COCOOs STEPS
*since im not abogado, ni abogado autonomo (sole practitioner), but inhouse solicitor >> PROMPTsteps: 1/identify potential points of law and points of fact where EU law could assert jurisdiction 2/identify potential points of law and points of fact where UK law could assert jurisdiction. 3/browse the internet to find more points of fact and of law, and precedents, etc, to find more information about legal cases or investigations regarding any of the parties involved in our complaints, or in the same issuies of our complaints. 4/redraf the complaints, each of them highlighting the eu jurisdiction, the uk jurisdiction, and the spanish jurisdiction of lasw could be asserted in each complaint.
1/ IDENTIFY PERPETRATORS: by sending NRLAS (denuncias/complaints…) to cmas/plcs, which are carefully DRAFTED IN A SUBTLE WAY, to press the responder into giving CLARIFICATIONs and NEW INSIGHTS, AND NEW INTERPRETATIONs OF A POINT OF LAW OR OF FACT >> ideally try to force A DECISION-MAKING RESPONSE, containing (even more ideally) a new FOI* >> FOC…. *NEW.FOIS (finding of infringement >> BINDING) can be found not only in ‘PROPER’ cnmc.cma decisions (that follow investigation)….but FOIS may also be found (less likely) in any cnmc.cma letter (ex.reply to a denuncia), and are equally BINDING. Also, THE sa.ECA report states: that EC is failing their duty to implement transparency laws (ex to show if a given SA is lawful or not), because the only way to implement them is filing infringement procs (v.Members that breach eulaw), but EC is failing to file them and therefore cannot possibly know if its decisions are correct (ex. a EC decision to grant SA is lawful or not, or a EC decis as to wether a given SA is lawful or not, or a EC decis as to whether the SA was lawfully used or not)……COCOO: THE CNMC IS ALSO FAILING TO IMPLEMENT TRANSP.LAWS
2/ who is the clp.breaching-UA-party, that is contractually liable for the fees & costs of arb?: my target
3/cocoo to + X.GROK, to recruit (as Members of cocoo and/or class) the clp victims (of my target)
4/cocoo to PAP for mass.arb, on behalf of cocoo’s members and of class members
…….but be careful not to: interfere with the defendant’s contracts with suppliers/clients . not to seek settlements lower than the cost of arb.filing.fees, but true intent to go to arb…..ex: law firm Zaiger, PAP to bring numerous antitrust arbitration cases (mass.arb) on behalf of Steam customers, but : Valve Corporation v. Zaiger, LLC: In 2023, Valve sued law firm Zaiger, alleging that it attempted to extort settlements + suit against a litigation financier for Zaiger over the funding of a social media campaign to recruit Steam users as clients. Valve alleged that they improperly interfered with its contracts with Steam customers and abused the arbitration process by signing up clients with the intent of obtaining settlements slightly lower than the cost of arbitration filing fees, rather than arbitrating their claims. Valve said that it was targeted due to the terms of the Steam Subscriber Agreement, in which Valve would be responsible for the fees and costs associated with arbitration. In September 2024, Valve changed its Steam Subscriber Agreement to require disputes to proceed in court, with no option of arbitration
5/KEEP CHASING THE NON.REPLIES ! >> ONLY ONCE WE GET A FINAL REPLY TO OUR NRLA (COMPLAINT/DENUNCIA/OBS…) WE WILL APPROACH MEDIA ALLIES (ex iustitia europa) WITH READYMADE PIECES OF NEWS how2turnNRLAS.2.NEWS
6/ making (non-alleged) accusations in a response to a formal public consultation provides more protection against defamation claims compared to making the same accusations, say, in a public newspaper…..However, it’s important to note that this protection is not absolute. You should still ensure that your accusations are based on factual evidence and are relevant to the consultation topic. Malicious or knowingly false statements could still potentially lead to legal issues. so always use: ”alleged”…..why PUB.CONS.give partial immunity for defamation?: Qualified privilege: Responses to official consultations are typically covered by qualified privilege, which offers a defense against defamation claims as long as the statements are made without malice and are relevant to the consultation6. Public interest: Consultations are designed to gather information on matters of public interest. Courts are more likely to view statements made in this context as part of legitimate public discourse6. Limited audience: Consultation responses usually have a more limited and specialized audience compared to public newspapers, potentially reducing the risk of reputational damage2. Expectation of robust debate: In the context of policy consultations, there’s an expectation of frank and open discussion, which may provide some leeway for stronger statements1.
