PUBLIC CONTRACT APPLICATION

PROYECTO DE CONTRATACION PUBLICA : AUSTRIA

EU TENDERS FOR THIS CASE

Based on your strategy and the EU procurement websites you provided, I have searched the Tenders Electronic Daily (TED) portal for open tender offers that align with your expertise in financial oversight, anti-fraud, and value-for-money analysis.

Here are the most relevant open tenders I found, including their deadlines, to allow you time for preparation.

Highly Relevant Open Tenders

These are active calls for tenders that appear to be a strong match for your organization’s proposed services and proprietary frameworks.

1. Anti-Corruption and Good Governance Expertise

Tender Title: Provision of anti-corruption and good governance expertise for interventions through the single-entry point for programming (OSESP)
Contracting Authority: European Commission, Directorate-General for International Partnerships (DG INTPA)
Country: Belgium
Relevance to your strategy: This tender is at the core of your service offering. It seeks external expertise to support anti-corruption and good governance initiatives, which directly aligns with your strategy of identifying and addressing financial mismanagement and procurement irregularities. This is a significant opportunity to apply your “POPIA Framework” and other methodologies on a large scale.
Deadline for Submission: June 27, 2025
Link to Tender: Provision of anti-corruption and good governance expertise

2. Audit Services (including Fraud Audit)

Tender Title: Audit Services
Contracting Authority: The Organisation for Joint Armament Co-operation (OCCAR-EA)
Country: Belgium
Relevance to your strategy: This tender, which specifically includes the CPV code for “Fraud audit services,” is a direct opportunity to apply your investigative and analytical skills. The contracting authority is a European public body, making it a relevant target. You can position your “Non-Visible Wealth Impact Assessment (NVWIA) Toolkit” as a unique methodology for their audit requirements.
Deadline for Submission: June 13, 2025
Link to Tender: Audit Services

3. External Audit Services

Tender Title: External audit services for the political parties and foundations at European level
Contracting Authority: European Parliament
Country: Belgium
Relevance to your strategy: This tender for external audit services for European political parties and foundations is a high-profile opportunity to ensure financial regularity and value for money in a politically sensitive environment. Your firm’s expertise in identifying non-obvious financial impact would be a strong selling point.
Deadline for Submission: July 3, 2025
Link to Tender: External audit services

Upcoming Opportunities and Other Insights

European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF): I found a “Periodic indicative notice” from OLAF, which is a forecast of future procurements. While the current notice is for IT services, it is highly recommended to monitor OLAF’s procurement announcements closely, as they are the EU’s primary anti-fraud body and will likely have future needs for specialized consulting and investigative services that align with your expertise.
Keywords for Your Own Searches: For your own monitoring of the TED portal, I recommend using a combination of the following keywords and CPV codes:
- Keywords: “anti-fraud,” “forensic audit,” “value for money,” “anti-corruption,” “procurement consulting,” “assurance framework.”
- CPV Codes: 79212400-1 (Fraud audit services), 79212100-8 (Financial auditing services), 79418000-7 (Procurement consultancy services).

Guidance on EU Procurement Platforms

As a reminder, here is how to use the other platforms you mentioned in your tendering process:

ted.europa.eu: Your primary source for finding tender notices.
simap.ted.europa.eu: Use this to get the correct standard forms for your application.
ec.europa.eu/tools/ecertis/: Use this to check which specific certificates and documents are required for tenders in different EU countries.
European Single Procurement Document (ESPD): This self-declaration form will be a standard part of your application for most EU tenders.

The opportunities listed above are all currently open and provide a significant runway for you to prepare a strong proposal that showcases your unique capabilities.

ESP TENDERS FOR THIS CASE

Based on your strategy to address financial mismanagement and procurement irregularities in the public sector, I have analyzed the provided Spanish websites and conducted a search for relevant open and upcoming public tenders.

Confirmation of Website Purpose

First, it’s important to clarify the function of the websites you provided:

contrataciondelestado.es (Plataforma de Contratación del Sector Público): This is the primary portal for searching and applying for public tenders in Spain. My search for opportunities was focused here.
https://registrodelicitadores.gob.es/ (Registro Oficial de Licitadores y Empresas Clasificadas del Estado – ROLECE): This is not a tender search engine. It is the official registry of companies that are classified and authorized to contract with the Spanish public sector. You would use this site to register your own company to be eligible for public contracts.

Open Tenders Aligned with Your Strategy

My search of the Plataforma de Contratación del Sector Público has yielded several results that align with your “causes of action.” While many tenders are for routine financial audits, I found some that are more strategic in nature and directly related to your focus on fraud and improving public sector financial management.

Key Open Tender Opportunity

I found one particularly relevant open tender:

Title: Servicio de consultoría estratégica para el mantenimiento y desarrollo del modelo de lucha contra el fraude a la Seguridad Social en el ámbito de la Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social¹

(Strategic consulting service for the maintenance and development of the model for combating Social Security fraud within the scope of the General Treasury of the Social Security)

Contracting Authority: Secretaria General de la Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (General Secretariat of the General Treasury of the Social Security)
Relevance to your strategy: This tender directly addresses the core of your “pressure campaign” strategy: the detection and prevention of financial irregularities and fraud within a major government body. The focus on “consultoría estratégica” and the “desarrollo del modelo de lucha contra el fraude” (development of the model for combating fraud) aligns perfectly with your proposed solution of implementing a new assurance framework. This is not a routine audit, but a high-level strategic project to improve a government agency’s anti-fraud capabilities.
Status: While a previous version of this tender was awarded to Accenture in 2020, my research indicates a new or renewed tender with a submission deadline of March 31, 2025.

You can find more information about this tender by searching for the exact title on the contrataciondelestado.es portal.

Other Relevant Findings and Search Guidance

While the above is the most promising open tender I found, my search also revealed other relevant information that can inform your strategy:

Anti-Fraud Plans: I found several documents titled “Plan de Medidas Antifraude” (Anti-Fraud Measures Plan) from various public bodies. These documents indicate a growing focus on fraud prevention and could signal future procurement opportunities in this area.
Relevant CPV Codes: To aid in your own future searches on the portal, I have identified the following Common Procurement Vocabulary (CPV) codes as highly relevant to your services:
- 79212000-7: Auditing services
- 79212100-8: Financial auditing services
- 79212400-1: Fraud audit services
- 79410000-8: Business and management consultancy services
- 79418000-7: Procurement consultancy services
- 72810000-1: Computer audit services
- 79419000-4: Evaluation consultancy services

By using these CPV codes in the advanced search function of the contrataciondelestado.es portal, you can more effectively identify relevant tenders as they are published.

In summary, there are active and relevant opportunities in the Spanish public sector that align with your unique expertise in combating financial mismanagement. The open tender with the Social Security administration is a prime opportunity to translate your campaign pressure into a procurement process.

The “perpetrators” in THIS Austria CASE, are Austrian businesses that gain a competitive advantage in importing goods and potentially in offering customs/fiscal representation services due to specific national VAT rules and customs procedures.

The non-Austrian entities you’re looking for would be those who:

Engage in importing/exporting goods with Austria.
Provide logistics, customs clearance, or fiscal representation services for trade involving Austria.

These entities might experience higher costs, administrative burdens, or competitive disadvantages due to the Austrian practices.

Relevant NACE Codes for Identifying Affected Non-Austrian Businesses:

Logistics, Freight Forwarding, and Customs Brokerage:
- NACE Code H 52.29 (Other transportation support activities): This is a primary NACE code.¹ It includes:
  - Freight forwarding services.²
  - Customs brokerage/agency services.
  - Arrangement of shipments on behalf of shippers.
  - Cargo handling (if related to cross-border trade).
- NACE Code H 49.41 (Freight transport by road): Many road freight companies are directly involved in cross-border transport to Austria.
Fiscal Representation and VAT Consultancy:
- NACE Code M 69.20 (Accounting, bookkeeping and auditing activities; tax consultancy): This is key for identifying firms that:
  - Offer fiscal representation services for VAT in EU countries.
  - Provide international VAT consultancy and compliance services.
  - May have encountered issues with Austrian VAT rules for non-Austrian representatives.
Wholesale Trade (Importers/Exporters):
- NACE Code G 46 (Wholesale trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles): This is a broad category.³ Companies under various sub-codes here would be importing goods into Austria or competing with Austrian importers who benefit from the alleged advantages. Examples:
  - G 46.4: Wholesale of household goods (e.g., textiles, appliances, furniture).⁴
  - G 46.5: Wholesale of information and communication equipment.⁵
  - G 46.6: Wholesale of other machinery, equipment, and supplies.⁶
  - G 46.7: Other specialised wholesale.⁷⁸
- The key is that these are non-Austrian wholesalers trading with Austria.
Manufacturing Sectors (Exporters):
- Various codes under NACE Sector C (Manufacturing) would be relevant for companies that manufacture goods in the UK, Spain, or other EU countries and export them to Austria. They might rely on third-party logistics and customs services or handle their own, thus encountering the issues.

Strategy for Identifying Companies and Contacts:

Your approach should be to find companies within these NACE sectors in your target geographies (UK, Spain, broader EU) that either explicitly state they trade with Austria, offer services for Austria, or are members of associations that represent such businesses.

Types of Companies and Organisations to Target & Potential Leads:

While providing an exhaustive list of names and direct emails for numerous companies is beyond the scope of a single search, here are types of entities and how you might find them, along with illustrative examples based on general industry knowledge:

1. Freight Forwarders, Logistics Companies, and Customs Agents (NACE H 52.29, H 49.41)

* How to find: Search online directories for “freight forwarders UK to Austria,” “logistics companies Spain Austria,” “customs brokers [country] for Austrian trade.” Look for companies advertising services for the Austrian market.

* Potential for COCOO: These companies are directly involved in the processes COCOO is investigating. They may have firsthand experience of difficulties, discriminatory treatment, or lost business due to the Austrian practices making non-Austrian operators less competitive.

* Example Search Terms for COCOO:

* “UK freight forwarders specializing in Austrian market”

* “Empresas transitarias España servicios Austria”

* “Customs clearance services for Austria in [EU Country]”

* Finding Contacts: Company websites usually have a “Contact Us” page with general email addresses (e.g., info@, sales@, operations@) or contact forms.9 LinkedIn can be useful for identifying individuals in relevant roles (e.g., Head of European Operations, Customs Manager).

* Illustrative (Hypothetical) Leads:

* UK: Search for members of BIFA (British International Freight Association) who list Austria as a trade lane.

* Spain: Search for members of FETEIA-OLTRA (Federación Española de Transitarios) who operate on routes to Austria.

* EU-wide: DB Schenker, Kuehne + Nagel, DSV (large players with extensive European networks and likely dedicated Austrian trade desks outside Austria). Look for their national branches in the UK, Spain, Germany, etc.

2. International VAT Consultants and Fiscal Representatives (NACE M 69.20)

* How to find: Search for “international VAT services UK,” “fiscal representative Austria Spain,” “VAT compliance for Austria [EU country].”

* Potential for COCOO: These firms advise businesses on VAT compliance for cross-border trade.10 They would be acutely aware of any specific challenges or discriminatory aspects of Austrian VAT law concerning non-resident businesses or non-Austrian fiscal representatives, especially regarding the right to deduct VAT.

* Example Search Terms for COCOO:

* “VAT reclaim Austria for non-resident companies UK”

* “Asesoría IVA internacional Austria España”

* “Fiscal representation services Austria based in Germany”

* Finding Contacts: Look for contact details for their international VAT or indirect tax teams. Many accountancy and tax advisory firms (from mid-tier to Big Four) have such departments.

* Illustrative (Hypothetical) Leads:

* Look for firms like Avalara, VATMOSS, regional accountancy firms with international trade desks in the UK, Spain, Germany, Netherlands, etc.

* Search for members of international tax advisor associations.

3. Exporters and Wholesalers (NACE G 46 and various C codes)

* How to find: This is broader. You can look for:

* Members of national export associations or chambers of commerce in the UK, Spain, etc., that focus on trade with Austria.

* Companies in specific sectors known to have significant trade with Austria (e.g., machinery, automotive parts, electronics, pharmaceuticals, food products – depending on UK/Spanish export strengths to Austria).

* Potential for COCOO: These businesses are the ones who ultimately bear the costs or suffer the delays and administrative burdens if the import process into Austria is unfairly structured. They might have been forced to use more expensive Austrian-based intermediaries or faced issues directly.

* Example Search Terms for COCOO:

* “UK companies exporting [product type] to Austria”

* “Directorio de empresas españolas exportadoras a Austria”

* “Challenges exporting to Austria from UK/Spain”

* Finding Contacts: Sales departments, export managers, or logistics departments of these companies.

* Illustrative (Hypothetical) Leads:

* Check with the Department for Business and Trade (UK) or ICEX (Spain) for lists or directories of companies trading with Austria.

* Identify industry-specific trade bodies (e.g., for automotive components, food and drink) and inquire if their members have reported trade issues with Austria.

4. Industry Associations and Chambers of Commerce

* How to find: Search for “freight transport association UK,” “Spanish exporters association,” “British Chamber of Commerce EU,” etc.

* Potential for COCOO: These organizations represent the collective interests of their members. They are prime candidates for collaboration as they may already be aware of the issues or can survey their members. CLECAT (European Association for Forwarding, Transport, Logistics and Customs Services) is an example of an EU-level body whose complaints you’ve referenced; national member associations of CLECAT in the UK (BIFA) and Spain (FETEIA) would be key.11

* Example Search Terms for COCOO:

* “UK international trade associations”

* “Spanish logistics and transport associations”

* “European small business associations trade policy”

* Finding Contacts: Policy officers, international trade directors, or general contact points.

* Key Associations to consider contacting:

* UK:

* British International Freight Association (BIFA)

* Road Haulage Association (RHA)

* Logistics UK

* Federation of Small Businesses (FSB)

* Institute of Export & International Trade

* Spain:

* FETEIA-OLTRA (Federación Española de Transitarios)12

* ASTIC (Asociación de Transporte Internacional por Carretera)

* CEOE (Confederación Española de Organizaciones Empresariales) – for broader business interests.

* EU Level (besides CLECAT):

* UEAPME (European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises)

* Eurochambres (The Association of European Chambers of Commerce and Industry)

Approach Strategy for COCOO:

Start with Associations: Contacting industry associations (especially in logistics, customs, and export sectors) in the UK, Spain, and key EU countries (like Germany, Netherlands, Italy, France if they have significant trade with Austria) can be very efficient. They can provide insights into common problems faced by their members and potentially help disseminate information or identify affected companies.
Targeted Searches for Service Providers: Conduct specific searches for freight forwarders, customs agents, and VAT specialists in the UK and Spain who mention Austria.
Look for Public Complaints/Forums: Sometimes, businesses air grievances about trade barriers in online forums or industry publications. Searching for terms like “problems importing Austria VAT,” “Austrian customs delays non-EU,” might reveal anecdotal evidence or leads.
Leverage LinkedIn: Use LinkedIn to identify professionals in logistics, customs, and international VAT roles in non-Austrian companies that trade with Austria.

When contacting these entities, frame your inquiry around understanding the challenges non-Austrian businesses face when trading with or operating services for Austria, particularly concerning VAT and customs procedures. Explain COCOO’s mission to ensure a fair and level playing field.

This targeted approach should help you identify companies and contacts relevant to the Austrian case, allowing you to gather evidence and build a coalition of interested or affected parties.

Okay, focusing exclusively on the Austrian case, here’s a breakdown of the “perpetrators'” activities by relevant NACE codes and a strategy to identify potential non-Austrian competitors or collaborators (i.e., entities potentially harmed or who would seek a level playing field) in the European, UK, and Spanish markets.

Perpetrators’ Activities & Relevant NACE Codes (Focus on the advantage):

The “perpetrators” are Austrian businesses benefiting from national VAT rules and customs practices that allegedly create an unfair advantage. This advantage primarily relates to:

Importation of Goods and subsequent trade: Austrian businesses involved in importing goods across various sectors might experience lower administrative burdens or more favorable VAT treatment. The NACE codes for these businesses are diverse, covering wholesale, retail, and manufacturing sectors that rely on imports.
- NACE Section G – Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles: Particularly groups like:
  - 46.1 to 46.9 (Wholesale trade): This is a very broad category, covering wholesalers of agricultural raw materials, food, household goods, IT equipment, machinery, etc. Austrian wholesalers benefiting from easier import VAT processes would fall here.
- Other NACE codes for specific manufacturing sectors that are import-heavy.
Customs Agency and Fiscal Representation Services: Austrian customs agents and fiscal representatives might gain a privileged position if the rules make it harder for non-Austrian representatives to operate effectively or if they are the only ones who can navigate these procedures for their clients without adverse VAT consequences (like non-deductibility of VAT for the representative, as alleged in your complaints).
- NACE H 52.29 – Other transportation support activities: This code is key as it includes freight forwarding, customs brokerage, and other activities related to the logistics chain.¹³
- NACE M 69.20 – Accounting, bookkeeping and auditing activities; tax consultancy: Fiscal representation for VAT purposes often falls under or is closely linked to tax consultancy and accounting.¹⁴ Non-Austrian firms offering these services for Austria might be disadvantaged.

Identifying Potential Competitors & Collaborators (The Harmed Parties):

COCOO’s strategy is to identify non-Austrian entities in the EU, UK, and Spain who are potentially disadvantaged. These could be:

Logistics companies, freight forwarders, customs brokers, and fiscal representatives in the UK, Spain, and other EU countries who find it difficult to compete when offering services for imports into Austria or face unfair conditions.
Businesses (importers/exporters) in the UK, Spain, and other EU countries that trade with Austria and incur higher costs or administrative burdens due to these Austrian practices compared to their Austrian counterparts.

Strategy to Identify & List of Potential Leads:

Based on the search results, here are initial examples of companies and organizations. COCOO would need to conduct further research and direct outreach to ascertain their specific experiences and willingness to collaborate.

Category 1: Logistics, Freight Forwarding, Customs, and Fiscal Representation (Non-Austrian, potentially impacted by Austrian practices)

NACE Code Focus: H 52.29, M 69.20
1. Company: Customs Clearance Experts (UK)
  - Email: sales@customsclearanceexperts.co.uk
  - Relevance: UK-based customs clearance agency. While they offer general UK import/export services, companies like this that handle trade with the EU (including Austria) would be directly affected by differing customs and VAT complexities. They would be competitors to Austrian agents who might have an unfair advantage due to national rules, or they might be business users experiencing difficulties.
  - Potential for COCOO: Could have insights into specific barriers or unfair costs when dealing with Austrian customs/VAT for their clients compared to purely national Austrian operators.
2. Company/Organisation: CompanyFormationAustria.com (offers fiscal representation, seems UK contact)
  - Contact: (+44) 203-287 0408 (Phone is UK based, though service is for Austria)
  - Email: Likely through a contact form on their website.
  - Relevance: While they facilitate entry into Austria (which might seem counter to finding harmed parties), their clients (non-Austrian businesses) would be directly subject to Austrian VAT and fiscal representation rules. They might have aggregated knowledge of common problems faced by non-EU companies needing fiscal representation in Austria. The site explicitly states: “Non-EU companies cannot directly register for VAT and must appoint a fiscal representative in Austria”.¹⁵ If these representatives face issues like VAT deductibility problems, it impacts their non-EU clients. This also points to the mandatory nature that could be a burden.
  - Potential for COCOO: Source of information on structural issues faced by non-Austrian companies needing representation.
3. Company: DSV (Global, with strong presence in Spain and UK, services Austria)¹⁶
  - Email: Likely through national office contact forms on dsv.com (e.g., for DSV Spain or DSV UK).
  - Relevance: A major logistics player. Their Spanish operations explicitly mention daily/weekly departures to Austria (Suben, Vienna). They would have extensive experience with Austrian customs and VAT procedures and would be a significant user of customs representation services (either in-house or external). Any systemic inefficiencies or discriminatory practices in Austria would impact their operational costs and competitiveness of their services for the Austrian route.
  - Potential for COCOO: As a large operator, they could provide systemic feedback on challenges or compare Austrian practices to other EU countries.
4. Company: Davies Turner (UK)
  - Email: Likely through contact forms or specific department emails on daviesturner.com.
  - Relevance: Leading UK freight and logistics company. They handle European road freight. If they have clients shipping to Austria or manage customs processes, they would encounter the Austrian system.
  - Potential for COCOO: Could be a source of information on practical difficulties for UK businesses trading with Austria.

Category 2: Industry Associations (whose members could be affected competitors or business users)

NACE Code Focus: Members will span various NACE codes including G (Wholesale/Retail), H (Logistics), M (Professional Services)
1. Organisation: CLECAT (European Association for Forwarding, Transport, Logistics and Customs Services)¹⁷
  - Email: Via their website clecat.org (e.g., general info or policy advisor emails).
  - Relevance: Crucially important. The search results show a CLECAT letter to DG TAXUD specifically about restrictions on customs representation in Austria and concerns about practices incompatible with the Union Customs Code, VAT neutrality, and the right to deduct VAT for representatives. They are already actively engaged on this precise issue.
  - Potential for COCOO: Prime collaborator. They represent the interests of freight forwarders and customs agents across Europe. Their existing work and complaints (as cited in your initial information) make them a natural ally and source of detailed information and affected parties.
2. Organisation: Federation of Small Businesses (FSB UK)
  - Email: Via their website fsb.org.uk.
  - Relevance: Represents UK small businesses. Their “International Trade Hub” indicates they support SMEs trading internationally.¹⁸ Small businesses are often disproportionately affected by complex or discriminatory customs and VAT rules due to fewer resources.¹⁹
  - Potential for COCOO: Could help identify UK SMEs facing challenges with Austrian trade and gather case studies.
3. Organisation: FETEIA-OLTRA (Asociación Española de Transitarios, Expedidores Internacionales y Asimilados)²⁰
  - Email: Via their website feteia.org.
  - Relevance: The Spanish association of freight forwarders. Their members would be directly involved in facilitating trade between Spain and Austria and would be impacted by any unfair Austrian customs/VAT practices affecting representatives.
  - Potential for COCOO: Potential source of affected Spanish freight forwarders and information on specific issues faced from the Spanish market.

Category 3: Businesses in Trade (Importers/Exporters – Non-Austrian, potentially harmed)

NACE Code Focus: Primarily G46 (Wholesale trade) but could be any sector importing/exporting to Austria. Identifying specific companies here without more detailed sector information is challenging via generic search, but associations are a good starting point.
- General Approach: Companies identified through the logistics providers or trade associations above would be key. For example, clients of UK or Spanish freight forwarders who ship regularly to Austria.
- The ShipBob result (“Shipping to Austria (UK)”) highlights that for goods from the UK to Austria, “standard import Value Added Tax (VAT) is levied on all goods imported into Austria… subject to 20% import VAT.” While this is standard post-Brexit, any additional complexities or discriminatory application of Austrian rules related to representation or VAT deduction for the importer or their representative would be the issue.

Next Steps for COCOO:

Prioritize CLECAT: Given their existing, highly relevant complaint, they are a key organization to engage with for collaboration and to identify affected members across the EU.
Contact National Logistics/Forwarding Associations: FETEIA (Spain) and relevant UK forwarding associations (e.g., BIFA – British International Freight Association, though not in the immediate search results, they are a key UK body) to gather insights and identify members facing issues with Austrian trade.
Reach out to identified companies: Start with those in logistics/customs brokerage (e.g., Customs Clearance Experts, DSV, Davies Turner) to understand their experiences with Austrian requirements and if they perceive unfair competition or undue burdens.
Survey Members (if COCOO has a membership base): Ask if any members have experienced difficulties with Austrian VAT, customs representation, or unfair competition from Austrian entities benefiting from these rules.
Further Targeted Searches: Once specific sectors of goods are identified as being particularly affected (e.g., electronics, automotive parts, etc.), COCOO can conduct more targeted searches for UK/Spanish/EU companies in those NACE codes that actively trade with Austria.

Finding direct, publicly listed emails for specific contacts within large companies can be difficult. Often, initial contact needs to be made through general contact forms or info@ emails, then directed to the relevant department (e.g., legal, international trade, compliance). LinkedIn can also be a tool for identifying relevant individuals within these companies once a company is identified as a potential party of interest.

Austrian VAT Derogation & Customs Practices

In this case, the “perpetrators” are Austrian businesses that gain a competitive advantage due to the contested VAT derogation and/or specific national customs practices (e.g., related to Code 42 import procedures and the role/liability of fiscal representatives) that allegedly deviate from standard EU rules. The advantage stems from reduced administrative costs, simplified compliance, or more favourable cash flow regarding VAT, particularly on imports.

The “products or services” subject to this advantage are not a single category, but rather any goods imported into or traded within Austria by these businesses, and the related logistical and representation services.

Imported Goods (Across Various Sectors):
- Description: Austrian businesses benefiting from these measures can import a wide arrayof goods (e.g., electronics, consumer goods, raw materials, manufactured components) more cheaply or with less administrative friction than their non-Austrian competitors who are trying to do the same (i.e., import into Austria). The advantage means these Austrian businesses can then offer these goods on the Austrian market (or for re-export) at potentially more competitive final prices or achieve higher profit margins.
- The specific “products” are diverse and depend on the sectors in which the benefiting Austrian businesses operate.
- Market: The Austrian domestic market for these goods, and potentially wider EU markets if these goods are re-exported with a cost advantage.
Customs Agency and Fiscal Representation Services (Offered by advantaged Austrian providers):
- Description: If Austrian customs/VAT rules make it disproportionately difficult or costly for non-Austrian customs agents or fiscal representatives to operate (e.g., by denying them the right to deduct import VAT which they have paid on behalf of their clients, as alleged in your complaints), then Austrian-based agents/representatives are effectively offering a “better” or less risky service for importers.
- The “service” here is the provision of customs clearance, import VAT handling, and fiscal representation, which becomes more attractive when offered by Austrian entities due to the alleged discriminatory system.
- Market: The market for customs brokerage and fiscal representation services related to imports into Austria.

Refining Search for Competitors & Consumer Types (Austria):

Competitors (Disadvantaged Parties):
- Non-Austrian EU businesses that import goods into Austria and face higher compliance costs, cash-flow disadvantages, or an inability to use their preferred (non-Austrian) customs/fiscal representatives effectively due to these Austrian rules. This affects their ability to compete with Austrian importers.
- Non-Austrian customs agents, freight forwarders, and fiscal representatives who are effectively barred or disadvantaged from offering their services for imports into Austria because they cannot operate on a level playing field (e.g., cannot deduct VAT they’ve paid).
- Businesses in sectors where imported goods (benefiting from the Austrian measures) form a significant cost component, making it harder for non-Austrian entities to compete in downstream markets.
Consumer Types (Victims/Affected Parties):
- Directly, the non-Austrian businesses and service providers mentioned above.
- Businesses in Austria (and potentially other EU countries) who would choose to use non-Austrian customs agents or logistics providers for cost or service reasons but are deterred by the Austrian rules, forcing them into potentially less optimal arrangements.
- Potentially end-consumers in Austria (indirectly): If these distortions lead to reduced competition in the import and logistics sectors, it could result in less choice or slightly higher prices for imported goods in the long run, although this is a more indirect effect. The primary harm is to the business competitors.

By focusing on these specific products, services, and market dynamics, COCOO can more effectively identify the direct and indirect competitors harmed, gather evidence of market distortion, and define the classes of consumers (primarily other businesses in these contexts) who are victims of these practices. This will be key for substantiating your complaints and any subsequent legal actions.

WEBSITE CALL TO ACTION SECTION

(Headline): Is Unfair State Aid Distorting Your Market? COCOO Is Fighting Back.

(Body Text):

COCOO is at the forefront of challenging unlawful State Aid and anti-competitive practices across the European Union. From the flawed €590 million Bulgarian energy storage scheme (SA.114306) to national derogations that create unfair advantages and distort the Single Market, we are taking decisive action.

Our unique approach combines robust legal challenges with innovative, proprietary solutions like our “Rapid Rectification & Systemic Shield” (RRSS) and “Systemic State Aid Integrity & Proactive Remedy” (SSIPR) frameworks. We are proposing these directly to institutions like the European Commission to not just fix individual problems, but to build a fairer, more transparent system for everyone.

Your experience and support are crucial. COCOO acts as a powerful voice for businesses and consumers impacted by these distortions.

(Calls to Action – choose one or more, or adapt as buttons):

Affected by Unlawful State Aid or Distortive Practices?
- Share Your Story: If you or your business has been harmed by what you believe to be unlawful State Aid or unfair competition, Contact Us Confidentially. Your information can strengthen our collective case.
Support Our Mission for Fair Competition:
- Become a COCOO Member: Join us to support our “ex-officio quality control” mandate and our fight for a level playing field. Members are the backbone of our advocacy. Join COCOO Today.
Learn About Our Groundbreaking Solutions:
- Discover Our Initiatives: Find out more about COCOO’s proposals to the European Commission and how our proprietary RRSS and SSIPR frameworks can revolutionise State Aid control. Learn More About Our Work.

(Optional addition for emphasis):

“COCOO is committed to pursuing all necessary avenues to ensure market integrity. By collaborating with us, or supporting our actions, you help hold power to account and build a more equitable European market.”

Key elements this Call to Action incorporates:

Specificity: Directly references the types of cases COCOO is tackling (Bulgarian State Aid, distortive derogations) and its proprietary solutions (RRSS/SSIPR).
Urgency & Action: Uses active language (“fighting back,” “taking decisive action”).
Empowerment: Invites affected parties to share their experiences, reinforcing COCOO’s role as a representative body.
Membership Drive: Clearly links support for the mission with becoming a member.
Transparency: Offers a way for visitors to learn more about COCOO’s specific strategies and proposals.
Alignment with USP Tone: While not overtly threatening litigation on a public website, it conveys a strong, assertive stance (“pursuing all necessary avenues”) consistent with the USPs’ underlying message.

You can adapt the button text and linked pages to match your website’s structure. This provides a clear pathway for visitors to engage with COCOO based on their interests and potential status as affected parties or general supporters.

Redrafted Unsolicited Project Proposal 1: Collaborative Resolution and Systemic Prevention Protocol for Irregular State Aid – The Case of SA.114306 (Bulgarian Electricity Storage)

To:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

State Aid Registry

B-1049 Brussels, Belgium

stateaidgreffe@ec.europa.eu

From:

The Competition & Consumer Organisation Party Limited (COCOO)

A UK Registered Charity (No. [Insert Charity Registration Number if applicable, otherwise state non-profit status])

UK Companies House Registration Number: 15466919

23 Village Way, Beckenham, BR33NA, UK

contact@cocoo.uk, 07716601277

Director: Mr Oscar Moya LLedo

Represented by: [Your Name/In-house Solicitor], COCOO

Relevant Service Profile (Illustrative): This proposal outlines a unique strategic collaboration, not a standard procurement of services. Elements align with activities such as specialized legal analysis, victim-centric impact assessment, and co-development of innovative regulatory compliance frameworks (akin to CPV 79100000-5 Legal services; CPV 79411000-9 General management consultancy services for project oversight).

Date: June 3, 2025

Subject: Unsolicited Proposal for an Urgent and Unique Collaborative Project: Ensuring Lawful Resolution of SA.114306 (Bulgaria) and Co-Developing COCOO’s Proprietary “Rapid Rectification & Systemic Shield” (RRSS) Protocol – An Alternative to Protracted Litigation

1. Executive Summary & COCOO’s Unique Standing:

The Competition & Consumer Organisation Party Limited (COCOO), a charitable organisation committed to upholding market integrity and consumer welfare, has, through its “ex-officio quality control” mandate, lodged a formal complaint (Our Ref: Complaint Concerning Alleged Unlawful State Aid from Bulgaria; Your Ref: SA.114306). This complaint details the critical legal error in the European Commission’s approval of the EUR 590 million Bulgarian electricity storage scheme under the Temporary Crisis and Transition Framework (TCTF) after the TCTF’s expiry. This renders the approval void and the aid unlawful, causing ongoing, significant market distortion.

This Unsolicited Proposal (USP) offers the Commission a direct, efficient, and legally sound pathway to address this irregularity, pre-empting potentially costly and lengthy litigation. We propose a unique strategic collaboration, not a procurement of services, to:

a. Conduct an expedited, victim-centric impact assessment of aid disbursed/committed under SA.114306.
b. Jointly design an unimpeachable framework for the recovery of any aid confirmed as unlawful, ensuring minimal further market disruption.
c. Co-develop and pilot COCOO’s proprietary and copyrighted “Rapid Rectification & Systemic Shield” (RRSS) Protocol. The RRSS is COCOO’s original intellectual property, shared under Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA), designed for early detection, swift rectification, and future prevention of State Aid irregularities.

COCOO is uniquely positioned. We represent the interests of our members – victims of such distortions – and possess exclusive intellectual property rights to the RRSS Protocol and the underlying legal and strategic framework. This is not a service available from any other entity. Our collaboration offers the most effective means to restore fair competition and mitigate the substantial risks associated with inaction. COCOO is resolute in its commitment to pursue all legal remedies to protect the Single Market if a corrective collaborative resolution is not achieved. The imperative is to halt ongoing market harm and prevent adverse legal precedents.

2. The Problem: SA.114306 – A Manifest Error with Damaging Consequences

The SA.114306 case, as detailed in our complaint, highlights a manifest procedural error that undermines legal certainty and EU State Aid controls. This is precisely the type of issue where non-standard processes, if uncorrected, lead to accusations of unfairness and bypass of proper competitive balance, as noted in general public procurement best practices. Allowing this aid to stand unchallenged would invite further erosion of market principles.

3. Proposed Collaborative Project & COCOO’s Exclusive Contributions:

We propose a phased project, emphasizing COCOO’s unique, non-replicable IP and role:

Phase 1: Accelerated and Validated Impact Analysis (SA.114306)
- Activities: COCOO, using its direct access to affected parties and proprietary analytical methods, will collaborate with Commission services.
- Deliverable: Co-Authored “Definitive Impact and Market Distortion Report for SA.114306.”
- COCOO’s Unique Value: Unfettered access to primary victim data and the application of COCOO’s strategic analysis, unavailable through standard channels.
Phase 2: Victim-Informed Recovery and Market Normalisation Blueprint (SA.114306)
- Activities: COCOO will contribute its unique expertise to design a legally robust and pragmatic recovery strategy.
- Deliverable: “Robust Recovery and Market Normalisation Blueprint for SA.114306.”
- COCOO’s Unique Value: Ensuring the remedy is effective from the victims’ perspective, thus minimizing grounds for further legal challenge by affected parties.
Phase 3: Co-Development and Pilot of COCOO’s Proprietary RRSS Protocol
- Activities: The Commission gains access to, and collaborates on refining, COCOO’s copyrighted RRSS Protocol. Detailed elements of the RRSS will be disclosed under an NDA.
- Deliverable: A fully documented RRSS Protocol, and recommendations for its integration.
- COCOO’s Unique Value: Access to and co-development of a novel, pre-existing IP framework owned by COCOO, designed for systemic improvement.

4. Exceptional Justification for Direct Collaborative Engagement (Bypassing Standard Tender):

COCOO is aware of EU Public Procurement Directives. However, this is an exceptional case for direct engagement due to:

Protection of Exclusive Rights (Intellectual Property): The RRSS Protocol and the strategic framework underpinning this proposal are COCOO’s original, copyrighted intellectual property. EU procurement rules (e.g., Art. 32(2)(b) of Directive 2014/24/EU for technical reasons/exclusive rights) allow for negotiated procedures without prior publication when competition is absent for technical reasons or due to the protection of exclusive rights, including intellectual property¹ rights.² This collaboration is precisely for the co-development and application of such unique IP.
Unique Position and Mandate: COCOO’s “ex-officio quality control” mandate and its status as the originator of the complaint and the proposed solution (RRSS Protocol) make it uniquely situated. We are not a typical market operator but a charitable body acting in the public interest.
Sole Legitimate Representative of Aggregated Victim Interest: COCOO uniquely represents the collective interests of those harmed. A resolution co-designed with COCOO provides unparalleled legitimacy and reduces risks of subsequent challenges from victims.
Urgency & Efficiency – Mitigating Litigation: The ongoing market distortion from SA.114306 requires immediate, expert attention. A lengthy tender process is unsuited. This collaboration offers a swift, constructive path to resolution, explicitly serving as an alternative to the costly and resource-intensive litigation COCOO is otherwise prepared to pursue. The Commission’s engagement here is a direct means to mitigate significant legal, financial, and reputational risks.
Nature of the Collaboration: This is a strategic partnership to deploy and refine unique IP, not a procurement of standard services.

5. Financial Contribution & Project Viability:

As a charitable organisation, COCOO does not seek profit. We propose this collaboration on the basis of recovery of essential project-related expenses, primarily the documented legal fees of our in-house solicitor dedicated to this project, and direct, verifiable operational costs. We understand that public bodies can, in certain circumstances, enter into low-value contracts or grants for specific expert contributions without a full public tender. We estimate these essential expenses for COCOO’s direct involvement (excluding Commission-side costs) could be structured within such a framework, potentially up to a ceiling analogous to low-value procurement thresholds (e.g., circa €15,000, though specific EC mechanisms would need to be identified) for the initial phases. We are prepared to discuss a transparent, auditable mechanism for this, ensuring full accountability. The cost of not addressing this issue via collaboration will undoubtedly be far higher in terms of litigation costs and market damage.

6. Envisaged Outcomes & Mutual Benefits:

A swift, lawful, and effective resolution for SA.114306.
Mitigation of substantial legal risks and costs for the Commission.
Co-development of the pioneering RRSS Protocol, enhancing future State Aid control.
Demonstration of the Commission’s commitment to rule of law and stakeholder collaboration.

