Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Report on the Functioning of the Transitional Arrangements set out in the 2003 Accession Treaty (period 1 May 2004–30 April 2006)
Date: 2006-02-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: accession to the European Union, enlargement of the Union, free movement of workers, job access, labour market, transitional period (EU)

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 8.2.2006 
COM(2006) 48 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE 
EURPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Report on the Functioning of the Transitional Arrangements set out in the 2003 
Accession Treaty (period 1 May 2004–30 April 2006)  

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

Purpose of this Report.................................................................................................. 3 

The Transitional Arrangements.................................................................................... 3 

Consultation of Member States and Social Partners .................................................... 5 

Statistical evidence on workers' mobility pre- and post-enlargement.......................... 6 

4.1.  Workers' mobility in the enlarged European Union..................................................... 6 

4.2. 

4.3. 

Labour market outcomes for country and EU nationals: employment rates.............. 10 

Sectoral and skill composition of the EU-10 workforce in EU-15 Member States: 
complementarities or substitution? ............................................................................ 12 

5. 

Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................... 13 

ANNEX I: STATISTICAL ANNEX ....................................................................................... 16 

ANNEX II: BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................ 20 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE 
EURPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Report on the Functioning of the Transitional Arrangements set out in the 2003 
Accession Treaty (period 1 May 2004–30 April 2006) 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

1. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

2. 

4. 

1 

2 

3 
4 

PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT  

The  Commission  presents  this  report  to  the  Council  in  accordance  with  paragraph 
3(2) of the transitional arrangements on freedom of movement for persons1 annexed 
to  the  Treaty  of  Accession  of  20032.  Pursuant  to  these  transitional  arrangements 
the introduction of part of Community law on free movement of workers across the 
enlarged EU, may be deferred for a period of maximum 7 years3. 

The transitional period is divided in three distinct phases, according to the "2 plus 3 
plus  2"  formula.  Different  conditions  apply  during  each  of  these  phases.  The  first 
phase of the transitional arrangements (TA) started on 1 May 2004 and will end on 
30 April 2006. 

The  Accession  Treaty  states  that  before  the  end  of  this  phase,  the  Council  must 
review  the  functioning  of  the  TA  on  the  basis  of  a  Commission  report.  On 
completion  of  this  review,  and  no  later  than  at  the  end  of  the  two-year  period 
following  the  date  of  accession,  the  EU-15  Member  States  must  notify  the 
Commission  of  their  intentions  with  regard  to  the  second  phase  of  the  TA4.  In  the 
absence  of  notification,  Community  law  on  free  movement  of  workers  will  apply 
from the 1st of May 2006. 

THE TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS  

Free movement of persons is one of the most fundamental freedoms guaranteed by 
Community  law.  It  includes  the  right  for  EU  nationals  to  move  to  another  EU 
Member State to take up employment and to establish themselves in the host State 
with  their  family  members.  EU  Member  States  are  precluded  from  directly  or 

Free  movement  of  workers  (Article  39  EC)  must  legally  be  distinguished  from  freedom  of 
establishment (Article 43 EC) and freedom of services (Article 49 EC). The posted workers Directive, 
which  relates  to  the  latter  freedom,  is  not  subject to  transitional  arrangements  although  Germany  and 
Austria  are  allowed  to  apply  restrictions  on  the  cross-border provision of  services  in certain  sensitive 
sectors involving the temporary posting of workers as set out in paragraph 13 of the TA.  
This report deals with free movement of workers in the EU and not with economic immigration of non-
EU nationals.  
It should be noted that nationals from Malta and Cyprus cannot be subject to restrictions.  
In  this  Report,  "EU-15  Member  States"  refers  to  all  Member  States  forming  part  of  the  EU  before  1 
May 2004; ''EU-10 Member States'' refers to all States that joined the EU on 1 May 2004, whereas ''EU-
8 Member States'' refers to all EU-10 Member States except for Malta and Cyprus. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
indirectly discriminating against migrant workers and their families on the basis of 
their  nationality.  EU  migrant  workers  and  their  families  are  entitled  to  equal 
treatment  not  only  in  employment  related  matters,  but  also  as  regards  public 
housing,  tax  advantages  and  social  advantages5.  Removing  barriers  to  mobility 
between  and  within  Member  States  is  also  placed  central  in  the  Renewed  Lisbon 
Agenda. 

The  transitional  arrangements  set  out  in  the  Accession  Treaty  of  2003  allow  for 
limited derogations from the principles set out in the preceding paragraph, during a 
transitional  period  which  will  irrevocably  come  to  an  end  on  30  April  2011.  The 
restrictions can only be applied to migrant workers, and not to any other categories 
of  EU  citizens.  Further,  the  restrictions  can  only  apply  to  obtaining  access  to  the 
labour market, and can only limit eligibility for employment in a particular Member 
State.  Once  a  worker  has  obtained  access  to  the  labour  market  of  a  particular 
Member State Community law on equal treatment as regards remuneration, other 
employment  related  matters,  and  as  regards  access  to  social  and  tax  advantages 
applies.  In  other  words,  no  discrimination  whatsoever  is  allowed  on  the  ground  of 
nationality between legally employed workers, regardless of whether they come from 
EU-15  Member  States  or  EU-10  Member  States.  Further,  there  are  no  transitional 
arrangements  for  the  application  of  Community  law  on  the  coordination  of  social 
security schemes6. 

The Commission has produced several documents explaining the legal framework of 
the TA7. The Accession Treaty provides that for the first two years of the TA, EU-15 
Member  States  will  apply  national  measures,  or  those  resulting  from  bilateral 
agreements to regulate access to their labour markets by EU-8 nationals. The diverse 
national measures taken during this first phase of the TA resulted in legally different 
regimes for access to the labour markets of the EU-25. Sweden and Ireland decided 
not to apply restrictions on access to their labour markets by EU-8 nationals. The UK 
has no ex-ante restrictions either but has a Workers Registration Scheme8. All other 
EU-15  countries  maintained  a  work  permit  regime,  sometimes  combined  with 
quotas. No TA exist for Cyprus. Malta issues work permits for monitoring purposes. 
Poland, Slovenia and Hungary apply reciprocal restrictions to nationals from the EU-
15 Member States applying restrictions. All EU-10 Member States have opened their 
labour markets to workers of EU-10 Member States9. 

From  the  1st of May  2006, the second  phase of the transitional period will start. In 
any  event,  the  Accession  Treaty  provides  that  Member  States  that  decide  to  lift 
restrictions  on  the  1st  of  May  2006  will  have,  throughout  the  remainder  of  the 
transitional  period,  the  possibility  to  reintroduce  restrictions  using  the  safeguard 
procedure  set  out  in  the  Accession  Treaty,  should  they  undergo  or  foresee 
disturbances on their labour markets. 