HOOKER 1: whats the foc?
scout all ec.cma.cnmc.doj decis >> extract evidence.findings >> FOC4dams4.bsd (same case, different party/ies)
HOOKER 2: i love to 3pint
ON 17.JAN, I GET MY LPC >> COCOO.LTD >> WRITE COMPLAINTS + FILE 3PINT APPLICATION (samnote) + MEDIATION OFFER + PRO-BONO NON-RESERVED LEGAL ADVICE OFFER
FILTER 1: BOTS
(Nightwish12@) : ma consulltant.gpt ma advisor inv.research.analysis competitor analysis ec.dg compet cases DD guide DD.detective mato science insights sellside comparisons compet.gpt benchmarking.stats.assistant global competitiveness ind.insights analyst pro market analysis agent data dynamo researcher compet.economics algorithm ace clp market research
FILTER 2
>> cocoo’s usp
FILTER 3: MY.gd.DOCS >> best files
–MLEX.CASES ( all files that support my filed complaints.observs) :
practice.areas research.TOOLS cocoo.WEB.FILES UNZIPPED.1-6 UNZIPPED.7-12 UNZIPPED.13-19 UNZIPPED.20-25
FILTER 4 : MY.gd.SCANS:
-PDFS: SCANS.wp
-INDIV.JPGS: BRO1 (folder) >> best files
STEPS.1 STEPS.2 MIMINDS v.mad.mas1(1+5) v.mad.mas.2(3+14) REL.MA STEALTH.CONS error.prefs U.V. eu.hookers adr CAT.ECJ clp.JR.eu cma.ec.cnmc.fsb consumer.law contract.law DDREPORTS.how2behave EU.DAM.DIR FCA.valuations sqal+funding nigeria.arb.spanish.problems L+ THE.LITIG.GLASSBALL MACOCON.IDENTIFICATION SPAIN
-EU.complaints about state aid misuse: COMP-State-Aid-Complaints@ec.europa.eu
EU.legal claims for damages: Tort claims against the Commission are filed with the General Court of the European Union.Use the e-Curia system for online submission. no emailed letters of claim allowed.Ensure your application is thorough, addressing liability, damages, and causality.Representation by a qualified eu.member (not a sol.) lawyer is mandatory
1/scout all ec.cma.cnmc.doj decis >> extract evidence.findings >> FOC4dams4.bsd (same case, different party/ies)
2/ 3PINT.JR + COMPLAINT (2 ec.cma.cnmc.reg.member) V (privco/PUS/CMA/EC/reg/cnmc/Members) for their own decisions, or for failing to challenge others’ decisions, when such decision is (pot) either : = for complaints not to do with CLP…BECAUSE THOSE :Make a complaint about unlawful state aid. AND/OR Tell us about suspected breaches of competition rules.
