C-300/82
WyrokTSUE1983-11-10CELEX: 61982CJ0300ECLI:EU:C:1983:324
Analiza orzeczenia
Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.
Zagadnienie prawne
Czy termin „instrument naukowy” w rozumieniu art. 3 rozporządzenia (EWG) nr 1798/75 powinien być interpretowany szeroko, tak aby obejmował pomoce naukowe i materiały robocze, takie jak „Phantom Material A-150” (materiały z bloków plastikowych przeznaczone do badań radiologicznych)?Ratio decidendi
Trybunał stwierdził, że termin „instrument naukowy” w art. 3 ust. 1 rozporządzenia nr 1798/75 nie może być interpretowany wąsko, lecz powinien obejmować materiały wytworzone na podstawie odkryć naukowych i używane nie jako przedmiot, lecz jako środek do prowadzenia badań naukowych. Uzasadnieniem jest cel rozporządzenia, wyrażony w jego preambule, który zakłada umożliwienie „wszelkimi możliwymi środkami” bezcłowego przywozu materiałów edukacyjnych, naukowych i kulturalnych. Trybunał podkreślił, że materiał taki jak „Phantom Material A-150”, który pełni istotną funkcję jako niezastąpiony środek do uzyskiwania określonych wyników długoterminowych badań naukowych, spełnia kryteria szerokiej interpretacji. Dodatkowo, art. 3 zawiera dwa kryteria (przeznaczenie wyłącznie do badań naukowych/edukacji i brak produkcji w UE), które pozwalają na precyzyjne zdefiniowanie instrumentu naukowego, co potwierdza zasadność szerokiej interpretacji.Stan faktyczny
Gesamthochschule Essen importowała z USA bloki plastikowe znane jako „Phantom Material A-150”, przeznaczone do symulacji tkanki mięśniowej człowieka w celu pomiaru wpływu promieniowania na organizm ludzki w badaniach radiologicznych. Główny Urząd Celny w Düsseldorfie odmówił zwolnienia z cła, argumentując, że materiał ten nie jest instrumentem ani aparaturą naukową w rozumieniu rozporządzenia nr 1798/75. Gesamthochschule Essen zaskarżyła tę decyzję, twierdząc, że materiał ten stanowi instrument badawczy, a nie jego przedmiot, i jest niezbędny do oceny i porównywania wyników badań na poziomie międzynarodowym.Rozstrzygnięcie
Termin „instrument naukowy” w art. 3 rozporządzenia nr 1798/75 należy interpretować w ten sposób, że obejmuje on materiał taki jak „Phantom Material A-150”, składający się z bloków plastikowych i przeznaczony do badań radiologicznych, o ile materiał ten pełni istotną funkcję jako niezastąpiony środek do uzyskiwania określonych wyników długoterminowych badań naukowych.Pełny tekst orzeczenia
Avis juridique important
|
61982J0300
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 November 1983. - Gesamthochschule Essen v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Finanzgericht Düsseldorf - Germany. - Common Customs Tariff - Exemption of scientific instruments and apparatus - Scientific aids and working materials. - Case 300/82.
European Court reports 1983 Page 03643
Summary
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
Keywords
COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF - IMPORTATION FREE OF CUSTOMS DUTIES - SCIENTIFIC MATERIALS - SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENT - CONCEPT - WIDE INTERPRETATION - MATERIAL CONSTITUTING AN INDISPENSABLE MEANS OF CARRYING OUT PARTICULAR SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH - OBJECT COVERED BY THE TERM ' ' SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENT ' '
( REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1798/75 OF THE COUNCIL , ART . 3 ( 1 ))
Summary
SINCE , ACCORDING TO THE FIRST RECITAL IN THE PREAMBLE TO REGULATION NO 1798/75 , IT IS NECESSARY TO ALLOW ' ' BY ALL POSSIBLE MEANS ' ' THE ADMISSION FREE OF CUSTOMS DUTIES OF EDUCATIONAL , SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL MATERIALS , THE TERM ' ' SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENT ' ' IN ARTICLE 3 ( 1 ) OF THAT REGULATION CANNOT BE GIVEN A NARROW IN- TERPRETATION BUT MAY , ON THE CONTRARY , INCLUDE MATERIALS MANUFACTURED ON THE BASIS OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES AND USED NOT AS AN OBJECT BUT AS A MEANS OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH .
THE TERM ' ' SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENT ' ' IN ARTICLE 3 OF THE AFOREMENTIONED REGULATION MUST THEREFORE BE INTERPRETED AS INCLUDING A MATERIAL MADE UP OF PLASTIC BLOCKS AND INTENDED FOR RADIOLOGICAL RESEARCH , INASMUCH AS THE MATERIAL FULFILS AN ESSENTIAL FUNCTION AS AN INDISPENSABLE MEANS OF OBTAINING CERTAIN RESULTS FROM LONG-TERM SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH .
Parties
IN CASE 300/82
REFERENCE TO THE COURT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY BY THE FINANZGERICHT ( FINANCE COURT ) DUSSELDORF , FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THAT COURT BETWEEN
GESAMTHOCHSCHULE ( POLYTECHNIC/UNIVERSITY ) ESSEN
AND
HAUPTZOLLAMT ( PRINCIPAL CUSTOMS OFFICE ) DUSSELDORF
Subject of the case
ON THE INTERPRETATION OF REGULATION ( EEC ) 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 BY REGULATION NO 1027/79 OF 8 MAY 1979 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1979 , L 134 , P . 1 ),
Grounds BY ORDER OF 20 OCTOBER 1982 WHICH WAS RECEIVED AT THE COURT ON 3 DECEMBER 1982 , THE FINANZGERICHT ( FINANCE COURT ) DUSSELDORF REFERRED TO THE COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY A QUESTION ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF REGULATION ( EEC ) 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 ), ADOPTED IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT THE FLORENCE AGREEMENT ( UNITED NATIONS TREATY SERIES VOLUME 131 , 1952 , NO 1734 , PP . 26 ET SEQ .). THE QUESTION AROSE IN THE COURSE OF AN ACTION BROUGHT BEFORE THE NATIONAL COURT BY THE GESAMTHOCHSCHULE ( POLYTECHNIC/UNIVERSITY ) ESSEN FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION OF THE HAUPTZOLLAMT ( PRINCIPAL CUSTOMS OFFICE ) DUSSELDORF REFUSING EXEMPTION FROM CUSTOMS DUTIES ON THE IMPORTATION OF PLASTIC BLOCKS KNOWN AS ' ' PHANTOM MATERIAL A-150 ' ' , ORIGINATING IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND INTENDED BY THE GESAMTHOCHSCHULE TO SIMULATE HUMAN MUSCLE TISSUE TO ENABLE THE EFFECT OF RADIATION ON THE HUMAN ORGANISM TO BE MEASURED , ON THE GROUND THAT THE MATERIAL WAS NOT A SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENT OR APPARATUS WITHIN THE MEANING OF REGULATION NO 1798/75 .
3 THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN ACTION CLAIMED BEFORE THE NATIONAL COURT THAT THE MATERIAL IN QUESTION OUGHT TO BE REGARDED AS A ' ' SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENT OR APPARATUS ' ' WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED REGULATION , SINCE IT CONSTITUTED NOT THE OBJECT BUT THE INSTRUMENT OF RESEARCH , BEING USED FOR THE NEUTRON DOSIMETERS EMPLOYED IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE , AND ALSO BECAUSE IT WAS ONLY BY USING THE MATERIAL THAT IT WAS POSSIBLE TO ASSESS AND COMPARE , AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL , THE RESULTS OBTAINED FROM RESEARCH . ON THE REJECTION OF THAT ARGUMENT BY THE HAUPTZOLLAMT , THE FINANZGERICHT DUSSELDORF REFERRED TO THE COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING THE FOLLOWING QUESTION :
' ' IN REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1798/75 OF THE COUNCIL OF 10 JULY 1975 , IS THE TERM ' SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENT ' TO BE INTERPRETED BROADLY SO AS TO INCLUDE SCIENTIFIC AIDS AND WORKING MATERIALS SUCH AS PHANTOM MATERIAL A-150 , A SUBSTANCE MADE UP OF PLASTIC BLOCKS AND INTENDED FOR RADIOLOGICAL RESEARCH?
