INVESTIGACION

HAZTE MIEMBRO GRATIS         PROYECTOS ABIERTOS     QUIENES SOMOS   MEDIACION   DIPLOMACIA   DONACIONES  PRIVACIDAD CONDICIONES

---

---

COAS & FOIS

### Findings of Infringement Allowing Follow-On Claims

The core infringement finding stems from Spain’s failure to properly transpose and implement Directive (EU) 2016/681 (PNR Directive) by the deadline of May 25, 2018, as alleged in the Caselex documents. The European Commission initiated an infringement procedure against Spain, leading to a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in 2020, likely under Case C-78/20 or a similar reference, for non-transposition of the PNR Directive. The Commission’s 2023 assessment report, referenced in the Caselex filings, identified persistent deficiencies in Spain’s ONIP system, implemented belatedly in November 2020, including inadequate data-sharing with UK authorities post-Brexit and structural non-compliance with EU security standards. These findings establish a sufficiently serious breach of EU law under the Francovich doctrine, enabling follow-on claims for damages by affected UK parties, such as passengers, airlines, and investors, who suffered transborder harms due to security vulnerabilities and market distortions.

A second infringement finding relates to Spain’s systemic failure to enforce Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, which establishes air passenger rights to compensation, assistance, and refunds for flight disruptions. The Caselex documents and campaign materials cite the Commission’s 2023 decision to refer Spain to the CJEU for ineffective application of the Regulation, highlighting the Agencia Estatal de Seguridad Aérea (AESA)’s inadequate supervision of airlines like British Airways, easyJet, Ryanair UK, and Jet2. This failure allowed airlines to systematically deny passengers their rights, creating a basis for follow-on claims against Spain for state liability and against airlines for breach of contract. The CJEU’s acknowledgment of Spain’s non-compliance, combined with ongoing regulatory capture and non-competitive procurement practices, supports claims for economic losses and competitive harms under EU and UK retained law.

### Possible Causes of Action

The primary cause of action against Spain is a tort claim for state liability under the Francovich doctrine, adapted to Spanish law as responsabilidad patrimonial under Article 106.2 of the Spanish Constitution and Ley 40/2015. This arises from Spain’s failure to transpose the PNR Directive and enforce Regulation 261/2004, breaching EU law obligations that confer rights on individuals. The breach is sufficiently serious due to the CJEU referral and persistent non-compliance, causing direct damages like financial losses to UK passengers and airlines, and security risks from deficient PNR implementation. A complementary action is an administrative liability claim in Spanish courts against the Ministry of Interior for PNR failures and the Ministry of Transport for AESA’s oversight lapses, alleging negligence in regulatory enforcement.

Against airlines, the primary cause of action is breach of contract under English law, as most UK-Spain flight contracts (e.g., with British Airways, easyJet) are governed by English jurisdiction. Regulation 261/2004 forms an implied term of the contract of carriage, obligating airlines to provide compensation (250-600 euros based on flight distance), assistance (meals, accommodation, transport), and refunds within seven days for cancellations, delays over three hours, or denied boarding. Systematic non-compliance by named airlines constitutes a uniform breach, enabling collective action in UK courts. A secondary tort claim against airlines for negligent misrepresentation could apply if they misled passengers about their rights, though this is less developed.

A competition law claim against Spain and potentially airlines is viable under EU public procurement rules (Directive 2014/24/EU) and Spanish competition law, as hinted in the Caselex documents and “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf.” Spain’s non-competitive procurement for the ONIP system and potential regulatory capture by airlines suggest anti-competitive practices, distorting the market for UK airlines and investors. This could be pursued via a complaint to Spain’s CNMC or the European Commission, seeking remedies like contract annulment or damages. The “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf” analogy of concealed mergers supports investigating undisclosed procurement deals, strengthening this angle.

Finally, a public law action could involve a formal complaint to the European Commission under Article 258 TFEU for Spain’s ongoing non-compliance with Regulation 261/2004 and the PNR Directive, urging further CJEU proceedings. This complements private claims by pressuring Spain to reform AESA and ONIP, aligning with COCOO’s “European Commitment” platform goals.

