C-13/84

My Lords, argument that the use of the products at issue prevented them from qualifying as 'scientific' (paragraphs 27 to 30). It concluded its decision as follows (para- graphs 31 and 32): 'It must therefore be The two free universities of Brussels concluded that neither the statement of the concluded a leasing contract with Control reasons on which the decision at issue is Data Belgium NV SA (a wholly-owned based nor the Commisson's arguments subsidiary of Control Data Corporation, an before the Court have made it possible for American company which, with its affiliates, the Court to find that when the Commission manufactures computers) concerning the adopted the decision it applied clear criteria acquisition of two computers of the Cyber which were in accordance with the 170-720 and Cyber 170-750 types, both Community regulations and that in doing so manufactured in the USA. In order to it had sufficient regard for the particular import the computers free of duty Control objective characteristics of the two Data Belgium NV SA, acting in the name of computers in question. For that reason the the universities, submitted an appropriate decision adopted by the Commission should application dated 6 August 1980 to the be declared void and the matter should be Belgian customs authorities. The Belgian referred back to the Commission for recon- authorities transmitted the application to the sideration.' The Court did not give any Commission, which decided that those ruling on the scientific status of the computers could not be imported free of computers in question. Common Customs Tariff duties by its Decision 81/692 of 10 August 1981 (Official Journal 1981, L 252, p. 36). Control Data Belgium NV SA brought an action under Article 173 of the EEC Treaty for the annulment of that decision: Case 294/81 Control Data v Commission [1983] Pursuant to the Court's judgment the ECR 911. Commission adopted a fresh decision on 12 October 1983, 83/521 (Official Journal 1983, L 293, p. 24) which again decided that the computers in question could not be imponed free of Common Customs Tariff duties. In its decision in that case, the Court held that the Commission took an overrestrictive view of what could constitute an 'instrument' (paragraphs 20 to 23). It held that it had not been established that the Commission had applied a classification criterion based upon the difference between By an application dated 9 January 1984, and hardware and software, even though such lodged in due time, Control Data Belgium difference might be a valid criterion Inc., the successor of Control Data Belgium (paragraph 26). It rejected the Commission's NV SA, sought the annulment of Decision

The case arises in the framework of Council (3) the Commission's review of the general Regulation 1798/75 of 10 July 1975 uses in the Community of instruments (Official Journal 1975, L 184, p. 1) as of the type of those in question was amended by Council Regulation 1027/79 of erroneous. 8 May 1979 (Official Journal 1979, L 134, p. 1) and of Commission Regulation 2784/79 of 12 December 1979 (Official Journal 1979, L 318, p. 32). With effect Time bar from 1 July 1984 Council Regulation 1798/75 was repealed and in substance re-enacted in Council Regulation 918/83 of 28 March 1983 (Official Journal 1983, The applicant relies on Article 7 (7) of L 105, p. 1) and Commission Regulation Commission Regulation 2784/79 which 2784/79 was repealed and substantially provides: 'If, on the expiry of a period of six re-enacted by Commission Regulation months from the date on which the 2290/83 (Official Journal 1983, L 220, application was received by the p. 20), but since the contested decision was Commission, the latter has not adopted any adopted on 12 October 1983, i.e. before decision under paragraph 6, the instrument the new regulations entered into force, it or apparatus in question shall be deemed to comes under the earlier regulations, i.e. fulfil the conditions required for duty-free Council Regulation 1798/75 as amended admission.' The applicant points out that and Commission Regulation 2784/79. Commission Decision 83/521, being Moreover, Council Regulation 1798/75 adopted on 12 October 1983, was adopted must be considered in its version as nearly seven months after the Court's amended by Council Regulation 1027/79 judgment in the first Control Data case (17 (an amendment which involved in particular March 1983). The applicant therefore

In relation to the second and third grounds it is to be noted that in paragraph 14 of (b) private establishments principally the judgment in Case 216/82 Universität engaged in education or scientific Hamburg v Hauptzollamt Hamburg- research and authorized by the Kehrwieder [1983] ECR 2771, at p. 2789, competent authorities of the the Court ruled that it cannot find fault Member States to receive such with the contents of a decision which the articles duty free; and Commission has adopted in conformity with the opinion of the Committee on Duty-Free Arrangements (which, according to the recitals in the decision and the statements of (iii) instruments or apparatus of equivalent counsel for the Commission at the hearing, scientific value must not be being is the case here), save in the event of manufactured in the Community. manifest error of fact or law or misuse of power. The Court may not substitute its own view for that of the Commission as to the merits of the decision. I read the Counting the requirement of qualifying as foregoing judgment as indicating that the 'scientific instruments and apparatus' as a Court should not go into the wealth of separate one, there are thus four technical detail submitted to it in the present requirements to be fulfilled in order for case any further than is necessary to goods to qualify for duty-free treatment. establish whether or not there has been a This case concerns only the first one: manifest error of fact or law or a misuse of whether the instrument or apparatus is powers. 'scientific' within the meaning of Regulation 1798/75 as amended.

