No C 95/12 Official Journal of the European Communities 11. 4. 88 
Opinion on cross-frontier labour market problems 
(88/C 95/06) 
On 27 November 1986 the Economic and Social Committee (ESC), acting under the fourth 
paragraph of Article 20 of its rules of procedure, decided to draw up an Opinion on cross-
frontier labour market problems. 
The Section for Social, Family, Educational and Cultural Affairs, which was responsible for 
preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 11 February 1988. 
The rapporteur was Mr. Vercellino. 
At its 253rd plenary session (meeting of 25 February 1988), the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following Opinion by a majority vote, with two abstentions. 
CROSS-FRONTIER LABOUR MARKET PROBLEMS 
1. Purpose and theme of the survey 
1.1. At this important juncture in the history of the 
Community, following the adoption of the Single Act 
and looking ahead to the goal of the internal market 
in 1992, the ESC felt that as part of its work on the 
development of the Community, it should draw up an 
own-initiative Opinion on cross-frontier labour market 
problems. The Opinion is backed by a report containing 
further nformation and data. The Committee feels it 
must draw the attention of the European Parliament, 
Commission and Council to situations in frontier areas 
which reveal a low level of integration and which may 
presage even wider difficulties in the future unless rapid 
action is taken to remedy them. 
1.2. The Committee's assessment proved extremely 
difficult, because of both the considerable complexity 
of the subject and the general unavailability of complete 
and up-to-date statistics, the differing methods used by 
Member States to chart cross-frontier employment, and 
the lack of coordination between the bodies concerned 
with the various aspects of the problem. It was immedi­
ately clear that serious problems existed—albeit in 
differing forms—at both the Community's internal and 
external frontiers. The available data have been 
reinforced by the Study Group's meetings and working 
trips to some of the more representative frontier areas. 
The analyses and the ten seminars conducted by Com­
mission DG V during 1987 on employment in these 
areas have also been of considerable assistance. 1.3. The Committee's survey has concluded: 
— that the situation in frontier areas has been seriously 
underestimated. The proposals made by the ESC (*), 
the European Parliament, and the relevant interest 
groups and authorities have largely fallen on deaf 
ears, 
— that the problem is no longer a limited or peripheral 
matter of concern only to workers (employed or 
self-employed) and businessmen moving across 
frontiers; increasingly, it is coming to embrace the 
activity, legislation, and collective bargaining of the 
public authorities and two sides of industry at the 
various levels: regional, national, bilateral, Com­
munity, extra-Community. 
1.4. The Committee has decided that the situation 
calls for a stronger commitment and firmer decisions. 
Accordingly, it has drawn up some general conclusions 
and proposals for the attention of the Commission, the 
Council, the Member States, the regional authorities, 
and the relevant economic and social interest groups. 
The Committee considers that the special relevance of 
the EEC's frontier areas makes the implementation of 
these proposals of particular importance, and feels that 
they can play a key role in the completion of the internal 
market by 1992. 
2. Impact and characteristics of the cross-frontier 
labour markets 
2.1. Over the years, conditions in the Community's 
cross-frontier labour market catchment areas (i.e. the 
(*) Cf. Its Opinions on frontier workers (January 1979), labour 
market instruments (February 1982), migrant workers (1985), 
and other Opinions on the various aspects of social and 
employment policy. 
11. 4. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 95/13 
problems and discrepancies which are particularly acute 
in such areas) have received more and more attention 
from social interest groups, public authorities, and the 
residents of the areas concerned. There is good reason 
for this. The border areas have a population of 
48 million, or over 15% of the Community's total 
population. Although their local features differ greatly, 
these areas—which too many people still deem per­
ipheral—are a bilateral, transnational and Community-
level embodiment of joint and varied interests and 
contradictions. While the working and living aspir­
ations of residents and workers remain unfulfilled, new 
problems arise: unemployment in the EEC remains 
high, and new or unstable living and working con­
ditions which often hit the elderly and other disadvan­
taged groups are spreading. 
2.2. The ESC, the European Parliament and the 
Commission have repeatedly stressed the close links 
between the Community's employment and social prob­
lems and the response to these problems in frontier 
areas. It is here, more than elsewhere, that people's 
daily lives are affected directly by the continuing failure 
to harmonize national placement services, social secur­
ity provisions, vocational training, and collective labour 
agreements. As the areas where these problems are 
concentrated and their impact heightened, frontier areas 
typify the difficulties involved in building a true Com­
munity. Their special transnational character and var­
iety make these areas a microcosm of the key issues 
underpinning European integration and the achieve­
ment of the Community's current three political, insti­
tutional and socio-economic objectives: rapid 
implementation of the Single Act, completion of the 
internal market by 1992, and better living standards, 
working conditions and opportunities for all. 
2.3. Consideration of the cross-frontier and transna­
tional aspects of the EEC labour market thus cannot 
confine itself to the problems of frontier workers; nor 
can it cover all the Community's employment problems. 
It can best focus on the most serious practical problems 
currently besetting the labour market in these areas — 
problems which for various reasons remain unsolved 
or have been solved unsatisfactorily, and which include 
the absence of or failure to implement bilateral agree­
ments and Community Directives and measures. 2.4. The Committee considers that the mobility of 
labour and the integration of manufacturing, infrastruc­
ture and service activities which have developed in 
frontier areas must be viewed as both complex and 
contradictory; yet they are also necessary and healthy, 
and can and must help to provide rational, practical 
solutions for economic and employment problems at 
both local and Community level. They thus deserve 
support, and need to be better regulated in order to 
overcome their adverse effects (without prejudicing the 
positive ones) on local residents, workers, and busi­
nesses. These inequalites and distortions are largely 
due to the inadequacy or absence of safeguards and 
guarantees. 
3. New factors and experiences 
The Committee's analysis and proposals focus on four 
main topics. 
