do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6091 — Galenica/Fresenius Medical Care/Vifor Fresenius Medical Care Renal Pharma JV)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-02-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, medical device, merger control, pharmaceutical industry








C_2012033EN.01000301.xml










7.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 33/3





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6091 — Galenica/Fresenius Medical Care/Vifor Fresenius Medical Care Renal Pharma JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 33/02
On 5 October 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6091. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case T-64/11: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2012 — Run2Day Franchise v OHIM — Runners Point (Run2) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Run2 — Earlier Community word and figurative marks RUN2DAY — Earlier BENELUX figurative mark RUN2DATE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2012-02-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2012080EN.01001802.xml










17.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/18





Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2012 — Run2Day Franchise v OHIM — Runners Point (Run2)
(Case T-64/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Run2 - Earlier Community word and figurative marks RUN2DAY - Earlier BENELUX figurative mark RUN2DATE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2012/C 80/30
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Run2Day Franchise BV (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: H. Koenraad, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Pohlmann, agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Runners Point Warenhandels GmbH (Recklinghausen, Germany) (represented by: H. Prange, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 November 2010 (Case R 349/2010-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Run2Day Franchise BV and Runners Point Warenhandels GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 November 2010 (Case R 349/2010-1);










2.


Orders OHIM and Runners Point Warenhandels GmbH to pay, apart from their own costs, those incurred by Run2Day Franchise BV.






(1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.
Case C-421/11 P: Order of the Court of 7 February 2012 — Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA v European Commission (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Competition — Cartel — Market for methacrylates — Concept of ‘undertaking’ — Presumption of decisive influence — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of sound administration — Extension of the authority of a final decision — Deterrent multiplying factor — Indivisible nature of the fine — Unlimited jurisdiction)
Date: 2012-02-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: building industry, fine, price agreement, rights of the defence








C_2012133EN.01001201.xml










5.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 133/12





Order of the Court of 7 February 2012 — Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA v European Commission
(Case C-421/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Competition - Cartel - Market for methacrylates - Concept of ‘undertaking’ - Presumption of decisive influence - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of sound administration - Extension of the authority of a final decision - Deterrent multiplying factor - Indivisible nature of the fine - Unlimited jurisdiction)
2012/C 133/21
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellants: Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA (represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery and A. Noël-Baron, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and B. Gencarelli, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 June 2011 in Case T-206/06 Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission, in which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates) — Competition — Cartel — Infringement of the principles of conferral of powers and proportionality — Manifestly erroneous interpretation — Infringement of the rights of the defence, the principle of fairness and the principle of equality of arms — Obligation to state reasons — Infringement of the principle of sound administration

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.
Case T-454/07: Order of the General Court of 7 February 2012 — Prym and Others v Commission
Date: 2012-02-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: fine, haberdashery, price agreement, restrictive trade practice








C_2012089EN.01002902.xml










24.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/29





Order of the General Court of 7 February 2012 — Prym and Others v Commission
(Case T-454/07) (1)

2012/C 89/49
Language of the case: German
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.
Case T-305/10: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2012 — Hartmann-Lamboy v OHIM — Diptyque (DYNIQUE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark DYNIQUE — Earlier Community word mark DIPTYQUE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2012-02-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012080EN.01001701.xml










17.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/17





Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2012 — Hartmann-Lamboy v OHIM — Diptyque (DYNIQUE)
(Case T-305/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark DYNIQUE - Earlier Community word mark DIPTYQUE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2012/C 80/26
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Marlies Hartmann-Lamboy (Westerburg, Germany) (represented by: R. Loos, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by A. Pohlmann and subsequently by G. Schneider, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Diptyque SAS (Paris, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 May 2010 (Case R 1217/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Diptyque SAS and Ms Marlies Hartmann-Lamboy.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ms Marlies Hartmann-Lamboy to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2012-02-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2012033EN.01000701.xml










7.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 33/7





Euro exchange rates (1)

6 February 2012
2012/C 33/06

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3042




JPY


Japanese yen


99,97




DKK


Danish krone


7,4342




GBP


Pound sterling


0,82810




SEK


Swedish krona


8,8025




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2067




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,5925




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,980




HUF


Hungarian forint


293,01




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6993




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1770




RON


Romanian leu


4,3420




TRY


Turkish lira


2,3017




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2192




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3019




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,1135




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5721




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6303




KRW


South Korean won


1 463,27




ZAR


South African rand


9,9450




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,2329




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5830




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


11 718,28




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


3,9374




PHP


Philippine peso


55,533




RUB


Russian rouble


39,4254




THB


Thai baht


40,404




BRL


Brazilian real


2,2549




MXN


Mexican peso


16,5907




INR


Indian rupee


63,9780






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-62/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen Sad — Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 7 February 2012 — Galin Kostov v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ -grad Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite
Date: 2012-02-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, interpretation of the law, provision of services








C_2012118EN.01001401.xml










21.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/14





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen Sad — Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 7 February 2012 — Galin Kostov v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ -grad Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite
(Case C-62/12)
2012/C 118/21
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen Sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Galin Kostov

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ -grad Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

Question referred

Is a natural person who is registered for VAT by reason of his activity as a private bailiff to be regarded as a taxable person within the meaning of Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112 (1) and required, pursuant to Article 193 of Directive 2006/112, to pay VAT in respect of a service which he has provided on an occasional basis and not in connection with his activity as a private bailiff?


