EU consultation
14 submissions from 14 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 62 submissions on this file. Shown here: the 14 from organizations. Not shown, by design: submissions from private individuals, which we never publish, and anything filed since our last weekly refresh.
10 submissions from industry and none from civil society organizations; 4 from public authorities, academia and others.
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 2 Oct 2025 — it ran from 10 Jul 2025.
How it got here
Also on the Commission’s pipeline for this file, with no date recorded: Initiative planned, Proposal for a regulation.
14 positions
· · filed 2 Oct 2025 · source
TEXT NOT ACCESSIBLE – CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL. Modernisation of investigations: R: OK access to data, including online data in the cloud, but in some way ensuring the presence/supervision of the company for the protection of information, so that compliance with the scope of the procedure to which reference is made is also checked by the company.
Filed in Italian · English published by the European Commission
Please find our full feedback in the document attached. This response summarizes Cleary Gottliebs views on the policy options identified by the Commission. In addition, it addresses further aspects of the Commissions procedures that should be improved as part of the planned revision. - Maintain existing investigative powers.
To whom it may concern, Please find attached the International Center for Law & Economics comments on the Commissions consultation concerning the revision of Regulation 1/2003. In brief, our comments counsel preserving strong evidentiary and proportionality safeguards for interim measures and commitments; streamlining complainant procedures by removing the obligation to issue formal rejection decisions; and…
· · filed 2 Oct 2025 · source
EDF considers that the overall structure of the current procedural framework is balanced and functional. The system established by Regulations No 1/2003 and No 773/2004 has enabled the effective, uniform and decentralised application of EU competition rules, while ensuring close cooperation between the Commission and the various stakeholders. We see no compelling reason to change this system.
EJASO welcomes the European Commission’s initiative to review and modernise the antitrust procedural framework. We consider this to be an essential step in strengthening the effectiveness of the European competition system, promoting uniform and effective application in all Member States and ensuring real and effective protection for victims of anti-competitive practices, both procedural and substantive, in line…
Filed in Spanish · English published by the European Commission
The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA Europe) welcomes the opportunity to submit comments in response to the European Commissions (Commission) Public Consultation regarding the procedural framework for the implementation of Regulation 1/2003 and Regulation 773/2004 (together the Regulations) released for public comment on July 10, 2025. Please find our comments enclosed.
· · filed 1 Oct 2025 · source
Following an evaluation completed in September 2024, the initiative will lead to the preparation of a legislative proposal to revise the EU antitrust procedural rules to ensure that the enforcement of EU competition rules remains effective and fit for purpose through a European call centre that users can contact directly and free of charge to report abuses.
Filed in Italian · English published by the European Commission
We write on behalf of the Movement for an Open Web (MOW), a consortium of companies in digital markets seeking an open and decentralised web, further to the public consultation of the antitrust procedural framework set out in Regulation 1/2003 (and the procedural framework in Regulation 773/2004).
The AEDC welcomes the consultation launched by the European Commission (EC) and its willingness to engage with all relevant stakeholders on a constructive dialogue about how proceedings in Regulation 1/2003 should be modified to ensure the effective and uniform application of EU competition rules in strict compliance of the rights and guarantees afforded to investigated undertakings.Several proposals for the…
· · filed 30 Sept 2025 · source
Remarks against fragmentation of the Single Market by divergent national laws on abuse of dominance Ensuring the coherence and effectiveness of EU competition law requires avoiding the risks of fragmentation caused by divergent Member State rules on unilateral conduct.
Our feedback to the European Commission highlights the strategic role of the European Trade Indexes Registry (EUTIR) in modernising EU antitrust procedural rules. As digital markets generate vast, complex evidence, traditional enforcement tools are no longer sufficient.
As a company operating in the cosmetics and nail industry, we would like to highlight a practical case that, in our view, leads to significant distortions of competition and should be taken into account in the revision of the EU antitrust procedural rules. Problem In our market segment, we have observed for years that certain manufacturers and distributors label cosmetic products (e.g.
We welcome this timely initiative to revise Reg. 1/2003. We believe that it is urgent to ensure that the Commission has the power to effectively resolve distortions of competition in digitised and complex modern markets. We have conducted several studies into the effectiveness of EU competition law remedies in Art. 102 TFEU cases in 2024 and 2025 (linked in the attached overview).
· · filed 17 Jul 2025 · source
We certainly agree with a revision of the procedural rules linked to EU antitrust that could help the European Commission in its investigations to protect competition and intervene in cases of dominance by entities producing goods and/or services within the meaning of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.
Filed in Italian · 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.