THE 5 ATTACHMENTS
**From “HOW 2 SELL MY LITIGATION, USP AND MEDIATION PROJECTS.txt”:**
This document offers a comprehensive overview of the global legal finance market, focusing on firms that purchase litigation claims outright, distinct from traditional funding. I extracted key strategies for leveraging litigation finance and pre-litigation investment, directly applicable to the Austria VAT case. Firms like Fortress Investment Group, Harbour Litigation Funding, and Burford Capital are identified as potential buyers or funders due to their expertise in high-value claims with strong merits, such as COCOO’s case, which alleges Austria’s VAT and customs practices violate EU laws (Union Customs Code and VAT Directive). The document highlights Fortress’s explicit “Judgment / Award Purchases” and Harbour’s ability to “purchase prospective claims,” making them ideal for selling the case for immediate liquidity. Burford’s “Monetization” offerings could provide upfront cash while retaining some control. Additionally, pre-litigation investment options from firms like Certum Group and Bench Walk Advisors are noted for funding evidence gathering—crucial for quantifying damages and strengthening the case before sale or mediation. The distinction between funding (retaining ownership) and purchase (transferring risk) informs COCOO’s options: sell for cash and risk transfer or fund to pursue damages. This is vital for deciding whether to assign the case to a purchaser or prepare it for mediation, aligning with the query’s focus on pre-legal action strategies.
**From “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Pages 1-10):**
This section introduces the COCOO CaseLink Doctrine, emphasizing an intelligence arsenal for evidence gathering and case-building. I extracted the use of corporate and financial intelligence platforms like OpenCorporates and Companies House to map Austrian businesses benefiting from the alleged discriminatory VAT practices, identifying key players and potential co-conspirators. Regulatory repositories like Violation Tracker UK and EC Competition Portals are highlighted for uncovering similar infringements, supporting a pattern of systemic discrimination. Legal databases like CURIA and EUR-Lex are critical for finding EU law precedents (e.g., CJEU rulings on VAT Directive violations), strengthening COCOO’s legal grounds. The “USP-to-WTO” strategy suggests an unsolicited proposal to Austrian authorities or affected businesses, offering COCOO’s evidence to resolve the dispute—relevant for mediation or selling the case. These tools provide concrete evidence (e.g., corporate structures, regulatory violations) to bolster the case’s value before assignment or mediation.
**From “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Pages 11-20):**
This part details tactical deployment protocols for the intelligence arsenal. I extracted advanced search techniques: using OpenCorporates to map corporate ecosystems of Austrian firms, Companies House for UK-related entities (if applicable), and CURIA for EU case law on VAT/customs violations. The protocol for legal research (e.g., Boolean searches on BAILII, structured filtering on CURIA) helps locate “silver bullet” precedents, such as CJEU cases challenging discriminatory tax practices. Regulatory data mining via Violation Tracker UK and EC Competition Portals can reveal enforcement gaps in Austria’s practices, enhancing COCOO’s argument of systemic failure. These methods are essential for digging out evidence (e.g., financial harm data, legal precedents) and identifying filings like CJEU referrals or complaints to the European Commission, supporting case preparation for sale or mediation.
**From “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Pages 21-30):**
This section provides strategic workflows like the “Noisefilter” and “Systemic Trade Barrier” plays. I extracted the “Noisefilter” workflow to monitor Austrian entities for regulatory violations or financial distress via LSE News Explorer and Violation Tracker UK, qualifying the case’s value. The “Systemic Trade Barrier” play adapts to the Austria case by using Global Trade Alert to identify VAT/customs barriers, OpenCorporates to pinpoint affected firms, and financial reports to quantify harm—building an evidence dossier for sale or mediation. The “Strategic Complaints” workflow suggests filing a complaint with the European Commission, leveraging enforcement gaps to escalate the issue, potentially forcing mediation. These workflows offer actionable steps to gather evidence and prepare filings (e.g., Commission complaints), enhancing the case’s attractiveness to buyers.
**From “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf” (Pages 31-38):**
This final section outlines the ISM Playbook, including “Strategic Complaints & The Snowball” and “Dominating Public Tenders.” I extracted the “Snowball” workflow to file a strategic complaint with the Commission, using evidence of Austria’s VAT violations to trigger broader action, positioning COCOO as a mediator. The tender strategy informs engaging Austrian authorities pre-litigation, shaping a resolution favoring COCOO. Key doctrines like FOC DAM (expanding claimants) and USP (proposing solutions) enhance the case’s scope and value for sale. These strategies provide a roadmap for evidence compilation (e.g., violation patterns) and filings (e.g., Commission submissions), facilitating assignment by demonstrating COCOO’s proactive role.
—
### Application to the Austria VAT Case
For the Austria VAT case, alleging discriminatory practices under Customs Procedure 42, the extracted insights support COCOO’s position as follows:
– **Evidence Gathering:** Use OpenCorporates and Companies House to map Austrian firms benefiting from VAT exemptions, cross-referencing with Violation Tracker UK and EC Competition Portals for regulatory violations. Search CURIA and EUR-Lex for CJEU precedents on VAT Directive breaches, and analyze financial reports of affected non-Austrian businesses (via SEC EDGAR or LSE) to quantify damages. This builds a robust evidence base showing systemic discrimination and economic harm.
– **Filings to Search For:** Look for existing CJEU cases or Commission investigations on Austria’s VAT practices via CURIA and EC Competition Portals. Prepare a formal complaint to the European Commission (per “Snowball” workflow), citing EU law violations, and consider a CJEU referral if national proceedings begin. These filings strengthen the case’s legal footing for sale or mediation.
– **Assigning or Selling the Case:** The case’s strong merits (EU law violations, high damages potential) make it attractive to firms like Fortress (opportunities@fortress.com), Harbour (info@harbourlf.com), or Burford (info@burfordcapital.com). Pre-litigation funding from Certum (info@certumgroup.com) or Bench Walk (info@benchwalk.com) can enhance evidence, increasing value. Selling transfers risk and provides liquidity, while funding retains control—options to weigh based on COCOO’s goals.
– **Mediation Preparation:** The “USP” and “Snowball” strategies suggest proposing a mediated solution to Austrian authorities, using compiled evidence to negotiate a settlement avoiding CJEU litigation. This positions COCOO as a facilitator, potentially securing a mediation role or contract.
—
### Mediation Agreement for the Austria VAT Case
Below is a draft mediation agreement tailored to the Austria VAT case, designed to facilitate resolution between COCOO and Austrian authorities:
—
**Mediation Agreement**
This Mediation Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into on [Insert Date], by and between the Competition & Consumer Organisation Party Limited (“COCOO”), representing non-Austrian businesses impacted by Austria’s VAT and customs practices, and [Insert Austrian Authority Name], representing the Republic of Austria (“Austria”).
**Recitals**
WHEREAS, COCOO alleges that Austria’s application of Customs Procedure 42 imposes discriminatory VAT and customs burdens on non-Austrian businesses, violating the Union Customs Code and VAT Directive of the European Union;
WHEREAS, both parties acknowledge the potential for lengthy litigation, including a possible referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), and the mutual benefits of a swift, mediated resolution;
WHEREAS, the parties agree to engage in mediation to seek a fair and equitable outcome, preserving economic relations and legal clarity.
**Terms of Mediation**
**Appointment of Mediator:** The parties agree to appoint [Insert Mediator’s Name], an impartial expert in EU law and mediation, to guide discussions and negotiations.
**Scope of Mediation:** The mediation will address all claims related to Austria’s VAT and customs practices under Customs Procedure 42, including alleged EU law violations and economic impacts on non-Austrian entities.
**Confidentiality:** All discussions, documents, and information shared during mediation shall remain confidential and without prejudice to any subsequent legal proceedings.
**Good Faith Negotiation:** Both parties commit to negotiating in good faith, aiming for a mutually beneficial resolution that aligns with EU legal standards.
**Costs:** Each party shall cover its own mediation costs, unless a different arrangement is mutually agreed upon during the process.
**Non-Binding Nature:** The mediation is non-binding, allowing either party to withdraw at any time; however, any settlement reached will be formalized in a binding agreement upon signing.
**Governing Law:** This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the European Union, with disputes arising hereunder resolved through arbitration in [Insert Jurisdiction].
**Signatures**
For COCOO:
[Signature]
[Name and Title]
[Date]
For Austria:
[Signature]
[Name and Title]
[Date]
This Agreement is effective as of the date first written above.
—
This mediation agreement leverages COCOO’s evidence and strategic position to propose a resolution, avoiding protracted litigation while preserving the option to escalate if needed. It aligns with the query’s goal of preparing the case for mediation or sale, using insights from the attachments to maximize COCOO’s leverage.
New Insights
The text reveals COCOO’s strategic approach to addressing Austria’s alleged violations of EU law through its VAT and customs practices. Austria is accused of imposing indirect customs representation on non-Austrian businesses, which increases costs and risks, potentially violating EU principles like VAT neutrality and free movement. COCOO’s campaign is not just about legal redress but also about building a coalition of affected businesses, leveraging media, and offering practical solutions. The mention of Austria as a high-tax country from the YouTube transcript adds weight to the argument: any VAT-related advantage for Austrian businesses in such an environment could significantly distort competition. The Euronews transcript reinforces standard EU VAT rules, making Austria’s deviations appear more anomalous. COCOO’s dual structure (charitable and operational) and its no-cost membership model are clever tactics to mobilize support and fund litigation, while the proposed media campaign and LinkedIn targeting show a sophisticated outreach strategy.
### Findings of Infringement (That Allow a Follow-On Claim)
– Violation of Union Customs Code (UCC) Article 18(1): Austria mandates indirect representation, denying non-Austrian businesses the choice of direct representation allowed by EU law.
– Misapplication of VAT Directive (2006/112/EC): Incorrect designation of the VAT debtor under Article 201 shifts liability to customs representatives, and denial of VAT deduction under Article 168 breaches VAT neutrality.
– Discriminatory Practices: Non-Austrian operators face higher costs and risks compared to Austrian businesses, distorting competition.
– Potential Illegal State Aid (Article 107(1) TFEU): Simplified VAT compliance for Austrian businesses may confer a selective advantage.
– Restriction on Free Movement (Articles 34 and 56 TFEU): These practices create barriers to the trade of goods and services across EU borders.
### Possible Causes of Action
– Complaint to the European Commission: For breaches of State Aid rules, UCC, and VAT Directive, prompting an investigation.
– Litigation in Austrian Courts: Seeking damages or injunctions for EU law violations, possibly with a CJEU preliminary ruling request.
– Action for Annulment: Challenging Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/3013 before the CJEU for inadequate competition impact assessment.
### Evidence and Sources (With Type of Evidence)
– CLECAT Letter: Detailed arguments on Austria’s non-compliance (Official Communication).
– Parliamentary Question (P-004072/2016): Official inquiry into Austria’s practices (Official Communication).
– Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/3013: The derogation itself, cited as problematic (Legal Document).
– Economic Data: Studies quantifying financial impacts on non-Austrian firms (Statistical Evidence).
– Testimonies from Affected Businesses: Accounts of harm from logistics firms and importers (Anecdotal Evidence).
### Search Strategies to Seek Evidence on Search Platforms
– TED (Tenders Electronic Daily): Search for tenders related to VAT compliance or logistics in Austria to find affected businesses.
– EUR-Lex: Look for case law or opinions on VAT derogations, State Aid, or customs representation in Austria.
– LinkedIn: Target logistics, customs, and VAT compliance professionals linked to Austria for insights or testimonies.
– Industry Associations: Contact CLECAT, BIFA, or FETEIA for member experiences with Austria’s practices.
– Google Scholar: Find academic papers on VAT neutrality, State Aid, or EU customs law.
– News Outlets: Search for reports on trade disputes or customs issues involving Austria.
This response distills the core issues, legal grounds, evidence, and strategies from the text, offering a clear path for COCOO to pursue its campaign against Austria’s alleged infringements.