Federation of Technological Industries & Ors, R (on the application of) v Customs and Excise & Anor

Federation of Technological Industries & Ors, R (on the application of) v Customs and Excise & Anor

The court found the Claimants have substantial prospects of success in their contention that the impugned provisions are not authorised by Community law, specifically Articles 21(3) and 22(8) of the Sixth Directive, and directed a reference to the European Court. Other grounds of challenge, including incompatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights and claims of disproportionality, were rejected as unfounded.

Parties
Claimants: Federation of Technological Industries and 53 Others; Defendants: The Commissioners of Customs and Excise; Defendant: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Permission and Reference to the European Court
Outcome
Permission granted for judicial review and reference to the European Court on the issue of vires under Community law; all other grounds rejected.
Legal Topics
Value Added Tax, Community Law Compatibility, Human Rights Compatibility, Judicial Review, Statutory Interpretation
Tax Law European Union Law Human Rights Law Value Added Tax Community Law Compatibility Human Rights Compatibility Judicial Review Statutory Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Federation of Technological Industries and 53 Others

Claimants

The Commissioners of Customs and Excise

Defendants

The Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Permission and Reference to the European Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraphs 4(1A) and (2) of Schedule 11 and section 77A of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 are contrary to Community law and incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights
  2. 2 Whether the UK had vires under Community law to enact the impugned provisions
  3. 3 Whether the provisions are disproportionate or breach principles of Community law

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the Claimants have substantial prospects of success in their contention that the impugned provisions are not authorised by Community law, specifically Articles 21(3) and 22(8) of the Sixth Directive, and directed a reference to the European Court. Other grounds of challenge, including incompatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights and claims of disproportionality, were rejected as unfounded.

Court Disposition

Permission granted for judicial review and reference to the European Court on the issue of vires under Community law; all other grounds rejected.

Orders

  • Permission to apply for a declaration that the impugned provisions are not authorised by Community law is granted.
  • Reference to the European Court of Justice is directed and expedited.