### Evidence, Sources, and Types

Evidence of Spain’s PNR Directive infringement includes the European Commission’s 2020 CJEU referral, sourced from the EUR-Lex database or Commission press releases, constituting legal documentary evidence. The Commission’s 2023 ONIP assessment report, referenced in Caselex filings, details technical deficiencies and data-sharing failures, available via the Commission’s Document Register, classified as expert report evidence. Spanish Ministry of Interior budget reports (2016-2020), accessible through Eurostat or Spain’s Public Sector Contracting Platform under Regulation 1049/2001, may reveal underfunding or misallocation, providing statistical financial evidence. The Plus Ultra Líneas Aéreas case, alleging uncontrolled goods from Venezuela, requires court records from Spain’s Judicial Documentation Centre (CENDOJ) or EU competition filings, offering case law evidence if substantiated.

For Regulation 261/2004 non-compliance, passenger testimonies collected via COCOO’s platform (vuelos.cocoo.uk) document denied compensation, assistance, and refunds, forming anecdotal and statistical evidence when aggregated. Airline financial reports, publicly available from Companies House for UK carriers (e.g., British Airways, easyJet), show profits from non-compliance, constituting financial documentary evidence. AESA’s enforcement records, obtainable via Spanish freedom of information requests, may reveal low sanction rates, providing administrative statistical evidence. The Commission’s 2023 CJEU referral for Regulation 261/2004 failures, sourced from EUR-Lex, is legal documentary evidence of systemic oversight lapses.

Competition law evidence includes Spanish procurement records for ONIP, accessible via TED or Spain’s contracting platform, potentially showing non-competitive awards, classified as administrative documentary evidence. CNMC investigation archives, if disclosing airline influence on AESA, offer regulatory documentary evidence. The “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf” methodology, adapted to analyze Spanish financial disclosures, could uncover concealed procurement deals, yielding statistical financial evidence. UK airline testimonies (e.g., British Airways), collected through COCOO’s platform, document competitive disadvantages, providing industry anecdotal evidence.

Additional evidence includes media reports on flight disruptions, sourced from UK and Spanish news archives, offering contextual anecdotal evidence. Stakeholder submissions to COCOO’s “European Commitment” platform, including from insurers (e.g., Allianz, AXA) and tour operators (e.g., TUI Group), quantify losses, forming industry statistical evidence. Post-Brexit UK-EU data-sharing agreements (e.g., TCA, Prüm II), available via UK Home Office or EU publications, highlight disrupted cooperation, constituting legal documentary evidence.

### Clarifications and Limitations

I lack direct access to EUR-Lex, CENDOJ, or TED to retrieve specific filings like the CJEU case, ONIP report, or Plus Ultra records. If you provide case numbers or documents, I can refine the analysis. The “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf” is US-focused, so its procurement analogy needs validation against EU/Spanish regulations—please confirm if I should prioritize EU equivalents. For evidence, I assumed COCOO’s platform can collect sufficient testimonies; if data is limited, please clarify volume or access. The mediation counterparty remains the Spanish Ministry of Interior, but if you prefer another (e.g., airlines, Commission), please specify.

This response equips COCOO to pursue follow-on claims via tort, contract, and competition law, supported by diverse evidence types, while leveraging the campaign to amplify pressure and mediation to seek collaborative remedies.

---

THE 5 ATTACHMENTS

### Analysis of “HOW 2 SELL MY LITIGATION, USP AND MEDIATION PROJECTS.txt”

#### Extraction and Insights

This document is a comprehensive report on the global market for purchasing litigation claims, arbitration awards, and pre-litigation opportunities, distinguishing outright purchase from traditional litigation funding. It identifies firms that acquire legal assets, offering immediate liquidity to claimants in exchange for transferring ownership and risk. Key firms include Fortress Investment Group, Harbour Litigation Funding, Certum Group, and Bench Walk Advisors, with Burford Capital and Omni Bridgeway noted for monetization and portfolio transfers that can mimic purchase outcomes. The report details their services, geographic focus, and contact information, emphasizing their capacity to buy claims, judgments, or assets like intellectual property tied to litigation.

The document clarifies that purchasing “legal strategies” before litigation is not standard but occurs through funding pre-litigation activities (e.g., investigations, evidence gathering) or acquiring assets like patents requiring enforcement. Firms like Burford, Omni Bridgeway, Harbour, Certum, Bench Walk, and Fortress engage in pre-litigation investment, often via portfolio financing to diversify risk. AlphaLit is highlighted as a specialist originator, developing investible claims before formal proceedings. The secondary market for legal assets, exemplified by Omni Bridgeway’s Ares deal, underscores the transferability of claims, relevant for valuing and selling COCOO’s case.