Article  39  EC;  Regulation  1612/68/EEC;  Directive  68/360/EEC.  From  30  April  2006,  Directive 
2004/38/EC will apply which will replace/modify previous legislation. 
There is, however, an indirect impact on Article 69 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71. 
See Bibliography. 
This does not apply to Gibraltar, which has adopted a work permit regime. 
A detailed overview of the national measures which the Member States have put in place for the first 
phase  of  the  TA  is  available  via  the  Eures  job  mobility  portal.  A  summary  of  these  measures  can  be 
found on the Commission's DG EMPL website mentioned in the Bibliography. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

5 

6 
7 
8 
9 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
3. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

The  Accession  Treaty  also  lays  down  that,  notwithstanding  restrictions  applied  by 
Member  States,  they  shall  give  preference  to  workers  who  are  nationals  of  EU-8 
Member States over workers who are nationals of third countries as regards access to 
their labour market10. 

CONSULTATION OF MEMBER STATES AND SOCIAL PARTNERS 

The  Commission  has  convened  a  meeting  of  a  High  Level  Group  on  Free 
Movement  of  Persons.  This  group  met  on  16  September  2005  to  discuss  the 
functioning  of  the  TA.  In  addition  to  representatives  of  Member  States  it  invited 
representatives  of  European  and  national  social  partners.  During  the  meeting  many 
EU-15 Member States reported that they were commencing the process of internal 
consultations to determine their position for the second phase. All agreed on the need 
for solid data to underpin such decisions. Those that had decided not to apply any 
restrictions  during  the  first  phase  were  generally  positive  about  the  effects  of  this 
decision  on  their  labour  markets,  emphasising  the  positive  contribution  made  by 
workers from the EU-8 to their national economies.  

As for those EU-15 Member States that apply restrictions, some reported that these 
allow  them  to  manage  migration  from  neighbouring  EU-8  Member  States.  Two 
Member States continued to view the measures as necessary in the near future, taking 
into  account  national  absorption  capacity,  the  need  to  integrate  all  migrants, 
including  those  from  non-EU  countries,  and  to  accompany  internal  structural 
reforms.  Nevertheless,  it  was  acknowledged  that  the  restrictions  may  have 
encouraged EU-8 nationals to look for other ways to perform economic activity in 
EU-15 Member States, reflected in an exceptionally high influx of posted workers 
or workers claiming to be self-employed.  

As  for  EU-8  Member  States,  virtually  all  called  for  lifting  the  restrictions.  They 
stressed  the  fundamental  nature  of  their  citizens'  right  to  freedom  of  movement  as 
workers in the EU-25 and pointed to statistical evidence showing that their citizens 
had  not,  in  fact,  flooded  EU-15  labour  markets  nor  had  they  caused  any  surge  in 
welfare expenditure by EU-15 Member States. They also underlined the role of their 
citizens in alleviating problems caused by the EU-15's ageing workforce. 

The  social  partners  called  upon  their  national  authorities  to  consult  them  regarding 
their positions for the second period. Many stressed that restrictions might have had 
the effect of postponing indispensable structural reforms both in the EU-15 and the 
EU-8  labour  markets.  Recognising  that  migration  flows  from  EU-8  to  EU-15 
Member States had been modest, social partners strongly emphasised that erosion of 
labour standards and "social dumping" should be avoided. They also pointed out that 
restrictions  on  legal  work  actually  lead  to  a  proliferation  of  undocumented  work, 
bogus  "self-employed"  work,  and  fictitious  service  provision  and  sub-contracting. 
Lacunae  in  enforcement  of  existing  Community  legislation  and  in  particular  of  the 
posted workers directive were also reported. The overriding majority of the social 
partners, except for those representing SMEs and/or trade unions in a few countries, 

10 

See relevant provisions of paragraph 14 of the transitional provisions regarding preferential treatment. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
stated  that  they  were  in  favour  of  a  lifting  of  the  restrictions,  in  order  to  create  a 
level playing field. 

4. 

12. 

STATISTICAL EVIDENCE ON WORKERS' MOBILITY PRE- AND POST-ENLARGEMENT  

To enable the Commission to assess the functioning of the TA, Member States were 
asked to provide via Euurostat, national data on residence permits issued to other EU 
nationals  for  family  reunification,  employment,  study  and  other,  disaggregated  by 
citizenship,  gender  and  age.  The  national  data  received  by  the  Commission  in 
response  to  this  request,  relate  to  resident  permits,  work  permits,  and  number  of 
workers  from  other  administrative  data  sources,  such  as  social  security  registers, 
depending on national systems and institutional settings. Whilst the national data in 
this report have been harmonised as much as possible, it should be borne in mind that 
they are not completely harmonised nor strictly comparable across countries, and that 
the level of detail varies between countries. It should be noted too that according to 
some data circulating in the public domain, the migration flows for certain countries 
may differ from those presented in this report. This may be explained by the fact that 
not  all  data  circulating  in  the  public  domain  have  gone  through  the  same  rigorous 
analysis as those presented in this report11. Further, the true migration flows across 
the  enlarged  EU  may  be  larger  than  would  appear  from  the  data  presented  in  this 
report  as  the  phenomenon  of  undeclared  work  is  not  fully  captured  by  official 
statistics. 

13. 

In addition to the above national administrative data, evidence from the Labour Force 
Survey (LFS)12 will also be presented in this report13. The assessment does not take 
into account the interaction between the functioning of TA and other changes in the 
economic  and/or  policy  sphere.  The  assessment  of  the  functioning  of  TA  has  also 
been the subject of reports by different Member States and by other interested parties 
and the evidence presented therein has been used where relevant.  

4.1.  Workers' mobility in the enlarged European Union  

14. 

Since  enlargement  there  has  been  an  increase  in  the  number  of  EU-10  workers  in 
EU-15  Member  States.  However,  despite  this  increase,  the  relative  impact,  as 
measured by the number of permits issued for reason of employment as a proportion 
of  the  host  country's  working  age  population,  is  rather  limited  (see  table  below). 
Furthermore,  the  number  of  resident  and  work  permits  issued  at  any  point  in  time 
overestimates  the  actual  number  of  EU-10  nationals  that  have  settled  in  the  host 
country, because it does not take into account people returning to their countries of 
origin, i.e. the outflows, and the length of the work permits. The same is true in view 
of the fact that the data may reflect temporary factors such as regularisation of illegal 
migrants who have moved to EU-15 Member States over several years. 

11 

12 

13 

The Commission has received administrative data from all Member States, except for Luxembourg and 
Cyprus, which have not been included in the analysis. 
The  LFS  is  a  harmonised  EU  quarterly  survey  covering  the  whole  of  the  resident  population  in  each 
Member State and based on a sample of approximately 1.7 million individuals in the EU-25. 
The information contained in administrative data is more limited than the one available in the LFS and 
is more sensitive to the legal framework affecting foreign nationals. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
15. 

16. 

In  Austria  the  share  of  issued  work  permits  in  2004,  the  majority  of  which  are  for 
short  periods14,  correspond  to  1.2%  of  the  overall  working  age  population,  but  the 
2004 annual average stock of employed people corresponds to 0.7% of the working 
age population (see table below). Furthermore, it should be noted that after the first 
period  of  adjustment  the  number  of  EU-8  nationals  in  Austria,  as  measured  by  the 
average annual stock, stabilises in 2005 (see table A1 in the statistical annex). In the 
same way, although the work permits issued in Germany in 2004 correspond to 0.9% 
of  the  working  age  population,  once  the  length  of  the  work  permit  is  taken  into 
account, the stock of employees from EU-8 countries (namely those liable for social 
security contributions) drops to 0.2% of the working age population15. 

In  Ireland,  Personal  Public  Service  Numbers  (PPS)  issued  to  EU-10  nationals 
between  May  and  December  2004  correspond  to  1.9%  of  the  working  age 
population; however, this figure is not strictly comparable to the other presented in 
the  table  below  as  PPS  Numbers  are  issued  by  Irish  authorities  to  individuals  not 
only for employment reasons. PPS numbers are unique reference numbers issued for 
other  purposes  as  well,  including  for  example,  access  to  information,  to  welfare, 
health and other public services, including therefore not only by migrant workers but 
also  their  relatives.  The  number  of  PPS  numbers  issued  in  2005  has  risen  in  the 
period  January-November  2005  to  3.8%,  but  this  does  not  appear  to  have  led  to  a 
disruption of the Irish labour market (see tables A4 and A5 in the statistical annex). 

14 
15 

See further below. 
For more detailed information on numbers of permits, see table A1 in the statistical annex.  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
EU10 and EU15 nationals as percentage of destination country's working age population (WAP) 
aged 15-64 - 2004

Country of destination

Type of data

% WAP

Nationality

Austria

Germany

Belgium2
Czech Republic
Denmark

EU15
2.7
0.1
0.2
1.0
:
0.1
:
0.1
:
:
:
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
:
:
:
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
:

EU101
0.2
1.0
0.1
0.2
0.9
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
1.9
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.7
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.4

Estonia
Greece
Spain
France
Ireland3 4
Italy
Latvia4
Lithuania
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands

Resident permits
Foreign workers stock
Residence permit
Foreign workers stock
Work permit
Residence permit
Residence permit
Residence permit
Work permit
Personal Public Service Numbers
Application for work authorisation
Residence permit
Residence permit
Residence permit
Residence permit
Work permit
Average annual stock
Work permit
Residence permit
Poland
Residence permit
Portugal
Registration of workers
Slovenia
Residence permit
Slovakia
Residence permit
Finland
Sweden4
Residence permit
United Kingdom4
Applicants to WRS
Source: Administrative data from Member States.
Notes: % WAP - as percentage of destination country's working age population 15-64.
not available.
All figures refer to the number of applicants/ applications/ registrations/ permits issued (flows), except in the case
of the Czech Republic, where the figure refers to the stock of workers, and for Germany, where the first line
refers to the stock of workers, and for Austria, where the first
line refers to the average annual stock of
employees. Figures on residence permits refer to permits issued for employment reasons only, except for
Belgium. 
Data for 2005 have been received for some Member States (see table A1 in the statistical annex).
1Figures for France, Italy, Austria, and the number of work permits for Germany relate to EU8. 2The figure for
Belgium refers to residence permits issued for all reasons. 3The figure for Ireland refers to PPS Numbers issued
not only for employment reasons, but also for other administrative purposes, including welfare, health and other
public services. 4Reference date 2004 May - December.
Data for Cyprus and Luxembourg not received by the Commission.

':' not applicable or data

17. 

16 

The  evidence  from  the  LFS  is  comparable  to  that  presented  from  administrative 
sources  once  one  accounts  for  definitional  and  time  differences16.  In  fact,  LFS 
figures  represent  the  net  effect  of  inflows  and  outflows  and  therefore  give  a  better 
picture of the actual number of EU-10 nationals who have settled in EU-15 countries. 
In  the  first  quarter  of  2005  the  proportion  of  the  working  age  population  from  the 

The LFS data refers to quarter 1 of each year, while administrative data refers to different periods as 
specified  in  the  relevant  tables.  Furthermore,  LFS  figures  refer  to  the  "net"  number  of  individuals  by 
nationality at any point in time, while administrative data, both stock and flow data, to the number of 
permits issued or applied for, regardless of the actual length of residence, of returns to the countries of 
origin, or, in the case of flows, of previously granted permits. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
EU-10  Member  States  within  the  EU-15  was  rather  small,  ranging  from  0.1%  in 
France and in the Netherlands to 1.4% in Austria and 2% in Ireland17. 

Resident working age population by nationality - 2003-2005 - cell percentages

Nationality

Country of destination

EU15
2004
5.8
1.1
2.6
0.4
1.2
2.1
3.3
37.6
1.5
1.8
0.4
0.3
2.2
1.8
2.1
0.2
1.7

2003
5.4
1.0
2.7
0.2
1.1
1.9
3.4
37.2
1.5
1.7
0.3
0.3
2.2
1.8
2.0
:
1.9

Belgium
Denmark
Germany
Greece
Spain
France
Ireland
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Austria
Portugal
Finland
Sweden
United Kingdom
EU15
EU10
EU25
Source: Eurostat, LFS, 2003 - 2005 Q1, Ireland 2005Q2.
Notes: ':' data not available or not reliable due to small sample size. 
Italy is excluded, since it does not disaggregate by nationality. 
EU15 and EU25 aggregates without Italy, EU15 and EU25 aggregates without Germany and Ireland in 2003-
2004 for EU10 nationals. EU10 aggregate without Poland.

2003
0.2
:
:
0.3
0.2
0.1
:
0.3
0.1
0.7
:
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
:
0.1

2005
0.2
:
0.7
0.4
0.2
0.1
2.0
0.3
0.1
1.4
:
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.3

2005
5.8
1.1
2.8
0.3
1.2
1.9
3.0
37.6
1.4
1.9
0.4
0.4
2.3
1.7
2.1
0.2
1.7

EU10
2004
0.2
:
:
0.4
0.2
0.1
:
0.3
0.1
0.8
:
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1

18. 

19. 