' '
5 IT APPEARS FROM THE PAPERS BEFORE THE COURT THAT THE MATERIAL IN QUESTION HAS A SPECIAL COMPOSITION RESULTING FROM DISCOVERIES OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND IS MANUFACTURED BY ONLY ONE UNDERTAKING WHICH IS SITUATED OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY . ON BEING EXPOSED TO RADIATION IT PRODUCES , OWING TO ITS COMPOSITION , REACTIONS SIMILAR TO THOSE OF HUMAN TISSUE . FOR THAT REASON IT IS USED IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PROJECTS UNDERTAKEN IN THE INTERESTS OF HUMAN HEALTH AS A MEANS OF MEASURING THE EFFECT OF NEUTRON RAYS ON HUMAN TISSUE . THE USE OF THE MATERIAL IN QUESTION ALSO SERVES TO FACILITATE THE ASSESSMENT AND COMPARISON , AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL , OF THE RESULTS OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PROJECTS IN THE FIELD OF NEUTRON DOSIMETRY . CONSEQUENTLY , THE QUESTION REFERRED TO THE COURT ASKS WHETHER THE TERM ' ' SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENT ' ' IN ARTICLE 3 OF REGULATION NO 1798/75 MUST BE INTERPRETED AS INCLUDING A MATERIAL SUCH AS THE ONE KNOWN AS PHANTOM MATERIAL A-150 , MADE UP OF PLASTIC BLOCKS AND INTENDED FOR RADIOLOGICAL RESEARCH , INASMUCH AS THAT MATERIAL FULFILS AN ESSENTIAL FUNCTION AS AN INDISPENSABLE MEANS OF OBTAINING CERTAIN RESULTS FROM LONG-TERM SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH . IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT NEITHER THE FLORENCE AGREEMENT NOR REGULATION NO 1798/75 CONTAINS A DEFINITION OF THE TERM ' ' SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENT ' ' FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARTICLE 3 ( 1 ) OF THE SAID REGULATION . A DEFINITION MUST THEREFORE BE SOUGHT IN THE PURPOSE OF THAT PROVISION , CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE PROVISIONS OF , AND THE PREAMBLE TO , REGULATION NO 1798/75 .
9 SINCE , ACCORDING TO THE FIRST RECITAL IN THE PREAMBLE TO THAT REGULATION , IT IS NECESSARY TO ALLOW ' ' BY ALL POSSIBLE MEANS ' ' THE ADMISSION FREE OF CUSTOMS DUTIES OF EDUCATIONAL , SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL MATERIALS , THE TERM ' ' SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENT ' ' IN ARTICLE 3 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 1798/75 CANNOT BE GIVEN A NARROW INTERPRETATION . THAT CONCLUSION IS CONFIRMED BY THE PREAMBLE TO THE FLORENCE AGREEMENT , WHICH IS BASED ON THE IDEA ' ' THAT THE FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS AND KNOWLEDGE AND , IN GENERAL , THE WIDEST POSSIBLE DISSEMINATION OF THE DIVERSE FORMS OF SELF-EXPRESSION USED BY CIVILIZATIONS ARE VITALLY IMPORTANT BOTH FOR INTELLECTUAL PROGRESS AND INTERNATIONAL UNDERSTANDING ' ' AND ' ' THAT THIS INTERCHANGE IS ACCOMPLISHED PRIMARILY BY MEANS OF BOOKS , PUBLICATIONS AND EDUCATIONAL , SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL MATERIALS ' ' . IN THAT CONTEXT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND SUPPORT FOR A NARROW INTERPRETATION IN THE FACT THAT ARTICLE 2 OF REGULATION NO 1798/75 REFERS GENERALLY TO SCIENTIFIC ' ' MATERIALS ' ' LISTED IN ANNEX II , WHEREAS ARTICLE 3 ( 1 ) RELATES TO ' ' SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS AND APPARATUS ' ' NOT INCLUDED IN ARTICLE 2 .
12 ARTICLE 3 IN FACT CONTAINS TWO ADDITIONAL CRITERIA WHICH PERMIT A SUFFICIENTLY PRECISE DEFINITION TO BE GIVEN OF A SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENT WHICH MAY BE ADMITTED FREE OF CUSTOMS DUTY , NAMELY THAT IT SHOULD BE INTENDED EXCLUSIVELY FOR SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH OR EDUCATION AND THAT IT IS NOT BEING MANUFACTURED IN THE COMMUNITY . IN VIEW OF THOSE TWO CONDITIONS FOR THE GRANT OF EXEMPTION , IT IS INAPPROPRIATE TO INTERPRET THE CONCEPT IN QUESTION IN A MANNER CONTRARY TO THE PURPOSE OF REGULATION NO 1798/75 AS SET OUT ABOVE . MOREOVER , IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT ARTICLE 3 OF REGULATION NO 1798/75 WAS AMENDED BY REGULATION NO 1027/79 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1979 , L 134 , P . 1 ) AND THAT ARTICLE 3 ( 3 ) AS AMENDED GIVES A GENERAL DEFINITION OF THE TERM ' ' SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENT OR APPARATUS ' ' , FOLLOWING IN PART THE EXAMPLE SET BY THE COURT IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 2 FEBRUARY 1978 IN CASE 72/77 , UNIVERSITEITSKLINIEK UTRECHT V INSPECTEUR DER INVOERRECHTEN EN ACCIJNZEN , ( 1978 ) ECR 189 .
