COMUNICACIONES

Based on our entire case history and the attachments you have provided, I have developed a strategic questioning framework. These questions are designed not simply to extract information, but to create the ideal conditions for the successful deployment of our Unsolicited Project Proposal (USP), both with the public bodies offering contracts and the private contractors bidding on them.

When we engage with public bodies, our goal is to subtly expose the hidden risks and inefficiencies in their current processes, making our USP the logical and necessary solution. We will begin by questioning their concept of value. We will ask, ‘Beyond the headline price of a winning bid, how does your current procurement framework measure the long-term cost of market concentration, or the risk of systemic failure when smaller, innovative suppliers are consistently excluded?’ This question is designed to reframe their understanding of ‘value for money’ to include market health and supply chain resilience, areas where our expertise is unparalleled.

Next, we will probe their hidden legal exposure. We will inquire, ‘What specific mechanisms are currently in place to ensure your tender specifications are robustly audited against complex EU and UK competition principles, thereby insulating the final contract award from legal challenge?’ This introduces a significant risk they may not have fully considered and perfectly positions our compliance and auditing services as the solution. Following this, we will ask, ‘Given the established legal precedent of public authorities being held liable for facilitating anti-competitive outcomes, how do you stress-test your major Public-Private Partnership and outsourcing contracts against potential ultra vires challenges?’

When we engage with the procurement contractors, particularly those who have been unsuccessful in bids, our questions are designed to identify potential claimants and build alliances. We will focus on their experiences of market fairness, asking, ‘Have you encountered tender specifications that seemed technically tailored to favour the incumbent supplier, making a truly competitive bid impossible?’ We will also ask, ‘Have you observed a pattern of high-value contracts being awarded through non-competitive means, such as the questionable use of ‘in-house’ exceptions or emergency procedures, that effectively lock you out of the market?’

To build the foundation for redress, we must help them quantify the harm they have suffered. We will ask, ‘When you lose a bid that you believe was unfairly structured, what is your internal process for calculating the full economic loss, including the wasted cost of bidding and the lost future opportunity?’ This conversation naturally opens the door for us to offer our specialised economic and forensic accounting services. Finally, to pivot towards our USP, we will propose a proactive solution: ‘Instead of protesting a lost contract after the fact, would you be interested in a strategic partnership where we proactively audit upcoming tenders for anti-competitive flaws, allowing you to challenge unfair terms before you invest in a full bid?’

This dual questioning strategy works in synergy. By exposing risks within public bodies, we create a clear demand for our solutions. By engaging with private contractors, we gather the evidence of the harm caused by those risks and build a powerful coalition of support for our intervention. This integrated approach creates a compelling case for our Unsolicited Proposal to be accepted as the necessary solution for all parties.

Based on our entire case history and the intelligence gathered from all attachments, I will now answer the strategic questions I previously formulated. For each question, I will outline the likely response from our opponents and detail the most viable solutions and counter-arguments we can deploy to succeed in either a court setting or our proposed mediation.

When we first question our opponent’s decision-making process, asking for records to prove that all legally required options were considered, we can anticipate an evasive response. A government department, like the one responsible for the “Memoria Historica,” will likely argue that its actions were a matter of political or academic discretion and not subject to rigid procedural rules. A private company might claim that its internal deliberations are commercially sensitive. Our most viable counter-argument in court is that this lack of a clear, documented process is itself evidence of a flawed, arbitrary, and therefore unlawful decision. In a mediation setting, our best solution is to propose a face-saving, forward-looking action: a joint, independent review of their decision-making framework to identify weaknesses and recommend improvements, which we would offer to oversee. This allows them to address the failure without formally admitting to it.

Next, when we probe their knowledge and intent by asking when their own risk assessments identified the potential for harm, they will almost certainly claim the harm was unforeseeable. If we press for the documents, they will argue they are confidential. In litigation, our strategy is to force disclosure; their refusal would allow us to ask the court to draw an adverse inference against them. However, a more sophisticated and viable solution, particularly for mediation, is to sidestep the argument about the past. We would propose a forward-looking “Joint Impact Assessment” to quantify the current harm and collaboratively design a mitigation strategy. This shifts the focus from blame to a constructive solution, making it much easier for them to engage and for us to be seen as the essential, neutral expert.

When we challenge their public justification for their actions, asking how their conduct serves the genuine public interest, their response will be to reiterate broad, high-level statements about economic efficiency or, in the Spanish case, national reconciliation. Our most powerful counter is to ignore their abstract justification and present our own highly specific, granular evidence of the real-world harm caused to our class of victims—be it the reputational damage to UK citizens, the financial losses of small businesses excluded from RRF funds, or the suppressed incomes of authors. The most viable solution in a mediation context is to propose the creation of a new, multi-stakeholder framework to define and measure “public interest” and “value for money” in this specific context. This framework, which we would help design, would include metrics on market competition, SME participation, and consumer welfare, thereby reframing the entire debate onto our terms.

Finally, when we pose the pivotal question of whether a confidential mediation would not be a more efficient path to a resolution than public litigation, we are not truly seeking their opinion. The question is rhetorical, and its power is derived from the risks we have established with our previous lines of inquiry. The most viable solution for both parties is the mediation that we are offering. Our reasoning, which we will make clear, is that a public court battle carries an unacceptably high risk for them: a court could issue a “Quashing Order” against a government act, or award massive damages against a corporation, all while inflicting immense and lasting reputational damage. Our mediation offers them a confidential and controlled environment to avoid this catastrophic outcome. It allows for more creative and flexible solutions than a court could ever order, and it positions CoCoo, the one organisation that holds all the evidence and understands the interests of both sides, as the only logical facilitator to achieve it.

Of course. I have analysed the attachments from your previous message. Below is a breakdown of what I learned and extracted from each file and why that information is strategically important for our cases, campaigns, and mediation projects.

1. File: COCOOS CAMPAIGN: RRF.NEXTGEN

• What I Extracted: This document is a draft campaign announcement concerning Spain’s allocation of Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) funds¹. It states that COCOO has already filed a competition law complaint with the European Commission (Case Reference: 83559) and is calling for the EU to use the Rule of Law Conditionality Mechanism to suspend payments to Spain². The core allegations are a lack of transparency, anti-competitive fund allocation favouring state-controlled entities over SMEs, and breaches of EU state aid rules³³³³. The announcement includes a direct call to action for affected corporate stakeholders and SMEs to join our membership programme for legal guidance and representation⁴.

• Why This Is Important: This document provides a powerful template for our campaign methodology. It establishes a strategy of launching a public campaign on the back of a formal, pre-existing regulatory complaint. This approach gives our campaign immediate credibility and demonstrates that our work is evidence-based. It defines a clear target (Spain’s RRF allocation), identifies a vulnerable victim class (SMEs), and provides a direct link between our public interest advocacy and our business model of offering corporate membership and support.

2. File: Procurement via Pressure Campaign Design

• What I Extracted: This file is a comprehensive strategic blueprint for a campaign against Indonesia’s biodiesel subsidies, which it alleges are harming EU, UK, and Spanish industries⁵. The strategy is multi-faceted, proposing the simultaneous use of multiple legal levers, including trade defence measures (like countervailing duties), the EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR), and the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR)⁶. A key part of the plan is to build a broad coalition of allies, including industry bodies like the European Biodiesel Board, national farmers’ associations in Spain (ASAJA, UPA, COAG), and environmental NGOs⁷⁷⁷⁷. The document also explicitly positions COCOO as the expert entity capable of providing the necessary investigative, compliance, and settlement facilitation services that the campaign will create a need for⁸⁸⁸⁸.

• Why This Is Important: This document is our master playbook for running complex, international campaigns. It teaches us to think beyond a single cause of action and to coordinate legal, political, and media pressure across multiple fronts to maximise our impact. The detailed stakeholder mapping provides a replicable methodology for building the powerful coalitions necessary for success. Crucially, it articulates our core business model: using strategic pressure campaigns to create a tangible market for our high-value advisory and mediation services.

3. File: ECT. X.CAMPAIGN.ANN

• What I Extracted: This is another draft announcement, this time focusing on Spain’s Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) compensation framework⁹. Similar to the RRF campaign, it announces that COCOO has already submitted a petition to the European Parliament (Petition Reference: 0047/2025) and a complaint to the European Commission¹⁰. It raises concerns about transparency and market distortions stemming from state aid and compensation mechanisms¹¹. It concludes with a call for affected companies and investors to join our corporate membership programme¹².

