COCOO CASES

JOIN US FREE         LIVE PROJECTS                                              ABOUT US   MEDIATION   ADVOCACY   DONATE  PRIVACY POLICY T&C

Platform URL: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say_en

The COCOO-“Have Your Say” Doctrine: A Strategic Model for Proactive Policy Warfare

This doctrine establishes the protocol for interrogating the European Commission’s “Have your say” portal. This is not a feedback form; it is the EU’s primary battleground for shaping future legislation and policy. We will weaponize this platform to preemptively influence lawmaking, build coalitions, conduct high-level competitor intelligence, and generate the strategic opportunities that are the cornerstone of COCOO’s mission. This platform is the engine for our USP origination, our Challenge Discretion doctrine, and our WPI (Public Interest) narrative campaigns.

1. Core Principles of Interrogation

Our use of the “Have your say” portal is governed by the most proactive principles of the COCOO framework. We do not react to laws; we shape them before they are written.

• Preemptive Strike Capability: The portal’s “Call for evidence” stage is our primary target.¹ It allows us to intervene at the very inception of a new policy, long before the text is solidified. By submitting evidence and framing the problem early, we can shape the entire legislative trajectory in our favour, a core tenet of our proactive doctrine.
• The USP Generation Engine: Every “Call for evidence” is a publicly declared problem that the Commission is seeking to solve. This is a direct invitation for a COCOO Unsolicited Proposal (USP).³ We will analyze these problems and propose COCOO-led solutions, offering our services as mediators, consultants, or managers of implementation frameworks directly to the Commission or to the industries that will be affected.
• Open-Source Competitor Intelligence: The public nature of submissions is a goldmine.² By analyzing the feedback provided by our competitors (e.g., major corporations like Google, Apple, or industry associations) on closed consultations, we gain unparalleled insight into their strategic fears, lobbying priorities, and internal thinking. This is a critical input for our Competitor Analysis.¹
• The WPI (Public Interest) High Ground: This platform is where the narrative battle for the “public interest” is fought. We will use our submissions to frame our objectives in the language of EU policy—sustainability, consumer welfare, market efficiency—and to deconstruct the self-serving arguments of our opponents, seizing the WPI high ground.⁶

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

Mastery of the portal’s filtering system is essential. It allows us to surgically target the initiatives that matter most to COCOO’s mission.

• Official Search Rules & Functionality: The “Have your say” portal is a structured database of legislative and policy initiatives. The rules for interrogation are based on its powerful filtering capabilities ¹:

3. Strategic Interrogation: The Questions We Ask

We interrogate this platform to find the future conflicts and opportunities we can shape today.

• For USP Origination & Preemptive Influence:

  • “Which initiatives in the Topic: ‘Banking and financial services’ are currently at the Stage: ‘Call for evidence’? What systemic risks are they trying to address that COCOO could offer a USP to solve?”
  • “The Commission has an upcoming consultation on the “. What are the key questions in the ‘Call for evidence’ document? How can we frame our submission to benefit our clients in the automotive sector?” ⁶
  • “Is the Commission planning a new Delegated act in the Topic: ‘Digital’ that could impact Big Tech firms like Meta or Amazon? What is the feedback period?” ¹

• For Competitor & Stakeholder Intelligence:

  • “In the Closed consultation on the EU Cybersecurity Act, which major technology firms and industry associations submitted feedback? Download their submissions. What are their stated positions, and what do they reveal about their strategic vulnerabilities?” ¹
  • “Who were the key stakeholders that contributed to the evaluation of the EU rules on medical devices? This helps us map the political landscape of the sector.” ²

• For Challenge Discretion & WPI Framing:

  • “The Commission is proposing a new Legislative proposal on ‘Industrial Decarbonisation’. How can we frame our submission to argue that their proposed approach creates an unfair ENTRYBARRIER for smaller firms, contrary to the public interest in a competitive market?” ³
  • “Does the ‘Consultation Strategy’ for the upcoming ‘Action Plan on the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights’ adequately consider the impact on business competitiveness? If not, we must submit feedback challenging the methodology.” ¹

4. The COCOO-“Have Your Say” Strategic Playbook: A Model for Action

The following playbooks provide standardized workflows for using this platform to generate strategic influence and opportunities.

Playbook A: The “Early Strike” (USP Engine)

• Objective: To identify emerging policy initiatives at their earliest stage and use them to generate high-value Unsolicited Proposals.
• Execution:
  1. Set Up Monitoring: On a weekly basis, access the “Have your say” initiatives page.
  2. Filter for Opportunity: Apply the following filters: Feedback status: “Open” OR “Upcoming” AND Stage: “Call for evidence”.
  3. Select by Topic: Further filter by a strategic Topic for COCOO, such as Competition or Single market.
  4. Analyze the Problem: Review the resulting initiatives. For each one, download the “Call for evidence” document. This document explicitly states the problem the Commission is trying to solve.
  5. Develop the COCOO Solution: For any identified problem where COCOO has expertise, draft a USP. Example: The Commission issues a call for evidence on “Sustainable Corporate Governance.” COCOO develops a USP for a new, mediated framework that helps companies comply with future due diligence requirements, and submits this as part of its feedback.
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook transforms COCOO from a reactive legal entity into a proactive policy partner. We are not waiting for laws to be passed; we are offering to help write the solutions, positioning COCOO to win contracts for their implementation.

Playbook B: The “Adversary’s Mind-Map” Audit

• Objective: To build a detailed intelligence dossier on the lobbying positions and strategic priorities of our key corporate adversaries.
• Execution:
  1. Identify a Closed Consultation: Select a recently Closed consultation in a sector of strategic importance. Example: The consultation on the “Review of the Merger Guidelines.” ⁶
  2. Access Submissions: Navigate to the initiative’s page and find the section containing the published feedback from stakeholders.
  3. Harvest Competitor Data: Systematically search for and download the submissions made by our key corporate targets (e.g., Microsoft, Siemens), their law firms (e.g., Mayer Brown), and their industry associations.
  4. Analyze and Deconstruct: Analyze these documents to understand their red lines, their preferred policy outcomes, and the arguments they use to support their positions.
• Strategic Outcome: This provides an unparalleled, open-source intelligence view into our adversaries’ strategic thinking. When we next face them in a MATOIPO case or a regulatory challenge, we will already know their playbook.

Playbook C: The “Targeted Influence” Campaign

• Objective: To execute a focused campaign to influence a specific, high-stakes legislative proposal.
• Execution:
  1. Identify the Target Initiative: Using Playbook A, identify a key upcoming Legislative proposal or Delegated act.
  2. Build the Evidence: Use the full COCOO intelligence arsenal (Violation Tracker, Eurostat, etc.) to gather hard, quantitative data that supports our desired policy outcome.
  3. Frame the Narrative: Use the WPI principles to frame our argument. The submission should not read as self-interested, but as a good-faith effort to improve the law for the benefit of all Europeans.
  4. Draft and Submit: Draft a formal, evidence-based submission in response to the Public consultation or Draft act feedback period.
  5. Amplify (Optional): Coordinate the submission with a targeted media campaign via the EC.presscorner to ensure our position is heard beyond the confines of the portal.⁷
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook operationalizes our lobbying strategy. It provides a structured method for directly influencing the text of EU law, creating a more favourable regulatory environment for COCOO and its clients.

JOIN US FREE         LIVE PROJECTS                                              ABOUT US   MEDIATION   ADVOCACY   DONATE  PRIVACY POLICY T&C

 the standard interrogation model for the next platform in our intelligence arsenal: the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) HUDOC database.

Platform URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/

The COCOO-HUDOC Doctrine: A Strategic Model for Human Rights Leverage

This doctrine establishes the protocol for interrogating the HUDOC database, the official case law repository of the European Court of Human Rights. This is not a passive legal archive; it is the ultimate forum for challenging the actions of member states and a powerful engine for generating political and legal leverage. We will weaponize this platform to find precedents that undermine state power, identify systemic state-level vulnerabilities, and, most critically, to detect emerging legal challenges at their earliest possible stage through the monitoring of “communicated cases.” This platform is a cornerstone of our APPEALS (JR2COURT) and Challenge Discretion strategies on an international level.

1. Core Principles of Interrogation

Our use of HUDOC is governed by the most fundamental principles of the COCOO framework. We are not just reading human rights law; we are finding the cracks in the armour of the state.

• Communicated Cases as the Ultimate Early Warning: The mind maps explicitly target [echr = hudoc] communicated cases.¹ A communicated case is one that the Court has deemed sufficiently serious to notify to the respondent government, signaling it has passed a critical admissibility threshold.² This is our early warning system. Monitoring these cases allows us to see the next wave of legal challenges against a state months or years before a final judgment, providing an unparalleled strategic advantage.
• Precedent as the Ultimate Weapon: The ECHR’s judgments are binding on member states. We will use HUDOC to build an armoury of precedents that define the limits of state power in areas critical to COCOO’s interests—property rights, freedom of expression, fair trial, and environmental protection. These precedents will arm our domestic litigation, our complaints to regulators, and our high-level USP campaigns.
• State Vulnerability Mapping: By analyzing the patterns of violations found against a particular country (e.g., the UK, Spain), we can create a detailed “vulnerability map” of that state’s systemic legal and administrative weaknesses. This intelligence is invaluable for lobbying, media campaigns, and for framing USPs that offer solutions to these documented failings.
• The WPI (Public Interest) High Ground: ECHR cases are, by their nature, matters of profound public interest. By engaging with the principles of the Convention, COCOO can seize the moral and legal high ground, framing our commercial and strategic objectives within the powerful and universally recognized language of human rights.

