EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION  
Brussels, 9.2.2010 
SEC(2010)115 final 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying document to the 
 
Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the 
implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 577/98 
 
COM(2010)46 
EN 2   EN COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying document to the 
 
Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the 
implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 577/98 
 
COM(2010)46 
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 
1. A RTICLE 1 — FREQUENCY OF THE SURVEY  
The survey shall be a continuous sur vey providing quarterly and annual results; 
however, during a transitional period not extending beyond 2002, Member States which are unable to implement a continuous  survey shall instead carry out an annual 
survey, to take place in the spring. 
By way of derogation, the transitio nal period shall be extended  
(a) until 2003 for Italy, (b) until 2004 for Germany under the condition that Germany provide quarterly 
substitute estimates for the main labour force sample survey aggregates as well as 
annual average estimates for some specified labour force sample survey aggregates. 
By 2006, all countries except Luxembourg, Croa tia, Switzerland and Turkey had adopted a 
continuous survey producing qua rterly results. Luxembourg has provided quarterly results 
from 2007, whereas only annual results were ava ilable up to 2006, despite the fact that it 
conducted a continuous survey. Croatia moved fr om a semi-annual to a continuous survey 
producing quarterly results in 2007. Switzerland plans to adopt a continuous survey in 2010. 
Turkey thus remains the only country with no plan to move to a continuous survey. 
Table 1. Transition to a continuous survey providing quarterly and annual results 
Country Year Country Year Country Year Country Year 
Belgium 1999 Spain 1999 Malta 2004 Finland 2000 
Bulgaria 2003 France 2003 Netherlands 2000 Sweden 1999 
Czech Republic 1998 Italy 2004 Austria 2004 United Kingdom 1999q2 
Denmark 1999 Cyprus 2004q2 Poland 2000 Croatia 2007 
Germany 2005 Latvia 2002 Portugal 1998 Turkey - 
Estonia 2000 Lithuania 2002 Romania 1999 Iceland 2003 
Ireland 1998 Luxembourg¹ 2003 Slovenia 1999 Norway 2000 
Greece 1998 Hungary 1999 Slovakia 1998 Switzerland 2010 
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 2006     
¹ Until 2006, annual results only 
 
In the case of a continuous survey 
– the reference weeks are spread un iformly throughout the whole year 
EN 3   EN In 2007, all participating countri es conducting a continuous survey  except Bulgaria complied 
with the requirement to cover all weeks of the year.  
Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Luxem bourg, Slovenia and, in 2006, the Former 
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia stil l had the highest deviation from a uniform distribution of 
the reference week1, in spite of some progress made by Luxembourg and Slovenia compared 
to the previous report. On the other hand, Ro mania has made substantial progress since 2006.  
Table 2. Relative standard deviation of the weekly number of respondents (aged 15–74) 
and the number of reference weeks per year 2006-2007 
Country 2006  2007 
 Relative 
standard 
deviation Weeks  Relative 
standard 
deviation Weeks 
Belgium 5.9 52  6.0 52 
Bulgaria 4.6 48  4.7 48 
Czech Republic 1.8 52  2.5 52 
Denmark 2.7 52  6.2 52 
Germany 25.4 52  26.6 52 
Estonia 7.7 52  7.1 52 
Ireland 6.7 52  6.1 52 
Greece 3.2 52  2.7 52 
Spain 2.7 52  2.3 52 
France 3.8 52  3.0 52 
Italy 3.3 52  3.6 52 
Cyprus 11.8 52  10.3 52 
Latvia 8.6 52  7.5 52 
Lithuania 6.1 52  10.9 52 
Luxembourg 42.3 52  37.1 52 
Hungary 55.9 52  69.0 52 
Malta 5.9 52  6.9 52 
Netherlands 27.8 52  31.4 52 
Austria 5.4 52  5.7 52 
Poland 2.5 52  2.6 52 
Portugal 3.1 52  3.6 52 
Romania 4.1 52  4.5 52 
Slovenia 24.7 52  22.9 52 
Slovakia 8.8 52  9.5 52 
Finland 11.7 52  11.7 52 
Sweden 10.0 52  10.7 52 
United Kingdom 2.2 52  2.3 52 
Croatia - -  5.9 52 
Former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia 20.0 52  7.3 52 
Turkey - -  - - 
Iceland 2.9 52  2.6 52 
Norway 4.4 52  3.9 52 
Switzerland - -  - - 
Note: Relative standard deviation is the standard deviati on of the weekly number of respondents divided by the 
average number of respondents per week multiplied by 100. 
Source: EU-LFS 
 
                                                 
1 The deviation from uniform distribution of the reference week is measured by the standard deviation of 
the weekly number of respondents as a percentage of  the average number of respondents per reference 
week. 
EN 4   EN – the interview normally takes place dur ing the week immediately following the 
reference week. The reference week and the date of the interview may not be 
more than five weeks apart, except in the third quarter 
The information on the interview week is not alwa ys provided or in some cases is not reliable 
and should thus be treated with caution2. In five of the countries for which the information is 
available, namely Estonia, Italy, Malta, Austria and Portugal, less than 50  % of interviews 
were carried out during the week immediatel y following the reference week. However, in 
2007, at least 98  % of the interviews in quarters 1, 2 a nd 4 were completed before the end of 
the 5th week after the reference week in almost all countries.  
Table 3. Interview week relative to the reference week in 1st, 2nd and 4th quarters 
2005-2007 
Country % interview in the next week  % interview within 5 weeks after 
reference period¹ 
 2006 2007  2006 2007 
Belgium 50.3 50.9   100.0 100.0 
Bulgaria 94.7 95.2   100.0 100.0 
Czech Republic 67.4 65.3   99.0 98.5 
Denmark 84.4 57.6   99.9 100.0 
Germany - -   - - 
Estonia 33.4 34.9   99.5 100.0 
Ireland - -   - - 
Greece 70.8 69.2   95.2 100.0 
Spain 70.5 72.5   98.6 98.7 
France 65.2 67.5   100.0 100.0 
Italy 35.9 34.2   100.0 100.0 
Cyprus 98.5 93.6   99.8 99.0 
Latvia - 87.4   - 99.6 
Lithuania 81.7 80.6   100.0 100.0 
Luxembourg - -   - - 
Hungary - -   - - 
Malta 22.8 23.0   100.0 100.0 
Netherlands - -   - - 
Austria 36.2 34.6   91.0 91.3 
Poland (1) - -   - - 
Portugal 42.8 43.3   98.8 99.4 
Romania - -   - - 
Slovenia - -   - - 
Slovakia 95.3 94.2   100.0 100.0 
Finland 65.0 69.0   100.0 100.0 
Sweden 59.4 59.1   99.6 99.6 
United Kingdom - -   - - 
Croatia - -   - - 
Former Yugoslav 
Republic of Macedonia - -   - - 
Turkey 56.3 59.1   100.0 100.0 
Iceland 82.4 61.2   100.0 100.0 
                                                 
2 The criteria for identifying the interview week could also differ from country to country. For instance, 
for those sampling households, dwelling or addresses,  the date recorded could be the date when the 
first, or the last (as in the case of Austria) or  each individual member of the family has been 
interviewed. Alternatively, each pers on could be assigned the date when  he is actually interviewed. The 
results in table 3 can thus be influenced by the approach followed by each country. 
EN 5   EN Table 3. Interview week relative to the reference week in 1st, 2nd and 4th quarters 
2005-2007 
Country % interview in the next week  % interview within 5 weeks after 
reference period¹ 
 2006 2007  2006 2007 
Norway 60.4 63.4   98.1 98.1 
Switzerland - -   - - 
¹ Including cases where the interview is register ed as the same week as the reference week. 
Note: Hyphen (‘-’) denotes unavailable or suspect data, including the case of a 1:1 relationship between the 
reference week and interview week. No account is taken of non-response, whic h was relatively high for all years 
in Denmark (30  %, up from 20  % in 2005) due to postal questionnaires; in France (9  %) and Sweden (7-8  %) due 
to imputation of records for older workers; in Portugal (5  %) and in Norway (8  %). 
(1) Although the information is not available to Eurost at, Poland reports anecdotal evidence that many of the 
interviews are carried out in the week following the refe rence week. Poland has also committed to start providing 
information on the interview week from 2010. 
Source: EU-LFS 
 
– the reference weeks and years are resp ectively groups of 13 weeks or 52 
consecutive weeks. A list of the weeks making up a given quarter or year is 
drawn up according to the proce dure laid down in Article 8. 
Commission Regulati on (EC) No 1571/983 laid down the reference weeks for the years 1998 
and 1999, and also provided der ogations for Ireland and the Un ited Kingdom to use seasonal 
quarters instead of calendar quarters. Since then, the reference periods have not been specified 
in a Commission Regulation, but have continued each year from the sequence established in 
1998.  
In 2006 and 2007, all countries conducting a con tinuous survey used the same reference 
period for the quarters and years, with the exception of Ireland — which used seasonal 
quarters instead of calendar quarters — and Iceland and the United Kingdom, where the 
reference period was shifted one week ahead and one week back respectively. In spite of this 
slight deviation, this can be considered as an improvement for the United Kingdom, where 
seasonal quarters had been used until 2005.  
2. A RTICLE 2 — UNITS AND SCOPE OF THE SURVEY , OBSERVATION METHODS  
2.1 The survey shall be carried out in each Member State in a sample of 
households or of persons residing in the ec onomic territory of that State at the time 
of the survey. 
In Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland the final sampling unit is the 
person. In all the other partic ipating countries the final sa mpling units are households, 
(clusters of) dwellings or addresses, so that information is collected for the whole household.  
The definition of ‘resident populatio n’ varies from one participat ing country to another, which 
may cause comparability differences, especially with regard to non-nationals and migrants. 
Efforts are under way to provide for a harmoni sed approach through the Explanatory Notes 
for the European Union Labour Force Survey4. However, the situation has not changed since 
                                                 
3 OJ L 205, 22.7.1998, p. 40. 
4 The Working document ‘Labour Fo rce Survey — Revised explanator y notes (to be applied from 
2008q1 onwards)’ is available on request. 
EN 6   EN the previous report. There are two main appro aches used in the Member States and other 
participating countries: 
1) Length of stay or intention to st ay for a specified length of time.  These are either 
implicit in the sampling frame (rules for popul ation registers) or in the field work. 
Three main benchmarks are used: 
– Spain has a filter question on the intention to  stay more than one year in Spain, if 
a person has stayed less than one year. All those answering in the negative are 
excluded from the survey. Cyprus, Slovaki a, Bulgaria, Croatia and the Former 
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia apply the one-year rule via interviewer instructions. The population register in Finland, which forms the basis for the 
sampling frame, uses a similar rule fo r being allowed to register. Estonia, 
Lithuania, Sweden and Switzerland (the sp ecial sample on foreigners) also have a 
one-year rule for inclusion in the popul ation registers used for the sample. 
– Denmark (EEA citizens), Iceland and Norw ay require registration when a stay 
exceeds six months. In the Romanian LFS, ‘u sual residence’ is defined as a stay 
of at least six months. 
– Some countries require registration in the Population Registers (or a residence 
permit) if a stay exceeds three months  (Belgium, Denmark (non-EEA citizens), 
Latvia, Luxembourg and Slovenia) or define  ‘usual residence’ as at least three 
months (Poland). 
2) Usual residence or main residence.  In contrast, there is no time limit in the Czech 
Republic, Germany, Greece, France, Irela nd, Italy, Hungary, the Netherlands, 
Austria, Portugal, the United Kingdom and Turkey, only the condition that a person’s main or usual residence is in the te rritory of the Part icipating Country. 
In quarters 1, 3 and 4, France does not comply with  Article 2(1), as the LFS is carried out in 
the Overseas Territories (DOM ) in the second quarter only.
5 Consequently, not the whole 
economic territory is covere d in the other quarters. 
2.2 The principal scope of the survey consists of persons residing in private 
households on the economic territo ry of each Member State.  If possible, this main 
population of persons living in private househ olds is supplemented by persons living 
in collective households. 
Wherever possible, collecti ve households are covered by means of samples specially 
drawn to permit direct observa tion of the persons concerned. If this is not possible, 
then persons in these groups who continue  to have an association with a private 
household are included in connection with that household. 
In 2006 and 2007, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, I celand, Finland, Sweden and Norway 
directly surveyed persons in collective hous eholds. France, Cyprus , Romania, Bulgaria, 
Spain, Portugal and the Former Yugoslav Re public of Macedonia surveyed persons in 
collective households if  they maintained connections with  the sampled private household. 
                                                 
5 However, France is currently working to introd uce a continuous survey as for the metropolitan 
departments (départements métropolitains) from 2013. 
EN 7   EN However, for Spain, Portugal and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, persons 
living in collective households ca nnot be distinguished from those in private households in the 
datasets sent to Eurostat. The United Kingdom used both methods for surveying persons in 
collective households. Some c ountries grossed up the LFS samp le to the tota l population, 
although those living in institutional households were  either not covered in the data collection 
(Belgium, Ireland, Latvia, Malta, Slovenia and Switzerland) or only  partially covered 
(Bulgaria, France, Portugal, Romania, Slov akia and The Former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia). At the opposite, Lithuania used th e population living in pr ivate households only 
as reference, in spite of the f act that collective households are included in the sampling frame.  
Table 4. Coverage of collective households 2006-2007 
No coverage Directly Through the sampled 
private household Directly and through the 
sampled household 
Belgium, Czech Republic, 
Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, 
Lithuania, Luxembourg, 
Hungary, Malta, Netherlands, 
Austria, Poland, Slovenia, 
Croatia, Turkey, Switzerland  Denmark, Germany, 
Estonia, Iceland, 
Finland, Sweden, 
Norway France, Cyprus¹, 
Romania, Bulgaria, Spain2, 
Portugal2, Slovakia, 
Former Yugoslav Republic 
of Macedonia2 United Kingdom 
¹ Conscripts only. 2 Persons living in collective households cannot be distinguished from thos e in private households 
in Eurostat’s datasets. 
Sources: Quality Reports, EU-LFS (HHPRIV). 
 
