Judgment_paragraph 21 · Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg (C-465/15)

21The ordinary meaning of the words ‘electricity used … for chemical reduction’ in the various language versions of the third indent of Article 2(4)(b) suggests that a remote connection between a use of the electricity and the chemical reduction is insufficient to make that use fall within the scope of that provision, just as the use of electricity which is not required to complete the chemical reduction is insufficient for that purpose.

Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg (C-465/15)

Key facts

History · 1 version

Connections