1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Objective

The objective of this initiative is to enhance workers' access to intra-EU mobility support services. It builds on workers' right of freedom of movement under Article 45 TFEU and concerns Chapter II of Regulation EU (No) 492/2011[1] and the Commission Decision on the network of 'European Employment Services (EURES)'[2]. Increased mobility will widen employment opportunities for workers and help employers to fill vacancies better and faster. It will thus contribute to help further integrate European labour markets. The initiative is relevant for the EEA.

1.2 Context

There is a relatively low level of labour mobility within the EU which can be explained by a number of factors, some of which are exogenous (linguistic and cultural barriers, housing markets, family ties), others endogenous (lack of harmonisation of social security and taxation systems and of professional qualifications, as well as legal or administrative barriers) to the labour market. The EU has already addressed some of the endogenous factors, e.g. by establishing a EU system of recognition of professional qualifications and a EU system of coordination of social security benefits ensuring that EU workers do not lose out on acquired rights when taking a decision to cross borders.

Enhancing mobility requires that measures are taken in various fields (labour law, social security healthcare, active labour market policy etc.) which should as far as possible also address exogenous factors. This EURES initiative is among several responses recently put forward by the Commission. Others include:

· The proposal for a Directive on the "enforcement on free movement of workers"[3], presented by the Commission on 26th April 2013, which aims to empower workers by ensuring that they can receive advice, information and support in the host country and have a genuine possibility of redress in cases of discrimination. This proposal aims to increase the effectiveness of existing EU legal provisions on free movement of workers in particular by improving information about the rights of workers and members of their families in relation to equal treatment arising from the Directive and from Regulations (EU) No 492/2011. The proposal leaves the choice of information tools to the Member States, but promotes synergies with existing EU on-line or digital tools, such as the Your Europe and EURES websites. The EURES initiative will contribute to reaching the information and support aims of the "enforcement Directive" by enlarging the reach and appeal of the EURES network towards jobseekers and by strengthening the provision of specific mobility support services by Public Employment Services (hereafter PES).

· The proposal for a Decision on enhanced co-operation between Public Employment Services[4] that aims to establish a European network of PES to deepen cooperation and mutual learning, as well as to establish a benchmarking system. The PES network will contribute to reinforcing individual members' operational capacity, with a potentially positive impact on national EURES service delivery. In this regard the two PES and EURES proposals are complementary[5].

· The Commission envisages a review of the EU Regulations on the coordination of social security systems. The Commission is preparing proposals for 2014 to review the unemployment chapter of Regulations (EC) No 883/2004 and 987/2009, with a view to increase the chances of jobseekers to reintegrate in the labour market and ensure that mobility does not have a negative impact on their right to unemployment benefits.

1.3 Definitions

The term 'worker' as used throughout this impact assessment refers to individuals who have the right to exercise, or benefit from, the freedom of movement for workers in the sense of Article 45 TFEU, as elaborated in Regulation 492/2011. Where appropriate, for the purpose of this impact assessment, it will also cover legally residing third-country nationals who, in accordance with national and Union law benefit from free movement, when they exercise an economic activity[6].

When, in this document, reference is made to offers of employment, job vacancies and the like, this includes apprenticeships and traineeships provided they are regarded as work in accordance with the definition of worker under EU law.

1.4 Background

EURES was launched in 1993 as a network for co-operation between the PES of Member States and the Commission to exchange vacancies and applications for employment ("clearance"). Regulation 492/2011 obliges the Commission and the Member States to undertake this clearance, share information concerning living and work conditions and background information on the state and trends of the labour markets, and cooperate together towards the resultant placement of workers. The EURES network includes the 28 Member States, the EEA countries Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein and also co-operates with Switzerland.

The regulatory framework for EURES dates back to 1968, when Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 included a chapter on clearance of vacancies and applications for employment. The Regulation was amended at a number of occasions, but the provisions on the clearance were only revised once, in 1992[7]. For reasons of legal clarity, in 2010 the Commission put forward a proposal to codify the entire regulatory framework on free movement of workers[8]. This proposal did not involve substantive changes. Consequently, there have not been any changes in the provisions on the clearance of vacancies and applications for employment since 1992. Since then, significant changes have occurred on the ground as regards the technology for sharing vacancy data, the use of a variety of recruitment channels by job seekers and employers and an increasing role of other labour market actors next to the PES in the provision of recruitment services.

In 2003, at the eve of the enlargement, the Commission adopted a decision on the EURES network[9], consolidating developments in the network and incorporating new opportunities afforded by emerging information and communication technology tools. The decision repealed the 1993 decision.

In line with the employment package[10] and to modernise and reinforce the EURES network, the Commission adopted in 2012 a Decision to adjust the functioning of EURES[11], as the network supporting the clearance. The Decision replaces the 2003 Commission Decision and aims to create incentives to strengthen matching, placement and recruitment activities within the network, inter alia by opening up the network to Private Employment Services (hereafter PrES), to the extent possible, without modifying the legal basis (Regulation 492/2011). Accordingly, the Decision follows up on the findings of an evaluation on the EURES network carried out in 2009 and published in a report in 2010[12].

The 2012 Decision is set to enter into force on 1 January 2014. Preparations are on-going, notably on the drafting of a "Charter"[13] to guide the implementation. The Charter would replace the Charter in force on the basis of the 2003 Commission Decision[14].

During the preparations, in particular the consultations with the Member States on the draft Charter, it has become clear that Regulation 492/2011 no longer provides an appropriate basis for achieving the intended objectives of the reform and that other options and measures must be considered to make the EURES network an effective tool for employment policies.

The European Parliament (EP) launched a request for annulment of the Decision with the European Court of Justice[15]. The EP argues that in adopting the Decision the Commission has overstepped its implementing powers under Article 38 of the above Regulation. The outcome may have an impact on the extent to which this particular Decision can improve the functioning of the EURES network and/or the time line for doing so.

2. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES

2.1. Timing and internal consultation

Work on this impact assessment started in 2013. An Impact Assessment Steering Committee was set up including representatives of the following Commission’s services: SG, SJ, COMM, EAC, ECFIN, ENTR, HOME, RTD and EMPL. The IASG met two times between July 2013 and August 2013.

2.2. Studies and consultation of experts and stakeholders

2.2.1. Studies by independent experts and the Commission

Employment policies have been subject to numerous studies of late with the following being used as sources for information for the purpose of this initiative: the European Commission, the European Policy Centre and the OECD. Among the reports from the Commission, information was gathered from the Employment and Social Developments in Europe report (ESDE) and the European Employment and Social Situation Quarterly Review (ESSQR).

No study by independent experts was launched for the specific purpose of the impact assessment. Questions relevant for the impact assessment were included in the above studies.

2.2.2. Public consultations

Eurobarometer surveys regularly ask citizens questions on their view on mobility issues. The most recent one was released in October this year[16].

Given the surveys on the needs and perceptions of citizens in this area and the information gathered from the network and the use of the EURES portal a specific public consultation was not deemed necessary.

2.2.3. Consultations with Member States

The starting point for the development of the 2012 Decision was the 2010 evaluation of the EURES network[17].

In the context of the preparation towards the 2012 Decision, consultations have taken place with Member States on the shortcomings of and the future orientation for the EURES network, which have proved of use for the preparation of this initiative.

The Advisory Committee on 'Freedom of Movement of Workers' was formally consulted on the draft Decision in the autumn of 2012. The main aim of the Decision, to reorient the EURES services from general information and guidance towards more matching, placement and recruitment, was generally welcomed. All Member States have also supported the idea of a programming cycle and common indicators on EURES activities to increase transparency on performance, enhance information exchange and improve the coordination of actions.

Since then individual Member States in expert meetings have clarified their positions on the scope of possible implementation measures in light of national practices and constraints. As a result of these meetings, it was agreed to adjust the approach towards opening up the network to service providers other than the PES to allow Member States more time and leeway on how to develop partnerships at national level.

Further information on the individual positions of Member States is provided in section 3.5.4.

The Social Partners have been consulted throughout the process of the preparation of the 2012 Decision and they have also been involved in the preparation of its implementation.

2.2.4. Consulations of experts and practitioners

Building on the above consultations on the future of the EURES network in general, questionnaires were sent out in 2013 to review practices on the access to job vacancies at national level, the access for job seekers and employers to the EURES network, and the organisation of matching, placement and recruitment activities across the EURES network.

As part of a regular review of the adjustments subsequent to the crisis, a questionnaire was sent to the PES on how they address job vacancies and direct job seekers to EURES.

The representatives of Member States and social partners in the Advisory Committee on Free movement of Workers were asked on access for workers of another Member State to active labour market policies (hereafter ALMPs) and registration with the PES. The Commission's network of (academic) experts on free movement of workers was also consulted on this matter.

Questionnaires were sent out to (a) EURES managers[18] on the organisational set-up of EURES within the PES and division of tasks between services of Member States in cross border placement and recruitment activities and (b) EURES IT correspondents on (access to) national job portals, sources of vacancies at national level, the share of the national vacancy market covered by these portals and interoperability between these systems and the EURES IT platform.

