The European Commission publishes the list of responses to the public consultation on the review of Regulation 1/2003
Today, 19 February 2026, the European Commission has published a summary of the contributions made to the public consultation —launched on 10 July 2025— on the review of Regulation 1/2003 concerning the enforcement of antitrust rules.
Although there were 80 contributions, from Berlaymont they report broad support from participants for revising the procedural framework, so that the legal regime is better prepared for challenges; and more effective and efficient in its application.
The largest number of contributions come from business associations, although law firms have also played an important role.
These proposals will serve as building blocks for drafting a European Commission's legislative proposal, which is expected to be ready within 1 year.
In summary, some stakeholder observations —by topic— are below:
*The following information extraction is AI-generated and may contain some errors.
About the investigative tools
Requests for information: Stakeholders highlighted high and variable costs for responding to RFIs under Regulation 1/2003, mainly due to scope, market complexity, and needs for external consultants, IT staff, and lawyers—especially with forensic data collection; they noted that deadlines are often too short, despite some flexibility for extensions, and called for longer initial deadlines and greater Commission flexibility.
Preservation orders: Respondents were divided: many (companies, associations, law firms, public authority) questioned the need for a new specific power given the existing general preservation obligation from case law, citing IT costs, extraterritoriality concerns, and calling for guidelines instead or safeguards if introduced (proportionality, limited scope/time, only on suspicion of non-compliance); others (law firms, lawyers associations, company, consumer association) saw benefits in less intrusiveness than dawn raids, greater legal certainty, targeted data collection minimizing costs/disruption if limited to custodians and proportionate; additional costs depend on breadth/specific formats; sanctioning powers offer deterrence/effectiveness but risk over-preservation/defensive behavior; majority rated negative impact on administrative burden (14), flexibility (12), costs (13), positive/neutral on legal certainty (14)
Inspections: 15 respondents had experience with traditional inspections, acknowledging their value but noting significant costs (e.g., up to €300,000 estimated by one law firm) driven by scope, team pauses (legal/IT/security), and external counsel; for remote inspections of digital records, called for equal/higher safeguards (company rep monitoring, privacy/LPP/trade secrets protection, defined scope, records of steps, formal decision); mixed views vs. on-site (benefits: less disruptive, saves time/cost/travel; costs: reallocated to tech/privacy, no clear reductions); vs. search-term RFIs (benefits: targeted forensics, faster, less business interference, lower company search costs; costs: potentially higher short-term, less flexible, defense/privacy risks, more intrusive); majority rated neutral/positive impact on administrative burden (11), flexibility/costs (10-11), half neutral/positive on legal certainty (other half negative), majority negative on rights of defense (12/18).
Interviews: Out of 17 respondents, most (lawyers associations, law firms, companies, business associations) stated companies rarely refuse interviews, though some advise against due to unpredictability vs. written submissions; for compulsory interviews, benefits include enhanced investigation effectiveness, fewer inspections/targeted RFIs, alignment with DMA/ECN+; drawbacks: less effective than RFIs (use proportionately), litigation/delays, fees/travel/disruption; need safeguards (advance notice, self-incrimination/LPP protection—extend to in-house, legal rep, review/correct statement, company-nominated individual, challengeable decision, cross-examination); for fines on non-appearance/misleading info, benefits in compliance/effectiveness (intentional only), drawbacks: proportionality issues, employee-company conflicts, sanction duplication, higher risks/costs, conservative engagement.
About the improving decisión-making procedures
Interim measures: Current framework criticized for lack of enforcement, legal uncertainty, high costs from long proceedings, reduced consumer choice/innovation; majority (23, businesses/legal pros/academic/NGO) against changing legal test (serious/irreparable harm), 9 for less onerous (e.g., immediate harm to consumers, reasonable suspicion); 26 favored procedural changes for speed (deadlines/timelines, limited file access, oral/shortened procedures, no Advisory Committee, formal request right, max duration, specialized teams), while maintaining oral hearing (11); 20 skeptical/opposed to ex parte in extreme urgency (defense limits, false positives, reputation risks), 3 businesses positive (efficiency); benefits of changes: faster enforcement/deterrence; costs: reduced protections, false positives/business disruption.
Commitments: Benefits of post-detailed opening decision deadline: predictability, enforcement effectiveness, shorter proceedings, legal certainty; costs: insufficient detail in opening, restricts tailored offers, loses late flexibility, less testing time, procedural imbalance; mixed on trigger (opening vs. SO/negotiations), suggest 2-3 months with flexibility; binding/final proposal (one amendment post-test) provides predictability/discourages speculation but artificial/less tailored; no post-deadline acceptance aids efficiency/prevents delays but limits improvements.
About the Access to files
High costs for non-confidential versions (hundreds/thousands of hours, tens/hundreds of thousands euros in legal fees) and for investigated companies (legal/IT/internal); for mandatory confidentiality rings, benefits include using confidential info in SO replies and efficiency (esp. digital), but risks to defense (reduced NC access, external advisors' limits), more pronounced in Option 2; info providers see burden reduction if safeguards (NDAs, VDRs, sanctions); prefer Option 1 (14/23: NC for addressees + full confidential to advisors) over Option 2 (4), 4 reject both; support Commission sanctioning power for breaches if clear/proportionate/safeguarded.
About complaints and third-party rights
Formal complaints: 11 stakeholders (businesses/legal pros) submitted Form C in last 10 years; mixed on removing rejection decision right (21 replies: benefits reduce burden/speed/costs; costs lose transparency/accountability/certainty/checks—needs safeguards); costs case-specific (complexity, fees, internal—no figures); handling rejection adds work (analysis/observations/appeal); reduce burden via simplified initial complaints, priority guidance, prioritization rejections sans detail, stricter thresholds, informal contacts/timelines/digital tools.
Extending rights of formal complainants: 21 respondents mixed: 1 NGO/1 consumer org favor (third-party/civil society benefits); others concerned over complexity/costs/resources, adversarial imbalance, confidentiality risks, delays; improve third-party procedure: streamline roles/rights, harmonize, simplify doc access, timely comms, early input (interviews/RFIs/remedies), timelines/updates, DMA inspiration.
About the ECN
Stricter national laws on unilateral conduct: Mixed on Option 1 (adapt coordination): insufficient vs. no need (avoids duplicates/conflicts, ne bis in idem); costs/benefits: procedural burdens on NCAs, fragmentation vs. local benefits; Option 2 (discontinue Art. 32): mixed, loses local/SME/swift benefits (lawyers/public auths/businesses/NGO) vs. reduces company costs/uncertainty (law firms/assocs/companies); other: Art. 11/15 comments.
Other comments: Respondents proposed compromises beyond options; wider ECN aspects (Art. 11/15) outside scope.
About the rest of topics
Other topics raised by stakeholders: Strengthen Art. 7 remedies (quasi-structural discretion vs. maintain behavioral hierarchy; cartel-specific: director disqualification/bonus seizure); extend settlements to non-cartels/cooperation framework; fine process comments; extend limitation periods/sanction retaliation; extend LPP to in-house counsel (businesses/legal pros: aligns MS, boosts compliance); due process/fairness comments.