GEMINI’S PROPOSED QUESTIONS
Questions for the European Commission
My first question would be directed to a senior official, perhaps a Director-General, within the Directorate-General for Budget (DG BUDG) or the Secretariat-General of the European Commission.
The Question: The European Public Prosecutor’s Office’s 2024 report states that only 1.7% of its crime reports originate from EU institutions, bodies, offices, and agencies, while active investigations represent an estimated €24.8 billion in damages to the EU budget. Given that the Commission is responsible for the overall supervision of the EU budget under the Treaty, does the Commission consider a 1.7% internal detection and reporting rate for fraud on this scale to be indicative of a successful and effective supervisory framework?
Possible Answer (Admission/Deflection): “We acknowledge the EPPO’s findings and share their concerns. The Commission is constantly working to improve its anti-fraud architecture and is collaborating with OLAF, the EPPO, and Member State authorities to enhance detection. The figures highlight the complexity of the challenge, particularly with cross-border VAT fraud, and we are taking steps to address this, including the new AML regulations and strengthening agency-level controls.” This answer, while appearing cooperative, is a tacit admission of failure. We would use this to argue that the “steps” being taken are reactive and too late, and that the “complexity” is no excuse for a supervisory framework that is demonstrably blind to over 98% of the fraud being committed. It strengthens our claim that the Commission’s failure is systemic and has caused quantifiable harm.
Possible Answer (Denial/Evasion): “The EPPO’s mandate is to investigate crime, while the Commission’s role is one of financial management and oversight. The statistics cannot be directly compared. Our internal controls, along with the work of OLAF and the European Court of Auditors, provide a multi-layered system of assurance. The vast majority of the EU budget is spent correctly, and we have robust procedures for recovering any funds that are found to be misspent.” This evasive answer is strategically very valuable to us. We would counter that a system of assurance that fails to detect and report over €24 billion in potential fraud is, by definition, not robust. We would use this denial in our media campaign and legal filings to portray the Commission as being out of touch with the reality uncovered by its own prosecutors, thereby reinforcing our narrative of a negligent and ineffective bureaucracy.
My second question would be for the European Commissioner for Competition.
The Question: The academic work on “stealth consolidation” demonstrates that a significant volume of anti-competitive mergers go undisclosed because they fall below mandatory reporting thresholds. Given that the Commission’s own auditors have found that competition for EU public contracts has decreased over the last decade, what specific, proactive measures has DG Competition taken to investigate whether dominant recipients of EU funds are using this “stealth consolidation” tactic to eliminate smaller rivals and subsequently inflate prices in EU-funded procurement markets?
Possible Answer (Admission/Limited Scope): “We are aware of the academic research on this topic and the potential risks of cumulative acquisitions. Our merger control regime is focused on transactions that meet the established notification thresholds. While we monitor market concentration across various sectors, investigating below-threshold transactions on a systematic basis presents significant resource challenges. However, we would act on any specific evidence of anti-competitive conduct brought to our attention.” This answer reveals a critical enforcement gap. We would use this admission to argue that the Commission’s supervisory framework is fundamentally flawed because it is purely reactive and blind to a known, multi-trillion-dollar method of market distortion. It provides the perfect justification for our Unsolicited Proposal, where we offer to provide the Commission with the very “specific evidence” it claims to need, positioning COCOO as the solution to its acknowledged problem.
Possible Answer (Denial/Dismissal): “The EU’s merger control thresholds are set at a level designed to capture transactions that are most likely to have a significant impact on competition. We have no evidence to suggest that ‘stealth consolidation’ is a widespread problem in EU procurement markets. The Commission has a robust set of tools to ensure competition, and we are confident that our enforcement priorities are correctly focused on the most significant threats to the single market.” This dismissal would be used to portray DG Competition as complacent and behind the curve on modern antitrust theory. We would contrast their statement with the academic evidence and our own findings of reduced competition, arguing that their confidence is misplaced and that their failure to investigate this known typology of harm is a clear breach of their supervisory duty.
Questions for the Heads of the EU Agencies (ELA, CPVO, EEA, SRB)
This question would be posed, in tailored form, to the President or Director of each of the four agencies we are targeting. I will use the ELA as the example.
The Question: To the Executive Director of the European Labour Authority: The European Commission’s own 2025 evaluation of the ELA concluded that your agency’s “potential has not been fully developed also due to limitations in the mandate.” Our investigation has identified an irregular training contract award where financial thresholds were allegedly breached. Do you accept that such specific instances of financial mismanagement are a direct and predictable consequence of the institutional weaknesses and limited mandate that your own supervising authority has now officially acknowledged?
Possible Answer (Admission/Blame Deflection): “We acknowledge the findings of the Commission’s evaluation and we are working to address them. The incident you refer to was identified and has been subject to internal review. Operating within a developing framework presents challenges, and we are committed to strengthening our internal control procedures in line with the Commission’s recommendations to ensure such issues do not recur.” This is a powerful admission. It links our specific finding of infringement directly to a recognized, systemic weakness. We would use this to argue that the harm was not an isolated mistake but a foreseeable failure. This strengthens our causation argument for the damages claim and supports our position in any mediation that a comprehensive solution, not just a one-off payment, is required.
Possible Answer (Denial): “The training contract you mention was handled in accordance with the financial regulations applicable at the time, and any suggestion of irregularity is unfounded. The Commission’s evaluation is a forward-looking strategic document about the future development of the Authority and is entirely separate from the specific operational management of past contracts, which are subject to rigorous internal and external audit.” This denial creates a direct conflict of fact that is beneficial to us. We would present our evidence of the breach alongside the Commission’s report on the ELA’s institutional weakness and ask a simple question: is it more likely that this irregularity occurred in a vacuum, or that it is a symptom of the very problems the Commission has identified? This frames their denial as implausible and self-serving.
Questions for Potential Claimants (Excluded Suppliers)
This question would be posed to the CEO or Head of Business Development of a company we identify as having been unfairly excluded from one of the tenders.
The Question: Our evidence shows that the EU agency awarded a contract for services your firm provides via a non-competitive or flawed process. We are building a collective action to claim damages. Beyond the direct financial loss from that specific contract, can you quantify the broader commercial damage you have suffered, such as the cost of preparing a bid that had no real chance of success, the loss of market presence, and the chilling effect on your willingness to invest in competing for future EU contracts?
Possible Answer (Confirmation and Detail): “Yes. We spent approximately €50,000 in staff time and resources preparing that bid. More importantly, winning that contract would have been a key strategic entry point for us into the EU institutional market, which we have been trying to access for three years. Losing it unfairly meant our competitors gained a foothold that we were denied. As a result, we have reallocated our business development budget away from Brussels, as we no longer believe it is a level playing field. The total strategic damage is likely in the millions.” This answer is gold dust. It provides the specific, quantifiable evidence of harm needed for our damages claim. It transforms the case from being about a single mismanaged contract into a story of stifled competition and economic harm to European SMEs. This testimony is what we would use to build our claimant class and present a powerful, unified front in any litigation or mediation.
Possible Answer (Hesitation/Uncertainty): “We were disappointed not to win, but we have no way of knowing if the process was unfair. It’s difficult to quantify the exact loss. We bid for many contracts and we don’t win them all. We are hesitant to get involved in a legal action against an EU institution as we are concerned it could harm our chances of winning future work.” This answer reveals a key challenge: fear of retaliation. Our response would be to frame the collective action as a vehicle for providing anonymity and safety in numbers. We would explain that by joining a large group of claimants represented by COCOO, their individual company is shielded from direct exposure. We would also use this answer to refine our Unsolicited Proposal to the Commission, arguing that a key part of any procurement reform must be the creation of a robust and confidential channel for bidders to report irregularities without fear of reprisal.
Questions for Potential Litigation Funders or Purchasers of the Claim
This question would be posed to a Managing Director at a firm like Harbour Litigation Funding or Fortress Investment Group.
The Question: Our investigation has uncovered systemic financial mismanagement across multiple EU agencies, corroborated by official reports from the ECA and EPPO which estimate damages in the tens of billions of euros. We have also identified specific, high-value infringements and opaque corporate structures suggestive of high-level corruption. Given that our case provides a legal vehicle to access damages from this recognized multi-billion-euro pool of fraud, and considering the political pressure for reform, how would your firm value this case as a potential asset for either outright purchase or significant pre-litigation funding?
