Skip to content
EUInc Monitor

Independent position tracker · procedure 2026/0074(COD)

Five asks.Two texts.One live gap map.

The EU–INC campaign has named five non-negotiables. This provision-level comparison shows where the Commission proposal and the JURI rapporteur draft match them, only go part-way, or diverge.

Independent · no campaign affiliationProposal and rapporteur draft · not law
i

Awaiting committee decision

PE790.143v02-00 is the JURI rapporteur's draft report. It is not the European Parliament's adopted position. The Council is still examining the proposal and no consolidated public Council position is scored here.

Evidence reviewed

01–05 / live comparison

Ask → text → gap

No composite score. Each ask is assessed separately because a single number would hide material qualifications.

01Point

Campaign ask

Free choice of registered office

Founders should choose where to incorporate independently of where the company operates, hires and pays taxes.

The 5 non-negotiables · 01

Open primary source ↗

Commission proposal

Aligned

Choice established

The company registers in the Member State chosen for its registered office. Its registered office and central administration or principal place of business must be in the EU, but they need not be in the same Member State.

Text evidence

Recital 11; Articles 5(1) and 9(1)

Open primary source ↗

JURI rapporteur draft

Partially aligned

Core choice preserved; operability qualified

The draft does not remove free seat choice, but it adds anti-arbitrage safeguards and would delete the host-state ban on requiring a local representative or physical presence. The choice remains while some cross-border operability is qualified.

Text evidence

Amendments 9, 58, 230 and 233–234

Open primary source ↗

Reading note

The legal-form choice is distinct from the tax, labour, branch-registration and licensing rules triggered by real activity.

02Point

Campaign ask

One central EU registry

One register and one data standard, rather than 27 national implementations.

The 5 non-negotiables · 02

Open primary source ↗

Commission proposal

Partially aligned

Interface first, register later

Registration initially remains in national business registers through a Commission-run interface built on BRIS. Article 34 requires that interface to be developed towards a central digital register, so the destination is stated but not the starting architecture.

Text evidence

Articles 2(2), 2(4), 5(1), 15 and 34(1)

Open primary source ↗

JURI rapporteur draft

Partially aligned

Central-register path retained

Amendment 134 keeps the Article 34 duty to develop the interface towards a central digital register. Amendment 232 adds an information platform connected to BRIS and the interface; it is not itself the authoritative company register.

Text evidence

Amendments 134 and 232

Open primary source ↗

Reading note

A central user interface, an information platform and one authoritative register are different things. The texts contain a route towards the last of these, not a completed replacement for national registers.

03Point

Campaign ask

Access for all companies

No size caps, revenue thresholds or sector restrictions.

The 5 non-negotiables · 03

Open primary source ↗

Commission proposal

Aligned

Broad formation access

The proposal says the framework should be legally open to all founders and companies, allows formation by one or more natural or legal persons and states no general company-size, revenue or sector eligibility filter for the EU Inc form.

Text evidence

Recital 5 and Article 3(c); no general eligibility cap or excluded-sector annex

Open primary source ↗

JURI rapporteur draft

Diverges

Sector access narrowed

The draft would let the form exclude listed economic activities. Annex Ia names seven categories, including construction, cleaning, hospitality and road freight. The separate startup definition does not by itself make the entire regime startup-only.

Text evidence

Amendments 58 and 246 (Annex Ia); see also Amendment 59

Open primary source ↗

Reading note

This assessment is based on the express sector list. It does not infer a general size cap from the draft's startup definition.

04Point

Campaign ask

Standardised stock options

A standard employee option plan taxed on sale rather than grant, with a safe-harbour valuation rule.

The 5 non-negotiables · 04

Open primary source ↗

Commission proposal

Partially aligned

EU option plan and tax deferral

The proposal creates an EU employee stock option plan, with no income tax at grant, vesting or exercise and taxation only at disposal of the resulting shares. It uses fair market value under national rules and does not establish the campaign's requested safe-harbour valuation.

Text evidence

Articles 78 and 79

Open primary source ↗

JURI rapporteur draft

Partially aligned

Core retained; ownership plan added

The draft retains the EU-ESO core, adds employee safeguards and proposes an EU-ESOP for shares issued for work or services. The disposal-stage rule remains for options, while no campaign-style safe-harbour valuation is added.

Text evidence

Amendments 163–174

Open primary source ↗

Reading note

The tax trigger and the valuation method are separate requirements. Meeting the first does not establish the second.

05Point

Campaign ask

Local labour law and taxes

Labour and tax obligations should follow real activity rather than the registered address.

The 5 non-negotiables · 05

Open primary source ↗

Commission proposal

Partially aligned

Local rules remain, with one seat link

The proposal says EU and national employment law remains unaffected, and tax connecting factors stay largely outside the company-law harmonisation. However, Article 12 ties employee-participation rules for specified formations to the registered-office Member State.

Text evidence

Recital 83; Articles 4(2), 12(1) and 79(3)–(4)

Open primary source ↗

JURI rapporteur draft

Partially aligned

Closer on place of employment

The draft makes the habitual place of work more explicit and moves employee participation towards the place of employment, but adds a highest-protection rule for companies with employees in more than two Member States. Tax residence, permanent establishment, payroll and VAT still follow their separate legal tests.

Text evidence

Amendments 54, 58, 99–103 and 233–234

Open primary source ↗

Reading note

‘Real activity’ is a policy shorthand, not one universal legal test. Different labour and tax obligations use different connecting factors.

How to read the labels

The labels compare legislative wording with the campaign's own stated preferences. They are not a judgment on whether either policy is desirable.

AlignedPartially alignedDiverges

Pending evidence

What cannot be scored yet

Council working-party discussions are active, but the cited procedure file does not contain a consolidated public Council position against which all five asks can be assessed. We will add that column when an attributable text is published.

Check the official procedure file ↗

Reusable evidence

Use the map. Check every claim.

The full mapping, assessment definitions, provision locators and source URLs are available as versioned JSON and flat CSV under CC BY 4.0 for EU Inc Monitor's original metadata and summaries.

Open JSON Download CSV

Methodology / v2026-07-15.1

Method and limits

We manually compared the campaign's five stated non-negotiables with the cited Commission and Parliament documents. Every assessment is tied to an article or amendment. Absence claims are limited to those source versions and the review date.

  • Aligned: the cited text materially matches the stated ask.
  • Partially aligned: it matches only part of the ask or adds material qualifications.
  • Diverges: an operative feature conflicts with the stated ask.

EU Inc Monitor is independent and is not affiliated with the EU–INC campaign or any EU institution. Assessments describe alignment with the campaign's stated preferences; they are not legal opinions or endorsements.

Source set

Continue with the underlying record

Explore selected amendments →Open the legislative timeline →Submit a factual correction →