28th regime corporate legal framework – EU Inc.

While there be many nitty-gritty reasons on why this proposal might not be a good idea, mostly concerning harmonization of national laws etc., let me share our perspective as an organization which meets new Healthcare founders and their startups on a daily basis: Every week, I meet at least one founder who plans to leave the EU due to the sum of its prohibitive bureaucracy it has accumulated over the last few years.

The introduction of a single set of rules for innovative companies - the 28th regime - represents a suboptimal approach to harmonising corporate law within the European Union. Many detailed questions remain unsolved. At best, such an approach could serve as a temporary measure until deeper harmonisation of commercial law provisions is achieved.

Simplify the Creation and Modification of Non-Profits (Especially Energy Communities) and Boost Funding for Energy Communities In Italy and Estonia and unfortunately possibly in many other European Member States, there is no procedure or there is a procedure and it is extremely complicated for opening and modifying an association/cooperative/no-profit.

Please find enclosed the full opinion. Summary: Company law is fragmented across the EU with 27 national legal frameworks. The planned 28th The EU regulatory framework offers an opportunity to strengthen the European single market in a targeted way through a simple, legally secure and digitally usable form of business, with real added value in particular for young, innovative and cross-border businesses.

Filed in German · English published by the European Commission

The European Savings and Retail Banking Group (ESBG) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. We appreciate the Commissions initiative to engage stakeholders and hope our remarks will be taken into account. Although the proposal aims to reduce fragmentation, a parallel EU regime would overlap with national corporate laws, creating legal uncertainty and potential forum shopping.

1 Consultation input — The Hague, 11 August 2025 Transform the EU from company nursery to powerhouse Europe is known as a forward-thinking continent, where knowledge and innovation have been at its core for centuries. What was true then remains relevant today. Yet, we are at risk of being overtaken by countries like the United States and China. That’s unfortunate - and not without consequences.

Opening of the attached position paper · the full paper is on the Commission’s record (source link above)

Even though our startup operates under the ECSPR the so-called 28th regime passported by ESMA the reality is very different. Rapid growth and expansion across EU markets remain blocked by fragmented national frameworks: debt collection laws, notaries, banking accounts, credit registers. Nothing is unified, and each new market feels like starting a new company from scratch.

As Karma Capital, we deliberately opted for steward ownership both in our own structure and in building a fund that invests in ownership. This form of ownership separates voting rights from profit rights, binds assets and thus prevents the sale of companies to the highest bidder. In this way, we can secure our mission in the long term and promote innovation that is not driven by short-term exit pressure.

Filed in German · English published by the European Commission

From the perspective of Safe Transactions, the 28th offers: An easier opportunity for EU companies to work more easily across all of the EU in a more standardised approach. Pressure on EU members not to goldplate regulations (Hopefully) create more competition between national regulatory bodies Encourage non-EU inward investment with easier one-stop for all EU.

Based on available studies and industry feedback, the costs of corporate law fragmentation in Europe stem from administrative and intermediary costs (red tape), the rigidity of corporate law (which limits VC-backed companies ability to tailor contractual funding structures to their needs), investors reliance on multiple legal advisors when investing across jurisdictions, and the difficulty of setting up ESOPs for…

1) Tax Free Transfers to All Energy Communities Members in Europe. Energy communities bring environmental, financial and social benefits to their members. Without an energy community, a physical person (e.g. an individual, an EU Citizen) installs a photovoltaics on his/her roof and autonomously takes care of the selection of the company that does the works, permitting and financing.

1) Tax Free Transfers to All Energy Communities Members in Europe. Energy communities bring environmental, financial and social benefits to their members. Without an energy community, a physical person (e.g. an individual, an EU Citizen) installs a photovoltaics on his/her roof and autonomously takes care of the selection of the company that does the works, permitting and financing.

1) Tax Free Transfers to All Energy Communities Members in Europe. Energy communities bring environmental, financial and social benefits to their members. Without an energy community, a physical person (e.g. an individual, an EU Citizen) installs a photovoltaics on his/her roof and autonomously takes care of the selection of the company that does the works, permitting and financing.

While competitiveness is the red thread running through the current political term, the dimension of ownership retention remains largely absent from the discourse, despite its structural relevance for the EUs economic and social fabric.

The 28th regime initiative is an important step in maintaining the competitiveness of businesses in the European Union (EU). In the age of digitalisation, there is significant potential to reduce the administrative burden on companies. However, in order to benefit from such an initiative, further harmonisation efforts will be necessary.

Consultation Contribution 28th Regime and Steward-Ownership Introduction As a steward for Eigendom Anders, a Dutch initiative that raises awareness about the societal impact of ownership structures, I strongly advocate for embedding steward-ownership (through asset lock mechanisms) into the 28th Regime. This can pave the way towards a healthier, more stable, and more innovative European economy.

Our feedback to the EU Commission on the proposed 28th regime for an EU corporate legal framework highlights its potential to significantly strengthen Europes business environment by reducing legal fragmentation and lowering administrative burdens.

Berlin, 1. September 2025 Deutsche Industrie- und Handelskammer Stellungnahme Perspektiven der deutschen gewerblichen Wirtschaft zum 28. Regime für Unternehmen Wir bedanken uns für die Gelegenheit zur Stellungnahme im Rahmen der Sondierung und der öffentlichen Konsultation der EU-Kommission zum „28. Rechtsrahmen – EU-Rechtsrahmen für Unternehmen”. Die Themen rund um die Einführung eines sog. „28.

Filed in German · English published by the European Commission

Opening of the attached position paper · the full paper is on the Commission’s record (source link above)

VDMA represents more than 3,600 companies of the machinery and equipment manufacturing industry in Europe and Germany. Please find below our non-exhaustive feedback in relation to the 28th regime EU corporate legal framework: VDMA welcomes in principle the idea of a 28th regime through the creation of a fundamentally uniform European company form.

While competitiveness is the red thread running through the current political term, the dimension of ownership retention remains largely absent from the discourse, despite its structural relevance for the EUs economic and social fabric.

The Confederation of European Security Services (CoESS) is the EU-level sectoral social partner and employers association in the private security services industry, representing 23 national associations with 45,000 companies.

Within the current debate around the European economys competitiveness, an important element is missing: how to encourage long-term ownership within the current economic and social reality. On top of the start-ups and scale-ups seeking continuity, an unprecedented change of ownership is about to put the European economy up for sale, with a silver tsunami of European baby boomer business owners retiring in the coming…

The Malta Business Bureau (MBB) strongly supports the objectives behind the 28th Regime. Reducing legal fragmentation, lowering administrative burdens, and enabling cross-border growth to resonate with Maltas economic model.

SEPTEMBER 2025 European Family Businesses response to public consultation on the 28th regime. European Family Businesses (EFB) considers the European Commission’s proposal to develop a 28th regime to have a lot of potential for ‘innovative companies’ particularly, when it comes to introducing smart digital solutions for setting up a business in the EU.

Opening of the attached position paper · the full paper is on the Commission’s record (source link above)

What if Europes next major policy innovation wasnt just about scaling startups, but also about aligning growth with positive impact? That is the opportunity we see in the European Commissions proposal for a harmonised 28th regime. We strongly support the objective of simplifying business across the Single Market, reducing the friction of 27 legal systems, and helping startups and scaleups grow more competitively.

Within the current debate around the European economys competitiveness, an important element is missing: how to encourage long-term ownership within the current economic and social reality. On top of the start-ups and scale-ups seeking continuity, an unprecedented change of ownership is about to put the European economy up for sale, with a silver tsunami of European baby boomer business owners retiring in the coming…

Future-proof innovation policy must not be reduced to a single business model. While VC-funded start-ups often focus on fast exit start-ups, it is clear that: More than 30 % of European start-ups have no exit model at all. In the sustainable economy in particular, this diversity creates resilient forms of enterprise that ensure long-term stability and innovation.

Filed in German · English published by the European Commission

At Wildplastic GmbH, we are pioneering a non-extractive business model for a circular economy in Europe. Our mission is to remove plastic waste from the environment especially in regions of the Global South and reintroduce it into the economy through high-quality recycling. We create products such as 100% recycled trash bags made from wild plastic, collected by local communities and partner organizations.

As deeptech startup founder I strongly support a unified legal structure for small private companies that minimizes beaurocratic overhead and necessity of legal fees (notary, lawyers). This will boost the EU innovation ecosystem and help attract non-EU investment to EU companies.