3.1. The different types of cross-frontier cooperation 
3.1.1. Firstly, frontier areas are already gaining sig­
nificant experience of bilateral and multilateral cooper­
ation on problems of joint interest (employment, econ­
omic questions, infrastructure, cultural affairs). There 
are already a number of bilateral and multilateral agree­
ments, experiences and other forms of joint measure, 
between local, regional and national bodies. These have 
their own flexible formats (committees or com­
missions), and meet regularly to cover a wide range of 
topics: from employment to the environment, from 
nuclear power to local and border problems, from 
drainage to nature parks, from frontier workers to 
taxation, and from social security to the special prob­
lems of Alpine regions. 
3.1.2. Of considerable interest is the Council of 
Europe's work in this field. As well as instituting coop­
eration between frontier areas, the Council has, after 
years of patient negotiations, drawn up a European 
Outline Convention (already signed and/or ratified by 
almost all the EC Member States) on Transfrontier 
Cooperation between territorial communities or autho­
rities. In addition to cross-frontier labour issues, the 
Convention covers administrative, legal, economic, 
social, cultural, environmental, fiscal and other prob­
lems inherent in cooperation. 
3.1.3. The European Community has promoted 
forms of cooperation such as the 'Meuse-Rhine Euregio' 
No C 95/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 11.4.88 
embracing local organizations and agencies from the 
frontier areas of the Netherlands, Germany and 
Belgium and the 'Saar-Lor-Lux' (straddling the borders 
of Germany, Luxembourg, France and Belgium) to dis­
cuss and plan initiatives and work together on matters 
of joint interest (economic, frontier workers, vocational 
training and technical refresher courses, energy, the 
environment, etc.). The Commission has recently 
granted funds and aid to a European growth area 
project ('European Development Pole') covering 
Longwy (France), Athus (Belgium) and Rodange (Lux­
embourg), and agreements have been concluded on 
development, fiscal and customs problems. However, 
meetings with Euregio representatives and with those 
of the Italian-Swiss, Italian-French, and Spanish-Portu­
guese frontier areas, to name a few, revealed that Com­
munity and Member State support needs to be better 
coordinated and stepped up in order to reflect the 
importance of the initiatives and efforts being made 
and supported by the Commission. 
3.1.4. In recent years, cooperation has also been 
stepped up between the trade unions of the main EC 
frontier areas, with the creation of nine inter-regional 
trade union councils. These are highly active in a num­
ber of fields, and deal not only with cross-frontier 
labour but also with the various labour market prob­
lems in nine frontier areas: Saar, Lorraine, Luxembourg 
(1976); Liege, Aachen, Maastricht (1978); Northern 
Netherlands, Weser-Ems (1979); South Baden, Basle, 
Upper Rhine (1980); Rhine, Essel, Ems (1980); Calais, 
West Flanders, Hainaut (1981); Lombardy, Ticino 
(1982); Eastern Pyrenees, Western Mediterranean 
(1983); Galicia, Northern Portugal (1987). Other inter­
regional trade union councils are being set up in the 
Piedmont, Rhone and Alps border area, and between 
Italy and Austria. 
3.1.5. Mention should also be made of the many 
useful initiatives taken over the last ten to fifteen years 
to protect the environment in border areas with a 
particularly high concentration of industry or which 
are particularly exposed to pollution. These receive 
both local and Community funding, with the establish­
ment of coordinating instruments, infrastructure and 
jobs. Examples are found in the border areas of Ger­
many, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Italy and 
Switserland (cf. the Community conference on the 
European Year of the environment). 
3.1.6. Each frontier area is highly individual in its 
history, characteristics, and future prospects. A strict 
classification is thus not possible. However, certain 
common factors and trends can be used to define the 
following broad categories: highly industrialized fron­
tier areas, or those where industry is in decline and 
being restructured; more highly developed areas which attract workers from less developed or mainly agricul­
tural areas; areas with an out-flow to non-Member 
States (Switzerland, Austria) or an in-flow from them 
(Yugoslavia); and areas which, as well as taking frontier 
and seasonal workers, provide a staging post for larger 
numbers of migrants from less developed regions, 
southern Europe, and the third world. 
3.2. The labour market and completion of the internal 
market 
3.2.1. Secondly, there is the growing awareness that 
specific commitments and employment instruments in 
the Community can and must be made more efficient 
and up-to-date. They must (a) meet the needs of a 
genuine coherent social policy, (b) help achieve more 
effective integration of the Community labour market, 
and (c) support and promote the completion of the 
internal market. A sturdy, dynamic internal market is 
difficult to imagine without a vigorous and flexible 
Community labour market, based on market forces 
and free initiative, and using modern computerized 
management techniques. This must be backed by coher­
ent employment, training and placement policies and 
investment, with equitable treatment of the workforce 
which is the cornerstone and lifeblood of all productive 
activity and of the Community itself. 
3.2.2. The political and economic goal of a Com­
munity internal market unhampered by serious distor-
sions in competition is only feasible if all economic 
categories and workers, starting with the neediest and 
most vulnerable, are guaranteed equal treatment and 
legal certainty in the workplace. Cross-frontier and 
transnational employment is taking a more central pos­
ition on the Community stage as a litmus test of the 
more blatant disparities and broken commitments, and 
of the need for regulation. It can also stimulate the 
reorganization of labour market instruments, making 
maximum use of the dramatic and rapid changes in 
technologies and production, and limiting their adverse 
affects. However two conditions are required for this: 
— The spread of part-time work must be accompanied 
by proper protection, providing an example of the 
need for a radiacal redistribution of employment 
11. 4. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 95/15 
(this being a key factor in development and pro­
gress), organizing work and training in new ways. 
— Workers moving within the Community need pro­
per social security cover; their qualifications must 
be recognized; they must have equal opportunities 
for advancement and they must be informed and 
involved in efforts to solve their problems. 