Possible Answer (Interest and Due Diligence): “The proposition is compelling. The validation from bodies like the EPPO significantly de-risks the merits of the underlying claim of systemic failure. The potential damages are certainly of a scale that would interest us. Our valuation would depend on a detailed due diligence of your evidence for the specific infringements, the legal analysis of the causation link between the supervisory failure and the specific damages, and an assessment of the enforcement risk against EU institutions. We would be prepared to sign a non-disclosure agreement and commit a team to conduct a preliminary review of your evidence dossier to provide an initial valuation for a pre-litigation funding package.” This is the target response. It opens the door to monetizing the case. It confirms that our strategic pivot to frame the case around the official EPPO/ECA findings is the correct one, and it initiates the process of turning our investigation into a funded, de-risked asset.
Possible Answer (Skepticism on Enforcement): “While the evidence of fraud appears strong, the political and legal hurdles in enforcing a multi-million-euro judgment against the European Commission itself are substantial. Sovereign immunity arguments, while not absolute, can create significant delays and costs. We would need to see a very clear legal pathway to enforcement and a realistic assessment of the timeline for recovery before we could commit capital. We see this as a high-risk, high-reward case that may be better suited to a traditional litigation funding model rather than an outright purchase at this stage.” This answer provides valuable market feedback. It tells us we need to strengthen the enforcement and recovery section of our investment memorandum. We would need to include detailed analysis of precedents for successful enforcement against EU bodies and potentially seek an opinion from a specialist enforcement counsel. It would guide us to initially seek funding for the litigation phase rather than an outright sale, while continuing to build the evidence base to a point where a sale becomes more attractive.
NEWS & CASE UPDATES
My most critical new insight is that the scale of the problem is vastly larger than we initially claimed, which dramatically increases the value and strategic importance of our case. The European Anti-Fraud Office’s 2024 report, which recommends the recovery of over €870 million in misused funds, and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office’s 2024 report, which details a staggering €24.8 billion in estimated damages across its active investigations, provide the backdrop against which our claims will be heard. These are not our numbers; they are the EU’s own. This evidence transforms our legal action from a series of individual grievances into a representative case that exemplifies a systemic breakdown in the stewardship of the EU budget.
To increase our chances of success, we must immediately incorporate this new intelligence into every facet of our campaign. Our legal filings, particularly the claim for non-contractual liability against the European Commission, must be updated to lead with these headline figures. We will argue that the €25 million in damages we claim from the Commission is a conservative estimate of the harm caused by a supervisory failure that has enabled fraud on a scale of tens of billions of euros. The EPPO’s finding that a mere 1.7% of its crime reports come from EU institutions, bodies, offices, and agencies is a smoking gun for our supervisory failure claim. It is definitive proof that the Commission’s oversight is passive and ineffective, and that it is blind to the vast majority of fraud occurring under its watch.
Furthermore, the recent high-profile Greek farm subsidy scandal, as investigated by the EPPO and reported by Politico, serves as a perfect, tangible case study for our entire campaign. The case involves a criminal organisation, the alleged complicity of government ministers, the intimidation of auditors, and the eventual imposition of a €400 million fine on Greece by the European Commission itself. We will use this case relentlessly in our media campaign to illustrate precisely how the lack of robust oversight leads to corruption and massive financial losses. The fact that the EPPO’s investigation was hampered by national laws preventing the prosecution of ministers highlights a systemic loophole that we can argue the Commission has failed to address, further bolstering our claim of supervisory failure.
The latest report from the European Court of Auditors on the Recovery and Resilience Facility provides us with a new, powerful technical argument. The ECA’s conclusion that the very definition of “double funding” in the Financial Regulation is unfit for purpose and that the control environment is fragmented is a direct indictment of the legal and technical framework the Commission is supposed to be enforcing. We will amend our legal arguments to state that the infringements at the ELA, CPVO, and EEA are not just failures of implementation but are the predictable result of a flawed regulatory system.
Regarding our specific agency claims, the new intelligence provides direct support. For our case against the European Labour Authority, the Commission’s own evaluation, published in May 2025, concludes that the ELA’s mandate is limited and its potential is not fully developed. This is a direct admission from the defendant’s ultimate supervisor that the agency is institutionally weak. We will argue that the irregular training contract we identified is a direct symptom of this acknowledged weakness. For our claim against the Single Resolution Board, while news of the SRF meeting its funding target may seem like a defence, the ongoing public debate among regulators about the need for “extra tools” and reforms to the bank resolution framework provides the context we need. We will scrutinize the SRB Chair’s blog posts on crisis readiness to find admissions of existing gaps in their control framework.
A crucial development that we must strategically navigate is the changing landscape of beneficial ownership transparency. The 2024 restriction of public access to beneficial ownership registers, following a CJEU judgment, creates a new line of argument for us. We will contend that this reduction in transparency, which occurred under the Commission’s watch, has made it easier for corrupt actors to hide behind opaque corporate structures, thereby increasing the risk of fraud in public procurement and making the Commission’s supervisory duty even more critical, and its failure even more egregious. The fact that a new, stronger AML Regulation will only come into force in 2027 means there is a present and ongoing vulnerability that the Commission has failed to mitigate.
This new intelligence also dramatically enhances our ability to assign or sell the case. The confirmation of fraud and mismanagement on a scale of tens of billions of euros makes our case a highly attractive asset to litigation funders. In our investment memorandum, we will lead with the official figures from OLAF and the EPPO. We will present our case not as a speculative claim, but as a key that unlocks a share of a recognized, multi-billion-euro pool of damages. The detailed report I have reviewed on the legal finance market confirms that firms like Fortress Investment Group and Harbour Litigation Funding are explicitly in the business of purchasing such claims. We are now in a prime position to approach them with a fully evidenced, high-potential asset, either to secure non-recourse funding for the entire litigation or to negotiate an outright sale of the claim, providing immediate liquidity and transferring all risk.
In summary, the environment has changed. The ground has shifted. The EU’s own watchdogs have sounded the alarm, and their findings provide a powerful echo to our own. Our task now is to harness this new evidence, weaving it into a compelling and irrefutable narrative of systemic failure that will maximize our chances of success in court and significantly increase the value of our case as a strategic asset.
GEMINI’S CHOSEN SEARCHLINKS
Platform: Social Science Research Network (SSRN)
I have processed SSRN, a primary repository for pre-publication academic research in law, economics, and finance. Its value is in uncovering cutting-edge analysis and theoretical frameworks that can be used to build and support our legal arguments. To support our cause of action for Non-contractual Liability of the Union under Article 340 TFEU, I will use the advanced search to find working papers with the keywords "non-contractual liability" AND "European Union" AND "supervisory duty". This will identify recent academic thinking on the legal tests for holding the Commission liable for its failures. To support our finding of deficient internal supervision at the SRB, I will search for "financial regulation" AND "agency capture" OR "control framework", looking for economic papers that model the risks of regulatory failure in financial institutions. To support our overarching claim of Supervisory Failure by the European Commission, I will search for "public procurement" AND "competition" AND "European Union". The goal is to find economic studies that quantify the negative impact of non-competitive tendering on value for money, providing a theoretical basis for our damages calculation.
Platform: European Court of Auditors (ECA) Publications Portal
I have processed the main publications portal of the European Court of Auditors. While we have referenced specific reports, a systematic search of their entire archive is a critical next step. My strategy is to find any and all audit findings related to our target agencies, no matter how minor, to build a compelling narrative of chronic mismanagement. To support our specific findings of infringement against the ELA, CPVO, and EEA, I will conduct individual searches for each agency’s name as an exact phrase in the full-text search, for example, "European Labour Authority". I will then filter the results by document type, reviewing Annual Reports, Special Reports, and Opinions. The objective is to find any observation, remark, or finding of irregularity, even those that did not lead to a formal adverse opinion, as a pattern of smaller issues can demonstrate a culture of weak financial control. To support the cause of action for Supervisory Failure by the Commission, I will search for the keywords "agency oversight" OR "decentralised agencies" AND "financial management". This is designed to find horizontal audits or landscape reviews where the ECA has assessed the Commission’s overall system for supervising its agencies, which could contain direct criticism of the supervisory framework itself.
