RAY IN THE UNITED STATES , WHICH THE UNIVERSITY INTENDED TO USE FOR RESEARCH INTO ' CHEMILUMINESCENT ATOMIC REACTIONS , DE-ACTIVATING OF EXCITED IODINE ATOMS BY CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL QUENCHING , FORMATION OF EXCITED IODINE MOLECULES AND MONITORING OF CHEMILUMINESCENCE ' .
3 IT APPEARS FROM THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT THAT THE GERMAN AUTHORITIES REFERRED TO THE COMMISSION THE OBJECTION LODGED BY THE PLAINTIFF AGAINST THE REFUSAL OF ITS APPLICATION FOR IMPORTATION FREE OF CUSTOMS DUTY , WHICH IT HAD SUBMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF REGULATION NO 1798/75 OF THE COUNCIL OF 10 JULY 1975 ON THE IMPORTATION FREE OF COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF DUTIES OF EDUCATIONAL , SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL MATERIALS , ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1975 , L 184 , P . 1 ), AS AMENDED WITH EFFECT FROM 1 JANUARY 1980 BY REGULATION NO 1027/79 OF 8 MAY 1979 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 179 , L 134 , P . 1 ) AND BY COMMISSION REGULATION NO 2784/79 OF 12 DECEMBER 1979 LAYING DOWN PROVISIONS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF REGULATION NO 1798/75 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1979 , L 318 , P . 32 ).
4 IN DECISION NO 82/83 , THE COMMISSION STATED THAT THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 3 ( 1 ) ( B ) OF THE AFOREMENTIONED REGULATION NO 1798/75 WERE NOT FULFILLED BECAUSE APPARATUS OF EQUIVALENT SCIENTIFIC VALUE CAPABLE OF BEING USED FOR THE SAME PURPOSES WAS ' CURRENTLY BEING MANUFACTURED IN THE COMMUNITY ' . THE COMMISSION REFERRED IN THAT CONNECTION TO THE APPARATUS ' LASER A YAG 10 HZ ' , MANUFACTURED BY THE FRENCH UNDERTAKING QUANTEL . AS A RESULT OF THAT DECISION , THE GERMAN AUTHORITIES REJECTED THE PLAINTIFF ' S OBJECTION .
5 IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE NATIONAL COURT , THE PLAINTIFF CLAIMED THAT THE APPARATUS MANUFACTURED IN THE COMMUNITY AT THAT TIME , PARTICULARLY QUANTEL ' S ' LASER A YAG 10 HZ ' , WAS NOT EQUIVALENT TO THE IMPORTED APPARATUS AND THAT THE RESEARCH PROGRAMME COULD NOT BE CARRIED OUT WITH SUCH APPARATUS . IT REFERRED IN THAT CONNECTION TO A STUDY CARRIED OUT BY A PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH WHO COMPARED THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TWO APPARATUS AT ISSUE ON THE BASIS OF THE OFFERS MADE AND THE SPECIFICATIONS SUPPLIED BY BOTH UNDERTAKINGS WHEN THE IMPORTED APPARATUS WAS ORDERED , THAT IS TO SAY ON 19 NOVEMBER 1979 .
6 IN THE GROUNDS OF ITS ORDER FOR REFERENCE , THE NATIONAL COURT OBSERVES THAT THAT OPINION PROVIDES SOME INDICATION THAT WHEN THE APPARATUS IN QUESTION WAS ORDERED OR IMPORTED EQUIVALENT APPARATUS WAS NOT MANUFACTURED IN THE COMMUNITY . IT CONSIDERS THAT VIEW TO BE JUSTIFIED IN ANY CASE IF THE TERM ' EQUIVALENT ' IS GIVEN A STRICT INTERPRETATION AND UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN THAT APPARATUS IS NOT EQUIVALENT IF THE PERFORMANCE EXPECTED OF THE IMPORTED APPARATUS BY THE PARTICULAR USER , HAVING REGARD TO THE SCIENTIFIC PURPOSE WHICH THE APPRATUS IS INTENDED TO SERVE , IS SUPERIOR TO THAT OF THE