An informal expert work shop with a selection of mobility experts and practitioners examined which services and/or support measures by employment services in general help jobseekers to move to another Member State and what role financial support could play to this end, including for employers looking for skilled workforce from another Member State.

A detailed overview of the consultations of experts and practitioners and the main findings of these consultations can be found in Annex 1 to this document. The findings of the consultations are at the basis of the assessment regarding the shortcomings of the current situation as outlined in chapter 3.

3. PROBLEM DEFINITION

3.1. The State of Play

3.1.1. So far the potential for intra-EU labour mobility has not been realised

The labour force in the EU (i.e. the total of employed and unemployed persons) reached 241.1 million persons in 2012, of which 216.1 million persons were in employment[19].

Only approximately 7.5 million though were Europeans working (employed or self-employed) in another Member State. Albeit small, this figure constitutes an increase from 4.7 million in 2005[20]. This increase is mostly owed to the recent enlargements of the EU but indicates also progress in removing administrative barriers inter alia due to the coordination of social security systems[21].

Intra-EU labour mobility is relatively low when compared to the size of the labour market and the active population of the EU. Annual mobility within the former EU27 is 0.29%, below the rates of Australia, (1.5% between 8 states) and the United States of America (2.4% between 50 states)[22]. Only approximately 7.5 million of the European labour force of around 241 million (i.e. 3.1%) is economically active in another Member State[23]. At present high unemployment rates in some Member States coexist with high numbers of open vacancies in others.

There has been a significant increase in the number of workers that indicate "firm intentions" (i.e.: the proportion of those planning to migrate in the following 12 months) to move to work abroad[24].

The share of persons with firm intentions per Member State, in relation to people with intentions to work abroad in the future in general, is shown Chart 1.

Today only about 700.000 persons on average move annually to work in another Member State[25], whilst extrapolations on the surveys show that about 2.9 million EU citizens would like to move in the following 12 months[26]. This represents a significant mobility potential and a challenge for the EURES network.

Chart 1: Share of those that envisage working abroad in the future (and among them, the share of those who would do it during the next year), 2011-2012

Source: ESSQR June 2013

Registrations with EURES indicate that there is an increase in the number of people looking for a job across national borders. The number of job seekers registered on the EURES portal has increased from 175.000 to 1.1000.000 between 2007 and 2013 without a corresponding increase in job mobility.

From a regional point of view in particular people from the Southern Member States see mobility as a possibility to find employment. That indicates that the recent economic crisis has raised the mobility intentions. However, it may not only be the crisis that motivates people to go abroad. EU citizens have more and more mobility exposure than in the past (e.g. having studied in another Member State with Erasmus). Sharing the same currency is also contributing to regarding mobility as a more 'normal' decision than before.

Nevertheless, the increase in firm intentions to move and the active steps taken by jobseekers to improve their chances of realising their intentions, such as registering with EURES, has not translated into an increase of actual mobility numbers.

Reasons for not realising intentions to become mobile may vary between individuals. The most common practical difficulties expected or encountered are the lack of relevant language skills to take up employment and the difficulties of finding a job.

Table 1: Top practical difficulties of working abroad (max three answers)

|| Reason || Frequency

1 || Lack of language skills || 52%

2 || Finding a job || 24%

3 || Finding suitable housing || 16%

4 || Adapting to a different culture || 16%

Source: Special Eurobarometer 337: Geographical and labour market mobility (2009)

According to the most recent survey, the 2013 Eurobarometer survey on the Single Market[27], in which different questions on labour mobility were asked than in the above survey, among those who say that they would not consider working in another Member State, the main reasons are family or personal reasons (47%) and simply not wanting to work or live in another country (32%). One in five would not consider it because of language (20%). 11% say they have better opportunities in their own country and 6% say they would not be able to find a better job abroad[28].

This particular survey also indicates that:

– Overall, at EU level, the main driver of mobility is to get a higher wage (50%) but for some countries (28% at EU level, but 36% in IE, 43% in EL, 57% in ES, 63% in CY) it is because people cannot find a job in their current country of residence)[29];

– People currently unemployed are the most likely to consider working in another Member State (39%)[30].

In light of the above considerations on the intentions and considerations of EU citizens as regards opportunities to work in other Member States, it is clear that this initiative on workers' access to mobility support services should seek to target those who have indeed firm intentions to move, i.e. a relatively small share of the EU labour force.

3.1.2. Current functioning of the EURES network

3.1.2.1. The PES and their role of recruitment markets in the EU

In all Member States, the EURES network at national level is part of the public employment services (PES) of the Member State concerned.

The end to the monopoly in the delivery of employment services has led to the emergence of a significant number and variety of service providers in the labour market. Besides the traditional role played by the PES, other actors such as private and third sector employment services, municipalities, universities as well as voluntary and community organisations are increasingly active in providing a broad range of client services. The relations between these employment services are characterised often by co-operation in various forms (e.g. exchange of vacancies through agreements such as in Germany or the Netherlands), by complementarities of services (e.g. the subcontracted services for long term unemployed in the UK and assessment and testing of skills in France), as well as by competition, for example in case of tendering procedures and contracting out.

Alternatives to the EURES network in international recruitment services are in particular commercial ones, e.g. private employment agencies and online services. They offer often tailor-made and immediate solutions to recruitment difficulties, but may have limitations, by choice or due to their location. Because of the fees they charge they may not be easily accessible for all, for instance, for young people and SME's. A more detailed description of the market segment of online recruitment services is included in Annex 4 to this document. This description illustrates the specific position the EURES portal holds as the only truly multilingual free universal online service for job seekers within the EU.

PES, as a universal free service, do not necessarily have any more the capacity to effectively service jobseekers and employers with particularly specialised skills or requirements and as a result private recruitment agencies are servicing the high end of the job market and the use of PES is lowest with those with the most qualifications / experience.

While PES are structured differently in each country, all share the same basic task of contributing towards matching supply and demand on the labour market through the provision of information, placement and active support services. In accordance with OECD/ Eurostat classifications of labour market policies, EURES services fall in principle under the category 1, "labour market services", i.e. client services which facilitate the integration of the unemployed and other jobseekers in the labour market or which assist employers in recruiting and selecting staff as well as any other activities which include administrative costs and general overheads of PES.

The total outlay for category 1 in 2011 in the EU was 27.586 billion euro[31].

The overall envelope spent on EURES services in the Union is estimated to be around 60 million, essentially covering the staff cost and related overheads for EURES Advisers, Assistants and the EURES managers[32]. The annual budget for the horizontal support to EURES by the European Commission (EU budget) stands at 20 million euro. This means today mobility support represents only a fraction of the overall active labour market measures.

3.1.2.2. Results achieved by the EURES network so far

The EURES network consists of two pillars: the internet portal and the (human) network of EURES advisors. Similarly to most of the PES, EURES provides its services free of charge for job seekers as well as for employers.

Following the 2010 report on EURES activities, it was estimated that the EURES network provides around 150,000 recruitments/ placements per year. 50,000 of which were attributed to the work of the EURES Advisers, and 100,000 were – based on estimations and extrapolation – attributed to the functioning of its portal.

Since then the overall picture of EURES outputs has not evolved substantially. This is confirmed by the most recent analysis of data from the monthly reporting of EURES advisers and the portal on 2012 data, made in the framework of the publication of the EURES section of the Single Market Scoreboard in May this year[33]. It shows that on average a EURES Adviser in the Union makes about 70 placements (incoming /outgoing mobility) a year[34].

3.1.2.3. Outputs of the EURES portal

The current portal, based on web services, was launched in 2006 for the purpose of exchanging vacancy information. Revisions to improve its usability are on-going and the current website will see a re-vamp in 2013/2014 including new features such as an improved CV online application and enhanced job search functions.

Today the EURES portal gathers vacancies directly processed at national level by 34 PES (i.e. 28 Member States, BE consisting of BE-Actiris, BE-VDAB and BE-Le Forem, the EEA countries and Switzerland). It allows access to more than 1.4 million vacancies and 1.1 million CV's at any time. Employers, once registered, have access to CV search, and an opportunity to publish vacancies, via the national database. The number of employers being registered with EURES has seen a steady increase since its launch. The number of unique visitors to the EURES portal has grown constantly from 8.1 million in 2006 to 24.3 million in 2012.

Table 2 – Total number of registered employers

2006 || 2007 || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || 2012 || 2013[35]

7900 || 11500 || 18300 || 20600 || 22000 || 24300 || 27500 || 31600

Source: EURES portal

In a 2009 survey of EURES users[36], around 20% of the jobseekers who replied stated that they had received a job via EURES; in almost 50% of these cases the resultant job corresponded to their skill level. The CV set-up function is considered a particularly useful functionality of the portal. However navigation and usability were sometimes found difficult and have subsequently been changed with the re-vamped website.