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

Mastery of HUDOC’s search interface is essential. Its power lies in its granular filtering capabilities, which allow us to dissect the entirety of the Court’s case law.

• Official Search Rules & Functionality: The HUDOC search interface is built around a combination of text search and powerful filters. The rules for interrogation are as follows ⁵:

3. Strategic Interrogation: The Questions We Ask

We interrogate HUDOC to find the legal precedents and strategic intelligence that will give us the upper hand against state-level actors.

• For Challenge Discretion & APPEALS:

  • “Find all judgments against Germany that found a ‘Violation’ of ‘Article 1 of Protocol 1’ (Protection of property). What were the factual circumstances and the Court’s key legal reasoning on proportionality?”
  • “What is the Court’s established case law on the right to access information held by public authorities under Article 10? Search for cases with Keywords: ‘Freedom of information’ AND ‘Access to information’.”
  • “Which cases against the UK have successfully argued that a regulatory penalty was so severe as to constitute a criminal charge for the purposes of Article 6?”

• For Early Warning & Opportunity Spotting:

  • “Show me all Communicated Cases against Spain in the last 12 months. Are there any patterns related to planning law, environmental regulation, or the seizure of assets?”
  • “Is our major competitor, [e.g., a large energy company], named as an interested third party in any Communicated Cases concerning environmental damage?”

• For WPI & Narrative Framing:

  • “How has the Court balanced corporate freedom of expression (Article 10) against the protection of public health in its case law?”
  • “Find all Grand Chamber judgments that discuss the concept of a ‘fair balance’ between the general interest of the community and the protection of an individual’s fundamental rights.”

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

The following playbooks provide standardized workflows for using HUDOC to generate decisive, high-impact intelligence.

Playbook A: The “Communicated Case” Early Warning System

• Objective: To identify emerging legal threats and vulnerabilities for key member states at the earliest possible stage, creating unique opportunities for intervention or strategic advice.
• Execution:
  1. Isolate the Collection: On the HUDOC search page, go to DOCUMENT COLLECTIONS and select only Communicated Cases. This is the most critical step.
  2. Target the State: Use the State filter on the left-hand panel to select the country of interest (e.g., “United Kingdom,” “Spain,” “France”).
  3. Set a Timeframe: Use the Date filter to limit the search to cases communicated in the last 6-12 months to focus on emerging issues.
  4. Analyze the Issues: Review the list of communicated cases. Read the “Statement of Facts and Questions to the Parties” for each case. This document outlines the core of the complaint and the specific, pointed questions the Court is asking the government.
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook provides COCOO with an unparalleled early warning of a state’s future legal problems. This intelligence can be used to: (a) offer a USP to the companies or individuals who brought the case, offering to support their claim; (b) offer a USP to other companies who will be affected if the government loses the case; or (c) use the government’s vulnerability as leverage in other negotiations.

Playbook B: The “Precedent Armoury” Builder

• Objective: To build a library of definitive ECHR judgments that can be deployed in domestic litigation to challenge the actions of UK regulators and public bodies.
• Execution:
  1. Go to Advanced Search: Open the Advanced Search panel.
  2. Define the Legal Principle: Determine the principle you need to establish. Example: A regulator’s decision was not “foreseeable” in law.
  3. Construct the Search:
     • In the Text or The Law field, enter key legal terms: "foreseeability" AND "quality of law"
     • Use the Article filter to select the relevant right: Article 8 (Right to private life) or P1-1 (Protection of property).
     • Use the State filter to select “United Kingdom” to find the most directly relevant precedents.
     • Use the Importance filter and select “Case Reports,” “1,” and “2” to focus on the most authoritative judgments.
  4. Extract the Ratio: Analyze the resulting judgments and extract the key paragraphs where the Court defines and applies the legal test for “foreseeability.”
• Strategic Outcome: This creates a powerful, targeted dossier of legal precedent. When challenging a UK regulator in the CAT or High Court, we can submit arguments grounded not just in domestic law, but in the binding principles of the ECHR, citing the specific ECHR judgments that support our position.

Playbook C: The “State Failure” Audit

• Objective: To create a data-driven analysis of a country’s systemic failures to comply with the Convention, providing powerful evidence for high-level lobbying or media campaigns.
• Execution:
  1. Select the State: Use the State filter to choose a country (e.g., “United Kingdom”).
  2. Select the Violation: Use the Violation filter to select a specific article where violations are common. Example: “Violation of Article 6-1” (Right to a fair hearing / reasonable time).
  3. Analyze the Pattern: Review the resulting list of judgments. Are the violations concentrated in a particular area of law (e.g., immigration, tax tribunals, planning appeals)? Are the same procedural failings cited repeatedly by the Court?
  4. Build the Dossier: Compile the findings into a “Systemic Failure Report.” Example: “An analysis of ECHR judgments reveals a systemic failure in the UK’s planning appeal system to provide decisions within a ‘reasonable time’ as required by Article 6, with the Court finding violations in X cases over Y years.”
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook provides COCOO with the objective evidence needed to approach parliamentary committees, government departments, or major media outlets with a compelling, data-backed story of systemic government failure, positioning COCOO as a thought leader and creating opportunities to be brought in to mediate or advise on a solution.

JOIN US FREE         LIVE PROJECTS                                              ABOUT US   MEDIATION   ADVOCACY   DONATE  PRIVACY POLICY T&C

The COCOO-Cause List Doctrine: A Strategic Model for Real-Time Litigation Intelligence

This doctrine establishes the protocol for interrogating the daily cause lists of the UK’s Business and Property Courts, published on GOV.UK. This is not a static database; it is a real-time intelligence feed from the front lines of high-stakes commercial litigation. We will weaponize this daily publication to monitor our competitors’ legal battles, detect corporate distress, track challenges against regulators, and identify tactical opportunities to advance COCOO’s strategic plays, including Competitor Analysis, Challenge Discretion, and FOC DAM (Find Other Claimants, Monetize Damages).

1. Core Principles of Interrogation

Our use of the daily cause list is governed by the most time-sensitive principles of the COCOO framework. We are not just reading a court schedule; we are taking the market’s temperature in real time.

• Litigation as a Simple Indicator: A company’s presence on the cause list is a simple, powerful indicator of pressure. We will treat every listing—whether as a claimant or a defendant—as a data point in our analysis of a company’s health, strategy, and vulnerabilities. A string of appearances can signal deep-seated problems.
• The Arena for Challenge Discretion: The Business and Property Courts, particularly the Competition List and Business List (for judicial reviews), are the primary arenas where the decisions of UK regulators are tested. We will monitor these lists daily to identify every live challenge against our key regulatory targets (e.g., CMA, Ofcom, Ofgem), providing us with a real-time view of the legal battleground.
• The FOC DAM Trigger: The Insolvency and Companies Court list is a powerful trigger for our FOC DAM doctrine. The appearance of a major company in a winding-up petition signals a corporate failure that has created a wide class of victims (creditors, suppliers, employees) whom COCOO can mobilize and represent.¹
• MATOIPO Context and Leverage: Litigation is a critical factor in any M&A deal. By monitoring the cause lists, we can identify if a target company is embroiled in costly and distracting litigation, providing our clients with crucial leverage in negotiations. Conversely, we can spot legal challenges to recently announced mergers, offering opportunities for intervention.

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

The “search” of a cause list is not a database query but a systematic intelligence processing task. The rules are about how to interpret this daily intelligence document.

• Official Search Rules & Functionality: The Business and Property Courts Cause List is a daily publication, not a searchable database with advanced operators. The “search” is a manual or semi-automated review of the published document. The rules for interrogation are as follows:
  • Rule 1: Access and Timeliness: The cause list is published daily on the GOV.UK website, typically in the afternoon for the following day’s hearings. It is subject to change at short notice, with updates sometimes telephoned or emailed directly to parties after 4:30 PM. This makes it a source of highly current, but potentially fluid, intelligence.
  • Rule 2: Structure as a Filter: The list is structured by the specialist courts and lists that comprise the Business and Property Courts. This structure acts as our primary filter. We will systematically review key sections, including:
    • The Commercial Court
    • The Competition List
    • The Insolvency & Companies Court List
    • The Financial List
    • The Intellectual Property List
    • The Technology and Construction Court
  • Rule 3: Data Extraction: Each entry in the list provides a rich set of data points for extraction: Judge, Time, Venue (including remote access details), Type of hearing (e.g., trial, application, judgment), Case number, and Case name (the parties involved).
  • Rule 4: Open Justice: The lists often provide details on how to observe hearings, including those conducted remotely via MS Teams. This provides an opportunity for direct, first-hand intelligence gathering on cases of strategic importance.

3. Strategic Interrogation: The Questions We Ask

We interrogate the daily cause list to find live intelligence that can be acted upon immediately.

