5.

I am obviously not in a position to express an opinion on whether or not that claim is technically justified, just as I cannot say whether or not the contrary conclusion arrived at by the experts is justified (although the events to which I have just referred give rise to many serious doubts in that connection). According to the case-law of the Court, however, no decision on such a matter is expected of the Court. The Court's task is to decide whether the Commission, when comparing the two lasers, took due account of the characteristic which the Goethe University considered essential for the carrying out of its project; and, if it failed to do so, whether it has adopted an invalid decision. I believe that in this case the view that the decision is invalid is inescapable. In particular, it seems to me that the Commission made an error of law in its interpretation of the rules governing dutyfree importation. The Commission states in its observations that those rules must be read in such a way that the customs authorities can apply them easily. That implies that the point of reference for the comparison of apparatus is not the specific project in all its details but the type of project. Otherwise it would be all too easy to present the details of the research project in such a way as to make choice of the imported instrument unavoidable. The Commission states in the summary of its position at page 7 of its observations that ‘a decision regarding duty-free importation must certainly take account... of the circumstances of the particular case, but... it must always be of a general character. That means that the decision must be taken on the basis of general criteria and that it is not possible to study each research project in complete detail’. As I have already indicated, I disagree with that argument. In my view, it is contrary both to the very terms of the rules in question, which require an assessment of the particular characteristics of an apparatus in relation to the specific work which is to be carried out, and to the purpose for which those rules were adopted. The purpose of Regulation No 1798/75 is in fact to facilitate the free exchange of ideas as well as the exercise of cultural activities and scientific research within the Community, by allowing ‘by all possible means’ the admission of instruments free of customs duties. It is therefore safe to assume that the legislature did not consider that it was lawful or even proper to make only a summary examination of research projects in order to make customs officers' work easier. On the contrary, everything suggests that the legislature envisaged an extremely thorough examination; this is borne out in particular by the fact that provision was made for consultation of experts within the framework of the Committee on Duty-Free Arrangements in cases where the national authorities consider that they are unable to arrive at a satisfactory decision after consultation with the ‘trade circles concerned’ (Regulation No 2784/79, Article 7 (1) and (2)) But that is not all. The rules defining the documents which the scientific establishment must furnish in support of its application for importation free of customs duty must be considered. Why ask it to supply all relevant information on the technical characteristics of the instrument being imported, to indicate the name or business name of the Community undertakings which have been approached with a view to obtaining an equivalent instrument, and to set out reasons for which it considers that the latter would not be suitable for the ‘particular research’ to be undertaken? Why require so much detailed information if not for the purpose of permitting the experts to make the comparison by examining the research in detail? Moreover, as this Court has asked, is it not solely by examining the research in detail that it is possible to assess the ‘capacity [of the instruments] to carry out the experiments for which the user intended to use the imported instruments’?