17 

18 
19 

Furthermore,  these  figures  have  been  stable  in  relation  to  the  two  years  before 
enlargement,  i.e.  2003  Q1  and  2004  Q1,  with  only  a  moderate  increase  of  0.1 
percentage  points  each  year  in  the  UK  and  a  marked  increase  in  Austria,  where 
figures  doubled  to  1.4%.  It  is  also  interesting  to  note  that  in  the  EU-15  Member 
States the percentage of non EU nationals is significantly higher than that for EU-10 
nationals  (see  table  A2  in  the  annex).  This  can  also  be  explained  for  historical 
reasons  and  because  immigration  from  EU-10  is  fairly  recent.  This  implies  that 
immigration  from  non-EU  countries  is  a  much  more  important  phenomenon 
than intra-EU mobility, both within the EU-15 and the EU-25. 

Concerning TA, there is no evidence either from administrative sources or from the 
Labour  Force  Survey  to  show  a  direct  link  between  the  magnitude  of  mobility 
flows  from  EU-10  Member  States  and  the  TA  in  place.  In  particular,  flows  into 
the  UK  and  Sweden,  which  are  Member  States  without  restrictions  for  EU-8 
workers,  are  comparable  if  not  lower  to  those  into  countries  with  TA18.  The 
experience  of  the  Nordic  countries,  which  have  comparable  labour  markets  and 
economic  performance,  confirms  this19.  Ultimately,  mobility  flows  are  driven  by 

Since there are only small numbers of other EU-nationals in EU-10 Member States, the analysis will be 
restricted to the EU-15 for reasons of data reliability. 
Flows into Ireland are bigger, although as stated in paragraph 16 the figures are not strictly comparable. 
Migration  from  EU-8  Member  States  to  Norway  is  significantly  higher  than  for  all  other  Nordic 
countries  combined,  with  or  without  TA.  Sweden  has  no  restrictions,  whereas  Norway,  Denmark, 
Finland and Iceland apply restrictions. Of the latter countries, Denmark and Norway have a more liberal 
regime. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
factors related to supply and demand conditions. If anything, TA will only delay 
labour  market  adjustments,  with  the  risk  of  creating  "biased"  destination  patterns 
even on a more permanent basis.  

On  a  more  general  level,  restrictions  on  labour  market  access  may  exacerbate 
resort  to  undeclared  work.  When  accompanied  by  lacunae  in  enforcement  of 
Community legislation already in place, this phenomenon leads to undesirable social 
consequences both for undeclared workers and the regular labour force.  

Concerning the duration of the permits, the data show that a significant percentage 
of residence/work permits is granted for short-term or seasonal workers. This is 
for example the case for the following countries: 

20. 

21. 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

In Austria, of all permits granted to EU-8 nationals in 2004, 87% were issued 
for less than 6 months (85% in the first half of 2005), 12% (14% in 2005) for a 
duration of 6 months to one year, and 2% (0% in 2005) for a period longer than 
one year.  

In Germany, 95% of some 500 000 work permits have been issued with time 
and  other  restrictions.  On  30  June  2004,  the  number  of  employed  EU-10 
nationals, who were in Germany for more than a very limited period and who 
were  therefore  liable  for  social  security  contributions,  was  only  around 
100 000, or 0.2% of the working age population. 

In  the  Netherlands,  approximately  24  400  permits  were  issued  in  2004.  But 
because of the large number of seasonal workers this only corresponds to about 
13 000 "labour years". 

In  Italy,  76%  of  the  authorisations  for  work  in  2004  and  71%  in  2005  were 
given to seasonal workers. 

In France, of the authorisations to work issued in 2004, 74% were for seasonal 
workers, 11% for temporary workers, 5% for permanent workers and 10% for 
other beneficiaries20. 

22. 

Since enlargement, labour market developments in the EU-8 have been positive, 
with unemployment rates dropping significantly in almost all of them (see tables A4 
and  A5  in  the  annex).  This  suggests  that  there  is  no  reason  to  expect  increased 
pressure  to  move  outside  EU-8  countries,  also  as  the  outlook  for  economic  growth 
remains  bright  and  as  substantially  increased  Structural  and  Rural  Development 
Funds start to bear fruit in promoting economic growth and employment creation. 

4.2. 

Labour market outcomes for country and EU nationals: employment rates 

23. 

20 

Labour  market  outcomes  for  nationals  from  the  EU-10  into  the  EU-15  Member 
States are a central issue to consider. For those EU-15 Member States for which there 
is  statistically  significant  information  available  (see  table  below),  the  key  labour 
market  indicator,  the  employment  rate,  shows  that  EU-10  nationals  tend  to  have 

It  should  be  noted  though  according  to  the  French  authorities,  the  administrative  data  provided  by 
France do not include work permits issued for lengths of stay inferior to 3 months. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
employment rates in each country which are comparable to those of individuals who 
are  nationals  of  that  country  and  of  other  EU-15  countries.  Moreover,  these  are 
generally  higher  than  for  non-EU  nationals.  In  Ireland,  Spain  and  the  UK,  EU-10 
nationals have even higher employment rates than country nationals. This shows that 
EU-10  nationals  positively  contribute  in  each  Member  State  to  overall  labour 
market  performance,  to  sustained  economic  growth  and  to  the  state  of  public 
finances. 

Employment rates by nationality - 2005 - cell percentages

Country of destination

2004

2005
Nationality

EU10
64
:
47
68
61
:
63
58
67
62
72
59
:
59

National
62
67
60
62
64
67
74
69
69
74
72
67
57
65

Belgium
Germany
Greece
Spain
France
Ireland
Netherlands
Austria
Finland
Sweden
United Kingdom
EU15
EU10
EU25
Source: Eurostat, LFS, 2004 - 2005 Q2. 
Notes: ':' data not available or not reliable due to small sample size. 
Italy is excluded, since it does not disaggregate by nationality. Denmark, Luxembourg and 
Portugal are excluded due to small sample size.
EU15 and EU10 aggregates in 2004 based on Germany and Ireland 2005Q2 data.

EU10
55
51
47
78
62
85
64
66
55
62
75
62
68
62

EU15
60
68
53
64
69
69
76
72
67
73
69
68
59
67

non-EU
35
48
71
71
44
57
41
60
45
45
58
55
63
55

24. 

An interesting fact is that since enlargement the employment rate of EU-10 nationals 
in  several  EU-15  Member  States  including  Spain,  France,  the  Netherlands,  Austria 
and  the  United  Kingdom  has  increased,  in  certain  cases  quite  substantially.  This 
could be connected with two facts. 

– 

Firstly, enlargement may have contributed to bringing to the surface part of the 
underground economy constituted by previously undeclared workers from the 
EU-10, with well-known beneficial effects, such as a greater compliance with 
legally  sanctioned  labour  standards,  improved  social  cohesion  thanks  to  a 
reduced  risk  of  marginalisation  of  those  concerned,  and  higher  State  income 
from tax and social security contributions. This also means that the increase in 
labour  mobility  from  EU-10  Member  States  due  to  enlargement  may  actually 
be smaller than shown by the data21.  

– 

Secondly, a real improvement in the employment rate of EU-10 nationals may 
have  occurred  after  enlargement  due  to  a  change  in  employers'  attitudes, 

21 

Statistical data on mobility and migration do not represent simply the real flow of individuals from one 
country to the other, but also the fact that previously undocumented workers may be more easily picked 
up  by  statistical  surveys,  either  due  to  their  inclusion,  for  example,  in  population  registers  that  often 
constitute the basis for the sampling framework or to the individuals' greater willingness to take part in 
statistical surveys. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
4.3. 

25. 

26. 

27. 

greater  opportunities  to  set  up  private  businesses,  better  information  and 
regulation. 

Sectoral and skill composition of the EU-10 workforce in EU-15 Member States: 
complementarities or substitution? 

Given the small numbers involved, it is difficult to give a detailed and at the same 
time  statistically  robust  picture  of  the  workforce  from  the  EU-10.  Therefore,  the 
analysis  that  follows  will  look  at  the  EU-15  as  a  whole.  A  key  issue  in  workers' 
mobility  is  not  simply  its  scale,  but  whether  EU-10  workers  are  substituting  those 
already in the country and compete for similar jobs or have a complementary role to 
play.  

EU15 employed population by nationality and sector - 2005 - column percentages

Activity sector

Agriculture/ fishing
Industry
Construction
Retail; hotels/ restaurants; transport
Financial int.; real estate
Public admin.; education; health; other
Source: Eurostat, LFS, 2005 Q1, France and Austria 2005Q2.
Notes: data in brackets lack reliability due to small sample size.

National
4
18
8
25
13
32

Nationality

EU15
(2)
19
8
28
16
27

EU10
(3)
18
15
28
14
23

The  sectoral  composition  of  the  workforce  would  suggest  the  latter:  the  sectoral 
composition  of  the  national  workforce  has  not  showed  significant  change  in  2003, 
2004  and  2005  demonstrating  that  the  limited  inflow  of  workers  from  EU-10 
Member States did not crowd out national workers, at least at this broad level of 
aggregation22.  Country  nationals  are  relatively  more  concentrated  in  the  service 
sector  and  in  particular  public  administration,  education,  health  and  other  (32%  of 
them  in  2005  Q1),  while  workers  from  EU-10  Member  States  are  relatively  better 
represented in the construction sector (15% for EU-10 nationals as opposed to 8% for 
country nationals)23. 

The skill composition of the EU-10 workforce would also support the view that EU-
10  nationals  contribute  to  national  economies  in  a  complementary  way.  The 
proportion of EU-10 nationals in EU-15 Member States with low-level qualifications 
is lower than for nationals of those countries (21% as opposed to 31%), for other EU-
15  nationals  and  for  non-EU  nationals.  This  is  reflected  in  a  higher  percentage  of 
medium-qualified people (57% as opposed to 46%), with comparable percentages of 
highly  qualified  people.  Medium-level  qualifications  include  upper  secondary 
education  and  specialised  vocational  training,  which  is  the  level  of  qualifications 

22 

23 

One cannot exclude however, that in some instances migration from the EU-10 can have some impact at 
regional or occupational level. 
Administrative data suggest that EU-10 nationals are also contributing substantially to the agricultural 
sector, but due to the very limited size of agriculture in labour market terms, its seasonal nature and the 
fact that the figures considered relate to the winter quarter, the percentages are not particularly high. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
which is typically under-represented in several EU-15 Member States creating skills 
bottlenecks in several sectors of the economy24. 

EU15 resident working age population by nationality and education level - 2005 - column percentages

Nationality

Education level

National
31
46
23

EU15
36
39
25

Low
Medium
High
Source: Eurostat, LFS, 2005 Q1, France and Austria 2005Q2.
Notes: Education level: low (ISCED 0-2: lower secondary), medium (ISCED
3-4: upper secondary), high (ISCED 5-6: tertiary).

non-EU
48
35
17

EU10
21
57
22

28. 

5. 

29. 

30. 

The  evidence  therefore  suggests  that  mobility  from  EU-10  Member  States  into  the 
EU-15 may have positive effects on labour markets by relieving labour shortages 
in certain areas. New jobs can be created, for example in the construction and in the 
domestic and catering  services  sectors that would risk not being filled otherwise in 
some countries. Highly skilled workers from EU-10 Member States may contribute 
to  business  creation  and  long-term  growth  through  human  capital  accumulation. 
Fostering  human  capital  and  lifelong  learning  is  indeed  one  of  the  most  important 
dimensions of the EU employment and cohesion policy. Therefore, EU programmes, 
such  as  the  EES,  ESF  and  the  Life  Long  Learning  Programme,  support  ongoing 
human capital development of this type. Labour market efficiency may also increase 
as foreign workers are typically more responsive to regional differences in economic 
opportunities.  

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

On the eve of the second phase of the TA, many different national legal regimes for 
access  to  the  labour  markets  of  the  EU-25  apply.  Countries  that  have  opened  their 
labour  markets  fully  are  upbeat  about  the  outcome  of  this  decision,  whilst  some  of 
those  that  have  kept  restrictions  tend  to  emphasise  their  utility,  citing  particular 
national circumstances.  

Member States should increase their efforts to ensure proper enforcement of existing 
EC  legislation,  labour  standards  and  in  particular  the  provisions  of  the  posted 
workers  directive,  with  appropriate  reinforcement  of  administrative  cooperation 
where  justified.  Lacunae  in  enforcement  by  national  authorities  of  existing 
Community and national legislation may indeed have created an adverse and wrong 
impression of enlargement and of the benefits of free movement of workers in some 
countries. 

31. 

The statistical analysis of the national data received and used for this report permits 
the following conclusions:  

- 

Mobility  flows  between  the  EU-10  and  the  EU-15  are  very  limited  and  are 
simply not large enough to affect the EU labour market in general. In addition, 

24 

Also,  inflows  of  workers  that  are  complementary  to  country  nationals  would,  other  things  equal, 
increase the productivity of country nationals and push their wages upwards rather than the opposite. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
mobility  flows  from  EU-15  to  EU-10  Member  States  and  between  EU-10 
Member States are generally negligible (see table A1). 

The  percentage  of  EU-10  nationals  in  the  resident  population  of  each  EU-15 
Member  State  was  relatively  stable  before  and  after  enlargement,  with 
increases  in  the  UK  and,  more  conspicuously,  in  Austria  and  in  Ireland25.  In 
Austria, however, there is evidence to suggest that the stock of EU-8 nationals 
stabilised in 2005. 

There is no evidence to show a direct link between the magnitude of mobility 
flows from EU-10 Member States and the TA in place. Ultimately, mobility 
flows  are  driven  by  factors  related  to  supply  and  demand  conditions.  If 
anything,  TA  will  only  delay  labour  market  adjustments,  with  the  risk  of 
creating "biased" destination patterns even on a more permanent basis. 

The employment rate of EU-10 nationals in EU-15 Member States is similar 
to that of country nationals, and it is even higher in Ireland, Spain and the UK. 

The migration flows following the enlargement have had positive effects on 
the  economies  of  the  EU-15  Member  States:  EU-10  nationals  positively 
contribute  to  the  overall  labour  market  performance,  to  sustained  economic 
growth and to better public finances. 

This employment rate has increased in several countries since enlargement. 
Enlargement has helped to formalise the underground economy constituted by 
previously  undocumented  workers  from 
the  EU-10,  with  well-known 
beneficial  effects,  such  as  greater  compliance  with  legally  sanctioned  labour 
standards,  improved  social  cohesion  and  higher  State  income  from  tax  and 
social  security  contributions.  This  also  improves  the  integration  of  EU-10 
nationals due to a change in employers' attitudes, greater opportunities to set up 
private businesses, better information and regulation. 

The  sectoral  composition  of  the  EU-15  national  workforce  has  not  shown 
significant changes since enlargement showing no evidence of crowding out of 
national  workers  by  the  limited  inflow  of  workers  from  EU-10  Member 
States26. EU 10 nationals have a complementary role to play. 

EU-10 nationals alleviate skills bottlenecks in the EU-15 Member States and 
contribute to long-term growth through human capital accumulation. 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

32. 

The  Commission  trusts  that  this  report  provides  Member  States  with  the  necessary 
information to review their positions for the second period of the TA. Nevertheless, 
in view of the difficulties experienced with obtaining national statistics on migration 
flows  involving  EU  citizens,  the  Commission  calls  upon  Member  States  to  put  the 
necessary  administrative  arrangements  in  place  to  collect  the  required  data  on  a 
national level and to provide these in a timely manner to Eurostat. For the future, the 

25 
26 

See paragraph 16 above.  
One cannot exclude however, that in some instances migration from the EU-10 can have some impact at 
regional or occupational level. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
33. 

34. 

35. 

36. 

37. 

Commission  intends  to  request  that  Member  States,  in  cooperation  with  Eurostat 
report annually on mobility flows relating to workers within the EU.  

At  the  meeting  of  the  high-level  group  of  16  September  2005  most  social  partners 
were  in  favour  of  lifting  the  restrictions  on  access  to  the  labour  markets.  The 
Commission  knows  that  most  Member  States  intend  to  reflect  seriously  about 
whether  to  keep  restrictions  in  place  for  the  second  period.  Member  States  should 
also consult each other with a view to determining their position for the second phase 
of the transitional arrangements. 

The Commission urges Member States, when preparing and issuing the notification 
of their intentions for the second phase, not only to take due account of the statistical 
evidence  but  also  to  address  an  overall  positive  message  to  their  citizens  as  to  the 
prospects of free movement across the European Union. It also recommends that the 
social partners be fully involved in the preparation of these decisions.  

Member States  unable  to  lift restrictions will  probably continue to face the need to 
look for other ways to alleviate labour market shortages, such as for example through 
conclusion of bilateral agreements. Further, the Commission reiterates that negative 
collateral  consequences  of  maintaining  restrictions  in  place  should  be  avoided.  In 
addition,  the  problem  of  persons  posing  falsely  as  self-employed  workers  to 
circumvent national law should be dealt with by Member States. 

The  Commission  recalls  that  freedom  of  movement  of  workers  is  one  of  the  basic 
freedoms  under  the  EC  Treaty.  Despite  fears  expressed  on  the  occasion  of  the 
successive  enlargements  free  movement  of  workers  has  not  led  to  disruption  of 
national labour markets. It is fitting therefore, that on the occasion of the signature of 
the  Accession  Treaty,  EU-15  Member  States  solemnly  declared  that  they  would 
move  as swiftly  as  possible to the full  application of the acquis in this area. While 
recalling the right of the Member States set forth in the 2003 Treaty of Accession to 
the  Commission 
maintain  restrictions  under 
recommends that the Member States carefully consider whether the continuation of 
these restrictions is needed, in the light of the situation of their labour market and of 
the evidence of this report.  

transitional  arrangements, 

the 

Whatever decision is taken by Member States at this stage, they need to prepare to 
open  their  labour  markets  in  order  to  fulfil  their  obligations  under  the  treaties.  The 
aim  of  the  transitional  measures  is  to  allow  them  to  prepare  themselves  to  achieve 
this  ultimate  and  irrevocable  goal  as  soon  as  possible.  In  this  respect,  the 
Commission  welcomes  the  positive  experiences  of  the  Member  States  that  have 
reaped major benefits from successfully opening their labour markets fully to EU-8 
nationals already during the first phase of the transitional arrangements.  

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
TABLE A1 

ANNEX I: STATISTICAL ANNEX 

Resident/ work permits to EU nationals: absolute numbers and as percentages of destination country's working age 
population (WAP) aged 15-64 

Country of destination

Type of data

Reference period1

EU15

EU102

Nationality

number

% wap

number

% wap

Belgium3

Czech Republic

Denmark

Germany

Estonia
Greece
Spain

France

Ireland4

Italy

Latvia
Lithuania
Hungary
Malta

Netherlands

Austria

Poland
Portugal
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Sweden5

United Kingdom

2003
2004
2005
2003
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004 May-2005 Sep
2004
2004
2004
2003
2004

Residence permit
Residence permit
Residence permit
Foreign workers stock
Foreign workers stock
Residence permit
Foreign workers stock
Work permit
Work permit
Residence permit
Residence permit
Residence permit
Work permit
Work permit
Personal Public Service Numbers 2004 May-Dec
Personal Public Service Numbers 2005 Jan-Nov
Application for work auth.
Application for work auth.
Residence permit
Residence permit
Residence permit
Residence permit
Work permit
Work permit
Work permit
Average annual stock
Average annual stock
Work permit
Work permit
Residence permit
Residence permit
Work permit/ registration
Residence permit
Residence permit
Residence permit
Applicant to WRS
Applicant to WRS

2004
2005 Jan-Sep
2004 May-2005 Apr
2004
2004
2004-2005 Apr
2003
2004
2005
2004
2005 Jan-Jun
2004
2005 Jan-Jun
2004
2004
2004-2005 Jun
2004
2004
2004
2004 May-Dec
2005 Jan-Sep

184695
183019
178155
4903
3751
6825
560230
:
:
705
:
21986
:
:
:
:
:
:
742
117
2727
2095
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
4311
1082
416
151
727
2698
:
:

2.7
2.7
2.6
0.1
0.1
0.2
1.0
:
:
0.1
:
0.1
:
:
:
:
:
:
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
:
:

9351
12918
15408
64198
69024
4911
108162
497298
500633
155
3711
11255
10067
9916
53829
107024
26324
49454
497
27
1455
215
12541
24424
14612
40420
40861
68449
32265
456
43
1471
142
1651
3514
134530
156165

0.1
0.2
0.2
0.9
1.0
0.1
0.2
0.9
0.9
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.9
3.8
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.7
0.7
1.2
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.4
0.4

Source: Administrative data from Member States.
All figures refer to the number of applicants/ applications/ registrations/ permits issued (flows), except in the case of the Czech
Republic, where the figure refers to the stock of workers, and for Germany, where the first line refers to the stock of workers, and for
Austria, where the first two lines refer to the average annual stock of employees. Figures on residence permits refer to permits issued 
for employment reasons only, except for Belgium.
1The reference period is normally from January to December, otherwise it is specified. 2Figures for France, Italy, Austria, and
numbers of work permits for Germany relate to EU8. 3Figures for Belgium refer to residence permits issued for all reasons; EU15
aggregates include permits issued to non-EU nationals born in Belgium. 4The figure for Ireland refers to PPS Numbers issued not
only for employment reasons, but also for other administrative purposes, including welfare, health and other public services. 
5The figure for Sweden for EU10 nationals refers to 2004 May - December. 
Data for Cyprus and Luxembourg not received by the Commission.

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
 
TABLE A2 

Resident working age population by nationality - 2005 - row percentages

Country of destination

National

EU15

EU10

non-EU

Nationality

91.3
96.4
89.5
94.0
90.5
94.4
92.3
57.9
95.7
89.2
97.0
98.3
94.8
93.8
92.4
98.4
93.7

Belgium
Denmark
Germany
Greece
Spain
France
Ireland
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Austria
Portugal
Finland
Sweden
United Kingdom
EU15
EU10
EU25
Source: Eurostat, LFS, 2005 Q1, Ireland 2005Q2.
Notes: : ':' data not reliable due to small sample size.
Italy is excluded, since it does not disaggregate by nationality. EU15 and EU25
aggregates without Italy. EU10 aggregate without Poland.

5.8
1.1
2.8
0.3
1.2
1.9
3.0
37.6
1.4
1.9
0.4
0.4
2.3
1.7
2.1
0.2
1.7

2.8
2.4
7.0
5.3
8.1
3.6
2.8
4.2
2.8
7.5
2.6
1.0
2.7
4.1
5.1
1.2
4.3

0.2
:
0.7
0.4
0.2
0.1
2.0
0.3
0.1
1.4
:
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.3

TABLE A3 

National and EU10 w ork ing age  population in EU15 by ge nde r and age  - 2005

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

s
e
g
a
t
n
e
c
r
e
p

Male

Female

15-24

25-54

55-64

Source: Eurostat, LFS, 2005 Q1, France and A ustria 2005Q2

Nationals

EU10

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
TABLE A4 

Quarterly employment rates in EU10 - 2003-2005 - cell percentages

Country
Belgium
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Greece
Spain
France
Ireland
Italy
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Sweden
United Kingdom
EU15
EU10
EU25
Source: Eurostat, LFS, 2003 - 2005.

2003 Q1
59.0
65.0
74.4
64.3
61.2
58.1
58.9
63.2
64.8
55.5
:
61.1
59.0
62.7
56.1
54.7
73.7
68.2
50.4
68.1
62.0
56.9
66.4
72.0
71.2
63.8
55.1
62.4

2003 Q2
59.3
64.9
75.1
64.9
62.3
58.9
59.7
63.3
65.1
56.1
69.2
61.7
62.8
62.7
57.0
54.6
73.8
69.1
51.4
68.2
62.5
57.9
68.7
73.6
71.3
64.4
56.0
63.0

2003 Q3
59.7
64.6
76.0
65.1
64.3
59.2
60.3
63.6
66.4
56.5
:
63.0
62.0
62.7
57.5
53.7
73.8
69.6
51.6
68.2
62.5
58.3
69.2
73.9
71.6
64.7
56.3
63.3

2003 Q4
60.4
64.4
75.0
65.4
63.7
58.8
60.4
62.9
65.7
56.3
:
61.4
60.7
62.7
57.5
53.7
73.3
68.9
51.4
67.9
63.3
57.8
66.5
72.0
71.6
64.5
56.0
63.0

2004 Q1
59.9
63.7
74.5
64.0
62.5
58.7
60.3
62.8
65.7
57.0*
:
61.4
60.2
61.6
56.6
54.4
72.8
66.5*
50.5
67.8
63.8
56.1
65.9
71.0
71.6
64.1
55.2
62.6

2004 Q2
60.5
64.1
76.0
65.0
62.9
59.6
60.9
63.2
65.5
57.7*
69.4
62.2
61.4
61.6
56.6
53.4
73.1
67.7*
51.4
68.0
65.6
56.7
68.3
72.4
71.5
64.7
55.9
63.2

2004 Q3
60.4
64.4
76.6
65.3
63.3
59.7
61.5
63.6
67.2
57.8*
69.1
63.3
61.7
61.6
56.8
54.0
73.5
68.8*
52.3
67.8
66.8
57.6
69.3
73.3
71.7
65.1
56.5
63.6

2004 Q4
60.6
64.5
75.6
65.9
63.4
59.6
61.8
62.9
66.7
58.0*
68.8
62.2
61.4
61.6
57.0
54.0
73.1
68.1*
52.4
67.8
64.9
57.5
67.1
71.5
71.8
65.0
56.5
63.6

2005 Q1
60.9
64.1
75.2
64.9
63.2
59.5*
62.1
62.8
66.8
57.3
68.4
62.5
61.4
:
56.4
54.6
72.6
67.6
51.5
67.3
65.2
56.9
66.7
70.7
71.8
64.7
55.9
63.2

2005 Q2
61.0
64.7
75.5
65.3
64.9
60.3
63.2
63.4
67.1
57.8
68.7
63.0
62.6
:
56.8
53.6
73.2
68.4
52.2
67.6
66.0
57.4
69.2
72.6*
71.5
65.1
56.6
63.7

Notes: ":" data not available. * Break in series. 
For Luxembourg, since the survey provides the data for the whole reference year only, the same yearly figures are repeated each quarter.

EN 

18 
EN 

 
 
 
 
TABLE A5 

Total quarterly unemployment rates in EU10 - 2003-2005 - cell percentages

Country
Belgium
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Greece
Spain
France
Ireland
Italy
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Sweden
United Kingdom
EU15
EU10
EU25
Source: Eurostat, LFS, 2003 - 2005, seasonally adjusted and harmonised quarterly unemployment rates.
Notes: ":" data not available.

2004 Q2
7.7
8.4
5.4
9.5
9.5
10.5
11.1
9.5
4.6
8.1
4.7
9.8
11.2
4.8
5.8
7.6
4.6
4.8
18.9
6.6
6.1
18.6
9.1
6.4
4.7
8.1
14.2
9.1

2003 Q4
7.9
8.2
5.7
9.4
10.0
9.8
11.4
9.7
4.6
8.2
4.8
10.0
12.1
4.0
5.7
8.0
4.0
4.5
19.1
6.4
6.3
17.7
8.9
6.0
4.8
8.1
14.3
9.1

2003 Q2
8.0
7.7
5.6
9.0
10.3
9.6
11.5
9.4
4.6
8.6
4.5
10.4
12.9
3.6
5.8
8.1
3.6
4.2
19.2
6.3
6.5
17.3
9.1
5.4
4.9
8.0
14.3
9.0

2003 Q1
7.8
7.4
5.3
8.8
10.1
9.8
11.6
9.2
4.5
8.6
4.2
10.8
13.4
3.4
5.7
7.7
3.3
4.1
19.4
6.1
6.5
17.7
9.0
5.4
5.1
7.9
14.5
8.9

2003 Q3
8.1
8.0
5.7
9.1
10.2
9.7
11.4
9.5
4.7
8.3
4.7
10.2
12.4
3.8
5.7
8.3
3.8
4.4
19.2
6.2
6.6
17.3
9.0
5.6
5.0
8.0
14.3
9.0

2004 Q1
7.8
8.4
5.6
9.4
9.9
10.8
11.3
9.6
4.6
8.2
5.0
9.9
11.5
4.5
5.7
7.8
4.4
4.7
19.1
6.3
6.2
18.5
9.0
6.3
4.7
8.1
14.4
9.1

2004 Q3
7.8
8.3
5.3
9.7
9.0
10.5
10.9
9.5
4.5
7.9
5.2
9.7
10.8
4.9
6.0
7.5
4.5
4.9
18.8
6.9
5.9
18.1
9.0
6.4
4.6
8.1
14.1
9.0

2004 Q4
8.2
8.2
5.3
9.6
8.4
10.2
10.5
9.5
4.4
8.0
5.8
9.7
9.9
4.9
6.5
7.9
4.7
5.0
18.5
7.0
5.8
17.6
8.8
6.4
4.6
8.1
13.9
9.0

2005 Q1
8.3
8.1
5.1
9.7
8.0
9.9
10.0
9.6
4.3
7.8
6.2
9.5
9.2
5.0
6.9
8.0
4.9
5.1
18.2
7.3
5.7
16.9
8.6
6.3
4.6
8.0
13.7
8.9

2005 Q2
8.4
8.0
5.0
9.6
7.8
9.9
9.4
9.6
4.3
7.6
5.8
9.1
8.6
5.3
7.1
8.1
4.8
5.1
18.0
7.4
5.8
16.5
8.3
:
4.6
7.9
13.5
8.8

2005 Q3
8.4
7.8
4.8
9.2
7.3
10.1
8.8
9.4
4.3
7.5
6.1
8.8
7.9
5.5
7.2
7.9
4.7
5.2
17.7
7.6
5.8
16.2
8.3
:
4.7
7.7
13.3
8.6

EN 

19 
EN 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX II: BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Free  Movement  of  Workers  to  and  from  the  new  Member  States-  how  will  it  work  in 
practice? (Commission publication available in 20 Community languages) 

http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/free_movement/docs_en.htm 

Guide for National Administrations- The transitional arrangements for the free movement of 
workers from the new Member States following the enlargement of the European Union on 1 
May 2004 (Document available in 20 Community languages) 

http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/free_movement/docs_en.htm 

''Where can I go for work? Information on the transitional rules governing the free movement 
of workers from, to and between the new Member states.'' (Commission's Eures website) 

http://europa.eu.int/eures/home.jsp?lang=en 

UK, Accession Monitoring Reports, joint online reports by the Home Office, the Department 
for Work and Pensions, the HM Revenue and Customs and the Office of the Deputy Prime 
Minister (UK) 

The  Netherlands,  Ministerie  van  Sociale  Zaken  en  Werkgelegenheid,  Evaluatie 
Werknemersverkeer MOE-landen, 20 May 2005 (Netherlands) 

J. Portes and S. French, The Impact of Free Movement of Workers from Central and Eastern 
Europe  on  the  UK  labour  market:  early  evidence,  Working  Paper  No  18.,  for  the  UK 
Department for Work and Pensions (UK) 

J. Le Guen, Etude comparé eau niveau européen de l'impact de la concurrence sur l'emploi 
dans  le  secteur  agricole,  Mission  parlementaire  de  Jacques  Le  Guen,  député  du  Finistère, 
Assemblée  nationale  française,  auprès  de  Dominique  Buisserau,  ministre  français  de 
l'agriculture, de l'alimentation, de la pêche et de la ruralité, avril 2005 (France) 

P.  Weil, A Flexible  Framework  for a  Plural  Europe, Discussion paper prepared  for the UK 
Presidency, October 2005, CRNS, Paris (France and EU) 

J.  E.  Dǿlvik  &  L.  Eldgring,  Mobility  of  labour  and  Services  after  EU  enlargement:  Nordic 
differences and commonalities, Final Report from a Working Group under the Nordic Council 
of Ministers, August 2005 (Nordic countries) 

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven and Idea Consult, The Effects of the EU Enlargement on the 
Flemish  Labour  Market,  January  2005,  Research  on  behalf  of  the  Flemish  Minister  of 
Employment, Education and Training (Flanders, Belgium) 

Ramboll Management,  Analyse af EU-udvidelsens  betydning  for  det danske arbejdsmarked, 
November 2005 (Denmark) 

ECAS,  Report  on  the  Free  Movement  of  Workers  in  EU-25.  Who's  afraid  of  EU 
enlargement?, August 2005 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
T. Boeri & H Brücker, Migration, Co-ordination Failures and EU Enlargement, May 2005 

K.  Ward,  N.  Coe  &  J.  Johns,  University  of  Manchester,  The  role  of  temporary  staffing 
agencies in facilitating labour mobility in Central and Eastern Europe, study performed for 
Vedior, January 2005 

Manpower, EU enlargement- one year on. A Manpower Update, May 2005 

EN 

21 

   EN