ORDINARY COMPUTERS .
14 IN THIS CONNECTION IT SHOULD BE RECALLED , AS THE COURT HAS ALREADY EMPHASIZED ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS , THAT BY IMPOSING UPON THE COMMISSION THE OBLIGATIONS TO STATE REASONS FOR ITS DECISION , ARTICLE 190 IS NOT TAKING MERE FORMAL CONSIDERATIONS INTO ACCOUNT BUT SEEKS TO GIVE AN OOPORTUNITY TO THE PARTIES OF DEFENDING THEIR RIGHTS , TO THE COURT OF EXERCISING ITS POWER OF REVIEW , AND TO MEMBER STATES AND TO ALL INTERESTED NATIONALS OF ASCERTAINING THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS APPLIED THE TREATY .
15 THUS IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT THAT THE MEMBER STATES AS ADDRESSEES OF THE DECISION , ARE AWARE OF THE REASONS AS A RESULT OF THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE PRELIMINARY PROCEDURE AND THAT THE APPLICANT THE PERSON DIRECTLY AND INDIVIDUALLY CONCERNED , IS ABLE TO DEDUCE THESE REASONS BY COMPARING THE DECISION IN QUESTION WITH SIMILAR EARLIER DECISIONS . IT IS FURTHER NECESSARY THAT THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE ENABLED IN PRACTICE TO DEFEND ITS RIGHTS AND THE COURT SHOULD BE ABLE EFFECTIVELY TO EXERCISE ITS POWER OF REVIEW ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT OF REASONS . THE QUESTION WHETHER THE STATEMENT OF REASONS IS SUFFICIENT IN THESE RESPECTS MAY BEST BE EXAMINED IN THIS CASE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SUBMISSION CONSIDERED UNDER HEADING ( B ).
16 SECONDLY THE APPLICANT CLAIMS THAT HAVING REGARD ABOVE ALL TO THE STEREOTYPED STATEMENTS OF REASONS EMPLOYED BY THE COMMISSION THE LATTER ' S PROCEDURAL PRACTICE IN THIS AREA IS DISTINCTLY INADEQUATE IN SO FAR AS IT DOES NOT PERMIT EITHER AN EXCHANGE OF OPINIONS OR ALLOW THE PARTIES CONCERNED TO GIVE THEIR VIEWS ON ANY MATTERS AT ISSUE OR EVEN GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL EXPLANATIONS BEFORE THE DECISION IS TAKEN .
17 THAT PART OF THE FIRST SUBMISSION CANNOT BE UPHELD . AS THE APPLICANT ITSELF ADMITS , THE COMMISSION FOLLOWED THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN BY THE RELEVANT COMMUNITY RULES . IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THAT PROCEDURE ENABLED THE APPLICANT TO STATE IN FULL ITS ARGUMENT CONCERNING THE SCIENTIFIC NATURE OF THE COMPUTERS IN QUESTION IN THE FILE LODGED WITH THE BELGIAN AUTHORITIES AND THAT THE FILE WAS MADE AVAILABLE BOTH TO THE COMMITTEE ON DUTY-FREE ARRANGEMENTS AND TO THE COMMISSION .
( B ) INFRINGEMENT OF THE COMMUNITY RULES DEFINING THE SCIENTIFIC NATURE OF AN INSTRUMENT OR APPARATUS
18 IN THIS CONNECTION THE APPLICANT MAINTAINS THAT THE COMMISSION HAS ENTIRELY DISREGARDED THE PARTICULAR CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TWO COMPUTERS WHICH WHOLLY JUSTIFY THEIR CLASSIFICATION AS SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS OR APPARATUS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE COMMUNITY RULES . IT THEREFORE ASKS THE COURT NOT ONLY TO DECLARE THE CONTESTED DECISION VOID BUT ALSO TO MAKE A FINDING ESTABLISHING THE SCIENTIFIC NATURE OF THE COMPUTERS IN QUESTION .
19 ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT FOR THE COURT TO MAKE SUCH A FINDING WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DECLARATION THAT A MEASURE IS VOID IT MUST ON THE OTHER HAND ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE CRITERIA