The contested decision recites (third recital) that the Commission on several occasions The applicant contends secondly that the convened a group of experts consisting of Commission operates a general policy, representatives of all Member States within which it applied in Decision 83/521, of the framework of the Committee on refusing duty-free treatment on scientific Duty-Free Arrangements pursuant to Article grounds to all computers whatsoever. The 7 (5) of Commission Regulation 2784/79, Commission denies this, citing the case of and (fourth recital) that the group paid two computers to which it has allowed close attention to those objective technical duty-free entry on scientific grounds. Those characteristics alleged to show that the computers were, it appears, smaller than computers in question were scientific those at issue in this case and of a different apparatus. Those characteristics are listed kind, being designed for work on what is and dealt with seriatim and the conclusion is called 'artificial intelligence'. Although it is reached that the computers in question were clear that previously the Commission did not scientific instruments or apparatus. take the view that computers could not be scientific instruments, it seems to me that that position has changed and it does not seem to me that the applicant has made out its contention in this case.

The applicant alleges that the examination of the objective technical characteristics of the products in question evinced in the fourth, fifth and sixth recitals to the Thirdly, the applicant argues that the decision was inadequate and submits that Commission was wrong in singling out for

(ii) floating point arithmetic, The assessment is contained in the fifth and the beginning of the sixth recital to Decision 83/521, which read as follows: (iii) simple and double precision of 60 and 120 bits respectively, 'Whereas, with respect to these charac- teristics, it appears that the first two are in (iv) individual functional units of the Cyber no way specific to the computers in question 170-750 enabling the system to perform but are found in all advanced computers, complex operations at high speed, the floating point arithmetic technology being found even in pocket calculators. As to the third characteristic, the maximum (v) instruction sets adapted to scientific precision values obtainable with these languages, imported computers can, in those extremely rare cases where such precision may be necessary, also be achieved by computers with a small number of bits per word (e. g. (vi) particular effectiveness of distributed 32 and 64) by means of appropriate (multi-processor) architecture.' software. As to the fourth characteristic, neither the use of individual functional units nor the performance of complex operations The Commission's answer is that the at high speed can be considered as being characteristics listed were taken from the requirements specific only to scientific applicant's own documentation where they computation. Furthermore, comparable were presented as being the distinctive performance to both the Cyber systems features of the computers in question: The under consideration is obtainable from other Commission is bound by the legislation to competitive computers, with the Cyber look at the Objective technical charac- 170-720 fitting into the lower speed teristics' of the object in question, and to category, while the 750 belongs in the

middle-high speed category. With respect to criterion is whether scientific languages the fifth characteristic, the manufacturer has are primarily used on them; provided that the instruction sets can also be used with languages particularly suited to (5) in considering the architecture of the commercial purposes, such as Cobol, Very/ computers the Commission addressed Update, Form, C R M , DAL; etc. As to the an irrelevant issue (multi-processors) but sixth characteristic, it should be noted that failed to address the relevant one multi-processor computer architectures are (peripheral processors which insulate also provided by other suppliers of high- the central processor from the outside performance systems, hence it is not unique world), and it used the wrong criterion to the Cyber computers; inasmuch as scientific status does not depend on whether a particular feature Whereas, as it appears from the obser- is unique. vations made, the imported instruments do not have the required objective charac- The Commission joins issue on all these teristics making them specifically suited to points. scientific research . . . '. (1) As to word-oriented hardware and Five specific reasons are given why the precision, the Commission alleges that examination of the objective technical the applicant has misinterpreted the characteristics of the products should be decision, although it does admit that regarded as inadequate: the 60-bit word length, giving 14-decimal-digit accuracy from single (1) there is manifest error about the very length operation, is a distinctive feature long words with which the computers of the Cyber computers and clearly are equipped to deal; shows that they were designed for high- precision numerical computation. On the other hand, it considers that the (2) incorrect criteria were used in assessing orientation to long words, coupled with the significance of the high precision to the non-orientation to characters, which the computers concerned can results in serious deficiencies for the work; scientific usage of the computers in question. (3) in assessing the significance of the indi- vidual functional units of the larger of (2) Floating point arithmetic, it is repeated, the two computers, the Commission is is found in all advanced computers; the mistaken about the scientific value of floating point characteristics of the the computer's having separate func- computers in question involve certain tional units and it brings in an irrelevant disadvantages for scientific use. factor when it considers whether comparable performance can be (3) On the question of individual functional obtained from other computers; units, the Commission contends that the decision at issue makes a general point (4) in dealing with the computers' that individual functional units cannot instruction sets adapted to scientific be considered as a requirement specific languages, the Commission uses the to scientific computation because other wrong criterion when it considers that computer systems have individual func- non-scientific languages can be used on tional units of various kinds which the computers in question; the relevant enable them to perform complex oper-

