{"id":32691,"date":"2026-03-11T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-03-11T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/irshare.eu\/ir-notes-270-25-march-2026\/"},"modified":"2026-07-02T17:46:41","modified_gmt":"2026-07-02T17:46:41","slug":"ir-notes-270-25-march-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/irshare.eu\/fr\/ir-notes-270-25-march-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"IR Notes 270 – A 28th regime to keep unicorns within the EU"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\n \n
\n \n \n \n
<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
\n \n \n \n \n
 <\/td>\n \n \n IR Notes 270 – 25 March 2026<\/b>\n <\/font>
\n \n www.irshare.eu<\/b>\n <\/font>\n <\/td>\n 		 <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n <\/table>\n <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n\n
 <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n\n
\n \n \n \n \n
 <\/td>\n \n \n Editorial<\/b>\n <\/font>
\n \n Do we need a bonfire of labour law to safeguard the unicorns?<\/b>\n <\/font>\n

\n \n \n

The regulation on EU Inc. status (see Lead\n story) should be read within the perspective offered by the\n <\/span>communication<\/a>, which announces a number of new\n initiatives, the <\/span>impact\n assessment report<\/a> on the\n regulation and the <\/span>recommendation<\/a> on definitions of innovative\u00a0enterprises. A\n comparative analysis of all these various documents is necessary to\n identify the mechanism\u2019s weaknesses and the social optimisation\n risks condemned by the trade unions (see Social update, below). One\n example: in its communication, the Commission mentions the\n forthcoming Fair Labour Mobility package, which it is due to present\n this year. It announces that it will examine \u201cthe possibility to\n allow 100% cross-border telework for startups and scaleups across\n the Union, applying the social security legislation of the Member\n State where the employer is located.\u201d This amazing simplification\n will allow a company to choose an EU country with low social\n security contributions and maximum flexibility in its labour\n legislation, for the purpose of recruiting talent that will be\n underpaid (but might potentially grow rich via the harmonised\n stock-option systems provided for by the regulation), working from\n home, in any EU country, and affiliating the talent in question to\n the not-very-generous social security scheme of the State where the\n company\u2019s registered office is located. Lastly, according to the\n definitions adopted for the various types of\n \u201cinnovative\u00a0enterprises\u201d, or by subsequently altering the thresholds\n adopted (in terms of workforce, turnover or share of budget\n earmarked for research and development), there is nothing to prevent\n traditional companies from switching over to this new status and\n finally ridding themselves of the \u201cshackles\u201d of the labour law and\n social security regulations imposed by the country in which their\n registered office is currently located. Is this political fiction?\n Who knows? As we saw once again at the European Council on 9 March,\n Member States are now vigorously pressing the EU to simplify its\n \u201cacquis\u201d, in order to boost competitiveness (see <\/span>conclusions<\/a>). Yet it is moving forward, behind the\n scenes to a significant extent, preferring to revise texts that deal\n with various aspects of the same issue or to adopt \u201cpackages\u201d\n containing several instruments of different kinds, rather than\n drawing up an entire body of legislation, which would then be\n subject to the normal legislative process \u2013 i.e. a waste of time, in\n the opinion of those who want to speed up the deregulation process.\n Officially, the Commission is resisting the idea of putting forward\n an Omnibus directive to overhaul the acquis of European social\n legislation, which is what EU employers are inviting it to do. It is\n also standing its ground with regard to maintaining the pay\n transparency directive, which has been attacked from all sides. It\n even states that the 28th<\/sup> regime is not intended to be a\n mechanism for bypassing labour law. Although no-one is openly\n admitting that they want to do away with European labour law, for\n fear of prompting reactions from trade unions and citizens, behind\n the scenes, steps are already being taken to dismantle social\n Europe. Does a desire to ape the USA, by adopting the \u201cInc.\u201d in the\n title of so many multinational companies based in Delaware, where\n taxes are low, amount to a promise to achieve competitiveness? It\u2019s\n questionable. Other more virtuous models, such as those sketched out\n in the report on democracy at work submitted to the Spanish\n government in February (see <\/span>IR\n Notes 267<\/a>), should make us think\n twice about this move and focus instead on a \u201cEuropean way\u201d. For\n example, restricting EU Inc. status to companies that allow\n employees to participate in their decision-making, while at the same\n time granting them access to ownership of the company, might be more\n virtuous and economically efficient over the long term.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n

Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Turlan<\/span>
Editor, IR Notes<\/span><\/p>\n <\/font>\n <\/td>\n

 <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n <\/table>\n <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
\n <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
\n \n \n \n \n
 <\/td>\n \n \n Agenda<\/b>\n <\/font>
\n \n

\u00a0<\/p>
\n

26 March<\/strong><\/span>
Online<\/strong><\/span>
Webinar\n organised by Eurofound and EIGE on \u201cLaunching\n the EU-wide guidelines on gender-neutral job evaluation and\n classification<\/a>\u201d.<\/p>
\n

21 April<\/strong><\/span>
Brussels<\/strong><\/span>
Eurofound\n is organising an event to unveil the latest results of its European\n survey on working conditions:\u00a0Working\n in the age of AI \u2013 How are working conditions changing across\n Europe?<\/a><\/p>
\n

29 June<\/strong><\/span>
Luxembourg<\/strong><\/span>
Employment\n and Social Affairs Council<\/p>\n <\/font>\n <\/td>\n

 <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n <\/table>\n <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
\n <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
\n \n \n \n \n
 <\/td>\n \n \n Who we are?<\/b>\n <\/font>
\n \n

\u00a0<\/p>
\n

IR Notes <\/strong><\/span>is\u00a0a\n fortnightly newsletter produced by\n IR Share <\/strong><\/span>and its network of experts, and is\n available in several European languages (English, French, German,\n Italian, Spanish, Polish). It offers Europe-wide monitoring of\n employment law, labour relations and employment policy. It is available\n by subscription for 273 euros per year .<\/p>
\n

The team: <\/strong><\/span>This\n issue was producaed by\u00a0In\u00e8s\n Bollet<\/strong><\/span>,\u00a0Victoria\n Fonseca<\/strong><\/span>,\u00a0Ambre\n Grenier-Boley<\/strong><\/span>,\u00a0Laura\u00a0Renucci<\/strong><\/span>,\u00a0Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Turlan<\/span><\/span>\n <\/strong>and Iris\n Turlan<\/strong><\/strong><\/span>. Find out more about the\u00a0IR Share team<\/a> on our website.\n <\/p>
\n

Subscribe to IR Notes\n <\/strong><\/span>Via the\u00a0IR\n Share website<\/a> or by calling us on: +33 (0)6 81 41 53 95\n or
E-mail:\u00a0frederic.t@irshare.eu<\/a><\/p>\n
\n

Legal notice.<\/strong><\/span>\n Publisher: IR Share SARL – 5, Les Comp\u00e8res – 89520 Fontenoy, France \u2013\n Tel.: +33 (0)6 81 41 53 95 \u2013 share capital 1,500 euros \u2013 commercial\n register (RCS Auxerre): 512 567\u00a0959. Managing editor: Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Turlan.\n Hosting: ALTEO by Damien Cornillet – Ch\u00e2teau – 89500\n Villeneuve-sur-Yonne. CPPAP\u00a0no.: 0626 Z 93933.<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/font>\n <\/td>\n

 <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n <\/table>\n <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
\n <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
\n \n \n \n \n
 <\/td>\n \n \n Follow us on LinkedIn!<\/b>\n <\/font>
\n \n

Why not connect to the <\/span>IR Notes<\/a> LinkedIn page, so that you can keep up with\n developments in the issues we\u2019re covering, between two editions?\n You\u2019re welcome to follow us! There are already 801 of you following\n us!<\/span><\/p>\n <\/font>\n <\/td>\n

 <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n <\/table>\n <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
\n <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
\n  <\/td>\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
\n
\n Lead\n story<\/b><\/font>
\n A 28th\n regime to keep unicorns within the EU<\/b><\/font>\n

\n \n

On 18 March, the European Commission put forward a proposal for a regulation to\n establish a new company status, known as \u201cEU Inc.\u201d, with the aim of encouraging the\n creation and development of\u00a0start-ups and innovative companies within the EU. These\n companies would \u201cbenefit from a single, harmonised set of rules\u201d in the form of a\n \u201c28th<\/sup> regime\u201d, i.e. a kind of fictitious 28th<\/sup> Member State, in\n which the rules of company law are simplified to an extreme degree. The key text is\n a proposal for a regulation<\/a>\n that seeks to achieve full harmonisation, with \u201ca\u00a0single set\u201d of rules that\n \u201ccompanies can choose instead of navigating multiple national regimes, unlocking the\n true potential of the Single Market\u201d. Using this new status, it will be possible to\n found a company within 48 hours, for less than 100 euros and with no minimum share\n capital requirements, by submitting information once only, via an EU-level\n interface. If the company subsequently has to be wound up, EU Inc.\u00a0companies will\n benefit from simplified and fully digital liquidation procedures (see Commission press\n release<\/a>). The Commission wants to move quickly to implement this\n recommendation made by the Draghi\n report<\/a> (which already dates back to September 2024, see IR Notes\n 236<\/a>), and is calling on Member States and Parliament to adopt the text by\n the year-end.
At first sight, the regulation does not appear to offer lighter\n social legislation. It emphasises the need to ensure that \u201cthis legal form cannot be\n used to circumvent rights, including notably employees\u2019 rights to participation in\n company boards.\u201d The text states that where employee participation rules exist\n within the Member State in which an EU Inc. has its registered office, they shall\n apply to this company. However, the text mentions a very vague application of the\n \u201cbefore-after principle\u201d to preserve the existing participation rights of employees\n involved in a cross-border creation of an EU Inc. company. Management should enter\n into negotiations with employees or their representatives \u201cwith a view to finding an\n amicable solution\u201d that reconciles the company\u2019s right to carry out a cross-border\n operation with the employees\u2019 rights of participation. The fears expressed by the\n European Trade Union Institute (ETUI) are thus proving well-founded (see Policy\n brief<\/a>).
As far as collective rights are concerned, Recital 18 states\n that, as for other limited liability companies, the EU legal framework regarding the\n information and consultation of employees should apply to EU Inc. companies, which\n is not what the start-up lobby wanted (see EU-Inc.org<\/a>.proposal).\n When it comes to individual employment relationships, the text indicates that\n Regulation (EC) 593\/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations shall\n apply. In other words, the employee is subject \u201cto the legislation chosen by the\n parties\u201d, while at the same time benefitting from protective rules such as mandatory\n laws enshrined in the labour law of the country where they normally carry out their\n duties (Article 8 of the regulation), e.g. the maximum length of the working week or\n application of the statutory minimum wage.
Apart from that, the regulation\n takes an interest in employees, especially from the viewpoint of attracting talent:\n it establishes a harmonised structure of stock-option plans, which will be identical\n in all Member States, with the option for the company to issue warrants that\n employees will be entitled to purchase after a mandatory waiting period of at least\n 24 months. Any income generated from these shares will be taxed at the time they are\n sold. The goal of preventing the siren voice of US tech attracting European talent\n is laudable, but it is not without risk for the workers concerned, who may be\n tempted to accept low wages in return for potential large future gains. EU Inc. is a\n company law instrument focused on boosting competitiveness: it does everything\n possible to reassure entrepreneurs, but it also opens up yawning gaps that may allow\n them to bypass the European social model (see Editorial, opposite).<\/p>\n <\/font>\n <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n