- -UV decis (by cma.ec.cnmc.reg), becos enforces CLP, in a manner that is beyond the statutory powers delegated (by 1leg) to that reg/pus
- -UNLAWFUL decis (by cma.ec.cnmc.reg), becos violates EULAW (Treaties…)
- – unlawful undertaking agreement or conduct between direct or indirect competitors
3/complaint2 (euomb/ukparlomb) Omb decis is only a recommendation. no teeth.EX: COMPLAINT V THE EC.CMA.SOSBT… DECIS on any of my complaints listed
4/ complaint v ecj.cat decis, arguing that the ecj decision, or its implementation, negatively impacts competition, innovation, or consumer welfare. While this won’t directly challenge the ECJ’s decision, it could influence how the Commission approaches similar cases or remedies
5/ complaint.v.EC: To submit a complaint directly against the European Commission, you can utilize the following contact methods:
- Email: For antitrust and competition-related complaints, you can contact the Directorate-General for Competition at comp-greffe-antitrust@ec.europa.eu. Competition Policy
- Online Complaint Form: For general complaints concerning potential breaches of EU law by the Commission, you can fill out the online form available at https://ec.europa.eu/assets/sg/report-a-breach/complaints_en/index.html.
.The European Commission:If you believe an EU country has infringed EU law by: implementing a measure (adopting a law or regulation or taking administrative action),failing to take a given measure, or engaging in a given practice, you can lodge a complaint with the European Commission
The European Ombudsman :The European Ombudsman investigates complaints from individuals, businesses and organisations about maladministration by EU institutions, bodies and agencies
The European Parliament : You can submit a petition to the European Parliament about the application of EU law
European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) : You can report fraud involving EU funding/EU staff to OLAF
eu.login.cocoo: Nightwish12@@12 contact@cocoo.uk >> EU.markets >> EU.access.market.db.users >> EU.mta: mytrade.assistant EU.mta.TOOLBOX EU.search.ITAs.with.non.eu.markets EU.investm.DISPUTES.search EU.tariffs
rival.entry.COMPLAINT.2.Access2Markets.team
complaints.re.SEP (single entry point) : The SEP, Single Entry Point, is the first point of contact for all EU stakeholders who are facing potential trade barriers in third countries or who find non-compliance with sustainability rules related to Trade and Sustainable Development or the Generalised Scheme of Preferences. To help you find your way, the Single Entry Point has developed two complaint forms, one on market access/trade barriers and one on sustainability issues – as well as step-by-step guides to completing them. For matters relating to the Anti-Coercion Instrument and to submit relevant information please visit Anti-Coercion Instrument Single point of contact. The Single Entry Point can support you when you are preparing your complaint – you can contact the Single Entry Point directly on trade-single-entry-point@ec.europa.eu
6/ Petitioning the European Parliament, highlighting potential broader implications of the (ecj…) decision on innovation, SMEs, or consumer welfare. While this doesn’t affect the ecj judgment, it may lead to a policy review. EU.CITIZENS.INITIATIVES
EU.SOLVIT : if you as an EU citizen or business face obstacles in another country because a public authority isn’t doing what is required under EU law …… SOLVIT can help..SOLVIT reminds the authorities in question what your EU rights are and works with them to solve your problem.
adiv@.. pw=Nightwish12@ sec.question: maria un=adivinorum
-eu.petitions: EU legislation wrongly implemented or applied within your Member State. a petition cannot be to disagree with a court decision.
as cocoo.ltd is based in UK, is not allowed to file a eu.parl.petition….but, I, can as an EU citizen….and will reference COCOO’s research and analysis as supporting evidence to strengthen the petition. every EU citizen and all natural or legal residents of the Member States have had the right to submit a petition to the European Parliament, in the form of a complaint or a request on an issue that falls within the European Union’s fields of activity. Petitions are examined by Parliament’s Committee on Petitions. Petitioners wishing to appeal a decision on their petition should send an e-mail to peti-secretariat@europarl.europa.eu instead of submitting a new petition.