• For Competitor Analysis:
  • “Is our key competitor, “, listed in the Technology and Construction Court or Commercial Court today? Who are the opposing parties? What is the nature of the hearing?”
  • “Which major financial institutions, like “, are appearing in the Financial List this week? Is it for a trial or a procedural hearing?”
• For Challenge Discretion & Regulator Monitoring:
  • “Is the Competition and Markets Authority listed as a respondent in the Competition List today? What is the case name and number? This is a live challenge to their authority that we must track.”
  • “Are there any judicial review applications being heard against the Secretary of State for Business and Trade that could set a precedent for our own planned actions?”
• For FOC DAM & Opportunity Spotting:
  • “Which major high-street retailer or construction firm is on the Companies Winding Up list today? Who is the petitioner? This is the starting gun for a FOC DAM campaign to find and represent their unpaid suppliers.”
  • “Is there a Case Management Conference for a large group action, like the [e.g., emissions litigation against a car manufacturer like Volkswagen], scheduled this week? This gives us insight into the procedural direction of major class actions.”

4. The COCOO-Cause List Strategic Playbook: A Model for Action

The following playbooks provide standardized workflows for turning the daily court schedule into actionable strategic intelligence.

Playbook A: The “Daily Battlefield” Briefing (Competitor & Target Monitoring)

• Objective: To maintain real-time awareness of the legal entanglements of key corporate adversaries and targets.
• Execution:
  1. Define Target List: Maintain a dynamic list of COCOO’s top 20 strategic competitors, M&A targets, and key market players (e.g., BT, Shell, GSK, major banks, and private equity firms).
  2. Daily Review: Every afternoon, access the newly published Business and Property Courts cause list for the following day from the GOV.UK portal.
  3. Keyword Scan: Use the browser’s find function (Ctrl+F) to scan the entire document for the names on the target list.
  4. Log & Analyze Hits: For every match, log the Case Name, Case Number, Court/List, and Hearing Type. A simple directions hearing may be a low-level alert. A “part-heard trial” or a “judgment” is a high-priority intelligence event that must be escalated for analysis.
• Strategic Outcome: This provides COCOO with an unparalleled, real-time intelligence feed on the legal pressures facing key market players. This information can reveal hidden weaknesses, signal strategic shifts, and provide critical leverage in negotiations or competitive bids.

Playbook B: The “Regulator Pressure” Barometer

• Objective: To track all live legal challenges against key UK regulators, identifying patterns, key law firms, and emerging legal arguments.
• Execution:
  1. Define Regulator List: Maintain a list of key regulators (Competition and Markets Authority, Ofcom, Ofgem, Financial Conduct Authority, The Pensions Regulator).
  2. Daily Scan: As part of the daily review, scan the cause list for the names of these regulators as parties, paying special attention to the Competition List and Business List.
  3. Identify New Challenges: When a new case against a regulator appears (e.g., New entrant v Ofgem), immediately log the case number and parties.
  4. Track the Case Lifecycle: Use the case number as a unique identifier to track the case’s progression. The cause list will signal upcoming hearings, and this can be cross-referenced with other platforms (like BAILII or the CAT portal) to find the eventual judgments.
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook builds a detailed, real-time map of how regulators are being challenged in court. It identifies which arguments are being tested and which law firms are leading the charge, directly informing our Challenge Discretion and APPEALS (JR2COURT) strategies.

Playbook C: The “Insolvency Opportunity” Hunter (FOC DAM Engine)

• Objective: To identify major corporate insolvencies the moment they enter the court system, creating immediate opportunities to find and represent entire classes of victims.
• Execution:
  1. Focus on the Insolvency List: In the daily review, go directly to the Insolvency & Companies Court List section of the cause list.
  2. Identify High-Value Insolvencies: Scan the “Companies Winding Up” list for well-known corporate names. The collapse of a single large construction firm, retailer, or service provider creates a domino effect.
  3. Identify Lead Creditors: Note the petitioner in the winding-up action. This is often a major creditor (e.g., HMRC, a major bank, or a key supplier) and a potential first point of contact.
  4. Initiate FOC DAM Cascade: The court listing is the trigger. Immediately launch a FOC DAM analysis to identify the wider classes of victims: suppliers with unpaid invoices, customers with unfulfilled orders, employees with pension claims. Use other tools (e.g., Companies House, LinkedIn) to find and approach these groups with a USP to represent their collective interests in the insolvency proceedings.
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook turns the court’s daily administrative list into a powerful case origination engine. It allows COCOO to be first on the scene when a corporate failure creates a large, identifiable, and motivated pool of potential clients.

JOIN US FREE         LIVE PROJECTS                                              ABOUT US   MEDIATION   ADVOCACY   DONATE  PRIVACY POLICY T&C

The COCOO-EUR-Lex Doctrine: A Strategic Model for Legislative and Precedent Warfare

This doctrine establishes the protocol for interrogating EUR-Lex (eur-lex.europa.eu), the official gateway to all European Union law. This is not a library; it is the source code of the EU’s regulatory and legal power. We will weaponize this platform to dissect legislation, hunt for binding legal precedent, understand the political intent behind the law, and build the unshakeable legal foundations for our most critical strategic plays, including Challenge Discretion, APPEALS (JR2COURT), and the USP-to-WTO pipeline.

1. Core Principles of Interrogation

Our use of EUR-Lex is governed by the most fundamental principles of the COCOO framework. We are not just reading the law; we are deconstructing it to find the routes to victory.

• Legislative Autopsy: We will never take a law at face value. Our doctrine demands a full “legislative autopsy” for any critical regulation. By using EUR-Lex to trace a law from its initial Preparatory documents to the final Legal act, we uncover the political compromises, discarded drafts, and original intent, which are invaluable for challenging its interpretation in court.
• Precedent as a Weapon (APPEALS JR2COURT): The mind maps mandate that we use appeals to the highest courts as a core offensive strategy.¹ EUR-Lex is our primary armoury for this, providing direct access to the entire body of case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). We will build a library of judgments that define the limits of regulatory power, which will arm every submission we make.
• The WPI Definition Engine: The concept of “Public Interest” (WPI) is a key battleground.¹ Its meaning is defined and shaped by EU treaties, regulations, and court judgments. We will use EUR-Lex to master the EU’s definition of WPI, allowing us to frame our arguments in the language of the institutions and deconstruct the self-serving narratives of our opponents.
• The USP-to-WTO Foundation: Every EU regulation that acts as a non-tariff trade barrier (a Product Standard, PS) is published here.¹ We will use EUR-Lex to find the precise legal text of these standards. This text is the incontrovertible evidence of the barrier’s existence, forming the core of our USP to harmed non-EU nations and their companies (e.g., US producers like Monsanto).¹

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

Mastery of EUR-Lex’s powerful search capabilities is paramount. Its structured nature allows for surgical intelligence gathering that is impossible with standard search engines.

• Official Search Rules & Functionality: Based on the platform’s design and our intelligence, here are the key search rules we will exploit ²:

• Key Platform Features & Filters:
  • Collections: The ability to limit a search to a specific document Collection is our primary tool for focused research. Key collections include Legal acts, Case-law, and Preparatory documents.²
  • Author: We can filter by the specific EU institution that produced the document, such as the European Commission or the Court of Justice.²
  • Date: We can filter by various date types (Date of document, Date of publication, etc.) and specify exact dates or ranges.²
  • EuroVoc Thesaurus: This is a superior alternative to simple keyword searching. It allows us to search by structured, official EU topics like competition law, public contract, or trade barrier, ensuring comprehensive and accurate results across all EU languages.²
  • Document Type: We can filter by specific legal instruments, such as Regulation, Directive, or Decision.⁵
  • Procedure: We can track all documents related to a single legislative procedure, allowing us to see its entire history in one place.²

3. Strategic Interrogation: The Questions We Ask

We interrogate EUR-Lex to find the legal facts and precedents that will win our cases.

• For Challenge Discretion & APPEALS:

  • “What is the full legislative history of the Digital Markets Act? Search the Lawmaking procedures collection to find the initial Commission proposal and all subsequent amendments to understand the political intent behind key articles.”
  • “Find all judgments from the Court of Justice that interpret Article 102 TFEU (Dominant positions) in the context of the pharmaceuticals sector. What is the established case law on ‘excessive pricing’?”
  • “What are the exact legal grounds on which the Commission based its decision in the “ antitrust case? Search the Case-law collection for the case number and analyze the text of the decision.”

• For USP-to-WTO & Trade Barrier Analysis:

  • “What is the full legal text of the EU regulation imposing new ‘sustainability’ standards on imported textiles? Search the Legal acts collection for Regulation with keywords textiles AND sustainability after a specific date.”
  • “Find the EU’s ‘Trade Barrier Regulation’. Search the Consolidated texts collection to ensure we have the most up-to-date version to cite in our USP to a non-EU government.”

• For FOC DAM & State Aid:

  • “Find the Commission Decision that declared the state aid to the airline “ illegal. What were the specific legal grounds cited in the judgment that we can use to build a damages claim for a competitor like Ryanair?”