7. Call to Action & Confidentiality:

We request an urgent meeting with the Director-General for Competition to discuss this proposal. We are prepared to present the strategic value of the RRSS Protocol in more detail under a Non-Disclosure Agreement. This collaboration offers a unique opportunity to transform a legal challenge into a systemic strength for EU State Aid control. Failure to engage collaboratively will regrettably compel COCOO to escalate its legal actions to ensure the integrity of the Single Market and protect the interests it represents.

Sincerely,

Mr Oscar Moya LLedo

Director, COCOO

Redrafted Unsolicited Project Proposal 2: Co-Developing and Implementing COCOO’s “Systemic State Aid Integrity & Proactive Remedy” (SSIPR) Framework

To:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

(Copied to: Relevant European Parliament Committees; DG TAXUD)

B-1049 Brussels, Belgium

From:

The Competition & Consumer Organisation Party Limited (COCOO)

A UK Registered Charity (No. [Insert Charity Registration Number if applicable, otherwise state non-profit status])

UK Companies House Registration Number: 15466919

23 Village Way, Beckenham, BR33NA, UK

contact@cocoo.uk, 07716601277

Director: Mr Oscar Moya LLedo

Represented by: [Your Name/In-house Solicitor], COCOO

Relevant Service Profile (Illustrative): This proposal outlines a unique strategic partnership for co-developing and implementing a proprietary systemic framework. Elements align with activities such as advanced policy research and development, strategic advisory services, and the creation of novel regulatory tools (akin to CPV 73200000-4 Research and development consultancy services; Policy formulation consultancy services).

Date: June 3, 2025

Subject: Unsolicited Proposal for a Strategic Partnership: Co-Developing and Implementing COCOO’s Proprietary “Systemic State Aid Integrity & Proactive Remedy” (SSIPR) Framework – A Collaborative Imperative to Pre-empt Systemic Failures and Associated Litigation

1. Executive Summary & COCOO’s Unique Proposition:

The Competition & Consumer Organisation Party Limited (COCOO), a charitable body driven by its mission to enhance market fairness, has identified through its casework (e.g., SA.114306 Bulgaria; Austrian VAT derogations impacting the Single Market, especially in a high-tax country like Austria where such distortions are keenly felt) and analysis of public discourse, significant systemic challenges facing the EU State Aid regime. These challenges risk undermining transparency, consistency, and the effectiveness of remedies, potentially leading to widespread legal challenges.

This Unsolicited Proposal (USP) outlines a strategic, long-term partnership with the European Commission (and other EU bodies) to co-develop, pilot, and implement COCOO’s proprietary and copyrighted “Systemic State Aid Integrity & Proactive Remedy” (SSIPR) Framework. The SSIPR Framework is COCOO’s original intellectual property, shared under Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA), designed to:

a. Establish an early-warning system for systemic risks in State Aid policy and application.
b. Develop robust methodologies for quantifying market distortion and harm.
c. Create proactive and comprehensive remedy blueprints, including viable compensation mechanisms for victims.
d. Enhance transparency and stakeholder engagement in State Aid monitoring and evaluation.

COCOO’s unique “ex-officio quality control” mandate, our direct representation of market participants vulnerable to State Aid distortions, and our exclusive ownership of the SSIPR Framework intellectual property make this a unique, non-procurable opportunity. Collaboration with COCOO, the originator of the SSIPR concept, is the most direct route to embedding systemic improvements, thereby proactively mitigating the significant risks of iterative, costly legal challenges which COCOO is constitutionally bound to pursue if systemic deficiencies persist.

2. The Challenge: Addressing Latent Systemic Vulnerabilities to Avert Future Crises

The EU State Aid framework is crucial, but faces challenges regarding procedural integrity, consistency (as highlighted by the deviations from standard EU VAT rules in the Austrian case), effectiveness of remedies (often “too little, too late” without proper compensation), and adequate stakeholder engagement. Proactively addressing these is not merely beneficial but essential to maintain a level playing field and avoid systemic litigation aimed at forcing such reforms.

3. Proposed Strategic Project: The “Systemic State Aid Integrity & Proactive Remedy” (SSIPR) Framework

COCOO proposes a multi-year collaborative project to develop and integrate its proprietary SSIPR Framework:

Module 1: Predictive Risk Analytics & Systemic Coherence Monitoring: (Activities and Deliverables as previously outlined)
- COCOO’s Unique Value: Application of our “ex-officio quality control” mandate and IP for independent, forward-looking systemic oversight.
Module 2: Standardised Economic Impact & Harm Assessment Protocols (SEIHAP): (Activities and Deliverables as previously outlined)
- COCOO’s Unique Value: Combining rigorous economic modelling with victim-centric data from COCOO’s network, under COCOO’s IP.
Module 3: Proactive & Comprehensive Remedy Mechanism Blueprints (PCRM): (Activities and Deliverables as previously outlined, including the “EU State Aid Victims’ Compensation Adjudication Facility” concept)
- COCOO’s Unique Value: Championing holistic, victim-centric remedies based on COCOO’s proprietary insights.
Module 4: “EU State Aid Dialogue & Transparency” (EU-STADT) Initiative: (Activities and Deliverables as previously outlined)
- COCOO’s Unique Value: Acting as a trusted, independent intermediary to foster genuine dialogue.

4. Exceptional Justification for Strategic Partnership (Direct Award):

The development and implementation of the SSIPR Framework requires a unique strategic partner, not a tenderable service. A direct award is justified by:

Originator of Unique Intellectual Property (SSIPR Framework): The SSIPR Framework is COCOO’s original, comprehensive, copyrighted strategic concept. This collaboration is to co-develop and tailor COCOO’s unique IP for the EU context. Such circumstances, involving the protection of exclusive IP rights, are recognized grounds for negotiated procedures without prior publication (cf. Art. 32(2)(b) of Directive 2014/24/EU).
COCOO’s Unique Constitutional Mandate & Charitable Status: Our “ex-officio quality control” role positions COCOO as a natural, public-interest partner for enhancing State Aid integrity.
Unparalleled Representation of Affected Parties: COCOO’s direct link to market participants ensures the SSIPR Framework is practical and legitimate.
Proactive Systemic Improvement & Constructive Litigation Avoidance: COCOO is committed to addressing systemic issues, including through strategic litigation if necessary. This partnership to build the SSIPR Framework offers a constructive, proactive alternative. It allows the Commission to leverage COCOO’s critical perspective collaboratively, thereby pre-empting widespread legal challenges against systemic deficiencies by building a more robust system together. This is a strategic imperative for the Commission to avoid future crises.
Nature of the Collaboration: This is a long-term, co-development R&D partnership requiring deep trust and shared vision, unsuited to a standard tender.

5. Financial Modalities & Collaborative Investment:

COCOO, as a charity, proposes this long-term strategic partnership on a basis of recovering essential, documented costs, primarily for the dedicated legal and strategic expertise (our in-house solicitor and core team) and direct operational expenses required to co-develop and implement the SSIPR Framework. We envision a phased approach, with initial phases potentially fundable via mechanisms for expert groups, low-value grants, or pilot project funding, where full tenders are not always mandated for such unique, IP-led collaborations (e.g., initial phases potentially within a cumulative cost ceiling appropriate for such arrangements, subject to EC rules). We are committed to transparent financial oversight. The investment in this collaborative framework pales in comparison to the potential future costs of widespread litigation and unaddressed systemic market failures. We are prepared to discuss a suitable contractual framework, ensuring protection of COCOO’s IP (via NDA and licensing, if appropriate for co-developed elements) and clear deliverables.

6. Transformative Outcomes for EU State Aid Control:

A more agile, resilient, and future-proof EU State Aid control architecture.
Significant reduction in unlawful aid and more effective, fairer remedies.
Enhanced transparency, stakeholder trust, and legitimacy.
A strengthened Single Market, fostering legal certainty and fair competition.
Substantial avoidance of future litigation costs and reputational damage for the Commission.

7. Call to Action & Confidential Disclosure:

COCOO formally requests a strategic workshop with senior officials from DG Competition and other relevant EU bodies to present the SSIPR Framework. The detailed architecture of this proprietary framework will be shared under a Non-Disclosure Agreement. This is a critical opportunity to proactively reinforce the EU State Aid regime. We urge the Commission to embrace this collaborative path; the alternative is an increasing likelihood of COCOO fulfilling its mandate through sustained, systemic legal challenges.

Sincerely,

Mr Oscar Moya LLedo

Director, COCOO

These redrafted proposals aim to meet all the requirements you outlined. They emphasize COCOO’s charitable nature, the IP ownership, the justification for a direct award (heavily leaning on the IP and unique position/mandate), the cost recovery model, and the clear, albeit professionally framed, implication that collaboration is the preferable alternative to litigation initiated by COCOO. The language is more assertive while maintaining a collaborative offer.

How these New Files Strengthen “Our Case” (COCOO’s strategic positioning and USP justification):

The provided attachments (Scan2024-10-17_115040.jpg to Scan2024-10-17_115809.jpg) primarily discuss Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs), Unsolicited Proposals (USPs), and public procurement processes, with examples largely from UK and US government contexts. They do not directly address the specifics of Austria’s VAT derogation, EU VAT law, State Aid through fiscal measures, or the free movement principles central to COCOO’s complaint against the Austrian tax privilege.

However, one general principle highlighted in the documents regarding unsolicited proposals might offer a very indirect, analogical point to support the underlying concern about fairness and competitive neutrality in COCOO’s case:

Concerns about Unfairness from Non-Standard Processes:
- One document notes that for many government departments, “unsolicited proposals create problems rather than opportunities as they do not result from a regulated public tendering process and the department may be accused of unfairness and bypassing the competitive process”. It also states that proposals outside normal business “should proceed only by exception and with a clear and auditable decision process”.
- Analogical Relevance to COCOO’s Austrian Case:COCOO’s complaint against the Austrian VAT derogation argues that this derogation (a departure from standard EU VAT rules) creates an unfair competitive advantage for Austrian businesses and imposes unfair burdens and discriminatory conditions on non-Austrian operators, thereby distorting the level playing field.The general caution expressed in the attachment about unsolicited proposals potentially leading to “unfairness” and “bypassing the competitive process” can be used by analogy. Just as non-standard procurement routes like USPs require exceptional justification to avoid unfairness, COCOO argues that a derogation from standard EU VAT rules that results in selective advantages and competitive distortions also constitutes a form of “unfairness” and undermines the normal “competitive process” of the single market. The Council Implementing Decision granting the derogation, therefore, should have been subject to an exceptionally rigorous assessment to prevent such unfair distortions, an assessment COCOO argues was procedurally flawed.

This is an indirect parallel, focusing on the theme of “unfairness” arising from deviations from standard, regulated processes that are designed to ensure level playing fields. The documents do not provide direct evidence or legal arguments for the Austrian VAT case but offer a conceptual point about the risks associated with non-standard arrangements potentially leading to unfair outcomes.

These documents do not directly provide new evidence or legal arguments for COCOO’s existing complaints against the Bulgarian State Aid or the Austrian VAT derogation. Their primary value lies in informing the strategy for COCOO’s Unsolicited Project Proposals, particularly in how to frame its services and argue for a unique position that might justify a non-competitive engagement.

Demonstrating Public Body Procurement of Relevant Services: The files clearly show that a major competition authority (the CMA) regularly procures a wide range of external expertise. This includes:
- General management consultancy services
- Business development and strategy consultancy
- Research and development consultancy services
- Policy formulation and economic analysis/assistance
- Qualitative research (e.g., with vulnerable consumers)
- Expert advice for specific programmes and decision-making groups This validates the type of services COCOO aims to offer to public authorities like the European Commission. COCOO can position itself as providing services akin to those identified with SIC codes like 70229 (Management consultancy activities) or CPV codes for general management and business consultancy.
Highlighting Procurement Norms (and the Challenge for COCOO): The documents emphasize that contracts are advertised via TED (Tenders Electronic Daily) and Contracts Finder, in line with EU Procurement Directives. They mention framework agreements and mini-competitions.
- This underscores that the default is competitive tendering. Therefore, COCOO’s argument for a non-competitive award in its Unsolicited Proposals must be exceptionally strong, focusing on its truly unique position, IP, and the specific nature of the proposed collaboration (e.g., not just a service provision but a unique partnership based on its mandate and representation of victims).
Illustrating Transparency and Process: The CMA documents mention transparency in procurement (details over £10,000 on Contracts Finder) and formal processes like requiring valid purchase orders.
- This reinforces the environment COCOO is operating in and the need for its proposals to be professional and well-justified.
Focus on SMEs and Specific Policy Goals: The CMA’s aim to increase spend with SMEs and its commissioning of research on specific policy issues (e.g., vulnerable consumers, poverty measurement) show an openness to targeted expertise. COCOO can leverage this by highlighting its focus on specific aspects of competition, consumer welfare, and public interest linked to its mandate.

These documents primarily help COCOO tailor its Unsolicited Project Proposals to be more targeted and to better address the implicit challenge of justifying a departure from standard competitive procurement processes.

Now, I will write the two Unsolicited Project Proposals, incorporating insights from these latest documents alongside all previously discussed materials.

Unsolicited Project Proposal 1: Collaborative Resolution and Systemic Prevention Protocol for Irregular State Aid – The Case of SA.114306 (Bulgarian Electricity Storage)

To:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

State Aid Registry

B-1049 Brussels, Belgium

stateaidgreffe@ec.europa.eu

From:

The Competition & Consumer Organisation Party Limited (COCOO)

UK Companies House Registration Number: 15466919

23 Village Way, Beckenham, BR33NA, UK

contact@cocoo.uk, 07716601277

Director: Mr Oscar Moya LLedo

Relevant Service Profile (akin to CPV 79411000-9 General management consultancy services; SIC 70229 Management consultancy activities (other than financial management))

Date: June 1, 2025

Subject: Unsolicited Proposal for a Unique Collaborative Project: Ensuring Effective Resolution of Alleged Unlawful State Aid SA.114306 (Bulgaria) and Co-Developing COCOO’s Proprietary “Rapid Rectification & Systemic Shield” (RRSS) Protocol for Future State Aid Integrity

1. Executive Summary & Unique Value Proposition:

The Competition & Consumer Organisation Party Limited (COCOO), operating under its constitutional mandate for “ex-officio quality control of decisions made by competition authorities, public bodies and plcs”, has previously submitted a formal complaint (Our Ref: Complaint Concerning Alleged Unlawful State Aid from Bulgaria; Your Ref: SA.114306) concerning a EUR 590 million Bulgarian scheme for electricity storage facilities. Our complaint meticulously details how the European Commission’s approval of this aid on 29 November 2024, under the Temporary Crisis and Transition Framework (TCTF), is critically flawed, as the TCTF had expired on 30 June 2024. This fundamental procedural error, we contend, renders the approval legally void and the aid itself unlawful, causing significant distortion to the internal market.

This Unsolicited Proposal (USP) presents a unique opportunity for the European Commission to partner with COCOO. This is not a standard service offering but a strategic collaboration to:

a. Conduct an expedited, victim-centric impact assessment of the disbursed or committed aid under SA.114306.

b. Jointly design a legally unimpeachable and economically effective framework for the recovery of any aid confirmed as unlawful and incompatible, ensuring minimal further market disruption.

c. Co-develop and pilot COCOO’s proprietary “Rapid Rectification & Systemic Shield” (RRSS) Protocol. The RRSS is an innovative intellectual property framework designed by COCOO for the early detection, swift rectification, and future prevention of State Aid irregularities, particularly those arising from procedural errors or misapplication of complex/temporary frameworks.

COCOO, uniquely representing the interests of its members—the direct and indirect victims of such market distortions—offers unparalleled insight and a dedicated strategy. Our direct engagement ensures that remedies are not just theoretically sound but practically effective and perceived as legitimate by affected parties. This collaborative approach is the most efficient means to restore fair competition and preempts the significant risk of protracted, resource-intensive litigation. COCOO is steadfast in its commitment to vigorously pursue all available legal avenues to protect the Single Market’s integrity and its members’ interests should a fully corrective resolution not be forthcoming. The urgency is driven by the need to halt ongoing market harm from SA.114306 and to prevent the setting of dangerous precedents.

2. The Problem: SA.114306 as a Symptom of Potential Systemic Vulnerability

The specific issue of SA.114306, as detailed in our complaint, involves substantial public funding channelled selectively to Bulgaria’s electricity storage sector, providing a major economic advantage that inherently distorts competition and trade. The approval under an expired TCTF is a manifest error that, if uncorrected, erodes legal certainty and trust in EU State Aid controls. This situation reflects broader concerns about the robustness of State Aid oversight when dealing with voluminous or time-sensitive frameworks, echoing expert sentiments about ensuring aid rules are correctly and transparently applied to prevent market distortions (as discussed in the previously provided panel transcript). Failure to address such clear-cut errors swiftly and decisively can lead to “too little, too late” remedies, further entrenching competitive imbalances.

3. Proposed Collaborative Project & COCOO’s Distinctive Role:

We propose a phased project, emphasizing COCOO’s unique, non-replicable contributions at each stage:

Phase 1: Accelerated and Validated Impact Analysis (SA.114306)
- Activities: COCOO, leveraging its direct channels to affected market participants (its members) and its in-house analytical capabilities, will collaborate with Commission services. Our role will be to provide primary data, qualitative insights on market dynamics, and real-world impact scenarios related to SA.114306, ensuring the Commission’s assessment is grounded in verified market realities. This involves activities akin to specialized market research and impact assessment.
- Deliverable: A Co-Authored “Definitive Impact and Market Distortion Report for SA.114306.”
- COCOO’s Unique Value: Unfettered, trusted access to data and perspectives from those directly harmed, ensuring the assessment’s accuracy and credibility—a resource no standard consultancy could offer.
Phase 2: Victim-Informed Recovery and Market Normalisation Blueprint (SA.114306)
- Activities: Building on Phase 1, COCOO will actively participate in designing a comprehensive recovery and market normalisation strategy. This involves ensuring the plan is not only compliant with Article 107(1) TFEU and CJEU jurisprudence but is also pragmatic, minimizes secondary harm, and is structured to be unassailable in any subsequent legal challenges. This contribution ensures that the remedy is seen as fair and effective by those most impacted, a crucial element for market acceptance and stability.
- Deliverable: A “Robust Recovery and Market Normalisation Blueprint for SA.114306,” including stakeholder communication strategies.
- COCOO’s Unique Value: Guaranteeing that the remedy addresses the actual harm experienced by victims and incorporating mechanisms to prevent circumvention, thereby enhancing its overall robustness and reducing appeal risks.
Phase 3: Co-Development and Institutionalisation of COCOO’s Proprietary “Rapid Rectification & Systemic Shield” (RRSS) Protocol
- Activities: This phase focuses on future-proofing. COCOO will introduce its proprietary RRSS Protocol (the development of which is COCOO’s unique intellectual property, to be governed by appropriate confidentiality agreements). Together with the Commission, we will refine, pilot, and adapt this protocol for potential institutional use. The RRSS Protocol includes:
  - Early warning indicators for aid approved under potentially invalid legal bases.
  - Fast-track verification procedures for prima facie irregularities.
  - Pre-defined templates for interim protective measures.
  - A framework for immediate engagement with complainant/victim representative bodies.
- Deliverable: A fully documented RRSS Protocol, potentially trialled on a set of agreed case studies or simulations, and a joint recommendation for its integration into Commission workflows.
- COCOO’s Unique Value: The RRSS Protocol is an original strategic framework stemming from COCOO’s “ex-officio quality control” mandate. It is not an existing “off-the-shelf” service but a novel system co-evolved with the Commission, offering a proactive defence against future State Aid regime failures.