(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Public holidays in 2012
Date: 2012-02-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, public holiday








C_2012033EN.01000801.xml










7.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 33/8





Public holidays in 2012
2012/C 33/07






Belgique/België


1.1, 8.4, 9.4, 30.4, 1.5, 17.5, 18.5, 27.5, 28.5, 21.7, 15.8, 1.11, 2.11, 11.11, 15.11, 16.11, 24.12, 25.12, 26.12, 27.12, 28.12, 29.12, 30.12, 31.12




България


1.1, 3.3, 13.4, 14.4, 15.4, 16.4, 1.5, 6.5, 24.5, 6.9, 22.9, 1.11, 24.12, 25.12, 26.12




Česká republika


1.1, 9.4, 1.5, 8.5, 5.7, 6.7, 28.9, 28.10, 17.11, 24.12, 25.12, 26.12.




Danmark


1.1, 5.4, 6.4, 8.4, 9.4, 4.5, 17.5, 27.5, 28.5, 25.12, 26.12




Deutschland


1.1, 6.4, 9.4, 1.5, 17.5, 28.5, 3.10, 25.12, 26.12




Eesti


1.1, 24.2, 6.4, 8.4, 1.5, 27.5, 23.6, 24.6, 20.8, 24.12, 25.12, 26.12.




Éire/Ireland


2.1, 6.4, 9.4, 17.5, 18.5, 28.5, 2.11, 24.12, 25.12, 26.12




Ελλάδα


1.1, 6.1, 27.2, 25.3, 13.4, 16.4, 1.5, 4.6, 15.8, 28.10, 25.12, 26.12




España


6.1, 6.4, 1.5, 15.8, 12.10, 1.11, 6.12, 8.12, 25.12:




France


1.1, 9.4, 1.5, 8.5, 17.5, 28.5, 14.7, 15.8, 1.11, 11.11, 25.12




Italia


1.1, 6.4, 9.4, 1.5, 17.5, 28.5, 15.8, 1.11, 25.12, 26.12




Κύπρος/Kıbrıs


1.1, 6.1, 27.2, 25.3, 1.4, 13.4, 16.4, 1.5, 4.6, 15.8, 1.10, 28.10, 24.12, 25.12, 26.12




Latvija


1.1, 6.4, 8.4, 9.4. 1.5, 4.5, 13.5, 27.5, 23.6, 24.6, 18.11, 24.12, 25.12, 26.12, 31.12




Lietuva


1.1, 16.2, 11.3, 8.4, 9.4, 1.5, 6.5, 3.6, 24.6, 6.7, 15.8, 1.11, 24.12, 25.12; 26.12




Luxembourg


1.1, 9.4, 1.5, 17.5, 28.5, 23.6, 15.8, 1.11, 25.12, 26.12




Magyarország


1.1, 15.3, 16.3, 8.4, 9.4, 30.4, 1.5, 27.5, 28.5, 20.8, 22.10, 23.10, 1.11, 2.11, 24.12, 25.12, 26.12




Malta


1.1, 10.2, 19.3, 31.3, 6.4, 1.5, 7.6, 29.6, 15.8, 8.9, 21.9, 8.12, 13.12, 25.12




Nederland


1.1, 8.4, 9.4, 30.4, 17.5, 27.5, 28.5, 25.12, 26.12




Österreich


1.1, 6.1, 9.4, 1.5, 17.5, 28.5, 7.6, 15.8, 26.10, 1.11, 8.12, 25.12, 26.12




Polska


1.1, 6.1, 8.4, 9.4, 1.5, 3.5, 27.5, 7.6, 15.8, 1.11, 11.11, 25.12, 26.12




Portugal


1.1, 6.4, 8.4, 25.4, 1.5, 7.6, 10.6, 15.8, 5.10, 1.11, 1.12, 8.12, 25.12




România


1.1, 2.1, 15.4, 16.4, 1.5, 3.6, 4.6, 15.8, 1.12, 25.12, 26.12




Slovenija


2.1, 5.4, 6.4, 9.4, 1.5, 17.5, 18.5, 28.5, 25.6, 1.11, 2.11, 26.12




Slovensko


1.1, 6.1, 6.4, 9.4, 1.5, 8.5, 5.7, 29.8, 1.9, 15.9, 17.11, 24.12, 25.12, 26.12




Suomi/Finland


1.1, 6.1, 6.4, 8.4, 9.4, 1.5, 17.5, 23.6, 3.11, 6.12, 25.12, 26.12




Sverige


1.1, 6.1, 6.4, 8.4, 9.4, 1.5, 17.5, 27.5, 6.6, 23.6, 3.11, 25.12, 26.12




United Kingdom


Wales and England: 2.1, 6.4, 9.4, 7.5, 4.6, 5.6, 27.8, 25.12, 26.12
Northern Ireland: 2.1, 19.3, 6.4, 9.4, 7.5, 4.6, 5.6, 12.7, 27.8, 25.12, 26.12
Scotland: 2.1, 3.1, 6.4, 7.5, 4.6, 5.6, 6.8, 30.11, 25.12, 26.12
Case T-50/12: Action brought on 7 February 2012 — AMC-Representações Têxteis v OHIM — MIP Metro (METRO KIDS COMPANY)
Date: 2012-02-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, child, clothing industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012109EN.01002101.xml