Out of the 31,600 employers that were registered in 2013, the highest number (4,340) came from Germany, followed by the United Kingdom (3,363), Norway (2,718) Spain (2,650) and the Netherlands (2,117).

A 2011 online survey among employers [37]found that:

· Of the employers that have recruited from abroad, less than 10% reported having found candidates through EURES;

· Employers who struggle to find appropriate local candidates are three times more likely to have recruited from abroad (37%) than those that do not (13%);

· Around a third of the employers surveyed had heard of EURES before getting in touch with the network;

· And of those who had heard of EURES, only two thirds claimed to know what it does;

· Once employers have been in contact with EURES the level of satisfaction with the services is generally quite high.

3.1.2.4. Outputs of the network of EURES Advisers

EURES Advisers are trained employment specialists, who provide information, guidance and assistance with placement/recruitment to jobseekers and employers. They follow up on job vacancies, promote EURES, including to stakeholders such as Chambers of commerce or career guidance services, and are responsible for the preparation of information on skills surpluses and shortages, living and work conditions. They organise and/or participate in mobility related recruitment events and projects, including the so called European Job Days[38]. Advisers also promote EURES internally and contribute to its integration within the PES through information, assistance and training for staff such as employment counsellors in local and regional PES offices. They may be assigned at local, regional or national level, depending on the organisation of the PES in the country and on average spend about 70% of their time on EURES activities[39].

With about 900 EURES Advisers, supported by EURES Assistants and coordinated nationally by the EURES Manager, the figure has seen a moderate increase as compared to more than 5 years ago. On average these advisers have altogether more than 110,000 contacts per month with jobseekers and employers and the EU average monthly placement rate is estimated at 3.69%, which corresponds to the figure of 50,000 placements each year; for further data on their activities see Annex 5.

Table 3 – Total number of EURES advisers[40]

2006 || 2007 || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || 2012 || 2013[41]

630 || 724 || 855 || 877 || 893 || 1088 || 945 || 935

Source: EURES portal and network data

The number of EURES advisers varies significantly between the Member States (see figures 1 and 2 in Annex 5). Partly these variations can be explained by the size of the country or the organisation of the employment services. Where intra-EU labour mobility service delivery is very much mainstreamed into general service provision (such as in Austria and Portugal) the number of EURES advisers can remain relatively low without reducing the quality of these services.

Jobseekers’ feedback indicates however, that in some Member States it can be difficult to contact a EURES Adviser.

3.1.2.5. The EURES network and the reforms affecting the PES

EURES being part of the PES, the national EURES activity is inadvertently affected by any organisational changes made to the PES at national level

Several Member States have undertaken PES reforms some of which resulted from the Country-Specific Recommendations agreed in the European semester (hereafter CSRs). The reforms include further outsourcing services to private providers, regionalisation and municipalisation of employment services, and enhancing service delivery through ICTs and self-service tools. The key areas for change address adjustments to trends on job search and mediation.

Due to its specific 'European' mandate, EURES has in general been left relatively unaffected by such domestic reforms. However, as an employment service, EURES is also affected by these changes and any best practice here provides inspiration for improvements for EURES.

3.2. What is the issue which needs to be addressed?

As shown in section 3.1.2, the EURES network has helped many jobseekers, workers and employers in realising mobility opportunities. Those who reach out to the EURES network and can use the services it offers, generally appreciate it.

Yet it is evident from these results that the instrument as it functions today is not sufficiently equipped to encourage further fair mobility patterns as part of the solutions for the imbalances on the European labour market, given the size of the EU labour force and the nature of the challenge in the current economic situation.

There is a potential for intra-EU labour mobility which the EURES network could address: while on average about 325.000 persons annually move to work in another Member State, 2.9 million have indicated firm intentions to move within 12 months (1.2% of EU population[42]).

The objectives of the EURES network to foster intra-EU labour mobility and further integrate labour markets are not deemed a political priority by most Member States and, as testified by some of the findings of the consultations, its operational activities are not guided by a clear and consistent strategy.

What are the shortcomings in the functioning of the EURES network that need to be addressed to change this situation and put the EURES network more centre stage as the key instrument effectively supporting workers seeking mobility for the years to come?

The analysis below identifies five principal shortcomings in the functioning of the EURES network:

1. an incomplete pool of vacancies and CVs accessible at EU level for all Member States (transparency of labour markets);

2. limited matching capability of the EURES portal that brings job vacancies and CV's together at EU level, due to the limited degree of semantic interoperability of data coming from national job vacancy systems (automated matching potential);

3. an uneven access to EURES services across the EU as job seekers and employers do not receive systematically all the necessary information on the EURES network nor receive an offer for further assistance at the first stage of recruitment (mainstreaming);

4. a limited availability to assist with matching, recruitment and placement for those jobseekers and employers who have indicated interest in intra-EU labour mobility, including in gaining access to both active labour market measures and information and advice on social security (support services);

5. an inefficient information exchange between Member States on labour shortages and surpluses, hampering a more targeted practical co-operation in the EURES network (information exchange and cooperation).

Opening up dimension

With respect to all shortcomings, a critical factor is the ability to address the inherent limitations resulting from the current composition of the EURES network, i.e. only the PES and the Commission. The EURES network must be expanded to include employment services other than the PES as service providers (in the terminology of the 2012 Decision: the “EURES Partners”) in order to remain relevant on the market for recruitment services and to build lasting partnerships across countries, regions and sectors.

Within the existing framework of Regulation 492/2011, the 2012 Decision of the Commission aims at opening up the EURES network. It suggested that Member States should select private and other non-public employment services and give them access as service providers to the EURES network. However, discussions with national representatives on the implementation of the Decision show that this is not likely to be realised. Further information on the challenge of opening up is provided under section 3.5.3.

3.2.1. Incomplete pool of vacancies and CVs accessible at EU level (transparency)

The current mechanism for vacancy clearance is based on: a) an online platform (EURES Website) run by the Commission b) a common format for the exchange of job vacancies, and c) a search engine that allows for the retrieval of information about the job vacancies which are hosted and processed by the PES.

The EURES portal should enable jobseekers to find all available jobs in all the Member States. Moreover, the portal should help to identify the most suitable vacancies according to the profile of the user. This means that the common formats must allow the information exchanged to be sufficiently rich in content and comparable across national systems to permit matching between job vacancies and CVs. This is not yet the case as further explained in the following sections.

3.2.1.1. An inadequate vacancy outreach of the current EURES portal

A full and complete transparency of the European labour market via the EURES portal and exchange platform would imply that all vacant positions wherever they have been published, be it via a PES, a private employment service, an employer's own website or even in a newspaper, are made available on the EURES portal. The current outreach of EURES portal is much lower.

On average, only around 30% of the national vacancies[43] are made available on the EURES portal. This ratio differs widely across countries, showing that there is considerable scope for progress (see Chart 2).

Chart 2: Proportion of the vacancies that are published on the EURES Portal, by country (in %) July 2013[44]

Source: EURES IT database, Eurostat Job vacancy statistics

Country-specific examples illustrating the reasons for the divergent ratio

The Member States that have the lowest share of their national vacancies available on the EURES portal are Bulgaria and Spain. While the degree of transparency is virtually the same, the underlying reasons differ. For Bulgaria, the lack of transfer of vacancies from the national vacancy database to EURES stems from technical incompatibility, rendering the transfer of vacancies impossible. The PES is working on a technical solution, supported by the European Commission. In Spain, the lack of a national vacancy database is limiting not only the number of vacancies made available on the EURES portal, but also the transparency of vacancies in the national context. Without a single national job vacancy database, open vacancies are only available on separate job portals in each region. In the 2013 CSRs, the Council recommends Spain to improve the co-operation between national and regional public employment services: i.e. to (…) "fully operationalize the Single Job Portal" as well as to "speed up the implementation of public-private cooperation in placement services to ensure its effective application already in 2013"[45].

The Czech Republic, having the highest share of vacancies available on the EURES portal, combines an absence of administrative limitations on which vacancies to transfer with a high share of open vacancies being reported to the PES. Although the legal requirement for employers to report vacancies to the PES has been abolished the practice continues and provides both Czech jobseekers and those from other Member States with excellent access to available employment opportunities in the Czech Republic.

Two major categories of limitations

There are currently two major limitations that make the number of job vacancies available on the EURES portal much lower compared to what exists at national level:

– The limited role of the PES on the vacancy market: the vacancies made available on the EURES portal are those directly reported by employers to the central PES. As vacancies publically available otherwise, such as through regional PES or non-public employment services, are not made available to the EURES portal, the PES "vacancy share", i.e. their number of registered vacancies compared to the total number of vacancies at national level, greatly reduces the transparency of the labour market;

– The administrative limitations introduced by Member States at their own level when delivering their available vacancies to the EURES portal.

The first category: limitations in the PES vacancy share

The PES market largely depends on national regulations and on the capacity of each PES to meet the needs of jobseekers and employers. The share is known to vary considerably between countries[46]. While the market share of PES is mainly a national issue, there is a potential to address the general EURES market share at EU level.

The second category: administrative limitations

Regulation 492/2011 compels "the specialist service" of each Member State to send and exchange the vacancies "which could be filled by nationals of other Member States". This obligation gives a wide room for interpretation, providing leeway for some Member States to put administrative limitations on which vacancies are made available to the EURES portal e.g. only full-time positions or work with a minimum duration, as illustrated in table 4 below.[47]

Table 4 - PES reported practice for transfer of vacancies to the EURES portal[48]

All vacancies registered by the PES || BE-VDAB, CY, AT, DE (95% plus others registered on website directly by employers), EE, EL, LV, HU, PL, PT (90%), SE, UK

All vacancies published on the PES site || BE-ACTIRIS, FI, NL (plus those from PES internal system registered by EURES advisors or related to occupations with skill shortages), SI (1/3 of all PES vacancies)

Only vacancies satisfying particular criteria || FR (those related to open-ended or at least 3-month contract – around 40% of all vacancies received)

Only on employer demand || BE-FOREM (approximately 50/year), CH (18%), IT, LT, LU, MT (18%), SK

Source: PES crisis response questionnaire

The lack of uniform, binding rules also leads to differences in the way employers can control whether the PES transmit their vacancies to the EURES portal or not. Some PES use an opt-in process meaning that they only transmit a vacancy to the EURES portal when the employer has (explicitly or implicitly) asked for it, thus limiting the EURES pool of vacancies. In most PES it is possible for employers to opt-out, i.e. request explicitly that a vacancy should not be transmitted to EURES, which in practice limits the principle of equal access to information among workers.[49]

Article 11 of Regulation 492/2011 refers to co-operation between the central employment services while Article 13 identifying the data subject to clearance does not define precisely the origin of the job vacancies to be shared.

Given the unclear nature of the obligations under the current legal framework, the Commission powers to ensure a consistent application cannot be fully harnessed. The Commission is working with those Member States[50] which for obvious technical reasons do not fulfil the requirements for participation in the exchange system for technical reasons.

3.2.1.2. Insufficient visibility of EURES vacancies on national job portals

Transmitting to the EURES portal the vacancies available within the country is one aspect of the accessibility. The other aspect is to allow jobseekers to find those offers as part of the standard on line national PES service offer.

Only a few PES give access to all EURES vacancies on their respective job search portals, while most PES include only a limited number of job offers from other countries. The most common approach is to have European vacancies together with other international vacancies as a separate search option that does not allow for combining domestic and European vacancies in the same search. Moreover, the number of searchable European vacancies is much below the EURES offer. Only a few portals have more than a thousand international vacancies (compared to the 1.4 million on the EURES portal), as the job portals only show the vacancies registered in their own system. The limited direct access to vacancies from the EURES portal in some cases has been unconvincingly counterbalanced by a reference link to the EURES website. As a result, most PES don't deliver a basic online service to national jobseekers considering to work in another Member State.

The set-up and functioning of job search portals is fully in the hands of Member States’ authorities. The current EURES legal basis lacks any reference to the ability of the EU to influence the Member States' decisions on the integration of the EURES offer in their PES job portals. This situation hampers jobseekers' access to EURES services, raising a de-facto administrative barrier to EU mobility.

From the point of view of visibility and user friendliness the European vacancies should not only be readily accessible to and searchable for the end users directly at European level but also indirectly at proximity level, i.e. in local, regional and national on line sites and data bases, and in particular the PES job portals.

The Commission has put in place an API (Application Programming Interface) that can be used by the Member States to give access to European vacancies from the EURES portal on their own job sites. So far only a few Member States have developed solutions based on the API and there are no obligations in place to do so today.

3.2.1.3. No systematic job applications clearance

Matching supply and demand requires both the clearance of job vacancies, as well as the clearance of job applications or CVs according to agreed standards (contents) and formats (lay-out). Currently no systematic automated electronic exchange of CVs or other job seeker profile information takes place at European level, despite the formulation in Article 13 of Regulation 492/2011 that enjoins Member States in general terms to share this kind of information.

Most PES have CV online applications on their web sites where jobseekers can post their CVs and make them visible and searchable by employers and/or intermediaries like EURES advisers. Some have also developed various types of matching facilities, making an automatic matching between a CV and available vacancies. However, the search and matching of CVs in the national online applications is limited to the national jurisdiction. The obligation currently put on the Member States by Regulation 492/2011 to exchange "details of applications for employment" is generally interpreted by Member States to be fulfilled by bilateral case-by-case exchange of CVs between EURES advisers. The number of CVs covered by this burdensome practice is, however, very low, putting a constraint on the EURES matching capability.

The lack of transparency of jobseeker data impacts negatively on the capability to provide meaningful mobility support services to employers. Not only does it limit self-service opportunities, it also restricts the efficiency of the support as employers have to depend on indirect access to CVs via EURES Advisers in other countries, rather than having direct access.

The API referred above can also be used to give access to job applications and CV's between the EURES portal and the own job sites.

3.2.2. Limited matching capability of the EURES portal (automated matching potential)

Effective matching processes at EU level require a suitable classification system and agreed common standards on both vacancy and CV information. Unfortunately, there is no such system to date that allows for automated matching across the Union, in the absence of a common language on occupations, qualifications and skills.

First, there is a huge variety in classification's systems across the EU. All Member States have national classifications of occupations, most of which are based on or mapped to ILO's International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO) classification. When it comes to classifications of skills and competences the picture is more diverse. Around a third of the Member States do not have any systematic approach towards the classification of skills and competences and in the Member States with classifications only a few have an international compatibility.[51]

Second, the common minimum denominator in existing classifications, ISCO, is not suitable for employment purposes. This system organises jobs into groups but is mainly intended for use in statistical applications, not for operational matching on the labour market[52]. Whilst nationally adjusted versions of ISCO or other classification systems are in place in many Member States, ensuring transparency and adequate connections between the different classification systems is challenging and not yet achieved, given the differences in management and maintenance of the systems as well as the mono-lingualism. Currently, in the absence of a suitable alternative, the EURES portal, like many national systems, uses ISCO.

A European classification for such common language is being developed by the European Commission, in close collaboration with stakeholders and the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP). For now it is called ESCO. The first version has gone live on 23 October 2013. For more information see Annex 6.

For the purpose of the EURES portal the Commission aims to gradually introduce this European classification, while also other international standards should be used throughout the EURES portal for descriptions of occupations and skills, languages, countries, regions etc.

Where the national databases use different or nationally adapted classifications, like the ROME classification used in France and some other countries, mapping can ‘translate’ the data received. Such mapping between classifications allows for good search and matching results. Under Regulation 492/2011 no obligation exists to carry out mapping and there is no agreement with the Member States on facilitating automated matching at European level.

3.2.3. An uneven access to EURES services across the EU (mainstreaming)

Surveys suggest that job seekers are not always fully aware of the possibilities of working abroad or consider this as difficult[53].

To improve access to EURES services, the policy recommendations have been to mainstream such services into the general service offer provided by the participating PES since the reform of EURES in 2003[54]. In all PES this has led to the availability of some basic information on EURES as part of the overall information to clients and most PES seem at least routinely to provide (unemployed) jobseekers with an opportunity to indicate, on their own initiative, that they are interested in working in another country, typically at the (online) registration or at the first interview.

Some PES have deemed mere information provision sufficient, although many have also provided front line staff with training on labour mobility support services and empowered them to interact with EURES advisers to follow up on requests for assistance (for example in Portugal and Poland). Such efforts have been supported by the EU grants provided to the Member States over the last years.

To be effective, mainstreaming should ensure that every job seeker and every employer registered with an employment service in the EU will (a) receive all the necessary basic information on what the EURES network can do for them and (b) be made proactively a clear "EURES offer" for further assistance, if s/he is interested. Today this is still not happening consistently throughout the EU.

In fact, when asked about whether a EURES offer is made[55], most PES cannot even tell how many job seekers indicated an interest in EURES services and to what degree this was followed up within the organisation. Data is only available with PES in countries such as France, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Hungary, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Portugal and Slovenia. PES in countries such as Sweden, Finland and Poland, while registering interest on-line, cannot generate the information. All other PES do not appear to have any data and information on the EURES network and access to EURES services is only provided on explicit demand by the users.

Moreover, there are many different approaches on how the EURES services are integrated into the service offer of PES following this first contact (see box 1)[56].

Finally, there is a significant diversity in the quantity and quality of information provided at this initial stage of contact between users and employment services on the EURES network.

Consequently, depending on the country in which they access EURES services, jobseekers and employers have different levels of access to EURES in practice and different information on what the EURES network can do, when and how. Combined with a low visibility of European vacancies on national job search portals, the actual access to EURES services is in practice seriously hampered.

This diversity is at odds with the logic that this is a transnational network which should have a coherent and consistent communication strategy towards end users and offer at least equal treatment in the access to its services, regardless of location in the EU.

