3.

Let us now consider the first question. It may be noted that neither the plaintiff in the main proceedings nor the Finanzgericht states clearly why there is any doubt as to the validity of the decision. As has been stated, however, it is clear from the order that the Finanzgericht considers that that decision contains formal defects and errors of law and, in particular, that it infringes the rules which define the scientific nature of an apparatus. The Finanzgericht's reference to the judgment in Control Data can be read only in that sense. I will begin by considering the formal objections. It is well known that such decisions are commonly criticized for lack of an adequate statement of grounds. I do not believe, however, that such criticism may be levelled at the decision in question; the statement of the grounds on which it is based is indeed short but not to the point of constituting an infringement of essential procedural requirements. The Court dealt expressly with that problem in its judgment of 25 October 1984 in Case 185/83 ([1984] ECR 3623). The Court held that although the statement of reasons required by Article 190 of the Treaty must disclose clearly the reasoning of the Community authority in such a way as to make the parties concerned aware of the reasons for the measures and thus enable them to defend their rights, it is not necessary for that body to give details of all the factual and legal aspects which it has taken into account. The Court stated further that the question of whether or not the statement of grounds satisfies those requirements is to be settled by reference not only to the wording of the decision but also to its context and to all the rules governing the matter in question. In this case the brevity of the decision does not prevent the statement of grounds from satisfying the minimum requirements of Article 190. The decision is addressed to the Member States, whose experts took part in the sessions of the Committee on Duty-Free Arrangements and are sufficiently familiar with the subject to be able to assess the scope of the decision. Moreover, the decision contains the essential information which enables the scientific institute concerned or the importing undertaking to assess possible defects such as manifest error or misuse of power (paragraphs 38 and 39 of the decision). Thus the statement of grounds of a decision relating to exemption from customs duty must be assessed on the basis of those simple principles. Moreover, as has been stated, if they are applied to the decision in question, it must be concluded that it is not open to criticism. Nor would it appear to be vitiated on substantive grounds. As we know, the Finanzgericht believes that it is possible to establish the contrary on the basis of the judgment in Control Data. However, I do not consider that the reference to that case is relevant. In that case the Commission had claimed that a calculator could, by definition, never be regarded as a scientific apparatus. It has not, however, made that mistake in this case. In this instance it in no way relied upon generalized definitions; it reached its decision by examining the characteristics of the apparatus in the light of the criteria laid down in the Community rules.