C-164/86

Mr President, asked the Zolltechnische Prüfungs- und Members of the Court, Lehranstalt (Customs Laboratory and Training College) to determine whether the 1. The Court is requested to give a conditions for exemption were satisfied. In preliminary ruling on a question submitted its turn, that institution called upon the to it by the Hessisches Finanzgericht Federal Minister for Finance to initiate the (Finance Court, Hesse) in connection with procedure provided for in Article 7 of proceedings between Universität Bielefeld Commission Regulation No 2784/79 of 12 and Hauptzollamt (Principal Customs December 1979 (Official Journal 1979, L Office) Gießen. In particular, the referring 318, p. 32); and on conclusion of that court asks you to rule as to the validity of a procedure the Commission determined, by measure whereby the Commission of the Decision N o 82/288 of 13 April 1982 European Communities determined that an (Official Journal 1982, L 131, p. 27), that American-produced laser apparatus did not the DCR-1A apparatus could not be qualify for exemption from customs duty. granted an exemption since '. . . on the basis of information received from Member The proceedings were brought as a result of States, apparatus of scientific value equi- the importation into the Federal Republic of valent to the l a i d apparatus, capable of Germany (in December 1979) of a laser being used for the same purposes, are system manufactured in the United States of currently being manufactured in the America, which had been ordered by Community'. That applied to the 'YG 482' Universität Bielefeld for the purposes of a laser apparatus manufactured by Quantel in France and the 'HY series' apparatus research project. In order to secure produced by J. K. Lasers Ltd in the United exemption from duty under the Common Kingdom. Customs Tariff the University made application to the competent authority, describing the apparatus as 'YAG-Laser', Model 'Quanta Ray DCR-1A', and stated Universität Bielefeld brought an action that the research project was concerned before the Hessisches Finanzgericht against with 'atomic excitation processes in intense the German customs administration's photon fields' in which simultaneous electric measure which reiterated that decision, photon scattering on free atoms was to be maintaining that the output of the American investigated. It was also stated in the laser apparatus was much better suited to application that the output of which the the purposes of the research project than American laser system was capable was that of the Community-produced apparatus. necessary for the proper implementation of In particular, the plaintiff observed that, in the project and that such output could not view of the information furnished by it, be attained using similar systems, including there was only one possible explanation for those manufactured in the Community by the measure of 13 April 1982, namely that the undertakings J. K. Lasers and Quantel. the Commission had not taken account of the fact that the instrument at issue was not the standard model — in respect of which The customs authorities granted a the Commission had issued a number of provisional exemption, but subsequently negative decisions in the past (for example,

Decision 82/83 in respect of which the important. Paragraph (1) thereof makes Court delivered a judgment on 27 March duty-free admission conditional upon 1985 in Case 4/84 /ohann-Wolfgang- 'instruments or apparatus of equivalent Goethe- Universität v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt scientific value . . . not being manufactured [1985] ECR 991) — but was a special and in the Community' and the second indent of significantly upgraded version (DCR-1AA Article 3 (3) provides that such equivalence 1320). is to be assessed 'by comparing the charac- teristics and specifications of the

YAG Laboratory performance would be comparable to that Laser System, model DCR-1A" apparatus expected of the latter'. invalid in view of the fact that although apparatus of that kind were, as the Commission states, manufactured in the 3. It is appropriate to point out at the outset Community, their performance was inferior that this dispute displays numerous simi- to that of the imported apparatus designated larities with the Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe- DCR-1AA 1320, regard being had in Universität case mentioned earlier, but, by particular to the special purpose that was contrast with that case, the solution here contemplated?' depends upon the satisfaction of formal

Those regulations have been supplemented by the Commission (b) determine whether, in setting out the regulation mentioned earlier, N o 2784/79 results of its inquiries, the Commission of 12 December 1979, which superseded the complied with the obligation placed preceding implementing regulation, N o upon it by Article 190 of the Treaty. 3195/75 of 2 December 1975 (Official Journal 1975, L 316, p. 17). As regards the first point, I am of the opinion that the logic of the procedure For the purposes of this case, Article 3 of followed by the Commission is incorrect, Regulation N o 1798/75 is particularly albeit for reasons which coincide only in

part with the hypothesis put forward by importance to the implementation of its Universität Bielefeld in the main project. proceedings and in the proceedings before this Court. It is a fact that the Commission's opinion concerned not — as would seem to It is appropriate at this stage to draw be apparent from the decision — the attention to the Commission's obligation to standard model but the improved apparatus: give an exhaustive statement of the reasons this is proved both by the Commission's for its measures to give an opportunity to reply to a question put to it by the Court in the 'parties of defending their rights, to the that connection and, in the documents Court of exercising its power of review, and before the Court, by the report of the to the Member States and to all interested meetings held by the Committee on nationals of ascertaining the circumstances Duty-free Arrangements and the letter in which . . . the Treaty has been applied' which Quantel sent to the French Ministry (see, albeit in connection with an action

invalidity. The statement of the reasons on which the measure is based in fact lacks the principal feature of the comparative However, whatever the Commission says, assessment which the Commission is obliged none of this was done. The stereotyped text to make, namely a detailed account of the of the decision and the documents to which reasons for which apparatus as to whose I have referred do not disclose any grounds diversity there is no doubt are to be for concluding that, although aware of the regarded as equivalent for the purposes of higher output of the American laser Article 3 (3) of Regulation No 1798/75; nor apparatus, the Commission took account of can it be said that those reasons have it in making its appraisal. Indeed, both the emerged in the course of the proceedings text of the decision and those documents (that being, in substance, the situation tend to indicate the contrary. Thus, in the referred to in paragraph 31 of the judgment minutes of the meetings of the Committee in Case 294/81). on Duty-free Arrangements it is stated that the decision was adopted 'après une longue discussion et compte tenu de nombreux This conclusion having been reached, it précédents'.

They prove the 'crest' values which Universität that, as the University has always main- Bielefeld, without being contradicted, has tained, wide-ranging inquiries were in fact always described as being of decisive made.