2.3. The variables used to determine la bour status and underemployment must be 
obtained by interviewing the person concer ned, or, if this is not possible, another 
member of the household. Other informa tion may be obtained from alternative 
sources, including administrative records, pr ovided that the data obtained are of 
equivalent quality. 
In 2006 and 2007 all the participating countries obtained information a bout labour status and 
underemployment by interview, either from th e person or from another member of the 
household. The share of proxy interviews varied considerably across participating countries, 
from 0.4  % in Switzerland to nearly 60  % in Turkey. In general, th e share of proxy interviews 
was much lower in countries sampling pers ons than in countries sampling households, 
dwelling or addresses. The shar e of proxy interviews remained approximately the same as in 
2005 for all countries except Italy, where it more  than halved from 2006. Denmark, Finland, 
Sweden, Iceland and Norway all make use of administrative sources, mainly for supplying 
information about demographic a nd educational characteristics. 
Table 5. Share of proxy interviews (15–74 years) and use of administrative sources 
 Share of proxy 
interviews (%)  
  2006 2007  Variables for which alternative (administrative) sources 
are used (2007) 
Belgium 22.1 19.6  SEX, YEARBIR, DATEBIR, MARSTAT, NATIONAL, 
COUNTRYB, COUNTR1Y, REGION, REGION1Y, DEGURBA  
Bulgaria 42.7 41.7  None Czech Republic 47.6 46.7  None 
Denmark 2.1 1.9  HHLINK, SEX, YEARBIR, DATEBIR, MARSTAT, 
NATIONAL, YEARESID, COUNTRYB, REGISTER, DEGURBA, HHINST, HATLEVEL, HATFIELD, HATYEAR  
Germany 26.9 27.3  None 
Estonia 17.7 21.6  None Ireland 47.5 49.2  None 
EN 8   EN Table 5. Share of proxy interviews (15–74 years) and use of administrative sources 
 Share of proxy 
interviews (%)  
  2006 2007  Variables for which alternative (administrative) sources 
are used (2007) 
Greece 42.5 42.0  None 
Spain 53.5 53.9  None 
France 32.0 31.5  None 
Italy 15.7 18.1  None Cyprus 31.4 31.7  None 
Latvia 38.7 38.8  None 
Lithuania 45.2 43.0  SEX, YEARBIR, DATEBIR, NATIONAL, COUNTRYB  Luxembourg 52.1 53.0  - 
Hungary 42.6 44.4  None 
Malta 50.2 50.2  None Netherlands 47.2 46.5  - 
Austria 25.5 23.4  None 
Poland 41.4 41.6  None. Portugal 45.8 46.3  None 
Romania 28.8 28.3  None 
Slovenia 58.1 58.0  - Slovakia 61.2 55.9  - 
Finland 4.4 4.4  SEX, YEARBIR, DATEBIR, MARSTAT, NATIONAL, 
COUNTRYB, HATLEVEL, HATFIELD, HATYEAR 
Sweden 2.6 2.7  SEX, YEARBIR, DATEBIR, NATIONAL, YEARESID, 
COUNTRYB, NACE, REGISTER, HATFIELD, HATYEAR 
United Kingdom 36.0 35.7  - Croatia 40.3 42.1  - 
Former Yugoslav 
Republic of Macedonia 43.0 39.8  - 
Turkey 58.8 59.1  None 
Iceland 1.1 1.3  SEX, YEARBIR, DATEBIR, MARSTAT, NATIONAL, 
COUNTRYB 
Norway 14.9 15.0  SEX, YEARBIR, DATEBIR, MARSTAT, NATIONAL, 
YEARESID, COUNTRYB, REGISTER, COUNTRY1Y, 
REGION1Y, EDUCLEVEL, EDUCFIELD, HATLEVEL, 
HATFIELD, HATYEAR 
Switzerland 0.5 0.4  - 
Notes: Hyphen ‘-’ denotes that no information is available.  
Sources: EU-LFS (PROXY), Quality Reports. 
 
2.4. Regardless of whether th e sampling unit is an individual or a household, 
information is usually collect ed for all individuals of the household. However, if the 
sampling unit is an individual, the informa tion concerning the other members of the 
household 
– may exclude the characterist ics listed under Article 4(1 )(g), (h), (i) and (j), 
– and may be collected from a sub-sample defined in such a way that: 
– the reference weeks are uniformly di stributed throughout the whole year, 
– the number of observations (individuals sampled plus the members of their 
household) satisfies, for th e annual estimates of levels , the reliability criteria 
defined in Article 3. 
Denmark, Finland, Norway and Iceland all survey a sub-sample of households as stipulated 
by Article 2(4), while in Sweden  and Switzerland the household is not covered. However, in 
2006 and 2007, only Denmark and Finland delivere d data to Eurostat on a sub-sample of 
households according to Article 2(4). In these su b-samples, Finland provided data for almost 
all the required characteristics and most of the optional variables, while Denmark did not 
EN 9   EN provide any information on 22 compulsory va riables in 2006 and on 24 variables in 20076. 
Denmark has committed to provide all mandatory characteristics in the household sub-sample 
from 2010 onwards. Sweden has committed to start supplying information on household members of selected persons from the same year, while Norway will need more time.  
No information on the representativeness of th e Danish and Finnish household sub-samples is 
available from the quality reports. However, ta king into account the sample and population 
size and the estimated design effect for the full yearly sample, it can safely be assumed that 
these comply with the specification laid down in Article 2(4), fourth bullet. 
3. A
RTICLE 3 — REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE SAMPLE  
3.1. For a group of unemployed people representing 5  % of the working age 
population the relative standard error for th e estimation of annual averages (or for 
the spring estimates in the case of an annual survey in the spring) at NUTS II level shall not exceed 8
 % of the subpopulation in question. 
Regions with less than 300  000 inhabitants shall be exempt from this requirement. 
The relative standard error for the estimation of  annual averages is a function of the sample 
size, the sampling rate, the overlap of observati on units within the year and the design effect7. 
While the first three elements are known, the de sign effect can be com puted only for actual 
estimates, whereas Article 3(1) refers to a th eoretical situation. The following assessment is 
therefore based on ad hoc assumptions on theoreti cal design effects (see Annex II), and for 
this reason it shows only circumstantial evid ence of deviations from the requirement. 
Accordingly, the assessment should not be  seen as providing conclusive proofs for 
compliance with Article 3(1)8.  
The assessment considers the age group 15-74 as  a benchmark for the sample size and the 
sampling fraction, as this is the one covered by the definition of unemplo yment. In order to 
determine whether or not a region is exempt  from the requirement, the total regional 
population is considered instead. 
In the 33 countries providing data to Eurost at, there were 307 regions  defined at NUTS II 
level in 2006 and 311 in 20079. In both years, 17 regions had fewer than 300  000 inhabitants. 
                                                 
6 These variables are: MARSTAT, NATIONA L, YEARESID, STAPRO, NACE3D, ISCO4D, 
COUNTRYW, REGIONW, YSTARTWK, FTPT, EVENWK, NIGHTWK, SATWK, SUNWK, 
HWUSUAL, WISHMORE, HWWISH, HOMEWK, LOOKOJ, EXIST2J, INTWEEK, DEGURBA and, in 2007,.SEEKREAS and AVAIREAS. Denmark has co mmitted to collect and pr ovide Eurostat with 
household information on a quarterly basis from the first quarter of 2010. 
7 Although not strictly accord ing to the definition of design effect  (cf. Kish 1965), here it is assumed for 
simplicity that the effects of weighting, including the use of auxiliary variables, also contribute to the 
design effect. 
8 The need for clarification of ar ticles 3(1) and 3(2) has been highlighted by the LFS community and 
recognised by Eurostat. An initiative is to be launched soon to address this issue. 
9 In 2008 the revised Nomenclature of territorial units entered into force. As the changes with respect to 
the previous NUTS 2003 version were known in advance, most countries implemented them already in 
2007. The difference between 2006 and 2007 is partly due to the introduction of five NUTS II regions 
in Denmark and two in Slovenia — countries which we re each previously considered as a single region. 
It is also due to the coverage of the NUTS II level (three regions) in Croatia — for which data were 
available only at national level up to 2006 — and to the merging of three NUTS II regions into one in 
Germany. 
EN 10   EN The benchmark is estimated to have been exceeded, either in 2006 or 2007, in 60 regions 
belonging to ten participating co untries: Belgium (3 regions), Bulgaria (4), Germany (2), 
Greece (7), Spain (1), France (18), Poland (7),  Portugal (2), Romani a (7) and United Kingdom 
(9). The threshold was exceeded in both years in  35 regions in Belgium and in Bulgaria (1 
region), Greece (5), France (10), Poland (5), Portugal (2), Romania (3) and the United Kingdom (8).  
Table 6. Regions with 300  000 inhabitants or more, where the relative standard error 
(RSE) for the estimate of annual average unemployment (5  %) exceeded 8  % in 2006-
2007 
Country Region (NUTS II) 2007 yearly 
sample size 2007 yearly 
sampling rate (%) RSE  RSE 
      (15-74 years) (15-74 years)  2006  2007 
Belgium BE31 Brabant wallon 4 652 1.69 8.38 8.03 
 BE33 Liège 9 664 1.24 10.49  
  BE35 Namur 5 344 1.56   8.08 
Bulgaria BG31 Severozapaden 14 052 1.95 8.85  
 BG32 Severen tsentralen 12 752 1.71 10.72 12.16 
 BG33 Severoiztochen 13 984 1.79  10.96 
  BG34 Yugoiztochen 14 188 1.63 8.53   
Germany DE50 Bremen 4 196 0.80  8.35 
  DEB2 Trier 3 324 0.84   9.04 
Greece (*) GR11 Anatoliki Makedonia, Thraki 14 980 3.33 10.05 9.46 
 GR14 Thessalia 13 056 2.36 8.55 8.36 
 GR21 Ipeiros 16 236 6.28 9.80 9.90 
 GR23 Dytiki Ellada 14 860 2.72  8.03 
 GR24 Sterea Ellada 13 632 3.24 9.70 9.90 
 GR25 Peloponnisos 15 088 3.43 8.51 8.47 
 GR43 Kriti 17 664 4.06 8.73  
Spain ES23 La Rioja 8 732 3.65 8.49   
France FR21 Champagne-Ardenne 8 724 0.91 9.97 9.86 
 FR22 Picardie 9 180 0.68 10.30  
 FR23 Haute-Normandie 9 484 0.72 12.52 8.20 
 FR24 Centre 9 304 0.52 9.65 8.18 
 FR25 Basse-Normandie 7 148 0.70 10.40  
 FR26 Bourgogne 9 048 0.78 11.08 8.44 
 FR41 Lorraine 9 160 0.55 10.64  
 FR42 Alsace 7 548 0.55 8.60 11.08 
 FR43 Franche-Comté 7 232 0.90 9.89 8.83 
 FR51 Pays de la Loire 13 788 0.57 14.13  
 FR52 Bretagne 9 368 0.43 11.23  
 FR53 Poitou-Charentes 8 284 0.66 12.26 8.15 
 FR61 Aquitaine 10 624 0.47 11.48  
 FR62 Midi-Pyrénées 9 028 0.45 12.92 8.57 
 FR63 Limousin 6 604 1.29 8.69 12.36 
 FR72 Auvergne 6 276 0.66 11.22 8.55 
 FR81 Languedoc-Roussillon 10 376 0.57 11.50  
  FR82 Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur 18 628 0.53 8.84  
Poland PL33 Swietokrzyskie 8 776 0.81 9.13 8.22 
 PL34 Podlaskie 6 964 0.83 8.98 9.25 
 PL42 Zachodniopomorskie 7 580 0.66 8.43 8.86 
 PL43 Lubuskie 7 460 0.88  8.10 
 PL52 Opolskie 6 576 0.90 10.22 9.16 
 PL62 Warminsko-Mazurskie 8 092 0.74 10.17 8.14 
  PL63 Pomorskie 8 676 0.58 8.71   
Portugal PT15 Algarve 13 064 4.06 9.82 9.38 
  PT18 Alentejo 15 440 2.67 8.21 8.56 
Romania RO11 Nord-Vest 25 500 1.19 11.76  
 RO12 Centru 25 144 1.26 9.75  
 RO21 Nord-Est 31 296 1.10 12.34  
EN 11   EN Table 6. Regions with 300  000 inhabitants or more, where the relative standard error 
(RSE) for the estimate of annual average unemployment (5  %) exceeded 8  % in 2006-
2007 
Country Region (NUTS II) 2007 yearly 
sample size 2007 yearly 
sampling rate (%) RSE  RSE 
      (15-74 years) (15-74 years)  2006  2007 
 RO22 Sud-Est 25 944 1.15 8.60 8.38 
 RO32 Bucuresti — Ilfov 18 656 1.03 11.00  
 RO41 Sud-Vest — Oltenia 21 792 1.21 11.55 8.10 
  RO42 Vest 18 076 1.18 10.54 8.64 
UKD1 Cumbria 3 152 0.84 11.55 11.32 United 
Kingdom UKD2 Cheshire 5 756 0.79 8.84 8.55 
 UKE1 East Riding and North 
Lincolnshire 5 536 0.83 8.72 9.46 
 UKE2 North Yorkshire 4 560 0.77 10.19 8.94 
 UKF3 Lincolnshire 4 292 0.83 10.34 10.46 
 UKK3 Cornwall and Isles of Scilly 3 060 0.80 12.20 12.27 
 UKK4 Devon 6 444 0.78 8.38  
 UKM5 North Eastern Scotland 2 876 0.84 11.52 11.92 
  UKM6 Highlands and Islands 3 520 0.80 11.07 10.38 
Note: Empty cells indicate that the RSE was under the threshold. 
(*) 2007 CVs used as proxy of 2006 CVs for the calc ulation of the design effect (see Annex II)  
 