The lack of a consistent approach to the organisation of the information provided to potential users and the access to EURES services at the initial stage of placement and recruitment processes leads to a risk of missing out mobility and employment opportunities because clients of employment services are not fully aware which services they can expect, nor of the fact that EURES services end at national borders as there is no counterpart providing the necessary service in the other country.

Box 1 – Examples of follow-up to those who are interested in working in another EU country

Signposting – employment adviser gives jobseeker information about how to find out about EURES (e.g. website/brochures) and how to contact a EURES Adviser. After that it is up to the initiative of the individual to actually use the information and make contact. This is the case, for example, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

Informal proactive support – as above but employment advisers are proactive in supporting contact. Ultimately it is still down to the individual to sign up and commit. For example, in Malta there are plans to introduce a facility for advisors to directly book interested jobseekers for consultations with EURES advisors or EURES introductory information sessions.

Formal proactive support – as above but with possible EURES activities documented in the Individual Action Plan (IAP). For example, in Slovenia, jobseekers with an interest to work abroad will have one or more EURES activities built into their IAP.

EURES initiated – Working from the PES register, EURES advisors identify newly registered jobseekers interested in working abroad and routinely contact them. This appears to apply, for example, in Sweden.

Direct provision – employment advisor themselves informs jobseeker about EURES and it is up to them to offer jobs abroad to jobseekers when appropriate. This is the case, for example, in Finland.

Source: PES crisis response questionnaire

3.2.4. The limited availability of assistance

To date the mobility support services offered by staff in the EURES network basically consist of job search assistance and assistance with recruitment for employers addressing the needs of the European labour market. These services are part of all services and activities undertaken by the PES together with services provided by other public agencies or any other bodies contracted under public finance, which facilitate the integration of unemployed and other job seekers in the labour market or assist employers in recruiting and selecting staff.

Such services include the provision of information on how to gain access to ALMPs, but not the delivery of ALMPs themselves. Under the OECD/Eurostat definition active measures include activities such as training, job rotation and job sharing, employment incentives. The design and organisation of these measures is within the remit of the Member States' competences.

Research[57] shows that job search assistance has a significantly (positive) impact on the transition of beneficiaries from welfare to work. This kind of activity has been shown to be the most cost-effective short-term measure[58], compared to other measures. A well-balanced design of basic services such as personalised job search assistance and counselling, based on mutual obligations of beneficiaries and service providers, enhances long term career opportunities. Even in a depressed labour market with a minimum turnover of vacancies, such services can help the unemployed to remain actively searching for work, curbing the rise in long term unemployment and avoiding exits into inactivity.

Job search assistance is even more important for intra-EU labour mobility, as job seekers and employers will have to overcome more information gaps and administrative barriers; they often require more specific information on qualifications and skills, guidance and assistance with the preparation of job interviews, analysis of CV's, and how to gain access to ALMPs, such as training.

Three types of limitations in the services and measures of the EURES network are identified which seriously impede on the potential of the EURES network to facilitate an effective exercise of the freedom of movement for workers. The first concerns the focus of the EURES services, the second the possibility for job seekers to be eligible for national ALMPs to help them find a job in another Member State (financial support to out-bound mobility) and the third how information and advice on social security is provided, as part of EURES services.

It should be underscored that to date there are no specific obligations in place under Regulation 492/2011 which outline how to achieve intra-EU recruitments. Obligations to send and process information on job vacancies and job applications (the clearance) as well as on living and working conditions and the state of the labour market have been interpreted as an obligation to deliver services to job seekers and employers, but it is left to the Member States' individual discretion to contribute to these activities.

3.2.4.1. Limited availability to assist with matching, recruitment and placement

The 2010 ex-post evaluation and a recent update considering the period 2006-12 found in Annex 5 indicate that EURES Advisers spend about 45% of their time on giving information and guidance on general and specific topics exclusively, with the remaining 55% being a mixture of information and guidance to end users, either jobseekers or employers (see table 5 below). Within the latter only part of the time is dedicated to concrete (individualised) assistance to bring about actual recruitment and placement.

Table 5 – Breakdown per activity according to EURES advisers reporting over the period 2006-2012

Evaluation 2006-2008 || 2006-2012 Average || Topics and qualification of the nature of the activity

17.1% || 17.09% || General information on EURES

41.2% || 43.05% || Information, guidance and assistance on job search (contacts with jobseekers, preparation on CV's and application letters )

15.1% || 14.45% || Information, guidance and assistance on recruitment (contacts with employers, general information, matching and pre-selection of job vacancies)

10.1% || 9.84% || Information and guidance on social security and taxation

1.9% || 2.22% || Information and guidance on education and training

8.3% || 7.83% || Information and guidance on living and working conditions

6% || 5.48% || Other

Source: EURES 2006-2008 ex-post evaluation and monthly reports EURES managers

Therefore, the above evaluation noted that EURES needed to be repositioned as a key tool to improve matching between job seekers and vacancies throughout Europe and that this requires offering more personalised mobility assistance[59]. Job seekers and employers would appreciate obtaining more and faster support when looking for quick and cost-efficient practical solutions on living and work conditions, such as (temporary) housing arrangements, and integration, such as intercultural training or basic language training.

While Member States recognise in principle that Regulation 492/2011 implies that mobility support services should be provided at national level (Article 11 of the Regulation refers to "acting jointly as regards the clearing of vacancies and applications for employment within the Union and the resultant placing of workers in employment"), there is no agreement on which mobility support services should be provided and how this should be done. The Regulation does not provide adequate guidance on this point.

The 2012 Decision introduces incentives to focus more on this kind of support services. However, informal consultations with the PES on the revision of the EURES service catalogue implementing this principle from the Decision have proven difficult. No common ground could be found at operational level on which services to include as EURES services to be made available in all Member States beyond the provision of general information and guidance on intra-EU labour mobility. For instance, many Member States could not commit to organising or participating at (international) recruitment events, such as (targeted) (online) European job fairs, as a means to bolster intra-EU labour matching, nor to providing information on work and living conditions in other countries other than the general information on-line, with the possibility to be an intermediary to refer questions to a EURES adviser from another Member State.

As a result, despite efforts made by the Commission under its 2012 Decision, mobility support services to end users will continue to strongly vary from one country to another, essentially depending on the availability of individual EURES advisers and the national PES model. This demonstrates the limitations of the system of voluntary collaboration on the definition of EURES services under Regulation 492/2011.

The same consultations also reveal a limited interest or willingness to open up the EURES network at national level to employment services and organisations other than the PES that might be able to complement the services provided by the PES, given a different focus on client groups, sectors or occupations etc. (see sections 3.5.3 and 3.5.4).

That there is a potential to do more to assist jobseekers and employer with making the best of employment opportunities in other countries could be illustrated by an example of a country facing a particular difficult situation at the moment. Spain, with a 53% youth unemployment rate, has about 50 EURES advisers and roughly 290.000 Spanish jobseekers registered on the EURES portal. In 2012 the EURES advisers registered about 110.000 contacts with job seekers but recorded only 2.000 recorded placement results thanks to matching within the framework of the EURES network (See Annex 5). As indicated in Chart 3 in section 3.2.1 Spain only delivers 3% of its vacancies to the EURES portal, its regional databases not being connected. For many of its matching and placement activities, it depends foremost on bilateral projects, essentially with Germany. When Spain launched its project under the Your first EURES job preparatory action there was very high interest and the PES was not able to satisfy the demand. The Spanish government also needed some more time to put in place a decree to allow the PES to finance lump sum contributions to Spanish job seekers for travel cost for job interviews in other Member States. Since autumn this year, the contributions are available and matching activities can be reinforced, albeit with modest EU resources. To date Spain has no agreement with PrES to complete strategically its service offer. Spain received in 2013 a CSR to enact swiftly a result-oriented reform of active labour market policies, including by strengthening the targeting and efficiency of guidance. It has been called upon to reinforce and modernise public employment services to ensure effective individualised assistance to the unemployed according to their profiles and training needs.

3.2.4.2 Limited access to ALMPs such as language training and relocation assistance

As regards inbound mobility, article 5 of Regulation 492/2011 provides for access by jobseekers “in the territory of another Member States to the same assistance there as afforded to the own nationals”. Generally, as result of this provision, all labour market programmes in place in the Member States are open to nationals of other Member States. These range from activities by jobseekers and workers through to measures such as language training, contributions to travel expenses for job interviews and/or relocation assistance.

No such provision exists for outbound mobility in Regulation 492/2011. To date job seekers in one Member State who are interested in working in another Member State and who need assistance for the purpose of placement cannot necessarily avail themselves of such measures in their own country.

This has led to an uneven support to intra-EU labour mobility across the EU. For instance, in Finland, on the one hand, a Finnish national who seeks to find a job just across the border in Sweden, is not eligible for a contribution from the own government to job interview travel costs, while a Finnish national moving nearly the same distance from one part of Finland to say a border town near Sweden will be able to receive such an allocation.