4. The COCOO-EUR-Lex Strategic Playbook: A Model for Action

The following playbooks provide standardized workflows for using EUR-Lex to generate decisive legal intelligence.

Playbook A: The “Legislative Autopsy” Protocol

• Objective: To deconstruct any EU law to find its strategic weaknesses and unstated political intent.
• Execution:
  1. Find the Law: Use the search to find the final Legal act (e.g., a specific Regulation or Directive).
  2. Find the Procedure: On the document’s page, navigate to the “Lawmaking procedure” tab. This is the central hub for the autopsy.
  3. Harvest Preparatory Acts: From the procedure page, download all key Preparatory documents: the initial European Commission proposal, the opinions of the Economic and Social Committee, and the reports from the European Parliament.
  4. Identify the Changes: Compare the text of the initial proposal with the final adopted text. What was removed? What was added? These changes reveal the political compromises and can expose ambiguities or weaknesses in the final text that can be exploited in litigation.
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook provides COCOO with a deep, nuanced understanding of a law that goes far beyond its surface text, providing unique angles to challenge its application or interpretation.

Playbook B: The “Precedent Hunter” (APPEALS Engine)

• Objective: To find the specific case law needed to attack a regulator’s decision or build an appeal.
• Execution:
  1. Go to Advanced Search: Select the Case-law collection.²
  2. Target the Court: Filter by Author: “Court of Justice of the European Union”.²
  3. Use EuroVoc for Precision: Use the Theme filter to select a precise legal topic from the EuroVoc thesaurus, such as “restrictive practice” or “dominant position”.² This is far more accurate than a simple keyword search.
  4. Add Contextual Keywords: In the text search box, add keywords for the specific industry or fact pattern (e.g., pharmaceuticals, rebates, refusal to supply).
  5. Analyze Judgments: Dissect the resulting judgments, looking for principles that have successfully overturned Commission or national regulator decisions.
• Strategic Outcome: This creates a targeted dossier of legal ammunition. When challenging a regulator, we can lead with, “As the Court of Justice held in Case C-XXX/XX…”, immediately grounding our argument in binding precedent.

Playbook C: The “Trade Barrier (PS) Identification” Engine

• Objective: To find the precise legal text of a non-tariff trade barrier to form the evidentiary core of a USP-to-WTO campaign.
• Execution:
  1. Identify the Suspected Barrier: From market intelligence, identify a new EU standard causing harm to a non-EU industry. Example: A new EU rule on the carbon footprint of imported steel.
  2. Isolate the Legal Act: Go to Advanced Search and select the Legal acts collection.² Filter Document type to “Regulation”.
  3. Search for Keywords: In the text search, use keywords relevant to the barrier.
     • Query: steel AND ("carbon footprint" OR CBAM OR "border adjustment")
  4. Filter by Date: Use the Date of document filter to narrow the search to acts published after the policy was announced.
  5. Retrieve the Text: Download the full PDF of the resulting regulation. The specific articles detailing the new requirements are the “smoking gun.”
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook provides the hard, indisputable legal evidence of a trade barrier’s existence. This evidence is the foundation of a USP to a harmed nation (e.g., approaching the government of Brazil or South Korea), transforming a general complaint into a specific, litigable issue.

JOIN US FREE         LIVE PROJECTS                                              ABOUT US   MEDIATION   ADVOCACY   DONATE  PRIVACY POLICY T&C

The COCOO-BAILII Doctrine: A Strategic Model for Precedent Warfare

This doctrine establishes the protocol for interrogating the BAILII case law database (bailii.org). This is not a passive legal archive; it is the primary battlefield for precedent in the UK and Ireland. We will weaponize this platform to unearth the specific legal arguments that dismantle our opponents’ cases, find the procedural errors that invalidate regulatory decisions, and build the unshakable legal foundations for our most critical strategic plays, including Challenge Discretion, APPEALS (JR2COURT), and FOC DAM (Find Other Claimants, Monetize Damages).

1. Core Principles of Interrogation

Our use of BAILII is governed by the most fundamental principles of the COCOO framework. We are not just reading judgments; we are reverse-engineering victory.

• Precedent as a Weapon: The mind maps mandate that we use appeals and judicial review as a core offensive strategy.¹ BAILII is our primary armoury for this. We will build a library of judgments where courts have overturned regulators, establishing the precedents that will arm our own challenges.
• The Engine of Challenge Discretion: The doctrine of challenging the discretionary power of public bodies is won or lost on legal precedent.¹ We will use BAILII to find every instance where a court has found a regulator’s decision to be irrational, disproportionate, or procedurally unfair. This creates a map of their legal vulnerabilities.
• The Legal Foundation for FOC DAM: While BAILII does not identify claimants directly, it provides the legal principles essential for a successful FOC DAM campaign.¹ We will find cases that establish a low bar for causation, a broad duty of care, or a generous approach to quantifying damages, which we can then apply to our new class of victims.
• Judicial Noisefilter: BAILII acts as a high-level Noisefilter for legal strategy.¹ By analyzing the frequency and outcomes of cases on a particular topic, we can gauge the judicial appetite for certain arguments, allowing us to focus our resources on strategies that are most likely to succeed in court.

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

Mastery of BAILII’s Advanced Search is paramount. Its power lies in its support for precise Boolean logic and its granular jurisdiction filters.

• Official Search Rules & Functionality: As requested, here are the official search rules for the platform, which we will exploit to their fullest extent ²:

• Key Platform Features:
  • Granular Jurisdiction Filters: As seen in the screenshot, we can isolate our search to specific courts (Supreme Court, Court of Appeal (Civil Division)) and tribunals (Competition Appeal Tribunal), or entire jurisdictions (England & Wales, Scotland, Europe). This is critical for finding the most relevant and binding precedents.¹
  • Date Filtering: The ability to search within a specific date range allows us to track the evolution of judicial thinking on a particular topic.
  • Sorting Options: We can sort results by Relevance, Date, or Jurisdiction to prioritize the most recent or authoritative judgments.

3. Strategic Interrogation: The Questions We Ask

We interrogate BAILII to find the legal ammunition for our campaigns and the weaknesses in our opponents’ armour.

• For Challenge Discretion & APPEALS (JR2COURT):

  • “What are the leading cases where the Court of Appeal has overturned a decision of the Competition and Markets Authority on the grounds of procedural unfairness or a flawed interpretation of the evidence?”
  • “Find all judgments from the last 5 years where a court has quashed a decision by Ofgem or Ofwat for failing to give adequate reasons.”
  • “Which arguments have successfully been used to establish a ‘legitimate expectation’ in a judicial review against a government department’s change in policy?”

• For FOC DAM & Monetizing Harm:

  • “What is the current case law on establishing causation for economic loss in claims against a cartel, for example, the trucks cartel?”
  • “Find all cases discussing the duty of care owed by a privatized utility, like Thames Water, to residents affected by its operational failures (e.g., sewer flooding).”
  • “Which recent cases have set precedents for the assessment of damages in large-scale consumer group actions?”

• For WPI (Public Interest) & Narrative Framing:

  • “How have the UK courts defined the ‘public interest’ in the context of merger control or environmental regulation? Which factors do they weigh most heavily?”
  • “Find cases where a company’s compliance with a ‘Code of Conduct’ was considered by the court as a mitigating or aggravating factor.”

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

The following playbooks provide standardized workflows for using BAILII to generate decisive legal intelligence.

Playbook A: The “Regulator Vulnerability” Audit

• Objective: To build a dossier of a specific regulator’s past legal defeats, creating a playbook of arguments to use in our own challenges.
• Execution:
  1. Isolate the Target: On the Advanced Search page, construct a query to find cases where the target regulator is a party.
     • Query: ("Competition and Markets Authority" OR CMA) OR ("Office of Communications" OR Ofcom)
  2. Find the Losses: Add terms that indicate a negative outcome for the regulator.
     • Query: (("Competition and Markets Authority" OR CMA) AND (appeal OR overturned OR quashed OR "procedural irregularity")) NOT criminal
  3. Filter by Court: Use the jurisdiction filter to limit results to the most authoritative courts, such as the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) and the Supreme Court.
  4. Dissect the Judgments: Analyze the resulting cases, paying forensic attention to the exact paragraphs where the judges critique the regulator’s reasoning, evidence, or procedure.
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook produces an invaluable “Regulator Weakness Dossier.” When COCOO challenges a new decision, we can arm our submission with direct citations to past rulings that have defeated the regulator on similar grounds, putting them immediately on the defensive.

Playbook B: The “Judicial Review Ammunition” Depot

• Objective: To find the specific legal arguments and precedents needed to launch a powerful judicial review (JR) against a public body’s decision.
• Execution:
  1. Define the Grounds: Determine the legal grounds for the JR (e.g., Illegality, Irrationality, Procedural Impropriety).
  2. Construct the Search: Create a highly specific search query combining the grounds with the context.
     • Scenario: Challenging a government department’s award of a public contract to a competitor like Serco or Capita.
     • Query: ("public contract" OR procurement) AND ("judicial review") AND (irrational OR unreasonable OR "error of law")
  3. Refine by Defendant Type: Add keywords to focus on the type of defendant.
     • Query: ("public contract" OR procurement) AND ("judicial review") AND (irrational OR unreasonable) AND ("Secretary of State" OR "government department")
  4. Extract the Principles: From the resulting judgments, extract the precise legal tests and principles the courts have applied when assessing the lawfulness of public contract awards.
• Strategic Outcome: This provides COCOO with a pre-packaged set of legal arguments, supported by direct precedent, ready to be deployed in a USP to a losing bidder or in our own direct challenge. It dramatically reduces the research time needed to launch a high-impact JR.

