COMUNICACIONES


GROK SELF-QUESTIONS


To improve our chances of winning this case, securing the contract, and successfully mediating, I’ve compiled a list of targeted questions to ask various stakeholders. Below, each question is directed to a specific group or individual, followed by possible answers we might receive. These questions aim to gather critical legal, economic, and procedural insights to strengthen our position.

### Questions for Legal Experts (Specializing in EU Tax and Trade Law)
1. **Question:** “What specific provisions of the VAT Directive and Union Customs Code does Austria’s use of Customs Procedure 42 violate?”
– **Possible Answers:**
– “Austria’s application may breach Article 143(1)(d) of the VAT Directive, which requires proper documentation for VAT exemptions on intra-community supplies.”
– “It might violate Article 17 of the Union Customs Code, mandating uniform customs treatment across member states.”
2. **Question:** “Are there any recent CJEU rulings or ongoing cases that address similar issues with Customs Procedure 42?”
– **Possible Answers:**
– “Yes, Case C-123/24 at the CJEU ruled that differential customs procedures breach the single market principle.”
– “No, but the European Commission is currently investigating Austria’s customs practices.”
3. **Question:** “What legal precedents exist for claiming economic harm due to discriminatory tax practices in the EU?”
– **Possible Answers:**
– “Case C-456/22 at the CJEU awarded damages to businesses harmed by discriminatory VAT practices.”
– “Limited precedents exist, but EU non-discrimination principles provide a strong foundation.”

### Questions for Industry Specialists (e.g., Trade Economists, Tax Consultants)
1. **Question:** “How has Austria’s use of Customs Procedure 42 impacted trade flows and market competition within the EU?”
– **Possible Answers:**
– “Austrian exports to other EU countries have risen by 15%, distorting competition.”
– “Non-Austrian businesses report a 10% market share decline due to Austria’s VAT advantages.”
2. **Question:** “What economic data or models can quantify the financial harm caused by Austria’s practices?”
– **Possible Answers:**
– “Eurostat data indicates a €500M annual loss to non-Austrian firms.”
– “Regression analysis shows a 5% trade volume reduction in affected sectors.”
3. **Question:** “Are there any industry-specific reports or studies on the effects of VAT exemptions under Customs Procedure 42?”
– **Possible Answers:**
– “A 2025 OECD report highlights VAT distortions in the EU art market.”
– “No specific reports exist, but industry surveys show widespread concern.”

### Questions for Austrian Authorities or Representatives
1. **Question:** “Can you provide documentation on how Customs Procedure 42 is applied in Austria, including any internal guidelines or interpretations?”
– **Possible Answers:**
– “We adhere to standard EU guidelines with no unique interpretations.”
– “Our guidelines prioritize local businesses to boost the economy.”
2. **Question:** “Have there been any audits or reviews of Austria’s customs practices by EU bodies?”
– **Possible Answers:**
– “A 2024 audit identified minor compliance issues.”
– “No recent audits have occurred.”
3. **Question:** “What measures has Austria taken to ensure compliance with the VAT Directive and Union Customs Code?”
– **Possible Answers:**
– “We’ve introduced stricter documentation requirements.”
– “We’re revising our customs procedures.”

### Questions for Affected Businesses or Trade Associations
1. **Question:** “Can you provide specific examples of how Austria’s customs practices have harmed your business?”
– **Possible Answers:**
– “We lost a €2M contract due to Austrian competitors’ VAT advantages.”
– “Our market share in Austria dropped 20% after Customs Procedure 42 was implemented.”
2. **Question:** “Have you filed any complaints or taken legal action regarding these practices?”
– **Possible Answers:**
– “Yes, we lodged a complaint with the European Commission in 2023.”
– “No, but we’re exploring legal options.”
3. **Question:** “What evidence do you have to support claims of economic harm or unfair competition?”
– **Possible Answers:**
– “Financial statements showing revenue declines.”
– “Market analysis reports indicating unfair competition.”

### Questions for EU Commission Officials or Policymakers
1. **Question:** “What is the European Commission’s stance on Austria’s application of Customs Procedure 42?”
– **Possible Answers:**
– “We’re investigating potential infringements.”
– “We view Austria as compliant with EU law.”
2. **Question:** “Are there any planned reforms or policy changes that could address the issues raised in this case?”
– **Possible Answers:**
– “The 2028 Customs Reforms aim to standardize procedures.”
– “No reforms are planned, but we’re open to reviewing practices.”
3. **Question:** “What remedies or actions can the Commission take if Austria is found to be in violation?”
– **Possible Answers:**
– “We can launch infringement proceedings and impose fines.”
– “We can recommend policy changes but lack direct enforcement power.”

 

# Questions to Improve Case, Contract, and Mediation Success

## Legal Experts (EU Tax and Trade Law)
1. **Question:** “What specific provisions of the VAT Directive and Union Customs Code does Austria’s use of Customs Procedure 42 violate?”
– **Possible Answers:**
– “Austria’s application may breach Article 143(1)(d) of the VAT Directive, requiring proper documentation for VAT exemptions.”
– “It might violate Article 17 of the Union Customs Code, mandating uniform customs treatment.”
2. **Question:** “Are there any recent CJEU rulings or ongoing cases that address similar issues with Customs Procedure 42?”
– **Possible Answers:**
– “Yes, Case C-123/24 ruled differential customs procedures breach the single market.”
– “No, but the European Commission is investigating Austria’s practices.”
3. **Question:** “What legal precedents exist for claiming economic harm due to discriminatory tax practices in the EU?”
– **Possible Answers:**
– “Case C-456/22 awarded damages for discriminatory VAT practices.”
– “Limited precedents, but EU non-discrimination principles apply.”

## Industry Specialists (Trade Economists, Tax Consultants)
1. **Question:** “How has Austria’s use of Customs Procedure 42 impacted trade flows and market competition within the EU?”
– **Possible Answers:**
– “Austrian exports rose 15%, distorting competition.”
– “Non-Austrian firms lost 10% market share due to VAT advantages.”
2. **Question:** “What economic data or models can quantify the financial harm caused by Austria’s practices?”
– **Possible Answers:**
– “Eurostat shows €500M annual losses for non-Austrian firms.”
– “Regression analysis indicates a 5% trade volume drop.”
3. **Question:** “Are there any industry-specific reports or studies on the effects of VAT exemptions under Customs Procedure 42?”
– **Possible Answers:**
– “A 2025 OECD report notes VAT distortions in the art market.”
– “No reports, but industry surveys reflect concern.”

## Austrian Authorities or Representatives
1. **Question:** “Can you provide documentation on how Customs Procedure 42 is applied in Austria, including internal guidelines?”
– **Possible Answers:**
– “We follow standard EU guidelines.”
– “Our guidelines favor local businesses.”
2. **Question:** “Have there been any audits or reviews of Austria’s customs practices by EU bodies?”
– **Possible Answers:**
– “A 2024 audit found minor issues.”
– “No recent audits.”
3. **Question:** “What measures has Austria taken to ensure compliance with the VAT Directive and Union Customs Code?”
– **Possible Answers:**
– “Stricter documentation requirements added.”
– “Customs procedures under revision.”

## Affected Businesses or Trade Associations
1. **Question:** “Can you provide specific examples of how Austria’s customs practices have harmed your business?”
– **Possible Answers:**
– “Lost a €2M contract to Austrian VAT advantages.”
– “Market share in Austria fell 20% post-implementation.”
2. **Question:** “Have you filed any complaints or taken legal action regarding these practices?”
– **Possible Answers:**
– “Yes, filed with the European Commission in 2023.”
– “No, but considering legal action.”
3. **Question:** “What evidence do you have to support claims of economic harm or unfair competition?”
– **Possible Answers:**
– “Financial statements show revenue drops.”
– “Market analysis highlights unfair competition.”

## EU Commission Officials or Policymakers
1. **Question:** “What is the European Commission’s stance on Austria’s application of Customs Procedure 42?”
– **Possible Answers:**
– “Under investigation for infringements.”
– “Viewed as compliant with EU law.”
2. **Question:** “Are there any planned reforms or policy changes that could address the issues raised in this case?”
– **Possible Answers:**
– “2028 Customs Reforms will standardize procedures.”
– “No plans, but open to review.”
3. **Question:** “What remedies or actions can the Commission take if Austria is found to be in violation?”
– **Possible Answers:**
– “Infringement proceedings and fines possible.”
– “Policy recommendations without direct enforcement.”


Questions to Improve Case, Contract, and Mediation Success

Legal Experts (EU Tax and Trade Law)

  1. Question: “What specific provisions of the VAT Directive and Union Customs Code does Austria’s use of Customs Procedure 42 violate?”
    • Possible Answers:
      • “Austria’s application may breach Article 143(1)(d) of the VAT Directive, requiring proper documentation for VAT exemptions.”
      • “It might violate Article 17 of the Union Customs Code, mandating uniform customs treatment.”
  2. Question: “Are there any recent CJEU rulings or ongoing cases that address similar issues with Customs Procedure 42?”
    • Possible Answers:
      • “Yes, Case C-123/24 ruled differential customs procedures breach the single market.”
      • “No, but the European Commission is investigating Austria’s practices.”
  3. Question: “What legal precedents exist for claiming economic harm due to discriminatory tax practices in the EU?”
    • Possible Answers:
      • “Case C-456/22 awarded damages for discriminatory VAT practices.”
      • “Limited precedents, but EU non-discrimination principles apply.”

Industry Specialists (Trade Economists, Tax Consultants)

  1. Question: “How has Austria’s use of Customs Procedure 42 impacted trade flows and market competition within the EU?”
    • Possible Answers:
      • “Austrian exports rose 15%, distorting competition.”
      • “Non-Austrian firms lost 10% market share due to VAT advantages.”
  2. Question: “What economic data or models can quantify the financial harm caused by Austria’s practices?”
    • Possible Answers:
      • “Eurostat shows €500M annual losses for non-Austrian firms.”
      • “Regression analysis indicates a 5% trade volume drop.”
  3. Question: “Are there any industry-specific reports or studies on the effects of VAT exemptions under Customs Procedure 42?”
    • Possible Answers:
      • “A 2025 OECD report notes VAT distortions in the art market.”
      • “No reports, but industry surveys reflect concern.”

Austrian Authorities or Representatives

  1. Question: “Can you provide documentation on how Customs Procedure 42 is applied in Austria, including internal guidelines?”
    • Possible Answers:
      • “We follow standard EU guidelines.”
      • “Our guidelines favor local businesses.”
  2. Question: “Have there been any audits or reviews of Austria’s customs practices by EU bodies?”
    • Possible Answers:
      • “A 2024 audit found minor issues.”
      • “No recent audits.”
  3. Question: “What measures has Austria taken to ensure compliance with the VAT Directive and Union Customs Code?”
    • Possible Answers:
      • “Stricter documentation requirements added.”
      • “Customs procedures under revision.”

Affected Businesses or Trade Associations

  1. Question: “Can you provide specific examples of how Austria’s customs practices have harmed your business?”
    • Possible Answers:
      • “Lost a €2M contract to Austrian VAT advantages.”
      • “Market share in Austria fell 20% post-implementation.”
  2. Question: “Have you filed any complaints or taken legal action regarding these practices?”
    • Possible Answers:
      • “Yes, filed with the European Commission in 2023.”
      • “No, but considering legal action.”
  3. Question: “What evidence do you have to support claims of economic harm or unfair competition?”
    • Possible Answers:
      • “Financial statements show revenue drops.”
      • “Market analysis highlights unfair competition.”

EU Commission Officials or Policymakers

  1. Question: “What is the European Commission’s stance on Austria’s application of Customs Procedure 42?”
    • Possible Answers:
      • “Under investigation for infringements.”
      • “Viewed as compliant with EU law.”
  2. Question: “Are there any planned reforms or policy changes that could address the issues raised in this case?”
    • Possible Answers:
      • “2028 Customs Reforms will standardize procedures.”
      • “No plans, but open to review.”
  3. Question: “What remedies or actions can the Commission take if Austria is found to be in violation?”
    • Possible Answers:
      • “Infringement proceedings and fines possible.”
      • “Policy recommendations without direct enforcement.”

HOW TO MAKE MONEY


The legal strategy hinges on a rock-solid complaint to the European Commission, framing Austria’s practices as illegal State Aid under Article 107(1) TFEU to trigger DG Competition’s swift enforcement powers, alongside breaches of UCC Article 18(1) and VAT Directive Articles 168 and 201. The deep research report provides a goldmine of evidence—historical grievances from 2016, industry backing from CLECAT, and CJEU precedents like *Vetsch*—proving Austria’s long-standing non-compliance. I’d bolster this with an economic study quantifying the harm to non-Austrian firms, making the case undeniable. Simultaneously, I’d push affected companies to sue in Austrian courts, aiming for a CJEU preliminary ruling to lock in a binding EU-wide victory.

To make money, I’d capitalize on COCOO’s position. First, I’d launch a membership program offering businesses exclusive updates and legal guidance on the case for a fee, targeting freight forwarders and importers hit by Austria’s rules. Second, I’d offer consulting services, helping firms navigate EU VAT and customs complexities, using our high-profile challenge to attract clients. Third, I’d monetize the SparkLive event with sponsorships from legal and logistics firms eager to align with our cause. Finally, I’d secure litigation funding from the UK’s robust market, structuring a portfolio of claims to draw big investors, ensuring costs are covered while promising a cut of any damages or settlements.

Publicly, I’d amplify pressure with a media blitz—press releases and articles in outlets like *Politico Europe*—and position COCOO as the go-to authority on EU competition law. If we win, I’d parlay this into policy influence and expand to similar cases across the EU, building a revenue stream from advocacy and legal representation. This multi-pronged plan ensures victory and profit, turning Austria’s VAT mess into COCOO’s golden opportunity.

 

# Draft Strategy for COCOO’s Austria VAT Complaint

## Legal Strategy
File an enhanced complaint with the European Commission, leading with a State Aid claim under Article 107(1) TFEU to engage DG Competition’s enforcement powers. Highlight breaches of UCC Article 18(1) for mandatory indirect representation and VAT Directive Articles 168 and 201 for denying VAT deduction and misassigning liability. Support with CLECAT’s letter, the 2016 Parliamentary Question, and an economic study quantifying financial harm. Push parallel lawsuits in Austrian courts for a CJEU preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU.

## Monetization Plan
Launch a membership program charging fees for case updates and legal insights. Offer consulting on EU VAT and customs compliance, leveraging case visibility. Secure SparkLive event sponsorships from legal and logistics firms. Obtain litigation funding from UK funders, bundling claims into a high-value portfolio for a share of winnings.

## Public Relations
Issue a press release to major outlets like *Politico Europe* and publish thought leadership pieces on EU law, boosting COCOO’s profile and attracting clients.

## Long-Term Vision
Use a win to influence EU VAT policy, securing advisory roles, and replicate the model in other EU states for expanded revenue.


NEWS & CASE UPDATES


1. **Austria’s High VAT Rate on Art Sales Compared to Other EU Countries**

– **Source**: Vindobona.org, June 27, 2025, “Austria’s Art Market at a Crossroad: Calls for a Reduction in VAT”
– **Details**: Austria’s high VAT rate on art sales remains a point of contention, especially when compared to lower rates in countries like Italy (5%), Germany (7%), and France (5.5%). The article notes concerns from Austrian galleries about a “cultural drain” as sales shift to lower-VAT countries, prompting calls for a VAT reduction.
– **Relevance to Your Case**: This disparity highlights a potential violation of the VAT Directive’s principle of tax neutrality, which aims to ensure fair competition across the EU. It suggests Austria’s tax policies may create an uneven playing field, disadvantaging businesses in other member states.
– **How to Incorporate**: Argue that Austria’s disproportionately high VAT rate on art sales is discriminatory and causes economic distortions, supporting your claim that its VAT practices contravene EU standards. This can be a concrete example of how Austria’s policies harm cross-border trade.

#### 2. **European Commission Reprimands Austria for Breaking EU Budget Rules**
– **Source**: Euractiv, June 4, 2025, “Brussels reprimands Austria for breaking EU budget rules”
– **Details**: The European Commission has recommended a deficit procedure against Austria due to its fiscal deficit exceeding the EU’s 3% threshold (projected at 4.4% for 2025). This reflects broader economic and fiscal challenges in Austria.
– **Relevance to Your Case**: This indicates that Austria’s economic policies, potentially including its VAT and customs practices, are under EU scrutiny for non-compliance, lending credibility to your allegations of regulatory breaches.
– **How to Incorporate**: Use this to frame Austria’s VAT and customs issues as part of a larger pattern of fiscal irresponsibility. Suggest that its non-compliance with EU budget rules may extend to tax and customs policies, reinforcing your argument that Austria’s practices warrant intervention.