-eu.Ombudsman, Ms Emily O’Reilly (click here): for maladministration within EU institutions.bodies, which affects you personally
complaining
B.1/• complaint (2cma) v cma decision (ex:did cma condemn google?) >> later on, i can use the cma decis to FOC4dams4.bsd, in a different case…ex: sept.24: cma decis: SOS issued to Google: the Statement of objections sets out how Google may have broken competition law by using its dominance to favour its own ad tech services in open-display advertising. The CMA will now carefully consider representations from Google before reaching its final decision.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-objects-to-googles-ad-tech-practices-in-bid-to-help-uk-advertisers-and-publishers
B.2/• -complaint (2cma/ec/DOJ) v any other U.V./illegal decis/omis by a regulator/PUS (ex: cocoo v reg/pus decis, on basis that is U.V./illegal becos enforces clp in a manner that is beyond the statutory powers conferred (by 1leg) to that reg/pus
– Later on, I have the option to start a different (but parallel) case. both have in common the same cma/ec decis. In this new case, I FOC4dams4.BSD (breach.stat.duty)….-ex: sep.24: ec decis to issue SOS to Google….email to antitrust.complaints@usdoj.gov to complaint about a possible antitrust usa violation or potential anticompetitive activity,
ex:US DOJ v Google (Search): 5 August 2024 – Judge Mehta’s ruling that Google illegally maintained a monopoly in online search.[1] Google is planning to appeal the decision, which could impact the timings of the case…..-ex:US DOJ v Google (Ad Tech): This is the second DOJ case currently unfolding against Google but this time against its abuses in the Ad Tech industry
B.3/• -complaint (2ec) v member decis that violates EULAW >> later on, i can use the ec decis to FOC4dams4.bsd, in a different case
CNMC.suger.y.quejas Email: gabinete@cnmc.es Contacts: Cani Fernández Vicién. President. Tel: +34 914 329 601 / 602 Email: cani.fernandez@cnmc.es Email: presidencia@cnmc.es Marisa Tierno Centella. Director General for Competition. Tel: +34 917 876 841 / 842. Email: marisa.tierno@cnmc.es Email: dc@cnmc.es Joaquín López Vallés Director of the Advocacy Department . Tel: +34 917 876 950 / 951. Email: joaquin.lopez@cnmc.es Email: dp@cnmc.es
EX: CNMC/SPANISH.PUS DECISIONS AGAINST GOOGLE >> THE CNMC ESTA INVESTIGANDO GOOGLE. DESDE JUN.2024 TIENE UN máximo de 18 meses para la instrucción del expediente y para su resolución.La CNMC inicia un expediente sancionador contra Google por posibles prácticas anticompetitivas que afectarían a editoriales de publicaciones de prensa y agencias de noticias españolas. Las conductas investigadas podrían suponer la explotación abusiva por parte de Google de su posición de dominio en el mercado español.• El abuso analizado consistiría en la imposición de condiciones inequitativas a las editoriales de publicaciones de prensa y agencias de noticias españolas. • Las prácticas investigadas también incluirían posibles actos de competencia desleal que podrían afectar al interés público por falsear la libre competencia. La CNMC ha iniciado un expediente sancionador contra Google LLC, Google Ireland Ltd., Google Spain, S.L. (Google) y contra su matriz Alphabet Inc., por prácticas restrictivas de la competencia prohibidas por los artículos 2 y 3 de la Ley 15/2007, de 3 de julio, de Defensa de la Competencia (LDC) y en el artículo 102 del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea (TFUE) (S/0013/22). Por una parte, la CNMC investiga una serie de prácticas que podrían suponer un abuso de la posición de dominio de Google con respecto a las editoriales de publicaciones de prensa y agencias de noticias establecidas en España. En particular, estas prácticas consistirían la posible imposición de condiciones comerciales no equitativas a las editoriales de publicaciones de prensa y agencias de noticias establecidas en España para la explotación de su contenido protegido por derechos de propiedad intelectual….Por otra parte, las conductas investigadas también incluirían prácticas que constituirían actos de competencia desleal que podrían falsear la libre competencia con afectación al interés público. Estas prácticas podrían infringir el apartado tercero del artículo 129 bis del Real Decreto Legislativo 1/1996, de 12 de abril, por el que se aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual, y podrían suponer la explotación de la situación de dependencia económica respecto a Google en que se encontrarían las editoriales de publicaciones de prensa y agencias de noticias establecidas en España. Este expediente tiene su origen en una denuncia recibida en la CNMC por parte del Centro Español de Derechos Reprográficos (CEDRO). A la vista de dicha denuncia y de la información recabada en el marco de la fase de información reservada, la Dirección de Competencia de la CNMC considera que existen indicios racionales de la comisión, por parte de Google, de posibles infracciones de los artículos 2 y 3 de la LDC, así como del artículo 102 del TFUE. La incoación de este expediente no prejuzga el resultado final de la investigación. Se abre ahora un periodo máximo de 18 meses para la instrucción del expediente y para su resolución por la CNMC.
B.4/• -complaint (2ec) v privco/pus.ec… decis that violates CLP >> later, i can use the ec decis to FOC4dams4.bsd, in a different case
-EX: (case:proSpain): cocoo complaints against the ECT agreement, as IS CONTRARY TO CLP…, as it promotes stealth.cons and cartel behaviour by the smaller fish that circle the sharks >> COCOO: IF EC ALLOWS ECT, EC WOULD BE ACTING U.V./ILLEGAL
-EX: (case:proGoogle): cocoo complaints against ad.rivals: ECJ DECIS: gd.pdf.ecj.decis.24nov.vgoogle
COCOO: the claimants are privcos,little fish, that, to thrive, behave as a de-facto cartel ( an implied sust.ua that fails at least 1 of the 4Exempt.Conds.) + stealth.consolid. driver
B.5/• I COMPLAIN V EC = complaint (2ec) v ec decision >> later, i can use the ec decis to FOC4dams4.bsd, in a different case
-EX: cocoo complaints to ec for its decis: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-objects-to-googles-ad-tech-practices-in-bid-to-help-uk-advertisers-and-publishers
B.6/• -complaint2 (euomb/ukparlomb) v privco/pus…that violates CLP or EU.uk LAW…but first, i need to complain to the eu.privco/pus. Omb decis is only a recommendation. no teeth.
EX: COMPLAINT V THE EC.CMA.SOSBT… DECIS on any of my complaints listed
to hooker is to choose the cocoo’s ‘attack.strat’ that best fits any chosen case (ex i chose to defend google)….but, cocoo, instead of defending google directly (ex: intervening or advising the parties under a services contract), cocoo instead, chooses to file a complaint to claim damages for the wpi/ee/clp, in a particular matter that stems from the Google case….that way, i dont need to tackle/locus the Google case directly, but a ramification that stems from it that I can use to both defend (indirectly) Google…but also to try to get dams for victims.
-uk: in uk, in order to complain v DECISION/act of gov/pus, i visit: gov.uk.ALL.GOV and choose the relevant culprit: cabinet office, cma, sosbt, ombudsman, etc…..and complain directly to it. ex: complaints.2.cma/fca >> general.enquiries@cma.gov.uk REPORT2CMA.CLP.PROBLEMS GOV.UK.report.issue.2.CMA
-eu: – complaints v eu Acts (ex: ec decis)? –complaints (to ec) v Memberstates’ (pot) eulaw violations,? –COMPLAINTS.4.eu.CLP.dams.V. EU.pus(EC…)/EU.privcos –complaints.2.EU.omb
1- i choose my goal = to defend google. [cocoos opinion: some sust.uas (ex. the EFT, in energycos v. spain) (ex: the regs that allow cos to claim against google promote the generation of sustuas that are truly cartels) are a cartel… if they fail either of the 4 ExemptionConditions]
2-to implement my goal, i choose this strategy, by following the worldwide.google.CASES.TIMELINE >>
PROCEDURE
Third parties do not have standing to challenge a cma.ec.pus decision that is not final, (like issuing a SO = deciding to start an investigation)…However, interested third parties can submit comments or evidence to the CMA during its investigation.
