2026/0074(COD) · Committee Stage
512 submissions from 468 organizations told the European Commission what they think about this file. Here is what each of them said, in their own words.
The Commission received 1,048 submissions on this file. Shown here: the 512 from organizations. Not shown: 497 from private individuals. Their submissions are personal data; the Commission publishes them under its own legal basis, and republishing them by name here would need one we do not have. Organizations act in a public capacity, so their positions are public record. Also not shown: 39 further submissions we do not publish for other reasons: no quotable text (a comment under 250 characters and no readable paper), no organization named, or a private person who filed under their own name. About this data →
359 submissions from industry (companies and their trade associations) against 64 from civil society: NGOs, consumer organizations, environmental groups and trade unions. That is 5.6 industry submissions for every one from civil society.
Groupings use the respondent type each organization selected when filing. Counting submissions, not organizations: a body that filed twice is counted twice. An identical text filed by several organizations counts once: 5 submissions here repeat 3 texts word for word and are folded into them.
What the room declares
Self-declared to the EU Transparency Register (snapshot 14 Oct 2026). The cost figure sums band floors, so the true total is higher.
The file, right now
The consultation closed on 25 Jun 2026; it ran from 30 Apr 2026.
How it got here
Also on the Commission’s pipeline for this file, with no date recorded: Initiative planned.
2 blocks of text on this file were submitted, identically, by three or more organizations. Shared text is a fact about the filings; what it means is for the reader.
3 organizations: CER landlele, Energy Community MTÜ, landlele
“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.”
3 organizations: axabio, Farmless BV, Tech Europe
“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.”
Showing 12 of 12 submissions on this page · page 3 of 3 · 512 across the file. Search the whole file
A unified European legal entity standard is essential for the future of innovation and competitiveness in the EU. Startups today operate across borders from the outset, but our fragmented legal landscape hinders their progress. Introducing 27 harmonised but still distinct versions of a startup entity defeats the purpose.
· · filed 9 Jul 2025 · same text as 1 other organization · source
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.
· · filed 9 Jul 2025 · same text as 2 other organizations · source
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.
· · filed 9 Jul 2025 · source
As a founder, Ive seen how fragmented and inconsistent the EU startup landscape is when it comes to legal structures. We need: - One single, EU-wide legal entity - Accessible to all types of startups, without unnecessary restrictions This would make it easier to raise investment, scale across borders, and operate efficiently from day one. Thanks to the team pushing this forward.
Hey! Im stoked about a harmonized set of rules and think its a game-changer for startups like our. We need ONE clear, simple legal standard across Europenot 27 different onesto make it easy for investors to get on board, set up stock options everywhere, and build a solid ecosystem. It should be open to all startups, no matter the future shape, without locking us into rigid employment or tax rules.
· · filed 9 Jul 2025 · source
Startups across Europe need a single, unified legal entity standard, not 27 fragmented, inconsistent versions. This new entity should be built on standardized European corporate law, supported by a digital-first online registry with an open API to foster an ecosystem of modern services. It must include standardized, EU-wide stock options that work seamlessly across borders.
· · filed 9 Jul 2025 · source
We need a single framework and entity across Europe. No implementation of rules within different entity types across Europe. Then we can leave it as it is. Every startup and every investor across Europe should be able to exactly know the rules from a legal point of view no matter where they sit.
Hi, Im a founder at I see myself remaining a founder for a longer time. I always have fresh ideas that I want to work on. Might live in different countries in the future so I would really like if in Europe, there was one centralized form that new companies would take.
Hi, I am an EU based founder of a deep tech startup. EU needs a much simpler access to its entire market in a true single market manner, including marketplaces that can span across entire EU as a single marketplace like say Amazon.eu that makes it possible to have commercialization strategies to sell D2C across entire EU than individual markets. Access to the right corporate structure allows this to happen.
· · filed 9 Jul 2025 · source
I would prefer if you do not dissolve a pan-European standard into 27 pieces of standards. Make one standard for everyone, like it is in the US. The way it is now, it won't give us entrepreneurs what we actually need. I can't get an investment from an investor from another country because for this single deal, he needs to hire a Dutch lawyer due to the difference in standard.
· · filed 9 Jul 2025 · source
I strongly support the proposal outlined on proposal.eu-inc.org and wish to emphasize a key point: We do not need 27 different transpositions of a new company law framework we need one unified regime. Anything else would recreate the very complexity and inefficiency that Europe has suffered from for decades.
· · filed 9 Jul 2025 · source
As an entrepreneur building a European edtech company, I believe the 28th regime is a step in the right direction. A unified regulatory framework would significantly ease integration across the European market and provide a much-needed foot in the door for scaling across borders. Today, one of the biggest challenges for innovative startups is navigating 27 different regulatory environments.
Method. Every quote is verbatim from the organization’s own submission to the European Commission, trimmed to its opening passage and never summarized by a model. Where a submission was filed in another EU language we show the English text the European Commission publishes alongside it, labeled on the quote; the original is one click away at the source. Groupings use the respondent type the organization itself selected when filing. We deliberately do not label anyone “supportive” or “opposed”. You read what they wrote and draw your own conclusion. Organizations only, never individuals. Reused under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU; the European Commission is not liable for this reuse.