FOR THE HEARING FOR A FULLER ACCOUNT OF THE FACTS AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE, THE RELEVANT COMMUNITY PROVISIONS AND THE OBSERVATIONS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT, WHICH ARE MENTIONED OR DISCUSSED HEREINAFTER ONLY IN SO FAR AS IS NECESSARY FOR THE REASONING OF THE COURT .
9 IN ITS OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT, THE COMMISSION STATES THAT THE STANDARD VERSIONS OF THE QUANTA RAY, QUANTEL AND J . K . LASERS APPARATUS WERE CAPABLE OF COMPARABLE PERFORMANCES . IN SO FAR AS THOSE VERSIONS DID NOT MEET THE PLAINTIFF' S REQUIREMENTS, IT WAS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH WHETHER NOT ONLY THE FOREIGN APPARATUS BUT ALSO THE COMMUNITY APPARATUS EXISTING WHEN THE ORDER WAS PLACED COULD HAVE BEEN ADAPTED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE RESEARCH PROJECT IN QUESTION WITHIN THE TIME-LIMITS LAID DOWN IN THE THIRD INDENT OF ARTICLE 3 ( 3 ) OF REGULATION NO 1798/75 . IN THE COMMISSION' S VIEW, THAT APPROACH IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE JUDGMENT OF 27 MARCH 1985 IN CASE 4/84 JOHANN-WOLFGANG-GOETHE-UNIVERSITAET (( 1985 )) ECR 991, IN WHICH THE COURT CONSIDERED THAT IT WAS INCORRECT TO COMPARE AN EXISTING FOREIGN APPARATUS WITH HYPOTHETICAL VERSIONS OF COMMUNITY APPARATUS .
10 THAT ASPECT OF THE COMMISSION' S VIEW MUST BE UPHELD . HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE COMMISSION TOOK THAT APPROACH WHEN ADOPTING THE CONTESTED DECISION . ALTHOUGH IT CONFIRMED, IN REPLY TO A QUESTION PUT BY THE COURT, THAT IT WAS AWARE AT THE MATERIAL TIME THAT THE APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION RELATED TO A SPECIAL VERSION OF THE FOREIGN APPARATUS, THAT FACT IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION WHICH WAS APPARENTLY BASED ONLY ON COMPARISON OF THE STANDARD VERSIONS OF THE THREE APPARATUS IN QUESTION .
11 MOREOVER, THE LETTERS FROM THE COMMUNITY MANUFACTURERS, QUANTEL AND J . K . LASER, WHICH THE FRENCH AND UNITED KINGDOM AUTHORITIES FORWARDED TO THE COMMISSION FOR THE PURPOSES OF THAT COMPARISON, DO NOT MAKE ANY MENTION OF ANY POSSIBILITY OF ADAPTING THE NORMAL MODELS OF THE COMMUNITY APPARATUS FOR THE RESEARCH PROJECT IN QUESTION, BUT MERELY STATE, IN GENERAL TERMS, THAT THE PERFORMANCES OF THE APPARATUS CONCERNED ARE SIMILAR .
12 SINCE THE COMMISSION HAS NOT DENIED BEFORE THE COURT THAT THE IMPORTED APPARATUS CAN ACHIEVE HIGHER CREST VALUES THAN THE NORMAL VERSIONS OF THE COMMUNITY APPARATUS AND THAT THOSE VALUES WERE NECESSARY FOR THE RESEARCH PROJECT IN QUESTION, IT MUST BE CONCLUDED THAT THE CONTESTED DECISION IS VITIATED BY MANIFEST ERRORS OF FACT AND IS THEREFORE INVALID .
13 THE REPLY TO THE QUESTION SUBMITTED BY THE HESSISCHES FINANZGERICHT MUST THEREFORE BE THAT COMMISSION DECISION 82/288/EEC OF 13 APRIL 1982 ESTABLISHING THAT THE APPARATUS DESCRIBED AS "QUANTA RAY-ND : YAG LABORATORY LASER SYSTEM, MODEL DCR-1A" MAY NOT BE IMPORTED FREE OF COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF DUTIES IS INVALID .
Decision on costs
COSTS
14 THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, WHICH HAS SUBMITTED OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT, ARE NOT RECOVERABLE . SINCE THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE, IN SO