Article 40 — Evaluation
In brief
This article requires the Commission to review how the Regulation is working. A first evaluation is due four years after entry into force, followed by further evaluations every five years. The review is to be carried out in light of the Regulation’s objectives, in particular strengthening public procurement as a driver of innovation and improving the valuation, commercialisation and use of intellectual property. The Commission must report its findings to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee.
Key points
- A first evaluation is due four years after entry into force, then every five years.
- The evaluation assesses the Regulation against its objectives.
- It focuses in particular on procurement as a driver of innovation and on the valuation, commercialisation and use of IP.
- The Commission reports to the Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee.
- Where appropriate, the report may be accompanied by a proposal to amend or repeal the Regulation.
What it means in practice
The evaluation clause signals that the Regulation’s effects will be measured over time and may lead to change. Public buyers, innovative firms, IP holders and investors have an interest in how the review is framed, since it targets the areas most relevant to them. The results could inform later adjustments to the rules.
Official text — Article 40 (COM(2026) 567)
Source: European Commission, proposal for a Regulation establishing the European Innovation Act, COM(2026) 567 final, 9 September 2026. Read the official proposal (PDF). Text may change during the legislative process.
Anthony Bochon’s analysis
The evaluation clause tells you what the legislator will actually measure success against. A first review four years after entry into force, then every five years, is explicitly tied to the Act’s twin objectives — strengthening public procurement as a driver of innovation and enhancing the valuation, commercialisation and use of intellectual property — with reports to the Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee. In my experience advising on EU procurement and innovation policy, these are precisely the areas where effects are slow to materialise and hard to quantify, so the four-year horizon is ambitious.
The clause matters strategically because it carries an in-built revision path: where appropriate, the evaluation may be accompanied by a proposal to amend or even repeal the Regulation. That makes the first evaluation a genuine inflection point, and it is why I would urge contracting authorities and IP-intensive firms to document outcomes from day one — the evidence they generate is what a future Commission will use to decide whether this instrument endures, is reinforced, or is rolled back.