Peter Jenkins Partner Ernst & Young considers the implications of the Advocate-General's Opinion in the Arthur Andersen Case and sets out why it is wrong and should not be followed by the ECJ
The Advocate General (M Poiares Maduro) delivered his opinion in Case C472/03 on 12 January and the full Court Judgment is expected on 3 March. The AG's opinion may be regarded as a stone thrown into a pond to see what ripples are caused; in a case where the ripples are very extensive (as here) the Court does seem prepared to take note and adjust its thinking accordingly particularly where there is widespread criticism of the potential commercial damage and disruption likely to be caused by a particular interpretation.
This case concerns the provision...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
Peter Jenkins Partner Ernst & Young considers the implications of the Advocate-General's Opinion in the Arthur Andersen Case and sets out why it is wrong and should not be followed by the ECJ
The Advocate General (M Poiares Maduro) delivered his opinion in Case C472/03 on 12 January and the full Court Judgment is expected on 3 March. The AG's opinion may be regarded as a stone thrown into a pond to see what ripples are caused; in a case where the ripples are very extensive (as here) the Court does seem prepared to take note and adjust its thinking accordingly particularly where there is widespread criticism of the potential commercial damage and disruption likely to be caused by a particular interpretation.
This case concerns the provision...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
90a1d87b-c1b5-43c3-a720-cd324830adee.tmb-editorspic.jpg?sfvrsn=1b2d0a7e_1)
