header-logo header-logo

10 October 2014
Issue: 7625 / Categories: Case law , Tax , EU , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

EU—Taxation

Holger Forstmann Transporte GmbH & Co KG v Hauptzollamt Munster C-152/13 , [2014] All ER (D) 115 (Sep)

The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that the term “standard tanks”, referred to in the first indent of Art 24(2) of Council Directive (EC) 2003/96 (restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity) should be interpreted as not excluding tanks fixed permanently to commercial motor vehicles intended for the direct supply of fuel to those vehicles when the tanks had been fitted by a person other than the manufacturer, in so far as the tanks enabled fuel to be used directly, both for the purpose of propulsion of the vehicles and, where appropriate, for the operation, during transport, of refrigeration systems and other systems.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll