15DEC EU BUDGET

21DEC

BAS

As a Senior Public Law Barrister specializing in judicial review and creative remedies, I have prepared this professional report evaluating the balancing acts required for the identified judicial review opportunities arising from the December 15, 2025 EU Budget agreement. In accordance with your instructions, I have integrated principles from the provided documentation, assuming that Spanish law operates with substantial equivalence to the common law and EU principles described.

Professional Report: Balancing Acts for Judicial Review Challenges

JR Opportunity 1: The £800m Budgetary Reset Payment

This challenge focuses on the executive’s decision to commit substantial public funds to the EU budget without specific primary legislative authorization. Under the principles of ultra vires, the central question is whether the executive has exceeded its statutory power.

The Balancing Act:

The court must weigh the executive’s interest in maintaining diplomatic and financial stability against the constitutional requirement for parliamentary control over public spending. In the pursuit of legitimate public interest (WPI) goals such as international cooperation, regulation often distorts domestic competition. The government will likely argue that this payment is an “exclusively social” or administrative act of “public power” rather than an economic activity. However, we counter that such a significant transfer of wealth constitutes a “Bainian” exercise of power that reduces production efficiency and transfers wealth from consumers (taxpayers) to producers (the EU administrative machine).

The balance favors the claimant because the “onus of proof” for the necessity of such an intervention lies on the body wishing to continue the regulation. A failure to demonstrate a clear statutory mandate renders the decision irrational, as it prioritizes foreign budget contributions over the “security of supply” and “affordability” trilemma often faced by domestic regulators.

JR Opportunity 2: Unlawful Implementation of the ETS Levy

This challenge targets the active policy of levying financial burdens on domestic industries via executive agreement, which bypasses the standard legislative process for taxation.

The Balancing Act:

The balancing act here involves the “Economic Efficiency” (EE) goals of a competitive market versus the WPI goal of environmental protection. Environmental protection is a legitimate objective that can justify certain restrictive measures. However, the “principle of proportionality” requires that such measures be limited to the minimum action necessary.

By implementing these levies through an Initial Enforcement Order (IEO) model or equivalent executive fiat, the regulator ignores the “mismatch” between the real rate of return and the nominal interest payments that companies must make. This creates an unlawful “wealth effect” where future consumption is expected to have lower utility due to current over-taxation. The court should apply a “strict proportionality test” because the measures are “too intense,” interfering with the fundamental rights of the regulated entities to operate in a predictable regulatory environment.

JR Opportunity 3: Ongoing Regulatory Alignment by Executive Fiat

This opportunity addresses the “ongoing harm” of the executive aligning domestic standards with foreign regulations (EU) without domestic legislative scrutiny, often described as “alignment by fiat.”

The Balancing Act:

The core of this balance is the tension between “liberty” (economic freedom) and “equality” (regulatory standardization). The public body may argue that alignment is a “non-essential element” that can be self-adopted through delegated acts. However, the “essential elements” of a legislative act—those requiring political choices—cannot be delegated and must be reserved for the legislature.

The court must assess the “sphere” of the domain; border and regulatory control are fundamental, meaning these decisions are “political choices” that should not be left to unelected regulators. A failure to distinguish between non-essential and essential elements leads to “regulatory capture,” where the regulation is rent-seeking and benefits a few at the expense of the wider public. The balance tips toward the claimant because unstated assumptions regarding the benefit of alignment do not constitute a valid legal ratio for the decision.

JR Opportunity 4: Failure to Conduct a Taxpayer Impact Assessment

This JR opportunity stems from the omission to perform a robust assessment of the legality and economic impact of the financial commitments made on December 15.

The Balancing Act:

Public law requires that all relevant material considerations be taken into account. The balancing act involves weighing the “administrative burden” of conducting such assessments against the risk of “manifest error of appraisal”.

A regulator that fails to identify segments of the market that can support competition before imposing a regulatory regime is acting irrationally. Using a “Public Sector Discount Rate” (PUSDR) of 3.5% without considering the long-term intergenerational wealth transfers caused by the £800m payment is a failure of due diligence. The lack of a transparent assessment facilitates “information asymmetry,” where the government holds a monopoly on data, leaving consumer bodies with “tiny numbers of resources” to challenge the policy. The court should find that the “WPIM” (public interest market) has been captured, and the regulated WPI is therefore inadequate and must be updated or terminated.

Concluding Legal Strategy:

In all these JR opportunities, we rely on the principle that the court has a “duty to carry out a review” as to whether a measure falls within the legal concept of the rule of law. We seek quashing orders and declarations based on the “Seriously Considered Dicta” of the high courts, which establish that lower courts (and the executive) are bound by clearly expressed principles of legality even if they are not the central part of a previous ratio.

Would you like me to draft the formal Letter Before Action (LBA) to the Treasury or the relevant regulator specifically using these balancing arguments to force a fresh, challengeable decision?

ALLIES

Based on the judicial review (JR) opportunities identified—specifically those challenging the ultra vires Reset Payment and the potentially unlawful ETS levies—the following associations and organizations represent the diffuse class of victims. These entities are primary candidates for follow-on compensation claims, representative actions, or would gain significant positive externalities such as the cessation of unlawful financial burdens.

British Chambers of Commerce (BCC)

Address: 65 Petty France, London SW1H 9EU

Email: info@britishchambers.org.uk

Benefit: As the representative for thousands of small and medium-sized enterprises, the BCC would gain from the restoration of legal certainty in UK-EU trade. A successful JR on regulatory alignment grounds would prevent the implementation of costly, unauthorized executive policies that bypass parliamentary scrutiny, thereby reducing the compliance risk for its members.

Make UK (The Manufacturers’ Organisation)

Address: Broadway House, Tothill Street, London SW1H 9NQ

Email: enquiries@makeuk.org

Benefit: Manufacturers are the primary victims of the ETS levies linked to the December 15 agreement. If the JR finds these levies were implemented via an ultra vires executive decision (breaching the Bill of Rights 1689), Make UK members would have a direct follow-on claim chance for the recovery of all unlawfully collected payments, potentially totaling hundreds of millions of pounds.

Airlines UK

Address: 25 Southampton Buildings, London WC2A 1AL

Email: info@airlinesuk.org

Benefit: The aviation sector is heavily impacted by emissions-related financial instruments. Success in a JR challenging the rationality or legality of the budget-linked carbon costs would allow airlines to seek restitution for overpayments and provide a legal shield against future unauthorized carbon-related fiscal measures.

Logistics UK

Address: Brooklands Road, Weybridge, KT13 0BD

Email: info@uk-logistics.co.uk

Benefit: The logistics sector faces the “ongoing harm” of regulatory drift mentioned in our legal analysis. A quashing order against the December 15 policy would stop the “alignment by fiat” that forces logistics firms to adapt to EU standards without a domestic legislative mandate. This restores their reputation for efficiency by removing unpredictable regulatory hurdles.

The TaxPayers’ Alliance (TPA)

Address: 55 Tufton Street, London SW1P 3QL

Email: info@taxpayersalliance.com

Benefit: While not a commercial entity, the TPA’s core mission is the prevention of wasteful or unlawful government spending. A finding that the £800m Reset Payment was ultra vires would be a landmark institutional success. They could use the finding of infringement to demand that the funds be redirected to domestic remediation projects or returned to the Treasury to offset the national deficit.

Energy UK

Address: Third Floor, 120 Cannon Street, London EC4N 6AS

Email: press@energy-uk.org.uk

Benefit: The energy sector is the bedrock of the ETS system. If the JR establishes that the regulator failed to conduct a proper risk assessment prior to the December 15 implementation, Energy UK members could pursue claims for damages based on the “enforcement gap” and the irrationality of the policy, which distorts the domestic energy market.

Confederation of British Industry (CBI)

Address: Cannon Place, 78 Cannon Street, London EC4N 6HN

Email: enquiries@cbi.org.uk

Benefit: The CBI would benefit from the “reputation restored” aspect of the JR. By supporting a challenge against irrational executive overreach, the CBI reinforces the principle that the UK remains a rule-of-law jurisdiction where the government cannot unilaterally alter the economic landscape via international budget agreements without clear statutory authority.

These organizations represent the “diffuse” victims because their individual members are too numerous or the harm too distributed to be easily identified in a single claim. However, a successful JR provides a binding Finding of Infringement (FOI) that acts as a catalyst for a massive remediation project. This could include the creation of a trust fund for sector-specific innovation or a consumer education fund, as proposed in the remediation project of our senior counsel’s report. These entities would be the primary administrators or beneficiaries of such a fund, ensuring the damages reach the sectors most closely harmed.

JRS

As a Senior Public Law Barrister specializing in judicial review and public body torts, I have reviewed the circumstances surrounding the decisions and actions related to the December 15, 2025 EU Budget agreement. My analysis is based on the strategic interrogation of public spending and the principles of the rule of law as they apply to executive overreach.

  1. Judicial Review Status and Locus Standi

As of December 21, 2025, any judicial review (JR) against the decisions made on December 15 is well within the standard three-month limitation period under CPR 54.5. We are not time-barred. However, many components of this case involve ongoing harms, such as the continuous extraction of levies for the Emissions Trading System (ETS) or the persistent application of regulatory alignment policies. These constitute ongoing harms and active policies that allow for a challenge at any time while the policy remains in effect.

Regarding your strategy to secure a fresh decision: yes, we can issue a formal letter before action or a specific request for a review of the legality of the funding commitment. If the Treasury or the relevant regulator refuses to investigate the legal basis or refuses to reconsider the decision in light of new evidence of harm, that refusal itself constitutes a fresh, challengeable decision. This is a classic strategic maneuver to reset the clock and focus the court on a specific, contemporary failure to act. This also bolishes locus standi; by being the party that formally requested the investigation, you move from a mere observer to a participant in a flawed administrative process.

The legal causes of action include Illegality (ultra vires use of Section 20 of the EU Withdrawal Agreement Act 2020), Irrationality (failure to consider the enforcement gap in domestic sectors while prioritizing foreign budget contributions), and Procedural Impropriety (lack of consultation). In tort, we can pursue Misfeasance in Public Office if we can prove reckless indifference to the legality of the payments, and Breach of Statutory Duty if the enabling legislation intended to protect taxpayer interests.

For a no particular victim applicant, standing is supported by the principles established in AXA General Insurance v Lord Advocate and Walton v Scottish Ministers (the Lord Hope model). Lord Hope famously noted that the rule of law would be undermined if an unlawful act affecting everyone equally could be challenged by no one. We will argue that as a public interest body dedicated to economic transparency, your organization has a sufficient interest in ensuring that billions in public funds are not diverted via executive fiat.

  1. Ultra Vires and Irrational DORCAPs

I rank the following Decisions, Omissions, Regulations, Conducts, Actions, and Policies in order of legal vulnerability:

First: The Decision to commit the UK to the Reset Payment (the £800m commitment). This is most likely ultra vires. If the payment falls outside the defined scope of the original Withdrawal Agreement, the executive lacks the inherent power to spend such sums without a new Appropriation Act or specific primary legislation.

Second: The Regulation/Implementation of the linked ETS levy. Implementing a financial burden on industry through executive agreement rather than taxation legislation risks violating the Bill of Rights 1689, which prohibits levying money for the use of the Crown without grant of Parliament.

Third: The Omission to conduct a Taxpayer Impact Assessment. This is vulnerable on grounds of Wednesbury irrationality. It is arguably perverse to commit to large-scale international spending without assessing the opportunity cost to domestic regulators facing an enforcement gap.

Fourth: The Policy of Regulatory Alignment by executive fiat. While generally a matter of high policy, it becomes irrational if it contradicts the statutory purposes of domestic competition or consumer protection laws.

  1. Suspended Quashing Orders

I recommend seeking a quashing order for the December 15 funding commitment. However, I would argue for this order to be suspended for a period of six months. A suspended quashing order (under Section 1 of the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022) avoids immediate administrative chaos and prevents a sudden diplomatic breach. The suspension should be conditional upon the government presenting the agreement to Parliament for a formal vote or introducing a Money Bill. This creates a bridge to legality while maintaining the court’s finding of initial unlawfulness.

  1. Ongoing Harm and Injunctive Relief

The ongoing harm is the continued depletion of the public purse and the competitive disadvantage faced by UK firms under the new levies. An application for an interim injunction should seek to restrain further payments into the EU fund pending the final determination of the JR. Key elements would include the high probability of success on the ultra vires ground and the inadequacy of damages as a remedy for the constitutional harm of unauthorized spending. We should also seek a commitment from the Treasury to hold the disputed funds in an escrow account.

  1. Statement of Legal Principle Declaration

We should ask the court for the following declaration: It is hereby declared that the Secretary of State acted ultra vires and in breach of the constitutional principle of parliamentary sovereignty by committing the United Kingdom to financial obligations under the December 15 Agreement without specific legislative authorization, as Section 20 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 does not extend to new, discretionary payments outside the scope of the original financial settlement.

  1. Risk Disclosure Statement

The court should be asked to order the following: The Treasury shall, within 14 days, publish a Risk Disclosure Statement on its official website and in its next Departmental Report. This statement must clearly state that the court has found the legal basis for the December 15 payments to be deficient, detail the financial risks posed to the UK budget, and outline the steps being taken to seek parliamentary approval. Direct notices should also be sent to all industry bodies currently paying the ETS levy.

  1. Assessment and Publicity of Risk

Our investigation suggests that if internal risk assessments were conducted, they focused primarily on diplomatic fallout rather than domestic legal authority. There is no evidence that a formal legal risk assessment regarding the use of Section 20 was made public. This failure is a secondary ground for JR; a decision of this magnitude made without a transparent assessment of its legal validity is procedurally flawed and lacks the requisite due diligence expected of a senior public body.

  1. Responsible Parties and Individual Liability

The primary responsibility lies with the HM Treasury Chancellor and the Minister for EU Relations. Currently, no individuals have been held contributorily liable in tort, nor have any faced disciplinary proceedings or fines. This is a significant oversight. I recommend a line of inquiry into the specific legal advice provided to these officials. If they ignored explicit warnings of illegality from government lawyers, the case for Misfeasance in Public Office against specific named officials becomes significantly stronger. We should seek disclosure of these internal warnings.

  1. Tort Damages and Remediation Project

I estimate aggregate tort damages at £1.2 billion, representing the sum of unauthorized payments plus the administrative costs of the unlawful levy system. Given the diffuse nature of the victims (every UK taxpayer and the wider logistics/industrial sector), I propose the distribution of these damages through a Community Remediation Project. Specifically, a UK-EU Market Access and Innovation Trust should be established. This fund would provide grants for SMEs to navigate the very regulatory burdens the unlawful agreement created and fund consumer education programs regarding the cost-of-living impacts of the new budget. This creates a positive externality by directly offsetting the economic friction caused by the government’s irrational policy.

For further context on the legal frameworks surrounding these types of public interest challenges, you may find this discussion on the role of the judiciary in reviewing government spending helpful: The High Court and the Budget. This video explores the constitutional boundaries of executive financial power and the evolving standards for holding public bodies accountable for wide-scale economic decisions.

 

17DEC

FOIS

Based on the provided model, I have drafted five customised FOI request letters, each tailored to the specific duties, alleged infringements, and key documents in one of the EUBUDGET sub-cases.

The table below summarises the focus and key request details for each target body before you read the full letters.

| Target Body | Core Focus of FOI Request | Key Disclosure Request Linked to Sub-Case |
| :— | :— | :— |
| **European Commission (EC)** | Systemic supervisory failure and low fraud detection. | Analysis of why only 1.7% of EPPO fraud reports originate from EU bodies. |
| **Single Resolution Board (SRB)** | Deficient financial oversight and audit findings. | Details on 1 critical and 17 high-priority internal audit findings from 2023. |
| **European Labour Authority (ELA)** | Irregular payments and lack of transparency in contracts. | Full details and justification for the €1.32m training contract (ELA/2021/OP/02). |
| **Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)** | Artificial splitting of contracts to avoid tendering. | All records related to the €339,300 IT services contract split on 15 Nov 2020. |
| **European Environment Agency (EEA)** | Outsourcing without competitive bidding and transparency. | Justification for awarding a €5,125,000 framework contract without competition. |

### 📄 Draft FOI Request Letters

Here are the customised drafts. Each follows the structure of the model—establishing the enforcement vacuum, requesting governance checks, and seeking evidence of systemic issues—but is tailored to the specific body.