Playbook C: The “Legal Doctrine” Mapper

• Objective: To map the evolution of a key legal concept over time, allowing COCOO to align its strategy with the prevailing judicial winds.
• Execution:
  1. Select the Doctrine: Choose a legal concept critical to COCOO’s operations. Example: The “polluter pays” principle.
  2. Run a Time-Series Search: Conduct a series of searches, filtering by date range.
     • Query 1: "polluter pays principle" with Date filter 2010-2015.
     • Query 2: "polluter pays principle" with Date filter 2016-2020.
     • Query 3: "polluter pays principle" with Date filter 2021-Present.
  3. Analyze the Evolution: Compare the judgments from each period. Has the judicial interpretation become stricter or more lenient? Are the courts applying it to new situations? Are they citing different international conventions or domestic statutes?
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook gives COCOO a unique strategic foresight. By understanding how judicial attitudes are shifting, we can anticipate how a court is likely to rule on a future case. We can advise clients to settle cases that align with a strengthening judicial trend against them, or to aggressively litigate cases where the judicial tide is turning in their favor.

JOIN US FREE         LIVE PROJECTS                                              ABOUT US   MEDIATION   ADVOCACY   DONATE  PRIVACY POLICY T&C

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.

JOIN US FREE         LIVE PROJECTS                                              ABOUT US   MEDIATION   ADVOCACY   DONATE  PRIVACY POLICY T&C

The COCOO-CAT Doctrine: A Strategic Model for Judicial Leverage and Precedent Analysis

This doctrine establishes the protocol for interrogating the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s case database (catribunal.org.uk). This is not a passive case law library; it is the primary UK arena for challenging regulators and monetizing competition law claims. We will weaponize this platform to find the legal precedents that break our opponents’ cases, identify the procedural weaknesses of regulators, monitor our competitors’ legal battles, and find the pathways to launch our most ambitious FOC DAM and APPEALS (JR2COURT) strategies.

1. Core Principles of Interrogation

Our use of the CAT database is governed by the most fundamental principles of the COCOO framework. We are not just reading judgments; we are reverse-engineering victory.

• The Arena for Challenge Discretion: The CAT is the ultimate forum for challenging the discretionary power of UK regulators, primarily the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). Every case where the CMA is a respondent is a potential lesson in how to dismantle a regulator’s arguments. We will study their losses to map their vulnerabilities.
• Precedent as a Weapon (APPEALS/JR2COURT): The mind maps mandate that we use appeals and judicial review as a core strategy.¹ The CAT is the source of the precedents that will arm these challenges. We will build a library of successful arguments on issues like evidence, procedure, and theories of harm, which will form the backbone of our own submissions.
• The FOC DAM Proving Ground: The CAT is the venue for certifying collective proceedings (class actions) under Section 47B of the Competition Act. We will monitor these cases to identify which types of claims are gaining traction, which law firms are leading the charge, and which consumer groups are being formed. This intelligence is critical for originating our own FOC DAM (Find Other Claimants, Monetize Damages) actions or for joining existing ones.¹
• Live Competitor Intelligence: The CAT database is a real-time feed of our competitors’ most serious legal problems. By tracking cases involving firms like Pfizer, Advanz, or Vauxhall, we gain invaluable insight into their strategies, liabilities, and pressure points.

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

Mastery of the CAT’s search and filtering capabilities is essential. Its structured data allows for surgical precision in our intelligence gathering.

• Official Search Rules & Functionality: Based on the platform’s design and our intelligence, the key search capabilities are as follows:
  • Search by case name or number: A primary text search box for targeting known cases or parties (e.g., “Vodafone,” “1581/5/7/23”).
  • Status Filter: A critical filter to isolate cases based on their procedural stage. The options are:
    • Current: Active, ongoing cases.
    • Stayed: Cases that are paused.
    • Archived: Completed cases.
  • Case type Filter: Our most powerful tool for strategic analysis. This allows us to isolate specific types of legal actions, including:
    • Section 47A Competition Act 1998 (Monetary Claims): Standard damages claims.
    • Section 47B Competition Act 1998 (Collective Proceedings): The UK’s class action regime.
    • Section 120 Enterprise Act 2002 (Merger Reviews): Appeals against CMA merger decisions.
    • Section 179 Enterprise Act 2002 (Market Reviews): Appeals against CMA market investigation decisions.
    • Section 70 Subsidy Control Act 2022: Challenges related to state subsidies.
  • Respondent type Filter: Allows us to focus on cases against specific types of entities, most importantly:
    • Competition and Markets Authority
    • Private Party
    • Secretary of State
    • Ofcom (Office of Communications)
  • Year registered Filter: Allows for temporal analysis by specifying a start and end year for when cases were filed.

3. Strategic Interrogation: The Questions We Ask

We interrogate the CAT database to find the legal ammunition for our campaigns.

• For Challenge Discretion & APPEALS (JR2COURT):

  • “Which legal arguments have been most successful in Merger Reviews (Section 120) against the CMA in the last five years? What were the key procedural errors the CAT identified in the CMA’s original decisions?”
  • “Show me all Current cases where Ofcom is the respondent. What are the common themes and legal challenges being brought against their decisions?”
  • “Has any party successfully challenged the CMA on the basis of a ‘flawed theory of harm’?” ¹

• For FOC DAM & Collective Actions:

  • “Which Collective Proceedings (Section 47B) have been certified by the CAT in the last 24 months? Who are the proposed class representatives and which law firms are acting for them?”
  • “Are there any ongoing Monetary Claims (Section 47A) in the [e.g., automotive parts] sector that we can use as a precedent for our own planned action?”
  • “In the Merchant Interchange Fee Umbrella Proceedings, what were the key arguments that led to the case being structured as it is?” ²

• For Competitor Analysis:

  • “What is the full history of litigation involving [e.g., Apple or Google] before the CAT? What were the outcomes and key rulings?”
  • “Is our target for a MATOIPO analysis, [Company X], currently a defendant in any private damages claims? What is their potential financial exposure?”

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

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

Playbook A: The “Regulator Vulnerability” Audit

• Objective: To build a dossier of a regulator’s past legal defeats and procedural errors, creating a playbook of arguments to use in our own challenges.
• Execution:
  1. Isolate the Target: On the CAT cases page, use the Respondent type filter and select “Competition and Markets Authority”.
  2. Select the Battleground: Use the Case type filter to focus on a specific area of interest, for example, “Section 120 Enterprise Act 2002 (Merger Reviews)”.
  3. Find the Losses: Review the list of Archived cases. Identify all cases where the judgment was against the CMA.
  4. Dissect the Judgment: Download and analyze the full text of the judgments for these cases. Pay forensic attention to the specific points of law and evidence where the Tribunal found the CMA’s reasoning to be flawed.
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook produces an invaluable “CMA Weakness Report.” When COCOO challenges a new CMA decision, we can arm our submission with direct citations to the CAT’s own past rulings that have overturned the CMA on similar grounds, dramatically increasing our credibility and leverage.

Playbook B: The “Collective Action (FOC DAM)” Intelligence Sweep

• Objective: To maintain a real-time map of the UK’s collective action landscape, identifying trends, key players, and opportunities for COCOO to engage.
• Execution:
  1. Isolate Collective Actions: Use the Case type filter and select “Section 47B Competition Act 1998 (Collective Proceedings)”.
  2. Focus on Live Cases: Use the Status filter and select “Current”.
  3. Map the Landscape: Review the resulting case list. For each case, identify:
     • The defendant company (e.g., Apple, Google, Amazon).
     • The industry being targeted (e.g., tech, financial services, transport).
     • The proposed class representative (the individual or entity bringing the claim).
     • The law firms and litigation funders involved.
• Strategic Outcome: This provides COCOO with a strategic overview of the most lucrative and active areas for group litigation in the UK. It allows us to identify potential partners for collaboration, spot gaps in the market for new claims we could originate, and understand the evolving judicial appetite for different types of class actions.

Playbook C: The “Live Competitor” Litigation Monitor

• Objective: To maintain a continuous watch on the legal entanglements of key corporate competitors or targets.
• Execution:
  1. Set Up Recurring Search: On a weekly or monthly basis, use the main Search by case name or number box to search for the names of COCOO’s top 10 strategic competitors or targets (e.g., BT, Vodafone, Sky).
  2. Analyze New Filings: Review any new cases that appear. Is our competitor a claimant or a respondent? Who is on the other side?
  3. Track Case Progression: For any active case of high interest, click through to the case page and review the key documents and hearing dates. This provides insight into the case’s trajectory and potential impact.
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook functions as an early warning system. It alerts COCOO to significant legal risks facing our competitors, potentially revealing operational weaknesses, distracting management attention, or creating financial liabilities that could be exploited in a MATOIPO scenario or a competitive tender.

