Case C-163/07 P: Appeal brought on 26 March 2007 by Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd Sirketi and Musa Akar against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2007 in Case T-129/06 Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd Sirketi and Musa Akar v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2007-06-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), appeal, award of contract, building industry, educational institution

9.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/7

Appeal brought on 26 March 2007 by Diy-Mar Insaat
Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd Sirketi and Musa Akar against the
order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of
17 January 2007 in Case T-129/06 Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve
Ticaret Ltd Sirketi and Musa Akar v Commission of the
European Communities

(Case C-163/07 P)

(2007/C 129/10)

Language of the case: German

Parties

the Statute of

expired, that is to say, after the end of the prescribed period, it
infringed Article 21 of
Justice,
Article 64 of its Rules of Procedure and substantive Community
the
law regarding the principles relating to the scope of
presumption of legality of legal acts and the doctrine of the
apparent existence of an act. Where acts of the administration
contain particularly serious and blatant errors, Community law
requires that these be treated as null and void.

the Court of

Had the appellants been properly informed of
the remedies
available to them, they would have instructed a qualified lawyer
and accordingly brought proceedings within the prescribed
period. The contention of the Court of First Instance that the
appellants and their Turkish lawyers had not used the care that
is required of an applicant who is aware of all relevant matters
did not relieve the respondent of the duty to provide details of
the remedies that were available.

Appellants: Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd Sirketi and Musa
Akar (represented by: C. Şahin, lawyer)

(1) OJ 2007 C 212, p. 29.

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Form of order sought

— set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-
pean Communities
of 17 January 2007 in Case
T-129/06 (1), served on the appellants on 26 January 2007,
the respondent of
and annul
23 December 2005 No MK/KS/DELTUR/(2005)/SecE/D/
1614;

the contested decision of

First

— alternatively, to uphold the pleas in law raised by the appel-
lant at first instance and to set aside the order of the Court
of
the
referred to above
contested decision of the respondent of 23 December 2005
No MK/KS/DELTUR/(2005)/SecE/D/1614 in so far as incom-
patible with those pleas in law;

and annul

Instance

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
Grande Instance de Nantes (France) lodged on 27 March
2007 — James Wood v Fonds de Garantie

(Case C-164/07)

(2007/C 129/11)

Language of the case: French

— in the further alternative, to set aside the order of the Court
of First Instance referred to above and to refer the matter
back to the Court of First Instance;

Referring court

Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nantes

— order the respondent to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: James Wood

The appellants base their appeal against the order of the Court
of First Instance on the following grounds.

Defendant: Fonds de Garantie

The Court is not required, in appraising the facts in proceedings
before, it to have regard only to the contentions of the parties
and to decide the case solely on the basis of evidence put
forward by them. Rather, Article 21 of the Statute of the Court
of
the European
Communities are under an obligation to appraise the facts of
the proceedings and can, on their own initiative, not only take
active steps, but are also under a duty to do so when the
circumstances require.

Justice makes it clear that

the Courts of

Since, in the present case, the Court of First Instance did not
assess whether the respondent had set out proper reasons in the
contested decision, and the appellants learned only of the failure
to observe formal requirements only after one month had

Question referred

In the light of the general principle of non-discrimination on
grounds of nationality, set out in Article 7 of the Treaty of
Rome, are the provisions of Article 706-3 of the French Code
de Procédure Pénale compatible or not with Community law in
that a citizen of the European Community, residing in France,
the father of a child having French nationality who died outside
[French] territory, does not have a right to compensation paid
by the Fonds de Garantie on the sole ground of his nationality?