In Germany, on the other hand, there is no problem with the access to public funding for language courses in other languages for German nationals who wish to work in other Member States. Also in Slovenia, support can be provided for such measures if there is a realistic job prospect, for instance through German language courses in relation to recruitment in Austria or Germany.

Based on the replies to the consultations with the EURES managers in which this point was raised, it would seem that financial support is only allowed for action on own territory in quite a number of countries (in particular BE-Actiris, BE-Le Forem, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK).

All job seekers should be provided equal opportunities when it comes to requesting access to and/or public funding for this kind of incentive measures, since such ALMPs aim to support their employability and activation on the labour market and the purpose is served equally, whether a job is found in the own country or in another Member State. Any access restrictions to mobility within the territory of the Member State concerned should be lifted to increase across the Union the employment potential of intra-EU labour mobility.

The EURES network could then play a role to provide more systematically information on how to obtain access to this kind of ALMPs and accordingly reinforce the impact.

3.2.4.3 Limited coordination in the provision of information on other issues, such as social security

Cooperation in the area of social security rights such as healthcare, pension, unemployment, family and other social security benefits are covered by EU rules on coordination of social security systems. Some of these social security rights have a particular importance for workers moving to another Member State: they need full information about rights related to unemployment benefits, sickness benefits, invalidity, pensions, insurance against accidents at work and occupational diseases, family benefits etc. as well as about work-related rights such as access to educational institutions. Amounts and conditions differ widely between countries. These workers have the right to equal treatment under the legislation of any Member State as the nationals thereof. While the EURES network has the potential to give early information on social security rights and equal treatment in a coordinated way, this potential has not yet been realised.

3.2.5. An inefficient labour market information exchange between Member States on labour shortages and surpluses and a more targeted practical co-operation in the EURES network (information exchange and cooperation)

Article 46 TFEU refers to the cooperation between national employment services and the setting up of an appropriate machinery to bring offers of employment in touch with applications for employment. Despite operational advancements due to the current vacancy clearance mechanism and the EURES network, a genuine European cooperation when it comes to strategy development of intra-EU labour mobility flows is not yet in place:

· At political level Member States may adjust their mobility policies in light of economic developments affecting their national labour markets but this is not done systematically and certainly not in consultation with other Member States, so as to take into account trends and the potential needs from a European labour market perspective.

· At operational level, effective cross-border co-operation pre-supposes an agreement on common objectives (a shared vision) and a framework for the coordination between Member States at operational level, implying systematic and intensive information sharing, common tools and a clear distribution of responsibilities across borders (a shared methodology).

Regulation 492/2011 does not provide for an appropriate framework within which Member States strategically coordinate the management of mobility flows. No common system is yet developed for sharing openly the necessary labour market intelligence on hard to fill vacancies or activation policies, allowing for an overall European overview of the supply and demand of skills and a coordination of activities in accordance with the needs identified as result of this overview.

The 2012 Decision sets up a programming and reporting cycle to improve information exchange on EURES activities and results, partially addressing this shortcoming. Still missing is an agreement on the strategic use of such a cycle. In the interest of developing functioning European labour markets, there is a need to further develop a systematic exchange of information on national labour market needs, i.e. the labour shortages and surpluses. There should be tools and procedures to jointly examine the intelligence to support the development of a concerted reply avoiding duplications of efforts.

3.2.6. Summary

The inefficiencies in the EURES network described above can be summarised as lack of transparency on the labour market, weak tools for automated matching and insufficient interoperability between national systems and the EURES network, inadequate access to and organisation of the transmission of key information on the EURES network at national level, the predominance of general information provision at the expense of matching and placement services, and absence of a systematic cooperation on labour market intelligence between employment services.

3.3. What are the underlying drivers

The main causes of the shortcomings are related to the current framework for the functioning of the EURES network under the 2012 Decision and the clearance mechanisms under the 492/2011 Regulation:

1. Unclear obligations for Member States, leading to a wide scope for interpretation and allowing Member States to avoid transmitting all job vacancies and pertinent labour market information, to maintain administrative barriers in the access of both jobseekers and employers to EU labour market information;

2. Insufficient willingness of Member States to voluntarily provide services to jobseekers and employers relating to intra-EU labour mobility, particularly in terms of delivery of job vacancies to the EURES portal, of visibility of European vacancies on national job search portals, of access to mobility support services;

3. Over-reliance on voluntary Member State collaboration for the functioning of the EURES network as a whole, leading to insufficient progress towards building up collaborative systems, notably on the automatic sharing of CVs, on co-opting private employment services in the EURES system at national level, on rolling out across Member States a common service catalogue;

4. Absence of a coherent approach on how and where the EURES network, as a decentralised network for transnational co-operation, comes into action, leaving Member States to operate in a grey zone as to European and national interests, in the absence of mobility policies commonly shared and used to steering the coordination of actions between Member States within the EURES network;

5. Limited coordination powers of the Commission, severely constraining the policy levers to address the gaps in the functioning of the EURES network, notably on developing the tools and means for the clearance on vacancies and CVs and the analysis of labour market intelligence.

An overview table on how the inefficiencies relate to the current regulatory framework can be found in Annex 7.

3.4. Who is affected and how

The groups most directly affected in the EU are workers/jobseekers and employers.

Workers will benefit from easier access to jobs in other countries, which might also mean that a worker – even when not being mobile – might be somewhat more likely to have a colleague from another country than in the past. With intra-EU labour mobility becoming more a natural choice it is expected that also new groups of professionals (beyond those traditionally mobile such as employees in the tourism sector or in research etc.) will increasingly decide for mobility. Young people, with their higher than average inclination to work in another Member State, are more likely to benefit from the additional support.

Also on the employer's side it is expected that intra-EU recruitments will be less difficult to realise. Small employers (SME) might benefit more from recruitment from abroad, as they, unlike big employers, may not have the capacity to do intra-EU recruitment in house.

For the implementation it will also directly affect PES (in the double role 'PES as such' and 'PES as being responsible for the organisation of EURES in a country'). They will have to adapt to potential new obligations. Finally the non-PES actors who can choose to become EURES service providers (EURES Partners) will also be directly affected.

3.5. Baseline scenario and the need for intervention

3.5.1. Regulatory framework

From the organisational perspective the EURES network is characterised by three layers of legislation, Regulation 492/2011, the 2012 Decision and the Charter, as outlined in table 6:

Table 6 – overview of the components in the EURES regulatory framework

Instrument || Purpose and scope

Regulation || Identifies the objectives and obligations incumbent upon the Member States: to share vacancies and applications for employment, to exchange information in relation to the labour markets and to cooperate with other Member States, including on the resultant placing of workers

Decision || Establishes the network to organise this work, defines the composition of the network and the responsibilities of the different actors in the network

Charter || Lays down guidance in the form of operational and technical standards on the organisation of the EURES network so that staff from different Member States can work together and with the European Commission

3.5.2. The 2012 Decision

The 2012 Decision introduced four key ideas:

– To focus more on matching, placement and recruitment activities, with changes in the service catalogue and national practices;

– To set up a programming cycle between the Member States with a view to improving information exchange across the network and its capacity to report on results (indicators);

– To introduce in each Member State a mechanism to select and authorise at national level the participation of other organisations than the PES with a view to increasing the data on job vacancies, job applications and CV's available at the EURES portal and improving the access for job seekers and employers to high quality mobility support services.

– To make better use of the regulatory possibilities under the Regulation as regards the exchange of information on employment offers and applications by also including information on employment-related, i.e. paid traineeships and apprenticeships.

The 2012 Decision can only encourage Member States to reform the organisational structure and realign their services of the national EURES to realise this change in priorities. Without the strong support from Member States and their operational decisions to take up the incentives, individually and collectively, the 2012 Decision itself cannot lead to a comprehensive modernisation of the EURES network. It is not within the powers of the Commission alone to provide jobseekers and employers with demand-driven, sufficient and performing European employment services.

Another element that introduces uncertainty into this construction is that the 2012 Decision is – for formal reasons – under investigation with the Court of Justice. The uncertainty stalls the implementation of the reform.

Irrespective of this pending procedure, the Commission has entered into discussions with the EURES network to develop a new EURES Charter for the implementation of this Decision.

3.5.3. The situation as regards traineeships and apprenticeships

Legally, Member States can include in the exchange of offers of employment also offers for traineeships and apprenticeships provided that they are considered as employment, i.e. are paid. In practice, this has not happened yet. There is no framework for the exchange of information in place within the EURES network and there are no appropriate mechanisms to share neither general information on traineeships and apprenticeships nor to make available individual offers and applications for this kind of work across borders.

Therefore, in line with the European Council Conclusions of June 2012, Article 2(e) of the 2012 Decision has introduced as a new operational objective for the EURES network "the exchange of information on traineeships and apprenticeships in the sense of Regulation 492/2011 and as, appropriate, the placement of trainees and apprentices".

