13 submissions from 13 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 49 submissions on this file. Shown here: the 13 from organizations. Not shown, by design: submissions from private individuals, which we never publish, and anything filed since our last weekly refresh.
Who showed up
3 submissions from industry — companies and their trade associations — against 6 from civil society: NGOs, consumer organizations, environmental groups and trade unions.
Industry 3Civil society 6Public authorities, academia, other 4
Groupings use the respondent type each organization selected when filing. Counting submissions, not organizations — a body that filed twice is counted twice.
The file, right now
The consultation closed on 10 Apr 2026 — it ran from 16 Jan 2026.
Where it stands
Awaiting adoption
Adoption expected
30 Sept 2026 · in 31 days
How it got here
Call for evidence · impact assessment28 May 2025
Public consultation10 Apr 2026
Also on the Commission’s pipeline for this file, with no date recorded: Initiative planned, Proposal for a regulation.
With almost 30 years of experience in European & global critical communications & as a former Director & Board Member of TCCA, my company, Quixoticity-EU has recently become a member of PSCE to support important initiatives such as EUCCS.
Existing narrowband technologies are still working well providing mission critical voice services for PS authorities but there is lack of interoperability across borders causing difficulties to provide services for multinational operations. Only Nordic countries have established Tetra ISI functionality to enable cross border co-operation for PS authorities.
This initiative is undermined by the lack of consideration given to the safety of operators in different and related sectors. If we take the insecurity of workers in the medical sector, doctors and other health professionals as a model, the specific scourge becomes evident: it can be briefly defined as violence against doctors and health workers by patients and their relatives, not to mention deliberate…
The Swiss Federal Office for Civil Protection (FOCP) is the representative of Swiss and Liechtensteins PPDR. FOCP supports the establishment of EUCCS. Cross-border communication needs to be made possible due to an ever-growing Europe. Crime, healthcare and disaster relief do not stop at national borders and cooperation is ever more necessary.
UK views ECUSS positively and values the importance of cross-border cooperation between emergency services. As a significant number of European countries are actively transitioning from legacy networks to 4G/5G networks, the establishment of EUCCS is timely.
There may be benefits from EU cooperation on critical communication systems. Cooperation needs to be inclusive and take into account the needs of different countries and already ongoing initiatives. Different Member States are at different stages of progress and the proposed timetable needs to take it into account. There should be economic synergies in cooperation.
Filed in Swedish · English published by the European Commission
TCCA supports the initiative. Current TETRA-based services are excellent for what they have been designed for, but as narrowband technology, the amount of bits on the air is limited. Therefore, standardised and certified 3GPP-based Mission Critical Technology is the answer to meet high bit rate data-oriented information-centric services.
The Czech Ministry of the Interior, together with its service organization NAKIT, expresses strong and long-standing support for the establishment of the European Critical Communication System (EUCCS). As active participants in the BroadMap, BroadWay, and current BroadEU.Net/EUCCS Preparation projectsas well as members of the Mission Critical Communication Group (MCCG)we recognize EUCCS as a necessary step toward…
Nokia fully supports the establishment of EUCCS. Today, European public safety/civil protection rely on legacy narrowband technologies for their communications and situational awareness. These are often restricted to use within individual EU Member States. This significantly limits cross-border civil protection, police, and first responder cooperation, offering only basic voice and text communication capabilities.
PSCE fully supports the establishment of EUCCS. European responders are today using 20-25 year old technology which can only be used within member states in most cases. This limits civil protection and police cooperation across Europe and only allows for voice and short text communication.
EENA welcomes the potential establishment of a European Critical Communication System to ensure that public authorities in charge of security and safety can communicate easily across borders. This system will also apply to PSAPs, who need to communicate securely with first responders, both domestically and during cross border emergencies, and with PSAPs in other countries.
Dear, based on the experience of the TETRA Network, I would like to say that the concept is super, but has some weaknesses. I list them without any form: 1. Security cards are limited. This must not happen in an EU-wide solution 2. Secure networks are good for peacetime. However, the network needs to be kept up-to-date or repaired in the event of an emergency.
Filed in German · English published by the European Commission
The German authorities, Spiegel, have recently published important details on how to solve the radio demand of PPDR = BOS (authorities and organisations with security tasks). Authorities Spiegel Newsletter. Page 5f.
Filed in German · English published by the European Commission
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.