Evidence CalendarEU DMA

EU DMA Article 11 Compliance Report Evidence Calendar

A designated gatekeeper must submit its first Article 11 compliance report and non-confidential summary within 6 months after designation, then update both at least annually.

Use this calendar to maintain standalone service-and-obligation annexes, evidence owners, change records, confidentiality review, declaration, and publication handoff.

Author
Sorena AI
Published
May 9, 2026
Updated
Jul 25, 2026
Sections
4

Structured answer sets in this page tree.

Primary sources
4

Cited legal and guidance references.

Publication metadata
Sorena AI
Published May 9, 2026
Updated Jul 25, 2026
Overview

An gives the Commission a detailed and transparent account of a designated gatekeeper's Articles 5 to 7 compliance measures. The gatekeeper must provide it within 6 months after designation. By the same deadline, it must publish and provide a . It must update both at least annually. The report is gatekeeper-level, but the Commission template instructs gatekeepers to provide separate, standalone annexes for each designated core platform service and applicable obligation.

Section 1

Calendar anchors for Article 11 reporting

Use the undertaking's designation as the starting event for the first Article 11 report. Do not create a new initial Article 11 clock merely because the Commission later lists another service for an already designated gatekeeper. The later service has its own Article 3(10) six-month compliance clock; incorporate it into the applicable Article 11 update and follow any requirement in the later decision or Commission correspondence.

For later cycles, set an annual refresh checkpoint for both the compliance report and the . Article 11 says at least annually but does not set one universal filing date. The Commission template asks prior submitters to highlight differences from the previous report, summary, and relevant annexes, for example through a redline plus a clean version.

The Commission template is guidance on the minimum information it expects, not a replacement for the binding regulation or a designation decision. Check the Commission's legislation page for the current template before each cycle because the template says the Commission may update it.

Keep Article 11 separate from other gatekeeper deliverables. Article 14 concentration notices use the agreement, public-bid announcement, acquisition-of-control, and pre-implementation triggers. Article 15 uses a separate six-month post-designation clock for an independently audited description of consumer-profiling techniques and its public overview. Neither belongs inside an Article 11 annex merely because the same compliance function coordinates the work.

  • Designation event: record the Commission designation decision, affected core platform services, and Article 5 to 7 obligations that apply to each service.
  • First report window: work back from the Article 11 six-month deadline after designation and reserve evidence gates for drafting, owner approval, non-confidential review, and machine-readable packaging.
  • Annual update: schedule the next refresh no later than the undertaking's applicable annual cadence for the full compliance report and public summary; maintain a clean version and a marked comparison where a prior report exists.
  • Interim change trigger: reopen the evidence record when a designation changes, a new measure is implemented, a material fact changes, a Commission request arrives, or evidence no longer supports a compliance statement. Article 11 itself requires at-least-annual updates; any earlier submission depends on another legal or procedural trigger.
Section 2

Evidence pack by report section

Build the calendar around the template sections rather than internal team names. Each cycle should leave a traceable pack for the reporting undertaking, the Article 5 to 7 annexes, the compliance-function and monitoring section, the , and the declaration.

For Section 2, use one standalone annex per designated core platform service and applicable obligation. The evidence pack should connect each compliance statement to the measure implemented, the affected product or service scope, the technical or engineering changes, the user or business-user changes, and the data or documents that support effectiveness.

  • Section 1 owner: corporate legal or regulatory operations collects the undertaking name, drafting owners, and, where used, external counsel or expert details and representation materials.
  • Section 2 owner: product counsel and service owners maintain one annex per core platform service and obligation, with compliance statements, implemented measures, implementation timing, product scope, geographic scope, technical changes, customer-experience changes, and supporting data.
  • Effectiveness evidence owner: analytics, experimentation, data governance, and engineering teams retain methodology, indicators, disaggregated data where informative, survey or testing outputs, system-monitoring outputs, and raw data readiness records.
  • Compliance-function owner: the head of compliance function owns evidence about report preparation, compliance-function independence and resources, management-body reports on non-compliance risk, replies, meeting materials, policies, training, and monitoring documents.
  • Public-summary owner: legal, communications, and confidentiality reviewers prepare a self-standing summary that follows the report structure, covers every section and subsection, and gives a faithful and meaningful picture while omitting only business secrets or other confidential information. The template recommends meaningful ranges, baselines, or aggregated data for confidential figures.
Section 3

Calendar rows to maintain for each reporting cycle

Use a working table for the evidence calendar. Each row should identify the report section, affected core platform service, obligation or template item, evidence artifact, accountable owner, source of truth, review gate, and export format.

Do not add fixed public dates unless they come from the relevant designation decision or a Commission request. The stable cadence supported by Article 11 is the first six-month post-designation report and at-least-annual updates.

  • Row type: designation and scope record, with the designated core platform service, case or designation reference, applicable Articles 5 to 7 obligations, and exclusions that the undertaking says cannot apply by nature.
  • Row type: measure evidence, with pre-designation or post-designation status, implementation date, product and geographic scope, engineering changes, interface or customer-journey changes, terms or remuneration changes, consultation evidence, alternatives considered, and security or privacy justification where relevant.
  • Row type: effectiveness evidence, with indicators, definitions, calculation notes, testing or survey methodology, monitoring system output, raw data location, and the owner who can produce underlying data if the Commission requests it.
  • Row type: feedback and response, with business-user or end-user feedback grouped by topic where appropriate, confidentiality preference, action taken, and non-confidential wording for the summary.
  • Row type: governance evidence, with compliance-function reports to the management body, management replies, policy or strategy approvals, training materials, review meeting date, participants, agenda, and minutes.
  • Row type: publication package, with machine-readable clean report, annexes, redline or change log, , confidentiality log, declaration, signatory details, and publication handoff.
Section 4

Review gates before submission and publication

Use review gates to stop weak Article 11 submissions before they become public or regulator-facing. The Commission template expects true, correct, and complete information, machine-readable files, and a that lets third parties provide meaningful input.

Review both the confidential report and the public summary. The template does not support blanking entire sections without explanation: it calls for self-standing text, visible headings, every section and subsection, and meaningful ranges or aggregated data where figures are confidential.

  • Source gate: every obligation, deadline, designated service, exemption or non-applicability claim points to the DMA text, the Commission template, the designation material, or a Commission request.
  • Completeness gate: each Article 5 to 7 obligation annex has a compliance statement, explanation of measures, supporting data or documents, assessment evidence, feedback handling, and owner sign-off.
  • Raw-data gate: underlying data used for indicators, testing, surveys, and monitoring is identified and ready to be made available if the Commission asks for it.
  • Confidentiality gate: the public summary follows the same structure as the report, keeps headings visible, explains omitted confidential material, and uses meaningful ranges, baselines, or aggregated data instead of blank redactions where possible.
  • Format gate: the compliance report, annexes, , and underlying data are prepared in machine-readable form with searchable and recognizable text.
  • Declaration gate: the template says the submission and each annex should end with its specified declaration, signed by the head of the compliance function. Before signature, identify estimates as estimates and confirm that the information, to the undertaking's knowledge and belief, is true, correct, and complete.
Recommended next step

Turn Article 11 reporting into owners, evidence rows, and review gates

Assign every template item to an owner and keep the report, annexes, public summary, raw-data references, declaration, and change record on one controlled schedule.

Primary sources

References and citations

digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu
Referenced sections
  • The Commission gatekeepers page identifies designated gatekeepers, core platform services, compliance reports, and other DMA case resources that can anchor company-specific calendar rows.
"core platform services"
digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu
Referenced sections
  • Commission source listing DMA legislation and official DMA templates, including the Article 11 compliance report template.
"Article 11 DMA"
eur-lex.europa.eu
Referenced sections
  • Article 11 requires the non-confidential summary to be published and provided to the Commission, and says the Commission will link to it on its website.
"non-confidential summary"
Related guides

Explore more topics

DMA Anti-Circumvention Design Review for Gatekeeper Product Changes
Review DMA Article 13 anti-circumvention risks in gatekeeper product, interface, contractual, commercial, and technical changes with obligation mapping and evidence records.
DMA Article 11 Compliance Report Template FAQ
How gatekeepers should use the DMA Article 11 compliance report template to document obligation-by-obligation measures, evidence, updates, and non-confidential summaries.
DMA Article 6 Business User Data Access Guide
Official source guide to EU Digital Markets Act Article 6 data access for business users, end users, authorised third parties, consent boundaries, and evidence handoffs.
DMA Article 6(7) and Article 7 interoperability obligations
Official source guide to DMA interoperability duties: Article 6(7) operating-system feature access, Article 7 messaging interoperability, request handling, security conditions, and compliance evidence.
DMA Articles 5, 6 and 7 obligations mapped to CPS evidence
Map EU Digital Markets Act Articles 5, 6 and 7 obligations to affected core platform services, product evidence, legal owners, and Article 11 compliance-report artifacts.
DMA compliance program and monitoring for gatekeepers
Build a DMA compliance program around Article 8 effective compliance, Article 11 reporting evidence, Article 13 anti-circumvention controls, and Article 28 compliance-function governance.
DMA Core Platform Service Scoping
Scope EU Digital Markets Act core platform services by service category, designation evidence, user thresholds, and Form GD service-boundary records.
DMA core platform services FAQ
FAQ on EU Digital Markets Act core platform services: Article 2 service categories, gatekeeper designation evidence, user thresholds, service scoping, and Article 11 reporting.
DMA CPS Obligation Matrix Workflow: Articles 5, 6, 7 and Article 11 Evidence
Build a DMA core platform service obligation matrix that links each designated CPS to Articles 5, 6 and 7 duties, product owners, designation evidence, Article 11 report artifacts and review gates.
DMA designation intake workflow for gatekeeper notifications
Build an official source DMA designation intake record covering core platform service classification, Article 3 thresholds, Form GD evidence, Commission handoff, and Article 11 readiness.
DMA enforcement, penalties, and remedies: Commission powers and evidence
Follow DMA enforcement from investigation and preliminary findings to non-compliance decisions, fines, daily payments, interim measures, commitments, and remedies.
DMA Gatekeeper Compliance Checklist for Articles 5, 6, 7 and 11
A cited EU Digital Markets Act checklist for designated gatekeepers: core platform service scope, Article 5/6/7 controls, Article 11 report evidence, anti-circumvention checks, and review gates.
DMA Gatekeeper Designation Guide: Article 3 thresholds, Form GD, and Article 11 readiness
A cited EU Digital Markets Act guide for assessing Article 3 gatekeeper thresholds, scoping core platform services, preparing Form GD evidence, handling rebuttal annexes, and planning Article 11 compliance reporting.
DMA gatekeeper thresholds: what counts and when to notify
Standalone FAQ on the EU Digital Markets Act gatekeeper thresholds, Article 3 notification timing, Form GD evidence, and active user-count methodology.
DMA interoperability requests: Article 7 and Commission guidance
How DMA Article 7 messaging interoperability requests work, including phased functions, the three-month operational deadline, reference offers, evidence, and safeguards.
DMA penalties and fines: caps, triggers, and enforcement evidence
Compare DMA Article 30 fine ceilings, the narrow 20% repeat test, 1% procedural fines, and Article 31 daily payments, with decision-specific examples.
DMA Product Change Review Workflow for Articles 5, 6, 7, 11 and 13
Review DMA-relevant product releases for Article 5, Article 6, Article 7, anti-circumvention, Article 11 evidence, and product-owner/legal signoff.
DMA Self-Preferencing Compliance Examples for Ranking and Display
Examples and release-review controls for DMA Article 6(5) self-preferencing checks across ranking, indexing, crawling, search results, marketplaces, app stores, feeds, and virtual assistants.
DMA vs Data Act: gatekeeper duties compared with EU data-sharing rules
Compare the EU Digital Markets Act and EU Data Act by scope, actors, data access, interoperability, reporting, evidence, and enforcement without merging distinct obligations.
DMA vs DSA: Digital Markets vs Services Act
Compare the EU Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act by covered services, regulated actors, core duties, reporting, dates, evidence, and enforcement.
DMA vs EU competition law: gatekeeper obligations, Article 11 evidence, and enforcement
Compare the EU Digital Markets Act with EU competition law: ex ante gatekeeper and core platform service duties, Articles 5 to 7, Article 11 reports, penalties, and evidence records.
DMA vs GDPR: gatekeeper data obligations compared
Compare DMA gatekeeper duties with GDPR rules for personal-data processing, consent, lawful basis, portability, accountability evidence, and enforcement.
EU Digital Markets Act checklist for gatekeeper compliance
A source-grounded Sorena DMA checklist for designated gatekeepers and core platform services, covering scope, Articles 5, 6 and 7 obligations, Article 11 reporting, evidence, anti-circumvention, and governance.
EU Digital Markets Act compliance: gatekeeper obligations and evidence
DMA compliance guide for designated gatekeepers: core platform service scoping, Articles 5, 6 and 7 controls, Article 11 reports, anti-circumvention checks, interoperability evidence, and enforcement risk.
EU Digital Markets Act deadlines and compliance calendar
Calculate DMA notification, designation, service-compliance, Article 11 reporting, concentration-notice, and profiling-audit deadlines from the correct legal trigger.
EU Digital Markets Act FAQ: gatekeepers, DMA obligations, reports, and enforcement
Concise FAQ on the EU Digital Markets Act for gatekeeper designation, core platform services, Articles 5, 6 and 7 obligations, Article 11 reports, interoperability, business-user data access, compliance evidence, and enforcement.
EU Digital Markets Act requirements for gatekeepers
DMA requirements for designated gatekeepers: core platform service scope, Articles 5, 6 and 7 obligations, Article 11 reporting, anti-circumvention, evidence, remedies, and fines.
EU Digital Markets Act timeline: application, designation, reporting, and review
DMA timeline separating fixed legal dates, threshold and designation clocks, recurring reports, service-specific decisions, final enforcement, and the first Article 53 review.
EU DMA Applicability Test: gatekeeper thresholds, core platform services, and evidence
Test whether the EU Digital Markets Act may apply to a platform service using the DMA gatekeeper criteria, core platform service categories, EU user thresholds, notification steps, and evidence records.
EU DMA Article 11 Compliance Reporting Guide
Official source guide to EU Digital Markets Act Article 11 compliance reports: report purpose, template evidence, non-confidential summaries, annual updates, and submission steps.
EU DMA do's and don'ts for product teams
Product release checks for designated DMA gatekeepers: Article 5, 6 and 7 obligations, anti-circumvention review, data access, interoperability, self-preferencing and Article 11 evidence.
What do DMA Articles 5, 6, and 7 require from gatekeepers?
FAQ explaining how EU Digital Markets Act Articles 5, 6, and 7 group gatekeeper obligations, what product evidence they require, and how Article 11 reporting connects.