3.3. A new approach to employment problems 
3.3.1. Thirdly, there is the spread—although still not 
quickly or widely enough—of a new, more concrete 
and comprehensive approach to labour market manage­
ment, and to local and more general employment-pro­
moting measures. Experience has shown that, while 
there is often untapped and under-rated job potential at 
local level, it is not possible (particularly with continued 
high unemployment) to define the various labour mar­
ket needs adequately under the traditional method 
which considers labour supply and demand to be inde­
pendent and homogenous, while market balance is sup­
posedly achieved almost automatically by wage vari­
ations and labour mobility without proper negotiation 
and coordination. A more sophisticated multi-dimen­
sional method is now being adopted. This views the 
local labour market as a flexible 'local system' in which 
the various components of labour supply and demand 
interact and react. Emphasis is placed on the close 
dependence of each local system on both other local 
systems and broader sectors of the employment and 
internal market, and external national, international 
and Community initiatives, influences and measures. 
Of course, this is contingent on improvement, encour­
agement, guidance and balance in and between public 
and private investment for employment initiatives to 
support manufacturing, and the development of infra­
structure and social services. 
3.4. Instruments and administration of placements 
3.4.1. Fourthly, there are the new measures being 
taken by Commission DG V and other DGs to improve 
the operation of instruments for controlling and manag­
ing the labour market. More specifically, this involves 
the implementation at national and local level of the 
Regulation on the free movement of workers, the bilat­eral agreements with third countries on frontier and 
migrant workers, and the movement of workers 
between Member States and developing countries. It 
also covers action to enforce the clauses of the third 
Lome Convention dealing with active involvement of 
management and labour in defining and implementing 
labour agreements and development and cooperation 
projects. 
3.4.2. Experience has confirmed that the public 
instruments for controlling and managing the Com­
munity labour market do not work as well as they 
should, especially in times of emergency or serious 
economic and social tension. The public employment 
services are by no means responsible for all placements. 
Alongside the private agencies which go some way 
towards filling the gap, there are others operating 
illegally. More effective and prompt public measures 
are needed to control these, at both national and Com­
munity level. The Community Sedoc system (*) is not yet 
fully computerized and is little used, if at all, between 
bordering areas and countries to coordinate labour 
supply and demand between Member States and 
regions. The necessary worker mobility (both sectoral 
and geographical) is often achieved without recourse 
to these services. This is not only prejudicial to the 
workers themselves (salary, rights, training, etc.); it also 
flies in the face of Community provisions on the free 
movement of workers, and of more dynamic balanced 
development of both the economy and the employment. 
4. Analysis of employment problems in frontier areas 
4.1. Differences in treatment, legislation, social poli­
cies and infrastructure 
4.1.1. Frontier areas provide a particularly reliable 
indication of how the free movement of workers is 
being implemented, and of the progress made towards 
a common labour market in these areas and in the 
Community as a whole. 
4.1.2. It is symptomatic of these areas—even in those 
countries of which the development levels and pro­
duction range are relatively homogeneous—that signifi­
cant employment and social problems remain. 
(*) Sedoc: European System for the international clearing of 
vacancies and applications for employment. 
No C 95/16 Official Journal of the European Communities 11. 4. 88 
4.1.3. In all the various countries, the number of 
frontier workers (around 250 to 300 thousand in the EC) 
and the movement of other workers remain difficult to 
assess, despite their volume. The figures provided often 
underestimate the situation. This is because employ­
ment offices have hitherto rarely been informed of 
labour demand in bordering areas, or of vacancies in 
their own areas. When they are in a position to provide 
information, this is often inadequate as regards actual 
working conditions, skills required, and pay. Recruit­
ment is generally carried out via intermediaries, and 
workers often do not know who their employer will 
be, especially in construction and assembly work. Tem­
porary, unregulated and ill-protected work is on the 
increase, while more stable and better organized jobs 
are decreasing. Dubious forms of contract exist where­
by, for example, workers resident in one country are 
recruited by companies in neighbouring countries with 
no registered office in the first country, operating there 
under cover of contracts and cooperation agreements 
with other companies. They are thus not bound by any 
controls or safeguards, as labour inspectors and the 
local courts have no jurisdiction on territorial grounds. 
4.1.4. Frontier workers are virtually cut off from 
vocational training. Such training is often confined to 
the unemployed, and is organized either by training 
centres or in-company. When they become unemployed, 
frontier workers from neighbouring countries cease to 
be the concern of the authorities of the country in which 
they were working. Almost invariably, their job skills 
and qualifications only count if they have sufficient 
bargaining power to back them up. Some national laws 
even effectively deny frontier and some other categories 
of workers the right to the same vocational training 
conditions as other workers. Recents studies have con­
firmed that many workers in frontier areas do not have 
adequate or recognized training and skills. Most of 
them are young people or women with temporary or 
seasonal jobs in industry or services. 
4.1.5. It is disturbing that measures taken by some 
governments to improve the labour market exclude 
frontier workers as such, e.g. early retirement, career-
breaks and other benefits. A recent Commission reply 
(28 April 1987) to Written Question No 2665/86 con­
firms that national early retirement legislation is com­
pletely incompatible with the right to free movement. 
In 1980, the Commission sent the Council a draft Regu­
lation designed to allow those taking early retirement 
to live in another Member State. Unfortunately, the Council has not yet adopted this, because it has failed 
to reach a unanimous decision as required by Article 
51 of the Treaty (OJ No C 226, 24. 8. 1987). Frontier 
workers are excluded from other key provisions because 
of residence requirements. A case in point is the statu­
tory old-age pension provided by the legislation of one 
Member State. This is paid at retirement age to people 
who have either not worked long enough to qualify for 
an occupational retirement pension or whose pension 
falls below the minimum. 
4.1.6. In general, proposals and measures have given 
far too little attention and commitment to the specific 
and general problems directly linked to the treatment 
of frontier workers, seasonal workers, and other wor­
kers and self-employed people in frontier areas. 
4.1.7. Attempts to solve social security problems in 
frontier areas still too often fall foul of narrow 
interpretations of Community regulations, differing 
national systems and the lack of coordination between 
legislation and between the relevant services in the 
various Member States. 