3.2 In the case of a continuous survey,  for sub-populations which constitute 5  % of 
the working age population the relative standard error at national level for the estimate of changes between two succe ssive quarters, shall not exceed 2
 % of the 
sub-population in question. 
For Member States with a population of  between one million and twenty million 
inhabitants, this requirement is relaxed so  that the relative standard error for the 
estimate of quarterly changes shall not exceed 3  % of the sub-populat ion in question. 
Member States whose population is below one million inhabitants are exempt from 
these precision requirements concerning changes. 
The total population is taken into account wh en determining which precision requirement in 
Article 3(2) is relevant for which country. According to this criterion, Cyprus, Luxembourg, 
Malta and Iceland were exempt from these requirements as they had less than one million inhabitants. Croatia (in 2006 only), Turkey
10 and Switzerland are not concerned since they do 
not conduct a continuous survey. 
Although Article 3(2) does not refer to any specifi c characteristic, the assessment is made for 
unemployment. As for Article 3(1), the age gro up used as benchmark for the sample size and 
the sampling fraction is 15-74.  
Also for Article 3(2) the assess ment is based on ad hoc assump tions about theoretical design 
effects (see Annex II). Therefore the same remarks on the interpretation of the results apply as 
for Article 3(1). 
                                                 
10 Although only covering all the weeks of the year but only the first week of each month, the Turkish 
LFS produces quarterly results. By applying the hypothesis outlined below, Turkey meets the 
requirements stated in article 3.2. 
EN 12   EN Germany, Poland and Romania ex ceeded the benchmark of 2  % for countries with more than 
20 million inhabitants, whereas Belgium, Bulg aria, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Slovenia, Croatia and the Former Yugoslav Re public of Macedonia ex ceeded the benchmark 
of 3  % for countries with a population between 1 million and 20 million inhabitants. The 2006 
and 2007 relative standard erro rs for the estimate of quar terly change in unemployment 
corresponding to 5  % of the working age population for thes e countries are shown in table 7.  
Table 7. Countries with a c ontinuous survey and 1 milli on population or more, where 
the relative standard error for the estimate of quarterly change in unemployment (5  %) 
exceeded 2  % or 3  % in 2006-2007 
  RSE RSE 
Population Country 2006 2007 
20 million + Germany 2.10 2.19 
 Poland 3.11 3.10 
  Romania 4.28 4.83 
1-20 million Belgium 5.65 5.60 
 Bulgaria 4.64 4.80 
 Denmark 5.52 3.57 
 Estonia 9.60 9.01  Latvia 13.33 7.68 
 Lithuania 6.63 5.71 
 Slovenia 4.99 5.01   Croatia - 6.99 
 Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 9.76 9.48 
 
3.3 Where the survey is carried out only in the spring, at least a quarter of the 
survey units are taken from the preceding survey and at least a quarter form part of 
the following survey. 
These two groups shall be identified by a code. 
Article 3(3) is only relevant for Croatia for 2006 and Switzerland. In 2006, Croatia had no 
overlap between successive years, and thus did not  comply with Article 3(3). This changed in 
2007 with the implementation of the continuous quarterly survey adopting a sample design 
with a quarterly and yearly rotation scheme. The Swiss sample design provides for a yearly 
rotation pattern, complying with Article 3(3). 
3.4 Where non-response to certain questions  results in missing data, a method of 
statistical imputation shall be applied where appropriate. 
Only eleven out of 32 particip ating countries applie d statistical imputati on (Table 8). Five 
countries — Italy, Austria, Sp ain, Romania and Slovenia — imputed for all or most of the 
variables. The remaining countries mostly imputed when missing data pertained to hours 
worked or wages. Three main methods were  used: hot-deck, regression and means with 
classes. 
Table 8. Imputation of variables (2007) 
 Country Variable Method 
Imputation Germany Usual hours and actual hours worked and economic 
activity Hot-deck 
 Spain All variables Manual imputation (for 
household variables) 
EN 13   EN Table 8. Imputation of variables (2007) 
 Country Variable Method 
and Fellegi-Holt, 
donor technique 
 France Wages Regression 
 Italy All variables Fellegi-Holt, donor 
technique 
 Malta Wages Means with classes 
 Austria All variables Hot-deck 
 Slovenia All variables except for Col. 3, Col. 10, Col. 4/5, Col. 
6/7, Col. 8/9, Col. 23, Col. 24, Col. 26, Col. 27/29, Col. 
30/33, Col. 60, Col. 62/63, Col. 66, Col. 74, Col. 75/76, 
Col. 77/79, Col. 80/81, Col. 98, Col. 101, Col. 118/119 and Col. 312/315 Hot-deck 
 Finland Actual hours worked Mean imputation with 
classes (professional 
status and economic activity) 
 Iceland Usual and actual hours of work Regression 
 Norway Underemployment, desired working hours, actual 
hours worked Hot-deck 
No imputation Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Ireland, Cyprus , Latvia, Lithuania, 
Luxembourg, Hungary, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Sweden, United Kingdom, 
Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Switzerland 
Source: Quality Reports. 
 
3.5. The weighting factors are calculated taking into account in particular the 
probability of selection and external data relating to the distribution of the 
population being surveyed, by sex, age ( five-year age groups) and region (NUTS II 
level), where such external data are held to  be sufficiently reliable by the Member 
States concerned. 
All the participating countries took into acco unt the probability of selection. All except 
Croatia used sex and age in the weighting pr ocess. Bulgaria, Germ any, Greece, Luxembourg, 
Hungary, Malta and Slovenia used broader ag e groups than five-year groups. All of the 
countries with more than one NUTS II region used at least NUTS II regions for calculating 
the weighting factors11, except France up to 2006 and Denmark in 2007.  
3.6. Member States shall provide the Commission (Eurostat) with whatever 
information is required concerning the organisation and methodology of the survey, 
and in particular, they shall indicate the criteria adopted for the design and size of 
the sample. 
Information for methodological information on the LFS is requested by Eurostat in a 
standardised form by means of annual quality  reports, organised according to a standard 
definition of quality components. In 2006 a nd 2007 all participating countries provided 
Eurostat with these reports (for 2007 Icela nd only provided partial information), the only 
exception being the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia for 2007. The participating countries also provide the Commission (Eurostat)  with quarterly inform ation relating to the 
precision of selected characteristics, non-re sponse, publication thre sholds and recent and 
anticipated changes in the survey design.  
                                                
 
11 The whole country constitutes a NUTS II region in Denmark until 2006, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, 
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovenia and Iceland. 
EN 14   EN 4. A RTICLE 4 — SURVEY CHARACTERISTICS  
The characteristics to be su rveyed in the period 2006-2007 are defined by Council Regulation 
(EC) 577/9812, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) 2104/200213 and by EP and 
Council Regulation (EC) 2257/200314. The latter introduced into the list of mandatory 
variables, from 2006 onwards, six new variables:  continuing receipt of wages and salary; 
supervisory responsibility; invo lvement of public employment service in finding the current 
job; contract with a temporar y work agency; number of hours of overtime in the reference 
week; lack of care facility. It also introduced module ‘n’ on at ypical working times, hitherto 
surveyed on the basis of a gentlemen’s agreement. The codification to be used for transmission of data to Eurostat, against which the assessment in this section is performed, is defined by Commission Re gulation (EC) No 430/2005
15, which also covers the 
abovementioned innovations. 
Variables not provided in 2006 a nd 2007 are listed in the tables fr om 9(a) to 9(n). Whenever a 
country is mentioned in connection with a qua rterly variable, this means that – unless 
otherwise specified – it did no t provide that variable for all the four quarters of the 
corresponding year. The cases in which variab les were provided, but where the same code 
was used for all applicable cases, are also mentioned.  
4.1 Data shall be provided on: 
 (a) demographic background: 
– sequence number in the household, 
– sex, 
– year of birth, 
– date of birth in relation to th e end of the reference period, 
– marital status, 
– relationship to reference person, 
– sequence number of spouse, 
– sequence number of father, 
– sequence number of mother, 
– nationality, 
– number of years of residen ce in the Member State, 
– country of birth (optional), 
– nature of participation in the survey (direct participation or proxy through 
another member of the household); 
Table 9(a). Non-optional variables in module a, not provided in 2006-2007  
Periodicity Characteristic 2006 2007 Comments 
Yearly Relationship to referenc e person in the household IE IE 2006: not provided. 2007: provided 
with errors, which prevents its use 
  SE SE 
  NO NO 
  IS IS 
    CH CH SE, NO, IS and CH: sample of 
individuals and no household sub-sample 
Yearly Sequence number of spouse or cohabiting partner SE SE 
SE NO IS and CH: sample of
                                                 
12 OJ L 77, 14.3.1998, p. 3. 
13 OJ L 324, 29.11.2002, p.14. 
14 OJ L 336, 23.12.2003, p. 6. 
15 OJ L 71, 17.3.2005, p. 36. 
EN 15   EN Table 9(a). Non-optional variables in module a, not provided in 2006-2007  
Periodicity Characteristic 2006 2007 Comments 
  NO NO 
  IS IS 
    CH CH individuals and no household sub-
sample 
    IE IE Variable provided with errors, which 
prevents its use 
Yearly Sequence number of father SE SE 
  NO NO 
  IS IS 
    CH CH SE, NO, IS and CH: sample of 
individuals and no household sub-
sample 
    IE IE Variable provided with errors, which 
prevents its use 
Yearly Sequence number of mother SE SE 
  NO NO 
  IS IS 
  CH CH SE, NO, IS and CH: sample of 
individuals and no household sub-
sample 
    IE IE Variable provided with errors, which 
prevents its use 
Quarterly Date of birth in relation to the end of reference 
period IE   Variable provided, but with constant 
values for Q3 and Q4 
Quarterly Nationality TR TR   
  IE IE Variable provided with old 
classification, which prevents its use  
Yearly Years of residence in this country MK MK   
  IS   
Source: EU-LFS 
 
 (b) labour status: 
– labour status during the reference week, 
– continuing receipt of wages and salary, 
– reason for not having worked though having a job, 
– search for employment for person without employment, 
– type of employment sought (self-employed or employee), 
– methods used to find a job, 
– availability to start work; 
Table 9(b). Non-optional variables in module b, not provided in 2006-2007  
Periodicity Characteristic 2006 2007 Comments 
Quarterly Continuing receipt of the wage or salary EE EE Variable provided with constant 
values, except for Q1 and Q2  2007, 
when it was correctly provided 
  FI FI Implemented from 2008 onwards 
  IE   
  FR FR  
Quarterly Type of employment sought (non-employed) UK UK Variable provided only for Q2. 
Quarterly from 2008 
      HR Variable provided only for Q4 
Quarterly Studied advertisements in newspapers or 
journals (employed) MK  Variable provided from Q2  2007 
Quarterly Took a test, interview or examination (non-
employed) IS IS Variable provided from Q2  2007 
    UK UK   
Quarterly Looked for land, premises or equipment (non-
employed) IE     
     MK   
Quarterly Looked for permits, licences, financial resources 
(non-employed) IE     
Quarterly Awaiting the results of an application for a job 
(non-employed) FR FR  
  MT MT  
EN 16   EN Table 9(b). Non-optional variables in module b, not provided in 2006-2007  
Periodicity Characteristic 2006 2007 Comments 
  NL NL  
    PT PT   
    MK    
Quarterly Waiting for a call from a public employment office 
(non-employed) CH   
  FR FR  
  IS IS Variable provided from Q2  2007 
  MT MT  
  PT PT  
    UK UK   
    MK    
Quarterly Awaiting the results of a competition for 
recruitment to the public sector (non-employed) CH   
  FI FI Not applicable in Finland 
  FR FR  
  IS IS Variable provided from Q2  2007 
  MT MT  
  NL NL  
  NO NO  
  PT PT  
  SI SI Not applicable in Slovenia 
    UK UK   
    MK MK   
Quarterly Other method used (non-employed) BG BG  
  EE EE  
  IE   
    PT PT   
    MK   Variable provided, but with constant 
values for Q3 
Quarterly Availability to start working within two weeks 
(non-employed) CY  Variable provided, but with constant 
values for Q3 
    EE   Variable provided, but with constant 
values for Q4 
Source: EU-LFS 
 
 (c) employment characteri stics of the main job: 
– professional status, 
– economic activity of local unit, 
– occupation, 
– supervisory responsibilities, 
– number of persons worki ng at the local unit, 
– country of place of work, 
– region of place of work, 
– year and month when the person started working in current employment, 
– involvement of public employment service in finding the current job, 
– permanency of the job (and reasons), 
– duration of temporary job or work  contract of limited duration, 
– full-time/part-time dis tinction (and reasons), 
– contract with a temporary work agency, 
– working at home; 
Table 9(c). Non-optional variables in module c, not provided in 2006-2007  
Periodicity Characteristic 2006 2007 Comments 
Yearly Supervisory responsibilities FI FI Implemented from 2008 onwards 
  IE   
EN 17   EN Table 9(c). Non-optional variables in module c, not provided in 2006-2007  
Periodicity Characteristic 2006 2007 Comments 
  MK   
  NO NO Implemented from 2008 onwards 
Quarterly Country of place of work CY CY Variable provided, but with constant values 
(always Cyprus) 
  EL EL Variable provided, but with constant values 
(always Greece) 
  IS IS Variable provided from Q2  2007 
  NO NO  
  TR TR   
Quarterly Region of place of work CY CY Variable provided, but with constant values 
(always Cyprus, which is one NUTS2 region) 
  HR   
  IS IS Variable provided from Q2  2007 
  LT LT Variable provided, but with constant values 
(always Lithuania, which is one NUTS2 
region) 
  LV LV Variable provided, but with constant values 
(always Latvia, which is one NUTS2 region) 
  SI SI Implemented from 2008 onwards 
  MK MK  
Yearly CH CH Implemented from 2010 onwards 
 FI FI Implemented from 2008 onwards 
 Involvement of the public employment 
office at any moment in finding the present job 
IE   
  MK     
Quarterly Full-time/part-time distinction IE     
Quarterly IE   Variable not provided for Q3 and Q4 
 Total duration of temporary job or work 
contract of limited duration 
UK UK Variable provided only for Q2. Quarterly from 
2008 
  MK   
Yearly CY CY Variable provided, but with constant values 
 Contract with a temporary employment 
agency FI FI Implemented from 2008 onwards 
  IE IE  
  IS   
  PT  Variable collected and sent to Eurostat, but 
at INE’s request not disseminated for quality 
reasons 
  MK   
  TR TR Variable not provided because no temporary 
agencies in Turkey 
Source: EU-LFS 
 (d) hours worked: 
– number of hours per week usually worked, 
– number of hours actually worked, 
– number of hours of overtime in the reference week, 
– main reason for hours actually worked  being different from usual hours; 
Table 9(d). Non-optional variables in module d, not provided in 2006-2007  
Periodicity Characteristic 2006 2007 Comments 
Quarterly Paid overtime in the reference week in the main job IE   
  HR   
   MK  
  IS IS Variable provided from Q2  2007 
  CH CH Implemented from 2010 
onwards 
Quarterly Unpaid overtime in the reference week in the main 
job IE   
EN 18   EN Table 9(d). Non-optional variables in module d, not provided in 2006-2007  
Periodicity Characteristic 2006 2007 Comments 
   FI  
   MK  
  TR TR  
  IS IS Variable provided from Q2  2007 
  CH CH Implemented from 2010 
onwards 
Source: EU-LFS 
 
 (e) second job: 
– existence of more than one job, 
– professional status, 
– economic activity of the local unit, 
– number of hours actually worked; 
All the participating countries provided data rela ting to all of the characteristics of module e. 
 (f) visible underemployment: 
– wish to work usually more than the current number of hours (optional in the 
case of an annual survey), 
– looking for another job and reasons for doing so, 
– type of employment sought (as employee or otherwise), 
– methods used to find another job, 
– reasons why the person is not seeking anot her job (optional in  the case of an 
annual survey), 
– availability to start work, 
– number of hours of work wished for (op tional in the case of an annual survey); 
Table 9(f). Non-optional variables in module f, not provided in 2006-2007  
Periodicity Characteristic 2006 2007 Comments 
Quarterly Looking for another job MK    
 
Quarterly  
Type of employment sought (or found) 
(employed)  
CH  
CH  
.  
  UK UK Variable provided only for Q2. 
Quarterly from 2008 
   MK  
    HR Variable provided only for Q4 
Quarterly Contacted public employment office to find work 
(employed) IE   
  IS  Variable provided, but with 
constant values for Q1, Q3 and Q4 
Quarterly Contacted private employment agency to find 
work (employed) CY CY Variable provided but with 
constant values for all 2006 
quarters and Q1  2007 
  IE   
  TR TR   
Quarterly Applied to employers directly (employed) IE     
Quarterly Asked friends, relatives, trade unions, etc. 
(employed) IE     
Quarterly Inserted or answered advertisements in 
newspapers or journals (employed)  IE     
Quarterly Studied advertisements in newspapers or 
journals (employed) IE     
  TR TR  
EN 19   EN Table 9(f). Non-optional variables in module f, not provided in 2006-2007  
Periodicity Characteristic 2006 2007 Comments 
Quarterly Took a test, interview or examination (employed) IE     
  IS  Variable provided, but with 
constant values for Q1, Q3 and Q4 
  UK UK  
Quarterly Looked for land, premises or equipment 
(employed) IE     
Quarterly Looked for permits, licences, financial resources 
(employed) CY CY Variable provided, but with 
constant values for Q1 and 
Q4 2006 and Q1, Q3 and Q4  2007 
  IE   
   MK  
  TR TR  
Quarterly Awaiting the results of an application for a job 
(employed) FI FI Variable provided, but with 
constant values for Q2 and 
Q3 2006 and Q1, Q3 and Q4  2007 
  FR FR  
  IE   
  MT MT  
  NL NL Variable provided with constant 
values, except for Q2  2006 when it 
was correctly provided 
Quarterly Waiting for a call from a public employment office 
(employed) CH CH Implemented from 2010 onwards 
  FI FI Variable provided, but with 
constant values for Q1, Q2 and Q3
 2006 and Q3 and Q4  2007 
  FR FR  
  IE   
  IS  Variable provided, but with 
constant values for Q1, Q3 and Q4 
  MT MT  
  TR TR  
  UK UK   
 
Quarterly  
Awaiting the results of a competition for recruitment to the public sector (employed)  
CH  
CH  
 
  FI FI Not applicable in Finland 
  FR FR  
  IE   
  IS  Variable provided, but with 
constant values for Q1, Q3 and Q4 
  MT MT  
  NL NL Variable provided, but with 
constant values for Q1, Q3 and Q4
 2006 and Q1, Q3 and Q4  2007 
  SI SI Not applicable in Slovenia 
  NO NO  
  UK UK   
   MK  
  TR TR  
Quarterly Other method used (employed) BG BG   
  ES ES  
  IE     
Quarterly Availability to start working within two weeks 
(employed) IE     
  MT   Variable provided, but with 
constant values 
Source: EU-LFS 
 
EN 20   EN  (g) search for employment: 
– type of employment sought, 
– duration of search for employment, 
– situation of person immediately be fore starting to seek employment, 
– registration at public employment o ffice and whether receiving benefits, 
– for person not seeking employment, willingness to work, 
– reasons why person has not sought work, 
– lack of care facilities;  
Table 9(g). Non-optional variables in module g, not provided in 2006-2007  
Periodicity Characteristic 2006 2007 Comments 
Yearly Reasons for not seek ing employment UK UK   
Quarterly Duration of search for employment (non employed) SE  Variable not provided for Q1 
Quarterly Duration of search for employment (employed) CH CH  
  IE   
  SE   Variable not provided for Q1 
   MK  
Yearly Situation immediately before person started to seek 
employment (or was waiting for new job to start) FR FR  
  IE IE  
  MK MK  
Yearly Need for care facilities FI FI Implemented from 2008 
onwards 
  UK UK  
  MK MK   
 
 
Yearly  
 
Registration at a public employment office  
 
IE  
 
IE  
 
 
  NO NO  
  TR     
Source: EU-LFS 
 
 (h) education and training 
– participation in formal e ducation or training during previous four weeks  
– level  
– field; 
– participation in courses and other taught  learning activities during previous 
four weeks – total length, 
– purpose of the most recent c ourse or other taught activity, 
– field of the most r ecent taught activity, 
– participated in most recent taugh t activity during working hours; 
– educational attainment 
– highest successfully completed l evel of education or training, 
– field of this highest leve l of education and training, 
– year when this highest level was successfully completed; 
Table 9(h). Non-optional variables in module h, not provided in 2006-2007  
Periodicity Characteristic 2006 2007 Comments 
Quarterly Level of this educat ion or training IS IS  
  NO    
Quarterly Number of hours spent on all taught learning CH CH From 2010 
EN 21   EN Table 9(h). Non-optional variables in module h, not provided in 2006-2007  
Periodicity Characteristic 2006 2007 Comments 
activities within the last four weeks 
Quarterly Highest level of education or training successfully 
completed IS   Variable not provided in Q4 
Yearly Field of highest level of  education or training 
successfully completed IE IE  
Yearly Year when highest level of education or training was 
successfully completed NO NO   
Source: EU-LFS 
 
 (i) previous work experience of person not in employment: 
– existence of previous employment experience, 
– year and month in which the person last worked, 
– main reason for leaving last job or business, 
– professional status in last job, 
– economic activity of local unit in which person last worked, 
– occupation of last job; 
Table 9(i). Non-optional variables in module i, not provided in 2006-2007  
Periodicity Characteristic 2006 2007 Comments 
Quarterly Month in which person last worked HR     
Quarterly Professional status in last job IE     
Quarterly Economic activity of the local unit in which person last 
worked   LU   
Quarterly Occupation of last job FR FR  
  NL     
Source: EU-LFS 
 
 (j) situation one year before the survey (optional for quarters 1, 3, 4) 
– main labour status, 
– professional status, 
– economic activity of local unit in which person was working, 
– country of residence, 
– region of residence; 
Table 9(j). Non-optional variables in module j, not provided in 2006-2007  
Periodicity Characteristic 2006 2007 Comments 
Yearly Situation with regard to activity one year before 
survey BG BG  
  CH CH Implemented from 2010 onwards 
  IE IE  
  SE     
Yearly Economic activity of local unit in which person 
was working one year before survey   LU   
Yearly Country of residence one year before survey CH CH Implemented from 2010 onwards 
  IS   
  NO NO  
  SI SI Implemented from 2008 onwards 
  TR TR   
Yearly Region of residence one year before survey CH CH Implemented from 2010 onwards 
  CY  Variable provided, but with constant 
values (always Cyprus, which is one 
NUTS2 region) 
EN 22   EN Table 9(j). Non-optional variables in module j, not provided in 2006-2007  
Periodicity Characteristic 2006 2007 Comments 
  IS   
  LT LT Variable provided, but with constant 
values (always Lithuania, which is one 
NUTS2 region) 
  NO NO  
  SI SI Implemented from 2008 onwards 
Source: EU-LFS 
 
 (k) main labour status (optional); 
Although module k is optional, only seven c ountries (Bulgaria, Germany, the United 
Kingdom, the Former Yugoslav Republic of M acedonia, Turkey, Norway and Switzerland) 
did not provide data on the variable main status in 2006 and 2007. 
 (l) income (optional); 
In 2006 and 2007, sixteen countries did not provide any data for the optional variable income: 
Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Spain, Cyprus, the Netherlands, Austria, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finla nd, Sweden, the Former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia, Iceland and Norway. 
 (m) technical items relating to the interview 
– year of survey, 
– reference week, 
– interview week, 
– Member State, 
– region of household, 
– degree of urbanisation, 
– serial number of household, 
– type of household, 
– type of institution, 
– weighting factor, 
– sub-sample in relation to the preceding survey (annual survey), 
– sub-sample in relation to the following survey (annual survey), 
– sequence number of the survey wave. 
Table 9(m). Non-optional variables in module m, not provided in 2006-2007  
Periodicity Characteristic 2006 2007 Comments 
Quarterly Region of household HR     
  MK MK  
Quarterly Degree of urbanisation BG  Variable provided from Q2 
  CH CH  
  IS IS  
  NO NO  
  RO RO Variable provided from 
Q3 2008 
  SK   
  MK MK  
  TR TR   
Quarterly Sequence number of the survey wave   HR   
EN 23   EN Table 9(m). Non-optional variables in module m, not provided in 2006-2007  
Periodicity Characteristic 2006 2007 Comments 
  MK MK  
Source: EU-LFS 
 
 (n) atypical working times: 
– shift work, 
– evening work, 
– night work, 
– Saturday work, 
– Sunday work. 
Table 9(n). Non-optional variables in module n, not provided in 2006-2007  
Periodicity Characteristic 2006 2007 Comments 
Yearly Evening work PT PT Not incl uded, as evening work was believed to 
be very limited and would be confused with night work 
Source: EU-LFS 
 
4.2. A further set of variables, hereinafter referred to as an ‘ad hoc module’, may 
be added to supplement th e information describe d above in paragraph 1. A 
programme of ad hoc modules covering several years shall be drawn up each year. 
A programme of ad hoc modules covering sever al years shall be drawn up each year 
according to the procedure laid down in Article 8: 
– this programme shall specify for each ad hoc module, the subject, the reference 
period, the sample size (equal to or le ss than the sample size determined 
according to Article 3) and the deadline for the transmission of the results (which may be different from the deadline according to Article 6), 
– the Member States and regions covered and the detailed list of information to 
be collected in an ad hoc module shall be drawn up at least twelve months 
before the beginning of the refe rence period for that module, 
– the volume of an ad hoc module s hall be limited to 11 variables. 
An ad hoc module on transition from work into  retirement and one on accidents at work and 
work-related health problems were carried  out in 2006 and 2007 resp ectively. The topics, 
reference periods, geographical co verage and deadlines for data transmission for the two ad 
hoc modules were laid down in Co mmission Regulations (EC) No 246/2003
16 and No 
384/200517 respectively. The specificati ons of the 2006 ad hoc modul e, including the list of 
variables and their codification, were a dopted through Commission Regulation (EC) No 
388/200518; those of the 2007 ad hoc module were adopted through Commission Regulation 
(EC) No 341/200619. 
                                                 