14 ARTICLE 3 ( 3 ) AS AMENDED IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE , SINCE THE FACTS UPON WHICH THE DISPUTE IN THE MAIN ACTION ARE BASED OCCURRED BEFORE THE AMENDMENT OF REGULATION NO 1798/75 ; EVEN SO IT CANNOT JUSTIFY SUCH A NARROW INTERPRETATION . NOR DOES THE ABOVE-MENTIONED JUDGMENT OF THE COURT PREVENT THE TERM ' ' SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENT ' ' FROM BEING INTERPRETED WIDELY ENOUGH TO INCLUDE MATERIALS MANUFACTURED ON THE BASIS OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES AND USED NOT AS AN OBJECT BUT AS A MEANS OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH . THAT IS IN ANY EVENT TRUE IN THE CASE OF MATERIALS SUCH AS THOSE IN THIS CASE WHICH CANNOT EASILY BE REPLACED AND WHICH ARE THEREFORE USED FOR LONG-TERM SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH . THESE FINDINGS ARE SUFFICIENT TO GIVE A REPLY TO THE NATIONAL COURT , WITHOUT ITS BEING NECESSARY TO PROVIDE HERE AN EXHAUSTIVE DEFINITION OF A SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENT . FINALLY , IN RELATION TO THE COMMISSION ' S OPINION THAT CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES CANNOT FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF A SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENT , IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THIS CASE IS NOT CONCERNED WITH ANY CHEMICAL SUBSTANCE BUT WITH A MATERIAL USED AS A TOOL IN A PARTICULAR SCIENTIFIC CONTEXT . FOR THE SAME REASON IT IS ALSO UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE COMMISSION ' S ARGUMENT THAT CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES ARE COVERED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF REGULATION NO 1798/75 , NAMELY IN ARTICLE 60 OF COUNCIL REGULATION NO 918/83 OF 28 MARCH 1983 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1983 , L 105 , P . 1 ). THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION SUBMITTED TO THE COURT BY THE FINANZGERICHT DUSSELDORF SHOULD THEREFORE BE THAT THE TERM ' ' SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENT ' ' IN ARTICLE 3 OF REGULATION NO 1798/75 MUST BE INTERPRETED AS INCLUDING A MATERIAL SUCH AS THE ONE KNOWN AS PHANTOM MATERIAL A-150 , MADE UP OF PLASTIC BLOCKS AND INTENDED FOR RADIOLOGICAL RESEARCH , INASMUCH AS THE MATERIAL FULFILS AN ESSENTIAL FUNCTION AS AN INDISPENSABLE MEANS OF OBTAINING CERTAIN RESULTS FROM LONG-TERM SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH .
Decision on costs
COSTS
19 THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , WHICH HAS SUBMITTED OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT , ARE NOT RECOVERABLE . AS THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE , IN SO FAR AS THE PARTIES TO THE MAIN ACTION ARE CONCERNED , IN THE NATURE OF A STEP IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE NATIONAL COURT , COSTS ARE A MATTER FOR THAT COURT .
Operative part
ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
THE COURT ( SECOND CHAMBER )
IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION SUBMITTED TO IT BY THE FINANZGERICHT DUSSELDORF BY ORDER OF 20 OCTOBER 1982 HEREBY RULES :
THE TERM ' ' SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENT ' ' IN ARTICLE 3 OF REGULATION NO 1798/75 MUST BE INTERPRETED AS INCLUDING A MATERIAL SUCH AS THE ONE KNOWN AS PHANTOM MATERIAL A-150 , MADE UP OF PLASTIC BLOCKS AND INTENDED FOR RADIOLOGICAL RESEARCH , INASMUCH AS THE MATERIAL FULFILS AN ESSENTIAL FUNCTION AS AN INDISPENSABLE MEANS OF OBTAINING CERTAIN RESULTS FROM LONG-TERM SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH .
© Unia Europejska, źródło: EUR-Lex (eur-lex.europa.eu), pozyskano 13.07.2026. Autentyczne są wyłącznie wersje opublikowane w Dz. Urz. UE. · Źródło