Regulatory and ethical considerations are noted, including disclosure debates and concerns about third-party influence over litigation strategy. These could impact how we structure any sale or funding agreement, particularly in jurisdictions like the UK or US with evolving transparency rules.

#### Relevance to the Case

The document is critical for strategizing how to sell or assign COCOO’s claim against Spain before formal litigation. The identified firms—particularly Fortress, Harbour, Certum, and Bench Walk—offer direct purchase options, providing immediate liquidity while transferring the risk of pursuing the Francovich-based claim. Their global reach aligns with our case’s EU-UK transborder nature, and their expertise in complex claims supports handling a state liability case involving EU law. The pre-litigation investment options (e.g., funding investigations) are relevant for gathering evidence to substantiate damages, a weak point in COCOO’s current filings. The secondary market insights suggest we could structure the claim as a transferable asset, increasing its attractiveness to buyers.

The regulatory and ethical notes caution us to ensure any sale agreement complies with disclosure requirements (e.g., UK’s PACCAR ruling) and avoids conflicts of interest, especially given COCOO’s public interest platform. This informs how we negotiate control and confidentiality terms with potential buyers.

#### Why Extracted

I extracted the list of firms and their services to identify potential buyers or funders for COCOO’s claim, focusing on those with explicit purchase capabilities. The pre-litigation investment details are vital for funding evidence collection, strengthening the case before sale or litigation. The secondary market and regulatory insights guide structuring a sale to maximize value while navigating legal constraints. Contact information (e.g., opportunities@fortress.com, info@harbourlf.com) enables direct outreach.

### Analysis of “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf”

#### Extraction and Insights

This working paper by Barrios and Wollmann (January 2022) examines how investor disclosures under US securities law can trigger antitrust scrutiny, leading firms to conceal “midnight mergers” to avoid detection. It finds that disclosures, particularly SEC-mandated Item 2 reports for mergers valued at 10% or more of the acquirer’s assets, increase antitrust risk, causing a 32% drop in horizontal mergers at the disclosure threshold. The paper estimates $2.3 trillion in undisclosed US mergers (2002–2016), often in industries like healthcare where small deals impact market power. It uses a regression discontinuity design and FASB’s cash flow reporting requirements to measure undisclosed mergers, highlighting tensions between SEC (investor protection) and FTC/DOJ (consumer protection) objectives.

The paper notes that post-2001 HSR Act exemptions raised the reporting threshold, increasing incentives for firms to hide anticompetitive mergers. It cites examples like the FTC’s 2020 order revealing 1,000 unreported tech mergers and New York’s proposed 2021 Anti-Trust Act for state-level disclosures. Regulatory spillovers and disclosure’s impact on managerial behavior (e.g., deterring mergers) are emphasized, supported by empirical data and legal references (e.g., Clayton Act, HSR Act).

#### Relevance to the Case

While focused on US mergers, the paper’s findings are analogously relevant to COCOO’s case, which involves potential competition law violations in Spain’s PNR implementation, including non-competitive procurement practices. The evidence of firms avoiding disclosures to evade scrutiny suggests Spain may have similarly concealed PNR system deficiencies to avoid EU or UK scrutiny, supporting COCOO’s allegations of systemic failures. The methodology for detecting undisclosed activity via financial reporting could be adapted to investigate Spanish state entities’ budgets for PNR implementation, potentially uncovering evidence of mismanagement or non-compliance. The regulatory tension between investor and consumer protection parallels the EU’s balancing of security (PNR Directive) and competition law, strengthening our argument that Spain’s failures disrupted market fairness for UK firms.

The paper’s reference to state-level disclosure laws (e.g., New York) suggests exploring similar EU or Spanish transparency mechanisms to demand data from Spain, such as budget reports or procurement records. The emphasis on small deals’ competitive impact supports COCOO’s claim that Spain’s PNR lapses harmed UK airlines and passengers through market distortions.

#### Why Extracted

I extracted the antitrust risk findings to draw parallels with Spain’s potential concealment of PNR implementation failures, bolstering COCOO’s narrative of deliberate negligence. The methodology for detecting undisclosed activity informs our evidence-gathering strategy, particularly through financial and procurement records. The regulatory and historical context (e.g., HSR exemptions, FTC orders) provides a framework for arguing transborder harms, and the disclosure threshold data supports claims of systemic market impacts.