14.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/21





Action brought on 7 February 2012 — AMC-Representações Têxteis v OHIM — MIP Metro (METRO KIDS COMPANY)
(Case T-50/12)
2012/C 109/45
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: AMC-Representações Têxteis Lda (Taveiro, Portugal) (represented by: V. Caires Soares, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 November 2011 in case R 2314/2010-1;










—


Order the Defendant and, as appropriate, the Intervener in the proceedings to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘METRO KIDS COMPANY’, for goods and services in classes 24, 25 and 39 — Community trade mark application No 8200909

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: International trade mark registration No 852751 of the figurative mark ‘METRO’, for goods and services in classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in finding that the confronted marks were similar and the likelihood of confusion and/or association could not be excluded.
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-02-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Abruzzi, Italy, Netherlands, State aid, control of State aid, economic recession, financial intervention, natural disaster








C_2012033EN.01000501.xml










7.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 33/5





Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 33/05






Date of adoption of the decision


19.12.2011




Reference number of State Aid


SA.33303 (11/N)




Member State


Netherlands




Region


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Renotification capital injection of SNS REAAL




Legal basis


Term sheet agreed by Dutch government and SNS REAAL




Type of measure


Individual aid




Objective


Aid to remedy serious disturbances in the economy




Form of aid


Other forms of equity intervention




Budget








 


Annual budget: EUR 750 million










 


Overall budget: EUR 750 million








Intensity


—




Duration (period)


—




Economic sectors


Financial intermediation




Name and address of the granting authority







Nederlandse regering




PB 20201




2500 EE Den Haag




NEDERLAND








Other information


—




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/state_aids_texts_en.htm






Date of adoption of the decision


19.12.2011




Reference number of State Aid


SA.33867 (11/N)




Member State


Italy




Region


Abruzzo




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Modifica del regime N 459/A/09 di aiuti destinati ad ovviare ai danni arrecati dal terremoto del 6 aprile 2009 in Abruzzo




Legal basis


Ordinanza n. 3959 del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri — Ulteriori interventi urgenti diretti a fronteggiare gli eventi sismici verificatisi nella regione Abruzzo il giorno 6 aprile 2009




Type of measure


Aid scheme




Objective


Compensation for damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences




Form of aid


Direct grant, Interest subsidy




Budget


Overall budget: EUR 78,8 million




Intensity


100 %




Duration (period)


Until 31.12.2013




Economic sectors


All sectors




Name and address of the granting authority







Regione Abruzzo




P.zza Santa Giusta — Palazzo Centi




67100 L'Aquila AQ




ITALIA








Other information


—




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/state_aids_texts_en.htm
Case T-49/12: Action brought on 7 February 2012 — Lafarge v Commission
Date: 2012-02-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: cement, infringement of EU law, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_2012109EN.01002001.xml










14.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/20





Action brought on 7 February 2012 — Lafarge v Commission
(Case T-49/12)
2012/C 109/44
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Lafarge (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Winckler, F. Brunet and C. Medina, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, Commission decision C(2011) 8890 of 25 November 2011 in proceedings pursuant to Article 24(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in Case 39520 — Cement and related products;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation No 1/2003, (1) in so far as the Commission exceeded the powers conferred on it by Article 24(1)(d) thereof by requiring the applicant to confirm that its response was complete, correct and precise or to communicate the missing information or the necessary amendments so that the response would be complete, correct and precise.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality, since the Commission went beyond what was appropriate and necessary in order to achieve the objective pursued — by adopting a decision requiring the applicant to confirm that its response was complete, correct and precise or to communicate the missing information or the necessary amendments so that the response would be complete, correct and precise — whereas, in view of the extent of the information requested, such confirmation was impossible, and the Commission could have taken more appropriate measures to ensure that the applicant’s response could provide a reliable basis for assessing whether the undertakings’ conduct was compatible with Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging breach of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair hearing, in that the contested decision effectively requires the applicant to withdraw all the reservations qualifying its response, whereas, in view of the complexity of the information requested, it had to weigh a large number of issues.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of sound administration in that the contested decision was taken without regard being had to the specific aspects of the case raised by the applicant in its response and without the applicant’s being heard first.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFEU] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6450 — EDF/ERSA)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-02-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electricity supply, energy industry, merger control








C_2012033EN.01000302.xml










7.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 33/3





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6450 — EDF/ERSA)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 33/03
On 31 January 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6450. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.