JUSTICE TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF REGULATION NO 1798/75 MAY BE INTERPRETED IN THE SAME WAY AS THE PROVISIONS ADOPTED LATER . IN FACT , NOTHING PREVENTS A COURT FROM DECIDING THAT A NEW PROVISION HAS NOT MODIFIED THE SUBSTANCE OF AN EARLIER ONE .
THE FIRST AND SECOND QUESTIONS
22 THE FIRST TWO QUESTIONS ARE CLOSELY RELATED , INASMUCH AS BOTH REFER TO THE CHARACTERISTICS WHICH CONSTITUTE A SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENT OR APPARATUS , AND MAY THEREFORE BE TAKEN TOGETHER .
23 WITH REGARD TO THE SCIENTIFIC NATURE , WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 3 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 1798/75 IN ITS ORIGINAL VERSION , OF AN INSTRUMENT OR APPARATUS WHICH MAY BE IMPORTED FREE OF CUSTOMS DUTY , THE COURT POINTS OUT THAT IT HELD IN THE UNIVERSITEITSKLINIEK CASE THAT THAT CRITERION MUST BE ASSESSED ON THE BASIS OF THE ' OBJECTIVE CHARACTERISTICS ' OF THE INSTRUMENT OR APPARATUS AND THAT THOSE CHARACTERISTICS MUST MAKE IT ' PARTICULARLY SUITABLE FOR PURE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ' .
24 THAT INTERPRETATION IS BASED ON THE OBJECTIVES DEFINED IN THE FIRST RECITAL IN THE PREAMBLE TO THE REGULATION , WHICH STATES THAT IMPORTATION INTO A MEMBER STATE FREE OF COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF DUTIES OF EDUCATIONAL , SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL MATERIALS IS TO BE PERMITTED ' BY ALL POSSIBLE MEANS ' , AND IN THE SECOND RECITAL , WHICH STATES THAT ' DUTY-FREE ADMISSION OF EDUCATIONAL , SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL MATERIALS MUST BE UNIFORM THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY ' .
25 CONSEQUENTLY , WHEN THE COURT REFERRED , IN THE AFOREMENTIONED JUDGMENT , TO THE ' OBJECTIVE CHARACTERISTICS ' OF INSTRUMENTS OR APPARATUS , IT DID NOT INTEND TO INTERPRET THE CONCEPT AT ISSUE RESTRICTIVELY , BUT RATHER WAS MAKING CLEAR THAT IT MUST BE ASSESSED OBJECTIVELY , THAT IS TO SAY , WITHOUT ANY REGARD TO THE PARTICULAR PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE IMPORTING BODY OR ESTABLISHMENT INTENDS TO USE THE INSTRUMENT OR ACTUALLY DOES USE IT .
26 SINCE THEREFORE IT IS THE USES TO WHICH A SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENT OR APPARATUS MAY OBJECTIVELY BE PUT THAT DETERMINE ITS SCIENTIFIC CHARACTER , NAMELY ITS CAPACITY TO PERFORM CERTAIN
ACTIVITIES , THAT CAPACITY MUST BE ASSESSED IN THE LIGHT OF THE WAY IN WHICH IT IS CONSTRUCTED AND THE RESULTS WHICH IT MAKES IT POSSIBLE TO OBTAIN .
27 IT MUST BE EMPHASIZED IN THAT CONNECTION THAT THE CRITERION OF BEING ' MAINLY OR EXCLUSIVELY SUITED ' CORRESPONDS EXACTLY TO THE CRITERION OF BEING ' PARTICULARLY SUITABLE ' , USED BY THE COURT . HOWEVER , IT MUST BE POINTED OUT THAT THAT CRITERION REQUIRES ONLY THAT THE INSTRUMENT OR APPARATUS MUST BE PRIMARILY SUITABLE FOR SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITY WITHOUT EXCLUDING THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE INSTRUMENT OR APPARATUS MIGHT ALSO BE , EVEN IF ONLY SECONDARILY , SUITABLE FOR OTHER PURPOSES , SUCH AS , FOR EXAMPLE , INDUSTRIAL USES .
28 WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT , ACCORDING TO THE COURT ' S INTERPRETATION OF IT , REGULATION NO 1798/75 IS