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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll