Skip to main content
PolicySpeak
← All files

2026/0074(COD) · Committee Report Adopted

28th regime corporate legal framework – EU Inc.

512 submissions from 470 organizations told the European Commission what they think about this file. Here is what each of them said, in their own words.

The Commission lists 2,518 submissions on this file. Shown here: the 512 from organizations. Not shown, by design: submissions from private individuals, which we never publish, and anything filed since our last weekly refresh.

Committee JURIRapporteur René Repasi (S&D)
  1. Deliberations in Council working party · 23 Jul 2026
  2. Tabling of amendments in the EP committee responsible · 22 Jul 2026
  3. Committee Amendments Tabled · 22 Jul 2026
  4. Deliberations in Coreper · 15 Jul 2026
  5. Committee Opinion Adopted · 15 Jul 2026

Who showed up

363 submissions from industry — companies and their trade associations — against 65 from civil society: NGOs, consumer organizations, environmental groups and trade unions. That is 5.6 industry submissions for every one from civil society.

Industry 363Civil society 65Public authorities, academia, other 84

Groupings use the respondent type each organization selected when filing. Counting submissions, not organizations — a body that filed twice is counted twice.

What the room declares

118 of 470
in the EU Register
514
full-time lobbying staff
€56.3M+
declared costs a year
294
EP accreditations declared

Self-declared to the EU Transparency Register (snapshot 30 Aug 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.

Policy area
Justice (DG JUST)
Where it stands
Awaiting adoption
Legislative stage
Committee Report Adopted
Lead committee
JURI
Commission reference
COM(2026)321

How it got here

  1. Call for evidence · impact assessment30 Sept 2025
  2. Public consultation30 Sept 2025
  3. Proposal for a regulation25 Jun 2026

Also on the Commission’s pipeline for this file, with no date recorded: Initiative planned.

12 positions · page 3 of 3, 512 in total. Search the whole file

N

NIUM

· · filed 9 Jul 2025 · source

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.

LinkedInX
RS

RisparmierAI SRL

· · filed 9 Jul 2025 · 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.

LinkedInX
TE

Tech Europe

· · filed 9 Jul 2025 · 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.

LinkedInX
LP

lets.poker

· · 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.

LinkedInX
O

Oddlynew

· · filed 9 Jul 2025 · source

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.

LinkedInX
AU

AiNGEL UG (Haftungsbeschränkt)

· · 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.

LinkedInX
SV

SDAC Ventures

· · 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.

LinkedInX
N

nowMedia

· · filed 9 Jul 2025 · source

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.

LinkedInX
H

HOLOFIL

· · filed 9 Jul 2025 · source

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.

LinkedInX
AA

Arlette.ai

· · 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.

LinkedInX
RV

Reval Vermögensberatungs GmbH

· · 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.

LinkedInX
NC

NEO Cyber Camp

· · 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.

LinkedInX
Take the dataCSV — all 512 submissionsJSONFull text, not the excerpt. Free to cite.Search every submission →

Follow this file

Get an email when a new organization files a position here: one email on Tuesdays, only when there is something new. Free.

We use your email for updates on this file, and PolicySpeak may contact you about the product. Unsubscribe in one click. Privacy policy.

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.