4.1.7.1. Frontier workers pay social security contri­
butions in their country of employment, but they some­
times have the right to claim benefits either in the 
country of employment or in that of residence. This 
creates a variety of situations for workers, and even 
more so for dependent relatives, whose social security 
cover will vary with the country of employment. EC 
Member States can be divided into two main groups: 
those where social security contributions and benefits 
are high, and those where they are low. Thus a frontier 
worker employed in a country belonging to the first 
group but living in a country in the second group is 
distinctly worse off than his fellow workers. Eligibility 
criteria for some benefits vary enormously: possible 
qualifying period; number of days to have been worked; 
unfitness for work or invalidity; duration and level of 
benefits in the various countries; retirement age, and so 
on. 
4.1.7.2. In this type of situation, the periodic adop­
tion of stop-gap provisions is too often the only 
response of the Member States to practical failures. 
Unemployment and early retirement benefits are a typi­
cal example: in some cases workers employed in a 
neighbouring country draw these benefits in their own 
country while frontier workers from a neighbouring 
country often enjoy no such arrangements. Some Mem­
ber States make unilateral and incorrect use of Regu-
11. 4. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 95/17 
lation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social 
security schemes to employed persons and their families 
moving within the Community, and in particular of 
Article 8 which allows Member States to adopt alterna­
tives provisions in certain cases. For example, Title III 
of the Regulation covers sickness and maternity benefits 
payable under the Member States' social security 
schemes. However, it has not yet been backed by a 
common clear definition of sickness and maternity, 
binding in all Member States. Different countries thus 
have differing definitions of 'paid employment' and of 
insurance benefits for incapacity to work or invalidity. 
4.1.7.3. Frontier and other workers are very con­
cerned that, despite Community regulations, some 
countries manage to block or restrict benefits provided 
under sickness insurance. This concern is more than 
justified, given that these workers pay contributions 
which should entitle them to full cover. National autho­
rities often adopt unilateral (not to say arbitrary) 
decisions on this, even including them in bilateral agree­
ments. The shortcomings and inconsistencies of these 
provisions are such that one Member State excludes 
family members (the wife) from benefits and at the 
same times refuses applications for insurance benefits 
under the second country's system, even when the appli­
cant has paid his full contributions there. In these cases, 
the families of frontier and other workers are virtually 
deprived of invalidity and similar benefits. This is a 
clear example of abuse which cannot possibly be justi­
fied even by a vague and misplaced desire to cut spend­
ing, particularly when the worker concerned has paid 
all his contributions. 
4.2. Legal aspects: shortcomings, disputes and legal 
uncertainty 
4.2.1. Frontier workers fall under two sets of 
national legislation which often overlap and which take 
no account of the impact on each other, and which in 
any case may always develop differently. As the aim of 
the law is to avoid legal uncertainty, this is a completely 
anomalous situation. If properly applied, Community 
regulations provide the means to overcome these diver­
gences in social security. However, they are rarely of 
assistance as regards labour legislation. 4.2.2. Apart from a few major directives incorpor­
ated into the various national legislations (equal pay 
for equal work, guarantees in the case of mergers or 
take-overs, temporary work, etc.), Community pro­
visions leave too much to the discretion of national 
legislators. Working conditions and pay differ from 
sector to sector even within the same Member State, 
and the legal provisions and clauses of work contracts 
differ greatly from one Member State to the next (pro­
bationary periods, renewal of temporary contracts, 
rules on dismissals, period of notice, etc.). These legal 
divergences create tricky situations for workers who 
are ill-informed and inadequately protected either in 
their own country or in their country of employment. 
In many cases this has a serious impact on their social, 
family and financial circumstances. It also distorts com­
petition and encourages speculative business practices, 
and the use of intermediaries and fictitious companies. 
This is prejudicial to legal certainty and to a healthy 
labour market in frontier areas, and thus thwarts the 
economic and social aims of the common market. 
4.2.3. Legal problems in frontier areas are equally 
complex. A worker who feels that his rights have been 
infringed can appeal only to the relevant labour tri­
bunal. This often means having to initiate litigation in 
a country where the worker does not reside or no longer 
works. This is an extremely daunting task for people 
with no experience of these matters, particularly as the 
organizations which could provide assistance (social 
services, trade unions) are also organized on national 
lines. Furthermore, the deadlines for lodging appeals 
on social matters are extremely tight, and vary from 
one country to the next (often just one month). There 
is thus a risk that action will be statute-barred before 
the plaintiff has time to get organized. In areas where 
more than two countries share common borders, it is 
quite common for a worker from one country to be 
employed in another country by an employer from a 
third country. In the event of a dispute, the workers 
would have to initiate proceedings at the labour tribunal 
of his place of work. After the judgement had been 
handed down, he would then have to take enforcement 
proceedings at the labour tribunal of the country in 
which his employer is resident. 
4.2.4. Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 on 
freedom of movement for workers (OJ No L 257, 
19. 10. 1968) provides for regular exchange of job 
vacancies and applications between neighbouring 
States. However, this often remains a dead letter 
through lack of commitment or good will, and frontier 
areas suffer particularly as a result. 
No C 95/18 Official Journal of the European Communities 11. 4. 88 
5. Main recommendations and proposals 
5.1. Guarantee of citizens' and workers' rights 
5.1.1. In addition to the EEC Treaty, Regulations 
and Directives, the Committee feels that the judgements 
of the Court of Justice should be accepted as a standard 
authority. A Community publication rightly states that 
the Court has given the term 'worker': 'a very broad 
definition ... The concept covers not only employed 
persons in the strict sense of the word but all those 
with equivalent status. It is not restricted to migrant 
workers or those who are required by their jobs to travel 
... Once allowed in, the person concerned (cannot) be 
treated any differently from the national worker as 
regards conditions of employment' (Court of Justice of 
the European Communities). 
5.1.2. The Committee notes that the Treaty of Rome 
(Articles 48 to 51) and the judgements of the Court of 
Justice give the term 'worker' a general Community 
application extending to all workers, irrespective of 
whether their termes of employment are governed by 
public or private law, and whether they are permanent, 
seasonal, frontier or part-time workers, provided that 
they carry out real, effective activities, excluding those 
which are so limited as to be considered purely marginal 
and accessory. In other words, a frontier worker is 
entitled to the same benefits and tax advantages in the 
country of employment as any other worker, other 
conditions being equal. The Court of Justice has given 
this social law a very broad interpretation. Areas 
covered include contractual and other benefits, financial 
benefits, and benefits in kind. 