#### 3. **Proposed EU Customs Reforms**
– **Source**: vatcalc.com, June 19, 2025, “EU proposed 2028 e-commerce import handling fee update”
– **Details**: The European Commission is negotiating reforms to the EU Customs Code, including a proposed €2 customs administration charge on direct imports of goods to EU consumers. These reforms aim to address customs-related issues like fraud and non-compliance.
– **Relevance to Your Case**: While not specific to Austria, this shows the EU is actively tackling customs and VAT fraud—issues potentially linked to Austria’s use of Customs Procedure 42.
– **How to Incorporate**: Argue that Austria’s practices under Customs Procedure 42 may contribute to the very problems these reforms seek to address. Position your case as aligned with the EU’s broader efforts to ensure fair and compliant customs procedures, urging specific action against Austria.

#### 4. **Shift to “Reverse Charge” Procedure for Import VAT**
– **Source**: Lexology, May 12, 2025, “Customs Duties and Value Added Tax in the EU (Legal Situation in 2025)”
– **Details**: Austria and other member states have adopted a “reverse charge” procedure for import VAT, where VAT is recorded via accounting rather than paid upfront at import.
– **Relevance to Your Case**: This change could affect how Customs Procedure 42 (which allows VAT exemptions for goods imported into one member state before being transported to another) is applied, potentially creating advantages or loopholes for Austrian businesses.
– **How to Incorporate**: Investigate whether this shift disproportionately benefits Austrian firms or disadvantages non-Austrian businesses. If it does, argue that it exacerbates discriminatory practices under Customs Procedure 42. If it simplifies compliance, acknowledge it but emphasize that it doesn’t resolve underlying issues with Austria’s implementation.

#### 5. **Austria’s Strict Enforcement in VAT Fraud Cases**
– **Source**: Bloomberg Tax, June 10, 2025, “Austria MOF Clarifies Denial of Input Tax Deduction in Suspected Fraudulent Transactions”
– **Details**: The Austrian Federal Finance Court denied a VAT exemption in a case due to suspected fraud and insufficient documentation, reflecting strict enforcement of VAT rules.
– **Relevance to Your Case**: This could counter your claims of lax practices, as it shows Austria cracking down on VAT non-compliance.
– **How to Incorporate**: Acknowledge this enforcement but argue that it’s selective—focusing on fraud while allowing systemic issues with Customs Procedure 42 to persist. Suggest that Austria’s strictness in some areas masks broader discriminatory or non-compliant practices, which your case seeks to address.

### Strategic Recommendations
To maximize the impact of these updates on your case:
– **Highlight Discriminatory Practices**: Use the art market VAT disparity (Update 1) as a flagship example of how Austria’s policies harm EU-wide competition, tying it to broader VAT Directive violations.
– **Leverage EU Scrutiny**: Cite the deficit procedure recommendation (Update 2) to position Austria as a problematic actor under EU oversight, suggesting its customs and VAT practices are part of this pattern.
– **Align with EU Reforms**: Frame your case as supporting the EU’s customs reform goals (Update 3), arguing that Austria’s current practices undermine these efforts.
– **Address Counterarguments**: Proactively tackle Austria’s strict VAT enforcement (Update 5) by emphasizing that selective rigor doesn’t negate systemic flaws in Customs Procedure 42.
– **Investigate Further**: Dig deeper into the “reverse charge” procedure (Update 4) to determine its specific impact on your case, as it could either bolster or complicate your arguments.

### Conclusion
These 2025 updates provide a mix of opportunities and challenges. The high VAT rate on art sales and the European Commission’s fiscal reprimand offer strong support for claims of discrimination and non-compliance, while Austria’s strict VAT enforcement requires careful rebuttal. By integrating these findings strategically, you can strengthen your case and increase your chances of success in addressing Austria’s alleged violations of the VAT Directive and Union Customs Code, particularly regarding Customs Procedure 42.