COMUNICACIONES

Of course. Based on a comprehensive review of our entire case history and all associated documents, I will now answer the strategic questions I previously formulated, providing a range of likely responses and identifying the most viable solutions for COCOO.

The first question we would pose to the public body—regarding their internal risk assessments on market distortion from the inconsistent application of EU law—would likely be met with a defensive posture. They might offer a range of answers, from claiming such documents are confidential, to giving vague assurances that they constantly monitor the market, to deflecting the question entirely. The most viable and likely outcome is that they cannot produce a specific, robust impact assessment that predates their decision and justifies their inaction, simply because one does not exist. Our solution is to leverage this absence. For our Unsolicited Proposal, we will frame this as a critical governance and risk-management gap that our services are uniquely designed to fill. For our media campaign, this void becomes a central theme: we will publicly question how such a significant and costly decision could have been made without a thorough, evidence-based analysis, thereby framing the issue as one of administrative negligence.

When we ask how they can assure EU bodies that Recovery and Resilience Funds are being used effectively within a broken logistics framework, their probable answer will be to draw a firm line between the two issues. They will insist that the auditing of specific EU-funded projects is entirely separate from the general enforcement of transport regulations. While procedurally correct, this answer is substantively weak. The most viable reality is that the operational efficiency of the entire sector directly impacts the economic return of any new investment. Our solution is to reject their narrow definition. We will argue that safeguarding taxpayer money requires not just financial accounting, but an assurance of market effectiveness. We will then position COCOO’s proposal as a necessary tool for them to demonstrate this deeper level of due diligence to the European Commission, making our engagement a matter of their own fiscal prudence and reputation within the EU.

In response to the question about their protocol for handling a mass dispute, the public body will almost certainly fall back on standard procedure, stating that their legal department handles all claims on a case-by-case basis. They will not admit to having a specific strategy for a multi-party, cross-border mass tort action of this nature. The viable outcome is the realisation that their standard process is utterly inadequate for this unique and complex threat, promising immense legal costs and years of fragmented litigation. This is the precise opening for our mediation proposal. Our solution is to present COCOO’s mediation framework as the only available, pre-designed protocol capable of resolving this dispute efficiently and globally. We are not just offering to mediate; we are offering them a lifeline out of a procedural and financial quagmire that they are unprepared for.

Finally, when we ask how they can fill the capability gap to resolve this complex problem, their public answer will be one of confidence in their internal teams. However, the private reality, and the most viable outcome, is that while they have skilled lawyers and economists, they lack the single most critical asset: our comprehensive, evidence-based understanding of the specific grievances and financial losses of the entire network of affected stakeholders. They have general expertise; we have the specific intelligence. Our solution is to acknowledge their internal capabilities respectfully, but to frame our Unsolicited Proposal as a one-time strategic partnership. We would propose a limited, low-value scoping study where we provide them with our unique dataset and stakeholder map. This allows them to save face by augmenting their internal team rather than admitting a complete failure, while providing us with a direct, defensible entry point to demonstrate our indispensable value.

To begin, in preparing for a potential court action, we must ask foundational questions that solidify the evidence and the direct link between the harm and the perpetrator’s actions. For the class of victims, we would ask: Can you produce specific invoices, contracts, or internal reports from the period after 2020 that demonstrate a quantifiable increase in your logistical costs or a direct loss of business to competitors on routes involving Spain? For the secondary industries like agriculture, a key question would be: Do you have documented evidence of specific shipments that were delayed, spoiled, or rejected, and can you correlate these incidents with the period of regulatory non-enforcement? To the perpetrators, a public body for example, we would ask: Can you provide the minutes and impact assessments that were conducted prior to your decision not to fully implement the EU Mobility Package by the mandated deadline, and can you demonstrate how you balanced your legal obligations against other policy considerations? These questions are designed to build an undeniable, evidence-based chain of causation from their failure to our clients’ losses.

Next, we move to strategic questions that frame the legal and public narrative, making our case more powerful. Drawing on our analysis of the airline and automotive sectors, we would ask the perpetrator: How is your failure to enforce fair competition rules on the road fundamentally different from the illegal state aid identified in the European Commission’s actions against member states regarding their national airlines? Furthermore, considering the EU’s focus on the green transition under the NextGenerationEU funds, a critical question for a government department would be: How can you assure EU auditors that recovery funds allocated for sustainable transport are being used effectively when the foundational regulatory framework for fair and efficient logistics is demonstrably broken? For the court, these questions position the perpetrator’s actions not as an isolated administrative lapse, but as part of a pattern of behaviour that contravenes core principles of EU competition law and policy.

Finally, we transition to questions designed to pivot from confrontation to resolution, paving the way for our nomination as mediator. These are aimed at all parties. To the class of perpetrators, we would ask: Considering the significant, multi-industry financial losses we have evidenced, and the clear legal precedents in parallel transport sectors, have you calculated the total potential liability and reputational damage of facing multiple, fragmented lawsuits across several jurisdictions versus engaging in a single, comprehensive mediation process? To the class of victims, we would ask: Is your primary objective years of uncertain and costly litigation for a purely financial award, or is it to achieve a faster, more holistic solution that includes financial redress as well as the restoration of a fair, reliable, and competitive market for your future business?

The ultimate question, which we would pose subtly through our Unsolicited Proposal for Mediation, is directed at everyone: Given that one organisation has already mapped the complex legal arguments, quantified the multi-sectoral damages, and identified the key stakeholders on all sides, who else is better placed to facilitate a swift and efficient resolution to this entire dispute? This final question is not intended to be answered directly, but to lead all parties to the logical conclusion that engaging with COCOO as the official mediator is the most rational and cost-effective path forward.