JOIN US FREE         LIVE PROJECTS                                              ABOUT US   MEDIATION   ADVOCACY   DONATE  PRIVACY POLICY T&C

The COCOO-Violation Tracker Doctrine: A Strategic Model for Corporate Accountability

This doctrine establishes the protocol for interrogating Violation Tracker UK (violationtrackeruk.goodjobsfirst.org), a comprehensive database of corporate regulatory infringements. This is not a historical archive; it is a live weapon system. We will use this platform to systematically identify corporate wrongdoing, build irrefutable evidence dossiers for our complaints (COCON), find entire classes of victims (FOC DAM), disqualify competitors from public tenders, and expose the “Enforcement Gaps” that are central to our strategy of challenging regulatory discretion. This platform is the primary engine for turning corporate misconduct into strategic leverage for COCOO.

1. Core Principles of Interrogation

Our use of Violation Tracker is governed by the most aggressive principles of the COCOO framework. We are not just looking for violations; we are looking for patterns of impunity and the victims left in their wake.

• Violations as Evidence: Every entry in this database is a piece of adjudicated evidence of corporate failure. We will use this evidence as the factual bedrock for our complaints, media campaigns, and Unsolicited Proposals (USP), transforming our claims from allegations into documented facts.
• The FOC DAM Multiplier: The “Find Other Claimants, Monetize Damages” doctrine is the core of our mission.¹ Violation Tracker is its engine. A pattern of consumer-protection-related offences by a single company like Lloyds Banking Group or Barclays proves that the harm is not isolated, instantly identifying a mass of potential claimants for a group action.²
• The Competitor Disqualification Engine: A key COCOO strategy is to “EXCLUDE THEM FROM EU PROC/CONCS” (public procurement/concessions).¹ A competitor’s rap sheet on Violation Tracker—for example, environmental violations by a utility like Thames Water or workplace safety violations by a contractor like Network Rail—is the perfect weapon to disqualify them from a public tender on risk, safety, and public interest grounds.²
• The Enforcement Gap Indictment: We will systematically compare the volume and type of violations recorded here against the stated priorities and performance reports of regulators (found on data.gov.uk). A high number of penalties for water pollution, coupled with the regulator’s own data showing rising pollution levels, is proof of an “Enforcement Gap” and forms the basis of a WPI (Public Interest) complaint against the regulator itself for failing in its duty.¹

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

Mastery of Violation Tracker’s Advanced Search is paramount. Its granular filtering allows us to dissect the landscape of corporate misconduct with surgical precision.

• Official Search Rules & Functionality: The Advanced Search page is our primary interface. The rules and options for interrogation are as follows ²:
  • COMPANY OR CURRENT PARENT: Search by company name. Supports operators like “Starts with,” “Contains any word,” and “Is equal to.”
  • PARENT AT THE TIME OF PENALTY: Search for the parent company at the time of the offence, crucial for tracking liability through M&A activity.
  • PENALTY AMOUNT (£): Filter by the size of the penalty, using operators like “Is greater than” to focus only on the most significant cases.
  • AGENCY: A critical filter allowing us to isolate all enforcement actions by a specific regulator (e.g., Competition and Markets Authority, Environment Agency, Financial Conduct Authority).
  • PARENT INDUSTRY: Filter by broad industry sectors (e.g., financial services, utilities and power generation) to conduct sectoral analysis.
  • OFFENCE GROUP: A high-level filter for the category of misconduct. This is a primary tool for strategic analysis. The groups are:
    • competition-related offences
    • consumer-protection-related offences
    • employment-related offences
    • environment-related offences
    • financial offences
    • healthcare-related offences
    • safety-related offences
  • OFFENCE TYPE: The most powerful filter, allowing for highly granular targeting of specific violations. The list is extensive and includes, but is not limited to:
    • price-fixing or anti-competitive practices
    • consumer protection violation
    • environmental violation
    • water pollution violation
    • workplace safety or health violation
    • anti-money-laundering deficiencies
    • bribery
    • fraud
  • Other Filters: The platform also allows filtering by Parent Ownership Structure (e.g., publicly traded, privately held), Year, UK NATION/REGION, and Full Text search across all record fields.

3. Strategic Interrogation: The Questions We Ask

We interrogate this database to find the patterns of misconduct that fuel our campaigns.

• For Competitor Analysis & Disqualification:

  • “Our competitor for a major public infrastructure contract is “. What is their complete history of workplace safety or health violation and environmental violation offences over the last 10 years?”
  • “Generate a list of all penalties over £1 million issued by the Agency: ‘Health and Safety Executive’. Which construction and engineering firms appear most frequently?”

• For FOC DAM & Mass Victim Identification:

  • “Which UK banks and financial services firms, such as “, have the highest number of penalties for Offence Group: ‘consumer-protection-related offences’ and Offence Type: ‘investor protection violation’?”
  • “Show me all penalties issued to UK water companies, including “, for Offence Type: ‘water pollution violation’. This data will form the basis of a class action on behalf of affected communities.”

• For The Enforcement Gap Indictment:

  • “The Gambling Commission claims to be cracking down on the industry. Search for all penalties issued by Agency: ‘UKGC’ for Offence Type: ‘gambling industry violation’. How do the penalty amounts compare to the profits of the companies involved, like [e.g., Entain or Flutter Entertainment]? Does the data suggest the penalties are merely a cost of doing business?”
  • “The CMA has stated that tackling cartels is a priority. Generate a list of all penalties for Offence Type: ‘price-fixing or anti-competitive practices’. How many of these cases were initiated by the CMA versus being follow-on actions from EU decisions? This helps assess their proactivity.”

4. The COCOO-Violation Tracker Strategic Playbook: A Model for Action

The following playbooks provide standardized workflows for using this platform to generate high-impact intelligence.

Playbook A: The “Public Tender Disqualification” Dossier

• Objective: To build an evidence-based risk dossier on a competitor to disqualify them from a public procurement process.
• Execution:
  1. Identify Target: A competitor, “, is bidding for a government contract.
  2. Conduct Violation Search: On Violation Tracker’s Advanced Search, enter the competitor’s name in the COMPANY OR CURRENT PARENT field. Do not filter by offence type initially to get a complete picture.
  3. Categorize Offences: Analyze the results. Group the violations by Offence Group (e.g., Employment-related, Safety-related, Financial).
  4. Quantify the Risk: Tally the total number of violations and the total penalty amounts.
  5. Draft the “Risk Memorandum”: Prepare a formal submission to the contracting authority’s Procurement Review Unit. The memo will not make accusations but will present the public facts: “For your due diligence, we wish to highlight publicly available data from Violation Tracker UK, which shows that [Competitor X] has incurred [Number] penalties totaling [£ Amount] since 2010 for offences including [list 2-3 most serious offence types]. This data may be relevant when assessing bidder reliability and reputational risk to the government.”
• Strategic Outcome: This places the onus on the contracting authority to justify awarding a contract to a company with a documented history of misconduct, creating powerful leverage to have them disqualified.

Playbook B: The “Mass Victim (FOC DAM)” Generator

• Objective: To use a pattern of consumer or environmental violations to identify a large class of victims for a potential group action.
• Execution:
  1. Identify Systemic Abuse: On the Advanced Search, filter by Offence Group: “consumer-protection-related offences” and Parent Industry: “retailing” or “financial services”.
  2. Isolate the Worst Offender: Sort the results to identify the parent company with the highest total penalties or number of cases. Example: A major high-street bank or a “Big Six” energy supplier like E.ON.
  3. Analyze the Violation Type: Drill down into the specific Offence Type for that company. Is there a recurring pattern of consumer protection violation related to mis-selling or unfair fees?
  4. Build the Coalition: The existence of dozens or hundreds of adjudicated violations proves that the harm is widespread. This data is the core evidence used to launch a media campaign to find individual victims and build a coalition for a mass claim.
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook transforms regulatory penalties into a powerful case origination engine, allowing COCOO to identify and mobilize a large group of claimants with a pre-existing, officially documented grievance.

Playbook C: The “Enforcement Gap” Indictment

• Objective: To build an irrefutable, data-driven case that a specific regulator is failing in its statutory duty, creating the grounds for a judicial review or high-level political intervention.
• Execution:
  1. Select Regulator: Choose a regulator to audit, e.g., the Environment Agency.
  2. Harvest Violation Data: On Violation Tracker, filter by Agency: “Environment Agency” and Offence Group: “environment-related offences”. Export the data.
  3. Harvest Performance Data: On data.gov.uk, find the Environment Agency’s own published annual reports and performance data (Playbook A from the data.gov.uk doctrine).
  4. Find the Contradiction: Compare the datasets. Does the Violation Tracker data show a rising number of penalties for a specific Offence Type (e.g., water pollution violation) in a specific region, while the regulator’s own performance data shows they are meeting their targets for that region? This contradiction is the “Enforcement Gap.”
  5. Deploy the Challenge: This evidence is used to Challenge Discretion. A formal complaint is sent to the regulator and its overseeing government department (e.g., Defra), stating: “Your own data and the public enforcement record show a clear disconnect between your stated performance and the reality of environmental harm. We demand an explanation for this enforcement gap.”
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook positions COCOO as a highly sophisticated public watchdog, capable of holding regulators to account using their own data. This creates immense political leverage and can force systemic changes that COCOO can then offer to mediate.