The Commission sent out a questionnaire in November 2012 and made available a compilation of replies in March 2013 and a summary of the compilation. The conclusion of the summary is that while many countries supported the idea to explore the extension to traineeships and apprenticeships, they also underlined the challenges in developing a meaningful exchange of information on apprenticeships and traineeships through the EURES portal given the different definitions, approaches and regulatory framework in place across Europe. While several Member States questioned the added value of developing further this task within the EURES network (CY, NL, LU, LV), others explicitly underscored the importance of limiting the scope in line with Article 46 TFEU. Germany referred to apprenticeships which are fully recognized within the framework of its national educational/ vocational training systems, Greece made reference to apprenticeships within dual systems, France suggested that information sharing be limited to apprenticeships and Poland to those traineeships and apprenticeships which are based on an employment contract.

The summary also identifies concerns by Member States on managing adequately the expectations of the end users (young people), with replies underlining the importance of

· making available on the EURES portal on the basis of a common template clear information on the country-specific definitions (status of the trainee/ apprentice), the overall regulatory framework governing traineeships and apprenticeships, procedures and key actors providing traineeships and apprenticeships);

· providing also important other information on mobility perspectives, such as information on social security and on the recognition of the learning outcomes and other experiences;

· separating clearly on the EURES portal the mechanisms for placement in employment from placement in other forms of occupation to avoid confusion for end users (possibly flagging; need to differentiate for traineeships and apprenticeships by country);

· Ensuring appropriate validation / verification mechanisms in relation to offers, to avoid that the portal inadvertently promotes illegal employment or inappropriate forms of occupations.

Following an exchange of views with Member States on the outcome of the questionnaire, a working group has been established with representatives from DG EAC and DG EMPL, the National Agencies for Life Long learning from BE, FI and HU and EURES representatives from CY, DE, ES, FI, FR, IT, IE, HU, HR, LT, UK. The mandate of the working group is:

- to develop a general framework on information sharing on apprentices and trainees in the framework of EURES which can be common to all Member States

- to elaborate common templates for sharing information on and preparing transnational placement as a trainee or apprentice, such as a template for basic country-specific information on traineeships and apprenticeships and forms for offering traineeships/ apprenticeships (both for supply and demand).

The general framework should explain the scope of the exchange of information and its limitations, in light of the different laws and set-up in Member States and the purpose of EURES. It should also define the overall parameters on the basis of which information on offers could be shared on the EURES portal, in light of the replies to the questionnaire on, legal and operational aspects.

The working group is currently developing the elements for a document outlining (a) the scope of a future information exchange methodology on traineeships and apprenticeships among the EURES network and (b) the scope of a possible pilot for intra-EU matching in this area between voluntary Member States, to be launched in the course of 2014, once the 2012 Decision is in force. After the testing of the pilot project, conclusions can be drawn on the possible next steps.

Key issues that have been raised in the questionnaire and the discussions in the working group are the resource-implications of this additional task for the EURES network as well as the organizational implications, given that public employment services are not necessarily responsible for the data on traineeships and apprenticeships. In the replies, several Member States (BE, BU, EL, FR, IE, PL, PT, RO and SE) referred to the need for additional national regulations to support data exchange on traineeships and apprenticeships.

Moreover, it will depend on the domestic legal framework in each Member State whether traineeships and apprenticeships would be considered work within the meaning of Regulation 492/2011 and whether offers could therefore be made available to the EURES portal. While Member States may change their legislation, on the basis of studies finalized last year the following preliminary conclusions can be drawn:

- In the overwhelming majority of Member States, in contrast to apprenticeships, the traineeship contract (under all types of traineeships) is explicitly not an employment contract. In most MS the legal position of trainees is not equal to that of a regular employee, or apprentice. Examples where trainees are typically contractually protected include (i) the signing of a temporary employment contract for paid traineeships (e.g. BE, CZ, etc.) and the (usually) tripartite traineeship agreement signed for traineeships linked to education and training, notably VET (e.g. DE, EE, EL, FR, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, SE, etc.). In the UK if a trainee is classified as worker as opposed to volunteer, then he/she is covered by national minimum wage legislation.

- According to traditional understandings, such as used by the ILO, apprenticeships are based on an employment contract. An apprentice has a contractual status which is similar to that of an employee. The contractual basis of the apprenticeship regulates entitlements to both remuneration and social protection Crucially, it also defines the working conditions between the apprentice and the employer with a specific view to the learning content of the placement. In contrast, considering the inexistence of a single and clear-cut definition of apprenticeship and given the diversity of vocational training systems in the European countries, the EU uses the following working definition: "Apprenticeship-type schemes are those forms of Initial Vocational Education and Training (IVET) that formally combine and alternate company based training (periods of practical work experience at a workplace) with school based education (periods of theoretical/practical education followed in a school or training centre), and whose successful completion leads to well and nationally recognised initial VET certification degrees." This definition makes no explicit reference to the existence of a contractual direct relationship between the employer and the apprentice, but it allows to include a range of existing or developing types of apprenticeships across the EU, including combined workplace and school based training that some Member States are implementing and that do not strictly fit in the traditional definition of apprenticeship. Apprenticeships are always a component of a formal education and training programme and lead to an accredited qualification or certificate which, in turn, qualifies a person to work in a specific occupation. An essential distinction can be made between company-based and school-based apprenticeships. Company based apprenticeship schemes exist in all Member States (except for the Czech Republic, Poland, Spain). School-based schemes exist in all Member States, except for Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Romania, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia.

Regardless of the outcome of this process, the Commission envisages to create in 2014 a dedicated web page with information on the legal frameworks in place in the different Member States and thus start to use the EURES portal for general exchange of information on traineeships and apprenticeships.

3.5.4. The challenge of opening up the EURES network to non-public employment services

Efforts need to be undertaken to ensure that the EURES network can continue to function as a relevant actor on the recruitment market. Considering public finance constraints and high unemployment levels, PES might not be in a position either to satisfy a significant part of the demand for mobility support services or to deliver the full range of such services themselves.

In terms of the effectiveness of "intermediaries", the market in the EU is basically equal between PES, temporary work agencies (TWA)[60] and on line recruitment services. PES and TWA both have a similar and quite a small overall share of the total job vacancies that are filled. The numbers have been calculated by taking the rate at which employers use the channel for recruitment (usage rate) and the rate at which the use of the channel leads to the filling of a vacancy (success rate)[61]. As an employer can use several channels for the same vacancy, the figures are most valuable when looking at the differences between different types of employment services, rather than comparing them to all filled vacancies:

- During the period 2007-2010 the average PES share of filled vacancies was about 8%. They have a higher share in parts of the public sector and in certain skilled trades.

- During the period 2007-2010 the share of the TWA was 10% on average, with the highest shares of filled vacancies in the manufacturing sectors and various operator occupations sensitive to economic cycles. The TWA share declined in 2009 as reaction of the crisis, but showed recovery since then. As employers use TWA's in response to change in demand, they tend to be highly sensitive to peaks and troughs in economic activity. [62].

Table 7 illustrates that activity areas are fairly complementary and that there is scope for synergies; the PES deal with jobs in agriculture, manufacture of transport, public administration and social services, whereas the TWA concentrate resources on the bulk of manufacture sectors.

Table 7: Top economic sectors for PES and TWA

|| PES Top Ten economic sectors with the highest share of filled vacancies, 2008-2010 || TWA Top Ten economic sectors by share of filled vacancies, 2008-2010

1 || Forestry and logging || 43% || Other human resources provision || 60%

2 || Manufacture of transport equipment || 38% || Manufacture of soap and detergents and similar products || 47%

3 || Administration of state, economic and social policy of the community || 26% || Manufacture of dairy products || 46%

4 || Waste collection || 25% || Manufacture of railway locomotives and rolling stock || 42%

5 || Compulsory social security activities || 22% || Manufacture of rubber products || 40%

6 || Activities of other membership organisations || 21% || Programming and broadcasting activities || 40%

7 || Materials recovery || 21% || Warehousing and storage || 39%

8 || Manufacture of paints, varnishes, similar coatings, printing ink, mastic || 20% || Manufacture of general-purpose machinery || 35%

9 || Waste collection including treatment and disposal; materials recovery || 19% || Manufacture of abrasive products and non-metallic mineral products || 35%

10 || Other reservation service and related activities || 19% || Manufacture of plastic products || 34%

Source: European vacancy and recruitment report 2012

Consequently, it would be economically beneficial if Member States develop systems in which the PES cooperate with private employment services to provide mobility support services, leaving each service provider to bring their respective strengths to the EURES network.

As part of the EURES network any service provider, including PrES, would have to deliver services in conformity with the EURES service catalogue. For services they cannot provide, PrES must be able to redirect clients towards other EURES service providers that do provide the given service. The participation of these service providers in the EURES network will remain voluntary. In any case, this means that for the opening up to have chance, a clear EU definition of EURES services should be developed.

3.5.5. Expected results of the 2012 Decision and the preparation in Member States

The 2012 Decision aimed at addressing inefficiencies by encouraging and incentivising the Member States. The consultations on the draft Charter with experts from the Member States have shown the limitations of this approach. While the ideas to focus more on matching, placement and recruitment activities and to set up a programming cycle have generally been welcomed, the idea to introduce in each Member State a mechanism to open up the EURES network will not be realised.