\n
\n 1. European\n Union<\/b><\/font>
\n Social\n update<\/b><\/font>\n

\n \n

Reactions to the 28th regime plan :\n <\/strong><\/span>ETUC General Secretary Esther Lynch warns: \u201cSimplification\n cannot be an excuse to unpick the European social model. Without proper safeguards,\n this proposal risks ending up as a reheated version of the doomed Bolkestein\n directive.\u201d (see ETUC press\n release<\/a>). Speaking for the employers, Markus J. Beyrer, BusinessEurope\n Director General, explains: \u201cwe are pleased that the 28th regime is being proposed\n as a regulation and is open to all types of companies\u201d. He adds: \u201cMoreover, we\n welcome the focus primarily on company law as including other areas such as labour\n law would generate long debates (including on EU competences) and seriously delay or\n jeopardise the chances of adoption\u201d (see BusinessEurope press\n release<\/a>). MEP Estelle Ceulemans (S&D), a former General Secretary of the\n Belgian trade union confederation FGTB, commented as follows in a LinkedIn post<\/a>\n written in French: \u201cWe can\u2019t accept new deregulation that would allow companies to\n shop around and choose to be registered in countries with more flexible regulations,\n while doing their business elsewhere\u201d.<\/p>\n <\/font>\n <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n

\n

\n \n

AI and the labour market : <\/strong><\/span>At\n the Council meeting on 9 March, the Spanish Minister of Employment, Yolanda Diaz,\n unveiled six measures to meet challenges linked to AI and the labour market,\n including: a training entitlement; algorithmic transparency and human oversight of\n decision-making; a guaranteed right to disconnect; creating an automation risk\n indicator; and establishing an EU public data protection agency. The Minister is\n also proposing a levy on AI companies with a view to creating a digitalisation\n adaptation fund to finance some of these measures (see press\n release <\/a>).<\/p>\n <\/font>\n <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n

\n
\n Case law<\/b>\n <\/font>\n

\n \n

Social criteria in public procurement contracts\n : <\/strong><\/span>On 5 March, the Court of Justice issued a judgment<\/a> on a Spanish\n case concerning the awarding of a municipal public procurement contract for home\n help services. One candidate disputed two social clauses in the invitation to tender\n \u2013 one linked to the rates of pay for employees performing this service and the other\n to the tenderer\u2019s undertaking to negotiate a collective agreement. The judgment is\n being closely scrutinised as it comes at a time when the European Commission is due\n to draw up reforms of the rules governing public procurement contracts: the trade\n unions are demanding that invitations to tender should be allowed to include a\n clause requiring tenderers to apply a collective agreement. In the case in point,\n the municipality of Ortuella had firstly required candidates to apply rates of pay\n higher than the sectoral collective agreement in force, and secondly, to commit to\n opening a collective bargaining negotiation within one month after securing the\n contract, covering the pay and working conditions of employees assigned to the home\n help service. The municipality\u2019s intention in inserting this clause is to ensure\n that the services will be performed by \u201cqualified, trained and supervised staff\u201d. It\n therefore believes that these staff should receive higher rates of pay than those\n provided for in the collective agreement. The Court of Justice upholds such a\n clause, arguing that \u201cin a contract of such a nature, it is not unreasonable to\n consider that an award criterion which takes into consideration a more favourable\n remuneration […] than that provided for by the sectoral collective agreement in\n force may contribute to that objective by improving the quality […] since more\n favourable remuneration would have the effect of retaining the staff performing the\n contract and allowing the recruitment of more qualified staff.\u201d Article\u00a067,\n paragraph\u00a01 of directive 2014\/24, stipulates that contracting authorities shall base\n the award of public contracts primarily on the most economically advantageous\n tender. Is this article compatible with a clause that automatically increases the\n cost for the municipality? Yes, says the Court of Justice: the \u201cincrease […] in\n the total payroll that the tenderer proposes to apply to persons performing the\n contract, allows the contracting authority to identify the most economically\n advantageous tender, within the meaning of that provision\u201d. The Court also accepts\n the obligation to open a negotiation with the employees assigned to this contract.\n Such a requirement seeks to \u201cfacilitate dialogue between the social partners and,\n therefore, encourages the exercise of that right by requiring merely that the\n successful tenderer endeavour to conclude a collective agreement with the\n representatives of the staff assigned to perform the contract, without encroaching\n on the latter\u2019s right to participate in the determination of the elements of the\n salary increase and working conditions.\u201d This judgment has been welcomed by the\n European Trade Union Confederation, which calls on the Commission \u201cto use its\n revision of the public procurement directives to consolidate this ruling, making\n sure that companies whose workers are covered by collective agreement are given an\n advantage in the awarding of public contracts.\u201d (see press\n release<\/a>).<\/p>\n <\/font>\n <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n

\n
\n European\n social dialogue<\/b><\/font>\n
\n \n

    \n
  • Insurance : <\/strong><\/span>On 12 March,\n European social partners in the insurance sector adopted a Joint\n Declaration<\/a> aimed at boosting business in the sector. The document\n supplements their previous initiatives in the area of digitalisation, and\n emphasises that \u201csocial dialogue and, where applicable, collective bargaining,\n information and consultation during the introduction and implementation of AI\n and digital tools and continuous monitoring are central.\u201d<\/li>\n <\/ul>\n <\/font>\n <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
\n
\n \n

    \n
  • Retail : <\/strong><\/span>On 12 March,\n European social partners in the retail sector published a joint\n statement<\/a> calling on EU institutions to tackle various issues, including\n \u201cunfair competition from third country marketplaces and traders selling directly\n to consumers in the EU often with no regard to EU standards and regulation\u201d (see\n joint\n press release<\/a>). They also adopted their Work\n Programme 2026-2027<\/a>.\n <\/li>\n <\/ul>\n <\/font>\n <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
\n
\n 2. Member\n States<\/b><\/font>
\n Belgium<\/b>\n <\/font>\n

\n \n

Prevention : <\/strong><\/span>On 1 March, the\n National Labour Council (CNT) launched the 3rd selection cycle for pilot projects\n aimed at preventing burn-out at work. This long-term initiative, which was provided\n for by the 2017-2018\n cross-industry agreement<\/a>, has given rise to the preparation of a brochure<\/a>\n of recommendations for employers. Applications for subsidies must be submitted by 31\n May 2026 (see press\n release<\/a>).<\/p>\n <\/font>\n <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n

\n
\n Spain<\/b>\n <\/font>\n

\n \n

Employers\u2019 reaction to \u201cdemocratisation at work\u201d\n : <\/strong><\/span>On 10 March, the two employers\u2019 confederations CEOE and\n CEPYME published a joint press release announcing their refusal to take part in\n round table discussions on social dialogue concerning democracy in the workplace\n (see IR Notes\n 267<\/a>). In their view, this is a further example of interventionism on the\n part of the State and a breach of private property rights. Despite their refusal,\n CEOE and CEPYME say that they continue to believe in collective bargaining as a\n vehicle for consultation (see press\n release<\/a>).<\/p>\n <\/font>\n <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n

\n
\n France<\/b>\n <\/font>\n

\n \n

Health and safety in the workplace :\n <\/strong><\/span>Since 16 March, the prevention\n passport<\/a> has been available to employers who wish to declare the internal\n training courses undertaken by their workers or to check the declarations made by\n training bodies. The purpose of this tool, which was created by the Law of\n 2\u00a0August 2021 to boost prevention in occupational health<\/a>, is to make it\n easier to monitor and update training courses in the field of occupational health\n and safety (see presentation\n of the tool<\/a>). To qualify for declaration, a training course must:\n 1\/<\/strong> concern occupational health and safety; 2\/<\/strong> be\n executed within the framework of the company; 3\/<\/strong> give rise to a\n document certifying the employee\u2019s participation; 4\/<\/strong> present skills\n that can be transferred to an identical position. A simulator<\/a>\n is available to help employers determine what is to be declared.\n <\/p>\n <\/font>\n <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n

\n
\n 3.\n Companies<\/b><\/font>
\n Corporate\n social responsibility<\/b><\/font>\n

\n \n

Due diligence : <\/strong><\/span>In a ruling<\/a>\n by the Paris Ordinary Court [Tribunal Judiciaire<\/em>] on 12 March, the\n cosmetics group Yves Rocher<\/strong><\/span>\n (LBYR) was ordered to pay 48,000 euros to six former employees of a former LBYR\n Turkish subsidiary, on account of the weakness of its risk mapping, which failed to\n prevent breaches of trade-union rights and instances of trade-union discrimination.\n The complainants are among the 132 employees of the subsidiary who were dismissed\n after joining the Turkish trade union Petrol-IS. This is the second time that a\n French company has been found guilty of breaching the 2017 law on due diligence (in\n the wake of a case concerning bogus \u201cself-employed\u201d workers employed by\n La Poste<\/span><\/strong> group, see IR Notes\n 220<\/a>), but it is the first time that workers employed outside France, by a\n subsidiary of a French company, have sought damages from the parent company.\u00a0 The\n substance of the judgment<\/a>\n relates to risk mapping, which the 2017 law placed \u201cat the forefront of the measures\n to be included in a company\u2019s due diligence plan, since it is upon this that the\n determination of actions to be taken to reduce risks, prevent serious violations and\n implement their monitoring depends\u201d. The ruling states that the mapping performed\n \u201cdoes not include a risk analysis of the subsidiaries\u201d, which were excluded from the\n risk management relating to the group\u2019s business, and that while it is indeed the\n company\u2019s responsibility to identify and prioritise risks, \u201cnothing in this case\n provides any insight into the procedure or method used\u201d by Yves Rocher, [\u2026] \u201cto\n determine the information to be included in its 2017 and 2018 vigilance plans.\u201d In\n the court\u2019s view, this \u201cshortcoming\u201d in itself constitutes \u201ca breach\u201d of its\n obligations.\u00a0 The court adds that \u201cneither the issuance of a code of conduct nor the\n purportedly corrective measures taken subsequently\u2014once the risks had\n materialised\u2014can compensate for\u201d the inadequacy of its mapping. This shortcoming \u201cis\n likely to give rise to the civil liability of the company LBYR and oblige it to\n compensate for the loss that the fulfilment of its obligations would have\n prevented.\u201d Judith Kirton-Darling, industriAll Europe\u2019s general secretary, comments\n with satisfaction: \u201cThe ruling represents an important milestone for corporate\n accountability\u201d (see press\n release<\/a>).\n <\/p>\n <\/font>\n <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n\n <\/table>\n <\/td>\n