JOIN US FREE         LIVE PROJECTS                                              ABOUT US   MEDIATION   ADVOCACY   DONATE  PRIVACY POLICY T&C

The COCOO-data.gov.uk Doctrine: A Strategic Model for Public Sector Intelligence

This doctrine establishes the protocol for interrogating data.gov.uk, the UK’s central repository for open government data. This is not a simple data library; it is a strategic intelligence asset. We will weaponize this platform to find the evidence of public sector failure, identify systemic risks, uncover data that supports our WPI (Public Interest) campaigns, and source the raw material for high-value Unsolicited Proposals (USP) to government bodies. This platform is a primary engine for our Challenge Discretion and FOC DAM (Find Other Claimants) strategies when the defendant is a public authority.

1. Core Principles of Interrogation

Our use of data.gov.uk is governed by the most sophisticated principles of the COCOO framework. We are not just browsing datasets; we are hunting for the evidence that holds power to account.

• Data as the Weapon Against the State: Our primary mission is to find the government’s own data and use it as a weapon to challenge its actions or inaction. When a regulator fails, its own performance reports, published on data.gov.uk, will be the evidence we use to prove it. This is the core of the Challenge Discretion doctrine.¹
• The Enforcement Gap Engine: A key COCOO strategy is to identify the gap between a public body’s stated mission and its actual performance. We will achieve this by cross-referencing enforcement data from Violation Tracker with the strategic plans, budgets, and performance metrics published by the same government departments on data.gov.uk. A documented discrepancy is an actionable “Enforcement Gap”.¹
• The USP Catalyst: Every dataset that reveals a problem—inefficient spending, poor service delivery, environmental degradation—is a potential catalyst for a USP.¹ We will analyze public data to identify a problem the government has not yet solved, and then present COCOO as the unique, data-driven partner with the solution.
• The FOC DAM Multiplier (Public Sector Edition): When a public body’s failure harms one entity (e.g., one company denied a grant due to a flawed process), we will use data.gov.uk to find data on the entire program, identifying every other company that was similarly affected. This allows us to aggregate individual grievances into a powerful, systemic challenge.¹

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

Mastery of data.gov.uk requires understanding its structure as a federated catalogue of datasets published by hundreds of different public bodies.

• Official Search Rules & Functionality: The platform’s search functionality is designed to help users find specific datasets across the entire UK public sector.
  • Keyword Search: The primary search bar on the homepage allows for a keyword search across all dataset metadata (titles, descriptions, etc.).²
  • Autocomplete: The search bar now includes an autocomplete feature, suggesting search terms as you type to speed up discovery.⁴
  • Filtering: The most powerful feature is the ability to filter search results. As seen in the screenshot and confirmed by the site’s design, key filters include:
    • Publisher: This is a critical filter. It allows us to isolate all datasets published by a specific government department, agency, or public body (e.g., “Environment Agency,” “Ministry of Defence,” “Food Standards Agency”).⁵
    • Topic: Allows filtering by broad subject areas like “Business and economy,” “Crime and justice,” “Environment,” or “Government spending.”²
    • Format: Allows filtering by data format (e.g., CSV, XLS, API), which is useful for finding machine-readable data for large-scale analysis.⁵
  • API Access: The platform has a CKAN-based API that allows for programmatic searching and retrieval of dataset metadata. This enables the potential for automated monitoring and large-scale data harvesting.⁶

3. Strategic Interrogation: The Questions We Ask

We interrogate this platform not as data scientists, but as solicitors building a case against public bodies or identifying systemic failures.

• For Challenge Discretion & The Enforcement Gap:

  • “The Environment Agency has fined [Water Company] for pollution. Search data.gov.uk for all datasets published by the Publisher: ‘Environment Agency’ with Keywords: ‘performance’, ‘enforcement’, ‘targets’. Does their own data show a decline in enforcement actions or a failure to meet their own pollution reduction targets?”
  • “The CMA has cleared a controversial merger. Search for all datasets published by the Publisher: ‘Competition and Markets Authority’ with Keywords: ‘market study’, ‘prioritisation principles’. Does their published research contradict the reasoning in their merger decision?”

• For USP Origination:

  • “Search for all datasets with Topic: ‘Government spending’ and Keywords: ‘consultancy’, ‘outsourcing’. Can we identify a government department, like the “, that is spending excessively on fragmented, short-term contracts for a service that COCOO could provide more efficiently as a single, integrated solution?”
  • “Search for datasets related to ‘Cattle Conditions’ published by the Publisher: ‘Food Standards Agency’.⁵ Does this data reveal systemic issues in the food supply chain that could form the basis of a USP to the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) to improve traceability?”

• For FOC DAM & Systemic Harm:

  • “A client’s business was destroyed by a major flood event. Search for all datasets from the Publisher: ‘Environment Agency’ related to ‘Flood risk’, ‘flood defences’, and ‘investment’. Is there data showing that investment in flood defences in that specific region has been consistently below planned levels, creating a basis for a negligence claim and identifying all other affected postcodes?”
  • “A group of farmers claims a new agricultural subsidy scheme is being administered unfairly. Search for all datasets related to the administration of this scheme. Does the data show a statistical bias towards larger farms, allowing us to identify the entire class of smaller farms that have been disadvantaged?”

4. The COCOO-data.gov.uk Strategic Playbook: A Model for Action

The following playbooks provide standardized workflows for using this platform to generate high-impact, evidence-based challenges and opportunities.

Playbook A: The “Regulator Autopsy” Protocol

• Objective: To build a comprehensive intelligence dossier on a specific UK regulator or public body, using their own data to identify weaknesses and contradictions.
• Execution:
  1. Select the Target: Choose a specific public body of interest (e.g., Ofgem, the energy regulator).
  2. Isolate Their Data: On data.gov.uk, use the Publisher filter to show only datasets published by Ofgem.
  3. Harvest Key Documents: Search within this filtered set for keywords like “corporate plan,” “annual report,” “performance metrics,” “enforcement statistics,” and “consultation responses.”
  4. Cross-Reference with External Data: Compare the regulator’s self-published performance data with enforcement data from Violation Tracker and with news reports of their failures.
  5. Identify the Contradiction: The goal is to find a direct contradiction. Example: The annual report claims “robust enforcement” as a key achievement, but the enforcement statistics dataset shows a 50% year-on-year decline in fines issued, and Violation Tracker shows major companies in their sector with repeat offences.
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook provides the “smoking gun” evidence needed to challenge a regulator’s discretionary decisions. It forms the core of a judicial review application or a powerful submission to a parliamentary select committee, positioning COCOO as a formidable public watchdog.

Playbook B: The “Data-Driven USP” Engine

• Objective: To identify a quantifiable public sector problem and use it as the foundation for a compelling, evidence-based Unsolicited Proposal.
• Execution:
  1. Scan for Problems: Browse data.gov.uk by Topic (e.g., “Transport,” “Health”). Look for datasets that measure inefficiency, delays, or negative outcomes. Example: A dataset on NHS waiting list times by region.
  2. Quantify the Problem: Analyze the dataset to find a clear, statistically significant problem. Example: The data shows that waiting times for a specific procedure in the North West are 40% higher than the national average and have been increasing for three consecutive years.
  3. Frame the Solution: Develop a COCOO-led solution. Example: A USP to NHS England proposing a new, data-driven patient pathway management system, mediated by COCOO, to be trialled in the North West to alleviate the identified backlog.
  4. Deploy the USP: Present the proposal to the relevant public body, leading with their own data: “Your own published data shows a critical and worsening problem in the North West. We have developed a targeted solution to address this.”
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook allows COCOO to create public contract opportunities out of thin air. By using the government’s own data to define the problem, our USP becomes almost impossible to ignore.

Playbook C: The “Geographic FOC DAM” Sweep

• Objective: To use geographically-tagged datasets to identify every potential victim of a localized public sector failure.
• Execution:
  1. Identify the Index Case: A client reports harm from a localized issue. Example: A business whose property was damaged by a burst water main from a utility like Thames Water.
  2. Search for Geographic Data: On data.gov.uk, search for datasets from the relevant regulator (e.g., Ofwat) or agency (e.g., Environment Agency) that contain geographic data (e.g., postcode, region). Example: A dataset of all reported water main failures and sewer flooding incidents by postcode.
  3. Map the “Hot Zone”: Analyze the dataset to see if the client’s incident is part of a larger cluster of similar incidents in the same geographic area.
  4. Build the Victim List: The list of affected postcodes is your target list. Use other tools to identify all residents and businesses within that “hot zone.”
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook transforms a single incident into a large-scale group action. It provides the statistical evidence to argue that the problem is not an isolated accident but a result of systemic negligence in a specific area, dramatically increasing the leverage and potential damages in a claim against the public body or privatized utility.