Platform: The European Ombudsman Decisions Database
I have processed the decisions database of the European Ombudsman. This is a crucial source for evidence of maladministration, which is a powerful complement to our legal claims of illegality. My strategy is to find any prior findings of maladministration against our target institutions. To support all our causes of action, I will conduct searches in the Decisions database for the name of each institution as the Institution concerned. I will search for "European Commission", "European Labour Authority", "Community Plant Variety Office", "European Environment Agency", and "Single Resolution Board". I will pay close attention to any cases involving a lack of transparency, refusal of access to documents, conflicts of interest, or procedural unfairness. A finding of maladministration by the Ombudsman against one of our target agencies for, say, a lack of transparency in a recruitment process, can be used as powerful circumstantial evidence to support our claim of a lack of transparency in their procurement processes. It establishes a pattern of poor administrative culture, which strengthens our overall case.
Platform: OECD iLibrary
I have processed the OECD’s online library of publications. The OECD is a global standard-setter for good governance, and its reports provide an authoritative international benchmark. My strategy is to use OECD guidelines to argue that the conduct of the EU agencies falls below accepted international best practice. To support our cause of action for Breach of Procurement Directives, I will search for the publication series OECD Public Governance Reviews and OECD Principles for Integrity in Public Procurement. I will search within these documents for best practices related to "competitive tendering", "contract splitting", and "risk management in procurement". We can then contrast these established international standards with the documented infringements at the ELA, CPVO, and EEA. To support our claim against the SRB for its deficient control framework, I will search for OECD reports on "corporate governance of state-owned enterprises" and "financial regulators". The governance and control frameworks recommended in these reports can be used as a benchmark to highlight the deficiencies in the SRB’s alleged framework.
Platform: ISACA (Information Systems Audit and Control Association) Resources
I have processed the resources section of ISACA, a leading global association for IT governance and audit professionals. This is a source of highly specific, technical evidence. My strategy is to use their professional standards to challenge the technical competence of the procurement decisions made. To support our finding of improper contract splitting by the CPVO, I will search their white papers and standards library for documents related to "IT procurement audit" and "cybersecurity risk management". The goal is to find authoritative guidance on how to properly scope and procure complex IT projects. This technical evidence will allow us to argue that the splitting of the contracts was not just a breach of financial rules, but was also technically incompetent and contrary to established industry best practice for managing cybersecurity risks. To support the finding against the EEA for outsourcing financial checks without adequate oversight, I will search for ISACA’s COBIT framework documents, which are a global standard for the governance and management of enterprise IT and data. We can use these standards to demonstrate the level of oversight and control that should have been applied, highlighting the EEA’s negligence.
Platform: SMEunited (The association of Crafts and SMEs in Europe) Publications
I have processed the publications section of SMEunited. This is a primary source for evidence of the harm caused to the class of victims we seek to represent. My strategy is to find official reports and position papers that document the struggles of SMEs in the EU procurement market. To support our cause of action for Non-contractual Liability of the Union, I will search their website for publications with keywords like "public procurement", "SME access", "barriers", and "single market". The objective is to find surveys, studies, or position papers that quantify the difficulties SMEs face, such as overly complex procedures, unfair bundling of contracts, and lack of transparency. This evidence is crucial for our FOC DAM (Find Other Claimants, Monetize Damages) strategy and provides a powerful, fact-based narrative that the Commission’s Supervisory Failure has a real, negative economic impact on the backbone of the European economy.
Platform: Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Publications
I have processed the publications portal of the FATF, the global anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing watchdog. My strategy is to use their authoritative reports to support our investigation into the opaque corporate structures of the winning bidders. To support all our causes of action by demonstrating the risks of poor due diligence, I will search for their Typologies Reports on the misuse of corporate vehicles. I will search for keywords like "beneficial ownership", "nominee directors", and "shell companies". These reports provide detailed examples of how such structures are used for illicit purposes. We can use these official typologies to argue that the presence of these red flags in the ownership structures of the winning bidders should have triggered enhanced scrutiny from the EU agencies, and that the failure to act on these red flags was a severe act of negligence, directly supporting our Breach of Financial Regulation claim.
Platform: UK Parliament – Public Accounts Committee (PAC) Reports
I have processed the publications page of the UK’s Public Accounts Committee. This is a source of politically significant, historical evidence. My strategy is to find past UK parliamentary criticism of EU financial management. To support our cause of action for Supervisory Failure by the European Commission, I will search the PAC’s report archive, filtering for reports published before 2020. I will use search terms like "European funds", "Court of Auditors", "irregularity", and "Common Agricultural Policy". The goal is to unearth official reports where this powerful UK committee has criticized the Commission for the very same types of financial mismanagement and weak oversight that are the subject of our case. This historical evidence from a highly respected national scrutiny body is extremely valuable for our media campaign and demonstrates that these are not new problems, but chronic failures.
Platform: HeinOnline Law Journal Library
I have processed the structure of HeinOnline, a premier database of academic law journals. I must state honestly that full-text searching requires a subscription which I do not have, but I can devise the precise search strategy for our legal team. This is essential for finding deep legal analysis to support our core arguments. To support our cause of action for Non-contractual Liability of the Union, I will perform a search for articles with the exact phrase "Article 340 TFEU" in the title or abstract, combined with keywords like "causation", "damages", and "supervision". To support our Failure to Act claim, I will search for "Article 265 TFEU" AND "admissibility". To find broader support for our claim of Supervisory Failure, I will search for articles on "comitology", "decentralised agencies", and "sound financial management". The scholarly articles retrieved will provide us with nuanced legal arguments, citations to obscure but relevant case law, and a comprehensive understanding of the academic debate surrounding these principles, which is vital for drafting persuasive and authoritative legal submissions to the Court.
Platform: The Global Legal Post
I have processed The Global Legal Post, a legal industry news outlet. This is a market intelligence tool. My strategy is to monitor the legal finance market to inform our strategy for selling or assigning the case. To support our monetisation strategy, I will use the site’s search function to find articles on "litigation funding", "third-party funding", and "claim monetization". I will also search for the names of the specific litigation funders we have identified, such as "Burford Capital", "Harbour Litigation Funding", and "Fortress Investment Group". The objective is to track recent deals, understand the market’s current appetite for different types of claims, and identify the key lawyers and brokers who are active in this space. This intelligence is crucial for ensuring that when we approach the market to sell our case, we are fully informed and can negotiate from a position of strength.
Platform: https://consultas.oepm.es/
I have processed the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office (OEPM) database. This is a tactical tool for rebutting specific defences related to intellectual property. My strategy is to use its advanced search functions to challenge any claims of technical exclusivity made by a Spanish company that may have won an irregular contract. To support our cause of action for Breach of Procurement Directives, specifically the findings against the CPVO or EEA, if a non-competitive contract was awarded to a Spanish entity based on a claim of unique patented technology, I will execute a two-part search. First, in the Búsqueda por Identificadores (Search by Identifiers) section, I will search for the Spanish company’s name in the Solicitante/Titular (Applicant/Owner) field to retrieve its entire IP portfolio. Second, and more importantly, I will use the Búsqueda por Palabras (Search by Words) function. I will search for technical keywords describing the procured service in the Título (Title) and Resumen (Abstract) fields. The objective is to generate a list of competing patents and technologies owned by different companies. This list serves as concrete evidence that a competitive market of alternative solutions exists, proving that the justification for a direct award was false and the agency’s action was a clear breach of procurement law.
Platform: https://www.publicadorconcursal.es/
I have processed the Public Insolvency Register. This is a primary source for official notifications of insolvency proceedings in Spain. My strategy is to use this for critical due diligence on any Spanish entities involved in our case. To support our cause of action for Breach of Financial Regulation by the ELA, CPVO, or EEA, if any winning bidder is a Spanish company, I will search for that company using its Denominación Social (company name) and its NIF (tax identification number). Finding a recent or ongoing insolvency proceeding (concurso de acreedores) would be powerful evidence of negligent due diligence by the awarding EU agency. It would strongly support our claim that the agency failed in its duty of care by awarding public funds to a financially unstable entity, which is a key component of the harm in our Non-contractual Liability claim against the Union.
Platform: https://www.boe.es/buscar/concursos.php
I have processed the insolvency section of the Boletín Oficial del Estado (BOE), Spain’s official state gazette. This is an alternative and complementary source to the Publicador Concursal. My strategy is one of verification and deep-dive research. To support our Breach of Financial Regulation cause of action, I will again search for the names of any involved Spanish companies. The BOE often contains more detailed resolutions and judicial edicts related to the insolvency. I will search for the company name in the Texto field to find all mentions. The goal is to find not just the declaration of insolvency, but the detailed court orders which may contain information about the company’s creditors, the reasons for its financial distress, and the appointment of administrators. This level of detail can provide invaluable insights into the company’s operational and financial mismanagement, further strengthening our argument that the EU agency’s decision to award it a contract was grossly negligent.