ations at high speed, though not neces- submitted for duty-free entry, and that sarily for scientific computation. hardware is, in the Commission's submission, perfectly appropriate, with the right software, for commercial and industrial activities. In the Commission's (4) As to instruction sets adapted to view, the applications (scientific or scientific languages, the Commission otherwise) depend on the software and concedes that the computers in question various applications may be provided on are better at handling scientific the same invariable hardware by virtue languages than commercial ones; but it of the endless flexibility of the software. denies the applicant's assertion that 'its In my opinion, whether or not this equipment was especially efficient in argument is well founded, it is a handling the Fortran scientific consideration which did not figure in language'. The Commission adduces the contested decision and therefore figures and arguments which lead it to cannot now be used to justify it. the conclusion that though the Cyber systems are efficient in the execution of Fortran programmes, they are not highly efficient when compared with (7) In regard to the seventh and eighth other high-performance general-purpose recitals of the contested decision, the computer systems and it gives certain Commission insists on admissions made ICL and IBM computers as examples. in Control Data Corporation's docu- mentation vaunting the 'multiple abilities' of the computers concerned. The Commission resists the applicant's (5) As regards the architecture of the attempt to dismiss this as mere 'sales computers in question, the Commission literature'. concedes that the basic physical construction of the computers con- • cerned is distinctive and unusual and that the construction is unlike that of In my opinion, this is not a factor which nearly all other computers; but it denies goes to Objective technical characteristics' that this peculiar construction makes it with which the present discussion is any better suited to scientific usage than concerned and can be left aside. to commercial usage, and even alleges that it may constitute a disadvantage for certain kinds of scientific computing. The reply is drafted in broad terms; the detailed technical response to the defence is contained in an expert's report - annexed (6) Referring to the seventh recital of the thereto. The expert report deals with contested decision, the Commission various points of technical detail. It also makes a point which was not raised in contains the statement that 'Control Data the application, namely that it is computers were designed for the scientific important to distinguish between market, that is the market which requires computer hardware and software. It high-speed numerical calculations done with submits that it is the software and, in great precision'. The expert concedes that particular, the application software, many of the assertions made in the which enables a computer to be used for Commission's defence are obviously correct scientific activities. In the present case it but expresses the view that the is only the hardware which has been Commission's conclusion, that a Cyber

In the rejoinder, the Commission recognizes that the computers in question have the particular hardware characteristic of being I do not accept the Commission's argument. unable to handle units of less than 60 bits, In my view the applicant presented but it avers that this can be overcome by convincing reasons why high speed in appropriate software. carrying out large calculations is not merely a matter of comfort. The applicant's expert, Dr Jackson, gave the example of work done by him concerning the properties of the element turbium, by using a mathematical model on a computer. He described his research as a 'numerical experiment' and The first of the objective technical charac- said: 'For me the computer was my teristics listed in the fourth recital to the scientific instrument'. decision — 'word-orientated hardware, the smallest addressable unit being a word of 60 bits' — is, taken on its own, clearly an unusual feature setting the computers in question apart from most others. I understand that a 'word' in this context In such circumstances extremely large means the amount of information that a numbers are involved and the differences computer transfers into and out of its between those numbers must be measured memory at a time. The length of a word with the utmost precision in order for the varies from one model of computer to experiment to yield a worthwhile result. The another. Most computers use 8, 16 or 32-bit applicant argues that the computers in words. Computers using 60-bit words are question here are designed specifically to unusual. These 60-bit words are the smallest meet this kind of requirement. Among other that the computers in question in this case of their features, the unusually long words can use or 'address'. which they use enables them to carry out massive calculations at the extreme limits of computer capacity and at the extreme limits of human knowledge involved in the kind of scientific research of which Dr Jackson gave an example. The Commission has no real The significance of this is that it enables the answer to the applicant's assertion that computers in question to do extremely large speed, and the ability to perform sophis- calculations to a high degree of precision ticated, lengthy calculations very quickly much faster than most computers. Whilst can decide whether a given piece of the applicant admits that computers built to research is done or not. This is therefore use shorter words can be made, with appro- not a mere matter of comfort. On the priate software, to carry out extremely large contrary, it is in my view a material point calculations, it points out that it would take which required serious consideration by the

