2.

The purpose of the first question is to obtain an interpretation of the expression ‘scientific instruments and apparatus’. The Finanzgericht wishes to know if the definition of that expression to be found in Article 1 of Regulation No 1027/79 of 8 May 1979 (Official Journal 1979 L 134, p. 1) can be regarded as an appropriate interpretation of Regulation No 1798/75 and can therefore also be applied to events, such as those in the main proceedings, which took place before the entry into force of that provision. It should be borne in mind that the original version of Regulation No 1798/75 did not provide a detailed definition of the expression in question. The purpose of that regulation was to implement the Florence Agreement on the Importation of Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials, drawn up on the initiative of Unesco in 1950, (United Nations Treaty Series Vol. 131, p. 26) Article 3 (1) of the regulation merely states that: ‘Scientific instruments and apparatus ... mported exclusively for educational purposes or for pure scientific research may be admitted free of Common Customs Tariff duties provided: (a) they are intended for: either public establishments principally engaged in education or scientific research, including those departments of public establishments which are principally engaged in education or scientific research; or private scientific or educational establishments authorized by the competent authorities of the Member States to receive such articles duty-free, and provided (b) instruments or apparatus of equivalent scientific value are not being manufactured in the Community.’ Article 3 (3) provides that ‘pure scientific research’ means research carried out for noncommercial purposes. When asked to interpret those provisions by the Tariefcommissie, Amsterdam, the Court stated that ‘the words “scientific instrument or apparatus” ... refer to an instrument or apparatus possessing objective characteristics which make it particularly suitable for pure scientific research’. The Court also made clear that: ‘Since such a purpose must be assessed objectively, on the basis only of those characteristics, the fact that the instrument or apparatus is used, in industry or elsewhere, for commercial purposes does not of itself necessarily exclude its being of a scientific nature within the meaning of Regulation No 1798/75, and hence its right to exemption from customs duties..., provided that the other requirements laid down for those purposes are also satisfied’ (judgment of 2 February 1978, Case 72/77, Universiteitskliniek v Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen, [1978] ECR 189). It was only in Regulation No 1027/79 that the words in question were precisely defined. According to the first indent of Article 3 (3) of Regulation No 1798/75, as amended by Regulation No 1027/79, they mean any instrument or apparatus ‘which, by reason of its objective technical characteristics and the results which it makes it possible to obtain, is mainly or exclusively suited to scientific activities’. In my opinion, however, that definition adds nothing significant to what it was already possible to extract, and what the Court extracted from an interpretation of the original provision. As I have already observed, the Court held in the Universiteitskliniek case that the instrument must possess objective characteristics such as to make it particulary suitable for scientific research. The only new element required by the 1979 provision is that the characteristics should be ‘technical’. However, that adjective is already included in what the Court has said. I cannot imagine what characteristic an apparatus might have which could be objectively considered to render the apparatus suitable for scientific activities and which is not also, and necessarily, technical. That is not all. Recently, when considering the original version of Regulation No 1798/75, the Court did not in fact exclude the possibility of relying on the version as amended in 1979 when interpreting the original version (judgment of 10 November 1983, Case 300/82, Gesamthochschule Essen v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf, [1983] ECR 3643). I conclude from that that the reply to the first question submitted by the national court should be in the affirmative: the definition contained in Article 1 of Regulation No 1027/79 is an ‘appropriate interpretation’ of Regulation No 1798/75.