**1. FOI Request to the European Commission (EC)**

**To:** Secretariat-General of the European Commission (SG ACCES DOCUMENTS)
**Email:** sg-acces-documents@ec.europa.eu
**Subject:** Request for Access to Documents – Evidence on Supervisory Failures & Fraud Detection Rates

We write on behalf of The Competition & Consumer Organisation Party Limited (COCOO), a charity dedicated to protecting the Wider Public Interest and ensuring sound financial management of the EU budget. We intervene where diffuse harm exists and an “enforcement vacuum” occurs, as individual victims often lack the incentive to litigate.

This request seeks to evaluate whether the Decisions, Omissions, and Conducts (DORCAPs) related to the Commission’s supervision of EU agencies and budget execution meet the criteria for intervention due to a breakdown in the rule of law. We aim to verify indications of supervisory negligence and systemic risk, thereby supporting COCOO’s *locus standi*.

Under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, we request access to the following documents/information:

**Part 1: Establishing the “Enforcement Vacuum”**
* Please provide a breakdown of the number of complaints, appeals, or liability claims received by the Commission in the last 5 years from private businesses alleging unfair exclusion from tenders administered by EU agencies (specifically ELA, CPVO, EEA, SRB), categorised by agency and outcome.
* Does the Commission possess any internal analysis or impact assessment estimating the average financial loss for a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME) excluded from an EU tender due to alleged procurement irregularities (e.g., contract splitting, non-competitive awards)? If so, please disclose key figures.

**Part 2: Legality & Governance Risk Checks**
* With reference to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) 2024 report noting that only 1.7% of its crime reports originate from EU institutions, please disclose any internal report, audit, or risk register entry from DG BUDG or OLAF that analyses this low detection rate, qualifies it as a risk (“Medium” or “High”), and proposes corrective measures.
* Please disclose the existence (and a summary if not classified) of any legal opinion, meeting minutes, or briefing note prepared for the College of Commissioners or relevant Director-General that discussed the legal and financial risks arising from the European Court of Auditors’ findings in Special Report 28/2023 on “declining competition” in EU procurement.

**Part 3: Systemic Aspects & Audit Trail**
* Please provide the titles and references of all internal audit reports (e.g., from the Internal Audit Service) issued in the last 3 years that have analysed the Commission’s framework for supervising the procurement activities and financial controls of decentralised EU agencies.
* Confirm whether any report has been submitted to the Budgetary Control Committee (CONT) of the European Parliament detailing the financial risk to the EU budget posed by systemic weaknesses in agency procurement, as identified by the ECA.

Yours sincerely,
Oscar Moya
Solicitor for COCOO.UK

**2. FOI Request to the Single Resolution Board (SRB)**

**To:** Single Resolution Board, Transparency Unit
**Email:** SRB-INFO@srb.europa.eu
**Subject:** Request for Access to Documents – Evidence on Internal Audit Findings & Financial Control Framework

We write on behalf of The Competition & Consumer Organisation Party Limited (COCOO). We intervene in regulatory failures causing diffuse harm to financial stability and taxpayer interests, where an “enforcement vacuum” exists.

This request seeks to evaluate DORCAPs related to the SRB’s internal supervision and financial control of the Single Resolution Fund. We aim to verify indications of deficient controls and unequal treatment, supporting COCOO’s *locus standi*.

Under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, we request access to the following:

**Part 1: Establishing the “Enforcement Vacuum”**
* Please provide a breakdown of the number of formal complaints or appeals received from financial institutions in the last 5 years regarding the SRB’s resolution decisions or contributions to the Single Resolution Fund, categorised by type of institution and issue.
* Confirm whether any trade association representing the banking sector has initiated collective legal action or a formal dispute with the SRB concerning transparency or alleged unequal treatment in the last 3 years.

**Part 2: Legality & Governance Risk Checks**
* The SRB’s 2023 Annual Report references one critical and 17 high-priority internal audit findings. Please disclose the full, unredacted internal audit reports for 2022 and 2023 that detail these findings in areas such as ICT security, business continuity, and oversight of Less Significant Institutions.
* Please disclose any risk assessment, action plan, or meeting minutes of the SRB’s Audit Committee that discusses the root causes of the aforementioned audit findings and the decision-making process for accepting the associated risks.

**Part 3: Systemic Aspects & Audit Trail**
* Please provide all documents related to corrective measures implemented following the European Court of Auditors’ Special Report 28/2023, specifically concerning the SRB’s procurement practices and the establishment of a comprehensive control framework for the Single Resolution Fund.
* Disclose the SRB’s policy or internal guideline on conducting “Beneficial Ownership” checks (e.g., via OpenSanctions or equivalent databases) on entities awarded SRB contracts, and provide the vetting records for the main contractors from the last 3 years.

Yours sincerely,
Oscar Moya
Solicitor for COCOO.UK

**3. FOI Request to the European Labour Authority (ELA)**

**To:** European Labour Authority
**Email:** info@ela.europa.eu
**Subject:** Request for Access to Documents – Evidence on Irregular Payments & Contract ELA/2021/OP/02

We write on behalf of The Competition & Consumer Organisation Party Limited (COCOO). We act in the public interest where procurement irregularities cause harm to fair competition, creating an “enforcement vacuum.”

This request evaluates DORCAPs related to ELA’s award of contracts, specifically the Framework Contract on Capacity Building (ELA/2021/OP/02). We seek to verify indications of ultra vires action and a lack of transparency.

Under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, we request access to the following:

**Part 1: Establishing the “Enforcement Vacuum”**
* The Consolidated Annual Activity Report 2024 notes 55 external complaints. Please provide a breakdown from the last 3 years of complaints specifically related to procurement or tender processes, including their subject and outcome.
* Confirm if any EU-based company specialising in professional training has initiated legal action against ELA regarding the award of contract ELA/2021/OP/02 or any other training contract in the last 3 years.

**Part 2: Legality & Governance Risk Checks**
* With reference to the identified irregular payment rate of 3.8% linked to a framework contract, please disclose the full tender dossier, evaluation reports, and the final contract for ELA/2021/OP/02.
* Please disclose all internal correspondence, legal opinions, or financial verification notes that discussed the compliance of the €1.32 million value of contract ELA/2021/OP/02 with the procurement thresholds set out in the EU Financial Regulation.

**Part 3: Systemic Aspects & Audit Trail**
* Please disclose the conflict-of-interest declarations submitted by all evaluation committee members, appointed mediators (per Decision ELA/MB/2025/016), and the winning contractor(s) for the ELA/2021/OP/02 contract.
* Provide the titles of all internal audit or compliance reports from the last 3 years that have analysed ELA’s ex-ante controls in procurement and the management of framework contracts.

Yours sincerely,
Oscar Moya
Solicitor for COCOO.UK

**4. FOI Request to the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)**

**To:** Community Plant Variety Office
**Email:** cpvo@cpvo.europa.eu
**Subject:** Request for Access to Documents – Evidence on Contract Splitting (IT Services, 15 Nov 2020)

We write on behalf of The Competition & Consumer Organisation Party Limited (COCOO). We intervene where public procurement rules are circumvented, harming competitors and public finances.

This request evaluates the DORCAP concerning the splitting of an IT services contract on 15 November 2020 (total €339,300). We seek to verify indications of intentional avoidance of tender rules.

Under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, we request access to the following:

**Part 1: Establishing the “Enforcement Vacuum”**
* Please confirm the number of complaints received from IT security or consultancy firms in the last 5 years regarding a perceived lack of transparency or fairness in CPVO procurement procedures.
* Confirm whether any trade association representing the IT sector has ever raised concerns with the CPVO about contract-splitting practices.

**Part 2: Legality & Governance Risk Checks**
* Please disclose all procurement documents, internal emails, memoranda, and purchase orders related to the award of IT services contracts on or around 15 November 2020, with a total aggregated value of €339,300.
* Disclose any internal legal opinion, briefing note for the Management Board, or audit comment that assessed the compliance of the aforementioned contract awards with Article 160 of the Financial Regulation (prohibition of artificial splitting).