Platform: https://contrataciondelestado.es/
I have processed the Plataforma de Contratación del Sector Público, Spain’s main public procurement portal. This is a crucial platform for benchmarking and due diligence. To support our cause of action for Breach of Procurement Directives by the ELA, CPVO, and EEA, I will use the Licitaciones (Tenders) search. For any Spanish company that won one of the irregular EU contracts, I will search for its name in the Adjudicatario (Winning Bidder) field to analyze its domestic procurement history. I will pay close attention to the Tipo de Procedimiento (Type of Procedure). If the company consistently wins contracts in Spain through open competition (Abierto) but received a direct award from the EU agency, it strengthens our argument of a flawed process. To support our cause of action for Supervisory Failure by the European Commission, I will search for awarded contracts for similar services using CPV codes (e.g., for training, IT consulting). I will extract the data on the Número de licitadores (number of bidders) for these Spanish tenders. A statistical report showing that Spanish public bodies receive, on average, significantly more bids than the EU agencies did for comparable services is powerful evidence that the agencies’ procurement processes are uncompetitive and poorly managed, which is the core of our systemic failure claim.
Platform: https://www.infosubvenciones.es/
I have processed the Spanish National Subsidies Database. This is a key tool for uncovering potential conflicts of interest and unfair competitive advantages. To support our findings of a lack of competitive and transparent bidding processes, I will search for any Spanish company that won an irregular EU contract in the Beneficiarios section. Uncovering that the company is a major recipient of Spanish government subsidies could be evidence of two things. First, it could indicate a potential illegal state aid issue, where the subsidies gave it an unfair advantage in the EU tender, distorting the competitive process. This would be a powerful argument to present to DG Competition. Second, it adds to the risk profile of the company, which a diligent EU agency should have considered, thereby supporting our Breach of Financial Regulation claim.
Platform: https://www.registradores.org/
I have processed the main portal of the Spanish College of Registrars. This is the official gateway for obtaining legally certified corporate information. My strategy is to use this as the primary source for foundational evidence. To support all our causes of action by providing definitive proof of corporate structure and governance, the key action here is to use the Registro Mercantil (Mercantile Registry) section to request a Nota Simple Informativa for any Spanish company identified in our investigation. This official document provides legally admissible evidence of the company’s current directors (administradores) and key corporate filings. The names of these directors are the critical starting point for our conflict-of-interest investigation, as these names will then be searched across all our other political, lobbying, and sanctions databases. This is a non-negotiable step in our due diligence protocol.
Platform: https://www.registradores.org/actualidad/portal-estadistico-registral/estadisticas-mercantiles
I have processed the Mercantile Statistics Portal from the Spanish Registrars. This is a macroeconomic and sectoral analysis tool. My strategy is to use this data to demonstrate the health of the relevant Spanish markets, making the EU agencies’ procurement failures more stark. To support our cause of action for Supervisory Failure by the Commission, I will analyze the statistical reports on Constitución de Sociedades (Company Formations) and Extinciones (Dissolutions) for the economic sectors (CNAE codes) relevant to the services procured by the ELA, CPVO, and EEA. A high net number of company formations in these sectors in Spain indicates a dynamic and competitive market. This statistical evidence makes the agencies’ failure to attract multiple bids appear highly negligent and supports our argument that their non-competitive outcomes are a result of poor process, not a lack of available suppliers.
Platform: http://app.bde.es/rss_www/
I have processed the Bank of Spain’s RSS feed portal. This is not a searchable database but a real-time intelligence monitoring tool. My strategy is to use it for ongoing monitoring to find contextual support for our claim against the SRB. To support our finding of deficient internal supervision at the SRB, I will subscribe to the RSS feeds for Publicaciones, Notas de prensa, and Discursos y presentaciones. I will monitor these feeds for any new reports, speeches, or press releases from the Bank of Spain that discuss bank resolution, financial stability, or internal control frameworks for financial institutions. Any document that outlines the high standards expected by a major national central bank can be used as a benchmark to highlight the inadequacy of the SRB’s alleged control framework, providing persuasive authority for our claim.
Platform: https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions_en
I have processed this informational page from the European Commission’s DG Trade. My strategy is to use the Commission’s own policy statements to highlight its hypocrisy and failure of governance. To support our cause of action for Supervisory Failure by the European Commission, I will navigate from this page to the sections detailing the EU’s trade relationship with major partners like the United States. I will search these pages for policy statements or factsheets related to the Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) or chapters on public procurement in trade deals. My objective is to find explicit language where the Commission champions its commitment to open, transparent, and non-discriminatory public procurement rules as a key objective of its external trade policy. We will then use these official statements as Exhibit A in our legal filings, arguing that the Commission’s failure to enforce these same fundamental principles in the tenders run by its own agencies (ELA, CPVO, EEA) is a profound and inexcusable breach of its supervisory duty and an affront to the principles it claims to uphold on the world stage.
Platform: https://www.pacer.gov/
I have processed the PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) portal. This is the definitive gateway to US federal court dockets. I must state honestly that access requires a registered account and may incur fees per search and document downloaded, which I cannot perform. However, I have devised the precise strategy for our team to execute. This platform is a critical due diligence tool for any US-based parent companies of the firms that won the irregular EU contracts. To support all our causes of action by establishing the corporate character of the beneficiaries of the infringements, our primary search will be a nationwide query in the PACER Case Locator. For each US parent company, we will search for their name as a Party. We will analyze any returned case dockets. To support our claim of Breach of Financial Regulation by the EU agencies (by negligently awarding contracts to untrustworthy entities), we will specifically look for prior litigation where the US parent was a defendant in cases involving fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, or racketeering (RICO). A history of such litigation is powerful evidence of poor corporate character. To support our findings of lack of competitive bidding processes, we will specifically search for cases where the US parent was a defendant in private or government antitrust litigation. A history of anti-competitive conduct in the US makes the non-competitive award in the EU appear more suspect. This evidence is vital for our claim of Supervisory Failure by the Commission, as it demonstrates that the beneficiaries of flawed EU procurement have a questionable history that a diligent supervisor should have been aware of.
Platform: https://www.usaspending.gov/
I have processed the official US government spending database. This platform allows us to benchmark the EU agencies’ procurement practices against those of the US government. My strategy is to compare how our target companies are treated in the US market versus the EU market. To support our cause of action for Breach of Procurement Directives, specifically the findings against the ELA, CPVO, and EEA, I will use the Advanced Search function. In the Recipient field, I will enter the name of the US parent company of each winning bidder. I will then analyze the resulting contract awards. My first objective is to assess competitiveness. I will examine the Extent Competed field for each award. If the company consistently wins contracts in the US on a Full and Open Competition basis but received its EU contract via a non-competitive procedure, this provides strong circumstantial evidence that the EU agency’s process was flawed. My second objective is to benchmark value. I will compare the value of the US contracts for similar services to the value of the EU contracts. A significant price discrepancy, where the EU pays more for a similar service, supports our claim that the lack of competition led to poor value for money for the EU taxpayer, a key component of the damages in our Non-contractual Liability claim.
Platform: https://www.wipo.int/branddb/en/
I have processed the WIPO Global Brand Database. This is a tactical tool for rebutting specific justifications for non-competitive awards. My strategy is to challenge any claims of uniqueness or proprietary branding used to justify a direct award. To support our cause of action for Breach of Procurement Directives, if an agency like the ELA or CPVO justifies a direct award by claiming the winning contractor offered a unique, branded methodology (e.g., a proprietary training system), I will use this database to investigate that claim. In the Brand text field, I will search for the name of the methodology or product. I will then analyze the search results to determine who owns the trademark, in which jurisdictions it is registered, and, most importantly, I will conduct broader searches using related keywords to identify competing, similarly branded products or services. Presenting a list of alternative, branded solutions provides concrete evidence that the claim of uniqueness was unfounded and that a competitive tender should have been conducted.
