92The applicant notes that, according to settled case-law, respect for the rights of the defence in any proceedings which are initiated against a person and which are liable to culminate in a measure adversely affecting that person is a fundamental principle of Community law which must be guaranteed even in the absence of any specific rules governing the procedure in question (Joined Cases C-48/90 and C-66/90 Netherlands and Others v Commission [1992] ECR I-565, paragraph 44; Case C-135/92 Fiskano v Commission [1994] ECR I-2885, paragraph 39; Case C-32/95 P Commission v Lisrestal and Others [1996] ECR I-5373, paragraph 21; and Joined Cases T-186/97, T-187/97, T-190/97 to T-192/97, T-210/97, T-211/97, T-216/97 to T-218/97, T-279/97, T-280/97, T-293/97 and T-147/99 Kaufring and Others v Commission [2001] ECR II-1337, paragraph 151). The applicant goes on to state that the Court of Justice has consistently recognised the principle of the right to an oral procedure (audi alteram partem) as an essential procedural rule, in particular in relation to administrative procedures (Case 17/74 Transocean Marine Paint v Commission [1974] ECR 1063; Case 85/76 Hoffman-La Roche v Commission [1979] ECR 461; and Case 136/79 National Panasonic v Commission [1980] ECR 2033). It adds that in view of the margin of assessment enjoyed by the Commission when it adopts a decision pursuant to the general equitable provision contained in Article 239 of the Customs Code, it is all the more important that observance of the right to be heard be guaranteed (Case T-346/94 France-aviation v Commission [1995] ECR II-2841, paragraph 34; Case T-42/96 Eyckeler & Malt v Commission [1998] ECR II-401, paragraph 77; Case T-50/96 Primex Produkte Import-Export and Others v Commission [1998] ECR II-3773, paragraph 60; Case T-290/97 Mehibas Dordtselaan v Commission [2000] ECR II-15, paragraph 46; and Kaufring, cited above, paragraph 152).
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.