www.dgcomp

                                                                   

The COCOO-DG COMP Doctrine: A Strategic Model for EU Competition Warfare

This doctrine establishes the protocol for interrogating the European Commission’s official Competition Cases Database. This is not a passive archive; it is the central battleground for EU competition law. We will weaponize this platform to monitor our adversaries, dissect the Commission’s enforcement strategy, find the legal and procedural weaknesses in their cases, and identify the triggers for our most powerful interventions, including COCON (complaints), FOC DAM (Find Other Claimants), and high-level USP (Unsolicited Proposal) campaigns.

1. Core Principles of Interrogation

Our use of the DG COMP database is governed by the most sophisticated principles of the COCOO framework. We are not just reading cases; we are mapping the entire regulatory warzone.

  • Case Monitoring as Offensive Intelligence: We will track every Antitrust, Cartel, Merger, and State Aid case not as passive observers, but as intelligence operatives. An ongoing Phase II merger investigation against a competitor like [e.g., IAG/Air Europa] or an antitrust probe into a tech giant like [e.g., Apple or Google] reveals their strategic vulnerabilities, legal costs, and management distraction—all of which are leverage points for COCOO.
  • The Statement of Objections (SO) as a Blueprint: The SO is the Commission’s formal charge sheet, revealing their theory of harm, the evidence they rely on, and their intended direction. We will dissect every available SO to understand the Commission’s thinking, find arguments to support our own complaints (COCON), and identify weaknesses in their reasoning that can be challenged on appeal (APPEALS JR2COURT).1
  • NACE Code as a Sectoral Weapon: The database’s NACE code filter is a primary tool for sectoral warfare. We will use it to conduct deep Benchmarking and Porter analysis, identifying which industries are under the most regulatory pressure. A sudden spike in merger cases or a new sector inquiry is a critical signal from our Noisefilter that a market is in flux.1
  • State Aid as a FOC DAM Engine: A Commission decision that an aid measure is illegal and must be recovered creates a powerful cause of action. The company that received the illegal aid (e.g., a national airline) has gained an unlawful advantage over its competitors. We will systematically hunt for these decisions to identify the beneficiaries and then build a FOC DAM coalition of the harmed competitors (e.g., other EU airlines like Ryanair or Lufthansa) to launch damages claims.1

2. Weaponizing the Platform’s Arsenal: Capabilities and Search Rules

Mastery of the Competition Cases search function is essential. Its power lies in its structured filtering, which allows us to dissect the entirety of EU competition enforcement.

  • Official Search Rules & Functionality: The platform (competition-cases.ec.europa.eu) provides a unified search interface for all competition policy areas. The key search rules and options are as follows 2:
    • Case title or company name: A free-text search for the names of the parties involved. This is our primary tool for targeting specific companies.
    • Case number: A precise search for a known case. The system uses different prefixes for different case types (e.g., M. for Mergers, SA. for State Aid, AT. for Antitrust). The % wildcard can be used (e.g., %40000% to find a case containing those numbers).
    • Economic activity (NACE): A critical filter that allows searching by industry classification. Users can select from a NACE code tree, from broad sectors (e.g., J - Information and communication) down to specific sub-sectors.
    • Policy Area / Case Instrument: While not a direct filter on the main page, the case numbering system and results clearly delineate between Merger, Antitrust, Cartel, and State Aid cases, allowing for effective filtering by policy area.
    • Date Filters: The Last decision date and Web publication date fields allow for temporal analysis, enabling us to focus on the most recent enforcement actions.

3. Strategic Interrogation: The Questions We Ask

We interrogate this database to find the conflicts, precedents, and patterns that fuel our strategic campaigns.

  • For MATOIPO & StealthConsolid Analysis:

    • “Which mergers in the [e.g., global logistics] sector, involving players like [e.g., Maersk or CMA CGM], have been subject to a Phase II investigation? What remedies were required, and what does this tell us about the Commission’s current ‘theory of harm’ in this market?”
    • “Search for all merger cases involving the private equity firm “. What is their pattern of acquisition across the EU? Are they conducting a StealthConsolid operation by acquiring multiple mid-sized companies in the same NACE code?”