Platform: https://www.openownership.org/en/register/
I have processed the OpenOwnership Register. This is a primary tool for our beneficial ownership investigation, which is fundamental to uncovering potential corruption and conflicts of interest. To support all our causes of action, my strategy is to use this register to pierce the corporate veil of the winning bidders. For each company that won a contract from the ELA, CPVO, and EEA, I will search for the company name in the register. My objective is to identify the ultimate beneficial owners (UBOs). This information is critical. Once a UBO is identified, their name will be run through our sanctions and PEP databases. Uncovering a UBO who is a politically exposed person, or who has hidden connections to officials within the awarding EU agency or the European Commission, would provide powerful evidence of a conflict of interest, directly supporting our claims of a corrupt procurement process. This evidence is the cornerstone for packaging the case for sale to litigation funders, as it elevates the claim from simple mismanagement to potential high-level corruption.
Platform: https://www.infocif.es/
I have processed Infocif, a Spanish commercial information database. This is our primary tool for conducting deep due diligence on any Spanish entities connected to our case. If our investigation reveals that a winning bidder or a significant subcontractor is a Spanish company, I will use the main search bar to find that company’s profile. To support all our causes of action, I will analyze the Datos Identificativos to verify its legal status and the Cargos y Directivos section to identify all its directors. The names of these directors are critical intelligence for our conflict-of-interest mapping. I will also analyze the Cuentas Anuales (annual accounts) to assess the company’s financial health. Awarding a significant contract to a financially unstable company would be evidence of negligent due diligence by the awarding EU agency, strengthening our Breach of Financial Regulation claim.
I have processed the portal for the Spanish Office of Conflicts of Interest, which publishes the declarations of high-ranking officials. This is a high-impact, direct search tool for uncovering corruption. My strategy is one of direct cross-referencing. To support our claims of Breach of Procurement Directives through a corrupt process, for every director and UBO identified in our investigation of any Spanish company involved in the winning bids, I will meticulously search their full name in this database of declarations. A match, revealing that a director of a winning company is also a high-ranking public official or has close family ties to one, would be a “smoking gun.” It would constitute powerful, direct evidence of a severe conflict of interest that we would immediately submit to OLAF and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, and it would form the centerpiece of our public media campaign.
Platform: https://www.congresodiputados.es/
I have processed the website of the Spanish Congress of Deputies. My strategy is to search for parliamentary activity that corroborates our claims of mismanagement of EU funds. To support our cause of action for Supervisory Failure by the European Commission, I will use the website’s search function to find parliamentary initiatives (Iniciativas parlamentarias) and debates (Diario de Sesiones). I will use search terms like "fondos europeos" AND "fraude", "contratación pública" AND "irregularidades", and "Tribunal de Cuentas Europeo". The goal is to find written questions, committee reports, or plenary debates where Spanish MPs have raised concerns about the very same issues we are litigating. This evidence demonstrates that these are not isolated concerns but are matters of recognized political importance within a major member state, adding significant weight to our claim that the Commission’s failure to supervise is a systemic problem.
Platform: https://www.cnmv.es/
I have processed the website of the Spanish National Securities Market Commission (CNMV). This is our primary tool for investigating any Spanish-listed companies involved in our case. To support all our causes of action, if a Spanish parent company of a winning bidder is identified, I will use the Consultas a los Registros Oficiales function to search for the company. I will retrieve its official communications (Comunicaciones de Hechos Relevantes) and financial reports. I will analyze these documents for any disclosures related to the EU contracts, looking for misleading statements or omissions. I will also search the Actuaciones de la CNMV section for any disciplinary proceedings (expedientes sancionadores) against the company. A history of sanctions from the CNMV for market abuse or disclosure failures would be powerful evidence of poor corporate character, supporting our claim that the EU agency was negligent in awarding a contract to its subsidiary.
Platform: https://www.cnmc.es/
I have processed the website of the Spanish National Markets and Competition Commission (CNMC). This is the Spanish competition authority and a key resource for our investigation. To support our findings of lack of competitive and transparent bidding processes, I will use the Buscador de expedientes (case search) to search for the names of any Spanish companies that won or were involved in the irregular EU contracts. I will look for any past or ongoing investigations or sanctions related to conductas anticompetitivas, particularly cárteles (cartels) or abuso de posición dominante (abuse of a dominant position). Finding that a winning bidder has been sanctioned by the CNMC for bid-rigging in Spain would be devastating for the EU agency’s defence. It would prove that the company has a history of the exact type of misconduct we are alleging, making the agency’s decision to award them a contract a clear case of negligent due diligence and strengthening our Breach of Financial Regulation claim.
Platform: https://transparencia.gencat.cat/
I have processed the transparency portal of the Generalitat de Catalunya, the government of Catalonia. This is a geographically specific due diligence tool. My strategy is to deploy it if any part of our investigation reveals a nexus to Catalonia. If a winning bidder, a key subcontractor, or a director is based in Catalonia, I will use this portal’s search functions to support all our causes of action. I will search the Registre de grups d'interès (lobbyist register) for the company and its directors to map their local influence network. I will search the Contractació pública (public procurement) database to see their history of winning local public contracts, which can be benchmarked against the EU contract. I will also search the Subvencions i ajuts (subsidies and aid) database to see if the company is a recipient of local public funds, which could reveal further dependencies or potential conflicts of interest.
Platform: https://www.ajbell.co.uk/markets/investment-trusts
I have processed the AJ Bell Investment Trust screener. This platform is a strategic intelligence tool for identifying institutional investors who can exert pressure on the UK-listed parent companies of any winning bidders. My strategy is to use this to find points of leverage that support all our causes of action by creating corporate governance pressure on the entities that benefited from the infringements. Once our corporate intelligence work identifies a UK-listed parent company of a firm that won an irregular contract from the ELA, CPVO, or EEA, I will use the screener’s search function to find that parent company’s stock. I will then navigate to the “Top 10 holdings” or equivalent section for any investment trusts that hold this stock. The objective is to identify the names of the investment trusts and their fund managers. We will then draft a formal letter to the fund manager and the trust’s board, outlining our evidence of financial mismanagement and potential corruption at their portfolio company. This letter will argue that their continued holding of this stock may violate their fiduciary duty to their own investors and breach their stated ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) principles. This action creates a significant internal problem for the parent company, potentially forcing them to launch their own investigation and creating leverage for a settlement.
Platform: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications
I have processed the UK Government’s publications portal. This is a vast repository of official documents. My strategy is to mine this archive for reports that can serve as benchmarks for good governance and provide evidence of historical UK government concerns about EU financial management. To support our cause of action for Supervisory Failure by the European Commission, I will use the advanced search function. My first search will be for reports from the National Audit Office (NAO) with the keywords "European Court of Auditors" OR "EU funds" AND "fraud" OR "irregularity", with the date filter set to the period before the UK’s departure from the EU. The goal is to find official UK auditor reports that corroborate the ECA’s findings of systemic weaknesses, which would strengthen our narrative. To support our claims of Breach of Procurement Directives by the ELA, CPVO, and EEA, I will search for guidance documents from HM Treasury and the Cabinet Office with the keywords "public procurement" AND "value for money" OR "managing public money". The principles and standards outlined in these documents represent the UK’s own best practices, which we can use as a benchmark to argue that the conduct of the EU agencies was substandard and negligent.
Platform: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations
I have processed the UK Government’s organisations directory. This is not a search database for evidence but a directory for identifying the correct institutional targets for engagement or information requests. My strategy is to use this to identify specialist UK bodies whose work is analogous to that of the EU agencies we are targeting. To add weight to our claim against the SRB for its deficient control framework, I will identify the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Bank of England from this directory. I will then navigate to their own websites to find their policy documents on financial control frameworks for UK banks, which can be used as a “gold standard” comparator. To find a UK analogue for the ELA’s training procurement, I will identify the Department for Education and search its publications for its own rules on procuring large-scale training services. This comparative evidence helps demonstrate that the failures we have identified are not normal practice in a well-run administration.
Platform: https://www.londonstockexchange.com/live-markets/market-data-dashboard/price-explorer
I have processed the London Stock Exchange’s Price Explorer. This is a market data tool, not a document repository. My strategy is to use it to conduct event studies that can provide circumstantial evidence of market awareness of wrongdoing. To support all our causes of action, if a UK-listed parent company is identified, I will use this tool to download its historical share price and trading volume data. I will focus on the time period surrounding the announcement and award of the irregular EU contracts to its subsidiary. I will analyze this data for abnormal trading volumes or positive share price movements before the public announcement of the contract win. Such activity could suggest that information about the corruptly secured contract leaked to the market, or that insiders were trading on the information. While not conclusive proof, this analysis can be presented to financial regulators like the FCA as a red flag warranting a formal investigation into insider dealing, adding another layer of pressure on the company.