Commission in reaching its decision, a Commission replied to this argument and consideration which it has not been shown pointed out that almost all recent computers to have undertaken. are word-oriented and that the precision of 60 bits referred to is achieved by many commercial computers, notably those of In the fifth recital to Decision 83/521 the IBM. Commission dealt with this first charac- teristic not on its own but along with the second characteristic, floating point It emerged in the course of the proceedings arithmetic. It dealt with them in the that the applicant wanted to give particular following terms: prominence to the fact that 60 bits was the smallest addressable unit, and that much greater word lengths could be achieved running to double this and more. The 'Whereas, with respect to these charac- Commission immediately acknowledged teristics, it appears that the first two are in that this was a special feature of the Cyber. no way specific to the computers in question That fact is no longer in dispute. But the but are found in all advanced computers, Commission pointed out that with suitable the floating point arithmetic technology software, the disadvantages this structure being found even in pocket calculators.' entails for many applicants can, to a great extent, be overcome.' Both sides accept that nowadays floating point arithmetic is widespread, is not The Commission therefore admits — and I confined to computers and is found even in think rightly — that there has been a commonplace calculators. I do not consider misunderstanding. It failed to appreciate the that any challenge to the Commission's view point being made by the applicants about on this characteristic taken in isolation can word length and hence failed to deal with it stand. in the contested decision. The Commission thus proceeded in the recital dealing with this matter on an erroneous basis and failed On the other hand, it seems that the to take account of a relevant factor in Commission now accepts that the 60-bit reaching its decision. The Commission seeks word length is not found in all advanced to avoid the effect of this error by asserting computers: this word length is specific to ex post facto that suitable software can to a the computers in question. great extent achieve a similar result. It does not seem to me to have established that and in any event the Court cannot be satisfied that on this basis the result would have been At the hearing the Commission said: the same. The erroneous approach was not therefore an immaterial error.

scientific apparatus for this purpose merely whether the apparatus is mainly suited to because it is, or may also be, suitable for scientific activities. The applicant has other purposes such as industrial or produced, to my mind, strong prima facie commercial uses: Case 72/77 Universiteits- evidence to show that the unusual word kliniek Utrecht v Inspecteur der Invoer- length is an objective technical characteristic rechten en Accijnzen [1978] ECR 189, at making these computers mainly suitable to pp. 198 and 199; Case 234/83 Gesamt- such scientific activity. The terms of the hochschule Duisburg v Hauptzollamt fifth recital and the Commission's München-Mitte [1985] ECR 327. arguments in the case seem to me to show that in relation to the unusual word length the Commission failed to investigate the right question. It did not ask whether these computers were mainly suitable, on this basis, for scientific activity even though they could be used in industrial undertakings.

CONTROL DATA v COMMISSION

allow, by all possible means, the admission In my opinion, for the Commission to free of Common Customs Tariff duties consider the issue on the basis that merely of educational, scientific and cultural because a computer with a long word length materials.' is capable of use in certain industrial concerns it does not qualify for duty-free treatment, is to adopt too restrictive an approach.

OPINION OF SIR GORDON SLYNN —CASE 13/84

In my opinion, the decision should recorded in any IBM computer on the accordingly be annulled on the basis (a) that market today is roughly 10 to the power of the applicant's real case in relation to the 45, whereas the largest number which can 60-bit word length was not considered by be recorded on a Cyber computer is 10 to the Commission, (b) that the Commission the power of 322. The Commission's failure did not properly consider whether, even to appreciate the significance of the 60-bit though the computers could be used in word length seems very likely to have led it industrial undertakings, they were still to pay so little attention to the importance mainly suitable, because of the 60-bit word of speed or the vast numbers available for length, for scientific activity and (c) the use with the instant computers. The Commission adopted too restrictive an applicant's criticism of the Commission's approach as to what is capable of consti- view on this third characteristic seems to me tuting a scientific instrument or apparatus to be a facet of the criticism directed to the for the purposes of the regulation. view taken on the 60-bit word length.