4. Exceptional Justification for Direct Collaborative Engagement (Bypassing Standard Tender):

COCOO is fully aware of EU Public Procurement Directives and the standard practice of competitive tendering for public contracts, as evidenced by CMA’s adherence to TED notifications. However, this proposal presents an exceptional case for direct collaborative engagement due to a confluence of factors that cannot be replicated or sourced through a competitive tender:

Unique Constitutional Mandate & Legal Standing: COCOO’s status as an organisation with an “ex-officio quality control” mandate is unparalleled. We are not merely a potential supplier but an entity with a distinct public interest role in this specific domain.
Originator and Prime Mover: COCOO identified the critical irregularity in SA.114306 and formally brought it to the Commission’s attention. Our deep, pre-existing knowledge of the case specifics offers an unparalleled head start.
Sole Representative of the Aggregated Victim Interest: COCOO, through its membership, uniquely aggregates and represents the collective interests of those parties directly or indirectly harmed by the alleged unlawful aid. A resolution co-designed with their legitimate representative inherently carries more weight and is less susceptible to challenge from the victim constituency.
Proprietary Intellectual Property (The RRSS Protocol): Phase 3, a cornerstone of this proposal, is entirely predicated on COCOO’s novel RRSS Protocol. This is unique, pre-existing IP. EU procurement rules can, in exceptional circumstances (e.g., protection of exclusive rights, including intellectual property rights), allow for negotiated procedures without prior publication.
Inherent “Implied Litigation Threat” and Efficiency Gain: COCOO has demonstrated its resolve by lodging the formal complaint on SA.114306. Our profound commitment to ensuring a fair Single Market means we will pursue legal remedies vigorously if the identified irregularities are not adequately addressed. This collaborative project offers the Commission the most direct, efficient, and constructive pathway to a robust and legally sound resolution, thereby proactively mitigating substantial legal and reputational risks and the high costs associated with protracted adversarial proceedings. This is not a threat, but a statement of our unwavering commitment to our mandate, offering a “win-win” alternative to litigation.
Urgency and Nature of the Required Collaboration: The ongoing market distortion necessitates swift, decisive action. A standard, lengthy procurement cycle is unsuitable for the rapid, iterative, and deeply collaborative process required, especially given the need to interface directly with victim representatives and deploy unique IP. This is more akin to forming a strategic public-private task force than procuring a standard consultancy service.

5. Envisaged Outcomes & Mutual Benefits:

A swift, legitimate, and effective resolution of the market distortions caused by SA.114306.
Restoration of a level playing field and trust among market participants.
Development and institutionalisation of a pioneering RRSS Protocol, significantly strengthening the EC’s State Aid control mechanisms against future procedural failures.
A clear demonstration of the Commission’s commitment to robust enforcement and stakeholder engagement.
Substantial savings in resources by avoiding prolonged disputes and potential annulment proceedings.

6. Call to Action:

We formally request an urgent meeting with the Director-General for Competition and relevant Heads of Unit to present this Unsolicited Proposal in greater detail. We are eager to discuss how this unique collaborative model can yield substantial benefits for the European Commission and the integrity of the Single Market, transforming a specific challenge into a systemic improvement.

Sincerely,

Mr Oscar Moya LLedo

Director, The Competition & Consumer Organisation Party Limited (COCOO)

Unsolicited Project Proposal 2: Co-Developing and Implementing COCOO’s “Systemic State Aid Integrity & Proactive Remedy” (SSIPR) Framework

To:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

(Copied to: Relevant European Parliament Committees; Potentially DG TAXUD where State Aid intersects with fiscal measures)

B-1049 Brussels, Belgium

From:

The Competition & Consumer Organisation Party Limited (COCOO)

UK Companies House Registration Number: 15466919

23 Village Way, Beckenham, BR33NA, UK

contact@cocoo.uk, 07716601277

Director: Mr Oscar Moya LLedo

Relevant Service Profile (akin to CPV 73200000-4 Research and development consultancy services; SIC 70221 Financial management consultancy [for remedy/compensation aspects]; Policy formulation consultancy services)

Date: June 1, 2025

1. Executive Summary & Unique Collaborative Opportunity:

The Competition & Consumer Organisation Party Limited (COCOO), in line with its mission to promote “symbiotic synergies and positive externalities to advance competition, investment, consumer welfare, and the public interest across european markets”, has identified through its casework (e.g., complaints regarding SA.114306 Bulgaria and Austrian VAT derogations) recurring and systemic challenges that can impact the efficacy and perceived fairness of the EU State Aid regime. Expert discussions (see previous panel transcript) also point to needs for enhanced transparency, more effective remedies, and consistent application of rules. Public bodies like the UK CMA regularly procure expert services for policy review and impact assessment, demonstrating a need for such external expertise.

This Unsolicited Proposal (USP) outlines a strategic, long-term partnership between COCOO and the European Commission (and other relevant EU institutions) to co-develop, pilot, and implement COCOO’s proprietary “Systemic State Aid Integrity & Proactive Remedy” (SSIPR) Framework. The SSIPR Framework is a comprehensive intellectual property of COCOO, designed as a modular system to:

a. Establish an early-warning system for identifying potential systemic risks, inconsistencies, and procedural vulnerabilities within State Aid policy design and application.

b. Develop advanced, standardized methodologies for the robust quantification of market distortion and harm to affected parties resulting from unlawful or incompatible State Aid.

c. Create a portfolio of proactive, effective, and legally sound remedy blueprints, moving beyond simple recovery to include, where appropriate, viable compensation mechanisms for victims of State Aid infringements.

d. Significantly enhance transparency and the engagement of stakeholders, particularly affected businesses and their representatives, in the ongoing monitoring and ex-post evaluation of State Aid measures and their remedies.

COCOO’s unique “ex-officio quality control” mandate, our direct representation of a broad constituency of market participants vulnerable to State Aid distortions, and the innovative SSIPR Framework itself, form the basis for this exceptional partnership. This project is critical for bolstering the credibility, effectiveness, and future-readiness of the EU’s State Aid control architecture. A direct collaboration with COCOO, the originator of the SSIPR concept, provides an unparalleled opportunity to embed this systemic improvement, thereby proactively mitigating the risks of widespread market dissatisfaction and iterative legal challenges that COCOO is duty-bound to pursue if systemic flaws remain unaddressed.

2. The Challenge: Addressing Latent Systemic Vulnerabilities in EU State Aid Control

The EU State Aid framework is vital for the Single Market. However, its effective application faces ongoing challenges:

Procedural Integrity Under Pressure: High volumes of notifications, complex temporary frameworks (like the TCTF), and evolving economic landscapes can strain procedural rigour, potentially leading to errors as alleged in our SA.114306 complaint.
Consistency and Transparency: Concerns about consistent application across Member States and sectors, and the “lack of transparency” in certain areas, can affect business certainty and trust (points echoed in the previously provided panel transcript).
Effectiveness and Timeliness of Remedies: The current system primarily focuses on recovery, which can be slow and may not fully address the competitive harm suffered by non-beneficiaries or provide adequate compensation, a point strongly emphasized in the panel discussion.
Quantification of Distortion and Harm: There is a need for more sophisticated, standardized, and transparent methodologies to assess the true economic impact of distortive aid.
Stakeholder Engagement Deficits: Affected parties often feel their perspectives are not adequately considered in the ex-post evaluation of aid or in the design of remedies.

Addressing these systemic issues proactively is crucial for maintaining a truly level playing field and fostering robust, fair competition across the EU.

3. Proposed Strategic Project: The “Systemic State Aid Integrity & Proactive Remedy” (SSIPR) Framework

COCOO proposes a multi-year collaborative project with the European Commission to fully develop, pilot, and integrate key modules of its proprietary SSIPR Framework:

Module 1: Predictive Risk Analytics & Systemic Coherence Monitoring:
- Activities: Jointly develop and deploy advanced analytical tools (potentially AI-enhanced) to monitor State Aid approvals, policy shifts, and derogations (like the Austrian VAT case) for early indicators of systemic risk, legal inconsistency, or potential for widespread negative externalities. Conduct periodic “Systemic Coherence Reviews” of the State Aid landscape.
- Deliverables: A dynamic EU State Aid Risk Dashboard; Biannual “Systemic Coherence and Integrity Reports.”
- COCOO’s Unique Value: Application of our “ex-officio quality control” mandate to provide an independent, forward-looking systemic oversight function, drawing on cross-sectoral insights.
Module 2: Standardised Economic Impact & Harm Assessment Protocols (SEIHAP):
- Activities: Co-develop a suite of SEIHAP toolkits for robust, transparent, and consistent quantification of market distortion, harm to competitors, and impact on consumer welfare resulting from unlawful/incompatible State Aid. These protocols will incorporate best practices and real-world data from COCOO’s network of affected members.
- Deliverables: Validated SEIHAP Methodologies and User Guides for Commission staff.
- COCOO’s Unique Value: Combining rigorous economic modelling with pragmatic, evidence-based insights from directly affected market players, ensuring assessments are both technically sound and practically relevant.
Module 3: Proactive & Comprehensive Remedy Mechanism Blueprints (PCRM):
- Activities: Design PCRM blueprints that expand the remedial toolkit beyond mere recovery. This includes developing frameworks for:
  - Faster interim measures.
  - Models for assessing claims and delivering compensation to verifiably harmed parties.
  - Mechanisms for market restoration and preventing recurrence. This directly addresses the concern that current remedies may not be “sufficient to remedy the situation” (panel transcript).
- Deliverables: A Portfolio of PCRM Blueprints; A detailed Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan for an “EU State Aid Victims’ Compensation Adjudication Facility.”
- COCOO’s Unique Value: Championing a paradigm shift towards more holistic and victim-centric remedies, leveraging our direct understanding of the needs of those harmed by anti-competitive aid.
Module 4: “EU State Aid Dialogue & Transparency” (EU-STADT) Initiative:
- Activities: Co-design and launch the EU-STADT initiative, a multi-channel platform to enhance transparency in State Aid monitoring and ex-post reviews. It will facilitate structured input from stakeholders (especially SMEs and affected parties) on the effectiveness of aid measures and remedies. This would involve creating accessible summaries of complex decisions and impact assessments.
- Deliverables: Operational EU-STADT Platform concept; Pilot engagement workshops.
- COCOO’s Unique Value: Acting as a trusted intermediary and facilitator, leveraging its network and credibility to foster genuine dialogue and co-ownership of State Aid integrity.

4. Exceptional Justification for a Strategic Partnership (Direct Award):

The development and implementation of the SSIPR Framework is a pioneering endeavour requiring a unique strategic partner, not a standard service provider. While COCOO acknowledges the EU’s robust public procurement framework, a direct award for this co-development project is justified by:

Originator of Unique Intellectual Property (SSIPR Framework): The SSIPR Framework is COCOO’s original, comprehensive strategic concept. This is not an “off-the-shelf” requirement but an opportunity to co-develop and implement novel IP belonging to COCOO, tailored for the EU context. This aligns with situations where unique IP may warrant exceptional procurement procedures.
COCOO’s Unique Constitutional Mandate: Our “ex-officio quality control” role makes COCOO a natural, quasi-public interest partner for the Commission in a project aimed at systemic enhancement of State Aid integrity.
Unparalleled Representation of Affected Parties: COCOO’s direct link to a broad base of market participants (its members) who are the ultimate “users” or “victims” of the State Aid system is a critical asset. Their embedded involvement through COCOO ensures the SSIPR Framework is practical, legitimate, and addresses real-world needs.
Proactive, Systemic Approach & “Constructive Litigation Avoidance”: COCOO has demonstrated its commitment to addressing not just individual cases but also systemic issues. Our implicit undertaking is to continuously advocate and, where necessary, pursue strategic litigation to achieve systemic improvements if critical flaws persist. This partnership to build the SSIPR Framework is a constructive, proactive alternative. It allows the Commission to harness COCOO’s critical perspective and energy collaboratively, mitigating the risk of future, widespread legal challenges against systemic deficiencies by building a more robust system together.
Nature of the Collaboration: This is a long-term, iterative co-development project requiring deep trust, shared vision, and continuous adaptation—characteristics ill-suited to a transactional, specification-driven tender process. It is more akin to a joint strategic initiative or a research and development partnership.

5. Transformative Outcomes for EU State Aid Control:

A more agile, resilient, and forward-looking EU State Aid control architecture.
Early detection and mitigation of systemic risks, reducing instances of unlawful/incompatible aid.
Faster, more comprehensive, and fairer remedies for market distortions and harmed parties.
Significantly enhanced transparency, stakeholder trust, and perceived legitimacy of the EU State Aid regime.
A strengthened Single Market, fostering greater legal certainty, investment, and fair competition.

6. Call to Action:

COCOO formally requests the opportunity to present the SSIPR Framework in a strategic workshop with senior officials from DG Competition and other relevant EU Directorates-General or institutional bodies. We are convinced that this collaborative venture offers a unique and powerful pathway to significantly advance the integrity and effectiveness of EU State Aid control for the benefit of all stakeholders.

Sincerely,

Mr Oscar Moya LLedo

Director, The Competition & Consumer Organisation Party Limited (COCOO)

The Euronews transcript provides general information about how VAT works within the EU. The following points can be extracted to strengthen COCOO’s case, particularly the complaint against Austria’s VAT derogation (Council Implementing Decision 2024/3013), by highlighting standard EU VAT principles which Austria’s measures allegedly contravene:

Standard EU Rules on VAT:
- The transcript states, “that our standard EU rules on VI t but a detailed application of CI t may be different in each EU country.”
- Relevance to COCOO’s Austrian Case: This can be used to argue that while Member States have some flexibility in the “detailed application,” Austria’s VAT derogation and its implementation allegedly go beyond permissible variations and infringe fundamental EU rules and principles, such as non-discrimination and VAT neutrality, thereby creating competitive distortions. COCOO contends the derogation results in lower administrative costs for Austrian businesses, giving them an edge, and imposes disproportionate burdens on non-Austrian operators.
VAT on B2B Intra-Community Supplies:
- The transcript explains, “if you sell goods or services to business clients in other member states you will not have to charge v80 but your business this client is in most cases liable to pay the v80 in his own Member State.”
- Relevance to COCOO’s Austrian Case: This describes the standard reverse charge mechanism, which aims to simplify B2B cross-border transactions. COCOO’s complaint, supported by CLECAT’s detailed arguments, highlights how Austria’s practices regarding customs representation (specifically forcing indirect representation for VAT purposes under Code 42 and shifting liability) allegedly complicate this for non-Austrian operators and deviates from standard EU practices that facilitate cross-border trade.
VAT Deductibility (Principle of VAT Neutrality):
- The transcript states, “when you are buying goods or services you must also pay VI t as a customer however you can usually deduct that vit from the v80 you charge your own customers this means that you need to pay only the differences to the tax authorities”.
- Relevance to COCOO’s Austrian Case: This highlights the fundamental principle of VAT deductibility, which ensures VAT neutrality for businesses. COCOO’s complaint against Austria explicitly argues that “Austria’s denial of this right [to deduct VAT] to representatives infringes the principle of VAT neutrality”. CLECAT’s complaint also emphasizes that in Austria, if the import VAT exemption is not applied, the representative “is unlike the importer – not entitled to deduct the import VAT,” which “infringes the principle of VAT neutrality”. The transcript’s clear statement on the general right to deduct VAT supports the argument that denying this right is a breach of standard EU VAT principles.

These points from the transcript establish a baseline understanding of how the EU VAT system is intended to operate in a neutral and relatively harmonized way for businesses, which can then be contrasted with the specific allegations made by COCOO regarding the distortive and discriminatory effects of the Austrian VAT derogation.

The YouTube transcript from “Offshore Citizen” discusses general international tax optimization strategies for individuals and businesses resident in Austria, focusing on income and corporate tax rather than the specific VAT derogation (Council Implementing Decision 2024/3013 ) that is the subject of COCOO’s complaint.

However, one piece of information from the transcript can be used to provide context and potentially strengthen the argument regarding the impact of the alleged tax privilege:

Austria’s Characterization as a High-Tax Country:
- The transcript explicitly states: “it’s worth noting that austria is a high tax country their top tax bracket at 1 million euros a year is 55 percent pretty hefty and so we don’t want that their corporate tax rate is 25 so also not great”.
- How this can be incorporated into COCOO’s case against the Austrian tax privilege (VAT derogation):COCOO’s complaint argues that Austria’s VAT derogation “indirectly reduces the effective tax liability for domestic businesses by simplifying VAT compliance processes and minimizing adjustments”, resulting in “lower administrative costs, giving Austrian businesses a competitive edge”.The characterization of Austria as a generally high-tax jurisdiction for income and corporate taxes (as stated in the transcript) can be used to argue that any reduction in other financial or administrative burdens for domestic businesses – such as simplified VAT compliance leading to lower administrative costs – would be particularly significant and impactful in such an environment.Therefore, if Austrian businesses, already navigating a high-tax landscape for their direct taxes, receive an indirect cost benefit through VAT simplification that is not available to, or creates disproportionate burdens for, non-Austrian operators, the resulting competitive distortion alleged by COCOO could be argued to be even more pronounced. This context emphasizes the material value of the alleged advantage to Austrian businesses and supports the claim that such a measure distorts competition.

While the rest of the transcript details methods to mitigate Austrian income/corporate tax (foreign entities, CFC rules, participation exemptions), these are not directly relevant to the specific VAT derogation concerning customs representation and VAT liability for imports that COCOO and CLECAT are challenging. The core of COCOO’s complaint lies in the specific mechanisms and effects of the VAT derogation itself and its alleged incompatibility with EU law (State Aid rules, free movement principles, VAT Directive, UCC).

Therefore, the primary utility of the transcript for COCOO’s case is the contextual point about Austria being a high-tax country, which can be used to underscore the significance of the competitive advantage allegedly conferred by the VAT derogation.

HAZTE MIEMBRO GRATIS PROYECTOS ABIERTOS

QUIENES SOMOS MEDIACION DIPLOMACIA DONACIONES PRIVACIDAD CONDICIONES

Highly Relevant Open Tenders

Upcoming Opportunities and Other Insights

Guidance on EU Procurement Platforms

Confirmation of Website Purpose

Open Tenders Aligned with Your Strategy

Key Open Tender Opportunity

Other Relevant Findings and Search Guidance