16 OJ L 34, 11.2.2003, p. 3. 
17 OJ L 61, 8.3.2005, p. 23. 
18 OJ L 62, 9.3.2005, p. 7. 
19 OJ L 55, 25.2.2006, p. 9. 
EN 24   EN As part of the implementation of ad hoc modules, each module is evaluated  afterwards. The 
evaluation report for the 2006 ad hoc module on tr ansition from work into retirement is 
available20, while the evaluation of the 2007 ad hoc module on accidents at work and work-
related health problems is due for the end of 2009. The following headings highlight the main 
findings regarding implementation of the legislation concerning the 2006 and 2007 ad hoc modules. 
Geographical coverage:  All the participating countries implemented both ad hoc modules, 
except for Croatia and Iceland in 2006 and, in bo th years, the Former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia, Turkey and Switzerland.  
Reference period:  The reference period in the ad hoc modules 2006 and 2007 was specified as 
either the second quarter in the respective year or the whole ye ar. In general,  participating 
countries complied with this requirement. Exceptions for the 2007 ad hoc module were the 
Netherlands, Austria and the United Kingdom. The Netherlands used quarters 2 to 4 as 
reference period
21, Austria only surveyed it for quart ers 1 to 3, while the United Kingdom 
used quarter 1 as the reference period. Of the complying countries, the Czech Republic, 
Germany, Estonia, Spain, France, Luxembourg,  Finland, Sweden, Norway and, for the 2006 
module, the Netherlands, Austria and the United Kingdom opted to spread the data collection 
over the whole year. All other countries used the second quarter as the reference period.  
Data collected:  All countries which carried out the two ad hoc modules covered all variables, 
except for Bulgaria in 2006, which did not provide information for the variable ‘Person 
reduced his/her working hours in  a move to full retirement’ , and Iceland in 2007, which did 
not cover the five variables in the section on work-related health problems suffered during the 
last 12 months (apart from accidental injuries) :  
– ‘Illness(es), disability(ies) or other physical or psychic health problem(s), 
apart from accidental injuries, suffe red by the person during the past 12 
months (from the date of the interview)  and that was (were), caused or made 
worse by work’,  
– ‘Type of the most serious complaint caused or made worse by work’,  
– ‘Whether the most serious complaint caused  or made worse by  work limits the 
ability to carry out normal day-to-day ac tivities either at work or outside 
work’,  
– ‘Number of days off work during the last  12 months due to the most serious 
complaint caused or made worse by work’ and  
– ‘Job that caused or made worse the most serious complaint’. 
Deadline for data transmission:  for both ad hoc modules, the deadline for sending Eurostat 
the microdata was 31 March of the year followi ng the reference year. In the case of the 2006 
module, 27 of the 28 participa ting countries delivered a dataset on time, while Ireland 
transmitted the first data 32 weeks later. Twelve countries — Germany, Greece, Spain, 
                                                 
20 Eurostat: Final report of the task force for evaluating the 2006 LFS ad hoc module on ‘transition from 
work into retirement’ , is available on request. 
21 This was due to adjustments in the questionnaire from the second quarter onwards which did not allow 
to use data collected for the first quarter. 
EN 25   EN Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, La tvia, Norway, Poland and Slovenia — sent 
revisions after the deadline. As for the 2007 ad hoc module, all of the 30 participating 
countries delivered a dataset by the deadline , except Denmark (3 weeks late), France (1 
week), Iceland (34 weeks) and Norway (3 weeks). Nine countries (Austria, Germany, 
Denmark, Spain, France, Malta, Norway and Sl ovenia) sent revisions  after the deadline.  
4.3. The definitions, the edits to be used, the codification of the variables, the 
adjustment of the list of survey variabl es made necessary by  the evolution of 
techniques and concepts, and a list of princi ples for the formulation of the questions 
concerning the labour status , are drawn up according to the procedure laid down in 
Article 8.  
The Commission has adopted two Regulat ions: first, Regulation (EC) No 973/200722 
implementing the statistical classification of  economic activities NAC E Revision 2 in some 
statistical domains among which the Labour Force Survey; second, Regulation (EC) No 
377/200823 concerning the codification to be used for data transmission from 2009 onwards, 
the use of a sub-sample for the collection of da ta on structural variables and the definition of 
the reference quarters. These regulations  are being implemented from 2008 and 2009 
respectively. 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1897/200024 sets out the operational definition of 
unemployment and the principles  for the formulation of the questions on labour status. 
The definition of unemployment 
By the end of 2007, a majority of  participating countries were still not fully complying with 
the definition of unemployment. Spain, the United Kingdom and Iceland referred 
unemployment to the 16-74 age group. Eighteen countries still used two weeks after the 
interview as a reference period fo r the availability of a person to take up a new job, rather than 
two weeks after the reference week (see table 10)25. Estonia, Ireland and Slovenia still did not 
check whether a job which was due to start late r would start within th ree months, whereas the 
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, although it asked th e question, considered as 
unemployed those who would start a job after three months but were currently available to 
start working. Estonia and Ireland still did not ask about availability to start work within two 
weeks in the case of people who had already found a job wh ich would start later. Ten 
countries did not check the conditions under which lay-offs could be classified as 
unemployed, i.e. (a) receiving a significant wage or salary du ring the absence and (b) seeking 
employment and being currently available to start working. Germany di d not ask about the 
former condition, while Bulgaria, the Czech Re public, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Sweden, the 
United Kingdom, Croatia and Iceland did not veri fy the latter. Luxembourg and Portugal did 
not check either of the two requirements for lay-offs. 
                                                 
22 OJ L 216, 21.8.2007, p. 10. 
23 OJ L 114, 26.4.2008, p. 57. 
24 OJ L 228, 8.9.2000, p. 18. 
25 The discrepancies can be partly attributed to the fact that the Explanatory Notes for the EU-LFS 
continued to use the interview week as the starting point for the availability period, despite this having 
been changed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1897/2000. Explanatory notes on this point have 
been changed for 2008 data collection onwards. 
EN 26   EN Table 10. Participating countries not fully complying with the definition of 
unemployment by the end of 2007  
Divergence from the definition Countries 
Age group not defined as 15-74 Spain, United Kingdom, Iceland 
The reference period for the availability of 
a person to take up a new job ends 2 
weeks after the end of the interview week 
but not after the end of the reference week. Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Gr eece, Ireland, Cyprus, Lithuania, 
Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, Nether lands, Poland, Slovenia, Finland, 
Croatia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Iceland  
Job found, which starts later, but not 
checked whether it starts within 3 months Estonia, Ireland, Slovenia, Form er Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 
If job is found, which starts later, no check 
is made on the availability to start work Estonia, Ireland 
Lay-offs not asked if they receive any 
significant wage or if they are seeking work and are currently available Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germ any, Luxembourg, Netherlands, 
Portugal, Slovakia, Sweden, Un ited Kingdom, Croatia, Iceland 
Sources: Quality Reports , National Questionnaires. 
 
The twelve principles for formulating the questionnaire 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1897/2000 lays down twelve prin ciples for formulating the 
questionnaire. In 2007, only principles 8 and 11 were fully observed by all thirty-two 
countries. Most of the divergen ces relate to principles 2, 3, 6 and 10. Table 11 summarises the 
situation with regard to each of  the principles. A detailed anal ysis can be found in Annex I to 
this document. 
Table 11. Countries not observing or onl y partly observing the principles for 
formulating the questions on labour status by the end of 2007  
Principle Status Countries 
Principle 1 Not observed Ireland, Malta, Croatia 
  Partly observed Sloveni a, United Kingdom, Netherlands26 
Principle 2 Partly observed Germany, Lit huania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal 
Principle 3 Not observed United Kingdom, Croatia 
  Partly observed Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Ireland, 
Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Portugal, 
Slovenia, Slovakia, Finl and, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, 
Turkey, Iceland, Switzerland 
Principle 4 Not observed Hungary, Malta 
Principle 5 Not observed Denmark 
Principle 6 Not observed Czec h Republic, Greece, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, 
Netherlands, Slovenia, Croatia, Former  Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, 
Iceland 
  Partly observed Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany,  Estonia, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, 
Finland, Turkey, Switzerland 
Principle 7 Not observed Netherlands 
Principle 9 Not observed France, Malta, Portugal 
Principle 10 Not observed Turkey 
  Partly observed Latvia, Luxembourg, Malt a, Netherlands, Slovakia, Former Yugoslav 
Republic of Macedonia, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland 
Principle 12 Not observed Es tonia, Ireland, Slovenia 
Source: Annex I. 
 
Principle 1 was not observed by Ireland, Malta and Croa tia. In these count ries, the questions 
on labour status were not the first ones on th e individual questionnaire , did not immediately 
follow the questions on the demographic characte ristics of the household members, and were 
preceded by questions on the main status. 
EN 27   EN Malta also preceded the question on labour status  with a question on registration at a public 
employment office. Slovenia and the United Kingdom partly devi ated from this principle by 
not having the questions on employment status among the first questions in the 
questionnaire26.  
Principle 2 was only partially observed by fi ve countries. Germany, Luxembourg and 
Portugal did not check the conditions for identifying people on lay-off27. In Lithuania, the 
question about actually working was put in th e reference week, after a question on having a 
job. The Netherlands deviated from this prin ciple as regards both the formulation of the 
question on currently being at  work and the sequence of questions on employment. 
Principle 3 was not observed by the United Kingdom and Croatia, as their questions on 
employment did not contain any cue for the iden tification of persons w ith a minor job. In 
addition, questions on job s earch in their questionnaire did no t specify that jobs lasting only a 
few hours, or even one hour, still have to be considered. Twenty-two countries only partly 
respected principle 3 in that they did not fulfil the latter condition.  
Principle 4 was not observed by Hungary and Malta, which did not probe for unpaid family 
workers. 
Principle 5 was not observed by Denmark, whose questionnaire referred only to ‘work’, but 
did not clearly indicate that only work for pay or  profit is considered as an economic activity. 
Principle 6 was not observed by eleven countries, which did not  fully align to any of the 
prescriptions concerning the reference period fo r employment, job search, job search methods 
and availability to start working. The prin ciple was only partially observed by eleven 
countries, which respected at least one but not al l of those requirements. In particular, fifteen 
countries mentioned the referenc e week for employment but di d not give the exact dates, 
whereas one country — the Neth erlands — surveyed labour stat us with reference to the 
current situation at the time of the interview.  Nineteen countries mentioned the past four 
weeks as the reference period for job search an d seventeen did so for job search methods, but 
did not refer to the reference week. Two c ountries did not follow either of the two 
prescriptions for job search and four deviated  from both requirements for job search methods. 
Finally, for eighteen countries th e reference period for job availa bility did not start from the 
reference week (see also Table 10 and footnote 27). 
Principle 7 was not observed by the Netherlands, which did not apply the question on job 
search to all non-employed, but filtered out thos e who answered in the negative to a question 
on whether they wanted to work. 
                                                 
26 In the Netherlands, the effects of this deviation on la bour status were found negligible after ad hoc tests, 
so that the principle can be  considered as respected. 
27 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1897/2000 offers two types of test for measuring the job attachment 
of persons on lay-off. In both cases, for a person to be considered employed, the period of absence 
cannot exceed three months. In addition, the first type of test refers to whether or not significant salary 
is received; the other checks whether there is an assura nce to return to work at the end of the period of 
absence. Principle 2 favours the second approach, while the definition of unemployment and the 
Explanatory Notes of the European Union Labour Force Survey favour the first approach. In assessing 
adherence to principle 2 both ap proaches have been considered in line with this principle. 
EN 28   EN Principle 9 was not observed by France, Malta and Portugal28, which did not ask for passive 
search methods in addition to active ones. 
Principle 10 was not observed by Turkey, which de viated from two prescr iptions: that contact 
with the public employment office in order to  find work should be included as the first 
question on job search methods, and that this contact should be di stinct from the renewal of a 
registration to claim unemployment benefits  and from any assistance provided by the 
employment office to improve the employabili ty of the registered unemployed person. 
Nine countries only partially observed prin ciple 10, as they did not specify in their 
questionnaires that the contact with th e public employment agency must be in order to find 
work  as distinct from maintaining or renewing the person’s status as registered unemployed. 
Principle 12 was not observed by Estonia, Irel and and Slovenia, which did not check whether 
or not a job which had been f ound would start within three m onths (see above Table 10).  
4.4. On a proposal from the Commission, a list of variables, herei nafter referred to 
as ‘structural variables’, may be identi fied from among the survey characteristics 
specified in paragraph 1 which need to be  surveyed only as annual averages with 
reference to 52 weeks rather than as quarterly averages. This list of structural variables, the minimum sample size and th e survey frequency will be drawn up in 
accordance with the procedur e laid down in Article 8. Spa in, Finland and the United 
Kingdom may survey the structural variabl es with reference to a single quarter 
during a transition period until the end of 2007.  
This list of structural variables includes those labelled as yearly  in the column ‘periodicity’ in 
Annex II of Commission Regulation (EC) 430/2005. This list includes 42 variables (six 
optional), plus the yearly weights. 
The option of using a sub-sample to survey structural variables was introduced from 2006. 
Only seven countries, Spain, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Finland, the United Kingdom 
and Norway, took up this option in 2006 and/or 2007.  
The extent to which a sub-sample is used va ries widely from country to country. Spain 
surveyed nearly all 42 structural variables us ing only the yearly sub-sample. The Netherlands, 
the United Kingdom and Norway used a sub-sample for about half of the structural variables 
(Norway did not ask at all for eleven struct ural variables, thus limiting the number of 
structural variables which were in fact surv eyed on the whole sample). Finland, Germany and 
France made limited use of a sub-sample. Finla nd used it for nine variables and Germany for 
four, whereas France used a sub-sample for si x variables in 2006 and for one variable only — 
namely income — in 2007.  
Annex III summarises the way in which the stru ctural variables were covered by countries 
using a sub-sample in 2006 and 2007.  
Annex I of Commission Regula tion (EC) 430/2005 states the fo llowing conditions for using a 
sub-sample to collect data on structural variables:  
                                                
 
28 Portugal did not put the question about passive methods to persons who were looking for a job but only 
to those who were not searching. 
EN 29   EN 1. Yearly/quarterly variables 
The word ‘yearly’ in the ‘Periodicity’ colu mn of the Codification laid down in Annex 
II, identifies structural variables which op tionally need only to be surveyed as annual 
averages, using a sub-sample of indepe ndent observations with reference to 52 
weeks, rather than as quarterly averages. Core variables to be surveyed each quarter are identified as ‘quarterly’ 
All these countries spread the yearly sub-samp le over the 52 weeks of the year, exceptFinland 
in 2006, which by derogation survey ed the five variables on the situation one year before the 
survey  in the second quarter only, and the United Kingdom in both years which, by 
derogation, surveyed most of the structural va riables in the second quarter and two in the 
fourth quarter. 
2. Representativeness of the results 
For structural variables, the relative standard error (without taking design effect 
into account) of any yearly estimate representing 1
 % or more of the working age 
population shall not exceed: 
(a) 9  % for countries with a population between  1 million and 20 million inhabitants 
and 
(b) 5  % for countries with a population of 20 million or more. 
Countries with less than 1 million inhabi tants are exempted from these precision 
requirements and structural variables should be collected for the total sample unless 
the sample meets requirements expressed in (a). 
For countries using a sub-samp le for data collection on struct ural variables, if more 
than one wave is used, the total sub-samp le used shall consist of independent 
observations. 
Of the seven countries using a sub-sample to  survey structural va riables in 2006 and 2007, 
Spain, France, Germany and the United Kingdo m have more than 20 million inhabitants, 
whereas the Netherlands, Finland and Norway have a population of between 1 and 20 million. 
Considering a generic estimate of 1  % of the working age populat ion (15-74 years), none of 
those countries exceeded the above  benchmark during the whole period. 
For all countries using a sub-sample to survey st ructural variables, such sub-samples are made 
up of independent observations. 
3. Consistency of totals 
Consistency between annual sub-sample to tals and full sample annual averages shall 
be ensured for employment, unemploymen t and inactive population by sex and for 
the following age groups: 15 to 24, 25 to 34, 35 to 44, 45 to 54, 55 +. 
For estimates rounded to thousands, consistenc y of totals between the annual sub-sample 
totals and the full sample annual averages wa s ensured by Norway, Spain (with the exception 
of inactives aged 15-24, both males and females) and Finland in 2007. 
EN 30   EN For Finland in 2006 and the United  Kingdom in both years, the a nnual sub-sample totals were 
consistent with estimates from the second qua rter. For Germany, France and the Netherlands, 
totals were different for nearly all of the thirty  clusters (three employment statuses multiplied 
by two genders and five age groups), in both 2006 and 2007. 
Table 12. Differences between yearly sub-samples and annual averages of full yearly samples 
(x1000) — Countries spreading the annual sub-sample over 52 weeks 
2006 2007 Employment 
status Sex Age 
group DE ES FR NL NO DE ES FR NL FI NO 
Employed Males 15-24 7 0 40 -11 0 -1 0 23 -23 0 0 
  25-34 1 0 -89 -7 0 -7 0 -31 -1 0 0 
  35-44 6 0 -67 -7 0 2 0 -44 -8 0 0 
  45-54 -21 0 0 -10 0 -11 0 -6 -9 0 0 
  55+ -3 0 -1 1 0 1 0 21 -13 0 0 
 Females 15-24 -7 0 33 -26 0 -12 0 55 -27 0 0 
  25-34 11 0 -11 -6 0 17 0 -4 -4 0 0 
  35-44 -26 0 5 -11 0 4 0 7 -4 0 0 
  45-54 -9 0 -12 -11 0 1 0 -8 -5 0 0 
    55+ -6 0 0 1 0 1 0 -34 -6 0 0 
Unemployed Males 15-24 1 0 3 7 0 2 0 4 7 0 0 
  25-34 0 0 36 4 0 1 0 55 1 0 0 
  35-44 0 0 57 3 0 2 0 22 5 0 0 
  45-54 1 0 11 6 0 0 0 -12 2 0 0 
  55+ -2 0 10 4 0 1 0 -24 5 0 0 
 Females 15-24 1 0 11 10 0 1 0 -10 10 0 0 
  25-34 -2 0 27 3 0 -5 0 1 -1 0 0 
  35-44 0 0 13 6 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 
  45-54 1 0 9 2 0 1 0 6 4 0 0 
  55+ 3 0 4 4 0 0 0 -2 1 0 0 
Inactive Males 15-24 9 -13 -49 4 0 13 8 -21 16 0 0 
  25-34 -19 0 31 4 0 7 0 -17 1 0 0 
  35-44 -9 0 16 3 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 
  45-54 -12 0 -21 4 0 -5 0 15 7 0 0 
  55+ -38 0 9 -6 0 -15 0 7 8 0 0 
 Females 15-24 -27 -11 -70 15 0 0 -9 -19 16 0 0 
  25-34 -9 0 -4 3 0 -1 0 -18 6 0 0 
  35-44 -6 0 -27 4 0 4 0 12 3 0 0 
  45-54 -4 0 8 9 0 -3 0 13 2 0 0 
  55+ -6 0 -3 -5 0 -11 0 27 5 0 0 
Source: EU-LFS 
 
4. Ad hoc modules 
The sample used to collect information on ad hoc modules shall also provide 
information on structural variables 
In general, participating countri es respected this requirement, with the exception of Finland in 
2006 and the United Kingdom and France in 2006 and 2007. Finland and the United Kingdom 
carried out the ad hoc modules on all fifty-two weeks of the year, whereas some structural 
variables were only collected in the second quarter. France surveyed both the structural 
variables and the ad hoc modules with refere nce to the whole year, but on different sub-
samples.  
Table 13. Structural variables not included in the ad hoc module datasets 
Country Year Variables 
EN 31   EN Table 13. Structural variables not included in the ad hoc module datasets 
Country Year Variables 
France 2006 WSTAT1Y, STAPRO1Y, NACE1Y2D, COUNTR1Y, REGION1Y, 
INCMON 
 2007 WSTAT1Y, STAPRO1Y, NACE1Y2D, COUNTR1Y, REGION1Y, 
INCMON 
Finland 2006 WSTAT1Y, STAPRO1Y, NACE1Y2D, COUNTR1Y, REGION1Y  
United Kingdom 2006 FTPTREAS, SHIFTWK, EVENWK, NIGHTWK, SATWK, SUNWK, 
HOMEWK, SEEKREAS, NEEDCARE, WSTAT1Y, STAPRO1Y, 
NACE1Y2D, COUNTR1Y, REGION1Y 
  2007 FTPTREAS, SHIFTWK, EVENWK, NIGHTWK, SATWK, SUNWK, 
HOMEWK, SEEKREAS, NEEDCARE, WSTAT1Y, STAPRO1Y, 
NACE1Y2D, COUNTR1Y, REGION1Y 
Source: EU-LFS 
 
5. A RTICLE 5 — CONDUCT OF THE SURVEY  
5.1. The Member States may make it com pulsory to reply to the survey. 
Participation in the LFS is compulsory in thir teen participating countri es (Belgium, Germany, 
Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Malta, Austria, Portugal, Slovakia, Turkey and Norway), but voluntary in 20 participating countries.  
6. A
RTICLE 6 — TRANSMISSION OF THE RESULTS  
6.1. Within twelve weeks of the end of the refe rence period in the case of a continuous 
survey (and within nine months of the end of the reference period in the case of a 
survey in the spring), the Member States shall forward to Eurostat the results of the survey, without direct identifiers. 
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia a nd Turkey started delivering microdata to 
Eurostat with the 2006 datasets, bringing the nu mber of countries providing microdata to 33. 
In 2006, thirty countries delivered four quarterly datasets
29, whereas Croatia delivered two 
semi-annual datasets and Switzerland one annua l dataset. From 2007 also Croatia has 
delivered four quarterly datasets. In total, Eu rostat received 127 datasets for 2006 and 129 for 
2007. 
Overall, 63 datasets were on time in 2006 (49.6  %) and 87 in 2007 (67.4  %). In 2006, only five 
countries consistently met the deadline (cells with grey back ground in table 14). This number 
rose to fourteen in 2007.  
                                                 
29 Indeed, in 2006 Luxembourg sent the same annual dataset for all four quarters. 
EN 32   EN Only Spain and Portugal always delivered microdata on time for all quarters of 2006 and 
2007. At the other end of the scale, Malta,  Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia and Iceland were consistently late in sending data during both years, while 
Belgium, Ireland, Italy, Turkey and Switzerland30 were late for all 2006 deliveries.  
Table 14. Number of weeks from deadline when data suitable for dissemination were 
delivered to Eurostat. Years 2006-20071 
  2006  2007 
Country  Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4  Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 
Belgium  3 1 4 1  6 3 T 3 
Bulgaria  1 T T T  T T T T 
Czech Republic  1 T T T  T T T T 
Denmark  T T T T  4 1 T 2 
Germany  14 1 T 1  T T T T 
Estonia  2 2 T T  T T T T 
Ireland  2 1 2 3  6 3 T 5 
Greece  1 1 T T  T T T 1 
Spain  T T T T  T T T T 
France  9 2 12 T  T T T T 
Italy  9 4 3 1  2 1 T T 
Cyprus  T 1 T T  T T T T 
Latvia  1 1 T T  T T T T 
Lithuania  T T T T  T 1 T 2 
Luxembourg2   39 26 13 T  14 1 T T 
Hungary  3 T T T  T T T T 
Malta  2 4 3 1  1 3 3 1 
Netherlands  1 T T T  T T T T 
Austria  1 T T T  T T T T 
Poland  4 1 T T  T T T T 
Portugal  T T T T  T T T T 
Romania  4 T T T  3 T T T 
Slovenia  T T T T  T T T 1 
Slovakia  3 T T T  1 T T T 
Finland  2 T T 1  1 T T T 
Sweden  4 1 T T  4 1 T T 
United Kingdom  2 T 5 T  1 T T T 
Croatia  - 12 - 10  23 18 7 11 
Former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia 109 96 83 70  89 76 63 50 
Turkey  48 38 25 12  T T T 4 
Iceland  7 48 35 8  1 54 42 28 
Norway  2 1 T T  T 1 11 T 
Switzerland  - 9 - -  - T - - Note: Each week begun after the deadline is counted as 1 week. T denotes delivery on or before the deadline (12 
weeks after end of each reference quarter, or 9 months after end of the second quarter in the case of an annual 
survey). Hyphen ‘-’ denotes that a country did not carry out  the LFS in the respective quarter. The grey background 
highlights an on-time delivery for all datasets of a year.  
¹ The delays may reflect the date of transmission of the first correct (accepted) file, rather than the date of the very 
first transmission of a file. 
2 In 2006 the same annual dataset was sent for all four quarters. 
Source: EU-LFS  
                                                 
30 The Former Yugoslav Re public of Macedonia and Turkey starte d data transmission with the 2006 
datasets. Switzerland, carrying out an annual survey, only transmitted one dataset. 
EN 33   EN 7. A RTICLE 7 — REPORTS  
7.1. A report on the implementation of this Regulation shall be submitted by the 
Commission to the Parliament and the Counc il every three years, beginning in the 
year 2000. This report shall evaluate in partic ular the quality of the statistical 
methods envisaged by the Memb er States to impr ove the results or  to lighten the 
survey procedures. 
The European Labour Force Survey  is the largest sample survey  in Europe. In an average 
quarter in 2007, Eurostat received data for over 1.5 million individuals aged 15 and older. 
Table 15 lists major design changes in the period 2006-2007 and the planned changes in the next three-year period.  
Table 15. Major changes in the survey design 2006-2007 or changes planned by participating 
countries in 2008-2013 
Country Short description of the changes Date when 
implemented 
All Introduction of six new characteristics, according to Council Regulation 2257/2003. 2006 
 Implementation of NACE Rev 2. 2008 
 Introduction of variable on Income, acco rding to Council Regulation 1372/2007. 2009 
Belgium Sample size increased 25  % to about 15  000 households each quarter. 2006 
 Gradual move from PAPI to CAPI (30  % of CAPI in 2007). 2007 
Bulgaria Introduced a new LFS questionnaire the first quarter of 2006. 2006 
 Implementation of the wave approach. 2008 
Denmark Sample size more than doubled, rotation sc heme changed to 2-(2)-2, more efficient 
use of auxiliary variables in weighting pr ocedures, face-to-face interviewing used as 
supplementary method of collecting data. 2007 
 Collection and transmission of househol d variables on a quarterly basis. 2010 
Germany Implementation of the wave approach. 2006 
 Questionnaire changed to better capture ILO employment. 2007 
 Questionnaire changed to align with princi ples 2 and 3 (inclusion of the questions 
regarding the duration of the absence and the continued receipt of salary; addition of a cue mentioning a minor or marginal job in the question on job search). 2008 
Estonia Sample size increased from 2
 500 to 3  000 households each quarter. 2007 
Spain Implementation of the wave approach. 2006 
France Implementation of the wave approach. 2006 
 Questionnaire changed to fully implement t he definition of unemployment. Weighting 
procedure from NUTS II. Supplementary non-re sponse survey to collect data from 
non-respondents. 2007 
 Gradual enlargement of the survey sample, up to 50  % more than at present. 2009 
 Implementation of the continuous survey in the Overseas Territories (DOM). 2013 
Ireland Redesign of questionnaire. 2006 
 Move to calendar quarters. 2009 
Italy Questionnaire changed so ‘Availability to wo rk within 2 weeks’ now starts from 
reference week rather than interview week, in line with principle 6. 2006 
Latvia LFS was changed from PAPI to CAPI. Change of questionnaire to align to Principle 2 2006 
 Sample size more than doubled. Rotation scheme changed to 2-(2)-2, more efficient 
use of auxiliary variables in weighti ng procedure and ‘contact with the public 
employment office to find work’ is asked fi rst in the list of job search methods, CATI 
interviewing introduced in combination with CAPI. 2007 
 Improve calculation of weights to impr ove consistency between sampling frame and 
target population regarding the treatment  of collective households. Redesign of 
questionnaire to align to principles 3, 6 and 10. 2010 
Lithuania Questionnaire adapted to EU-L FS list of variables. 2006 
 Sample (households) increased of about 35  %. CAPI used from quarter IV 2007 in 
combination with PAPI. 2007 
 Redesign of questionnaire to ali gn to principles 2, 3 and 6. 2010 
Hungary Move to cover all the weeks of the quarter. 2006 
Malta Weighting scheme changed to correct for non-response in second wave. 2006 
EN 34   EN Table 15. Major changes in the survey design 2006-2007 or changes planned by participating 
countries in 2008-2013 
Country Short description of the changes Date when 
implemented 
 Quarterly sample size increased from 2500 to 3200 households. 2007 
 Rotation scheme changed from 2- to 2-(2)-2. 2008 
Netherlands Use of CATI also in the first wave (in replacement of CAPI) for sampled households 
whose telephone number is available. 2010 
Austria Replacement of PAPI with CAPI for first wave interviews. 2006 
Poland Change of questionnaire to align to Regulation 430/2005 and the 12 principles. 
Variable MAINSTAT introduced. Intr oduction of CAPI supplementing PAPI.  2006 
 Increase of the sample size in the 7 NUTS 2 areas not meeting the precision 
requirements. Improved population estima tes taking migration into account. 2008 
 Change of the questionnaire to further align to the definition of unemployment and the 
12 principles (better specification of re ference periods of job search and current 
availability; one hour jobs mentio ned in the question on labour status). 2009 
 Sample doubled to meet precision requirement s for estimates of change. Introduction 
of information on interview week. 2010 
Romania Move to full and uniform coverage of the weeks of the quarter. 2006 
Slovenia Move to a more uniform distribution of sample and coverage of all weeks of the 
quarter. 2006 
 Question on Main status moved to the end of questionnaire, in line with principle 1. 2007 
Finland Implementation of the wave approach. 2007 
 Extension of the wave approach. Redesign of the questionnaire to align to Regulation 
430/2005. 2008 
Sweden Implementation of household sub-sample data with weights. 2010 
United Kingdom Move to calendar quarters. 2006 
 Change of residency rules, in order to improve coverage of short-term migrants and 
temporary foreign workers. Implementation of the wave approach. 2008 
Croatia Move to a continuous survey, data available at NUTS II level, quarterly results 
available, yearly sample size doubl ed, rotation scheme changed to 2-(2)-2. 2007 
Turkey Delivery of micro-data. 2006 
Norway Redesign of questionnaire for improved EU co mparability (alignment to principles 6, 
7, 9, 11 and 12). Lower age limit moved to 15. Implementation of the wave approach. 2006 
Switzerland Move to a continuous survey. 2010 
Sources: Quality Reports and comm unications from Member States 
 
EN 35   EN ANNEX I — PRINCIPLES FOR FORMUL ATING THE QUESTIONS ON LABOUR 
STATUS 
YEAR 2007 BE BG CZ DK DE EE EL ES
1 The questions on the labour status
- are in general the first questions on the individual questionnaire Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
- immediately follow the questions on the demographic characteristics of the household 
membersYYY - YYYY
- are not preceded by questions on the main or the usual activity Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
- are not preceded by questions on the registration at the public employment office Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Is the principle respected? YYYYYYYY
2 The sequence of questions on employment consists of at least two separate questions,
- one on currently working Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
- and another on having a job when being temporarily absent from work Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y- and the question on being at work precedes the question on having a job Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
The identification of lay-offs and their classification as em ployed (or unemployed) persons depends on two conditions of formal  job attachment:
- an assurance of return to work after the end of the contingency Y N N Y N Y N Y
   (- continues to receive 50% or more of the salary) Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y- and the short duration (<=3 months) of the suspension of the labour contract Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y
Is the principle respected? YYYYPYYY
3 The questions on employment
- contain a cue for the identification of persons with a minor job a few or even one hour Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
The questions on job search
- contain a cue for the identification of persons with a minor job a few or even one hour N N N Y N N N Y
Is the principle respected? PPPYPPPY
4 The questions on employment
- contain a cue for the identification of unpaid family workers
- unpaid family workers are identified by a separate question about being at work Y Y Y Y YIs the principle respected? YYYYYYYY
5 The questions on employment
- clearly indicate that only work for pay or profit is considered as an economic activity Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y
Is the principle respected? YYYNYYYY
6 The reference period of employment is clearly specified
- as the last week, defined as 'from Monday to Sunday', giving the exact date N Y N Y N Y N Y
The reference period of job search is clearly specified
- as the past four weeks including the reference week N P P Y P Y P Y
The reference period of job search methods is clearly specified
- as the past four weeks including the reference week Y P N Y P P P Y
The reference period of availability is clearly specified
- as the period until the end of the two weeks following the reference week N N N Y Y Y N Y
Is the principle respected? PPNYPPNY
7 All persons who were asked the questions on employment and were identified as having no job
- are asked the question on job search Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Is the principle respected? YYYYYYYY
8 The question on job search
- refers to any effort, even irregular, to find work, i.e. the wording does not suggest that only a 
continuous search throughout the entire reference period is considered as a sufficient condition for job searchYYYYYYYY
Is the principle respected? YYYYYYYY
9 The question on job search methods contains
- active search methods Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
- and passive search methods Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YIs the principle respected? YYYYYYYY
10 The 'contact with the public employment office to find work"
- is included as the first (response category in the) question on job search methods Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
- is distinct from the renewal of a registration to claim unemployment benefits Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
- is distinct from the assistance provided by the employment office to improve the employability 
of the registered unemployed personYYYYYYYY
Is the principle respected? YYYYYYYY
11 The questions on job search methods are asked
- until at least three active methods are recorded as having been used by the respondent Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Is the principle respected? YYYYYYYY
12 For persons who are currently not employed and who are not looking for a job because they have already fo und a job wh ich will s tart later
- there exists a question on the starting date of that job (within 3 months/after more than 3 
months)YYYYYNYY
Is the principle respected? YYYYYNYY
 
EN 36   EN YEAR 2007 FR IE IT CY LV LT LU HU
1 The questions on the labour status
- are in general the first questions on the individual questionnaire Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y
- immediately follow the questions on the demographic characteristics of the household 
membersYNYYYYYY
- are not preceded by questions on the main or the usual activity Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y
- are not preceded by questions on the registration at the public employment office Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Is the principle respected? YNYYYYYY
2 The sequence of questions on employment consists of at least two separate questions,
- one on currently working Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
- and another on having a job when being temporarily absent from work Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y- and the question on being at work precedes the question on having a job Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y
The identification of lay-offs and their classification as em ployed (or unemployed) persons depends on two conditions of formal  job attachment:
- an assurance of return to work after the end of the contingency Y Y N N Y Y N N
   (- continues to receive 50% or more of the salary) N Y Y Y Y Y N Y- and the short duration (<=3 months) of the suspension of the labour contract Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y
Is the principle respected? YYYYYPPY
3 The questions on employment
- contain a cue for the identification of persons with a minor job a few or even one hour Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
The questions on job search
- contain a cue for the identification of persons with a minor job a few or even one hour Y N N Y N N N N
Is the principle respected? YPPYPPPP
4 The questions on employment
- contain a cue for the identification of unpaid family workers
- unpaid family workers are identified by a separate question about being at work Y Y Y NIs the principle respected? YYYYYYYN
5 The questions on employment
- clearly indicate that only work for pay or profit is considered as an economic activity Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Is the principle respected? YYYYYYYY
6 The reference period of employment is clearly specified
- as the last week, defined as 'from Monday to Sunday', giving the exact date Y Y Y N N Y N N
The reference period of job search is clearly specified
- as the past four weeks including the reference week Y N Y P P P P P
The reference period of job search methods is clearly specified
- as the past four weeks including the reference week Y Y Y P P P P N
The reference period of availability is clearly specified
- as the period until the end of the two weeks following the reference week Y N Y N Y N N N
Is the principle respected? YPYNPPNN
7 All persons who were asked the questions on employment and were identified as having no job
- are asked the question on job search Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Is the principle respected? YYYYYYYY
8 The question on job search
- refers to any effort, even irregular, to find work, i.e. the wording does not suggest that only a 
continuous search throughout the entire reference period is considered as a sufficient condition for job searchYYYYYYYY
Is the principle respected? YYYYYYYY
9 The question on job search methods contains
- active search methods Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
- and passive search methods N Y Y Y Y Y Y YIs the principle respected? NYYYYYYY
10 The 'contact with the public employment office to find work"
- is included as the first (response category in the) question on job search methods Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
- is distinct from the renewal of a registration to claim unemployment benefits Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y
- is distinct from the assistance provided by the employment office to improve the employability 
of the registered unemployed personYYYYNYNY
Is the principle respected? YYYYPYPY
11 The questions on job search methods are asked
- until at least three active methods are recorded as having been used by the respondent Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Is the principle respected? YYYYYYYY
12 For persons who are currently not employed and who are not looking for a job because they have already fo und a job wh ich will s tart later
- there exists a question on the starting date of that job (within 3 months/after more than 3 
months)YNYYYYYY
Is the principle respected? YNYYYYYY
 
EN 37   EN YEAR 2007 MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK
1 The questions on the labour status
- are in general the first questions on the individual questionnaire N N Y Y Y Y N Y
- immediately follow the questions on the demographic characteristics of the household 
membersNNYYYYNY
- are not preceded by questions on the main or the usual activity N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
- are not preceded by questions on the registration at the public employment office N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Is the principle respected? NPYYYYPY
2 The sequence of questions on employment consists of at least two separate questions,
- one on currently working Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y
- and another on having a job when being temporarily absent from work Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y- and the question on being at work precedes the question on having a job Y - Y Y Y Y Y Y
The identification of lay-offs and their classification as em ployed (or unemployed) persons depends on two conditions of formal  job attachment:
- an assurance of return to work after the end of the contingency N N Y Y N Y N N
   (- continues to receive 50% or more of the salary) Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y- and the short duration (<=3 months) of the suspension of the labour contract Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y
Is the principle respected? YPYYPYYY
3 The questions on employment
- contain a cue for the identification of persons with a minor job a few or even one hour Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
The questions on job search
- contain a cue for the identification of persons with a minor job a few or even one hour N Y Y N N Y N N
Is the principle respected? PYYPPYPP
4 The questions on employment
- contain a cue for the identification of unpaid family workers
- unpaid family workers are identified by a separate question about being at work N Y Y YIs the principle respected? NYYYYYYY
5 The questions on employment
- clearly indicate that only work for pay or profit is considered as an economic activity Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Is the principle respected? YYYYYYYY
6 The reference period of employment is clearly specified
- as the last week, defined as 'from Monday to Sunday', giving the exact date N N Y N Y Y N Y
The reference period of job search is clearly specified
- as the past four weeks including the reference week P P Y Y Y P P P
The reference period of job search methods is clearly specified
- as the past four weeks including the reference week N P Y P Y Y P P
The reference period of availability is clearly specified
- as the period until the end of the two weeks following the reference week N N Y N Y Y N Y
Is the principle respected? NNYPYYNY
7 All persons who were asked the questions on employment and were identified as having no job
- are asked the question on job search Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y
Is the principle respected? YNYYYYYY
8 The question on job search
- refers to any effort, even irregular, to find work, i.e. the wording does not suggest that only a 
continuous search throughout the entire reference period is considered as a sufficient condition for job searchYYYYYYYY
Is the principle respected? YYYYYYYY
9 The question on job search methods contains
- active search methods Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
- and passive search methods N Y Y Y N Y Y YIs the principle respected? NYYYNYYY
10 The 'contact with the public employment office to find work"
- is included as the first (response category in the) question on job search methods Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
- is distinct from the renewal of a registration to claim unemployment benefits N N Y Y Y Y Y N
- is distinct from the assistance provided by the employment office to improve the employability 
of the registered unemployed personNNYYYYYN
Is the principle respected? PPYYYYYP
11 The questions on job search methods are asked
- until at least three active methods are recorded as having been used by the respondent Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Is the principle respected? YYYYYYYY
12 For persons who are currently not employed and who are not looking for a job because they have already fo und a job wh ich will s tart later
- there exists a question on the starting date of that job (within 3 months/after more than 3 
months)YYYYYYNY
Is the principle respected? YYYYYYNY
 