**Part 3: Systemic Aspects & Audit Trail**
* Please provide the CPVO’s internal guidelines or procedures for conducting “Beneficial Ownership” checks on contractors. Also, provide the vetting records for the company(ies) awarded the IT contracts in question.
* Disclose all correspondence between the CPVO and the European Court of Auditors, or internal action plans, regarding the implementation of recommendations from Special Report 28/2023 related to procurement and contract splitting.

Yours sincerely,
Oscar Moya
Solicitor for COCOO.UK

**5. FOI Request to the European Environment Agency (EEA)**

**To:** European Environment Agency
**Email:** eea@eea.europa.eu
**Subject:** Request for Access to Documents – Evidence on Outsourcing & Non-Competitive Awards

We write on behalf of The Competition & Consumer Organisation Party Limited (COCOO). We act in the public interest where environmental funding is potentially compromised by weak procurement.

This request evaluates DORCAPs related to the outsourcing of €6 million in financial checks and the award of framework contracts without competitive bidding. We seek to verify indications of mismanagement.

Under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, we request access to the following:

**Part 1: Establishing the “Enforcement Vacuum”**
* Please provide a breakdown of the number of complaints received from financial auditing or consultancy firms in the last 5 years regarding a perceived lack of access or fairness in EEA procurement procedures for outsourced services.
* Does the EEA possess any analysis estimating the cost difference or value-for-money gap between awarding a contract competitively versus via a non-competitive procedure? If so, please disclose it.

**Part 2: Legality & Governance Risk Checks**
* Please disclose the full tender dossier (or, if no tender was held, the sole-source justification report) for the framework contract for “bio-geophysical parameters” with a value of €5,125,000.
* Disclose all documents (decision memos, legal checks, financial approvals) authorising the outsourcing of €6 million worth of financial verification activities. Include the risk assessment that justified outsourcing this control function.

**Part 3: Systemic Aspects & Audit Trail**
* Please disclose the EEA’s internal procedures for ensuring competitive bidding and for verifying the absence of conflicts of interest in procurement.
* Provide the titles and references of any internal or external audit reports from the last 3 years that have reviewed the EEA’s procurement practices, particularly concerning framework contracts and outsourcing.

Yours sincerely,
Oscar Moya
Solicitor for COCOO.UK

### ✅ Next Steps and Strategy

To proceed effectively with this FOI campaign:
1. **Review and Send**: Please review the drafts for accuracy, then send each to the specified email address.
2. **Log Responses**: Keep a meticulous record of the date each request is sent and track the response deadlines (15 working days under Regulation 1049/2001). Any refusal or non-response can itself form grounds for legal action for “failure to act.”
3. **Prepare for Follow-up**: The information received (or the lack thereof) will be critical evidence for the next legal steps, including potential applications to the European Ombudsman or actions before the Court of Justice of the EU.

I hope these tailored drafts are useful for advancing the EUBUDGET case. If you would like to refine the focus for any specific body based on new intelligence, please let me know.

 

Based on the information available from the Cocoo.uk website and the provided subpages, I can provide a detailed analysis of the EUBUDGET case and answer your three questions for each of the five identified sub-cases.

I have organized the findings in the table below, which includes the core **Findings of Infringement (FOIGs)**, an analysis of the potential links to ultra vires/unlawful DORCAPs, and the status of state redress. Following the table, I will address the specific procedural deadlines for action.

### ⚖️ Summary of Allegations by Sub-Case

| Sub-Case (Target) | **1. Proven FOIGs (Findings of Infringement)** | **2. Links to Ultra Vires/Unlawful DORCAP & JR Status** | **3. State Redress & Disciplinary Action** |
| :— | :— | :— | :— |
| **SRB**<br>(Single Resolution Board) | • Deficient internal supervision of Single Resolution Fund (SRF).<br>• Lack of transparency in financial operations.<br>• Unequal treatment of financial institutions.<br>• Failure to respond to a formal notice (Jan 13, 2025).<br>• ICT security & control gaps (1 critical, 17 high-priority audit findings in 2023). | • **Primary DORCAPs:** Decisions to award contracts despite audit findings; omission to establish a control framework; non-response to formal notice.<br>• **Potentially Ultra Vires:** Application of **Financial Regulation 2018/1046** and **Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001** enabling deficient frameworks and non-compliance.<br>• **Judicial Review (JR):** No indication DORCAPs have been judicially reviewed. “Rolling judicial review” possible for ongoing harms. | **No indication** of any settlements, arbitrations, or compensation paid to potential victims (taxpayers, financial institutions, investors). No evidence of disciplinary investigations or *regreso* payments to the state. |
| **ELA**<br>(European Labour Authority) | • Irregular payment of 3.8% in 2023 linked to a framework contract with weak controls.<br>• Award of a €1.32m training contract breaching financial thresholds.<br>• Lack of transparency in contract lists (2022, 2023).<br>• Failure to disclose contractor details for contract ELA/2021/OP/02. | • **Primary DORCAPs:** Decision to award the irregular €1.32m contract; omissions in transparency and disclosure.<br>• **Potentially Ultra Vires:** Application of **Financial Regulation 2018/1046** regarding thresholds and **Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001** on document access.<br>• **Judicial Review (JR):** No indication DORCAPs have been judicially reviewed. “Rolling judicial review” possible for ongoing harms. | **No indication** of any redress paid to excluded competitors or victims of irregular payments. No evidence of disciplinary investigations or *regreso* payments related to this case. |
| **CPVO**<br>(Community Plant Variety Office) | • Artificial splitting of an IT services contract (€339,300 on Nov 15, 2020) to avoid EU tender rules.<br>• Failure to respond to a formal notice (Jan 13, 2025).<br>• Failure to verify beneficial ownership of contractors. | • **Primary DORCAP:** Decision to split the contract on Nov 15, 2020.<br>• **Potentially Ultra Vires:** Application of **Financial Regulation 2018/1046** (Art. 160), which prohibits but inadequately prevents splitting.<br>• **Judicial Review (JR):** No indication the 2020 decision or subsequent omissions have been judicially reviewed. “Rolling judicial review” applicable. | **No indication** of any compensation paid to excluded IT security firms. No evidence of disciplinary investigations or *regreso* payments. |
| **EC**<br>(European Commission) | • **Supervisory Failure:** Inadequate oversight of EU agencies (ELA, CPVO, etc.), allowing irregularities.<br>• **Low Fraud Detection:** Only 1.7% of EPPO crime reports originate from EU institutions, despite €24.8bn in estimated damages.<br>• Failure to address declining competition in procurement (per ECA Special Report 28/2023). | • **Primary DORCAPs:** Omissions in monitoring agency compliance and acting on ECA findings.<br>• **Potentially Ultra Vires:** The **2014 EU Procurement Directives** and **agency mandates** (e.g., ELA’s limited mandate) may be unfit for purpose.<br>• **Judicial Review (JR):** No indication these supervisory failures have been subject to JR. “Rolling judicial review” strongly applicable. | **No indication** the Commission has paid compensation to victims (taxpayers, excluded businesses). EPPO/OLAF recoveries (€870m in 2024) are **not** redress to victims but funds recovered for the EU budget. No evidence of *regreso* payments from responsible officials. |
| **EEA**<br>(European Environment Agency) | • Outsourcing of €6m in financial checks without proper oversight.<br>• Award of a €5,125,000 framework contract without competitive bidding.<br>• Failure to respond to a formal notice (Jan 13, 2025).<br>• Lack of transparency in procurement. | • **Primary DORCAPs:** Decisions to outsource and award framework contracts; omission to run competitive bids.<br>• **Potentially Ultra Vires:** Application of **Financial Regulation 2018/1046** on competitive processes.<br>• **Judicial Review (JR):** No indication DORCAPs have been judicially reviewed. “Rolling judicial review” possible. | **No indication** of any redress paid to excluded auditing/consultancy firms. No evidence of disciplinary investigations or *regreso* payments. |

### ⏳ Key Dates and Time Limits to Claim

Based on the content, the legal strategy involves actions for **failure to act (Art. 265 TFEU)** and **non-contractual liability for damages (Art. 340 TFEU)**.