### Strategies for Evidence Gathering and Filings

To strengthen COCOO’s case and prepare it for sale or litigation, I’d pursue the following evidence-gathering and filing strategies, informed by the documents:

#### Evidence Gathering

Using the “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf” methodology, I’d analyze Spanish government financial reports to identify discrepancies in PNR system funding (2016–2020). EU member states submit budgetary data to Eurostat, which could reveal underfunding or misallocation in Spain’s ONIP system. I’d request access to these via EU freedom of information requests under Regulation 1049/2001, targeting the Ministry of Interior’s budgets. The “HOW 2 SELL” document suggests funding pre-litigation investigations, so I’d engage Certum Group or Harbour to finance forensic accounting and expert analyses of ONIP’s technical deficiencies, focusing on data-sharing failures with UK authorities post-Brexit.

For the Plus Ultra case, I’d search Spanish court records and EU competition law filings for evidence of uncontrolled goods from Venezuela, using the EU’s Transparency Register or Spain’s Judicial Documentation Centre (CENDOJ). I’d also collect anonymized testimonies from UK airlines (e.g., British Airways) and passengers via COCOO’s platform, documenting financial losses or security incidents linked to Spain’s PNR gaps, ensuring GDPR compliance.

#### Filings to Search For

I’d search for the CJEU’s 2020 infringement case against Spain (likely Case C-78/20 or similar) in the EUR-Lex database to confirm the Commission’s findings on non-transposition. The Commission’s 2023 ONIP assessment report, referenced in COCOO’s filings, should be requested via the Commission’s Document Register. Spanish procurement records for ONIP’s development, potentially filed under EU Directive 2014/24/EU, could be accessed through Spain’s Public Sector Contracting Platform or TED (Tenders Electronic Daily). For competition law angles, I’d check the CNMC’s archives for investigations into non-competitive practices in PNR contracts.

#### Filings to Make

I’d file a formal complaint with the European Commission under Article 258 TFEU, alleging ongoing non-compliance post-2020 CJEU ruling, supported by new evidence. In Spain, I’d initiate an administrative liability claim under Article 106.2 of the Spanish Constitution in national courts, targeting the Ministry of Interior for damages. A parallel complaint to the CNMC could address non-competitive procurement, citing EU public procurement rules. To pressure stakeholders, I’d submit freedom of information requests to Spanish ministries for PNR implementation records, leveraging EU and Spanish transparency laws.

### Selling or Assigning the Case

The “HOW 2 SELL” document identifies Fortress, Harbour, Certum, and Bench Walk as prime candidates for purchasing COCOO’s claim. I’d approach Fortress first due to its $6.8 billion in legal asset commitments and global reach, followed by Harbour for its explicit claim purchase offerings and UK base, aligning with COCOO’s interests. Certum’s expertise in litigation buyouts and IP acquisition could be leveraged if we frame the claim as a regulatory asset. The process would involve:

Preparing a detailed dossier with existing filings, preliminary evidence (e.g., CJEU case, Commission reports), and estimated damages (e.g., £10–50 million for UK airlines/investors). I’d pitch to Fortress (opportunities@fortress.com) and Harbour (info@harbourlf.com), emphasizing the case’s transborder impact and Francovich liability. The sale would transfer ownership, with the buyer assuming litigation risks for an upfront payment (e.g., 20–40% of potential recovery). To enhance value, I’d use pre-litigation funding from Certum or Burford to gather stronger evidence, increasing the claim’s marketability. The secondary market insights suggest structuring the claim as a portfolio with other COCOO assets to attract institutional buyers like Ares.

### Limitations and Clarifications Needed

I lack access to real-time databases (e.g., EUR-Lex, CENDOJ) to retrieve specific filings like the CJEU case or Plus Ultra records. If you have these or can provide case numbers, I can refine the analysis. The “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf” is US-focused, so its applicability to EU/Spanish contexts needs validation—please clarify if you want me to prioritize EU equivalents (e.g., EU merger control regulations). For the mediation agreement, please confirm the preferred counterparty (e.g., Spanish Ministry of Interior, EU Commission) and whether to focus on settlement or collaboration terms.