Platform: https://www.bidstats.uk/
I have processed Bidstats, a UK procurement database. My strategy is to use this platform for detailed market analysis to prove that the non-competitive practices of the EU agencies were unjustifiable. To directly rebut any defence for the lack of competitive bidding at the EEA and ELA, I will use the advanced search to find UK contract awards for identical services. For the ELA’s training contract, I will search for the CPV code 80500000 - Training services. For the EEA’s financial checks, I will search for 79212000 - Auditing services. I will then analyze the resulting list of UK contract awards, specifically recording the Number of Bids for each. I will compile a report showing the average number of bids for these services in the UK market. Presenting evidence that the average UK tender for these services receives, for example, ten bids, makes the EU agencies’ receipt of only one or two bids appear highly anomalous and indicative of a flawed, non-competitive process. This statistical evidence is crucial for our Non-contractual Liability claim.
Platform: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_e.htm
I have processed the WTO’s dispute settlement database. This is a source of high-level international legal precedent. My strategy is to find evidence that the EU has previously been challenged for failing to uphold the very principles of transparency and fairness that are at the heart of our case. To support our cause of action for Supervisory Failure by the European Commission, I will use the Disputes by country/territory function and select the European Union as the respondent. I will then review the list of cases, looking for any disputes related to the Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA). Finding a past or ongoing dispute where another WTO member has formally challenged the EU’s procurement practices would be a powerful piece of evidence. It would demonstrate that the infringements we have identified are not isolated incidents but are part of a pattern of behaviour that has been recognized as problematic at the highest level of international trade law.
Platform: https://www.oge.gov/
I have processed the website of the US Office of Government Ethics (OGE). I must be honest that its direct evidentiary value for an EU-based case is limited. However, my strategy is to use it as a source of international best practice standards for ethical conduct. To support our claims related to potential conflicts of interest in the ELA, CPVO, and EEA procurement processes, I will search the OGE’s Legal Resources library. I will look for advisory opinions and guidance documents on topics like "conflicts of interest in procurement" and "post-employment restrictions". I will then use the standards articulated in these documents as a benchmark. In our submissions, we can argue that “while not legally binding in the EU, the ethical standards for public officials articulated by the US OGE represent a global best practice, and the conduct observed at the EU agencies falls significantly short of this standard,” which is a persuasive argument for both courts and public opinion.
Platform: https://www.congress.gov/
I have processed the US Congress website. Similar to the OGE site, its direct relevance is contextual. My strategy is to search for high-quality, objective analysis of the EU’s systems from a US legislative perspective. To support our cause of action for Supervisory Failure by the Commission, I will search for Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports using the keywords "European Union" AND "procurement" OR "competition policy". CRS reports are known for their impartiality and depth. Finding a CRS report that analyzes weaknesses or lack of transparency in the EU’s public procurement system would provide us with credible, third-party analysis that we can cite in our legal and public communications to support our claims.
Platform: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/
I have processed Espacenet, the global patent database. This is a highly tactical tool to directly rebut specific defences. My strategy is focused on the Breach of Procurement Directives cause of action. If the CPVO or EEA justifies a direct, non-competitive contract award by claiming the winning supplier possessed unique, proprietary technology protected by a patent, I will use Espacenet to disprove this. I will use the Advanced search function and search the International Patent Classification (IPC) or Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) codes relevant to the technology in question. I will also conduct keyword searches in the Title or abstract field for the technical terms describing the service. The objective is to generate a list of multiple patents held by different companies for similar technologies. This list is concrete proof that a competitive market of alternative technology providers exists, and that the claim of technical exclusivity was false, meaning the direct award was a clear breach of procurement law.
Platform: https://ppubs.uspto.gov/
I have processed the US Patent and Trademark Office’s patent publication database. This serves the same tactical purpose as Espacenet but is focused on the US. If a US-based company won an irregular contract from an EU agency based on a claim of unique patented technology, this platform is our primary tool for rebuttal. To support the Breach of Procurement Directives cause of action, I will search this database using the name of the winning US company as the Applicant Name to find their patent portfolio. I will then conduct broader searches using relevant technical keywords and classification codes to find competing patents held by other US and international companies. As with Espacenet, producing a list of alternative patent holders for the same technology provides definitive evidence that the justification for a non-competitive award was invalid.
Platform: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/register-of-consultant-lobbyists
This is the UK’s statutory register of consultant lobbyists. My strategy is to use it to map the influence networks of any UK-based entities connected to our case. To support all our causes of action by providing context on the corporate culture of the winning bidders, I will search the register for the names of any UK parent companies of the firms that won the ELA, CPVO, and EEA contracts. A positive finding, detailing which government departments they lobbied and when, helps build a narrative of a company that actively seeks to influence public bodies. This information, while not direct evidence of wrongdoing in the EU, is powerful contextual evidence for our media campaign and for submissions to investigators, as it demonstrates a pattern of behaviour.
Platform: https://www.lobbying.scot/
This is the Scottish lobbying register. My strategy here is one of comprehensive due diligence. For any winning bidder or parent company with a UK presence, I will also search this register. While a direct link to our EU-level causes of action is less likely, uncovering lobbying activity in Scotland adds to the complete intelligence picture of the target entity. It supports our overall case by demonstrating a thorough, multi-jurisdictional investigation into the character and practices of the companies that have benefited from the infringements we have identified.
Platform: https://casetracker.justice.gov.uk/
This is the UK’s case tracking system for certain courts, including the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). My strategy is to use this for legal precedent and competitor intelligence. To support our cause of action for Non-contractual Liability of the Union, I will search for all cases where the Competition and Markets Authority is a party. I will analyze the case documents to understand the legal arguments that have been successfully used to challenge the decisions of a major public regulator, providing a tactical playbook for our claim against the Commission. To support our claims of Breach of Procurement Directives, I will search for the names of the UK parent companies of the winning bidders to identify any past or ongoing competition litigation, which would provide evidence of a potential corporate history of anti-competitive conduct.
Platform: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/royal-courts-of-justice-cause-list
This platform provides the daily hearing lists for the Royal Courts of Justice. It is a tactical monitoring tool, not a research database. My strategy is to integrate its use into our litigation management workflow. Once we have identified relevant ongoing UK litigation involving our target companies through other means like CaseTracker, this portal will be monitored daily to track upcoming hearing dates, ensuring we are aware of all developments in real-time. It is not used for initial evidence gathering for any of our causes of action but is essential for tactical awareness once litigation is underway.
Platform: https://www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/
This is the UK’s official high-value public procurement portal. My strategy is to use this platform to gather benchmark data and identify potential claimants. To support our cause of action for Supervisory Failure by the European Commission, I will conduct a search for Awarded contracts in the UK for services similar to those in our case, using CPV codes for training, IT consultancy, and financial audit services. I will analyze the number of bids received for these UK tenders. A consistently higher number of bidders in the UK market for comparable services provides powerful statistical evidence that the procurement processes of the ELA, CPVO, and EEA were not sufficiently competitive, thereby strengthening our claim of mismanagement. To support our FOC DAM (Find Other Claimants, Monetize Damages) strategy, I will search for UK companies that frequently bid on these tenders but are absent from EU contract awards, identifying them as a potential class of harmed UK businesses.
Platform: https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/
This is a vital EU-level lobbying database. My strategy is to uncover evidence of potential undue influence. To support our findings of infringement related to improper contract splitting (CPVO) and lack of competitive bidding (ELA, EEA), I will conduct a deep-dive search for the winning bidders and their parent companies. I will meticulously analyze their declared lobby spend, the number of accredited lobbyists, and the specific European Commission DGs and officials they have met with. A high frequency of meetings with DG BUDG (Budget), DG COMP (Competition), or the parent DGs of the agencies in the period leading up to the contract awards provides strong circumstantial evidence of an influence campaign, which supports our narrative that the procurement processes were not conducted on a level playing field.
Platform: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/home/en
This is the Commission’s official press release archive. My strategy is to use the Commission’s own public statements as a benchmark to highlight its failures. To support our cause of action for Supervisory Failure by the Commission, I will search for all press releases containing the keywords "sound financial management", "public procurement", and "transparency". We will compile a dossier of every instance where the Commission has publicly committed to these principles. This dossier will be used in our legal filings and media campaign to create a stark contrast between the Commission’s stated commitments and the documented reality of the infringements at the ELA, CPVO, EEA, and SRB, thereby strengthening our argument that a “sufficiently serious breach” of its duties has occurred.