An EU-wide standard for steward-ownership registration would be immensely useful to social entrepreneurs who want to set up their companies with a public commitment to a greater purpose beyond just profits, and as a protection against monopolistic competitors. We have made a public case for steward-ownership as a cornerstone of more democratic and self-sovereign technology: https://blog.muni.town/company-as-commons/

European company law resembles the United States. Several states offer an array of corporate forms for both private and public firms, from for-profit companies to not-for-profit companies, cooperatives, associations and foundations.

Altrom Institute believes the 28th Regime should be a single, uniform EU legal framework that removes crossborder barriers for SMEs, social enterprises, and cooperatives. Altrom Institute supports making it directly applicable in all Member States, backed by a central EU company registry, harmonised investment documentation, and standardised employee stock option rules.

WIRTSCHAFTSKAMMER ÖSTERREICH Europäische Kommission Generaldirektion Justiz und Verbraucher Abteilung für Rechtspolitik Wiedner Hauptstraße 63 | 1045 Wien T 05 90 900DW E [email removed] W wko.at/rp Ihr Zeichen, Ihre Nachricht vom Unser Zeichen, Sachbearbeiter Durchwahl Datum Ares(2025)5502931 8.7.2025 Rp 50.6.12/2025/AS/CG Dr.

Filed in German · English published by the European Commission

Opening of the attached position paper · the full paper is on the Commission’s record (source link above)

Passion Capital is an early stage VC fund investing across Europe (recent investments include France, Netherlands, Luxembourg & Germany). Investing at Pre-Seed we often back founders before a business is incorporated & are involved in the discussion around choice of juridstiction - too often European founders, looking to build European based team, choose to incorporate as a Deleware business put off by national…

The 28th regime can be a significant improvement to starting and operating a company inside the European Union. This will only work if it truly is a single implementation across every member state, if we get to local flavors of the 28th regime we may as well not bother.

As a non-profit organization dedicated to education and research on steward-ownership, Purpose Stiftung gGmbH has been working for many years to support entrepreneurs, policymakers, and academics in exploring business models that combine innovation with responsibility.

Aligning the 28th regime with VAT in the Digital Age (ViDA) rules to enable a digital Single Market for high-growth businesses Sage response to the 28th regime call for evidence Sage welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the European Commission’s call for evidence on the upcoming 28th regime.

Opening of the attached position paper · the full paper is on the Commission’s record (source link above)

As a founder of a games company in the UK and a freelance games developer based in Italy, the amount of frustration that the fragmentation of the European work market generates cannot be understated. I would like to create (or work for) remote-first businesses that can pool talent from anywhere in Europe, and still give each of those talents the feel of being part of a shared enterprises, partaking not only in the…

From the perspective of the POLICY ANSWERS project and the Western Balkans Info Hub, it is important to stress from the outset that the chosen terminology (referring to the proposed EU-wide harmonised legal regime for innovative companies as the 28th regime) should NOT be retained in subsequent legislative steps.

This is one of the most important initiatives I have seen in the past decade. The data speaks for itself: in the past 50 years, Europe has produced only a handful of companies valued above 10 billion, while the United States has created hundreds. As a member of an European company, we often feel compelled to move operations to the U.S. in order to scale at the necessary pace.

Hello everyone, This proposal is incredibly important for startups like mine, Learninghubz (https://www.learninghubz.com/) Expanding a business across the EU is so challenging due to the fragmentation of legal frameworks across Member States, cultural and language barriers. This complexity and the associated costs limit our potential to scale up.

The 28th regime a single, optional, harmonized set of rules across the EU is the most important measure to trigger innovation in Europe. Today, startups and SMEs face 27 different national systems, creating legal costs, delays, and barriers to scaling.

As a manager of a small company specialising in IT advice, I would like to support the initiative to create a harmonised European legal framework for businesses, as proposed under the 28th regime. The possibility of starting a business within 48 hours through fully online procedures would be a major step forward. Today, approaches vary greatly from one Member State to another, hindering cross-border lexpansion.

Filed in French · English published by the European Commission

Regular Monthly Calls for Grant in CapEx, OpEx and Manufacturing of Community-Owned Power Systems. Energy communities are on the rise and they are the only and last chance for Europe to reduce energy dependency from outside Europe while benefitting financially their members as well as bringing benefits to the environment.

At Prophil (https://prophil.eu/), we are accompanying entrepreneurs who want to do something else and contribute to the common good. In this work, we have seen how innovative companies can thrive when their ownership and governance structures support their long-term mission rather than short-term exit logics.

Filed in French · English published by the European Commission

As a leader of an SME, I speak for this type of enterprise. European SMEs face structural and cyclical obstacles to their establishment, growth and day-to-day operation. 1. Skills shortages and labour costs Many sectors suffer from a lack of skilled labour, slowing down projects and hampering innovation.

Filed in French · English published by the European Commission

In the 21st century when everything is supposed to be digital, it is a joke that in a lot of EU countries you need a notary to found a company or sign investment contracts! This is a practice for the 18th century!

Dear European Commission, As an EU business, we appreciate the chance to provide feedback on the EU VAT system. Its complexity and excessive regulation make intra-EU business harder than operating outside the EU or shipping into it. This stifles trade, competitiveness, and growth, especially for SMEs. We urge radical simplification of the VAT system and broader deregulation to foster intra-community trade.

We strongly support the legal unification of company formation rules and digitization of company formation efforts. It should be possible to form and establish a comany under regulation within 24 hours via sole digital means of approval and enter it into the appropriate registry fully validated and authenticated.

URGENT AND STRONG NEED FOR STEM PEOPLE (SCIENTISTS, ENGINEERS, DOCTORS, MATHEMATICIANS, TECHNICIANS) AT GRANTING INSTITUTIONS (EUROPEAN ENERGY COMMUNITIES FACILITY, EIC ACCELERATOR, EIC ACCELERATOR, ETC.). Subject: Urgent Need for STEM Professionals in Grant Decision-Making There is a critical and urgent need for STEM professionalsscientists, engineers, doctors, mathematicians, and techniciansat the institutions…

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the 28th Regime. Im writing on behalf of The Luminaria, a "purpose over profit" entity. Our experience strongly supports anchoring steward-ownership in the 28th Regime to enable non-exit-oriented European entrepreneurship.

Ecosia, the green search engine, has been in steward ownership since 2018. This was a key step for us to ensure that our corporate purpose remains permanently protected for the financing of global reloading and climate change projects through 100 % of our profits.

Filed in German · English published by the European Commission

Steward-Ownership is an emerging governance and ownership model designed to overcome the limitations of traditional shareholder capitalism. In practice, this is implemented through dual-share structures, foundation ownership, or golden-share mechanisms that separate voting rights from economic rights. This structure prevents hostile takeovers, enables long-term strategies, and embeds purpose into ownership.

EU has done a great job in creating a free trade union working as one entity for moving goods and people over the continent. However, it is not truly working as a union as long as there is no common company register with common regulations. We are a cross-border investor in startups, doing 20+ investments per year. It is extremely difficult from a regulatory standpoint and involves a large amount of regulatory risk.

The document provides strategic input to the European Commission on the integration of the European Trade Indexes Registry (EUTIR) into the proposed 28th Company Law Regime. It outlines how EUTIR can serve as a digital trust anchor, enhancing legal certainty, interoperability, and efficiency for EU-based businesses.

In the interests of a wide variety of business models, and in particular for the future of my own company, I think it is important that European innovation policy strives for a stand-alone strategy for long-term value-driven entrepreneurship.

Filed in German · English published by the European Commission

Fiduciary entrepreneurship in the 28th Anchoring regimes: European companies of all sizes must have the legal possibility to voluntarily and irrevocably implement the following key elements: Separation of voting rights and profit rights The controlling majority of voting rights may only be held by persons or entities (including related parties) that do not hold profit rights at the same time (= tie of assets).

Filed in German · English published by the European Commission

Ladies and gentlemen, with our SHIFT GmbH, we are producing sustainable smartphones. Our SHIFTphones are modular, easy to repair, durable and save 40 % of CO2 compared to competitors. To our sustainable devices, we have both searched for an appropriate legal form of fiduciary entrepreneurship (responsibility ownership/steward ownership). We want our company to belong to the people who take responsibility.

Filed in German · English published by the European Commission

Is it more likely to win money by risking money an European Commission grant application (paying the internal team and/or external consultants for applying to the EU Funding & Tenders Portal) or by betting money in Casinos (Casino de Monte-Carlo (Monaco) - James bond series, Casino Baden-Baden (Germany), Casinò Sanremo (Italy), Casino de Paris (France), Casino Lisboa (Portugal), etc.)?