  • For Challenge Discretion & WPI (Public Interest) Framing:

    • “Find all State Aid cases where the Commission investigated aid to a major bank like “. What were the ‘public interest’ arguments used by the Member State to justify the aid, and on what grounds did the Commission accept or reject them?”
    • “Which antitrust cases against Big Tech firms like [e.g., Microsoft or Amazon] have resulted in commitment decisions (Article 9)? Analyzing these commitments provides a playbook of remedies the Commission finds acceptable.”

  • For FOC DAM & COCON (Complaint) Origination:

    • “Generate a list of all companies fined for participating in the [e.g., automotive parts] cartels. This list represents both the perpetrators and a clear pattern of industry-wide misconduct.”
    • “Search for all negative State Aid decisions with a recovery order in the [e.g., airline or energy] sector. Who were the beneficiaries? Who are their main EU competitors (who were harmed by the illegal subsidy) and are now our prime targets for a FOC DAM damages action?”

4. The COCOO-DG COMP Strategic Playbook: A Model for Action

The following playbooks provide standardized workflows for using the DG COMP database to generate high-impact intelligence.

Playbook A: The “Competitor Pressure-Point” Monitor

  • Objective: To maintain a real-time intelligence dashboard of the regulatory pressures facing our key corporate adversaries.
  • Execution:
    1. Define Target List: Create a list of 10-15 key corporate targets or competitors (e.g., Google, Apple, Meta, Amazon, major pharmaceutical companies, etc.).
    2. Set Up Recurring Search: On a weekly basis, run a search for each company name in the Case title or company name field.
    3. Analyze New Activity: Review any new cases or updates to existing cases. Has a new investigation been opened? Has a Statement of Objections been issued? Has a final decision been published?
    4. Assess Impact: Each new development is a pressure point. A new antitrust investigation signals years of legal costs and management distraction. A final decision with a large fine impacts their financial position.
  • Strategic Outcome: This playbook provides a continuous, real-time feed of our competitors’ most significant legal and regulatory challenges in the EU, giving us unparalleled insight into their vulnerabilities and strategic priorities.

Playbook B: The “Illegal State Aid FOC DAM” Engine

  • Objective: To systematically identify illegal state aid cases and convert them into lucrative, multi-claimant damages actions.
  • Execution:
    1. Isolate Negative Decisions: In the case search, filter for State Aid cases. Manually or via keyword search of decision summaries, identify all cases with a final negative decision that includes a recovery order.
    2. Identify Beneficiary and Market: For each such case, identify the company that received the illegal aid and the specific market (using the NACE code) in which it operates. Example: A regional airport receives illegal operating aid.
    3. Identify the Victims: Use other tools (e.g., Eurostat, industry directories) to identify the main competitors who did not receive the aid. Example: Other airports in the region, and airlines like Ryanair or EasyJet who were forced to compete against a subsidized rival.
    4. Deploy the FOC DAM Campaign: Approach the identified victims with a compelling proposition: “The European Commission has officially ruled that your competitor,, received illegal state aid. This has placed you at an unfair competitive disadvantage. We can lead a damages action to recover the harm your business has suffered.”
  • Strategic Outcome: This is a powerful and repeatable case origination machine. It uses the Commission’s own legal victories as the foundation for COCOO’s private litigation campaigns, perfectly aligning our commercial interests with the enforcement of EU law.

Playbook C: The “Remedy Reverse-Engineering” Playbook

  • Objective: To build an internal library of successful and acceptable remedies in complex merger and antitrust cases, creating a unique advisory advantage.
  • Execution:
    1. Select the Sector: Choose a strategic industry sector (e.g., Pharmaceuticals, Technology, Financial Services).
    2. Isolate Complex Cases: Use the search to find all Merger cases in that sector that went to a Phase II investigation, or all Antitrust cases that were resolved with Article 9 commitments.
    3. Dissect the Remedies: Download the full, non-confidential text of the final decisions. Forensically analyze the “Commitments” or “Remedies” section. What exactly did the companies have to divest? What were the precise terms of the behavioral remedies they offered? Who was approved as the buyer for the divested assets?
  • Strategic Outcome: This playbook creates an invaluable “Remedy Library.” When advising a client on a future MATOIPO deal, or when crafting a USP to mediate a complex antitrust dispute, COCOO can draw on this library to propose solutions that we know, based on precedent, are likely to be accepted by the Commission. This provides a massive strategic advantage over less prepared adversaries.

Leave a Reply