### Mediation Agreement Draft

**MEDIATION AGREEMENT**

This Mediation Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into on July 15, 2025, by and between COCOO, a UK-based entity represented by Oscar Moya LLedo (“Claimant”), and the Spanish Ministry of Interior, represented by its designated official (“Respondent”), collectively the “Parties,” to resolve disputes related to Spain’s alleged failure to transpose and implement Directive (EU) 2016/681 (“PNR Directive”).

**Recitals**

WHEREAS, Claimant alleges that Respondent’s delay in transposing the PNR Directive by May 25, 2018, and implementation of a deficient ONIP system caused transborder harms to UK interests, including airlines, passengers, and investors, invoking state liability under the Francovich doctrine;

WHEREAS, Respondent denies liability but acknowledges the public interest in resolving disputes efficiently;

WHEREAS, the Parties wish to explore a collaborative resolution through mediation to address compliance gaps, mitigate harms, and avoid protracted litigation;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:

**1. Purpose and Scope**

The purpose of this Agreement is to facilitate mediation to resolve disputes arising from Claimant’s allegations, including potential damages, regulatory reforms, and establishment of a joint platform (“European Commitment for PNR Security and Transparency”). The mediation covers all claims related to the PNR Directive’s implementation in Spain from 2016 to 2025.

**2. Mediation Process**

The Parties agree to appoint a neutral mediator, mutually selected within 14 days of this Agreement’s execution, with expertise in EU law and competition matters. Mediation sessions shall commence within 30 days at a neutral venue in Brussels or virtually, with costs shared equally. Each Party shall submit a position statement within 21 days, outlining claims, defenses, and proposed remedies, limited to 20 pages.

**3. Confidentiality**

All mediation communications, documents, and discussions are confidential and inadmissible in any legal proceedings, except as required by EU or Spanish law. The Parties shall execute non-disclosure agreements with the mediator to protect sensitive information, including security or procurement data.

**4. Good Faith Participation**

The Parties commit to participate in good faith, with authority to negotiate and propose remedies, including financial compensation, regulatory commitments, or platform collaboration. Claimant may present anonymized stakeholder data to substantiate harms, while Respondent may provide implementation records to demonstrate compliance efforts.

**5. Potential Remedies**

The Parties will explore remedies including, but not limited to: (a) Respondent’s commitment to rectify ONIP deficiencies by a specified date; (b) financial compensation for documented UK losses, estimated at £10–50 million; (c) co-funding and participation in the European Commitment platform to enhance PNR compliance; and (d) public acknowledgment of implementation challenges to foster transparency.

**6. Non-Binding Nature**

Mediation outcomes are non-binding unless the Parties execute a written settlement agreement. Either Party may terminate mediation with 7 days’ written notice if no progress is made after 60 days, preserving rights to pursue litigation or other remedies.

**7. Governing Law**

This Agreement is governed by EU law, with disputes arising hereunder resolved in Brussels courts. The Parties waive objections to venue or jurisdiction.

**8. Entire Agreement**

This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the Parties, superseding prior discussions. Amendments require written consent of both Parties.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement on the date first above written.

**COCOO**
By: Oscar Moya LLedo
Title: In-House Solicitor
Date: July 15, 2025

**Spanish Ministry of Interior**
By: [Name]
Title: [Title]
Date: July 15, 2025

—

This mediation agreement is designed to facilitate a collaborative resolution, focusing on regulatory fixes and compensation while preserving COCOO’s litigation option. It targets the Ministry of Interior as the primary counterparty, given its responsibility for PNR implementation, but can be adjusted for other entities (e.g., EU Commission) if preferred. Please confirm the counterparty and any specific terms to prioritize.

### Next Steps

I’ll contact Fortress and Harbour to gauge interest in purchasing the claim, prepare a dossier with existing filings, and request specific CJEU/Commission documents from you to strengthen the case. I’ll also initiate freedom of information requests with Spanish ministries and the EU. Please clarify the mediation counterparty, any preferred sale terms (e.g., minimum price), and whether to prioritize litigation or settlement.

---

CASEFILES

The attachments consist of seven documents, all dated March 22, 2025, addressed to various entities: the European Commission, Spain’s Ministries of Interior, Foreign Affairs, Economy, Justice, Transport, and the CNMC (Spain’s National Markets and Competition Commission). Each document is authored by Oscar Moya LLedo, COCOO’s in-house solicitor, and follows a near-identical structure, alleging Spain’s liability for failing to transpose the PNR Directive by May 25, 2018, and implementing a deficient system (ONIP) in November 2020. The documents assert that this failure caused systemic risks, transborder harms, and potential damages to UK interests, invoking the Francovich doctrine for state liability.