• complaint (2cma) v cma decision (did cma condemn google?) >> later on, i can use the cma decis to FOC4dams4.bsd, in a different case
ex: sept.24: cma decis: SOS issued to Google: the Statement of objections sets out how Google may have broken competition law by using its dominance to favour its own ad tech services in open-display advertising. The CMA will now carefully consider representations from Google before reaching its final decision.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-objects-to-googles-ad-tech-practices-in-bid-to-help-uk-advertisers-and-publishers
• -complaint (2cma/ec) v any other U.V./illegal decis/omis by a regulator/PUS (ex: cocoo v reg/pus decis, on basis that is U.V./illegal becos enforces clp in a manner that is beyond the statutory powers conferred (by 1leg) to that reg/pus
– Later on, I have the option to start a different (but parallel) case. both have in common the same cma/ec decis. In this new case, I FOC4dams4.BSD (breach.stat.duty)
-ex: sep.24: ec decis to issue SOS to Google
https://www.justice.gov/atr/complaint-center:
-ex:US DOJ v Google (Search): 5 August 2024 – Judge Mehta’s ruling that Google illegally maintained a monopoly in online search.[1] Google is planning to appeal the decision, which could impact the timings of the case.
-ex:US DOJ v Google (Ad Tech): This is the second DOJ case currently unfolding against Google but this time against its abuses in the Ad Tech industry
• -complaint (2ec) v member decis that violates EULAW >> later on, i can use the ec decis to FOC4dams4.bsd, in a different case
EX: CNMC/SPANISH.PUS DECISIONS AGAINST GOOGLE>>EX: THE CNMC ESTA INVESTIGANDO GOOGLE. DESDE JUN.2024 TIENE UN máximo de 18 meses para la instrucción del expediente y para su resolución.La CNMC inicia un expediente sancionador contra Google por posibles prácticas anticompetitivas que afectarían a editoriales de publicaciones de prensa y agencias de noticias españolas. Las conductas investigadas podrían suponer la explotación abusiva por parte de Google de su posición de dominio en el mercado español.
• El abuso analizado consistiría en la imposición de condiciones inequitativas a las editoriales de publicaciones de prensa y agencias de noticias españolas.
• Las prácticas investigadas también incluirían posibles actos de competencia desleal que podrían afectar al interés público por falsear la libre competencia.
La CNMC ha iniciado un expediente sancionador contra Google LLC, Google Ireland Ltd., Google Spain, S.L. (Google) y contra su matriz Alphabet Inc., por prácticas restrictivas de la competencia prohibidas por los artículos 2 y 3 de la Ley 15/2007, de 3 de julio, de Defensa de la Competencia (LDC) y en el artículo 102 del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea (TFUE) (S/0013/22). Por una parte, la CNMC investiga una serie de prácticas que podrían suponer un abuso de la posición de dominio de Google con respecto a las editoriales de publicaciones de prensa y agencias de noticias establecidas en España. En particular, estas prácticas consistirían la posible imposición de condiciones comerciales no equitativas a las editoriales de publicaciones de prensa y agencias de noticias establecidas en España para la explotación de su contenido protegido por derechos de propiedad intelectual.
Por otra parte, las conductas investigadas también incluirían prácticas que constituirían actos de competencia desleal que podrían falsear la libre competencia con afectación al interés público. Estas prácticas podrían infringir el apartado tercero del artículo 129 bis del Real Decreto Legislativo 1/1996, de 12 de abril, por el que se aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual, y podrían suponer la explotación de la situación de dependencia económica respecto a Google en que se encontrarían las editoriales de publicaciones de prensa y agencias de noticias establecidas en España.
Este expediente tiene su origen en una denuncia recibida en la CNMC por parte del Centro Español de Derechos Reprográficos (CEDRO).