EN 38   EN YEAR 2007 FI SE UK HR MK TR IS NO CH
1 The questions on the labour status
- are in general the first questions on the individual questionnaire YYNNYYYYY
- immediately follow the questions on the demographic characteristics of the household 
members- - NNYY - - Y
-  a r e  n o t  p r e c e d e d  b y  q u e s t i o n s  o n  t h e  m a i n  o r  t h e  u s u a l  a c t i v i t y YYYNYYYYY
-  a r e  n o t  p r e c e d e d  b y  q u e s t i o n s  o n  t h e  r e g i s t r a t i o n  a t  t h e  p u b l i c  e m p l o y m e n t  o f f i c e YYYYYYYYY
Is the principle respected? YYPNYYYYY
2 The sequence of questions on employment consists of at least two separate questions,
-  o n e  o n  c u r r e n t l y  w o r k i n g YYYYYYYYY
-  a n d  a n o t h e r  o n  h a v i n g  a  j o b  w h e n  b e i n g  t e m p o r a r i l y  a b s e n t  f r o m  w o r k YYYYYYYYY-  a n d  t h e  q u e s t i o n  o n  b e i n g  a t  w o r k  p r e c e d e s  t h e  q u e s t i o n  o n  h a v i n g  a  j o b YYYYYYYYY
The identification of lay-offs and their classification as employed (or unemployed) persons depends on two conditions of formal  job attachment:
-  a n  a s s u r a n c e  o f  r e t u r n  t o  w o r k  a f t e r  t h e  e n d  o f  t h e  c o n t i n g e n c y YYNYNNNNN
   (- continues to receive 50% or more of the salary) N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y- and the short duration (<=3 months) of the suspension of the labour contract YYYYYYYYY
Is the principle respected? YYYYYYYYY
3 The questions on employment
-  c o n t a i n  a  c u e  f o r  t h e  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n  o f  p e r s o n s  w i t h  a  m i n o r  j o b  a  f e w  o r  e v e n  o n e  h o u r YYNNYYYYY
The questions on job search
-  c o n t a i n  a  c u e  f o r  t h e  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n  o f  p e r s o n s  w i t h  a  m i n o r  j o b  a  f e w  o r  e v e n  o n e  h o u r NYNNNNNYN
Is the principle respected? PYNNPPPYP
4 The questions on employment
- contain a cue for the identification of unpaid family workers
- unpaid family workers are identified by a separate question about being at work Y Y Y Y YIs the principle respected? YYYYYYYYY
5 The questions on employment
-  c l e a r l y  i n d i c a t e  t h a t  o n l y  w o r k  f o r  p a y  o r  p r o f i t  i s  c o n s i d e r e d  a s  a n  e c o n o m i c  a c t i v i t y YYYYYYYYY
Is the principle respected? YYYYYYYYY
6 The reference period of employment is clearly specified
- as the last week, defined as 'from Monday to Sunday', giving the exact date YYYNNYNYN
The reference period of job search is clearly specified
-  a s  t h e  p a s t  f o u r  w e e k s  i n c l u d i n g  t h e  r e f e r e n c e  w e e k Y Y YPPPPYP
The reference period of job search methods is clearly specified
- as the past four weeks including the reference week Y Y Y P P N P P P
The reference period of availability is clearly specified
-  a s  t h e  p e r i o d  u n t i l  t h e  e n d  o f  t h e  t w o  w e e k s  f o l l o w i n g  t h e  r e f e r e n c e  w e e k NYYNNNNYY
Is the principle respected? PYYNNPNYP
7 All persons who were asked the questions on employment and were identified as having no job
-  a r e  a s k e d  t h e  q u e s t i o n  o n  j o b  s e a r c h YYYYYYYYY
Is the principle respected? YYYYYYYYY
8 The question on job search
- refers to any effort, even irregular, to find work, i.e. the wording does not suggest that only a 
continuous search throughout the entire reference period is considered as a sufficient condition for job searchYYYYYYYYY
Is the principle respected? YYYYYYYYY
9 The question on job search methods contains
- active search methods YYYYYYYYY
- and passive search methods YYYYYYYYY
Is the principle respected? YYYYYYYYY
10 The 'contact with the public employment office to find work"
- is included as the first (response category in the) question on job search methods YYYYYNYYY
-  i s  d i s t i n c t  f r o m  t h e  r e n e w a l  o f  a  r e g i s t r a t i o n  t o  c l a i m  u n e m p l o y m e n t  b e n e f i t s YYYYNNNYN
- is distinct from the assistance provided by the employment office to improve the 
employability of the registered unemployed personYYYYNNYNN
Is the principle respected? YYYYPNPPP
11 The questions on job search methods are asked
- until at least three active methods are recorded as having been used by the respondent YYYYYYYYY
Is the principle respected? YYYYYYYYY
12 For persons who are currently not employed and who are not looking for a job because they have already found a job which will s tart later
- there exists a question on the starting date of that job (within 3 months/after more than 3 
months)YYYYYYYYY
Is the principle respected? YYYYYYYYY
EN 39   EN ANNEX II — Imputation of relative standard error 
 Imputation of relative standard error for regional annual averages 
 
)1 ()} 2 3( 1{19ˆ) 1( ˆ)3,(3, )2,(2, )1,(1, 21
−+ + +−=+ + + + + +
hkkh kk kkh kk kkh kk
h h hnKr o r o r odf c   
where  
hh
hNnfˆ= nh is the annual average number of respondents aged 15-74 in region h,  
hNˆis 
the annual average of populat ion aged 15-74 in region h as estimated from the LFS , 
 
)} 2 3( 1){ 1)( 1()1 (ˆ
)3,(3, )2,(2, )1,(1, 212
+ + + + + + + + +−−−=
kkh kk kkh kk kkh kk h hh hh
hr o r o r o p fnKcpd (estimated design 
effect in region h), ch is the coefficient of variation in region h as given by the Participating 
Country, ph is the proportion of une mployed persons in region h (of all persons aged 15-74 in 
region h), K is the number of quarters (estimates) during the year, ok,k+t is the proportion of 
sample overlapping between quarters k and k+t,  
22
)t,(
)t,(
h hh kkh
kkhp pp pr−−=+
+  (correlation of 
unemployment between quarter k and k+t), ph(k,k+t) is the proportion of persons unemployed 
both in quarter k and k+t as estimated from the characteristic duration of unemployment . 
When the coefficients of variation ( ch) are provided by countries, the equation for the relative 
standard error reduces to  
hhh
hpcpc−=′
119ˆ2
. If no variance data are available for the region for 
one year, data for the previous or the follo wing year are used (e.g. 2007 data as proxy for 
2006 data and vice versa). If no data are ava ilable either for 2006 or for 2007, the design 
effect (average national quarterly estima tes) as calculated below is assumed. 
 Imputation of relative standard err or for change between 2 quarters 
 
,1) 1(38ˆ) 1( ˆ1,
1,−−−=+
+nodf ckk
kk where  
Nnfˆ= ,  
 ,) 1)( 1()1(ˆ2
p fncpd−−−=  and  c is the average of 
the quarterly coefficients provided by the participa ting countries and  p is the average number 
of unemployed persons during th e year divided by the estimat ed average population aged 15-
74. If no coefficients are provide d, a design effect of 2 is assu med. When the coefficients of 
variation ( cq) are provided by count ries, the equation for the relati ve standard error reduces to 
 
.1) 1( 38ˆ1,2
1,po cpckk
kk−−=′+
+
 
EN 40   EN ANNEX III – Implementation of a yearly s ub-sample to survey structural variables  
STRUCTURAL VARIABLES
quar-
ters wavesquar-
ters wavesquar-
ters wavesquar-
ters wavesquar-
ters wavesquar-
ters waves
Relationship to reference person all all all all all 6 all 6 all all all all
Sequence number of spouse all all all all all 6 all 6 all all all allSequence number of father all all all all all 6 all 6 all all all allSequence number of mother all all all all all 6 all 6 all all all allMarital status all all all all all 6 all 6 all all all allYears of residence in the country all all all all all 6 until Q3. all all all all all allSupervisory responsibilities all 10% of total sample all 10% of total sample all 6 all 6 all all all allNumber of persons working at the local 
unitall all all all all 6 all 6 all all all all
Involvement of public employment service 
in finding the current joball 10% of total sample all 10% of total sample all 6 all 6 all all all all
Reasons for part-time work all all all all all 6 all 6 all all all all
Reasons for temporary job all all all all all 6 all 6 all all all allContract with a temporary employment 
agencyall 10% of total sample all 10% of total sample all 6 all 6 all all all all
Shift work all all all all all 6 all 6 all all all all
Evening work all all all all all 6 all 6 all all all allNight work all all all all all 6 all 6 all all all allSaturday work all all all all all 6 all 6 all all all allSunday work all all all all all 6 all 6 all all all allWay a person wants to work more hours all all all all all 6 all 6 all all all all
Working at home all all all all all 6 all 6 all all all all
Reasons for looking for another job all all all all all 6 all 6 all all all allMain reason for leaving last job or 
businessall all all all all 6 all 6 all all all all
Professional status in last job all all all all all all all all all all all all
Economic activity of local unit in which 
person last workedall all all all all all all all all all all all
Occupation of last job all all all all all all all all
Reasons why person has not sought work all all all all all 6 all 6 all all all all
Reasons for not being available to start 
work within 2 weeksall all all all all 6 all 6 all all all all
Situation of person immediately before 
starting to seek employmentall all all all all 6 all 6
Lack of care facilities all 10% of total sample all 10% of total sample all 6 all 6 all all all all
Registration at public employment office all all all all all 6 all 6 all all all all
Main status (optional) all 6 all 6 all all all all
Field of education in the last 4 weeks 
(optional)all 6 all 6 all all all all
Purpose of the most recent course 
(optional)all all all all all 6 all 6 all all all all
Field of the most recent taught activity 
(optional)all all all all all 6 all 6 all all all all
Most recent taught activity during working 
hours (optional)all all all all
Field of highest level of education 
completedall all all all all 6 all 6 all all all all
Year when highest level of education was 
completedall all all all all 6 all 6 all all all all
Main labour status one year before all all all all all 6 all 6 all 1 all all
Professional status one year before all all all all all 6 all 6 all 1 all allEconomic activity of local unit in which 
person was working one year beforeall all all all all 6 all 6 all 1 all all
Country of residence one year before all all all all all 6 all 6 all 1 all all
Region of residence one year before all all all all all 6 all 6 all 1 all all
Monthly pay from main job (optional) all 1 and 6 all 1 and 6not surveyed
not surveyednot surveyed
not surveyed
not surveyed not surveyed not surveyed not surveyednot surveyed
not surveyed
not surveyednot surveyed
not surveyed
not surveyedGermany
2006 2007Spain
2006 2007France
2006 2007
not surveyed not surveyed
 
EN 41   EN STRUCTURAL VARIABLES
quar-
ters wavesquar-
ters wavesquar-
ters wavesquar-
ters wavesquar-
ters wavesquar-
ters wavesquar-
ters wavesquar-
ters waves
Relationship to reference person all all all all all 5 all 5 all all all all all all all all
Sequence number of spouse all all all all all 5 all 5 all all all all all allSequence number of father all all all all all 5 all 5 all all all all all allSequence number of mother all all all all all 5 all 5 all all all all all allMarital status all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all allYears of residence in the country all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all allSupervisory responsibilities all 1 all 1 all all all allNumber of persons working at the local 
unitall all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all
Involvement of public employment service 
in finding the current joball 1 all 1 all all all all all 1 and 8 all 1 and 8
Reasons for part-time work all 1 all 1 all all all all 2 all 2 all all 1 and 8 all 1 and 8
Reasons for temporary job all all all all all all all all all all all all all 1 and 8 all 1 and 8Contract with a temporary employment 
agencyall all all all all all all all all 1 and 8 all 1 and 8
Shift work all 1 all 1 all all all all 2 all 2 all all 1 and 8 all 1 and 8
Evening work all 1 all 1 all all all all 2 all 2 all all 1 and 8 all 1 and 8Night work all 1 all 1 all all all all 2 all 2 all all 1 and 8 all 1 and 8Saturday work all 1 all 1 all all all all 2 all 2 all all 1 and 8 all 1 and 8Sunday work all 1 all 1 all all all all 2 all 2 all all 1 and 8 all 1 and 8Way a person wants to work more hours all all all all all all all all all all all all all 1 and 8 all 1 and 8
Working at home all all all all all all all all 2 all 2 all all 1 and 8 all 1 and 8
Reasons for looking for another job all all all all all all all all 2 all 2 all all 1 and 8 all 1 and 8Main reason for leaving last job or 
businessall 1 all 1 all all all all all all all all all 1 and 8 all 1 and 8
Professional status in last job all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all
Economic activity of local unit in which 
person last workedall all all all all all all all all all all all all 1 and 8 all 1 and 8
Occupation of last job all all all all all all all all all 1 and 8 all 1 and 8
Reasons why person has not sought work all all all all all all all all 4 all 4 all all 1 and 8 all 1 and 8
Reasons for not being available to start 
work within 2 weeksall all all all all all all all all all all all all 1 and 8 all 1 and 8
Situation of person immediately before 
starting to seek employmentall 1 all 1 all all all all all all all all all 1 and 8 all 1 and 8
Lack of care facilities all 1 all 1 4 all 4 all all 1 and 8 all 1 and 8
Registration at public employment office all all all all all all all all all all all all
Main status (optional) all 1 all 1 all all all all
Field of education in the last 4 weeks 
(optional)all all all all all all all all
Purpose of the most recent course 
(optional)all all all all all all all all all all all all
Field of the most recent taught activity 
(optional)all all all all all all all all
Most recent taught activity during working 
hours (optional)all 1 all 1 all all all all all all all all
Field of highest level of education 
completedall all all all all all all all all all all all all 1 and 8 all 1 and 8
Year when highest level of education was 
completedall all all all all all all all all all all all
Main labour status one year before all 1 all 1 2 all all 5 2 all 2 all all 1 and 8 all 1 and 8
Professional status one year before all 1 all 1 2 all all 5 2 all 2 all all 1 and 8 all 1 and 8Economic activity of local unit in which 
person was working one year beforeall 1 all 1 2 all all 5 2 all 2 all all 1 and 8 all 1 and 8
Country of residence one year before all 1 all 1 2 all all 5 2 all 2 all
Region of residence one year before all 1 all 1 2 all all 5 2 all 2 all
Monthly pay from main job (optional)2006 2007 2006 2007
not surveyed not surveyednot surveyednot surveyedUnited Kingdom
2006 2007Netherlands Norway Finland
2006 2007
not surveyed not surveyednot surveyednot surveyed not surveyed
not surveyednot surveyed not surveyed
not surveyed
not surveyed
not surveyed not surveyed
not surveyed not surveyednot surveyednot surveyed
not surveyednot surveyed
not surveyed
not surveyed
not surveyednot surveyed
not surveyednot surveyed
not surveyed
not surveyed
not surveyednot surveyednot surveyed
not surveyed
not surveyednot surveyed
not surveyed
not surveyed
not surveyednot surveyed
not surveyed
not surveyed
not surveyed
not surveyed
not surveyednot surveyed
not surveyed