Key points from the documents include Spain’s delay in transposition, leading to an infringement procedure and referral to the CJEU in 2020, persistent gaps in the ONIP system noted by the European Commission in 2023, and multiple warnings for structural non-compliance. The documents argue that Spain’s omissions created security vulnerabilities, disrupted UK-EU cooperation post-Brexit, and harmed UK agencies, passengers, airlines, and investors. They cite the Plus Ultra Líneas Aéreas case, alleging uncontrolled gold or valuables entering via flights from Venezuela, as evidence of security lapses linked to PNR deficiencies. Hypothetical scenarios (money laundering, terrorism, human trafficking) illustrate potential risks.

The documents propose a platform, “European Commitment for PNR Security and Transparency,” to gather stakeholders, document harms, and advocate for regulatory convergence and compensation. They invite each recipient to collaborate, share information, or contribute to compliance indicators.

### Insights

The case hinges on Spain’s alleged breach of EU law and its transborder impact, particularly on UK interests. The Francovich doctrine is central, requiring three conditions for state liability: the directive must confer rights on individuals, the breach must be sufficiently serious, and there must be a direct causal link to damages. The PNR Directive aimed to enhance security through passenger data sharing, arguably conferring rights on individuals (e.g., passengers expecting safe travel) and entities (e.g., airlines expecting regulatory clarity). Spain’s delay until November 2020 and ongoing deficiencies, as noted by the Commission in 2023, suggest a serious breach, especially given the CJEU referral. However, proving specific damages to UK parties and a direct causal link is challenging without concrete evidence, as the documents rely on hypothetical scenarios and unverified allegations (e.g., Plus Ultra).

The transborder angle leverages post-Brexit UK-EU dynamics, emphasizing disrupted data-sharing agreements (TCA, Prüm II) and weakened counterterrorism efforts. This strengthens the public interest argument but complicates jurisdiction, as the UK is no longer an EU member. The documents’ broad targeting of Spanish ministries and the CNMC suggests a strategy to pressure multiple stakeholders, but the CNMC’s relevance is unclear, as it primarily handles competition, not security or data protection. The repeated mention of Spain’s “internal instrumentalization” and non-competitive procurement hints at a secondary competition law angle, potentially actionable under EU public procurement rules, but this is underdeveloped.

The Plus Ultra case is a weak point, as the documents provide no primary evidence, only allegations of uncontrolled goods. Without substantiation, this risks undermining credibility. The proposed platform is a proactive move to build a coalition and gather evidence, but its success depends on stakeholder engagement and funding. The documents’ preventive tone and lack of specific demands (e.g., compensation amounts) suggest an exploratory phase, aiming to establish dialogue rather than immediate litigation.

### Limitations and Clarifications Needed

I lack access to external databases (e.g., CJEU rulings, Commission reports from 2023) to verify claims about Spain’s infringement or ONIP’s deficiencies. The documents reference these but provide no citations or annexes. I also cannot access real-time data on the Plus Ultra investigation or stakeholder responses to COCOO’s initiative. If you have specific evidence (e.g., Commission reports, Plus Ultra court filings), please provide them to strengthen the analysis. Additionally, the documents’ near-identical content across recipients raises questions about tailored strategies for each entity—should I assume a uniform approach or differentiate based on each ministry’s role? For now, I’ll proceed with a general strategy, but clarification on preferred targets (e.g., litigation vs. settlement, EU vs. Spanish focus) would refine the plan.

### Legal Strategy to Advance the Case

To win this case, I’d pursue a multi-pronged approach combining litigation, advocacy, and stakeholder mobilization, tailored to establish Spain’s liability and maximize COCOO’s influence.

First, I’d prioritize evidence gathering to substantiate claims. The Francovich doctrine requires specific damages, so I’d commission studies or collect testimonies from affected UK parties (airlines like British Airways, passengers, security firms) detailing financial losses, regulatory costs, or security risks linked to Spain’s PNR failures. For example, airlines could provide data on compliance costs due to Spain’s inconsistent rules. I’d also investigate the Plus Ultra case, seeking court documents or customs reports to confirm allegations of uncontrolled goods, as this could anchor the security risk narrative. If evidence is thin, I’d use the proposed platform to crowdsource anonymized data from stakeholders, ensuring GDPR compliance.