A la vista de dicha denuncia y de la información recabada en el marco de la fase de información reservada, la Dirección de Competencia de la CNMC considera que existen indicios racionales de la comisión, por parte de Google, de posibles infracciones de los artículos 2 y 3 de la LDC, así como del artículo 102 del TFUE. La incoación de este expediente no prejuzga el resultado final de la investigación. Se abre ahora un periodo máximo de 18 meses para la instrucción del expediente y para su resolución por la CNMC.
• -complaint (2ec) v privco/pus.ec… decis that violates CLP >> later, i can use the ec decis to FOC4dams4.bsd, in a different case
-EX: (case:proSpain): cocoo complaints against the ECT agreement, as IS CONTRARY TO CLP…, as it promotes stealth.cons and cartel behaviour by the smaller fish that circle the sharks >> COCOO: IF EC ALLOWS ECT, EC WOULD BE ACTING U.V./ILLEGAL
-EX: (case:proGoogle): cocoo complaints against the google ad.rivals (the claimants are privcos,little fish, that, to thrive, behave as a de-facto cartel ( an implied sust.ua that fails at least 1 of the 4Exempt.Conds.) + stealth.consolid. driver
• I COMPLAIN V EC = complaint (2ec) v ec decision >> later, i can use the ec decis to FOC4dams4.bsd, in a different case
-EX: cocoo complaints to ec for its decis: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-objects-to-googles-ad-tech-practices-in-bid-to-help-uk-advertisers-and-publishers
• -complaint2 (euomb/ukparlomb) v privco/pus…that violates CLP or EU.uk LAW…but first, i need to complain to the eu.privco/pus. Omb decis is only a recommendation. no teeth.
EX: COMPLAINT V THE EC.CMA.SOSBT… DECIS on any of my complaints listed above
complaints v eu Acts (ex: ec decis)
complaints (to ec) v Memberstates’ (pot) eulaw violation
>> dam.claims at both national and eu level:
COMPLAINTS.2.get.CLP.dams V EU INSTITS (EC…)OR EU.COS
TL:2MONTHS >> ex: search.eu.DAM.CLAIMS.spain
clp violations: ADP, CARTELS, M&As, S.A. problem: the website only gives a FORM for illegal.S.A.claim>> eu.dams.claimform.pdf.completed >> I amend that form and email it ( if is a clp complaint) the EC: comp-greffe-antitrust@ec.europa.eu
-S.A.: EC.has o2.monitor S.A. HOW TO FILE COMPLAINT ABOUT ILLEGAL SA (STATE AID): notes.COMPLAINT.form V ILLEGAL SA pdf.complaint.v.illegal.SA.form https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/state-aid/complaints_en >> sa.complaint.form >> email it to: stateaidgreffe@ec.europa.eu The EU rules generally prohibit state aid (which take various forms such as grants, interest and tax relief, loan guarantees) because they risk putting certain businesses at an advantage over their competitors, thereby distorting competition. State aid may be permitted in the following cases: help for small businesses, promoting entrepreneurship, research, development and innovation, regional development, risk capital, job creation, protecting the environment
-if you are unsure about the problem, you can contact the European Commission at: comp-market-information@ec.europa.eu
– tl: 5 years (since you first learnt about the infringement) for victims of cartel.ADP, to claim damages, or 1 year after a cma’s decision on the infringement becomes final (in some cases, member states may give you more than 1 year).
-There is a legal presumption that cartels.adps, cause harm.
-Passing-on of overcharges: Even if you are an indirect customer of an infringer, you can claim compensation for any overcharge that has been passed on to you by an infringer’s direct customer, e.g. a reseller of the cartelised goods. Although you must demonstrate the amount of harm your business suffered in this way, you are helped by the legal presumption of passing-on. An example of the passing-on of overcharges could be when a loss is passed on to others: the business makes a payment, and seeks a repayment – the business then passes this on as a liability to its customers.