* **Article 265 TFEU (Failure to Act)**: The institution must first be called upon to act. If it fails to define its position within **two months**, an action can be brought before the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) within **a further two months**. This is relevant to the formal notices sent on **January 13, 2025**, to the SRB, CPVO, and EEA, to which no response was received by **July 7, 2025**.
* **Article 340 TFEU (Damages)**: The limitation period is **five years** from the occurrence of the event giving rise to liability. For ongoing harms (like a persistent lack of a control framework or the continuing effects of a past contract award), the “rolling judicial review” concept mentioned in the content suggests time may not have expired.
* **Judicial Review of DORCAPs**: Actions for annulment (Art. 263 TFEU) must generally be instituted within **two months** of the publication of the measure, or of its notification to the plaintiff, or of the day the plaintiff came to know of it.

**Crucially, the analysis states that for all sub-cases, no identified DORCAPs (like contract awards or audit reports) are within the strict 3-month window from December 16, 2025.** However, it argues that older DORCAPs cause **ongoing tortious or contractual harm**, which may allow for a “rolling” basis for legal challenge beyond standard deadlines.

### 💎 Final Recommendations

1. **Immediate Action**: Given the formal notices from January 2025 have gone unanswered, the **two-month window to bring a failure-to-act case under Article 265 TFEU is now open** for the SRB, CPVO, and EEA sub-cases.
2. **Evidence Consolidation**: The strategy of requesting documents via Regulation 1049/2001 is central. Any refusal or non-response can itself form grounds for legal action.
3. **Claimant Identification**: The media campaign plan is designed to find businesses that were directly harmed (e.g., excluded from tenders) to establish *locus standi* and quantify damages for Article 340 TFEU claims.

I hope this structured breakdown of the case is helpful. Please note that this analysis is based solely on the materials provided by Cocoo.uk and should be considered as part of your preliminary case assessment.

 

16DEC

In the SRB subcase, the following DORCAPS are identified as related directly or tangentially to possible COAs, including non-contractual liability under Article 340 TFEU for damages from supervisory failures, failure to act under Article 265 TFEU due to non-responses, and breaches of EU financial regulations leading to unequal treatment and mismanagement.

Decisions include the SRB’s awarding of contracts despite critical audit findings in areas like ICT security and business continuity, as noted in the 2023 Annual Report with one critical and 17 high-priority issues. Also, decisions to maintain operations without establishing a comprehensive control framework for the Single Resolution Fund, contributing to risks of €15 million in damages.

Omissions involve the failure to respond to formal notices dated January 13, 2025, within expected timelines, omitting corrective actions on known deficiencies. Further omissions include not addressing transparency gaps in financial operations and not verifying beneficial ownership in contractor vetting, allowing potential conflicts.

Regulations encompass breaches of Financial Regulation 2018/1046 on sound financial management and transparency, as well as Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 for access to documents, where non-compliance supports COAs for liability.

Conducts feature unequal treatment of financial institutions and opaque tendering processes, distorting competition and enabling fraud risks as highlighted in ECA Special Report 28/2023.

Actions consist of issuing audit reports that reveal ongoing control lapses, and stakeholder engagements without resolving underlying issues, tying into COAs for negligence.

Policies relate to flawed oversight frameworks for the Single Resolution Fund, criticized in ECA reports for gaps in crisis readiness, which could form the basis for tort claims of reckless conduct.

In the ELA subcase, the following DORCAPS are identified as related directly or tangentially to possible COAs, including non-contractual liability under Article 340 TFEU for irregular payments, failure to act under Article 265 TFEU from oversight lapses, and breaches of procurement directives causing exclusion harms.

Decisions include awarding a €1.32 million training contract that exceeded thresholds and involved irregular payments, as per the 2023 Consolidated Annual Activity Report noting 3.8% irregularity rate. Also, decisions on mediation board appointments and handling of 13 mediation actions in 2024, with some closures due to non-participation.

Omissions involve failing to disclose contractor details in 2022 and 2023 contract lists despite using eProcurement tools, and not addressing weak ex-ante controls in framework contracts. Further omissions include lack of response to formal notices and inadequate vetting for conflicts of interest.

Regulations encompass violations of Financial Regulation 2018/1046 on payment thresholds and transparency, Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 on data protection, and Article 90 of Staff Regulations for complaints, supporting COAs for abuse of power.

Conducts feature overpayments for duplicate services and non-competitive handling of tenders, excluding competitors and distorting training markets.

Actions consist of conducting 117 concerted inspections in 2024 under new logistical frameworks, and processing 55 external complaints, which relate to potential COAs for reckless conduct in oversight.

Policies relate to limited mandate evaluations in 2025 acknowledging institutional weaknesses, and commitments to transparency that were not fully met, tying into tort claims for bad faith.

In the CPVO subcase, the following DORCAPS are identified as related directly or tangentially to possible COAs, including non-contractual liability under Article 340 TFEU for procurement breaches, failure to act under Article 265 TFEU from non-responses, and violations of directives excluding competitors.

Decisions include splitting contracts worth €339,300 for IT services on November 15, 2020, to avoid tendering, as per TED notice 200084-2020.

Omissions involve failure to respond to January 13, 2025, formal notice within two months, and not verifying beneficial ownership in contractor awards. Also, omission of corrective measures post-ECA findings on systemic splitting.

Regulations encompass breaches of Financial Regulation 2018/1046 prohibiting artificial splitting, and Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 for document access, supporting COAs for liability.

Conducts feature circumventing competitive tendering, leading to restricted competition and inflated costs.

Actions consist of issuing annual reports showing no irregularity findings despite allegations, and handling procurement without adequate oversight.

Policies relate to transparency commitments not upheld, and flawed internal controls allowing non-competitive awards, tying into claims of reckless conduct.

In the EC subcase, the following DORCAPS are identified as related directly or tangentially to possible COAs, including non-contractual liability under Article 340 TFEU for supervisory negligence, failure to act under Article 265 TFEU on known issues, and breaches of oversight duties enabling fraud.

Decisions include supervisory approvals enabling agency irregularities, such as in vaccine procurement, and decisions on fund allocations despite ECA criticisms.

Omissions involve failing to monitor agency compliance, not acting on ECA Special Report 28/2023 findings of declining competition, and low fraud reporting at 1.7%. Also, omission of investigations into stealth consolidations affecting markets.

Regulations encompass Treaty obligations under Articles 265 and 340 TFEU, and 2014 procurement directives that failed to simplify procedures.

Conducts feature reactive oversight allowing €24.8 billion in EPPO-investigated damages, and inadequate data monitoring tools.

Actions consist of issuing evaluations admitting mandate limits, and pursuing infringement proceedings against states but not agencies.

Policies relate to anti-fraud architecture with OLAF/EPPO, criticized for passivity, supporting COAs for abuse of power.

In the EEA subcase, the following DORCAPS are identified as related directly or tangentially to possible COAs, including non-contractual liability under Article 340 TFEU for mismanagement, failure to act under Article 265 TFEU from non-responses, and breaches of regulations causing funding uncertainties.

Decisions include outsourcing €6 million in financial checks without oversight, and awarding framework contracts like €5,125,000 for bio-geophysical parameters.

Omissions involve no response to January 13, 2025, formal notice, and failing to address duplicated services or verify contractor ownership. Also, omission of competitive bidding in procurement.

Regulations encompass violations of Financial Regulation 2018/1046 on competitive processes, and Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 for transparency.

Conducts feature weak procurement procedures leading to misallocations, and non-transparent awards justified by technical exclusivity.

Actions consist of historical budget scrutiny in 2012 for hiring practices, and current TED notices without resolving irregularities.

Policies relate to oversight commitments not met, allowing systemic weaknesses per ECA reports, tying into claims of bad faith.

In the SRB subcase, the Financial Regulation 2018/1046 has a high probability of being ultra vires in its application to internal supervision and financial controls, as its provisions allow deficient frameworks that fail to ensure sound financial management, exceeding Treaty powers by enabling unequal treatment of institutions and ongoing mismanagement risks, per ECA Special Report 28/2023. Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 may be ultra vires due to non-compliance mechanisms that permit prolonged non-responses to formal notices, violating transparency duties and contributing to unaddressed audit findings like ICT security gaps. Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 could be ultra vires in data handling contexts if it inadequately addresses supervision deficiencies, leading to persistent transparency failures. These have ongoing harms through unremedied control lapses and financial risks, making judicial review timely under Articles 265 and 340 TFEU.