5.1.3. A careful examination of the circumstances 
facing frontier workers indicates too many causes for 
dissatisfaction and outstanding problems, all with the 
same root: the failure to implement Community laws 
and regulations properly, and the disparity of the cri­
teria used in Member States' legislations. The result is 
the inequalities and unfulfilled commitments which hit 
frontier workers particularly hard (making eligibility 
subject to nationality or to a residence qualification), 
but which also affect other groups of worker. On top 
of this, their jobs are often ill-protected, physically 
tiring, unhealthy and dangerous, making them more 
vulnerable to industrial accidents and diseases. More stringent monitoring is needed of health and safety in 
the workplace. 
5.1.4. There are a number of possible solutions for 
these inequalities, distortions and failings in the Com­
munity's cross-frontier labour markets, which are of 
wider practical significance for the Community as a 
whole. These might require new implementing pro­
visions and bilateral agreements between Member 
States or with third countries; or the correction of 
existing provisions; or the introduction of new pro­
visions and instruments to cover both employment 
problems and many other sectors of activity, services 
and infrastructure. 
5.2. Role and responsibilities of the Community, 
national and local authorities 
5.2.1. Regardless of their more specific aspects, the 
proposals outlined in this chapter should take strictly 
into account a few basic common criteria which will 
assist their definitive drafting and will ensure their 
speedy implementation: 
— Responsibility of each Member State, 
not only towards its own citizens working in these 
areas but to all those working within its borders. 
National legislation and collective labour agree­
ments can and must be made to apply to all workers 
concerned, who should all qualify for the same 
benefits and guarantees, without creating distor­
tions to the detriment of any persons, the general 
situation, or basic social rights. 
— Joint responsibility of neighbouring 
States for frontier areas. The Com­
munity's frontiers must cease to be divisive barriers, 
and must instead become meeting places and infor­
mation centres, heightening awareness and encour­
aging the highest levels of solidarity and cooper­
ation. We should not aim for an abstract ideal, but 
for proper recognition of the fact that the progress 
(or lack of it) made in employment and other prob­
lems facing these areas provides a picture in micro­
cosm of the progress made or feasible in the individ­
ual countries concerned and the Community at 
large. 
— Joint responsibility of the Member 
States for problems in areas bor­
dering on third countries. The frontiers 
with Switzerland and other third countries should 
be considered as Community frontiers, rather than 
as German, French, Italian, etc. The Member States 
11. 4. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 95/19 
must take joint decisions on negotiations and pro­
posals with third countries. 
— Prompt intervention and better coor­
dination between the Community 
authorities (Parliament, Council, Commission 
and relevant DGs, Economic and Social Committee 
etc.). This basically means measures to make sure 
that Member States, bodies, and individuals respect 
Community provisions and rules which have often 
been evaded or distorted at local, national or multi­
lateral level. 
The proposals which follow are all founded on these 
criteria, even where this is not stated explicitly. 
5.3. Community coordination and cross-frontier coop­
eration 
5.3.1. Much closer, better targeted, and dynamic 
cooperation is needed between public and private 
bodies in frontier areas, with the active participation 
of the national authorities and both sides of industry. 
Cooperation must also be stepped up with non-Member 
States which have common borders with the Com­
munity and share cross-frontier labour. 
5.3.2. More generally, it is in the interest of the 
Community and the Member States to take steps at 
Community, inter-regional and bilateral level to sup­
port and implement as a matter of urgency the Council 
of Europe's outline convention on transfrontier cooper­
ation. Rather than seeking to create new types of coop­
eration or to produce carbon copies of existing Com­
munity initiatives and those taken in conjunction with 
third countries, we should aim to improve coordination 
and help the relevant bodies implement their own pro­
jects whilst respecting their administrative and financial 
independence, in order to achieve concrete results in 
the short and medium term. The exchange of relevant 
information can be improved and speeded up by more 
streamlined procedures and by meetings between 
officials and socio-economic groups to discuss the 
implementation and possible improvement of agree­
ments. 
5.3.3. The implementation and coordination of these 
measures calls for two complementary types of action: 
(a) clearer delegated responsibilities for frontier regions, 
to help them resolve day-to-day disputes and problems, 
and (b) better EEC-level coordination of Community 
and national provisions and the necessary bilateral/ multilateral agreements. This will provide a broader 
formal transnational base for cross-frontier cooper­
ation, both within the EEC and with neighbouring third 
countries. 
5.4. Employment measures and programmes 
5.4.1. In the current paradoxical situation of relative 
recovery but high unemployment (especially among 
young people and women), it is intolerable that the 
absence of employment policies, particularly in frontier 
areas, is considered virtually inevitable. 
5.4.2. A tripartite Community conference should be 
held in the near future to reach a consensus on the 
economic and social measures needed in frontier areas. 
This should take the form of a Community action plan 
to boost employment and improve the organization and 
coordination of the cross-frontier labour market. The 
conference could be preceded by preparatory meetings 
in the various areas. This would also provide a good 
forum for tackling the 'new poverty' and the social 
and cultural marginalization brought about by rising 
unemployment and the lack of prospects for young 
people, ethnic minorities, and other groups. These form 
a problem which will not be solved by traditional 
methods. 
5.4.3. Carefully devised area programmes will be 
needed. These must be interlinked and coordinated 
at national and Community level, with the necessary 
autonomy in decision-making and practical vigour, 
avoiding excessive protectionism and safeguards 
imposed from above. Only by offering proper incentives 
and eschewing red tape will these programmes help to 
speed up the construction of the internal market. They 
should be supported, coordinated and controlled at 
Community level, making the best possible use of the 
employment funds. 
