookies first so that we can save your preferences!
WHAT ARE COOKIES AND HOW DO WE USE THEM?
A cookie is a small text file which is stored on your computer, tablet or phone when you visit a website. These cookies allow us to distinguish you from other users of our website. This helps us to provide you with a good experience when you browse our website and also allows us to improve our website.
The law states that we can store cookies on your device if they are strictly necessary for the operation of this site. For all other types of cookies we need your permission.
This site uses different types of cookies. Some cookies are placed by third party services that appear on our pages.
You can at any time change or withdraw your consent from the Cookie Declaration on our website.