QUESTION SHALL BE DEEMED TO FULFIL THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR DUTY-FREE ADMISSION ". THE APPLICANT EMPHASIZES THAT, SINCE COMMISSION DECISION NO 83/521 WAS ADOPTED ON 12 OCTOBER 1983, IT WAS ADOPTED NEARLY SEVEN MONTHS AFTER THE COURT DELIVERED ITS JUDGMENT IN THE FIRST CONTROL DATA CASE ( 17 MARCH 1983 ). CONSEQUENTLY, IT MAINTAINS THAT THE DECISION MUST BE DECLARED VOID INASMUCH AS THE COMMISSION FAILED TO ADOPT IT WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THAT JUDGMENT .
7 THAT ARGUMENT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED . AS WAS POINTED OUT BY THE COMMISSION, BELGIUM REQUESTED THE COMMISSION, BY A LETTER DATED 7 APRIL 1983, TO INSTITUTE THE PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR BY ARTICLE 7 OF REGULATION NO 2784/79 . AFTER THE COMMISSION HAD CONSULTED A GROUP OF EXPERTS IT ADOPTED THE DECISION DEFINITIVELY ON 7 OCTOBER 1983, THAT IS TO SAY SIX MONTHS AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH IT RECEIVED THE NEW BELGIAN REQUEST . CONSEQUENTLY, IT MUST BE HELD THAT DECISION NO 83/521 WAS ADOPTED WITHIN THE PERIOD LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 7 ( 7 ) OF REGULATION NO 2784/79 AND HENCE THAT IT WAS NOT ADOPTED OUT OF TIME .
SUBSTANCE
8 IN ESSENCE THE APPLICANT PUTS FORWARD TWO SUBMISSIONS :
( I ) THAT THE ASSESSMENT OF THE OBJECTIVE TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS WAS MISTAKEN; AND
( II ) THAT THE EXAMINATION OF THE GENERAL USES TO WHICH THE INSTRUMENTS IN QUESTION ARE PUT IN THE COMMUNITY WAS ERRONEOUS .
9 WITH REGARD TO THE EXAMINATION OF THE GENERAL USES TO WHICH SUCH APPARATUS IS PUT, PROVIDED FOR BY ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION NO 2784/79, IT MUST BE STATED THAT SUCH AN EXAMINATION IS TO BE CARRIED OUT ONLY AS AN ALTERNATIVE, WHERE THE OBJECTIVE TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE IMPORTED APPARATUS ARE INSUFFICIENT TO CLEARLY ESTABLISH ITS NATURE . IT FOLLOWS THAT, IF THE COMMISSION FAILED TO EXAMINE THE OBJECTIVE TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE APPARATUS IN QUESTION CORRECTLY, IT COULD NOT BASE ITS DECISION ON THE SECOND GROUND CONCERNING THE USE OF SUCH APPARATUS IN INDUSTRY .
10 WITH REGARD TO THE OBJECTIVE TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE COMPUTERS, THE APPLICANT MAINTAINS THAT THEY WERE INCORRECTLY ASSESSED BY THE COMMISSION . IN PARTICULAR IT STATES THAT THERE WAS A MANIFEST ERROR IN RELATION TO THE COMPUTERS' ABILITY TO HANDLE LONG WORDS . IN THE CYBER COMPUTERS THE SMALLEST POSSIBLE UNIT OF INFORMATION CAPABLE OF BEING PROCESSED IS A "WORD" OF 60 BITS; THIS MAKES THEM PRIMARILY SUITABLE FOR SCIENTIFIC USE, PARTICULARLY SINCE, WHEN THEY OPERATE WITH DOUBLE PRECISION, EVEN WORDS OF 120 BITS CAN BE RECORDED . WORDS OF THAT LENGTH ENABLE COMPLEX SCIENTIFIC CALCULATIONS TO BE CARRIED OUT MORE RAPIDLY AND EFFICIENTLY . IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT CONSIDERS THAT THE STATEMENT IN THE FIFTH RECITAL IN THE PREAMBLE TO THE CONTESTED DECISION, ACCORDING TO WHICH THE MINIMUM LENGTH OF THE WORDS WHICH MAY BE HANDLED ( AND ALSO FLOATING POINT ARITHMETIC ) "ARE IN NO WAY SPECIFIC TO THE COMPUTERS IN QUESTION BUT ARE FOUND IN ALL ADVANCED COMPUTERS", IS INACCURATE SINCE ONLY