The Commission argued that the advantages for other employment services to become EURES service providers (EURES Partners) would be (a) a wider spread of vacancies, (b) access to jobseekers in other Member States and (c) increased opportunities to trans-national cooperation in matching, placement and recruitment.

Informal consultations with Eurociett indicated that there are two important pre-requisites for a well-functioning EURES network open to other employment services: (a) the network is opened at national level and (b) that it must include as its basis the exchange of vacancies between all partners in the network[63].

Positions ranged from Member States expressing doubts on the feasibility of including non-public employment services per se, such as Austria, to those expressly welcoming it as an opportunity, like the United Kingdom. Some Member States, such as France and Sweden, were concerned with jurisdictional and organisational issues (which Member State is responsible for which employment service, what kind of authority would be responsible for the authorisation, and how would quality be ensured and results monitored). Others, such as Belgium, Italy, Malta and Ireland, believed that the expected outcome would not be proportionate to the administrative burden of setting a specific mechanism and preferred rather the extension of existing mechanisms of co-operation with non-public employment services. As for the arguments why the EURES network should in principle stay a network with a limited composition, there is the view of PES in countries where private employment services are free to delivery employment services that there is no need to regulate the market (such as Sweden), that it decelerates efforts to mainstream EURES in the PEs (Lithuania), that it will create unclear responsibilities and administrative burdens disproportionate to the benefits of having other actors (such as Belgium, Estonia) or that it may be more appropriate for PES to work through national service level agreements (such as the Netherlands).

These views have their merits. Yet, by keeping the status quo also the role of private actors in the delivery of intra-EU recruitment services will remain fragmented across the EU. Provisions could be formulated in a way that they don't interfere with already functioning public-private cooperation. There is no evidence that the PES efficiency in service delivery, e.g. in mainstreaming, would be diminished and there are surely various ways and means in which to continue such mainstreaming processes for EURES within the PES, irrespective of the choices made on the opening up of the EURES network with actors beyond the PES.

As a result of this feedback, the idea that every Member State should set up authorisation systems was not considered feasible for a document such as the Charter, an interpretative guide built on the basis of consensus among Member States on the way forward, and instead, as common minimum approach, the current draft outlines that Member States will be invited to do a reflection in 2014 on how to open up and then develop a national framework for doing so accordingly.

This means that each Member State, in the course of 2014, will examine how, in accordance with national practices and procedures, it can improve the service delivery towards the client groups. The reflection process, in consultation with organisations not yet in the EURES network, should help the Member State to come up with ways and means to proactively and progressively steer the overall quantity and quality of inputs (i.e. services) at national level to enhance the employment potential for the national labour force (i.e. by using recruitment opportunities in other Member States) and/or the national labour demand (i.e. by placing nationals from other Member States in jobs). As a consequence of the reflection process, Member States will then elaborate their own national framework for gradually expanding the scope of the network at national level. This could be done for instance by extending existing national processes applying to the registration or licensing of employment services or by negotiating agreements between such organisations and the Ministry of Labour and/or the PES.

Informal feedback on the introduction of this fall back option indicates that at technical level in several Member States, such as Spain, Germany, Greece, Denmark, Cyprus, the PES is expected to be the only EURES service provider in the coming period. Belgium and the Netherlands may consider the option of developing agreements with other actors, in accordance with their current national practices on sharing job vacancy data with private actors. Only a few Member States have indicated that they aim to pursue the original idea and have in mind some sort of mechanism to open up the EURES network, in most cases building on existing licencing or registration mechanisms. This is notably the case in Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy, Portugal and the United Kingdom.

These positions must not be seen in isolation but in the broader context of the difficulties public employment services (PES) face in co-operating with other partners on national labour markets. While there is a general awareness that a fundamental shift in approach is necessary, as evidenced in the paper of the informal network PES on their "2020 vision".[64], concrete progress on such an approach in Member States is less evident.

A more consistent approach is not likely either when it comes to rolling out the EURES service catalogue across the Member States. The consultations on the draft Charter show that after the discussions on the new service catalogue, very few Member States openly acknowledge a need to make any changes at national level. Some improvements are deemed necessary in countries such as Finland, Slovenia and Germany, while notably in France, Sweden and Portugal a review of the situation will still be undertaken with the EURES advisers, in the work processes of the PES and/or through more training. All other countries believe that no changes are needed or have in any case not yet planned any such changes.

In light of the above, the inefficiencies summarised in section 3.2.6 are not to be remedied soon in many Member States as a result of the incentives proposed by the Commission under the Decision. Consequently, the base line situation (post 2012 Decision) remains essentially one of many different starting positions in individual Member States on the development of mobility support services and on opening up the EURES network, risking an incomplete reform of the EURES network and an incoherent delivery across the Union over the years to come.

As regards traineeships and apprenticeships, the pilot project in 2014 should provide a first indication as to the conditions under which exchange of information on offers and applications for traineeships and apprenticeships considered as work could function properly and be integrated in a viable manner in the mid to long term in the activities of the EURES network.

3.6. The legal basis, subsidiarity, proportionality and fundamental rights

This initiative respects the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

The legal basis of EURES is to be found in Articles 45 and 46 TFEU and in particular in Article 46 TFEU that refers to a close cooperation between national employment services (sub a) and provides for the setting up of an appropriate machinery to bring offers of employment in touch with applications for employment (sub d).

The shortcomings identified with respect to the EURES network, the clearance and the information exchange and co-operation on intra-EU labour mobility are closely connected to the objectives set out in respectively Article 3(3) TEU, under which the European Union established an internal market based on a highly competitive social market economy, aimed at full employment and social progress, Article 9 TFEU, stipulating the promotion of a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection and Article 45 TFEU (“the right to accept offers of employment actually made (…) within the territory of Member States for this purpose”).

The individual specific measures in this proposal are closely interconnected. They reinforce each other and will together make the EURES network an effective instrument for any job seeker or employer interested in intra-EU labour mobility. Insofar as they entail expanding current transparency obligations, enabling automated matching, ensuring equal access throughout the Union to the EURES network, defining more clearly practical support services and extending current information exchange arrangements, they are deemed a comprehensive but balanced response to the different shortcomings in the current framework for cooperation. The set of measures is deemed appropriate in light of the situation of unemployed people on the labour markets, the needs addressed by job seekers (“firm intentions”) and the (technological) evolutions on the vacancy and recruitment markets.

Each individual measure is justified per se as a measure bringing about freedom of movement for workers identified under Article 46 of the Treaty. Each measure either aims at improving “the close cooperation between national employment services” (Article 46(a) TFEU) and/or to redesigning “the appropriate machinery” to bring job vacancies in touch with job applications (Article 46(d) TFEU).

As clearance of job vacancies, job applications and CV’s across borders and the resultant placement of workers both presuppose a common framework for co-operation between organisations in different Member States, the objectives of the proposal cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States alone and action at EU level is therefore required.

In line with the principle of proportionality, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve the objectives.

– For transparency, the Member States will only make available to the EURES portal those vacancies and CV’s already available nationally. They will not be called upon to expand transparency on national labour markets.

– Automated matching will be achieved using simple interoperability tools and not by imposing a common classification system to be used by all Member States at national level. Member States will have the choice to continue with their own classification systems or receive support to introduce a European classification system developed by the European Commission.

– Mainstreaming, i.e. the integration of EURES services into the activity of front desks of employment services, can be achieved through standard information (online and/or paper) and only comes into play in those situations where direct contact with the target group is made (i.e. when there is a request for client services with employment services). This will leave untouched existing efforts in Member States to develop communication and information activities on the EURES network and to act through organisations they consider appropriate in light of the national institutional set- up.

– Support services can be delivered at national level through a range of options and channels and its intensity and scope can be conditioned depending on the individual situation of job seekers and employers. No detailed common service catalogue, as developed within the framework of the Charter as an interpretive guidance document under the current situation, will be introduced.

– Member States will share more systematically national information on labour shortages and surpluses and the national mobility policies, but the decision on these policies is a choice of the Member State itself and falls therefore outside the scope of the Regulation.

In this regard, it is also important to underline the fact that the freedom of movement of workers constitutes a fundamental right and the aim of the EURES network is to strengthen it by facilitating the exercise of the right. To be able to effectively do so, it should evolve with the needs on the ground and the beliefs by the EU legislator on how to secure that right for the benefit of the citizens, in light of the overall mobility patterns and economic situation in the EU. The EURES network has been in place for decades but has since its inception been organised in a way that to the largest extent possible left it to the Member States to decide on how to set up and organise the activities in their respective country in line with the divergence of their labour market institutions. As indicated above, the EURES network is not sufficiently equipped to unleash the potential of intra-EU labour mobility and it is therefore time to revise this approach and be more specific on its organisation in the Member States.

The rules and obligations put forward will serve the purpose of reinforcing the understanding and interpretatio