5.4.4. In the meantime, local and national employ­
ment schemes need to be introduced, particularly in the 
neediest areas: declining industrial areas, less developed 
areas, those bordering with third countries, and areas 
in which work needs to be done to improve the environ­
ment, infrastructure, and services such as transport. To 
this end, employment funds could be set up, coordi­
nated and financed either by the Community and the 
Member States concerned or by local and regional 
No C 95/20 Official Journal of the European Communities 11.4.88 
bodies. At the same time more general development 
programmes for these areas could be devised to secure a 
long-term improvement in economic, social and cultural 
infrastructure. 
5.5. Environmental protection and employment 
5.5.1. Environmental protection and improvement is 
an activity which needs to be stepped up in frontier 
areas, and which can help increase employment. How­
ever, measures must be geared to the special dangers 
involved in the transport of dangerous or pollutant 
substances, heavy traffic, and the siting of refuse and 
dangerous waste. 
5.5.2. Measures to help boost employment in frontier 
areas might include grants for cross-frontier public 
investment in the storage and treatment of refuse; the 
removal of dangerous waste left in dumps for long 
periods of time, and the possible recycling of such 
refuse; the protection or creation of wildlife reserves 
and nature parks; the reafforestation of areas affected 
by air pollution; improvement of scenic and cultural 
treasures, and of sites with scientific or tourist potential. 
5.6. Frontier workers and cooperation between place­
ment services 
5.6.1. It is a matter of serious concern that complete, 
up-to-date statistics on frontier workers are still not 
available, and that different authorities in the same 
country sometimes provide differing and even conflict­
ing data. Still more serious is the fact that—despite 
past opinions by the ESC (1979) and the European 
Parliament—mismanagement, inefficiency or lack of 
concrete agreements has meant that frontier workers 
still do not enjoy their full rights as Community workers 
and citizens. This remains the case despite (a) the Com­
munity definition of a frontier worker as a person who 
works in one Member State but lives in another to 
which he returns at least once a week; (b) the Com­
munity's recognition that frontier workers are entitled 
to the same benefits and provisions (including those 
provided for under the EEC Regulation on free move­
ment of workers) as other workers in that country; (c) 
the fact that as Community citizens, frontier workers 
may not be discriminated against on grounds of 
nationality or otherwise when seeking employment. 5.6.2. Community provisions which are unclear or 
incomplete will need to be amended, or supplemented 
by new Community/national provisions. For example, 
many of the problems derive from Commission Regu­
lation 1251/70 on the 'right to remain' (Article 48 of 
the Treaty). This should simplify the introduction of 
any amendments needed to prevent recognition and 
exercise of rights laid down in the Treaty being made 
conditional on residence. These formal changes to pro­
tect frontier workers and other workers in these areas 
could be inserted either in Regulation (EEC) No 1251/ 
70 (e.g. Articles 1 (c), 2 (c), 3 and 6) or in Directive 68/ 
360/EEC. The changes fall within the completion of 
the internal market, whose economic rationale (free 
movement of goods and capital) will have to be 
accompanied by parallel legal, social and political con­
siderations for the Community's citizens. 
5.63. The scale of cross-frontier labour problems 
makes it vital that the relevant Government Depart­
ments provide at Community-level full reliable annual 
statistics on frontier workers, seasonal workers, and 
other categories of employed, self-employed, and tem­
porary workers, at least for the main border areas. The 
statistics should cover numbers, areas, and sectoral 
break-down, as well as the age and skills of the workers 
concerned. This is the only way to keep abreast of 
cross-frontier labour trends and improve the integration 
of these markets, making the best possible use of their 
positive attributes. To this end, cooperation between 
the placement agencies in the various countries needs 
to be broadened and strengthened. Local projects 
should be encouraged and extended, as should recent 
Commission action to computerize and rationalize data 
on job-seekers and vacancies, so as to remedy delays 
and shortcomings. The results should then be assessed 
jointly at Community level. This will be mutually ben­
eficial and will help define and coordinate the measures 
to be taken. 
5.6.4. Cooperation should also be extended to cover 
labour inspectorates, defining duties and responsibilit­
ies at the various levels. It should transcend routine 
cooperation between the inspectorates in the areas con­
cerned: bold decisions must be taken, and responsibilit­
ies assumed at national, multilateral and Community 
level too. Bilateral agreements should be concluded: (a) 
11. 4. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 95/21 
in the absence of Community provisions, (b) with third 
countries, and (c) in cases of serious inefficiency or 
mismanagement. 
5.6.5. Placement services in neighbouring countries 
urgently need to be made more efficient and up-to-date, 
with the cooperation of the other services involved, 
to enable them to supply frontier and other workers 
promptly with clear, complete information about their 
rights and obligations, working conditions, social secur­
ity and taxation, and direct them to the appropriate 
bodies. Procedural points should be spelt out simply 
and clearly in the language of the applicant. 
5.6.6. The Accession Treaty for Spain and Portugal 
defers complete free movement of workers until 1992. 
However, the efforts of the various parties and the 
goodwill of the national, regional and cross-frontier 
authorities could produce a more flexible labour market 
right away. The border regions of Spain and France 
have already demonstrated this informally in the prep­
arations for the Barcelona Olympic games. In the same 
spirit, the relevant authorities and the two sides of 
industry must strive to reach practical agreements; first 
and foremost in frontier areas, on vocational training, 
social security, placements, and other labour market 
questions covered by the EEC Regulation on workers. 
The aim should be to ensure that all the goals scheduled 
for the transitional period can be achieved, in order to 
iron out difficulties and standardize the administration 
of placements, migrant workers and the labour market 
as soon as possible. 
Care must be taken to ensure that: 
— during the transitional period, equal treatment and 
equal rights are not undermined by inequalities, 
injustices or cost disparities (which are not really in 
anyone's interest) for the same type of work, 
Spanish and Portuguese workers do not lose existing 
social rights and conditions, which have been 
enshrined in the practices of national and local 
authorities and other bodies or which have been 
guaranteed under earlier bilateral or international 
agreements, — on the contrary, appropriate ways must be agreed 
of safeguarding and extending existing conditions 
and rights. This is already the case with the 
vocational training courses part-financed by the 
European Social Fund in many Member States; 
these courses were extended a number of years ago 
to non-Community and non-European migrant 
workers, precisely to avoid inequalities and distor­
tions on the labour market. 