Second, I’d explore litigation options. The strongest venue is the CJEU, building on the 2020 infringement case, but as a UK entity post-Brexit, COCOO may lack standing unless representing EU-based parties. Alternatively, I’d consider Spanish courts under Article 106.2 of the Spanish Constitution, which allows state liability claims for public administration failures. I’d file preliminary actions against the Ministry of Interior, responsible for PNR implementation, alleging grave negligence. To pressure Spain, I’d lodge a formal complaint with the European Commission, urging further infringement proceedings based on the 2023 findings. A parallel competition law claim against Spain’s non-competitive procurement practices could be filed with the CNMC, citing CJEU cases like Stadt Halle, though this is secondary.

Third, I’d amplify advocacy through the “European Commitment” platform. I’d launch it as a professional portal, inviting UK and EU airlines, security agencies, and passenger rights groups to join. Webinars, white papers, and media campaigns would highlight Spain’s PNR failures, framing COCOO as a public interest champion. I’d engage UK authorities (e.g., Home Office) to underscore post-Brexit security concerns, potentially securing their support for diplomatic pressure on Spain. Collaboration with EU bodies like Europol could validate claims about counterterrorism risks.

### Monetization Strategy

As COCOO’s solicitor, my goal is to generate revenue while advancing the case, leveraging COCOO’s expertise in competition and consumer advocacy. Here’s how:

I’d offer premium consultancy services through the platform, targeting airlines, travel tech firms, and security contractors affected by PNR inconsistencies. Services would include compliance audits, regulatory risk assessments, and bespoke reports on navigating Spain’s PNR framework. For example, British Airways could pay for tailored advice on mitigating costs from Spain’s regulatory gaps. I’d charge tiered fees (e.g., £10,000–£50,000 annually) based on client size, projecting £500,000 in first-year revenue from 10–20 clients.

I’d pursue contingency-based litigation funding. I’d pitch the case to third-party funders, emphasizing potential Francovich damages (e.g., millions for airlines or investors). Funders would cover legal costs in exchange for 30–40% of any settlement or award. To attract funders, I’d prepare a detailed dossier quantifying damages, using airline financial reports and passenger surveys. A successful claim against Spain could yield £10–50 million, with COCOO retaining £6–30 million after funders’ shares.

I’d monetize the platform’s data and insights. Aggregated, anonymized data from stakeholder testimonies (e.g., compliance costs, security incidents) could be packaged into industry reports sold to airports, regulators, or insurers for £5,000–£20,000 each. I’d also offer subscription-based access to platform tools (e.g., compliance trackers, risk dashboards) for £1,000–£5,000 annually, targeting smaller operators. This could generate £200,000 yearly from 50 subscribers and 10 report sales.

I’d seek grants from UK and EU bodies focused on security or consumer protection (e.g., UK’s Innovate UK, EU’s Horizon Europe). A £100,000–£500,000 grant could fund platform development and research, offsetting costs while enhancing credibility. I’d position COCOO as a transborder security advocate, aligning with UK-EU cooperation goals.

### Ethical and Practical Considerations

To maintain credibility, I’d ensure all claims are evidence-based, avoiding overreliance on hypotheticals. I’d comply with GDPR when handling stakeholder data and secure client consent for testimonies. I’d also manage conflicts of interest, as COCOO’s dual role as advocate and consultant could raise impartiality concerns. To mitigate risks, I’d cap litigation costs through funding agreements and diversify revenue streams to avoid dependence on a single outcome.

### Next Steps

I’d immediately draft a detailed evidence request to COCOO, seeking Commission reports, Plus Ultra documents, and stakeholder contacts. I’d engage a UK-based litigation funder for a preliminary meeting and develop a platform prototype within three months, budgeting £50,000 for web development and marketing. I’d also schedule outreach to British Airways and UK passenger rights groups to secure early platform adopters. If you prefer a specific focus (e.g., litigation over consultancy, targeting a particular ministry), please clarify, and I’ll adjust the plan accordingly.

This strategy positions COCOO to win the case by building a robust evidence base, pressuring Spain through multiple channels, and generating revenue through consultancy, litigation, and data monetization, all while advancing public interest goals.