-Can I bring a case before a national court?: The obligation of Member States to notify planned State aid to the Commission (‘standstill obligation’) has direct effect, which means that parties affected by State aid granted in disregard of the standstill obligation (‘unlawful aid’) can bring direct action before national courts. Therefore, natural or legal persons whose interests have been adversely affected by the alleged unlawful aid can pursue the matter before the national courts, which must assess the case regardless of the existence of any parallel procedure before the Commission. Actions before national courts can offer an important means of redress, which can bring immediate relief to the complainant affected by unlawful State aid. Remedies available before national courts include: preventing the payment of unlawful aid; recovery of unlawful aid (regardless of compatibility); recovery of illegality interest; damages for competitors and other third parties; and interim measures against unlawful aid.
-Co-infringers: All firms participating in a cartel or another anticompetitive agreement are liable for the entire damage. You, as the claimant, can choose who you want to sue for compensation. A co-infringer can obtain a contribution from another co-infringer if they have paid more compensation than their relative share. That share and the criteria on which it is based will be decided by the court according to national law.
-Mergers: Companies of a certain size (starting at EUR 2.5 billion of combined aggregate worldwide turnover) doing business in the EU and wishing to merge must ask the European Commission for approval – irrespective of where their headquarters are located. Approval of the merger will depend on the market share that the merged company would have in the EU
COMPLAINTS TO THE EU.OMBUDSMAN
after my complaint has exhausted, i can complain to the ombud: EU.OMBUDS.how2complain : OMBUD.complaints are for Maladministration = when an institution or body fails to act in accordance with the law, or the principles of good administration, or violates human rights. Maladministration can include administrative irregularities, unfairness, discrimination or the abuse of power, for example in the managing of EU funds, procurement or recruitment policies. It also includes the failure to reply, or the refusal or unnecessary delay in granting access to information in the public interest. The European Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints against national, regional or local administrations in the Member States, even when the complaints are about EU matters. The Ombudsman cannot investigate matters that are subject to legal proceedings. Ombud.decisions are only recommendations. cannot be enforced.
WTO.COMPLAINTS
CONSUMER.COMPLAINTS.DISPUTES
uk.tas.of.tas: tus.list.gov.uk ind.assocs wiki.uk markeluk tas taforum trade.unions.uk brit.services build.conservation memberwise euroconsumers.class.a.v.apple eurocons.complaint.v.xbox.playstation eurocons.colaborations.with.cocoo eurocons.NEWS:comp.search eurocons.report.23 eurocons.dynamic.pricing gov.uk.CONSUMER.RIGHTS
SPAIN.complaints.petitions
uk.PUBLIC.CONSULTATIONS
search.uk.policypapers.CORP.consults AI.uk.publ.consult.OPEN GOVUK: ALL bus.ind.CONSULTATIONS.search GOVUK: OPEN.bus.ind.consultations
CONSULTATIONS: COCOO O2.send.CONSULT.RESPONSE: Whenever there is: (a/ cma invitation to comment (IC), or b/CMA.ec ISSUE STATEMENT (IS = initial theories on pot/poss competition and remedies), the parties are invited to provide submissions >>COCOO MAY ISSUE CMA.ec with a (usp=deofficio) CONSULTATION RESPONSE. i can use (as drafts) , csos submissionos(to IS and IC)
to complain about the cma just email: general.enquiries@cma.gov.uk REPORT2CMA.CLP.PROBLEMS GOV.UK.report.issue.2.CMA
EU.petitions: adiv@.. pw=Nightwish12@ sec.question: maria un=adivinorum
EU.consultations: >> cocoo to participate: >> >> ex: upcoming.consult.VEH.BLOCK.EXEMPT.REG + CALL4EVIDENCE.form DELIB.citizen.CONSULT search.uk.policypapers.CORP.consults AI.uk.publ.consult.OPEN delib Simulator offers citizens the POWER to BA >> COCOO with demolegit >> polit power.