EuroComply editorial policy
EuroComply publishes practical EU compliance guidance for SME operators. Our pages are written to explain obligations, deadlines, evidence, and operational next steps. They are informational and do not replace legal advice.
Primary-source first
Compliance claims are checked against official EU, EUR-Lex, Commission, supervisory authority, or regulator sources where available.
Operator-focused
Pages translate law into owner, evidence, deadline, and action-plan language for SMEs without dedicated compliance teams.
Visible review dates
High-impact compliance pages carry last-reviewed dates and are refreshed when major guidance, deadlines, or enforcement posture changes.
Privacy-safe research
First-party research is published only as aggregate data and only when privacy thresholds are met. Individual assessments are never exposed.
Not legal advice
EuroComply pages describe regulatory obligations and operational compliance workflows. They do not provide legal opinions, do not guarantee regulatory outcomes, and do not decide whether a specific company is compliant. Businesses should seek qualified legal counsel for binding interpretation.
How regulatory content is researched
Every regulatory claim is traced to a primary source before publication. The research priority order is: (1) Official Journal of the EU (EUR-Lex), (2) official guidance from the relevant EU supervisory authority (e.g. EDPB, ENISA, ESMA, EBA, EU AI Office), (3) member-state competent authority publications, (4) verified court or enforcement decisions. Secondary commentary is used only to locate primary sources, not to establish regulatory facts.
Primary sources
- EUR-Lex — eur-lex.europa.eu
- European Data Protection Board (EDPB) — edpb.europa.eu
- ENISA (EU Agency for Cybersecurity) — enisa.europa.eu
- EU AI Office — digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu
- National supervisory authorities (DPAs, NIS CSIRTs, financial regulators)
- Official enforcement decisions referenced with their case identifiers
Review cadence
High-impact compliance pages (regulation guides, deadline pages, penalty calculators) are reviewed when: a new supervisory authority guidance document is published, a significant enforcement decision is issued, a regulation enters a new phase, or an amendment is formally adopted in the Official Journal. Low-impact pages are reviewed on a rolling quarterly schedule. Each page carries a “last reviewed” date derived from the most recent substantive edit to the compliance content on that page.
Corrections process
When a factual error is identified, the affected page is updated within 5 working days. Material corrections (wrong deadline, wrong fine amount, wrong regulatory scope) are noted with a correction notice on the page for 30 days after the fix. Minor corrections (typographic, formatting) are made silently.
How to report an error
If you believe a page contains a factual error, an outdated regulatory reference, or a misleading claim, email [email protected] with: the URL of the affected page, the specific claim you believe is incorrect, and a primary-source reference that supports the correction. We respond to all substantive error reports within 5 working days.
AI-assisted content review policy
Some EuroComply content is drafted or structured with AI assistance (Mistral AI). All AI-assisted content is reviewed by a human editor against the primary legislative source before publication. AI models are used to draft structure and operational guidance; they are not used to establish regulatory facts independently. Every factual claim in published content must trace to a human-verified primary source. Pages that include AI-assisted content carry the standard “informational only — not legal advice” disclosure.
Editorial Policy last updated: 2026-05-12.