In the ELA subcase, the Financial Regulation 2018/1046 has a high probability of being ultra vires regarding transparency in contract lists and payment thresholds, as it enables opaque awards and irregular payments (e.g., 3.8% irregularity rate in 2023) without sufficient enforcement, exceeding powers by distorting procurement fairness. Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 may be ultra vires in withholding procurement documents, allowing non-disclosure of tender details like ELA/2021/OP/02, which breaches access obligations and perpetuates control weaknesses. Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 could be ultra vires if it fails to enforce data protection in framework contracts, enabling conflicts in mediation (e.g., Decision ELA/MB/2025/016). Ongoing harms include unresolved complaints (55 in 2024) and mediation issues, supporting timely judicial review.

In the CPVO subcase, the Financial Regulation 2018/1046 has a high probability of being ultra vires in prohibiting but inadequately preventing contract splitting (e.g., €339,300 IT services award), exceeding powers by allowing circumvention of tender thresholds and restricting competition, as noted in ECA Special Report 28/2023. Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 may be ultra vires due to mechanisms permitting non-responses to notices (e.g., January 13, 2025), violating disclosure duties. Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 could be ultra vires in handling data for transparency requests without ensuring compliance. Ongoing harms from persistent splitting practices and non-responses (over five months by July 2025) make judicial review timely.

In the EC subcase, the 2014 EU procurement directives have a high probability of being ultra vires for failing to simplify procedures and address stealth consolidations, exceeding powers by not ensuring competitive markets despite ECA findings of declining competition. The Financial Regulation’s definition of double funding may be ultra vires as unfit for purpose, leading to fragmented controls and fraud risks (€24.8 billion in EPPO damages). Agency mandates (e.g., ELA’s limitations) could be ultra vires by permitting institutional weaknesses that breach supervisory duties under Treaties. Ongoing harms from systemic fraud (€870 million OLAF recoveries) and unaddressed vulnerabilities (e.g., delayed AML until 2027) support timely judicial review.

In the EEA subcase, the Financial Regulation 2018/1046 has a high probability of being ultra vires in allowing misallocations and non-competitive bidding (e.g., €6 million outsourcing), exceeding powers by lacking robust transparency in procurement. Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 may be ultra vires for enabling non-responses to disclosure requests (e.g., post-January 13, 2025), violating access rules. Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 could be ultra vires if it inadequately covers conflict declarations in awards. Ongoing harms through irregular payments and inaccessible records make judicial review timely.

In the SRB subcase, no identified DORCAPs are within the 3-month time limit from December 16, 2025, as the latest relevant dates include the July 16, 2025, contract award notice for information systems development, the July 10, 2025, mise en concurrence notice for resolution strategy, and the July 7, 2025, non-response to the January 13, 2025, formal notice, all exceeding 3 months. There are older DORCAPs with ongoing tort or contractual harm as of December 15, 2025, allowing for a rolling judicial review, including the omission of responding to the January 13, 2025, notice which continues to enable unaddressed audit deficiencies from 2023 and financial risks of €15 million; the conduct of opaque tendering distorting competition; and the policy of flawed oversight for the Single Resolution Fund per ECA reports, perpetuating mismanagement and unequal treatment.

In the ELA subcase, no identified DORCAPs are within the 3-month time limit from December 16, 2025, as the latest relevant dates include the November 22, 2024, stakeholder meeting with EY Consulting and the 2024 mediation actions, both exceeding 3 months. There are older DORCAPs with ongoing tort or contractual harm as of December 15, 2025, allowing for a rolling judicial review, including the omission of responding to formal notices and disclosing contractor details for 2022-2023 contracts, sustaining transparency failures and conflicts; the conduct of overpayments in the 2021 framework contract, continuing to exclude competitors; and the policy of limited mandate per the May 2025 evaluation, enabling unresolved institutional weaknesses and irregular payments at 3.8%.

In the CPVO subcase, no identified DORCAPs are within the 3-month time limit from December 16, 2025, as the latest relevant date is the July 7, 2025, non-response to the January 13, 2025, formal notice, exceeding 3 months. There are older DORCAPs with ongoing tort or contractual harm as of December 15, 2025, allowing for a rolling judicial review, including the omission of responding to the January 13, 2025, notice and verifying beneficial ownership, perpetuating non-competitive awards; the decision to split contracts on November 15, 2020, continuing to restrict competition; and the policy of unupheld transparency commitments, sustaining inflated costs and procurement breaches per ECA Special Report 28/2023.

In the EC subcase, no identified DORCAPs are within the 3-month time limit from December 16, 2025, as the latest relevant dates include the June 29, 2025, mediation agreement and the 2024 OLAF/EPPO reports, both exceeding 3 months. There are older DORCAPs with ongoing tort or contractual harm as of December 15, 2025, allowing for a rolling judicial review, including the omission of acting on ECA Special Report 28/2023 findings of declining competition, perpetuating fraud risks of €24.8 billion; the conduct of reactive oversight allowing stealth consolidations; and the policy of anti-fraud architecture with OLAF/EPPO, continuing passivity and supervisory negligence.

In the EEA subcase, no identified DORCAPs are within the 3-month time limit from December 16, 2025, as the latest relevant date is the July 7, 2025, non-response to the January 13, 2025, formal notice, exceeding 3 months. There are older DORCAPs with ongoing tort or contractual harm as of December 15, 2025, allowing for a rolling judicial review, including the omission of responding to the January 13, 2025, notice and addressing duplicated services, sustaining misallocations; the conduct of weak procurement procedures leading to non-transparent awards; and the policy of unmet oversight commitments per ECA reports, perpetuating systemic weaknesses and funding uncertainties.

In the SRB subcase, no direct or tangential open or closed claims, settlements, or arbitrations were found where the state or EU paid compensation or penalties related to procurement or budget irregularities. Tangentially, in resolution disputes like T-257/20 González Calvet v SRB (closed 2020), compensation claims for €29 billion in shareholder damages were rejected with no payment. In T-314/18 Hashem and Assi v SRB (pending), compensation is claimed for resolution actions but no payment has occurred. No company payments identified.

In the ELA subcase, no direct claims or settlements involving the ELA where state or companies paid. Tangentially, in labour market antitrust cases, companies paid penalties: the European Commission fined participants in no-poach agreements €329 million (closed 2025), and in pay-for-delay patent settlements, companies paid €60.5 million in fines (closed 2013). National labour courts impose fines for unlawful strikes, but no specific payments detailed.

In the CPVO subcase, no direct settlements or arbitrations. Tangentially, in plant variety rights infringement like C-522/21 Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltung v KWS Meridian (closed 2023), the Court invalidated a quadruple lump sum compensation rule, with no payment ordered. In environmental settlements not involving CPVO, parties paid $33.2 million for natural resource restoration (closed 2023), and defendants paid $150,000 penalty (closed 2025).

In the EC subcase, no direct budget procurement settlements where state paid compensation. Tangentially, member states paid financial penalties in infringement proceedings for non-compliance, with amounts based on elapsed time from judgments (ongoing packages as of 2024). Companies paid penalties: ethylene purchasers paid €260 million (closed 2020), and Google paid €4.34 billion for antitrust breaches (closed 2018). In cartel settlements, companies received 10% fine reductions but still paid remaining amounts.

In the EEA subcase, no direct claims or arbitrations. Tangentially, in environmental crimes directive (effective 2024), companies face fines up to 5% of turnover or €40 million, but no specific payments recorded. In Perenco v Ecuador arbitration (closed 2017), the company paid the state $41 million for environmental damage. In procurement fraud, former EU official Mogherini was charged (open as of 2025), but no payment yet.

The probability that cocoo.uk may be granted locus standi to start a judicial review for the identified opportunities in this case is estimated at 25% in EU courts, based on the restrictive Plaumann test requiring direct and individual concern under Article 263 TFEU, which is challenging for a non-directly affected charity unless members are impacted or specific provisions apply, such as Aarhus Regulation for environmental matters in the EEA subcase where it rises to 50%. In Spanish courts like the Tribunal Supremo or Audiencia Nacional, the probability is higher at 65%, as Spanish administrative law recognizes legitimación activa for NGOs defending collective interests in consumer or competition issues if there is a real and current interest, per cases like those involving Ecologistas en Acción, and aligns with the Lord Hope principle where no better-placed claimant exists.

Locus standi is easier if challenging a regulation, real decreto, or policy rather than a decision or action, particularly for regulatory acts under Article 263(4) TFEU that do not require implementing measures, as they only need proof of direct concern without individual concern, unlike decisions addressed to others which demand both.

Cocoo can build a stronger locus standi for JR by sending a pre-action protocol letter or equivalent formal request to the public body or regulator, prompting a decision such as confirming denial of public notice on UV risks, which then becomes a reviewable act addressed to cocoo as the requester, establishing direct concern. This is possible in EU law through a complaint under Regulation 1049/2001 or Article 265 TFEU for failure to act, or in Spanish contencioso-administrativo via a requerimiento previo that forces a response, as supported by precedents on provoking reviewable acts to gain standing. The existing FOIs can support this by providing evidence of ultra vires DORCAPs, and JR can serve as a notification mechanism while arguing liability for breach of good faith duties in not disclosing foreseeable tort harms.

In the SRB subcase, the decision to award contracts despite critical audit findings in the 2023 Annual Report has a 40% probability of being ultra vires, as it may exceed supervisory powers under Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 by ignoring ECA-identified risks like ICT security gaps, but the discretion in contract awards reduces the likelihood without clear overreach. The decision to maintain operations without a comprehensive control framework for the Single Resolution Fund has a 55% probability, reasoning that it potentially violates sound financial management principles in Article 317 TFEU, enabling €15 million risks, though operational flexibility might justify it. The omission of responding to the January 13, 2025, formal notice has a 65% probability, as failure to act under Article 265 TFEU could be seen as exceeding inaction limits, especially with ongoing deficiencies. The omission of corrective actions on known deficiencies has a 50% probability, based on potential breach of fiduciary duties but tempered by internal audit timelines. The omission of addressing transparency gaps and verifying beneficial ownership has a 60% probability, as it may contravene Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 access rules, allowing conflicts without enforcement. The regulation breach of Financial Regulation 2018/1046 has a 70% probability, per my opinion that its application permits deficient frameworks exceeding Treaty powers on equality. The regulation breach of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 has a 65% probability, due to weak non-compliance mechanisms violating transparency. The conduct of unequal treatment of institutions has a 45% probability, as it distorts competition but may fall within discretionary powers. The conduct of opaque tendering processes has a 55% probability, potentially overstepping procurement fairness under directives. The action of issuing audit reports revealing lapses has a 30% probability, as it’s a required function unlikely to be ultra vires. The action of stakeholder engagements without resolutions has a 40% probability, reasoning limited overreach in engagement scopes. The policy of flawed oversight for the Single Resolution Fund has a 60% probability, as ECA criticisms indicate gaps exceeding crisis readiness mandates.

In the ELA subcase, the decision to award a €1.32 million training contract exceeding thresholds has a 65% probability of being ultra vires, as it violates Financial Regulation 2018/1046 payment rules, enabling irregularities at 3.8%. The decision on mediation board appointments and handling 13 actions has a 35% probability, due to low overreach in procedural discretion. The omission of disclosing contractor details in 2022-2023 lists has a 60% probability, contravening transparency obligations. The omission of addressing weak ex-ante controls has a 55% probability, potentially exceeding oversight duties. The omission of responding to formal notices and inadequate vetting has a 65% probability, similar to SRB inaction issues. The regulation violation of Financial Regulation 2018/1046 has a 70% probability, enabling opaque awards beyond powers. The regulation violation of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 has a 60% probability, for data protection failures in contracts. The regulation violation of Article 90 Staff Regulations has a 50% probability, as complaint handling may not strictly overstep. The conduct of overpayments for duplicates has a 55% probability, distorting markets beyond authority. The conduct of non-competitive tender handling has a 60% probability, excluding competitors unlawfully. The action of conducting 117 inspections in 2024 has a 25% probability, as it’s core mandate. The action of processing 55 complaints has a 30% probability, unlikely ultra vires. The policy of limited mandate evaluations in 2025 has a 65% probability, acknowledging weaknesses exceeding institutional setup.

In the CPVO subcase, the decision to split contracts worth €339,300 for IT services on November 15, 2020, has a 70% probability of being ultra vires, as it circumvents Financial Regulation 2018/1046 anti-splitting rules. The omission of responding to the January 13, 2025, notice has a 65% probability, per inaction under TFEU. The omission of verifying beneficial ownership has a 60% probability, allowing conflicts beyond transparency powers. The omission of corrective measures post-ECA has a 55% probability, failing oversight. The regulation breach of Financial Regulation 2018/1046 has a 70% probability, permitting splitting exceeding competition mandates. The regulation breach of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 has a 65% probability, for disclosure violations. The conduct of circumventing competitive tendering has a 60% probability, restricting competition unlawfully. The action of issuing annual reports showing no irregularities has a 40% probability, as reporting is mandated. The action of handling procurement without oversight has a 50% probability, potentially overstepping. The policy of transparency commitments not upheld has a 60% probability, sustaining breaches.

In the EC subcase, the decision on supervisory approvals enabling irregularities has a 55% probability of being ultra vires, failing Treaty oversight. The decision on fund allocations despite ECA criticisms has a 50% probability, within budgetary discretion. The omission of monitoring agency compliance has a 60% probability, exceeding supervisory duties. The omission of acting on ECA Report 28/2023 has a 65% probability, allowing declining competition. The omission of investigating stealth consolidations has a 60% probability, per market distortion. The regulation under Articles 265 and 340 TFEU has a 45% probability, as core but potentially misapplied. The regulation under 2014 procurement directives has a 70% probability, failing simplification beyond powers. The conduct of reactive oversight allowing €24.8 billion damages has a 55% probability, overstepping anti-fraud roles. The conduct of inadequate data monitoring has a 50% probability, within tools. The action of issuing evaluations admitting limits has a 35% probability, mandated. The action of pursuing infringements against states but not agencies has a 45% probability, selective. The policy of anti-fraud architecture with OLAF/EPPO has a 60% probability, criticized for passivity exceeding mandates.

In the EEA subcase, the decision to outsource €6 million in financial checks has a 60% probability of being ultra vires, lacking oversight per regulations. The decision to award framework contracts like €5,125,000 has a 55% probability, potentially non-competitive. The omission of responding to January 13, 2025, notice has a 65% probability, inaction issue. The omission of addressing duplicated services has a 55% probability, sustaining misallocations. The omission of competitive bidding has a 60% probability, breaching processes. The regulation violation of Financial Regulation 2018/1046 has a 70% probability, allowing misallocations beyond powers. The regulation violation of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 has a 65% probability, transparency failures. The conduct of weak procurement procedures has a 55% probability, leading to non-transparency. The action of historical budget scrutiny in 2012 has a 30% probability, old and mandated. The action of current TED notices without resolutions has a 40% probability, procedural. The policy of oversight commitments not met has a 60% probability, per ECA systemic weaknesses.

For SRB DORCAPs with good UV probability above 50%, such as the decision to maintain operations without control framework, omissions of responses and transparency, regulation breaches of 2018/1046 and 1049/2001, opaque tendering conduct, and flawed oversight policy, no published notices or URLs were found on UV risks or mandatory risk reports by SRB. For ELA equivalents like the training contract decision, disclosure omissions, regulation violations of 2018/1046 and 2018/1725, non-competitive conducts, and limited mandate policy, no such publications by ELA. For CPVO like contract splitting decision, response omissions, regulation breaches, circumventing conduct, and unupheld policy, no publications by CPVO. For EC like monitoring omissions, acting on ECA report omission, 2014 directives regulation, anti-fraud policy, no publications by EC. For EEA like outsourcing decision, response omissions, regulation violations, and unmet policy, no publications by EEA. Since no UV existence or risk levels were made public in reports, news, or notices, there is a higher risk of tort claims against the state for harms from these UV DORCAPs by its agents, meaning less risk of claims against the government body or regulator due to lack of constructive notice to victims, potentially denying the state a violenti defense if harms occur.

The probability that we could successfully argue the contributory liable party is the regulator or public body, not the state, so victims claim only against them, is 20%, as under EU law like Article 340 TFEU, liability attaches to EU institutions as state equivalents, not separable agents, though national law variations like in Spain might allow 30% if proving independent fiduciary breaches, but precedents favor state liability for agent acts.

In the SRB subcase, for companies under investigation such as those awarded contracts with audit deficiencies like ICT security gaps, propose undertakings to disgorge profits from irregular awards equivalent to the €15 million risk exposure identified in ECA reports, commitments to abstain from future non-competitive tenders for two years, fine yes at 5% of contract value per Remedies Directives standards for procurement breaches, no injunctions, suspended quashing orders for any ongoing contracts until transparency audits are completed within six months, and cy-pres proposals to allocate unclaimed compensation to non-profits supporting financial institution competitors harmed by unequal treatment. For the SRB as the ultra vires-causing public body, propose remedies including mandatory publication of UV risks in annual reports under Regulation 1049/2001, undertakings to establish comprehensive Single Resolution Fund controls, commitments to respond to formal notices within statutory timelines, no fine as public bodies are not typically fined under EU law but corrective actions instead, injunctions to cease opaque tendering practices, suspended quashing of flawed oversight policies until reformed, and cy-pres to fund victim redress programs for mismanagement torts like distorted resolution processes.

In the ELA subcase, for companies under investigation such as those in the €1.32 million training contract with irregularities, propose undertakings to repay overpayments at the 3.8% irregularity rate noted in 2023 reports, commitments to verify beneficial ownership in future bids, fine yes at up to 10% of contract value aligning with procurement directive penalties for threshold breaches, injunctions to halt duplicate service provisions, no suspended quashing orders, and cy-pres proposals directing unclaimed funds to labor rights organizations for competitors excluded by non-competitive handling. For the ELA as the ultra vires-causing regulator, propose remedies such as required disclosure of contractor details in procurement lists per Financial Regulation 2018/1046, undertakings to strengthen ex-ante controls in framework contracts, commitments to address mediation weaknesses from the 2025 evaluation, no fine consistent with EU agency liability under Article 340 TFEU focusing on damages rather than penalties, injunctions against ongoing non-responses to notices, suspended quashing of limited mandate policies until expanded, and cy-pres to compensate victims of oversight lapses like unresolved complaints.

In the CPVO subcase, for companies under investigation such as those benefiting from the €339,300 split IT services contract, propose undertakings to return gains from artificial splitting per ECA Special Report 28/2023, commitments to competitive tendering in plant variety sectors, fine yes at 8% of award value based on anti-splitting rules in Financial Regulation 2018/1046, no injunctions, suspended quashing orders for the 2020 decision until re-tendered, and cy-pres proposals to channel unclaimed amounts to agricultural competitors’ advocacy groups. For the CPVO as the ultra vires-causing public body, propose remedies including verification of beneficial ownership in all awards, undertakings to implement post-ECA corrective measures, commitments to uphold transparency under Regulation 1049/2001, no fine as tort liability against EU bodies emphasizes compensation over penalties, injunctions to stop non-competitive practices, suspended quashing of unupheld policies until audited, and cy-pres for tort victims affected by inflated costs and restricted competition.

In the EC subcase, for companies under investigation such as those in vaccine or other procurements with supervisory negligence, propose undertakings to disgorge profits from stealth consolidations per ECA findings of declining competition, commitments to anti-fraud compliance monitoring, fine yes at €24.8 billion scale adjusted to individual cases from EPPO damages precedents, injunctions against further market distortions, suspended quashing orders for approvals enabling irregularities until reviewed, and cy-pres proposals to distribute unclaimed compensation to consumer protection entities under collective redress principles. For the EC as the ultra vires-causing investigator, propose remedies like active monitoring of agency compliance under Treaty obligations, undertakings to act on ECA Report 28/2023, commitments to enhance data tools for oversight, no fine given state-like immunity but damages possible under Article 340 TFEU, injunctions to pursue agency infringements equivalently to states, suspended quashing of anti-fraud policies until passivity addressed, and cy-pres to fund programs for fraud victims from systemic negligence.

In the EEA subcase, for companies under investigation such as those in the €6 million outsourcing or €5,125,000 framework contracts, propose undertakings to repay misallocations from non-competitive bidding, commitments to transparent awards, fine yes at 7% of value drawing from procurement irregularity corrections in ECA audits, no injunctions, suspended quashing orders for technical exclusivity justifications until competed, and cy-pres proposals to allocate unclaimed funds to environmental monitoring non-profits for harmed stakeholders. For the EEA as the ultra vires-causing public body, propose remedies including responses to formal notices per Regulation 1049/2001, undertakings to eliminate duplicated services, commitments to meet oversight per ECA reports, no fine aligning with EU tort remedies focusing on redress, injunctions against weak procedures, suspended quashing of unmet policies until strengthened, and cy-pres for victims of funding uncertainties and systemic weaknesses.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Request for Access to Documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001

I am writing on behalf of Competition & Consumer Organisation Party Limited (COCOO.uk), a registered charity dedicated to promoting fair competition and consumer protection. Our details are: Oscar Moya, Director of Competition & Consumer Organisation Party Limited (COCOO.uk), 23 Village Way, Beckenham, Kent BR3 3NA, Companies House Registration: 15466919, EU Transparency Register: 177568392007-84, Email: contact@cocoo.uk.

This request concerns the European Commission’s oversight of EU agencies’ procurement practices, including potential ultra vires actions in contract awards, omissions in risk assessments, and related harms such as competition distortions and financial mismanagement, for decisions between 2020 and December 2025.

1. Please provide the title, description, and risk owner for any risk register entry related to legal compliance or ultra vires risks in agency procurement oversight.

2. Please provide the movement of risk scores (inherent vs. residual) for such entries over the last 24 months.

3. Please provide the risk appetite statement regarding legal compliance in procurement oversight.

If any part of this request is refused, please provide reasons and confirm if the documents exist.

Yours faithfully,

Oscar Moya
Director
Competition & Consumer Organisation Party Limited (COCOO.uk)

—

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Request for Access to Documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001

I am writing on behalf of Competition & Consumer Organisation Party Limited (COCOO.uk), a registered charity dedicated to promoting fair competition and consumer protection. Our details are: Oscar Moya, Director of Competition & Consumer Organisation Party Limited (COCOO.uk), 23 Village Way, Beckenham, Kent BR3 3NA, Companies House Registration: 15466919, EU Transparency Register: 177568392007-84, Email: contact@cocoo.uk.

This request is addressed to the operational bodies (SRB, ELA, CPVO, EEA) and concerns procurement practices, including contract awards, omissions in ultra vires risk assessments, and harms such as competition distortions, for decisions between 2020 and December 2025.

1. Please provide the date created, date finalized, and job title of the approver for any impact assessment related to ultra vires risks in procurement.

2. Please provide the number of months any relevant procurement project has been reported as “Red” (off track) to the board in the last 24 months.

If any part of this request is refused, please provide reasons and confirm if the documents exist.

Yours faithfully,

Oscar Moya
Director
Competition & Consumer Organisation Party Limited (COCOO.uk)

—

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Request for Access to Documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001

I am writing on behalf of Competition & Consumer Organisation Party Limited (COCOO.uk), a registered charity dedicated to promoting fair competition and consumer protection. Our details are: Oscar Moya, Director of Competition & Consumer Organisation Party Limited (COCOO.uk), 23 Village Way, Beckenham, Kent BR3 3NA, Companies House Registration: 15466919, EU Transparency Register: 177568392007-84, Email: contact@cocoo.uk.

This request concerns audits of EU agencies’ procurement, including ultra vires risks and harms such as competition distortions, for activities between 2020 and December 2025.

1. Please provide the percentage of staff trained on policies related to ultra vires risk assessment in procurement oversight.

2. Please provide a list of internal audit report titles commissioned in the last 2 years relevant to EU agencies’ procurement irregularities.

If any part of this request is refused, please provide reasons and confirm if the documents exist.

Yours faithfully,

Oscar Moya
Director
Competition & Consumer Organisation Party Limited (COCOO.uk)

The questions in Draft A trap the authority by revealing if they monitored worsening ultra vires risks without action, proving knowledge for misfeasance. In Draft B, confirming existence and red status shows operational failures to address risks, establishing reckless conduct. In Draft C, low training percentages or relevant audit titles indicate systemic flaws in oversight, supporting abuse of power claims.

Leave a Reply