GRANT APPLICATION SUCCESS PROBABILITY Hello! Would it please be possible to have the probability of winning a grant indicated in each and every grant opportunity? I've heard several time the generic sentence 'EIC Accelerator is very competitive' - which means nothing. To what extent is easier to receive a bank transfer from EIC Accelerator then from the EIC Preaccelerator?

As Klimaklitsche GmbH, we develop and operate the Crowd Impact App, which allows organisers and other audience-intensive businesses across Europe to capture and reduce CO emissions from the travel of their guests. Our business model is long-term and dedicated, we want to contribute permanently to a liveable future and not be driven by short-term exit interests.

Filed in German · English published by the European Commission

VAT is harmonised in the EU, so the functioning of the business in different Member States could be equally harmonised. However, this runs counter to the pointless opposition of some Member States to the harmonisation of income taxes. It would help to raise awareness, especially among Slovak politicians, of e.g. harmonised tax on platforms who are unfortunately populists (e.g. say that the Earth is flat!).

Filed in Slovak · English published by the European Commission

Have been a founder of a startup since 2023 and my biggest challenge has been bureaucracy. Bureaucracy stalls Innovation and productivity. There is more time spent on complying with latest country-specific regulations and adapting the existing digital infrastructure around them instead of spending time on growth and expansion of the business, which is sad. Local problems should have international solutions.

We believe it is essential that the new regulatory framework provides innovative companies and startups with modern and flexible tools to raise capital. The adoption of blockchain and Web3 technologies can play a crucial role in this process, especially when combined with a secure and transparent secondary market, as already enabled by the DLT Pilot Regime for financial instruments.

As a Danish growth company with EU-wide operations, we strongly support the Commissions initiative to establish a harmonised corporate legal regime. Based on our recent experience with a routine change for our German subsidiary (a GmbH), we encountered significant friction and administrative burden that illustrates the very barriers this initiative seeks to overcome.

Attractive ESOP rules are key for European innovation. An attractive ESOP rule attracts talent, thus strengthening the companies team and its innovation potential. It is fully understood that the ESOP rules should focus on startups and SMEs, as those are the innovation drivers.

At Growthly, we are a startup designed to help other startups launch, scale, and succeed in competitive markets. We specialize in go-to-market strategies, combining cutting-edge tools like AI, automation platforms, and SaaS technologies to generate qualified leads, improve outbound efficiency, and streamline client acquisition.

Starting a business in Germany has been a messy and frustrating experience. The founding process is plagued by a lack of clarity and coordination between different jurisdictions. I'm facing unexpected costs and delays, including being charged for a GmbH instead of the UG I applied for.

this is a very important and helpful initiative. In order to make Europe a more attractive location for founders, common rules are important. This makes it easier for firms to expand in other neighbouring European markets. This in turn attracts more investment as European firms become more attractive than investment.

Filed in German · English published by the European Commission

1. Please don't call it the 28th regime. The EU is already terrible at branding and this name is not forward-thinking. Let's not start by sticking our foot in our mouth. 2. This is the most innovative thing to help startups in Europe I have seen in 20 years of founding companies on the content. Don't let the bold idea get watered down or picked apart by member states.

Proposal: Establishment of an EU-Wide Open Corporate Register and Data Platform To truly enhance cross-border business activity and facilitate growth for innovative companies, start-ups, and scale-ups, the proposed 28th corporate legal regime should include a fully open and accessible EU corporate register, inspired by best practices from Member States such as Sweden (e.g., Allabolag.se).

To:​ Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers (Company Law) European Commission Response to the Call for Evidence on the 28th Regime (EU corporate legal framework) Date: 28 July 2025 Dear colleagues, Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this important consultation on the proposed 28th regime for a unified legal framework for innovative companies in the EU.

Opening of the attached position paper · the full paper is on the Commission’s record (source link above)

It is important for a good startup ecosystem to have a unique way for startups to have - the same company formation (one system, no notaries and the same articles and shareholding structure) - Investments - standardised system to invest in startups - Real functioning passporting - Startup in one country can operate in all countries in EU without need for branches - One system for hiring and firing people form all of…

We need one European standard. So that investors know how it works and you can easily raise capital globally, so that ecosystems can form around a centralized registry, so that stock-options can be done europe-wide, etc. We support EU Inc and Andreas Klinger 100%. We work in the startup ecosystem, and were completely frustarted in EUs actions.

From the outset, XOs mission has been to build a scalable technology platform aimed at uniting people in real life. As we aim to grow across Europe and potentially expand to markets like the U.S., we see the EUs proposed 28th Regime as a critical enabler for entrepreneurial success across the continent.

We wrote three elements that are our contribution to what Startups working with renewables/sustainability/energy transition need (including landlele). In case this will not be fixed by those who are responsible for it by December 2025, we will unfortunately have to stop our good activities.

Its time for the EU decision makers to understand that the actual regulations in place are not very supportive to EU start ups and innovative development projects. A unified and simplified EU regulation is urgently needed to boost the startups and create a more attractive environment for business development and financing ..the time is urging Taoufiq Jellal

Ladies and Gentlemen, I welcome the European Commission’s initiative. The regime, i.e. a single, EU-wide legal framework for innovative companies, would like to express my full support. I consider that the following points are particularly relevant: 1.

Filed in German · English published by the European Commission

I find it ridiculous that the first thing I had to do when I had created a new company was creating a registry of what personal information I will collect. It is ok to have laws restricting what information you should collect. But not laws that force bureaucracy like this.

Centralized CAPEX Grants for Community-Owned Energy Systems Run by Startups Since 2024, we have been developing energy communities that deliver social, economic, and environmental benefits to their members. In just nine months of work in Italy, we brought together 38 energy community members, generating annual electricity savings of 39,000savings that will continue for 20 years.

JUDICIAL SYSTEM REWARDED BY RESULT (NUMBER OF THIEVES SENT TO PRISON, NUMBER OF INNOCENTS TAKEN OUT OF PRISON, FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS ACTUALLY MADE) AND NOT PAID BY THE HOUR. Lawyers can't be paid by the hour or whatever it happens based on the price-list. Judicial system as it is it's not suitable for Startups. This is surely the case in Italy, most likely in Europe and worldwide.

CENTRALIZED GRANT FOR STARTUPS (European Commission -> Startup) - NOT VIA NATIONAL/REGIONAL/LOCAL AGENCIES - NOT VIA EU FUNDING AND TENDERS PORTAL This is our last attempt in Europe to do something innovative that brings huge benefits to many, this attempt ends December 2025.

As a recent founder of 2 start up companies in the EU, in the global market we operate I can only see the benefits of moving out to another region to open a business. First, if you plan to recruit employees, labor law requires one entity in each country of employment, multiplying the costs of the structure, different authorities to deal with, different accounting requirements, and entirely different taxation…

As the founder of 2x growing companies in the EU (a small 7-figure ecom business & now a tech-startup) - Ive experienced firsthand how complex and fragmented the European market can feel in practice. For every single company we have started or thought about starting, we have considered moving to the US, simply because of the unified access to a giant consumer market as well as easy access to investments.

The proposal is a mess! I am one of the signatory of the original EU Inc Petition and a Venture Capitalist, as the general partner of pan European VC firm Silicon Roundabout Ventures: https://siliconroundabout.ventures I'm also an Italian / EU citizen.

We urge the EU to find a harmonised solution for all member states, a European entity that will especially help start-ups in a non-bureaucratic as well as non-costly way. This will foster innovation and drive growth. The EU has so much potential and needs to step up in order to compete with other large markets in the world.

The proposal for a 28th Regime a single, harmonised set of rules for innovative companies across the EU represents a long-overdue structural reform that could finally unlock the full potential of the European Single Market for innovation and entrepreneurship.

Like Germany, Belgium requires notaries for the creation (and actually closing) of companies - this is burdensome, time consuming and outdated. So are reporting and administration requirements, often needing actions of intermediaries such as accountants and lawyers. Having created and built a company in the UK previously, I can say it was much easier there and adjusted to a small company.

ONE STANDARD FOR THE WHOLE EU. The legislation should actually be harmonized, allowing for anyone outside - and inside - the EU be able to make investments and corporate decisions without worrying about member state specific nuances.

