Of course. Based on a thorough review of the case documents, I have identified several potential causes of action that could be directed at public sector and government bodies. In many of these instances, private companies could be held jointly responsible for the resulting harm, either by actively participating in the distortive conduct or by benefiting from regulatory failures. This analysis is crucial for our strategy of applying pressure and seeking settlements.

Possible Causes of Action Affecting the Public Sector and Government

Our primary legal recourse against government bodies in the EU, UK, and Spain would not be for perpetrating the subsidies, but for their failure to adequately protect their domestic markets and uphold their own laws and public interest commitments.

A significant cause of action would be the failure of national competition authorities to investigate and enforce competition law. The case files lay the groundwork for a complaint that authorities like Spain’s CNMC have a mandate to remedy market distortions affecting the public interest, even those originating from foreign subsidies¹¹¹¹. We can argue that by allowing domestic importers and distributors to systematically sell a foreign-subsidized product below sustainable costs, these authorities are failing to prevent acts that have an equivalent effect to predatory pricing and unfair competition. A formal decision by the CNMC or the UK’s CMA not to investigate these practices could be challenged through judicial review, on the grounds that the decision is irrational or fails to consider the clear evidence of market distortion and harm to domestic industry that we can provide.

Another powerful cause of action relates to irrational or unlawful trade remedy decisions. The documents note that if the EU Commission were to allow the countervailing duties on Indonesian biodiesel to expire “without a good reason,” this decision could be legally challenged by an EU producer or an environmental group³. The same applies in the United Kingdom, where a recommendation by the Trade Remedies Authority (TRA) to remove duties could be rejected by the Secretary of State on public interest grounds, or the decision itself could be subject to judicial review⁴⁴⁴⁴. Such a legal challenge would argue that the decision ignores the overwhelming evidence of ongoing subsidies, the likelihood of recurring injury to domestic producers, and the conflict with overarching government policies like the UK’s Net Zero Strategy or the EU’s Green Deal

Furthermore, we can identify a cause of action in the failure to properly enforce environmental and sustainability regulations. Government bodies like Spain’s MITECO and their UK equivalents are responsible for implementing binding laws such as the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR)^666666666. This regulation will prohibit the import of commodities linked to deforestation after 2025⁷⁷⁷⁷. A failure by national customs and environmental agencies to conduct rigorous due diligence on high-risk imports, such as palm-oil biodiesel from Indonesia, would constitute a breach of their statutory duty. This inaction would directly harm domestic producers of sustainable biofuels and could be challenged in court to compel stricter enforcement.

Finally, there is a potential cause of action for negligent customs enforcement related to circumvention. The documents show that the EU has already investigated the transshipment of Indonesian biodiesel through China and the UK to evade duties^888888888. Private companies are the primary actors in such schemes, but the customs authorities of the port-of-entry country could be held responsible for regulatory negligence if they fail to act on credible intelligence to prevent this illegal activity. Their failure to police the borders effectively allows the harm from the original subsidy to continue, making them complicit in the damage to domestic markets.

Private Companies with Joint Responsibility

Several categories of private companies could be held jointly responsible alongside public sector bodies for the harm caused.

The most direct group consists of importers and distributors within the EU, UK, and Spain. The documents suggest investigating whether these companies have engaged in anti-competitive practices by concertedly using the advantage of the Indonesian subsidy to eliminate domestic rivals^999999999. We could pursue a cause of action against these firms under national competition laws, arguing that the government’s failure to stop them makes it jointly responsible for the ensuing market damage. Furthermore, these importers could be sued directly by domestic producers under unfair competition laws for selling products at prices below sustainable cost with the intent to capture the market

A second category includes logistics, trading, and transport companies that knowingly facilitate the circumvention of trade duties. These firms, which engage in transshipping Indonesian biodiesel through third countries or mislabeling the product to evade tariffs, are directly participating in fraudulent activity. While they are privately liable, the government customs agencies that fail to detect and stop this activity, despite being alerted to the risk, share in the responsibility for the harm caused to the market.

Lastly, the major fuel blenders and large oil companies who are the primary business users of biodiesel could be implicated. While they may appear to be neutral purchasers, their role is more complex. If they knowingly and systematically source illegally subsidized and unsustainable biodiesel to the detriment of a fair and competitive market, they could be seen as participants in the overall scheme. Their joint responsibility with the government could arise in contexts like public procurement, where a public transport authority, for example, might be challenged for sourcing fuel from these companies without ensuring it meets sustainability and fair-trade criteria, thereby holding both the public body and the private supplier accountable.