5.7. Vocational training and access to new tech­
nologies 
5.7.1. Similar recommendations apply to training, 
which must be more closely geared to transfrontier and 
transnational needs. Its effectiveness will depend on 
proper guarantees, with responsible decisions and com­
mitments on the mutual recognition not only of qualifi­
cations but, equally importantly, of job skills, transfers 
from one education system to another, and better joint 
use of teachers in the different Member States. 
5.7.2. The employment situation and prospects in 
frontier areas are heavily dependent on information 
and access to the new technologies, and on the creation 
of jobs geared to the changes taking place. This develop­
ment is of particular concern to workers, young people, 
and the unemployed. Thought should thus be given to 
ways of improving workers' and small firms' infor­
mation and access to technological innovations. For 
example, advice centres might be set up in frontier areas 
to advise workers on technological problems and help 
them to acquire new work skills, whilst not neglecting 
traditional craft activities. The centres could also ana­
lyze developments and the potential applications of new 
technologies; assess their social implications; pinpoint 
possible room for manoeuvre on the labour market; 
define alternative solutions; and plan and promote the 
appropriate measures. 
5.7.3. One key area is the promotion of pilot youth 
training schemes along with recognition of qualifi­
cations and certificates (something which has been dis­
cussed inconclusively for decades). 
5.8. Temporary work and illicit placement practices 
5.8.1. Alongside the measures needed to extend the 
use of the public placement services, modernizing them 
and making their instruments more dynamic and flex-
No C 95/22 Official Journal of the European Communities 11. 4. 88 
ible, regulation is needed of the entire private placement 
sector. There is a particular need for stricter measures 
to combat illicit and clandestine recruitment and the 
perpetrators of this type of exploitation. Effective regu­
lations and protection are needed for all temporary and 
part-time workers, particularly young people, women, 
seasonal and migrant workers. This subject has been 
under discussion in the Community for a very long 
time, and no suitable solutions have yet been found. It 
might therefore be useful to organize, at the earliest 
opportunity, one or more meetings to be attended by 
both management and labour and the public and private 
employment agencies. 
5.8.2. Adoption of the draft Council Directive on 
temporary work (April 1982) is also long overdue. This 
proposal is still blocked at the Council, despite the 
approval and repeated lobbying by the ESC and the 
European Parliament. The proposal contains clear pro­
visions on the coordination of information exchange 
and measures regarding temporary work in general, as 
well as cross-frontier temporary work. Member States 
are to exchange all information on the supply of tem­
porary workers by employment businesses; to create or 
designate liaison offices to exchange information on 
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions in 
force, and on abuses and unlawful cross-frontier activi­
ties. 
5.8.3. The Committee would again urge the Council 
to approve this Directive, along with another blocked 
for much longer, which seeks to abolish the intolerable 
traffic in and exploitation of labour in the Community. 
This latter proposal needs to be updated in line with 
changed requirements and the increased abuse in this 
field. The Committee asks the Commission to adopt 
the requisite measures, remembering that these come 
within (a) the commitment to economic and social 
cohesion contained in the Single Act, and (b) within 
Community and national responsibility for im­
plementing the Regulation on the free movement of 
labour and the labour clauses of the Third Lome Conven­
tion, in order to protect workers' interests and rights, 
complete the internal market, and boost economic pro­
gress. 
5.9. Social security and labour disputes 
5.9.1. The special situation of frontier workers 
prompts us to raise the question of harmonization of 
Member States' social security and labour legislation, 
which also affects seasonal workers, immigrants, and other EEC workers and citizens. Real progress in this 
field would improve legal certainty for all, and avoid 
blatant injustices and pointless litigation. Existing struc­
tural differences are so great that this problem cannot 
be solved overnight. Nevertheless, the Committee calls 
for a uniform definition of the basic concepts and 
criteria underpinning social security (*). Efforts must be 
stepped up to align the different national legislations 
as swiftly as possible in order to pave the way for 
harmonization. 
5.9.2. In the immediate future, the Member States 
could adopt two main approaches: 
(a) conclude concrete bilateral and multilateral agree­
ments to enforce (as is their duty) the Regulation 
on free movement of workers and other Community 
provisions, possibly setting up a joint monitoring 
committee; 
(b) by means of effective, timely cross-frontier cooper­
ation and assistance, encourage the relevant bodies 
to opt for the solution or provision (where there is 
a choice) which is most favourable to frontier and 
similar workers. 
Bilateral agreements with third countries should pro­
vide full cover against the various risks. 
5.9.3. Lastly, steps must be taken to eliminate the 
scandalous delays in the transmission of case-files from 
one country to another, particularly in the case of 
pensions and family allowances. The procedures for 
requesting and dispatching files need to be modernized 
and streamlined, eliminating unnecessary intermediate 
stages and introducing more suitable, prompt payment 
arrangements. 
5.9.4. It is intolerable that the Hague Convention 
(with its attendant difficulties and delays) should be the 
only instrument available to Member States for dealing 
with social matters. An early start should therefore be 
made on framing a Community instrument to cover the 
rulings handed down by Member State labour tribunals. 
5.10. Taxation and exchange rates 
5.10.1. Frontier workers still face differing tax 
arrangements in the different countries. The Nether­
lands retains no tax, while Luxembourg retains all of 
(J) See, for example, the ESC Opinion on current social security 
problems in the countries of the EEC (OJ No C 343, 
24. 12. 1984). 
11. 4. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 95/23 
it; tax paid in France may be refunded, and Italian 
frontier workers in Switzerland have won the right to 
have deductions repaid to the public authorities in 
their areas of origin. Taxation is generally regulated by 
national laws and bilateral agreements, without being 
backed by proper national or Community measures to 
prevent possible injustices. Frontier and other workers 
are not only subject to differing tax systems, they may 
also be subject to double taxation. It is less clear what 
sort of taxation should be applied. Some payments 
made by the country of employment or by the employer 
may be considered by the country of origin as wages, 
as a form of unemployment benefit, or as a quasi-
pension, and may thus attract completely different tax 
rates. 