Europe has a real shot at transformation right now, but the current directive-focused path is self-sabotage. The EU Inc idea had one goal: make it as easy to launch and scale a company in Europe as it is in the US or China. More than 16,000 founders, investors, and operators backed the petition, including myself. Europe needs a digital-first, pan-European legal entity that works across borders from day one.

This is a great and much-needed initiative. The current process of setting up new companies in and across EU member states is unnecessarily time-consuming, expensive, and overly complex. These bureaucratic hurdles create significant friction for entrepreneurs and innovators, especially early-stage founders who are trying to move quickly and focus their energy on product development, customer engagement, and team…

At Comate we love working with (hardware) start-ups and are embedded in the local startup ecosysem. It’s painful to see the many struggles they face in scaling their business, CE marking alone is a pain in the neck, let alone all the other directives that are managed locally and they have to comply to (such as WEEE, Food Safety,...).

Filed in Dutch · English published by the European Commission

As someone who has built and invested across Danish, German, and Dutch markets, I witness daily how Europe's tremendous innovation potential is constrained by our own bureaucratic choices. Through my work helping professors at SDU spin out their researcha role I consider essential to giving back to the innovation ecosystemI see these structural challenges first-hand.

From Germany: please eliminate the mandatory involvement of notaries in the company formation process. The current procedure is overly bureaucratic, time-consuming, and unnecessarily expensive. Notarization adds complexity without proportional benefits in many cases, especially for standard company setups like GmbHs.

For Germany: Please remove the notaries. It is too expensive and takes too long. Just choose one country (not Germany, please!) where the process is really quick and cheap and have all other countries copy this process. Do not give each country the homework to create a new process. Germany will make it again over complicated and super expensive.

Europe needs a single EU INC to unlock its full innovation potential. A unified legal entity would allow startups to raise capital and operate seamlessly across all EU member states, eliminating the costly and complex patchwork of national regulations.

The EU Inc is desperately needed to be competitive against the US and Asia. We are currently ourselves considering a company transformation to US Delaware, as it's the jurisdiction investors by far prefer. It's the 1 feedback we get consistently on over 400+ VC calls - move the corporate HQ to US Delaware.

This would make it so much easier to scale our businesses in the EU. It would also improve the willingness of venture capitalists to invest more in European startups. On a personal note, it gives me hope that we can improve the European startup scene, and confirms to me personally that I made a good choice staying in Europe, rather than moving to the US, as so many of my entrepreneur friends suggested.

Intermediary AS is a purpose driven tech Company with the solution: Automated Process of Creating a Company. We can utilize business data based on info from EU data act. We have supported danish Companies cross countries into Norway. We are open to share experence, technologies, platform to unite Europe and beyond

Entering a startup scene with a new idea and going through available resources like incubators, accelerators, investors talk, etc. is presented always as very fast paced game and a dynamic environment. Establishing a company, so that I can take my idea to another level, under one country law and legalities, feels like putting a hand break suddenly on.

One EU company form with limited liability, created fully online in under 24 hours and accepted in every member state. Open to any founder and sector, with no size caps or restrictive eligibility rules. Built-in support for multiple share classes, SAFEs, convertibles, option pools Central EU registry in English plus machine-readable APIs for cap tables, filings and ownership data so investors and regulators can…

Im a professional residential developer of affordable housing projects and it will help enormously to reduce the red tape on the financial negotiations process st European level if we have a unified corporate structure. A Eur.Inc will help to create better conditions for more affordable housing projects reach European banking financing.

This is so important. Founding a company in germany as a young startup is a full time job and can kill solo founder startups if speed is required eg to get investors. Other countries such as estonia are doing an amazing job with enabling founding of companies digitally in a few days. Game changer.

WE are a startup from Bielefeld, Germany (stagewise). We're now flipping our company to become a subsidiary of a Delaware Inc. because the conditions are just way more simplified and standardised. This is super sad because we would love to retain all of the business in the EU. The fact that business rules – especially the requirements for Notarys etc.

Filed in German · English published by the European Commission

Ive incorporated in two different Member States, and the experience has been slow, inefficient, expensive, risky, and overwhelmingly complexfar beyond what any early-stage founder should have to navigate. The aftermath, especially the fiscal aspects, has been even worse. If you cant understand the system youre working withinand most cannotyoure at the mercy of so-called experts.

The FINCO Federation supports greater integration of rules with reference to European Community company law. This constitutes a prerequisite for the realization of a truly single market. Within this context, the issue of simplification is of critical importance and must be conceived primarily around the needs of stakeholders, rather than those of administrative offices.

As an international Venture Capital Fund with over $500m in AUM we have stopped investing in Europe altogether. The bureaucratic headache is simply not worth it. If European founders want to start their business we request them to incorporate in the US or Singapore and ideally move there physically as well.

One very clear wish: Make notaries optional for businesses - especially small ones. The sheer insanity we have in Germany to found a company and/or make changes, financing rounds etc. is a show stopper for some and a general blocker for innovation! Establish a EU Inc. with simple taxation rules across whole EU and dont allow national rules to override it. The lobby of bureaucracy needs to be broken.

ELNAV.AI is a Croatia-based deep-tech startup that develops AI systems to improve bridge-team safety on commercial vessels. Because we already deal with multiple EU jurisdictions, we experience the fragmentation of company law, ESOP rules and AI compliance first-hand. 1 Why a single, optional EU-wide corporate form matters Faster expansion.

It makes no sense to have 27 different entities. We need one European regime, that works in every country. Otherwise nothing changes and Europe continues to fall further behind the US, UK and China in regards to startups. We need ONE pan-European legal-entity.

It is hiALtitudes hope that the 28th regime and the European Innovation Act will be aligned and facilitate integrated approaches that create synergy between regulatory frameworks. A Directive-based 28th regime offers a flexible, outcome-driven path to harmonizing innovation laws, while respecting national legal systemsa crucial complement to the more centralized approach of the Innovation Act.

We are a German startup that operates globally. As we depend on VC funding, speed and access matter a lot. Our target regions are the EU and the USA for funding. We needed to do a proper priced financing round, hence a capital increase. That, in Germany, required going to the notary. This posed two major downsides for us, that I wish to never have to repeat again. They created 0 value and only had downsides.

When I was still working at Just Eat Takeaway.com and managing expansion efforts, one of the main bottlenecks to rapid growth was the legal hassle of entering new markets (not to mention the costs). This often delayed some market launches by months, and in a hyper-competitive market where "doing the right thing and doing things right" are highly competitive advantages, this was a significant disadvantage compared to…

Building and funding companies in the EU is a disaster. If Brussels doesn't get its act together quickly the EU will lose even more entrepreneurial talent by demotivating it or by pushing it into other countries. Here is how EU INC Should look like: One centralised entity, one registry, one way to issue shares and stock options Europe wide. Easy to understand and back with international capital.

The EUs Startup Environment Needs a Radical Overhaul The European Union faces a growing competitiveness gap in the global startup landscape. Unlike the United States, China, or India where startups benefit from large, unified markets and streamlined regulation the EU remains a fragmented environment that burdens young companies with complexity, excessive taxation, and slow-moving frameworks.

Simply said, the current reality of fundraising for my startup (a Dutch B.V.) is: Option 1: raise from Dutch investors Option 2: raise from US investors Raising in other European countries is not an option. The legal fragmentation creates such a barrier that it's easier and cheaper to launch a US-based Delaware C-corp and raise funds from that.

The 28th regime would be a very welcome innovation from the policy law. As a founder of a new innovative startup (Ippocra), I can testify the difficulty to incorporate in one state, via a very slow and costly process, which can be made way faster, and cheaper for new founder.

This is your useful initiative. It would be even more succinct if there were competition with the German notary, so that not only would harmonisation be improved, but also costs would be reduced. For example, the obligation to issue a certificate was partially removed.

Filed in German · English published by the European Commission

Many EU countries are worsening their situation for startups, such as Belgium. In Belgium, we have: - a very complex social system adding at the over 8k of annual cost for the most BASIC startup, even with *no* revenue [accountant, social cabinet, lawyer, notary, 3rd parties -for meal voucher-, mandatory 3.7k social security]; - Extreme taxation preventing to hire talents (68%!

I'm founder and business angel from Germany. Please create a single unionized market. Allow companies to use this market. Allow one unified legal entity that is accepted in all member countries with a common legal framework. Don't do 27 legal frameworks for one entity! Get rid of Notary process. We have digital means to replace that.

I find a Europe-wide opportunity to set up a company below the SE for an absolute need to further deepen the internal market and create pan-European companies. Particular attention should be paid to the full digitalisation of operations in order to avoid unnecessary notarial activities and costs.

Filed in German · English published by the European Commission

As a European citizen, I would love to have the freedom to incorporate a EU Inc or EU Ltd. 1 tax framework 1 legal framework 1 chamber of commerce 1 tax consultant 1 legal consultant 1 language (english) 1 stock market It is no easy task. Applying half measures would likely not bring improvement in competiveness and productivity, perhaps just additional unnecessary bureaucracy.

Many things have been already written here, but we need also: simplified/unified VAT across EU, remove special tax legislation for each country that companies must follow (maybe also different VAT for retail and companies, different VAT based on various categories, place of delivery, etc...), remove special VAT VOSS portals, mandatory VAT ID lookups and persisting evidence of this action...

Startup Migrants is a company that helps high-skilled migrants and international academics start businesses and commercialize research in Europe. We operate in Austria, Germany, Poland, and Norway (outside the EU). Every year, around 800 academics participate in the programme, resulting in approximately 120 LLC companies.

Please, don't make it worse. As someone who seriously considered leaving Europe for the US - please don't make me regret it with 27 new legal entities. If we want to build a dynamic & modern Europe, we need to get the basics right. Best regards, Linus Wetzig

If we're serious about making a change here, it cannot be a directive - it needs to be regulation. We are falling behind, and this is a once-in-a-generation chance to try and stop it. If we don't act now, we will forever look back and wonder why somebody didn't step in and do something. I understand that change is hard and it's not easy to coordinate amongst 27 member states.

The 28th regime needs to be regulation, not a directive. It MUST be the same in all countries, because otherwise its whole purpose will be defeated. We don't need another half-implemented project, we need a truly unified EU startup scene and this can only be done through a 28th regime that works the same in all EU countries.

Executive Summary The Cambrium Group strongly supports the European Commission's 28th regime initiative. As an innovative biotechnology company operating across multiple European jurisdictions, we have experienced firsthand the significant barriers that fragmented national corporate laws create for scaling businesses and attracting investment within the Single Market.

As the largest startup association in Lithuania, representing nearly 130 members, Unicorns Lithuania strongly supports the vision of a truly pan-European 28th regime a digital-first legal framework designed to empower startups to launch once, with their status seamlessly recognized across all EU Member States; to raise capital freely from anywhere within the Union; and to scale without friction across Europe…

Empowering European Innovation Through Harmonized Regulation In an era defined by global technological competition, fragmented regulation is Europes Achilles heel. innovative companiesparticularly startups and scale-ups operating in digital, biotech, fintech, AI, and green technology, as well as innovative industrial companies, face 27 different national rulebooks.

"We Are All Doomed" - The Price of Irresponsible Power Europe in the Regulatory Trap, Choking Its Own Innovation "Lasting progress arises only from freedom, personal responsibility, innovation, and a competitive spirit.

Opening of the attached position paper · the full paper is on the Commission’s record (source link above)

I am managing a venture capital fund, specifically focused on European Deep Tech at the inception stage. So far, most of our investments have been in our native Germany with some investments in Switzerland and Austria.

This is extremely important - launching a startup (in Spain) is currently mired in extremely slow paperwork and often physical meetings and signings which devour the very limited time & momentum required. Access to basic banking was particularly painful - despite significant effort, it took nearly two months of active work to create a business with a functioning bank account in its name, and it is _very_ challenging…

We always talk about European entrepreneurship but the reality is that there is no such thing: there are only entrepreneurs from European countries, but a company funded in any member country has a long way to really become "European". A company funded in state member A can't hire people in state member B without having a whole legal structure there.

This is exactly what's needed! Given the complexity of navigating Europe's fragmented legal landscape, this effort could be particularly transformative for smaller countriesmarkets that many startups currently overlook due to limited scalability and high entry barriers.

The 28th Regime represents a critical opportunity for the EU to create a truly harmonized legal framework that enables innovative companies to scale seamlessly across Member States. To be effective, this initiative must take the form of a Regulation, not a Directiveensuring full legal uniformity and eliminating the costly fragmentation that currently hinders cross-border growth.

I am truly encouraged by the vision behind EU Inc. This initiative represents a crucial step toward fostering a more unified, innovation-driven startup ecosystem across Europe. Supporting early-stage founders with accessible infrastructure, regulatory clarity, and cross-border scalability is essential for Europe to remain competitive and future-focused.

We need one set of regulations that apply to startups in all EU members equally. Having the same regulation apply will enable companies to attract financing across EU borders, it will make moving companies and expanding across EU borders easy and cost-efficient.

A single, harmonized set of rules across the EU would be a game-changer for businessesespecially for innovative startups like ours. Instead of navigating 27 different legal frameworks, we could focus on building, scaling, and competing globally. A unified corporate legal structure would reduce friction, accelerate growth, and position the EU as a truly competitive and innovation-friendly market.

There is an urgent need for a SINGLE pan-european entity allowing startups to build, scale, and raise capital seamlessly across the EU. If Europe is serious about remaining globally competitive, we need a unified, standardized, legal framework across all member states - covering corporate law, insolvency, labor law and taxation. Today, the reality is far from this vision.

The 28th regime as proposed risks adding yet another layer of complexity instead of solving the fragmentation startups face across the EU. Whats needed isnt an optional framework but a single, unified legal identity for companies operating across borderslike what EU Inc proposes. Real innovation comes from simplicity, not parallel systems that few will adopt.

We need a centralized european entity for Startups and easier Investments to boost the European economy. As a founder I experienced the enourmous pain of 27 different rules. Capital stays inside of borders, investors are afraid of rules in seperate countries. Many times we heared "Ahh you are not a Delaware Inc.

Please don't mess this up as so much is at stake. Given the geopolitical situation and China having a grip on us already, we need 1) ONE EUROPEAN STANDARD So that investors know how it works and you can easily raise globally, so that ecosystems can form around a centralized registry, so that stock-options can be done europe-wide, etc.

As an AI entrepreneur, investor, and tech strategist based in Paris, I strongly support the 28th regime initiative. This is a historic opportunity to create a legal framework truly adapted to innovation, investment, and the fast cycles of the modern digital economy.

Start ups should be supported from the get go: starting from education at school to seed AI, innovation and entrepreneurial spirit, as well as in ethics, in young generations; universities should have accelerators built in fostering cross-collaboration between academia and students.

As a startup, we raised over 20 million in venture capital. The vast majority came from the US. We also received a 1.2 million grant from the EU (Horizon 2020 SME instrument). We're struggling monthly with different EU legislation for operational business. Finalizing the US investor's Series A investment took over 8 months, largely due to Austria's corporate structure complexities.

As a start-up founder operating across European borders, I welcome the EU's ambition to harmonise company law but I believe the current proposal risks entrenching fragmentation rather than solving it. Today, founding and operating a business across EU member states is like navigating a legal maze.

What we need: a modern European alternative to the Delaware flip (non-US company establishes a US holding company, typically in Delaware, to own its existing operations). What's possible for European VC funds (basically all based out of Luxembourg) should also be possible for startups/companies.

Hi, The legal proccess of founding a company in Germany is deeply broken, particularly for GmbHs and its whole structure makes it unattractive for foreign or cross-border investment. Through the need of a notary for the incorporation, costs are significant, upside is limited and it just inherently talkes longer.

The promise of the EU is a single market for products and talent. Currently the talent promise is not being met effectively. For a startup to make use of the available talent in the single market, it either needs to relocate or create entities in every country it wants to hire in.

This will allow startups like me to easily setup and access customers across Europe without spending huge legal fees trying to setup entities in each country on top of building localized products. As an AI product focused on SBMs and rapidly growing, my customers and prospects struggle with not knowing whether we are 'allowed' in their region hence limiting their adoption of new technologies like AI.

As a company with a remote/distributed team we need unified and simple rules compliant operation across borders within EU, for tools for attracting talent across borders and allowing employees to participate on the company. I do support EU Inc 28th regime initiative and would like to see it adopted on the EU level.

Proxima Fusion strongly supports the European Commissions initiative to create a harmonised 28th regime for start-ups and scale-ups. As a science-based, capital-intensive deep-tech company aiming to commercialise fusion energy, we face daily the practical consequences of legal fragmentation across the EU.

Europe needs EUInc to create a unified legal framework that allows startups to incorporate, hire, raise funds, and scale seamlessly across the entire EU without dealing with 27 different systems. This would attract more venture capital by providing legal certainty and investor-friendly terms, close the funding gap with the US, and reduce the need for founders to move their companies abroad.

I have been working for and with startups, directly as employee or as consultant on topics of fundraising, strategy, growth and client acquisition. For ambitious startups, after reaching product market fit, the next question is expansion. The risk / reward calculation is often favorable to starting the activity in the US, and seek funding there, rather than developing in European markets one by one.

As founder and CEO of Velonova AI ( A neurosecure company) I agree with this decision while stream lining is good funding and hiring has been the most challenging among all the tasks especially for an AI startup like ours with limited funds. My Feedback would be to make a small Grant of 20-30k available to all startups especially those that have qualified for startup incubators.

99% of EU startups that want to attract U.S. capital have to register their company in the U.S. Why? Because the investors don't want to learn 27 types of companies and their differences. And they don't want to pay thousands of euros to lawyers just to open a company or invest.

The initiative clearly addresses an existing problem. Whether it actually solves it, depends on a number of factors. One of them is the ability to answer following questions: 1. What will be the legal and the tax jurisdiction of the entity? 2. What will be the legal jurisdiction, including the personal liabilities of the directors? 3.

I support the initiative for a 28th regime. The focus on reducing administrative burdens is crucial, and key benchmarks for success will be low setup costs and eliminating the need for notaries in setup and operations. Furthermore, I believe it must become a competitive alternative to the Delaware corporation model, offering similar levels of flexibility and investor confidence.

This is very-welcomed for a unified approach for startups, investors, ecosystem builders, and stakeholders to bring growth at scale beyond multi-regional barriers. One set of rules, and support systems needs to be further communicated with loud and clear communication.

At EnFoldr, we are actively reducing the administrative and KYC burden for legal entities by helping businesses structure, standardize, and share their corporate data more effectively. The fact that this burden remains so high across member states is, frankly, a sign of fragmentation and a barrier to growth, innovation, and cross-border collaboration. We fully support the proposal for an EU-wide legal entity.

This is absolutely needed to give European companies a fighting chance. I am a founder but under the current circumstances, it's an uphill battle for companies from Europe if they are aiming for more than a regional market. With current structures, founders have a severe disadvantage to get funding, esp. from the US, when being incorporated in Europe.

The current bureaucratic landscape for innovative companies in the EU is stifling growth, innovation, and competitiveness. Despite the rhetoric of a single market, the reality for entrepreneurs is a patchwork of national regulations, inconsistent procedures, and endless paperwork that drains resources and energy.

The unified corporate start-up entity throughout the EU should be he concept proposed by ‘EU Inc’: 1) ONE EUROPEAN STANDARD So that investors know how it works and you can easily raise globally, so that ecosystems can form around a Centralised registry, so that stock-options can be done europe-wide, etc.

Filed in German · English published by the European Commission

I worked with excellent colleagues together from different european countries. I would like to work with them again easily. I would also like to have access to a common european market for my start up currently Im focusing on Germany, which is unfortunate for a digital product. Please make the eu inc a reality!

1) It's needed to close the startup super fast, similar to opening. Now it takes 6 months to close. 2) More venture building, less standard, passive VC. 3) US M&A market for 1M EUR ARR is 1000x larger than EU. There needs to be some instruments to help corporations and other companies buy small startups, so the innovation market is growing not only on super improbable unicorn bets.

As a startup founder operating across the EU, I strongly support the creation of a single, unified European legal entity, a true 28th regime. What we dont need is 27 slightly modified national entities. That approach preserves the very fragmentation that holds EU startups back. We need a single, modern, digital-first legal framework, built from scratch, not patchworked onto outdated systems.

I'm a startup founder (SaaS) based in Berlin. My co-founders are from other countries. Even though we have a lot of EU customers and even investors, the most sensible option for us was to incorporate in the US. Hiring across Europe has been a pain, giving stock options to early employees very challenging.

As founder of a technology startup in the area of energy, climate and defense, we need an "EU Inc" that enables 1) standardized recruiting of employees and freelancers over any European country, 2) standardized taxation practices especially tax incentives for early stage investors comparable to the USA, 3standardizeded fundraising investment documentation (like a SAFE).

I am a founder of a AI startup in Germany. For startups, it's an insurmountable burden to navigate the legal details across every European country. We need a true pan-European solution - one new pan-European legal entity, one central EU-level registry, standardized investment documents, standardized EU-wide stock options.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the EU Startup & Scale-up Initiative. Investment Crowdfunding (in the US) is increasingly becoming a key element in early stage company funding. Drawing on ten years of U.S.

As founder of a technology startup in the area of AI and blockchain. We need an "EU Inc" that enables 1) standardised recruiting of employees and freelancers over any European country, 2) standardised taxation practices, 3) standardised fundraising investment documentation (like a SAFE). Otherwise it will be really hard to justify why not to go abroad for starting and scaling a company.

I am convinced that a pan-European legal form of business should have a single standard European, EU-wide form, as it is most in the interest of the European start-up and tech ecosystem, and in the strategic interest of Europe as a whole. These interests go beyond the fragmented interest of individual Member States, most of which seek to capture economic activity through administrative lock-in on an abusive basis.

Filed in Dutch · English published by the European Commission

As the founder of a European startup operating across jurisdictions, I can say with certainty: the current legal fragmentation is a major barrier to innovation, investment, and scale. What we need is not a patchwork of 27 variants with marginal differences, but a single, pan-European legal entitya true 28th regime. One that startups can opt into, giving them clarity, consistency, and global credibility from day one.

As a startup founder, I strongly support the EU Inc initiative and the development of a unified EU corporate legal framework, as the current fragmentation across Member States significantly hinders business activity and scaling opportunities for innovative companies.

I write as an engineer and early-stage founder working across the EU energy-tech ecosystem. Europes competitiveness in deep-tech hinges on our ability to incorporate quickly, operate seamlessly across borders, attract global capital andcruciallyreward talent with equity. A genuine single European start-up entity is therefore mission-critical.

Introduce one truly pan-European harmonized company type and not a fragmented adjustmented of 27 different types! Single company type that works across all 27 EU countries 48-hour company setup (fully digital, no notaries) Harmonized investment procedures and share structures "Once-only" principle - file once, valid everywhere EU Business Wallet integration for streamlined operations cc EU Inc

We need a better mechanism to tap into the EU market. The effort required to setup multiple entities, cost, taxes, accounting etc is the same for a EU country as if we needed to enter the US market , If we can make it easier to x-border expand and enter EU markets, i would do that before i take my business to the US.

Stock option plans, fundraising and general competitiveness is highly hindered by the variable EU regulations and jurisdictions. I very much support the inotiative to introduce an EU inc. company structure which I believe will attract talent and investment to the EU's startup ecosystem!

I strongly believe that the tech scene and startups in general will become much more competitive compared to US companies. One of the main topics must be how to unfold the European market to be as easy to operate as a US enitity. I'm a huge supporter.

As a startup founder who has faced the real challenges of scaling and raising capital across different European countries, I deeply believe in the power of a unified European identity. The proposed 28th regime can truly transform our ecosystem by removing the heavy burden of navigating 27 different national systems.

Everyone is going to give very precise feedback on the big topics (no notary, 48h company setup etc etc). I'll go in-depth into how to make it much more efficient to help fintech founders. There is a huge, scattered scenario when it comes to getting a license for financial services. Typical example: Asset Management. In Italy it must cost 200/300k a year + you need to wait 1/2 years. France and Spain? Similar.

We need ONE European standard to cover all of the EU. One business entity to be able to operate on the whole EU market with at least mostly the same rules. One set of rules for capital markets so the EU startups can raise capital more easily and actually compete with US businesses.EU Inc initiative has good proposals for this.

We need a clear and simple business friendly structure for start-ups in the EU. This is common sense and great for business. I run a European Venture Capital Fund investing in Northern Europe and we would welcome the clarity of this structure. We have raised over 100m EUR and we will invest significantly more in European companies if this structure existed.

For deep tech startups: fair and expert reviews. In many cases, our startup working on breakthrough AGI technology with billions of dollars of economic growth potential was ridiculed by incompetent reviewers with clear biases and conflicts of interest. You are obviously letting ignorant "generalists" opine about supporting deep tech startups. The proposal formats are nonsense for deep tech.

I've had the experience of building a highly ambitious venture backed Business across Europe- the stifling complications that range from incorporation to ongoing costs (fundraising, tax filing, employee incentives) cost ambitious ventures their time and attention -time and attention that Europe can use on much better initiatives that innovate across key European priorities.

This Commission has the unique opportunity to make it easier for European companies to compete on a global scale. The 28th regime, unless properly implemented, won't simply be useless: it will be harmful, because this topic won't be reconsidered for many years.

Im writing as Managing Director of Startup Hungary, a grassroots NGO supported by over 40 of the countrys most successful scale-ups and post-exit founders. We represent the people building Europes next generation of companiesand we want to express serious concerns about the current 28th Regime proposal.

The EU Inc proposal is badly needed as it solves one of the central problems for scaling startups within Europe. Local state-level laws still apply but there needs to be a clear, shared corporate + tax framework that's recognized by everyone. Creating 27/28 transplanted regimes will not accomplish that will just continue the current fragmentation, with each implementer potentially doing their own thing.

We work in the space of funding startups and for many startups, too much time and energy is burnt trying to decide where to incorporate, which jurisdiction has the most favorable incentives, tax rates, Visa option for digital nomad workforce, regulatory issues, etc. This makes it difficult for investors who might restrict their investment mandates to countries where they know and understand the landscape.

From the perspective of an overseas investor: they see a business opportunity in the EU that they want to invest in. Even if the foundational ruleset for companies is unified across the EU, if it's not one and the same legal entity type, the investor will still have to understand the differences for each member state.

ONE EUROPEAN STANDARD So that investors know how it works and you can easily raise globally, so that ecosystems can form around a centralized registry, so that stock-options can be done europe-wide, etc. 2) FOR EVERYONE Because nobody knows, how startups look like in future and we don't want to have governments niche down access to the entity in oblivion.

Our answer is simple: 1) ONE EUROPEAN STANDARD So that investors know how it works and you can easily raise globally, so that ecosystems can form around a centralized registry, so that stock-options can be done europe-wide, etc etc 2) FOR EVERYONE Because nobody knows, how startups look like in future and we don't want to have governments niche down access to the entity in oblivion.

I'm currently building a startup company in Finland. I'd really want to have the company incorporated in EU in the future, but if the system does not change in the way that there will be only ONE entity that has clear systems, rules and regulations for all to understand, I fear for this to be impossible. The core thing is ONE Eu inc. If we make that 27, we arrive at the original problem.

We need one simple European standard for the 28th regime companies so that investors know how it works and you can easily raise money globally, so that ecosystems can form around a centralised registry, so that stock-options can be done europe-wide. We need to make it simpler to start and run companies across Europe.

As a Dutch founder in France having felt the difficulties of scaling in Europe and per consequence now having 50% of our business in the US, I feel these new regulations are not only of utmost importance for the prosperity of European businesses in a harmonized market, but just as much needed to contribute to a cultural shift leading to further European integration and contribute to the shared European identity.

We need ONE common EU entity, not 27. That's it. Small increment changes to the legislation of the 27 states is not going to work. And quite frankly: would be ridiculous for 2 reasons: 1. It won't change anything in a meaningful way. 2. Would further erode the trust in Brussels within and outside the EU.

I am the Managing Director of a small VC fund based in Germany. The fragmentation of the European market is a large issue that hinders not just inner-European investment but also the involvement of non-European investors. It's an ongoing nuisance in every-day business operations and for us in the past has made certain inner-European investments economically unfeasible.

Hi, I am the CEO and founder of a regulated financial institution out of the Netherlands. We need to use regulation in Europe as a strength. The PSD2 regulation and pass-porting of Payment institution licenses to other member states has been a game changer for Financial Technology companies. It gives a company immediate access to all the markets and is unique in the world.

I am the founder of the start-up Wetterheld in Hamburg, Germany. We lack access to global capital markets. Our US competitors have 20x investments compared to us. We need a single EU form of enterprise that attracts global investors. Unfortunately, the current draft provides for 27 national forms. This is wrong and counterproductive.

Filed in German · English published by the European Commission

To truly drive european innovation and competitiveness, we need a single entity with simple, understandable and streamlined systems. Today, the flow of capital is seriously impeded by local regulations and their interplay with pan European regulations leaving a fragmented and inefficient system. Unfortunately, the Comissions suggestion seems to increase the complexity rather than improve it.

Our answer is simple: 1) ONE EUROPEAN STANDARD So that investors know how it works and you can easily raise globally, so that ecosystems can form around a centralized registry, so that stock-options can be done europe-wide, etc etc 2) FOR EVERYONE Because nobody knows, how startups look like in future and we don't want to have governments niche down access to the entity in oblivion.

As an entrepreneur and advocate for European innovation, I firmly support the proposal for the 28th regime aimed at harmonizing regulatory rules across the EU. Today, European startups face immense challenges when attempting to scale their operations across member states.

As a founder, I strongly support the 28th regime proposal for harmonized rules across the EU. Currently, startups face significant barriers when scaling across European markets due to varying regulatory requirements in each member state, which creates compliance costs and operational complexity that divert resources from innovation.

The 28th regime is a critical step toward removing structural barriers that currently prevent start-ups and scale-ups from thriving across the EU. Fragmented national company laws increase complexity, cost, and time, especially for innovative businesses trying to operate across borders.

1) we need a single pan-European standard for startups not a hodgepodge of various onerous regulations that prevent companies from being competitive and scaling. If Europe is serious about remaining relevant the bias towards bureaucracy and incumbents needs to end.

Hiring across European states is a big hassle, fragmenting the market. As is having to manage different entities in each country. Dealing with European conservative bureaucracy and legislation is bad enough, now multiply this by the number of countries you deal in. The goal is to get the talent to stay and come here, build great companies.

As TWAICE, a leading battery analytics software company significantly supported by the European Union through initiatives like the EIC Accelerator, we are committed to building Europe's software leadership in the global battery industry. Our ambition requires attracting the best talent from across the continent.

We need an EU-wide standard not 27 different ones. That means one standard for company incorporation, one registry, one market. This allows startups to raise cross-border globally, hire across EU while being able to incentivize without headaches. If EU wants to keep growing their startup ecosystem, then leverage our strength which lies in our unity. Isn't this the whole vision of EU common market?

We need an EU wide framework for creating smaller companies and engaging on various markets without an issue. OR have an EU created company valid to operate across the member states, including access to financial markets, capital, workforce and so on - without a burden of creating local companies. Also, less regulations for startups would come in handy as well.

We need a truly united approach, that is a single legal entity and single legislation and taxation. Anything else defeats the purpose of this initiative. I am running a company over two different EU countries and just the sheer efforts to set this up and the legal and tax construct to keep this running only makes notaries and tax advisors richer but is a serious threat to our business.

This proposal doesn't make sense as it doesn't reach the goals set for this initiative. Instead, we need: 1) ONE EUROPEAN STANDARD So that investors know how it works and you can easily raise globally, so that ecosystems can form around a centralized registry, so that stock-options can be done europe-wide, etc etc 2) FOR EVERYONE Because nobody knows, how startups look like in future and we don't want to have…

On together and unified, great visions can become real. Europe has the potential, the resources, the talent and the universities to create outstanding technologies and companies. But Europe is also a fragmented compilation of diverse countries, cultures and legal systems.

I have worked and built businesses in the EU, the UK, South Africa and the US. I currently live in Berlin and starting a new AI Agents business. It is so incredibly cumbersome and time consuming to simply start a business and close a funding round in Germany, and this country is not an exception.

1) ONE EUROPEAN STANDARD So that investors know how it works and you can easily raise globally, so that ecosystems can form around a centralized registry, so that stock-options can be done europe-wide, etc etc 2) FOR EVERYONE Because nobody knows, how startups look like in future and we don't want to have governments niche down access to the entity in oblivion.

The single most important thing. It needs to be standardized. One set of rules, not five, not ten, not twentyseven one set of rules, for all EU member countries. This will then also make it imperative that the rules are guided by what investors and entrepreneurs need. One set of rules that then no one uses because they are removed from reality is as useless as twentyseven rules. Next most important thing.

I believe it would be very valuable if the EU could overcome the legal and regulatory problems inherent here and actually implement a pan-European form of commercial entity. A form of company structure that would make it easier for startups to be located anywhere in EU and still be attractive for founders, investors and customers. I hope you can make that happen!

To be successful as a continent it is paramount to have one set of rules that are identical for all countries. A true pan European entity, where there is no difference in process, legal, registration, etc. irrespective of the seat or seats of the company. Where employees live within the EU should not make a difference and they should be free to move between countries with no overhead to the company.