JOIN US FREE         LIVE PROJECTS                                              ABOUT US   MEDIATION   ADVOCACY   DONATE  PRIVACY POLICY T&C

The COCOO-Eurostat Doctrine: A Strategic Model for Macroeconomic Warfare

This doctrine establishes the protocol for interrogating the Eurostat Structural Business Statistics (SBS) database. This is not a simple data portal; it is a macroeconomic weapon. We will use this platform to move beyond single-company analysis and operate on the level of entire industries and national economies. Our mission is to use this official, harmonized data to build unimpeachable, evidence-based narratives of systemic market failure, identify sectors ripe for consolidation or disruption, benchmark our targets against their entire peer group, and find the statistical proof of harm needed to launch our most ambitious FOC DAM and USP campaigns. This platform is the engine for our Benchmarking, Porter analysis, and SIMPLEINDICATORS strategies.[1, 1, 1]

1. Core Principles of Interrogation

Our use of Eurostat is governed by the most strategic principles of the COCOO framework. We are not looking at statistics; we are looking for the pressure points in the European economy.

• The Unimpeachable Benchmark: Eurostat data is the gold standard for cross-country comparison. When we claim a company or an industry is underperforming, we will use Eurostat data to benchmark it against its EU peers. This transforms our arguments from opinion into statistical fact, providing the hard evidence needed for Benchmarking and Porter analysis.[1, 1]
• The Noisefilter for Systemic Trends: While other platforms show us individual corporate actions, Eurostat shows us the tide. It is the ultimate Noisefilter, allowing us to see if a problem reported by one company is an isolated incident or a systemic, sector-wide crisis affecting thousands of firms. A decline in profitability across an entire NACE code is not noise; it is a signal for a major intervention.[1, 1]
• The FOC DAM Census: The “Find Other Claimants, Monetize Damages” doctrine requires us to prove widespread harm.[1, 1] Eurostat provides the census data. If a dominant player’s actions are harming one small business, we will use Eurostat’s business demography data to show that thousands of similar small businesses in that sector are experiencing higher “death rates” and lower profitability, proving systemic injury.
• The USP Justification Engine: Every Unsolicited Proposal (USP) must be based on a clearly defined problem.¹ We will use Eurostat data to prove the existence of that problem on a macroeconomic scale. Example: A USP to a government to streamline regulations in a specific sector will be backed by Eurostat data showing that sector has a lower enterprise birth rate and lower productivity than the EU average.

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

Mastery of Eurostat requires understanding its structure as a multi-dimensional database, not a text search engine. The “search” is a process of surgical data extraction and filtering.

• Official Search Rules & Functionality: The Eurostat database is navigated via a data tree. The key is to select a specific dataset and then customize it by manipulating its dimensions.
  • Data Navigation Tree: The primary navigation method. As seen in the screenshot, we start at Structural business statistics (sbs) and drill down into specific datasets like Enterprise statistics on the whole business population (sbs_ovw) or Regional structural business statistics data (sbs_r).¹
  • Customisable Data Selection (The “Filters”): Once a dataset is selected, a customization panel appears. This is our primary control interface. We can filter and select data based on several dimensions:
    • GEO (Geopolitical entity): Allows filtering by individual EU member states, candidate countries, or aggregates like the Euro area (EA) and the entire EU.
    • NACE_R2 (Statistical classification of economic activities): Our most powerful filter. It allows us to select data for specific industries, from broad sections (e.g., C – Manufacturing) down to highly specific classes (e.g., C25.11 – Manufacture of metal structures).
    • INDIC_SB (SBS indicator): Allows us to select the specific economic variables we want to analyze, such as “Number of enterprises,” “Turnover,” “Value added at factor cost,” “Gross investment in tangible goods,” or “Personnel costs.”
    • SIZECLAS (Size class): Allows for filtering by company size (e.g., “Less than 10 persons employed,” “From 10 to 49 persons employed,” etc.), which is critical for analyzing the health of SMEs versus large enterprises.
    • TIME (Time): Allows for selecting annual data points to create time-series for trend analysis.
  • Data Export: The platform allows for the download of any customized data table in various formats, including Excel (XLSX) and CSV, for offline analysis and integration into our reports.

3. Strategic Interrogation: The Questions We Ask

We interrogate Eurostat to find the macroeconomic evidence that supports our micro-level strategic plays.

• For Benchmarking & Competitor Analysis:

  • “What is the average ‘Value added per person employed’ in the German automotive manufacturing sector (NACE C29) compared to the French and Italian sectors over the last five years? This provides a hard benchmark for the efficiency of major players like Volkswagen versus Renault or Stellantis.”
  • “How does the profitability (measured by Gross operating surplus) of the UK’s Financial Services sector (NACE K) compare to that of Luxembourg and Ireland? This provides context for the competitiveness of the City of London.”

• For StealthConsolid & Market Structure Analysis:

  • “What is the enterprise ‘death rate’ and average number of employees per enterprise in the Accommodation sector (NACE I55) in Spain versus the EU average? A higher death rate and rising average size could be a statistical footprint of a StealthConsolid operation by large hotel chains.”
  • “Show me the number of enterprises in the Computer programming, consultancy sector (NACE J62) broken down by size class. Is the number of small enterprises (1-9 employees) growing or shrinking relative to large enterprises? This reveals trends in market fragmentation or concentration.”

• For FOC DAM & Systemic Harm:

  • “A new environmental regulation was imposed in 2022. Show me the annual ‘Turnover’ and ‘Gross investment’ for the EU Chemicals manufacturing sector (NACE C20) from 2018 to the most recent year. Is there a statistically significant drop after 2022, providing evidence of systemic economic injury for a FOC DAM campaign?”
  • “A major retailer is accused of squeezing its suppliers. What is the trend in the ‘Gross operating rate’ (profitability) for the Manufacture of food products sector (NACE C10) over the last 10 years? A long-term decline supports a narrative of systemic abuse of buying power.”

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

The following playbooks provide standardized workflows for using Eurostat to generate powerful, data-driven intelligence.

Playbook A: The “Sectoral Autopsy” (Benchmarking Engine)

• Objective: To create a definitive, data-driven profile of a target industry’s health, structure, and performance relative to its European peers.
• Execution:
  1. Define the Market: Identify the primary 2-digit or 3-digit NACE code for the target industry (e.g., C21 – Manufacture of basic pharmaceutical products).
  2. Select Key Indicators: In the Eurostat database, navigate to the main annual enterprise statistics dataset. Select key performance indicators (INDIC_SB) such as “Turnover,” “Value added,” “Personnel costs,” and “Number of persons employed.”
  3. Select Peer Group: In the GEO dimension, select the target country and 3-4 key competitor countries (e.g., UK, Germany, France, Switzerland, Ireland for pharmaceuticals).
  4. Select Time Period: Choose a 5-10 year TIME period to analyze trends.
  5. Extract and Analyze: Download the data. Calculate key ratios like “Value added per employee” (productivity) and “Personnel costs as a % of Value added.”
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook produces a powerful “Sectoral Health Dossier” that can be used to prove a market is underperforming, justify a USP for a turnaround strategy, or provide irrefutable Benchmarking data in a complaint to a regulator like the CMA.

Playbook B: The “SME vs. Giants” Analysis

• Objective: To find evidence of market dynamics that disproportionately harm Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs), creating an opening for a WPI (Public Interest) campaign.
• Execution:
  1. Define the Sector: Select a NACE code where large players and SMEs coexist. Example: G47 – Retail trade, except of motor vehicles.
  2. Isolate by Size: In the dataset customization, use the SIZECLAS dimension. Select data for “Less than 10 persons employed” and “250 persons employed or more” as two separate queries.
  3. Compare Performance: For both size classes, extract time-series data for indicators like “Enterprise birth rate,” “Enterprise death rate,” and “Gross operating rate” (profitability).
  4. Find the Discrepancy: Analyze the trends. Is the death rate for SMEs increasing while their profitability is falling, whereas large enterprises are stable or growing? This is strong evidence of a market structure that squeezes out small players.
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook generates the statistical proof of a “two-tier” market. This evidence is invaluable for lobbying regulators, launching a media campaign about the decline of small businesses, and positioning COCOO as the champion for SMEs against large, dominant corporations.

Playbook C: The “Pre-USP Market Scan”

• Objective: To use macroeconomic data to identify and quantify a problem that will form the core justification for a high-value Unsolicited Proposal (USP).
• Execution:
  1. Formulate Hypothesis: Start with a strategic hypothesis. Example: “The renewable energy sector in Country X is underdeveloped compared to its potential.”
  2. Find Supporting Data: Go to Eurostat. Select the NACE code for Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (D35).
  3. Benchmark Investment: Compare the “Gross investment in tangible goods” for this sector in Country X against the EU leaders (e.g., Germany, Denmark, Spain) over the last 10 years.
  4. Quantify the Gap: If the data shows that investment in Country X is significantly lower as a percentage of value added, you have quantified the problem.
  5. Deploy the USP: Approach the government of Country X with the USP: “Our analysis of Eurostat data reveals your nation’s energy sector investment lags significantly behind EU leaders, representing a major missed economic and environmental opportunity. COCOO has developed a proposal to create a new investment framework to attract the capital needed to close this gap.”
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook uses the EU’s own official data to prove to a government that they have a problem they need to solve, positioning COCOO not as a mere consultant, but as a strategic partner with the data-driven insight to identify and fix national-level issues.