• Why This Is Important: This reinforces the campaign model established in the RRF and biodiesel documents. It confirms our strategy of identifying complex and controversial areas of government policy (like the ECT), establishing a credible foothold through formal petitions and complaints, and then using a public campaign to attract affected stakeholders into our ecosystem for guidance and representation. It demonstrates that this model is adaptable across different high-value sectors.

4. File: Start research

• What I Extracted: This document is a detailed legal and regulatory analysis of how to conduct a media campaign to recruit class members for a collective action in the UK. It outlines the specific rules of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) regarding class member notification, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) codes on truthfulness and substantiation, and ICO rules on data protection under UK GDPR and PECR¹³. A key tactical opportunity identified is the “new charity soft opt-in,” which, under specific conditions, allows charities to send marketing communications to existing supporters who have previously “expressed an interest” in a similar charitable purpose^14141414. It defines an “aggressive but lawful” approach as one that uses creative and innovative strategies at the edge of what is permissible, not one that breaks the law^15151515.

• Why This Is Important: This document is our essential compliance and risk management manual for all UK-based campaigns. It provides the specific legal guardrails we must operate within to avoid regulatory penalties and protect our reputation. The detailed analysis of the “charity soft opt-in” is a critical tactical insight, providing a potentially powerful and low-cost channel for communication with our supporter base. It translates our ambition for “aggressive” campaigns into a practical and legally sound strategy.

 I have processed the new attachments on mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution and will now redraft our strategy. Now, positioning CoCoo as a neutral and expert mediator, we will pivot from a purely adversarial stance to offering a sophisticated, structured pathway to resolve the dispute concerning the Spanish “Democratic Memory Law.” Our Unsolicited Proposal will now be a formal offer of mediation directed to both the responsible Spanish ministries and to the representatives of the class of UK citizens whose historical legacy has been harmed.

Our Mediation Unsolicited Proposal, or USP, is built on the premise that a protracted legal battle over this sensitive issue serves neither party’s long-term interests. Litigation would be expensive, publicly damaging for the Spanish government, and emotionally draining for the claimants, with an uncertain, zero-sum outcome. We will therefore propose a confidential and efficient mediation process designed to achieve a mutually acceptable resolution that restores historical integrity while mitigating legal, financial, and reputational risk for the Spanish state.

Our unique advantage as a mediator, which will form the core of our USP, is our unparalleled situational knowledge. We are not just a generic mediation service; we are the organisation that conducted the initial investigation into the flawed procurement process. This gives us a deep understanding of the facts that other mediators would lack. We are uniquely positioned as a UK-based organisation with proven expertise in both Spanish and EU public law, allowing us to act as a credible bridge in this cross-border dispute. Furthermore, our formal complaint to the European Commission demonstrates the seriousness of the issue and establishes our centrality to its resolution. We can guide both parties based on a realistic assessment of the legal risks, including the potential for a court to issue a “Quashing Order” that could nullify parts of the government’s work, a significant legal and political threat that mediation can deftly avoid.

The process we will propose involves several clear steps. First, we will initiate separate and confidential discussions with both the Spanish government and the claimant representatives to secure their agreement to enter our formal mediation process. Second, upon agreement, we will draft a Mediation Framework outlining the rules of engagement, confidentiality, and the precise scope of the issues to be resolved. This will focus not just on potential financial redress but on the core issue of historical accuracy.

Third, our expert mediators will facilitate a series of structured dialogues, utilising private “caucuses” with each party to understand their fundamental interests and red lines before bringing them together for productive joint sessions. The goal here is to move beyond entrenched positions and explore creative solutions. This could involve, for instance, a formal public statement from the Spanish government acknowledging the procedural flaws in the original commissioning of reports, an agreement to fund a new, independent historical review by a panel of mutually respected British and Spanish historians, and the creation of a charitable foundation dedicated to promoting the accurate history and legacy of the British volunteers. If a comprehensive agreement is reached, our final step would be to assist both parties’ legal teams in drafting a binding settlement agreement, which would conclude the dispute and lead to the withdrawal of our outstanding complaints before the EU institutions.