There is no possible way for European tech to compete globally unless there is a unified corporate standard - one entity, interoperable across the entire bloc. A fully digital way to incorporate, issue shares, etc. would be ideal.

Please improve to follow the vision set out by EU Inc initiative: ONE European standard for everyone. As a startup founder I want a single entity structure that investors from all over Europe understand which would unlock significant opportunities for both funding and talent.

I'm European and build startups and invest in startups both in the US and Europe. I have lived in Silicon Valley for over 10 years. I cannot invest in European companies unless you get your shit together and give founders a standardized European Corp that is as easy to invest in as a Delaware C-Corp. If you keep things complicated I'll simply continue to tell Europeans to not incorporate in Europe or get fucked.

We need a single EU legal entity for the following: It will massively increase competitiveness of EU Startup and VC ecosystem It will allow for faster, cheaper and more efficient capital allocation to startups regardless of location within EU It will enable startups from less developed EU countries to raise capital easier, removing the barriers of unknown local regulations It will help attract talent and capital…

The challenges Europe has previously faced should indeed be solved through the implementation of this ecosystem framework which should be uniform across Europe at the legislative level, Investment, financial access, labor and tax respectively.

1) ONE EUROPEAN STANDARD So that investors know how it works and you can easily raise globally, so that ecosystems can form around a centralized registry, so that stock-options can be done europe-wide. 2) FOR EVERYONE Because nobody knows how startups look like in future and we don't want to have governments niche down access to the entity in oblivion.

Europe requires one incorporation Standard across all member states. Not multiple. It needs to be accessible to everyone - it needs to be extremely simple to incorporate. It is imperative that incorporation for startups and young companies is made simple and unified across all members of the European Union

I run a start-up in the Netherlands, my second, after my first was acquired. I have also invested in start-ups and early stage funds in Europe and the rest of the world. Europe needs a single, unified legal entity for startups; one standard, not 27 patched-together national versions. I'd like this to be for all companies, not just a narrowly-defined 'startup'.

More open data sharing between startups & academia, without interference from GDPR / AI act. For example, to analyse team meetings, videorecordings would be useful, but could be biometric data. If it's beneficial for the startup & academia, it could be necessary. Easier hiring + firing for Dutch startups. Although I was part of a firing during a startup, they had to pay me 4 more months.

As someone deeply involved in building a European tech company from the ground up though not the founder I experienced how much time, money, and energy gets lost to bureaucracy in the EU. Setting up a GmbH was painfully slow, full of redundant steps, and required navigating complex national rules that varied wildly across borders.

Filed in German · English published by the European Commission

1) ONE EUROPEAN STANDARD, NOT 27 We need a single, unified European legal entity - not 27 different national variations. This would enable: - Investors to easily understand how it works for global fundraising - Ecosystems to form around a centralized registry - Stock options to work Europe-wide 2) No narrow definition of a startup The standard should be available to all entities, not just a narrow definition of…

For years, as a startup hub and investor, I have been passionate about accompanying founders from across Europe. We are also one of the European Digital Innovation Hubs. 13 of our start-ups have won the EIC Accelerator grant.

Filed in German · English published by the European Commission

1. ONE Standard, Not 27 Support single unified EU entity, not 27 national variants Delaware Inc works because it's ONE globally recognized standard 2. Startup Needs Digital-first incorporation (fast, online, low-cost) Flexible equity structures for stock options Investor-friendly terms VCs understand 3.

1) ONE EUROPEAN STANDARD So that investors know how it works and you can easily raise globally, so that ecosystems can form around a centralized registry, so that stock-options can be done europe-wide, etc etc 2) FOR EVERYONE Because nobody knows, how startups look like in future and we don't want to have governments niche down access to the entity in oblivion.

EU Inc needs to happen. As in, a single european legal entity which makes it easier to create companies in Europe, make them attractive to global investors, and simplifies the whole process. Brussels actually has the opportunity to make a decisive step forward here, and help the ecosystem in one fell swoop. Do not let national agendas get in the way of what could be a huge leap forward for European startups.

Ive started startups and ran different businesses. The fact that I was unable to have 1 entity (for each business) in different European countries severely limited all of their growth and expansion. Multiple times businesses had to close because we couldnt sell in a different EU country because we would need to open a subsidiary.

The EU was made to reduce barriers to business and to create a common market. We will never be a common market if one company needs to have 27 local companies to operate in the EU. There's many reasons why people may argue against one single corporate law for the EU. But this is based on petty concerns about state-level or corporate-level interests. First we focus on the things that create economic prosperity.

1. One-Click Digital Incorporation Founders should be able to register a new company online in under 24 hours. Features: eID authentication, standardized articles of association, automatic VAT registration, and no notary required. 2. Fully Digital Company Lifecycle Every administrative stepincorporation, changes in ownership or structure, annual filings, and dissolutionshould be executable entirely online. 3.

As an AI startup building our business in Europe, were really encouraged by the idea of a single, unified European standard for company legislation. Right now, dealing with different national company laws is a huge challenge for us. It slows us down, adds unnecessary costs, and makes it harder to expand across borders.

as German citizen, I founded a 2x VC funded German GmbH and a US delaware corp (Midpage AI Inc.). Since then I recommended many friends to avoid the GmbH wherever possible. Administrative overhead during setup and later with accounting and payroll was one reason. The other was lack of a unified market. I know many Germans that moved to the US to start their companies here for these two reasons.

We need 1 European standard for EU Inc. Not 27 - only 1. We are 1 market, 1 framework that investors know and trust, 1 legal rule framework. Especially as an AI startup that is crucial for us because it would Allow us from a tiny regulatory market like Austria to attract bigger DE/FR investors! Please don't fall back to national entities. Make this European!

EU 28th Regime Feedback: One Standard, Not 27! The proposed 28th regime must deliver one unified European corporate entity, not 27 different variations. The current approach of maintaining national differences defeats the purpose of creating a true single market for innovation.

As a german/european founder I deeply care for the EU tech/innovation and venture ecosystem. However it is a fact, that creating and scaling a startup in the EU is way harder than in the US. Why is that? one might ask, since the EU has more inhabitants, equally great universities and a rich cultural and economic background and many ideas needed for innovation.

One single legal entity that is recognized across the EU and also one single and simple way to declare and pay taxes, the central entity can then decide how to split that but I dont want to deal with taxes depending in where each customer is from or things like that. All online and digital, like an LLC, no need to visit any notary at all just sign documents digitally and submit, the technology exists since years!

I think the most important thing is to keep it simple and unified. We need ONE standard across Europe, not a patchwork of rules that make it harder to raise money, structure stock options, or build tools around a shared system. A single entity with a central registry would go a long way in creating trust, attracting investors, and enabling startups to operate across borders without getting lost in legal complexity.

While the initiative is good, the implementation is VERY WEAK. We cannot let bureaucracy stop the startup mouvement again - the survival of Europe depends on it. We need 1 entity instead of 27!!!! - for an accessible capital market - for best access to talent - to make scale a reality in Europe too I strongly recommend to follow EU INC's recommendations for the implementation. Please don't let us down.

I am a founder of an early-stage startup in France and I support Andreas' Klinger's vision and proposal for the 28th regime. We need one single pan-European entity, with 1 set of administrative rules, instead of 27 different entities sitting on top of legacy systems and processes.

Hey, as an entrepreneur that crossed EU borders, I want to express my need for a true European regime instead of 28 different implementations. My Berlin-Based top VC registered 30 top founders leaving to San Francisco given the de-facto delaware c and the friction of the EU market already in 2025.

My name is Christian Miele, and Im a General Partner at Headline, one of Europes leading venture capital firms, backed by the European Investment Fund. From 2019 to 2023, I also served as Chairman of the German Startup Association. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

As a startup founder operating in Germany (Berlin), I strongly urge the European Commission to establish a single, unified legal entity for startups across the EU, rather than relying on a patchwork of 27 different national systems. A true pan-European structure would allow founders to register once and operate seamlessly across borders.

We strongly support the initiative of a pan-European standardized legal entity with a proper stock option model, as that will drastically increase the amount of startups that will register their main legal entity in Europe instead of the US (Delaware). Please make it happen!

I come from a small place in India. Over the past decade, Ive lived and worked across the world in Silicon Valley, North America, and Canada building cutting-edge technology systems. Eventually, I chose to move to Germany. Why? Because I believe in European values. I believe technology must be built around people, not just profit.