 

---

---

---

Analysis of Collective Action Potential Regarding Non-Compliance with Regulation (EC) No 261/2004

To: The Board, COCOO.UK From: Oscar Moya Lledo, In-House Solicitor Date: 11 June 2025

---

The case for a collective action is exceptionally strong. We have an identifiable class bound by a clear commonality of harms—specifically, the denial of funds, the forced expenditure on care, and the shared experience of systemic obstruction. These harms are a direct result of the alleged non-feasance of the Spanish state and the resulting breaches of contract by airlines.

Our initiative to collect testimonies and evidence will further strengthen this foundation, allowing us to precisely quantify the “tangible and quantifiable economic and competitive damages” that have been inflicted.

The documents you have prepared constitute a formidable basis for initiating a collective action. The core of this action lies in the systemic and repeated failure of the Kingdom of Spain to ensure the effective implementation of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004. This failure has inflicted a uniform set of harms upon a clearly identifiable class of individuals and entities, thereby satisfying the crucial legal test of ‘commonality’.

The collective threat arises from two primary legal avenues:

1. A claim in tort (or its Spanish equivalent, responsabilidad patrimonial) against the Kingdom of Spain for damages stemming from its failure to enforce EU law.
2. Claims for breach of contract against the airlines, where the failure to provide mandatory entitlements under Regulation 261 constitutes a breach of the contract of carriage, many of which are explicitly subject to English law.

1. Identification of the Prospective Class

The prospective class is clearly defined as:

Citizens, consumers, investors, and companies of the United Kingdom who have been directly or indirectly affected by flight delays, cancellations, and other abusive or non-transparent commercial practices on flights to, from, or through Spain due to the deficient implementation of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004.

2. Commonality: The Shared Harm

The strength of our potential collective action rests on the uniform nature of the harm suffered by all class members. This is not a case of disparate, individual grievances; it is a singular, systemic failure producing identical, measurable damages across the entire class. The common harm is the direct economic loss and the frustration of legally enshrined rights.

This common harm can be broken down into three specific, shared categories:

• Systematic Denial of Timely Financial Compensation: The Regulation mandates a maximum seven-day period for the payment of indemnities and reimbursements. The alleged widespread failure to enforce this deadline has caused direct, tangible, and uniform financial damage to all affected passengers. Every class member who was entitled to compensation and did not receive it within the statutory timeframe has suffered the same specific harm: the loss of use of their funds and a violation of the Regulation’s preventative spirit.

• Uniform Failure to Provide Immediate Assistance (Right to Care): The documents allege a “widespread lack of immediate assistance, especially accommodation and subsistence”. This represents a common, out-of-pocket financial injury. Class members were uniformly forced to bear costs for necessities like food, drink, and lodging, which the airlines were legally obligated to provide. The harm is the ascertainable amount of these unreimbursed, essential expenditures.

• Shared Experience of Systemic Obstruction: A core element of the common harm is the “administrative and bureaucratic inefficiency that perpetuates the legal and economic inferiority of the passenger”. Every prospective class member has faced the same government-endorsed institutional barriers, effectively nullifying their ability to exercise their rights. This creates a shared experience of powerlessness and economic vulnerability, which is a direct contravention of the Regulation’s central objective.

3. Legal Basis for Collective Threats

The commonality of harm provides a solid foundation for collective litigation under both tort and contract law.

• Tort Law against the Spanish State: The primary allegation is that Spain’s repeated failure to enforce the Regulation has caused direct, identifiable, and quantifiable economic damage to UK passengers and businesses. Our proposed action would argue that the Spanish State is liable for this damage under the principle of state liability for breaches of EU law, a principle explicitly acknowledged in Spanish domestic law (Ley 40/2015). The harm is common to all, and the alleged tortious conduct (the State’s negligence) is the single cause of that common harm.

• Contract Law against Airlines: The air transport contracts for major carriers operating between the UK and Spain are, in the vast majority of cases, explicitly subject to English law. The failure of these airlines to provide the compensation and assistance mandated by Regulation 261 constitutes a specific and identical breach of contract for every affected passenger. This provides a powerful basis for a collective action in English courts, which have clear jurisdiction. The insufficient enforcement by Spain is the reason these breaches occur with impunity, directly linking the tort and contract claims