Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2000:8
Date: 2000-01-18
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Financial provisions;Eggs and poultry;Own resources
Concepts: Statement of reasons;Own resources of the Communities;Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Netherlands

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Own resources of the European Communities — Repayment or remission of import or 
export duties — Article 13 of Regulation No 1430/79 — Power of decision of the 
Commission — Right of the trader concerned to be heard — Scope 
(Council Regulation No 1430/79, Art. 13; Commission Regulation No 2454/93, 
Art. 90S) 
2. Community law — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Conditions 
II- 15 
SUMMARY — CASE T-290/97 
3. Own resources of the European Communities — Repayment or remission of import or 
export duties — Article 13 of Regulation No 1430/79 — Scope — Power of decision 
of the Commission — Rules for its exercise — 'Special situation' — Meaning — 
Improper conduct by clients of a customs agent — Not covered 
(Council Regulation No 1430/79, Art. 13) 
4. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope 
(EC Treaty, Art. 190 (now Art. 253 EC)) 
1. Observance of the right to be heard is, 
in all proceedings initiated against a 
person which are liable to culminate in 
a measure adversely affecting that 
person, a fundamental principle of 
Community law which must be guar­
anteed even in the absence of any rules 
governing the proceedings in question. 
In view of the margin of assessment 
enjoyed by the Commission in adopt­
ing a decision pursuant to the general 
equitable provision contained in Arti­
cle 13 of Regulation No 1430/79 on 
the repayment or remission of import 
or export duties, it is all the more 
important that respect for the right to 
be heard be guaranteed in procedures 
initiated pursuant to that Regulation. 
Consequently, a trader seeking repay­
ment of customs duties pursuant to 
that provision has the right to be heard 
during the procedure for the adoption 
of a decision on his request. 
The requirements implied by that prin­
ciple are satisfied only partly by the 
'statement for the file' mechanism 
introduced by Article 905 of Regula­
tion No 2454/93, under which all 
requests for repayment of import duties 
must be accompanied by a statement 
from the person concerned that he has 
read the case transmitted to the Com­
mission by the competent national 
authorities and — where appropri­
ate — that he has nothing to add. 
Whilst that effectively enables the per­
son concerned to exercise his right to 
be heard during the first stage of the 
administrative procedure, which takes 
place at national level, it in no way 
guarantees his rights of defence during 
the second stage of the procedure, 
which takes place before the Commis­
sion once the national authorities have 
communicated the case to it. The 
statement is made at a stage when the 
Commission has not yet had an oppor­
tunity to consider the position of the 
person concerned, let alone come to a 
provisional view on his application for 
repayment. The right to be heard must 
be guaranteed at both stages. However, 
such a breach of the rights of the 
defence cannot result in the annulment 
of the contested decision unless it is 
established that without the irregular-
II - 16 
MEHIBAS DORDTSELAAN V COMMISSION 
ity the procedure might have had a 
different outcome. 
(see paras 44-47) 
2. The right to rely on the principle of the 
protection of legitimate expectations 
extends to any individual in a situation 
where the Community authorities have 
caused him to entertain legitimate 
expectations. However, a person may 
not plead infringement of the principle 
unless he has been given precise assur­
ances by the administration. 
(see para. 59) 
3. Article 13 of Regulation No 1430/79, 
which provides that import duties may 
be repaid or remitted in special situa­
tions... which result from circum­
stances in which no deception or 
obvious negligence may be attributed 
to the person concerned, constitutes a 
general equitable provision designed to 
cover situations other than those which 
arise most often in practice and for 
which special provision could be made 
when the regulation was adopted. 
Article 13 is intended to apply, inter 
alia, where the circumstances charac­
terising the relationship between a 
trader and the administration are such 
that it would be inequitable to require 
the trader to bear a loss which he 
would not normally have incurred. 
In applying that provision, the Com­
mission enjoys a discretionary power 
which it must exercise by balancing the 
Community interest in ensuring that 
customs rules are respected against the 
interest of the importer acting in good 
faith not to incur loss beyond the 
normal commercial risk. 
However, a situation where the docu­
ments submitted by a customs agent, 
albeit in good faith, are subsequently 
found to be false or incorrect does not 
amount to a special situation justifying 
remission or repayment of customs 
duty. A customs agent, owing to the 
very nature of his work, assumes 
liability for the payment of import 
duties and the validity of the docu­
ments which he presents to the customs 
authorities, and any loss caused by 
wrongful conduct on the part of his 
clients cannot be borne by the Com­
munity. The possibility of receiving 
certificates of origin that are invalid, 
even though they have been issued by 
the customs authorities of the countries 
II - 17 
SUMMARY — CASE T-290/97 
mentioned on them, is one of the trade 
risks assumed by customs agents. 
(see paras 76-78, 82-83) 
4. The statement of reasons required by 
Article 190 of the EC Treaty (now 
Article 253 EC) must disclose clearly 
and unambiguously the reasoning fol­
lowed by the institution which adopted 
the measure, so as to enable the persons 
concerned to acquaint themselves with 
the reasons for the measure and the 
Community judicature to exercise its 
power of review. It is not necessary for 
the reasoning to go into all the relevant 
facts and points of law. The question 
whether the statement of reasons meets 
those requirements must be assessed 
with regard not only to its wording but 
also to its context and to all the legal 
rules governing the matter in question. 
(see para. 92) 
II - 18