The applicant also criticizes the The fourth characteristic is listed in the Commission's treatment of the other decision as 'individual functional units of characteristics. the Cyber 170-750 enabling the system to perform complex operations at high speed'. This characteristic concerns only the larger of the two machines imported in the present The third characteristic is described as case. It is dealt with in the following terms 'simple and double precision of 60 and 120 in the fifth recital: bits respectively'. This is dealt with in the fifth recital as follows:

renders a computer scientific in orientation'. as to whether the instant computers are There is disagreement between the parties scientific instruments. only if 'functional units' is taken to refer to subdivisions of the central processor itself, i.e. into units which each perform a single operation such as addition or division. In that case, the applicant asserts that the fact that separate sections of the central processor specialize in different math- The fifth characteristic is described as ematical steps does indeed enhance the 'instruction sets adapted to scientific facility of the computers in question in languages'. This is dealt with in the fifth performing the computational needs of recital as follows: scientists. The applicant concedes that it is true that all advanced computers (whether oriented to general business applications or to science) can do complex operations at high speed, but argues that the question (which the Commission fails to address) is •With respect to the fifth characteristic, the whether the computers at issue are manufacturer has provided that the especially good at running complex instruction sets can also be used with scientific computations at high speed. In my languages particularly suited to commercial view there is force in this contention. purposes, such as Cobol, Very/Update, Although it may be right that the use of Form, CRM, DAL, etc.' individual functional units is not limited to computers needed for scientific activities and that the performance of complex oper- ations at high speed is not limited to computers required for scientific activities, the essential question as to whether the instant computers, because of the individual I understand that an 'instruction set' is a functional units and the performance of listing of all the instructions a computer can complex operations at high speed are mainly execute. It is common ground that the (rather than 'oni/ or 'exclusively') suited to instruction sets for the computers at issue scientific activities, is not addressed by the work well with Fortran, which I understand Commission in this comment. That is in my is a high-level programming language for view an error of approach and a failure to scientific and mathematical applications. In ask the right question. its pleadings the applicant asserted that the Commission used the wrong criterion here and that its equipment was especially efficient in handling Fortran. The Commission denied the latter assertion and contended that, although the machines in question were efficient in the execution of Fortran programs, they were not highly The second sentence of the comment in the efficient when compared with other high- fifth recital as to the fourth characteristic performance, general-purpose computer seems to go beyond a consideration of systems. There ensued a dispute between the 'individual functional units' dealt with in the parties as to the method by which the first sentence. I cannot see that any error of comparison was carried out. However, none law is shown in the conclusion. On the of this appears in the decision, and the other hand, it does not resolve the question question for the Court is whether the

It appears to be common ground between The fact that the instant computers can be the parties that the architecture of the used with Cobol and other program computers in question is unusual. The languages apt for commercial use is a Commission admits that the peculiarity is relevant consideration when considering that there is no continuous access to the whether the computers are 'mainly or exclu- central processing unit from outside once it sively' suited to scientific activities — just as has been set in motion and that this method it would be if they could be only used with of construction allows the central processing Fortran which is not the case here. I am not unit to concentrate on performing complex, satisfied that there is any error either in the numerical functions. But the Commission Commission's approach in taking this matter asserts that this powerful 'number- into account or in its conclusion. crunching' capacity does not necessarily demonstrate the scientific character of the machine. I accept the Commission's contention: it is common ground between the parties that the architecture of the The sixth and last characteristic listed in the machines in question is outstandingly decision is the 'particular effectiveness of suitable for complex numerical operations, distributed (multi-processor) architecture'. I but operations of that kind have to be understand that 'architecture' in this context performed in industrial or commercial acti- means the design of a computer system to vities as well as in scientific ones. Examples meet certain objectives, and that a multipro- given are motor and aircraft design, cessor is a computer system which provides animated cartoons in the film industry and each user with his own central processing weather-forecasting. On the other hand, it unit and memory. This characteristic is dealt is quite conceivable that this type of archi- with in the following terms in the fifth tecture would be inappropriate for certain recital : kinds of scientific research where constant dialogue with the central processing unit is desirable, e.g. biological research where data may change during the course of an experiment (as for example in Case 6/84 'As to the sixth characteristic, it should be Nicolet Instruments v Hauptzottamt noted that multi-processor computer archi- Frankfurt/Main Flughafen [1985] ECR 759. tectures are also provided by other suppliers of high-performance systems, hence it is not unique to the Cyber computers.' Architecture adapted to number-crunching does not o/"ifte(festablish that a computer is suited exclusively or even mainly to A given characteristic does not have to be scientific activities for the purposes of unique to a computer before it can be a Article 3 (3) of Regulation 1798/75. I do scientific instrument but it is relevant to not consider that the applicant has shown consider whether that characteristic makes it any ground for annulling the decision on possible 'to obtain high-level performances the basis of the Commission's treatment of above those normally required for industrial the sixth specific characteristic listed therein.