 <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n \n
\n

\n D\u00e9sabonnement<\/a>\n <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On 18 March, the European Commission put forward a proposal for a regulation to establish a new company status, known as \u201cEU Inc.\u201d, with the aim of encouraging the creation and development of\u00a0start-ups and innovative companies within the EU. These companies would \u201cbenefit from a single, harmonised set of rules\u201d in the form of a \u201c28th regime\u201d, i.e. a kind of fictitious 28th Member State, in which the rules of company law are simplified to an extreme degree. The key text is a proposal for a regulation that seeks to achieve full harmonisation, with \u201ca\u00a0single set\u201d of rules that \u201ccompanies can choose instead of navigating multiple national regimes, unlocking the true potential of the Single Market\u201d. Using this new status, it will be possible to found a company within 48 hours, for less than 100 euros and with no minimum share capital requirements, by submitting information once only, via an EU-level interface. If the company subsequently has to be wound up, EU Inc.\u00a0companies will benefit from simplified and fully digital liquidation procedures (see Commission press release). The Commission wants to move quickly to implement this recommendation made by the Draghi report (which already dates back to September 2024, see IR Notes 236), and is calling on Member States and Parliament to adopt the text by the year-end.At first sight, the regulation does not appear to offer lighter social legislation. It emphasises the need to ensure that \u201cthis legal form cannot be used to circumvent rights, including notably employees\u2019 rights to participation in company boards.\u201d The text states that where employee participation rules exist within the Member State in which an EU Inc. has its registered office, they shall apply to this company. However, the text mentions a very vague application of the \u201cbefore-after principle\u201d to preserve the existing participation rights of employees involved in a cross-border creation of an EU Inc. company. Management should enter into negotiations with employees or their representatives \u201cwith a view to finding an amicable solution\u201d that reconciles the company\u2019s right to carry out a cross-border operation with the employees\u2019 rights of participation. The fears expressed by the European Trade Union Institute (ETUI) are thus proving well-founded (see Policy brief).As far as collective rights are concerned, Recital 18 states that, as for other limited liability companies, the EU legal framework regarding the information and consultation of employees should apply to EU Inc. companies, which is not what the start-up lobby wanted (see EU-Inc.org.proposal). When it comes to individual employment relationships, the text indicates that Regulation (EC) 593\/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations shall apply. In other words, the employee is subject \u201cto the legislation chosen by the parties\u201d, while at the same time benefitting from protective rules such as mandatory laws enshrined in the labour law of the country where they normally carry out their duties (Article 8 of the regulation), e.g. the maximum length of the working week or application of the statutory minimum wage.Apart from that, the regulation takes an interest in employees, especially from the viewpoint of attracting talent: it establishes a harmonised structure of stock-option plans, which will be identical in all Member States, with the option for the company to issue warrants that employees will be entitled to purchase after a mandatory waiting period of at least 24 months. Any income generated from these shares will be taxed at the time they are sold. The goal of preventing the siren voice of US tech attracting European talent is laudable, but it is not without risk for the workers concerned, who may be tempted to accept low wages in return for potential large future gains. EU Inc. is a company law instrument focused on boosting competitiveness: it does everything possible to reassure entrepreneurs, but it also opens up yawning gaps that may allow them to bypass the European social model (see Editorial, opposite).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1962],"tags":[],"post_country":[],"post_doc_language":[],"post_folder":[],"class_list":["post-32691","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-english-ir-notes-archive-newsletters"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nIR Notes 270 - A 28th regime to keep unicorns within the EU - IR Share<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/irshare.eu\/fr\/ir-notes-270-25-march-2026\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"fr_FR\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"IR Notes 270 - A 28th regime to keep unicorns within the EU - IR Share\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"On 18 March, the European Commission put forward a proposal for a regulation to establish a new company status, known as \u201cEU Inc.\u201d, with the aim of encouraging the creation and development of\u00a0start-ups and innovative companies within the EU. These companies would \u201cbenefit from a single, harmonised set of rules\u201d in the form of a \u201c28th regime\u201d, i.e. a kind of fictitious 28th Member State, in which the rules of company law are simplified to an extreme degree. The key text is a proposal for a regulation that seeks to achieve full harmonisation, with \u201ca\u00a0single set\u201d of rules that \u201ccompanies can choose instead of navigating multiple national regimes, unlocking the true potential of the Single Market\u201d. Using this new status, it will be possible to found a company within 48 hours, for less than 100 euros and with no minimum share capital requirements, by submitting information once only, via an EU-level interface. If the company subsequently has to be wound up, EU Inc.\u00a0companies will benefit from simplified and fully digital liquidation procedures (see Commission press release). The Commission wants to move quickly to implement this recommendation made by the Draghi report (which already dates back to September 2024, see IR Notes 236), and is calling on Member States and Parliament to adopt the text by the year-end.At first sight, the regulation does not appear to offer lighter social legislation. It emphasises the need to ensure that \u201cthis legal form cannot be used to circumvent rights, including notably employees\u2019 rights to participation in company boards.\u201d The text states that where employee participation rules exist within the Member State in which an EU Inc. has its registered office, they shall apply to this company. However, the text mentions a very vague application of the \u201cbefore-after principle\u201d to preserve the existing participation rights of employees involved in a cross-border creation of an EU Inc. company. Management should enter into negotiations with employees or their representatives \u201cwith a view to finding an amicable solution\u201d that reconciles the company\u2019s right to carry out a cross-border operation with the employees\u2019 rights of participation. The fears expressed by the European Trade Union Institute (ETUI) are thus proving well-founded (see Policy brief).As far as collective rights are concerned, Recital 18 states that, as for other limited liability companies, the EU legal framework regarding the information and consultation of employees should apply to EU Inc. companies, which is not what the start-up lobby wanted (see EU-Inc.org.proposal). When it comes to individual employment relationships, the text indicates that Regulation (EC) 593\/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations shall apply. In other words, the employee is subject \u201cto the legislation chosen by the parties\u201d, while at the same time benefitting from protective rules such as mandatory laws enshrined in the labour law of the country where they normally carry out their duties (Article 8 of the regulation), e.g. the maximum length of the working week or application of the statutory minimum wage.Apart from that, the regulation takes an interest in employees, especially from the viewpoint of attracting talent: it establishes a harmonised structure of stock-option plans, which will be identical in all Member States, with the option for the company to issue warrants that employees will be entitled to purchase after a mandatory waiting period of at least 24 months. Any income generated from these shares will be taxed at the time they are sold. The goal of preventing the siren voice of US tech attracting European talent is laudable, but it is not without risk for the workers concerned, who may be tempted to accept low wages in return for potential large future gains. EU Inc. is a company law instrument focused on boosting competitiveness: it does everything possible to reassure entrepreneurs, but it also opens up yawning gaps that may allow them to bypass the European social model (see Editorial, opposite).\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/irshare.eu\/fr\/ir-notes-270-25-march-2026\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"IR Share\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-03-11T12:00:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-02T17:46:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/archive.irshare.eu\/irnotes\/logo-entete.gif\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Konstantin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@IR_Share\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@IR_Share\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u00c9crit par\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Konstantin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Dur\u00e9e de lecture estim\u00e9e\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/irshare.eu\\\/fr\\\/ir-notes-270-25-march-2026\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/irshare.eu\\\/fr\\\/ir-notes-270-25-march-2026\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Konstantin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/divi5.irshare.eu\\\/fr\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/c47c3eece71666bf9a1a1cee539d04dd\"},\"headline\":\"IR Notes 270 – A 28th regime to keep unicorns within the EU\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-03-11T12:00:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-02T17:46:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/irshare.eu\\\/fr\\\/ir-notes-270-25-march-2026\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":3167,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/divi5.irshare.eu\\\/fr\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/irshare.eu\\\/fr\\\/ir-notes-270-25-march-2026\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/archive.irshare.eu\\\/irnotes\\\/logo-entete.gif\",\"articleSection\":[\"English IR Notes Archive Newsletters\"],\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/irshare.eu\\\/fr\\\/ir-notes-270-25-march-2026\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/irshare.eu\\\/fr\\\/ir-notes-270-25-march-2026\\\/\",\"name\":\"IR Notes 270 - A 28th regime to keep unicorns within the EU - IR Share\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/divi5.irshare.eu\\\/fr\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/irshare.eu\\\/fr\\\/ir-notes-270-25-march-2026\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/irshare.eu\\\/fr\\\/ir-notes-270-25-march-2026\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/archive.irshare.eu\\\/irnotes\\\/logo-entete.gif\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-03-11T12:00:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-02T17:46:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/irshare.eu\\\/fr\\\/ir-notes-270-25-march-2026\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/irshare.eu\\\/fr\\\/ir-notes-270-25-march-2026\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/irshare.eu\\\/fr\\\/ir-notes-270-25-march-2026\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/archive.irshare.eu\\\/irnotes\\\/logo-entete.gif\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/archive.irshare.eu\\\/irnotes\\\/logo-entete.gif\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/irshare.eu\\\/fr\\\/ir-notes-270-25-march-2026\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/irshare.eu\\\/fr\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"IR Notes 270 – A 28th regime to keep unicorns within the EU\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/divi5.irshare.eu\\\/fr\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/divi5.irshare.eu\\\/fr\\\/\",\"name\":\"IR Share\",\"description\":\"A Resource Hub for Labour Law and Industrial Relations\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/divi5.irshare.eu\\\/fr\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/divi5.irshare.eu\\\/fr\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/divi5.irshare.eu\\\/fr\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"IR Share\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/divi5.irshare.eu\\\/fr\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/divi5.irshare.eu\\\/fr\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/irshare.eu\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/06\\\/irsharelogo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/irshare.eu\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/06\\\/irsharelogo.png\",\"width\":315,\"height\":100,\"caption\":\"IR Share\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/divi5.irshare.eu\\\/fr\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/IR_Share\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/divi5.irshare.eu\\\/fr\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/c47c3eece71666bf9a1a1cee539d04dd\",\"name\":\"Konstantin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/5fdc2851c8df81301d78d063f9f34dbdde9b7f0dab479fd6be667f5ec8e4cbf0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/5fdc2851c8df81301d78d063f9f34dbdde9b7f0dab479fd6be667f5ec8e4cbf0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/5fdc2851c8df81301d78d063f9f34dbdde9b7f0dab479fd6be667f5ec8e4cbf0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Konstantin\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/irshare.eu\\\/fr\\\/author\\\/konstantin\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"IR Notes 270 - A 28th regime to keep unicorns within the EU - IR Share","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/irshare.eu\/fr\/ir-notes-270-25-march-2026\/","og_locale":"fr_FR","og_type":"article","og_title":"IR Notes 270 - A 28th regime to keep unicorns within the EU - IR Share","og_description":"On 18 March, the European Commission put forward a proposal for a regulation to establish a new company status, known as \u201cEU Inc.\u201d, with the aim of encouraging the creation and development of\u00a0start-ups and innovative companies within the EU. These companies would \u201cbenefit from a single, harmonised set of rules\u201d in the form of a \u201c28th regime\u201d, i.e. a kind of fictitious 28th Member State, in which the rules of company law are simplified to an extreme degree. The key text is a proposal for a regulation that seeks to achieve full harmonisation, with \u201ca\u00a0single set\u201d of rules that \u201ccompanies can choose instead of navigating multiple national regimes, unlocking the true potential of the Single Market\u201d. Using this new status, it will be possible to found a company within 48 hours, for less than 100 euros and with no minimum share capital requirements, by submitting information once only, via an EU-level interface. If the company subsequently has to be wound up, EU Inc.\u00a0companies will benefit from simplified and fully digital liquidation procedures (see Commission press release). The Commission wants to move quickly to implement this recommendation made by the Draghi report (which already dates back to September 2024, see IR Notes 236), and is calling on Member States and Parliament to adopt the text by the year-end.At first sight, the regulation does not appear to offer lighter social legislation. It emphasises the need to ensure that \u201cthis legal form cannot be used to circumvent rights, including notably employees\u2019 rights to participation in company boards.\u201d The text states that where employee participation rules exist within the Member State in which an EU Inc. has its registered office, they shall apply to this company. However, the text mentions a very vague application of the \u201cbefore-after principle\u201d to preserve the existing participation rights of employees involved in a cross-border creation of an EU Inc. company. Management should enter into negotiations with employees or their representatives \u201cwith a view to finding an amicable solution\u201d that reconciles the company\u2019s right to carry out a cross-border operation with the employees\u2019 rights of participation. The fears expressed by the European Trade Union Institute (ETUI) are thus proving well-founded (see Policy brief).As far as collective rights are concerned, Recital 18 states that, as for other limited liability companies, the EU legal framework regarding the information and consultation of employees should apply to EU Inc. companies, which is not what the start-up lobby wanted (see EU-Inc.org.proposal). When it comes to individual employment relationships, the text indicates that Regulation (EC) 593\/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations shall apply. In other words, the employee is subject \u201cto the legislation chosen by the parties\u201d, while at the same time benefitting from protective rules such as mandatory laws enshrined in the labour law of the country where they normally carry out their duties (Article 8 of the regulation), e.g. the maximum length of the working week or application of the statutory minimum wage.Apart from that, the regulation takes an interest in employees, especially from the viewpoint of attracting talent: it establishes a harmonised structure of stock-option plans, which will be identical in all Member States, with the option for the company to issue warrants that employees will be entitled to purchase after a mandatory waiting period of at least 24 months. Any income generated from these shares will be taxed at the time they are sold. The goal of preventing the siren voice of US tech attracting European talent is laudable, but it is not without risk for the workers concerned, who may be tempted to accept low wages in return for potential large future gains. EU Inc. is a company law instrument focused on boosting competitiveness: it does everything possible to reassure entrepreneurs, but it also opens up yawning gaps that may allow them to bypass the European social model (see Editorial, opposite).","og_url":"https:\/\/irshare.eu\/fr\/ir-notes-270-25-march-2026\/","og_site_name":"IR Share","article_published_time":"2026-03-11T12:00:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-07-02T17:46:41+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"https:\/\/archive.irshare.eu\/irnotes\/logo-entete.gif","type":"","width":"","height":""}],"author":"Konstantin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@IR_Share","twitter_site":"@IR_Share","twitter_misc":{"\u00c9crit par":"Konstantin","Dur\u00e9e de lecture estim\u00e9e":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/irshare.eu\/fr\/ir-notes-270-25-march-2026\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/irshare.eu\/fr\/ir-notes-270-25-march-2026\/"},"author":{"name":"Konstantin","@id":"https:\/\/divi5.irshare.eu\/fr\/#\/schema\/person\/c47c3eece71666bf9a1a1cee539d04dd"},"headline":"IR Notes 270 – A 28th regime to keep unicorns within the EU","datePublished":"2026-03-11T12:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-02T17:46:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/irshare.eu\/fr\/ir-notes-270-25-march-2026\/"},"wordCount":3167,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/divi5.irshare.eu\/fr\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/irshare.eu\/fr\/ir-notes-270-25-march-2026\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/archive.irshare.eu\/irnotes\/logo-entete.gif","articleSection":["English IR Notes Archive Newsletters"],"inLanguage":"fr-FR"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/irshare.eu\/fr\/ir-notes-270-25-march-2026\/","url":"https:\/\/irshare.eu\/fr\/ir-notes-270-25-march-2026\/","name":"IR Notes 270 - A 28th regime to keep unicorns within the EU - IR Share","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/divi5.irshare.eu\/fr\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/irshare.eu\/fr\/ir-notes-270-25-march-2026\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/irshare.eu\/fr\/ir-notes-270-25-march-2026\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/archive.irshare.eu\/irnotes\/logo-entete.gif","datePublished":"2026-03-11T12:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-02T17:46:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/irshare.eu\/fr\/ir-notes-270-25-march-2026\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"fr-FR","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/irshare.eu\/fr\/ir-notes-270-25-march-2026\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"fr-FR","@id":"https:\/\/irshare.eu\/fr\/ir-notes-270-25-march-2026\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/archive.irshare.eu\/irnotes\/logo-entete.gif","contentUrl":"https:\/\/archive.irshare.eu\/irnotes\/logo-entete.gif"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/irshare.eu\/fr\/ir-notes-270-25-march-2026\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/irshare.eu\/fr\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"IR Notes 270 – A 28th regime to keep unicorns within the EU"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/divi5.irshare.eu\/fr\/#website","url":"https:\/\/divi5.irshare.eu\/fr\/","name":"IR Share","description":"A Resource Hub for Labour Law and Industrial Relations","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/divi5.irshare.eu\/fr\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/divi5.irshare.eu\/fr\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"fr-FR"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/divi5.irshare.eu\/fr\/#organization","name":"IR Share","url":"https:\/\/divi5.irshare.eu\/fr\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"fr-FR","@id":"https:\/\/divi5.irshare.eu\/fr\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/irshare.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/irsharelogo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/irshare.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/irsharelogo.png","width":315,"height":100,"caption":"IR Share"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/divi5.irshare.eu\/fr\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/x.com\/IR_Share"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/divi5.irshare.eu\/fr\/#\/schema\/person\/c47c3eece71666bf9a1a1cee539d04dd","name":"Konstantin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"fr-FR","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5fdc2851c8df81301d78d063f9f34dbdde9b7f0dab479fd6be667f5ec8e4cbf0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5fdc2851c8df81301d78d063f9f34dbdde9b7f0dab479fd6be667f5ec8e4cbf0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5fdc2851c8df81301d78d063f9f34dbdde9b7f0dab479fd6be667f5ec8e4cbf0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Konstantin"},"url":"https:\/\/irshare.eu\/fr\/author\/konstantin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/irshare.eu\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32691","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/irshare.eu\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/irshare.eu\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/irshare.eu\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/irshare.eu\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=32691"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/irshare.eu\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32691\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":35476,"href":"https:\/\/irshare.eu\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32691\/revisions\/35476"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/irshare.eu\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32691"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/irshare.eu\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32691"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/irshare.eu\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32691"},{"taxonomy":"post_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/irshare.eu\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/post_country?post=32691"},{"taxonomy":"post_doc_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/irshare.eu\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/post_doc_language?post=32691"},{"taxonomy":"post_folder","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/irshare.eu\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/post_folder?post=32691"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}