EU Inc. Is Not Europe’s Delaware Moment

A Spanish startup wins a customer in Luxembourg. Good news. But growth soon turns into admin. When the Spanish startup hires a salesperson in Luxembourg, it requireds legal advice, encounters payroll complications, and, in practice, pressure to open a local Luxembourgish subsidiary. Before long, a young company starts viewing like an old company, with a tiny cluster of entities spread across the 27 nations.

That is the mess that the European Commission’s new 28th regime proposal, branded “EU Inc.,” is supposed to repair. Sold as part of Europe’s competitiveness push, it offers an optional company form meant to assist startups set up rapider, raise money more easily, and operate across the bloc with less legal drag.

Founders were never questioning Brussels for pretty registration forms. They were questioning for the ability to hire, sell, and operate across Europe without having to rebuild the business every time they entered a new market. That problem remains. Cross-border hiring remains messy. Labor law remains national. Tax rules remain national. Administrative friction remains national. EU Inc. cleans up the start and leaves much of the growth phase untouched.

It’s a step forward, but no panacea. In the US, Delaware combines flexible company law with a court system that gives founders and investors quick, predictable answers. Under the Commission’s proposal, companies will still go before national courts. That means different speeds, different habits, and different levels of expertise.

EU Inc. allows a minimum capital of zero or one euro. It permits flexible share structures and creates room for modern financing instruments such as SAFEs — simple deals for future equity. It also creates an optional EU employee stock option scheme with taxation deferred until disposal. It promises digital procedures across much of the company lifecycle. All of these measures are utilizeful and long overdue.

Read the tiny print, however, and the promise shrinks. Brussels is selling a startup dream: register in 48 hours, for €100, through one central interface. That only works if founders utilize the Commission’s standard templates. For the simplest companies, that may be fine.

But many startups are not that simple for long. Once founders want tailored voting rights, different share classes, or other arrangements that investors often expect, the off-the-shelf model starts to view restrictive. Step outside of it, and the timeline stretches out.

Get the Latest

Even on the rapid track, the company is not simply waved through. A public authority still must check the filing before registration. Depfinishing on the counattempt, that may mean an administrative body, a judge, or a notary viewing at the documents and confirming that the legal requirements have been met. In plain English, the process is still supervised. It is not the kind of automatic, low-friction registration that founders might imagine from the headline.

The EU interface may collect the documents, but the decision to register the company is built by the competent authority in the member state where the firm is being set up, under that counattempt’s law. So, Brussels provides the front door; the actual approval still happens in the national back office.

Once a company requireds some tweaks, the rapid-track promise weakens further. The timetable slips from 48 hours to five working days. That may not sound dramatic, but it informs you what kind of regime this really is: quick for standard cases, slow and national the moment a startup views like a real startup.

“If we want to boost entrepreneurship, we required to start considering outside the box,” states René Repasi, the Social Democrat co-author of a European Parliament report. “Specialized court chambers and an alternative dispute resolution mechanism for ‘EU Inc.’ companies could assist solve disputes quickly and create real trust.”

“I am happy the EU Inc. is a regulation – meaning that it will be uniformly applied and speedily available across the continent,” states Reinier van Lanschot, the Dutch MEP who has pushed this file hard. But van Lanschot worries about what the Commission left out. “Hiring cross-border will still be hugely problematic,” he warns. “Registration will not be built through a fully European regisattempt.”

Another weakness concerns bankruptcy, currently an expensive, difficult procedure. The EU Inc. proposal contains simplified liquidation tools. But it remains national, conducted by 27 different legal cultures, resulting in uncertainity for investors and founders.

There is a political reason for this caution. The Commission wants the branding advantage of a European regime without confronting national sensitivities.

“The Commission has taken an important step, but Europe’s hugegest problem is still speed,” states João Silva of Startup Portugal. “In a global race for talent, capital and innovation, even good policy loses value if it arrives too late. Europe requireds less fragmentation, less delay, and a much shorter gap between political ambition and practical impact.”

Anda Bologa is a Senior Researcher with the Tech Policy Program at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA). 

Bandwidth is CEPA’s online journal dedicated to advancing transatlantic cooperation on tech policy. All opinions expressed on Bandwidth are those of the author alone and may not represent those of the institutions they represent or the Center for European Policy Analysis. CEPA maintains a strict ininformectual indepfinishence policy across all its projects and publications.