On the other hand, a computer with an instruments or apparatus of the type for architecture such as that in question may which duty-free admission is requested. If constitute a scientific instrument or this examination shows that the instrument apparatus if the global effect of all its or apparatus in question is used mainly for features is to suit it mainly or exclusively scientific purposes, it shall be deemed to be to scientific activities. Dr Jackson, the of a scientific nature.' applicant's expert, has provided an example of the kind of scientific research where the computer itself is the instrument of research. If the decision is annulled, as I consider it should be for the reasons given, the Commission will have to revise the global The Commission applied this test ad abun- assessment which it reached in that decision dantiam in the sixth to the twelfth recitals to so as to take account of the additional the contested decision, even though the first element of the unusual word length. This test was sufficient to refuse duty-free entry factor is not to be taken in isolation, and into the Community. It told the Court that the global assessment may well be altered by it did so because it knew that its conclusion interaction of that factor with the other on the first test was likely to be challenged. factors listed. In particular, the unusual The third ground on which the applicant architecture (sixth characteristic) and the claims annulment of the decision is that the high degree of precision (third charac- Commission's review of the general uses of teristic) may assume a different significance such products in the Community is when reassessed along with the unusual erroneous. word length used in the computers (first characteristic). Similarly, if it is right that floating point arithmetic apparently allows a greater number of digits after the decimal point, and therefore greater accuracy, this must be seen alongside the effect of the 60-bit word and the high degree of The applicant mentions two reasons in precision claimed for these machines. particular why the review was erroneous. First, the Commission ignored the actual uses of similar models listed in a chart which it supplied to the Commission. Secondly, the applicant considers that the relevant use is research and that the Commission is wrong to distinguish between General uses in the Community research carried on in a university and research carried on by a profit-oriented company. The applicant also avers that the sales literature of Control Data Corporation is an unreliable guide to the actual uses being made of equipment. The second subparagraph of Article 5 (1) of Regulation 2784/79 provides: *Where it is not possible to establish clearly on the basis of its objective technical characteristics whether an instrument or apparatus is to be regarded as a scientific instrument or The Commission disagrees with the apparatus, reference shall be made to the applicant's assessment of the use of general uses in the Community of computers of the same model installed

within the Community. It deduces from the used by a high-technology company in the applicant's own table that, out of 13 Cyber course of its business could be regarded as 750s installed in the Community, 5 are 'scientific'. In the applicant's submission a being used for scientific purposes and, out commonsense interpretation of the term 'use of 33 Cyber 720s, 14 are being so used. The for scientific purposes' would imply 'use by Commission therefore concludes that the a scientist', and such a scientist might be applicant's own table supports the engaged in research for the common good Commission's assessment at the time of the or might be engaged in research to make decision, that the Cyber computers were not profits. mainly used in the Community for scientific purposes. The Commission answers the After reflection on the arguments raised, I applicant's first point by saying that it takes do not consider the question falls to be the expression 'scientific purposes' to mean decided by the Court in the present case. the purposes of the 'acquisition of The Commission may go on to the alter- knowledge for the common good'. The native basis for decision (set out in the Commission's position is not, as suggested, second subparagraph of Article 5 (1) of that use in a profit-making environment Regulation 2784/79) only if the first basis necessarily rules out scientific status for an for decision, i.e. the objective technical instrument; but it does mean that the use by characteristics (set out in the first an industrial or commercial firm, whose subparagraph), does not make it 'possible to principal objective is the making of profits establish clearly . . . whether an instrument rather than the acquisition of knowledge for or apparatus is to be regarded as a scientific the community at large, has to be examined instrument or apparatus'. Since in the terms particularly carefully before it can be of the contested decision the Commission admitted as being 'scientific'. As stated did reach a decision on the basis of the above, the Commission resists the objective technical characteristics, the applicant's attempts to dismiss statements in consideration of the general uses in the its documentation as mere 'sales literature'. Community in the sixth to the twelfth recitals does not call for review.