Platform: https://ec.europa.eu/consumers/odr/
This is the EU’s Online Dispute Resolution platform. I have analyzed this platform and my honest assessment is that it is not relevant to our case. It is designed exclusively for disputes between consumers and traders concerning online purchases of goods and services. It has no mechanism or jurisdiction to handle claims of public maladministration against EU institutions. Therefore, no search strategy will be devised for this platform, as it would be a misallocation of our resources.
Platform: https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/finance-funding/getting-funding/tenders/index_en.htm
This is an informational gateway that leads to the Tenders Electronic Daily (TED) database. My strategy is to use TED as our primary source for direct evidence of the procurement infringements. To support the finding of irregular payments and exceeding contract value by the ELA, I will search TED for the specific contract award notice for the training contract in question, which will provide the official documentation of the contract’s value and terms. To support the finding of improper contract splitting by the CPVO, I will search for all contract award notices from the CPVO within a specific timeframe for IT services, looking for multiple low-value contracts awarded to the same supplier. To support the finding of lack of competitive bidding at the EEA, I will search for the contract award notice for the financial checking services and analyze the section detailing the number of offers received. This direct evidence from the EU’s own official journal of procurement is fundamental to proving our Breach of Financial Regulation cause of action.
Platform: https://www.ajbell.co.uk/market-research/screener/shares
This is a UK stock screening tool. My strategy is to use it for financial intelligence and to identify points of leverage. To support all our causes of action, if our corporate intelligence work identifies a UK-listed parent company of a winning bidder, I will use this screener to identify its major institutional shareholders. The names of these large asset managers and pension funds are critical intelligence. We will then execute a targeted engagement strategy, writing to the stewardship and compliance departments of these shareholders. We will inform them that a company in their portfolio is implicated in the misuse of EU public funds and potential corruption, which may violate their own ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) investment policies. The threat of divestment by a major shareholder can create significant internal pressure on the company to settle or cooperate, providing powerful leverage for our case.
Platform: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/
This is the official gateway to EU law and our primary source for the legal foundation of our case. My strategy is to use its advanced search to find the precise legal texts and precedents that underpin our claims. To support our cause of action for Breach of Financial Regulation and Procurement Directives, I will use the advanced search to locate Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046. I will then perform full-text searches within this regulation for the exact phrases "improper division of contracts", "artificial splitting", and "circumvent thresholds" to find the specific articles that prohibit the conduct we allege against the CPVO. For the ELA case, I will search for "irregular payments" and "budgetary principle of annuality" to identify the rules it has breached. To support our cause of action for Non-contractual Liability of the Union under Article 340 TFEU, I will search the Case-law collection using the keywords ("non-contractual liability" OR "Article 340") AND "sufficiently serious breach" AND "supervisory duty", filtering by both the Court of Justice and General Court to find judgments that define the legal test for holding the Commission liable for its supervisory failures.
Platform: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/business-and-property-courts
This is a UK government information page, not a case database. My action here is one of strategic preparation. I will thoroughly read the descriptions of the Commercial Court, Technology and Construction Court, and the Competition List. This intelligence is vital for planning any potential UK-based enforcement actions or litigation against the UK parent companies of winning bidders. Understanding the jurisdiction and procedures of these courts is essential for all our causes of action, as it prepares us for the multi-jurisdictional nature of the case and allows us to advise potential UK-based claimants we recruit through our FOC DAM strategy.
Platform: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/advanced-search
This is the UK’s definitive company search tool. It is a cornerstone of our due diligence strategy. To support all our causes of action by investigating the networks behind the winning bidders, I will use the advanced search to find the UK parent companies of the firms that won the ELA, CPVO, and EEA contracts. I will download their full filing history and meticulously analyze the Persons with Significant Control (PSC) register to identify the ultimate beneficial owners. These names are critical intelligence that will be run through our sanctions and political influence databases. To support our “stealth consolidation” theory under the Supervisory Failure cause of action, I will identify the SIC code for a relevant sector, find all UK companies registered under that code, and then investigate the acquisition history of the dominant players to see if they have been acquiring smaller firms from this list in non-reportable deals.
Platform: https://resources.companieshouse.gov.uk/sic/
This is a reference tool for UK Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes. My strategy is to use this tool to ensure the precision of our investigations on other platforms. For each infringement, I will identify the most relevant SIC codes. For the ELA’s irregular training contract, I will identify 85590 - Other education n.e.c.. For the CPVO’s contract splitting involving IT services, I will identify 62020 - Information technology consultancy activities. For the EEA’s outsourced financial checks, I will identify 69201 - Accounting, and auditing activities. Having these precise official codes is essential for conducting accurate market analysis on the Companies House portal and for searching statistical databases like Eurostat, which is vital for proving that a competitive market existed and that a non-competitive tender was therefore a breach of procurement rules.
Platform: https://petition.parliament.uk/
This is the UK Parliament’s public petitions portal. My strategy is to mine this database for evidence of public and business concern, which supports the public interest dimension of our case. To support the Supervisory Failure cause of action, I will search the archive of closed and rejected petitions for keywords like "EU contracts", "fair procurement", and "SME access to tenders". Finding past petitions on these topics, even if they were unsuccessful, demonstrates a documented history of grievance among UK businesses regarding the fairness of the EU procurement system. This evidence can be powerfully deployed in our media campaign to show that our case is addressing a long-standing and legitimate concern.
This is the official register of financial interests for UK Members of Parliament. It is a primary tool for our conflict-of-interest investigation. My strategy is one of manual, meticulous review. To support all our causes of action by investigating potential undue influence, once our corporate intelligence work has identified the UK-based directors and ultimate beneficial owners of the companies involved in the irregular EU contracts, I will search this register for every single one of those names. I am looking for any declared shareholdings, directorships, or donations that create a link between a UK politician and the companies at the heart of our case. Discovering such a link is a high-impact finding that provides strong circumstantial evidence of potential political influence, which is relevant to all infringement findings where a non-competitive process was used.
Platform: https://www.theyworkforyou.com/
This is a user-friendly, searchable version of the official UK parliamentary registers. It makes our conflict-of-interest search more efficient. To support all our causes of action, I will execute a keyword search for the name of every UK parent company of the winning bidders and the names of their directors. This allows for a rapid initial screen to identify any MPs who have declared a relevant interest. This search directly supports our investigation into potential political influence, which is a key contextual element for all our findings of infringement, from the ELA’s irregular contract to the SRB’s deficient supervision.
Platform: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/
This is the official case law database of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). My strategy is to add a fundamental rights dimension to our claims. To support our causes of action for damages on behalf of excluded bidders, I will use the advanced search to find cases where the Respondent State is an EU member and the Keyword field contains "public procurement" AND "fair hearing" OR "Article 6". This is to find precedents where a flawed tender process was successfully challenged as a breach of the right to a fair hearing. I will also search for cases with the keywords "legitimate expectation" AND "contract" to find precedents where a company’s expectation of fair treatment in a bidding process was considered a “possession” protected by the ECHR. Crucially, I will use the Document Collection filter to select Communicated Cases, which gives us an early warning of the Court’s direction on these issues.
Platform: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/have-your-say
This is the European Commission’s public consultation portal. My strategy is twofold: intelligence gathering and proactive engagement. To gather intelligence, I will search the database of past consultations using keywords like "public procurement", "financial regulation", and "agency oversight". I will analyze the feedback submitted by other companies and trade associations, which is a potential goldmine of evidence from other victims. This directly supports our Supervisory Failure cause of action by showing the Commission has been repeatedly warned about these issues. For proactive engagement, I will monitor the portal for new Calls for evidence and use them to submit our own findings from the EUBUDGET CASE, for example, using the ELA and CPVO cases as concrete evidence for why the Financial Regulation needs stronger enforcement. This inserts our case directly into the EU policy-making process.
Platform: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/
This is the UK’s official government archive. My strategy is to find historical context to strengthen our narrative. To support the Supervisory Failure cause of action, I will search the “Discovery” catalogue for records from HM Treasury and the Cabinet Office using keywords like "European budget", "structural funds", "fraud", and "Court of Auditors", filtering for dates before the UK left the EU. The goal is to unearth declassified documents showing that UK officials had long-standing concerns about the very types of EU financial mismanagement we have identified. This evidence would be extremely powerful for our media campaign, especially in the UK, as it would frame our case as addressing a chronic, systemic problem that the Commission has failed to resolve over many years.
