JUDGMENT OF 25.10.1984 — CASE 185/83 UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN v INSPECTEUR DER INVOERRECHTEN EN ACCIJNZEN, GRONINGEN

In Case 185/83 REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Tarief commissie [Administrative court of last instance in revenue matters], Amsterdam, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between

THE COURT (Second Chamber) composed of: O. Due, President of Chamber, P. Pescatore and K. Bahlmann, Judges, Advocate General : P. VerLoren van Themaat Registrar: D. Louterman, Administrator

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Facts and issues

I — Legal context of the proceedings and facts

1. Legal context

2. Facts and procedure before the national court

II — Written procedure before the Court

III — Written observations

IV — The Commission's reply to the question put by the Court In its reply to the question put by the Court, the Commission states that the study of equivalence was based on the particular use defined in the application for exemption from import duties made by the Institute (supra, page 3627). It also points out that it was the Netherlands authorities who, during their examination of the matter, made use of the specialized laboratory of Philips Nederland BV and who subsequently referred the matter to the Commission by a letter of 3 April 1981, which is attached to the Commission's reply. Taking into account the fact that a similar problem was already under discussion at that time within the Committee on Duty-Free Arrangements, on the basis of an application for exemption made in Belgium, the Netherlands authorities asked that a decision on their request be deferred until the outcome of the other case, which also concerned the importation of a JEOL JEM-200 CX electron microscope intended for the same purposes, was known. As a result the applicants in the two cases, the Institute and the Catholic University of Leuven, together with a number of others, drew up joint submissions on the application for exemption from import duties, attached to the observations of the Institute.

V — Oral procedure

Decision

The course of the procedure provided for in Article 7 of Regulation No 2784/79

The application of the substantive criteria

The failure to state adequate grounds

Costs