This transcript was automatically generated and may contain errors.

Thank you very much, and you know, on the days of the College, we have the privilege of having here our team of interpreters,

so feel free to ask your questions in any of the official EU languages. And let's start there with Jack. Jack Power from the Irish Times. A question for Commissioner McGrath.

You were previously a Minister for Finance, areas like tax, insolvency,

traditionally ones where the Department of Finances in the various Member States have been quite guarded about,

you know, ceding any.

I suppose control to Brussels, like what,

I suppose what's your sense of why this time will be different and this proposal won't get bogged down in in kind of national griping over the details. Thanks. Thank you Jack.

I think the main difference is that the political will is there at this time to deliver on this proposal.

The diagnosis has been clear for some time.

We, we have the Draghi report, the letter report.

We know that we have an innovation gap. We know we face a competitiveness challenge.

We know that the internal barriers within the EU single market are holding us back.

And the EU Inc proposal is an important contribution to resolving these issues.

It is the case that it has to travel alongside all of the other reforms which are flagged in the Chape communication today and the other initiatives that we have around further integrating and deepening the single market.

What I would say on the taxation and the insolvency aspects of the EUIC proposal is that they genuinely add value.

If we are serious about adopting an EUIC proposal that will actually work and that will make a real difference, then we have to focus on the practical day to day issues that founders and companies that are seeking to scale in the European Union are facing,

and one of those is the issue of attracting and retaining talent into your company and When we did our consultations with the stakeholders, this issue of employee share-based remuneration,

so employee stock options came up time and time again,

and founders consistently raised the issue of having to navigate the complexity of up to 27 different systems in the EU.

It's important that we are clear that employee stock options do not replace.

The right to a fair wage do not replace the right to have full respect for national minimum wage rates,

for example.

So it is complementary to that,

and we think that proposing to harmonize the timing of when the taxation liability arises and making sure it happens only when the shares are actually sold.

Because that is when the employee makes the gain.

That is when they are in a position to actually discharge the associated tax liability. That makes perfect sense.

So that adds to the overall value of the EUIC proposal.

And on insolvency, yes, we had extensive negotiations over the course of last year on the Insolvency 3 directive. We are going a step further.

We are building on what has been agreed, embedding full digitalization.

Into the insolvency process will reduce the cost of failure,

which we know is actually a barrier to entry in the European Union for companies that want to grow and scale.

If you think that if this goes wrong, I'm facing a very complex and very costly process that is a deterrent,

so full digitalization, we think, adds real value, and we do believe that there is value in having a simplified.

Insolvency procedure for innovative startups, drawing on the definition that Caterina has brought forward in the Commission recommendation today,

which would not involve the mandatory involvement of lawyers or insolvency practitioners and which would be done within a dedicated time period of no more than 6 months. So we look forward to engaging.

With the co-legislators,

and I believe we're in a good position to make the case that these additional elements beyond EU corporate law add real value to the EU Inc proposal. Thank you, and let's move on there. Yaakov Perry for Politico.

The Commission president said that the proposal contains strong,

labor safeguards just because this is an issue that has emerged from the European Trade Unions Confederation.

Maybe you could go into what those safeguards are and then maybe more question for you, but we do have the, social summit today. The president's not attending.

This is a big file that impacts labor. Why is she not attending? Take questions.

It's a privilege, today, but listen, Jack, indeed, and there were agenda, issues, but,

the president is very well represented by the EVP Mînzatu,

so in very good hands, there, and, this concerns essentially the press conference. Yes, and EVP.

OK, I can start and then Michael can continue,

but we didn't amend our labor legislation with this EU company law, EU Inc.

So there is this part when it comes to employer stock options that we are establishing here in our EU IC,

but we are not amending our labor legislation, but like I said, in our communication later on this year, we will have our.

The labor mobility package, and there we will also address these important topics, which have implications for scaling up businesses in the European Union, and especially we are looking, of course, the needs of startups there and for example,

we are looking at the possibility to have 100% of teleworking option in the future in the European Union, which is not currently possible,

but later this year we will have the labor package and there we will also address these topics.

Just to add to that, and the EVP is exactly right.

The text is actually very explicit that this regulation does not affect union or national employment law.

These laws should apply to EU companies as they apply to any other union limited liability company. So we're actually not touching labor law. We are very proud of the.

Employment rights that workers have within the European Union,

we see that as being an essential ingredient in a competitive economy.

We are providing workers who will be employed now by EU companies the prospect of benefiting from a harmonized employee stock option regime.

It is the case that freedom of establishment.

Will apply to EU companies in the same way that it applies to existing companies.

They will be able to choose the member state of registration where the seat of the company will be based, but that does not in any way cross over or interfere with the operation of national or union employment law in general terms, as you all know, the The place where the work takes place remains the place of employment,

and we're actually explicit within the regulation itself that any matter that is not addressed within the regulation remains governed by national law, and employment law explicitly falls into that category,

and we have in the recital that added safeguard, as I said,

that the regulation does not affect either union or national member state employment law. We continue. Yes, please. Eleanor Batilliet from Law 360.

So experts have flagged that the proposal could increase the risk of corporate tax avoidance as it doesn't include economic substance requirements.

Can you tell me whether the Commission is is ensuring that EU Inc will not facilitate corporate tax avoidance? Thank you.

Yeah, I'm happy to take that question, and again, the question of freedom of establishment does apply,

so it is the case that an EU company can be set up in any member state of the European Union,

but of course that does not determine the tax residence of the company concerned.

So we are not making any change to the determination of where the tax residence of the company is based.

Such determination of the place where a company must pay a corporate income tax will continue to be based on each member state's domestic tax law and more specifically,

the criterion that the state uses for determining tax residence.

It is usually determined, as you know, by where a company is managed day to day and where key decisions are made.

So the question of tax residence remains a separate matter,

which will be continued to be determined by member state law and as is currently the case.

Where a dispute arises between different countries, then you have the double taxation agreements that are in place between different countries can come into play to iron out and resolve any taxation disputes that arise,

but there's no change being proposed in the context of the EU proposal today. You Yes, please. Thank you very much, Benedikte for context. I have a question for Commissioner Sarieva.

It's about the recommendation on the definition of innovative startups and scale-ups.

During the public consultation, around the European Innovation Act, several startup organizations have warned against, such a definition that they feared would be too restrictive,

It's a recommendation, which means that it's not going to go through scrutiny by the co-legislators.

What is being adopted today will remain the same.

So could you explain to us exactly how you conducted the impact assessment for such a definition,

whether you received positive feedback or negative feedback? What led you to this definition? Thank you.

Thank you for these questions, and actually, of course, there are, there may be a different opinion about the, the, the definitions, but the, the definitions actually,

and the fact that we need definitions which are harmonized and through the recommendations which we have for SMEs and recently for SMCs came actually from the,

from the startup scale community.

It was discussed many, many times with them, with the organizations during the Startup Scale Forum.

It was built on, as I said, international standards.

The goal was to be really easy to define, to be broad enough, and to be harmonized for the.

Future policies, but also we use these definitions for insolvency, for example, in the 28 regime or EU Inc. So it was broadly consulted.

It built on international standards and existing definitions for SMEs,

but of course with a focus on the difference of these companies, as I said in my intervention.

There was no need for impact assessment because this recommendation is not a regulation or directive. Exactly. Thank you. Yes, please.

Mr President, Lewis Croft Elech's question for EPP Verkanen.

You mentioned in your opening that the College had also held an orientation debate on mergers today.

You mentioned that EU Inc and I imagine the debate are about helping companies build scale in Europe,

be more competitive.

You talked about the importance of a change of course.

Could you give us a flavor of the debate and let us know to what degree you think the current approach should change course to help.

Achieve the scale up aims that you have been explained today. Thank you. Yes, thank you very much.

It was an orientation debate, so there is not anything I can really inform about this debate, but based on this debate now Vice Presidents Ria and Ducomte,

they will finalize the draft 4 guidelines, and they will be published later during the spring,

and after this public consultation, then Ducomte and.

Under the leadership of Vice President Ribeiro, they will finalize the guidelines by the end of this year,

but of course it's clear that that kind of guidelines have to be in line with our broader picture when it comes to competitiveness of the European Union and also boosting innovation and investments in the European Union,

as we know, these are very top priorities for us, together with our super.

There you go, you have the flavor of the debate indeed, and we look for other questions in the room.

It seems that everything is clear with the very clear presentations from our 3 Members of the College, whom I would like to thank very much.

Thank you also to the interpreters and wish you a very good afternoon.