Platform: https://www.tron.trade.ec.europa.eu/
I have processed the TRON portal. This is the European Commission’s secure platform for trade defence investigations, including anti-dumping and anti-subsidy cases. Direct access is restricted to registered interested parties in specific cases. My strategy, therefore, is not about direct searching but about leveraging the existence of this system. To support our cause of action for Non-contractual Liability of the Union, if our investigation uncovers that a winning bidder in one of the ELA, CPVO, or EEA contracts is a company that has previously been a subject or complainant in a trade defence investigation, we would instruct our external counsel to register as an interested party in that historical case, if possible, or file access to documents requests. The objective would be to obtain non-confidential filings which could reveal the company’s business practices, ownership structure, and financial relationships, providing powerful evidence of their character and potential vulnerabilities. This information is invaluable for assessing the credibility of the contractor the EU agency selected.
Platform: https://trade.ec.europa.eu/
I have processed the main DG Trade website of the European Commission. This is a policy and news hub. My search strategy is to use the Commission’s own words and policies against them to highlight their internal contradictions and failures. To support our cause of action for Supervisory Failure by the European Commission, I will use the site’s search function to find policy documents and speeches. My first search query will be "public procurement" AND "level playing field" AND "transparency". The goal is to find official communications where the Commission champions these principles in international trade agreements. We will then contrast this public stance with our findings of infringement, such as the improper contract splitting by the CPVO or the lack of competitive bidding at the EEA, arguing that the Commission fails to uphold internally the very standards it demands of its global trading partners. My second search will be for "small and medium-sized enterprises" AND "procurement opportunities". Any reports or initiatives found that are aimed at helping EU SMEs access foreign government contracts will be used to underscore the hypocrisy of a system where the Commission’s own agencies allegedly exclude those same SMEs from contracts at home.
Platform: https://showvoc.op.europa.eu/
I have processed the EuroVoc portal. This is not a database of evidence but a thesaurus of official EU terminology. It is a critical preparatory tool for ensuring our searches on other EU platforms are precise and comprehensive. My strategy is to use EuroVoc to build a definitive glossary of search terms for each of our causes of action. For the cause of action of Breach of EU Financial Regulation, instead of just searching for “financial mismanagement,” I will use EuroVoc to identify the official, multilingual term, which might be “sound financial management” or a specific legal citation. For the infringement finding of deficient internal supervision at the SRB, I will search EuroVoc for the precise terminology related to “internal control framework” and “audit”. By using these official, structured terms in our searches on legal databases like CURIA and EUR-Lex, we ensure we are querying the systems using the exact language of the legislators and judges, which will yield far more accurate and relevant results than using colloquial synonyms.
Platform: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/
I have processed the Eurostat database. This is the EU’s statistical office. My strategy is to use statistical data to build a powerful contextual argument that the non-competitive practices we have identified are unjustifiable. To support our claims related to the lack of competitive bidding processes at the EEA and ELA, I will search the Business demography and Structural business statistics datasets. I will filter by the NACE codes relevant to the services procured, for example, M70.2 - Management consultancy activities or P85.59 - Other education n.e.c.. I will extract data on the number of active enterprises, their size, and their turnover within the EU for those sectors. The objective is to produce a statistical report demonstrating that a large, vibrant, and competitive market of potential suppliers exists for these services. This evidence makes the agencies’ failure to run a competitive tender, or the award of a contract after receiving only one bid, appear not as an unfortunate market reality, but as a deliberate or negligent failure to engage with a healthy market, which is a key element of our Non-contractual Liability claim.
Platform: https://data.gov.uk/
I have processed the UK’s official open data portal. My strategy is to find datasets that can help identify UK victims and provide benchmarks for procurement performance. To support our effort to “Find Other Claimants, Monetize Damages” (FOC DAM), I will search for datasets with keywords like "business population estimates" or "UK business activity". I will filter these by the relevant SIC codes for the services procured by the EU agencies. By analyzing this data, we can estimate the number of UK businesses that could have bid for these contracts, providing a statistical basis for the size of the harmed class of excluded UK suppliers. To support our claim of Supervisory Failure by the Commission, I will search for datasets related to UK public procurement, using terms like "contract awards" and "tender performance". The goal is to find data on the average number of bids per tender in the UK for similar services. If UK public bodies consistently receive more bids for comparable contracts, we can use this as a benchmark to argue that the EU agencies’ procurement performance is substandard, which supports our claim of mismanagement.
Platform: https://violationtrackeruk.org/
I have processed Violation Tracker UK, a database of corporate penalties. This is a primary due diligence tool. My strategy is to build a comprehensive risk profile of the winning bidders and their parent companies. To support all our causes of action, for every winning contractor and their UK-based parent company, I will perform a search in the Company or Current Parent field. I will analyze every single violation returned, paying close attention to the Offence Group. A history of competition-related offences, consumer-protection-related offences, or environment-related offences is a major red flag. This evidence is crucial for our claim of Breach of Financial Regulation, as it allows us to argue that the awarding agency was negligent in its duty of care by awarding public funds to a company with a documented history of non-compliance. This directly strengthens the overarching claim of Supervisory Failure by the Commission, as it demonstrates a failure to ensure that recipients of EU funds are reputable actors.
Platform: https://catribunal.org.uk/
I have processed the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) website. This is a specialist judicial body, and its case archive is a source of high-value legal and strategic intelligence. To support our claims related to the lack of competitive bidding processes, I will search the Cases database for the names of any UK parent companies of the winning bidders. Finding that a parent company has been a defendant in a CAT case for anti-competitive practices would be powerful evidence of a corporate culture that is contrary to the principles of fair competition. To support our broader strategic objective of challenging regulatory failure, I will search for all cases where the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is listed as the Respondent. I will analyze the judgments in these cases to identify the specific legal arguments and procedural points that have been successful in challenging the CMA’s decisions. This provides us with a playbook of proven legal tactics for holding a public regulator to account, which is directly applicable to our cause of action for Failure to Act against the European Commission.
Platform: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/competition-and-markets-authority
I have processed the website of the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). My strategy is to use the CMA’s own guidance and research as a benchmark of best practice against which we can measure the failures of the EU agencies. I will navigate to their Guidance section and search for documents related to "public procurement" and "competition law". The principles outlined in these documents represent the UK’s standard for ensuring fair competition in the public sector. We can cite these standards in our legal filings to argue that the conduct of the ELA, CPVO, and EEA falls short of what is considered best practice in a major European economy. I will also search their Market studies and investigations section for reports on the sectors relevant to our case. A CMA market study that identifies a lack of competition in, for example, the UK’s professional training market would provide a powerful counterpoint if the ELA were to claim that receiving only one bid for their training contract was normal.
Platform: https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/
I have processed the European Commission’s DG Competition policy website. This is a primary source for the Commission’s own doctrine on competition. My strategy is to use the Commission’s stated policies to hold it to account for its Supervisory Failure. I will search for speeches by the Competition Commissioner and policy briefs on topics like "procurement and competition" and "state aid and public contracts". Any statement emphasizing the importance of competitive tenders and transparency will be meticulously cataloged. These statements are not just rhetoric; they represent the Commission’s official interpretation of its duties under the Treaty. We will use these statements as a benchmark in our legal claim, arguing that the Commission’s failure to ensure its own agencies adhere to these principles constitutes a “sufficiently serious breach” of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals, which is the legal test for our Non-contractual Liability claim under Article 340 TFEU.
Platform: https://www.bailii.org/
I have processed the British and Irish Legal Information Institute (BAILII) database. This is a vital source for UK and Irish case law that can provide persuasive authority. My strategy is to find legal precedents from common law jurisdictions that can strengthen our arguments before the EU courts. To support our cause of action for Breach of Procurement Directives, I will use the Advanced Search to look for cases with the exact phrase "public contracts regulations" AND the keyword "damages". This will identify UK cases where courts have awarded damages for breaches of procurement law, providing useful analysis on how to quantify the harm suffered by our claimant class of excluded suppliers. To support our claim of Supervisory Failure, I will search for cases on "judicial review" AND "failure to act" AND "regulator". The reasoning in these UK administrative law cases, while not binding, can be highly persuasive to the General Court when it considers our Article 265 claim against the Commission for its failure to properly supervise the agencies.