5.10.2. While work is still underway on adjusting 
national tax systems to the future internal market, 
measures must be taken to protect frontier, seasonal 
and other workers. Taxation in the country of residence 
would seem the most rational and generally rec­
ommended way of protecting their interests. Where tax 
is deducted at source, a reciprocal rebate system could 
be envisaged, based on bilateral agreements and nego­
tiations. 
5.10.3. Care must be taken to ensure that disguised 
forms of taxation do not create distortions, e.g. clawing 
back from frontier or other workers tax concessions 
granted by the host country. Community provisions 
could exist in conjunction with implementing arrange­
ments with Member States or with third countries, but 
they should all respect the same basic criteria and rights. 
5.10.4. Despite the establishment of the European 
monetary system, exchange rate fluctuations still cause 
serious problems for frontier, seasonal and other wor­
kers, in connection with insurance contributions and 
benefits. Views differ as to the need for arrangements 
to compensate for lost purchasing power. 
5.10.5. It has been suggested that basic welfare ben­
efits (particularly old-age and invalidity pensions) might 
be calculated in ECU in order to shield them from 
currency fluctuations. 
5.10.6. A similar solution has been recommended 
for frontier workers'remittances and savings. This is a 
particularly pressing problem for these workers, and 
would also help immigrants and other groups of 
worker. Furthermore, it could help enhance the Com­munity's economic and social stability. More generally, 
and pending the introduction of more reliable arrange­
ments for offsetting lost purchasing power, steps could 
be taken to encourage new types of social security cover 
in work contracts and welfare/benefit systems designed 
to shield frontier, immigrant and other types of worker 
from the effects of exchange-rate fluctuations. Special 
exchange arrangements could also be negotiated with 
the national authorities for workers in frontier areas 
wishing to remit their earnings to their country of 
residence. The Member States should also take steps to 
speed up the processing of frontier workers' transfers, 
abolishing the present restrictions and hold-ups. 
5.11. Infrastructure, services and transport 
5.11.1. Infrastructure and services need strengthen­
ing. They should be made available to all Community 
citizens, and regularly updated to their needs. This is 
particularly true for frontier workers and others who 
live and work in two or more countries. More effective 
measures are needed in the following areas: access to 
medical and hospital services; arrangements for children 
attending schools in neighbouring countries without 
extra cost; adjustment of civil defense services (preven­
tive measures, assistance) to the border situation; equal 
rights to public-sector housing for workers who return 
home at weekends; abolition of administrative and 
financial red-tape in the case of second homes, etc. 
5.11.2. Transport systems need to be strengthened 
and better organized in frontier areas, where inter­
national traffic and border checks seriously impede and 
delay local traffic, and vice versa. The systems need to 
be rationalized, for example by introducing standard 
traffic regulations and taking steps to modernize, speed 
up and diversify the most suitable transport and com­
munications facilities. Public transport routes, time­
tables and ticketing arrangements must take account of 
the special needs of frontier workers and other local 
workers and residents, as must road traffic arrange­
ments in border areas. 
5.11.3. This involves simplification of customs 
checks, possible creation of special entry/exit channels, 
adjustment of opening hours at border posts, and the 
elimination of problems caused by differences in val­
idity of passports and other documents. 
No C 95/24 Official Journal of the European Communities 11. 4. 88 
5.11.4. Frontier residents are particularly incon­
venienced by the differing provisions governing driving 
licences, vehicle imports and registration. Suffice it to 
mention the main anomaly: a worker who crosses a 
frontier every day going to and from work is under 
present legislation not even given the same treatment 
as a visitor or tourist who makes the journey only 
occasionally. These problems could be solved by 
amending those clauses of Directives 80/1263/EEC and 
83/182/EEC which impede the free movement of wor­
kers (Articles 48 and 49 of the Treaty). Such amend­
ments would merely give binding legal force to a declar­
ation made by the Council on Article 1 of Directive 80/ 
1263/EEC. In this, the Council and Commission stated 
that the holder of a national driving licence issued by 
the Member State in which he is resident who, in the 
course of his employment, drives a vehicle registered in 
this State in another Member State, should be treated 
in the same way as a visitor. The best solution would 
obviously be to issue more precise norms on this, clari­
fying citizens' and workers' rights in this area and 
possibly putting visitors on the same footing as them, 
rather than vice versa. 
6. A few general conditions 
6.1. In concluding this opinion, the Committee urges 
the Commission, Council and Member States to exam­
ine its comments and proposals carefully, and to take 
early steps to solve cross-frontier labour problems. The 
aim should be threefold: 
Done at Brussels, 25 February 1988. — to solve the difficulties, inequalities and distortions 
which exist in these areas, 
— to make maximum use of their positive contri­
butions and experiences to help build a true Com­
munity, 
— to allow these areas to play their full role in stimu­
lating the completion of the internal market and in 
ensuring free movement—under equal conditions 
and rights—of goods, capital, labour and citizens. 
6.2. To this end, the Committee again draws the 
attention of the Commission, Council and Parliament 
to three general requirements which are crucial for the 
solution of frontier labour problems, both within the 
Community .context and in its relations with neighbour­
ing third countries: 
— greater efforts to coordinate economic and social 
policies at Community level, on the basis of com­
mon goals, interests and priorities, to ensure the 
completion of the internal market, 
— similar efforts in the services sector, allocating a 
part of the Community income to national invest­
ment plans to create integrated and possibly unified 
networks in key sectors such as energy, transport, 
telecommunications and research, 
— a bold and vigorous boost to the Community's 
social policy, with the rapid achievement of the 
long-mooted European social area, as affirmed by 
the Social Council's declaration of 26 May 1987 
and the implemention of agreements in the main 
production areas. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT