Commission staff working document - Accompanying document to the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council providing for sanctions against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals - Impact assessment {COM(2007) 249 final} {SEC(2007) 596} {SEC(2007) 604}
Date: 2007-05-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU employment policy, EU migration policy, foreign national, illegal migration, penalty

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 16.5.2007 
SEC(2007) 603 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying document to the 

Proposal for a 

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

providing for sanctions against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals 

Impact assessment 

{COM(2007) 249 final} 
{SEC(2007) 596} 
{SEC(2007) 604} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties .............................................. 3 

Problem definition........................................................................................................ 4 

Objectives................................................................................................................... 11 

Policy options............................................................................................................. 13 

Analysis of impacts .................................................................................................... 18 

Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 33 

Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 38 

Annex 1 – Methods for assessing numbers of illegally staying third-country nationals.......... 41 

Annex 2 – Total number of illegal immigrants by Member State and number in work .......... 43 

Annex 3 – Total number of illegal immigrants in work by Member State and sector ............. 69 

Annex 4 – Overview of legislation in the Member States........................................................ 73 

Annex 5 – Employer sanctions by Member State (supporting material for options 2 and 4) .. 76 

Annex 6 – Preventive measures by Member State (supportive material for options 3 and 4)100 

Annex 7 – Enforcement in the Member States (supporting material for option 6)................ 126 

Annex 8 – Typology of Member States to assess the economic consequences of the 

employment of illegally staying third-country nationals ......................................... 162 

Annex 9 – Administrative costs calculation........................................................................... 167 

Annex 10 – Enforcement costs calculation ............................................................................ 169 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
Lead DG: 

Justice, Freedom and Security 

1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

One of the factors encouraging illegal immigration into the EU is the possibility of finding 
work. This impact assessment report examines policy options for reducing that pull factor 
by  targeting  the  employment  of  third-country  nationals  who  are  illegally  resident  in  the 
EU. The Commission suggested such measures in its July 2006 Communication on Policy 
priorities  in  the  fight  against  illegal  immigration1.  The  European  Council  endorsed  this 
suggestion  in  December  2006,  inviting  the  Commission  to  present  proposals.  This 
initiative responds to that request. 

In Commission Legislative and Work Programme 2007 states that “an important tenet 
of the EU strategy in the field of migration will be a proposal on minimum sanctions for 
employers  of  illegally  staying  third-country  nationals,  in  order  to  reduce  both  illegal 
immigration and the exploitation of such workers” and therefore envisaged the preparation 
of the proposal for a Directive on minimum sanctions for employers of illegally resident 
third-country nationals2. A road map was prepared for this strategic initiative3. 

This report is based on consultations with Member States and other stakeholders. The data 
were  collected  from  the  consultations  set  out  below  as  well  as  from  case  studies  and 
literature  reviews.  The  data-gathering  and  a  large  part  of  the  consultations  were 
undertaken  through  an  external  study4  (hereinafter  “the  external  study”)  ordered  by  the 
Commission in December 2006. The external study constitutes the main support for this 
report. The problem, objectives and policy options assessed were based on the draft final 
report from the contractor prepared in close consultation with the Commission and on the 
basis of a desk analysis of appropriate analytical methods and applicable legal documents.  

The external study and this report have been drafted with  input from numerous  contacts 
between  the  Directorate-General  for  Justice,  Freedom  and  Security  and  the  contractor 
(starting from a kick-off meeting before the beginning of the study) as well as meetings of 
an inter-service steering group at which participated representatives of the Commission’s 
Secretariat-General,  Legal  Service  of  the  Commission  and  Directorates-General  for 
Enterprise  and  Industry,  for  Employment,  Social  Affairs  and  Equal  Opportunities,  for 
Research and for Internal market and Services5. 

The  Commission’s  Impact  Assessment  Board  (IAB)  was  consulted  on  the  draft  final 
report  of  the  external  study,  an  earlier  stage  in  the  process  than  is  normal.  The  IAB’s 

1 
2 
3 
4 

5 

COM(2006) 402. 
CLWP reference No : 2007/JLS/014 
http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/programmes/index_en.htm 
Impact  Assessment  on  a  Community  instrument  laying  down  sanctions  for  employers  of  third-
country  nationals  with  no  or  limited  rights  to  work  that  are  exceeded,  GHK  Consulting  Ltd 
study  will  be  published  at: 
(Specific  Contract  No  JLS/2006/B4/05).  The  external 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/justice_home/evaluation/dg_coordination_evaluation_annexe_en.htm 
Meetings of the inter-service steering group took place on 1 February 2007 and 6 March 2007. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(first)  opinion  was  taken  into  account  in  this  report  notably  as  regards  (i)  clarifying  the 
links  between  the  general  problem/objective  of  illegal  immigration  and  the  specific 
problems/objectives relating to illegal employment, (ii) widening the assessment of social 
and  economic  impacts,  and  (iii)  examining  the  links  between  the  policy  options  and  the 
specific  problem  of  inadequate  enforcement.  The  IAB  issued  an  updated  opinion  on  18 
April  2007  (which  will  be  made  public)  which  has  also  been  reflected  in  this  report 
(notably  by  providing  cross-references  to  more  detailed  assessments  and  descriptions  in 
the  external  study),  except  for  the  IAB’s  recommendation  to  divide  the  “harmonised 
sanctions”  policy  option  into  two  separate  policy  options  which  has  not  been  followed6. 
This option has been given due consideration, but because of time constraints, it was not 
possible  to  incorporate  it  in  the  report.  However  in  the  current  sanctions  option  the 
criminal sanction element was further differentiated. 

Although  time  constraints  meant  that  the  Commission’s  minimum  standards  for 
consultation were not fully met, meetings were held with the ETUC and UNICE/Business 
Europe. Member States were consulted in the framework of the Commission's Committee 
on  Immigration  and  Asylum.  The  work  also  benefited  from  seminars  and  workshops 
bringing  together  representatives  of  the  social  partners  and  other  NGOs7.  Through  the 
external  study,  further  consultation  of  Member  States  (including  their  enforcement 
bodies),  trade  unions  and  employer  organisations,  and  NGOs  was  undertaken  using 
questionnaires  and  interviews8.  Account  has  also  been  taken  of  comments  made  in 
reaction to  the  Commission’s July 2006  Communication on  Policy priorities in  the fight 
against illegal immigration9. 

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1. 

The scope of the problem 

Tackling  illegal  immigration  is  one  part  of  the  EU's  effort  to  develop  a  comprehensive 
migration policy. In September 2007 the Commission will present a first proposal on legal 
migration  in  accordance  with  its  December  2005  Policy  Plan.  This  report  however  is 
concerned with the fight against illegal immigration. 

6 

7 

8 

9 

This recommendation concerned an issue raised during further scrutiny of the draft IA report and 
had, therefore, not been addressed in the Board's first opinion. 
In  particular  a  workshop  organised  by  the  European  Policy  Centre  in  cooperation  with  the  King 
Baudoin Foundation on 16 February 2007. 
Questionnaires were circulated to 24 Member States (3 Member States were subject to case study 
visits). 16 Member states completed questionnaires. Interviews with enforcement bodies in 12 MS 
were carried out. Representatives of employer organisations and trade unions in three sectors have 
been consulted: construction, agriculture and catering. Interviews were undertaken with three other 
stakeholders: a researcher, a representative from Solidar and a representative of PICUM). Further 
details are given in annex 2 of the external study. 
COM(2006) 402. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.1.1.  The general problem: illegal immigration 

Illegal immigration is driven by a range of push and pull factors, which are by no means 
only  economic  in  nature.  Decisions  to  migrate  are  based  on  push  factors  such  as 
unemployment  or  permanently  low  wage  levels  and  natural  disasters  or  ecological 
devastation,  and  of  pull  factors  such  as  informal  employment  with  higher  wage  levels, 
political stability, maintenance of the rule of law and effective protection of human rights. 
Illegal migrants make their decisions despite various deterrents, such as high costs for the 
services of smugglers and the risk of interception and prosecution by border authorities10. 

The present initiative needs to be viewed as part of the EU’s comprehensive approach to 
reducing illegal immigration, as an instrument focussed on reducing the employment pull 
factor will not on its own eliminate the problem of illegal immigration to the EU.  

2.1.2.  The specific problem: employment as a key pull factor for illegal immigration 

The  legislative  proposal  aims  to  reduce  a  key  pull  factor  for  illegal  immigration:  the 
employment of third-country nationals who are staying illegally in the EU. These include 
those  who  entered  the  EU  illegally  and  ‘overstayers’  who  entered  the  EU  legally,  but 
whose rights to stay have expired. 

The legislative proposal does not cover the employment of third-country nationals who are 
staying  legally  in  a  Member  State  but  who  have  no  or  limited  rights  to  work,  and  the 
limited rights are being exceeded. These include students, researchers, tourists and legally 
present family members of third-country nationals who do not have the right to work or 
only  have  the  right  to  work  a  specified  number  of  hours  per  week.  Although  practical 
terms tackling such situations is also important for significantly reducing the employment 
pull  factor,  the  legal  basis  for  the  legislative  proposal  (Article  63(3)(3)(b)  of  the  EC 
Treaty) could not also permit measures in relation to this second category of third-country 
nationals. 

The remainder of this report refers only to illegally staying third-country nationals, whilst 
a  separate  Commission  Staff  Working  Paper  identifies  other  measures  to  prevent  and 
reduce  the  employment  of  both  categories  of  third-country  national:  those  who  are 
illegally staying and those who are working in breach of their residence status. 

The policy options considered here would not affect EU citizens from the EU-10 and the 
two new Member States Bulgaria and Romania who under transitional arrangements have 
restricted rights to work in some Member States of the EU. 

2.2. 

The size of the problem 

Determining the size of the problem is necessarily difficult. Apart from the difficulties of 
measuring  undocumented  persons  and  undocumented  work,  where  data  or  estimates  do 
exist, it is in many cases difficult to identify whether they include EU citizens subject to 

10 

COM (2004) 412. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
work restrictions under transitional arrangements and if so, to separate out the figures for 
third country nationals. Even though precise estimates are unavailable, on the basis of data 
identified  it  is  evident  that  there  are  high  numbers  of  illegally  staying  third-country 
nationals across the EU and that numbers have grown in recent years. 

Total numbers of illegal immigrants in the Member States 

Different methods have been used to estimate the numbers of illegal migrants in the EU; 
these  are  described  in  Annex  1.  The  results,  given  in  Table  A2.1  in  Annex  2,  vary 
considerably. Most estimates that are available relate to the period prior to 2004 and the 
accession  of  the  EU-10  and  include  nationals  from  these  countries  and  Bulgaria  and 
Romania as third country nationals. This makes it difficult to present a clear overview of 
the situation in the EU and in individual Member States. 

The  estimates  of  the  total  number  of  illegal  migrants  in  the  EU  include:  two  to  three 
million  (Global  Migration  Perspectives  2005); four  and  a  half  million  (IOM  2000);  and, 
seven  to  eight  million  (United  Nations'  Trends  in  Total  Migrant  Stock:  The  2003 
Revision)11.  

Annual inflow and outflow of illegal immigrants in Member States  

The  number  of  illegal  immigrants  in  the  EU  was  estimated  to  increase  by  500,000  per 
annum  by  Wiener  Zeitung  (2005),  and  by  350,000  according  to  Global  Migration 
Perspectives  2005.  However,  if  the  available  estimates  for  the  individual  21  Member 
States  are  aggregated  this  calculation  suggests  that  there  is  an  annual  inflow  of  illegal 
migrants to the EU of between 893,000 and 923,300. Annex 2 shows those estimates for 
individual Member States and, where possible, indicates trends. 

Although  reliable  figures  are  not  available  it  is  reasonable  to  assume  that  significant 
numbers of illegal migrants either leave the EU voluntarily, are regularised or are returned 
to their country of origin. Thus the net flow of illegal migrants is much less than the total 
inflow. Many illegal migrants enter the EU with the intention of staying and working for a 
limited period sufficient to repay their ‘investment’ and then to return to their country of 
origin. 

Some  Member  States  have  undertaken  large-scale  regularisation  programmes  in  recent 
years,  which  will  have  also  (at  least  initially)  reduced  the  numbers  of  illegally  staying 
third-country  nationals.  However,  such  programmes  may  themselves  constitute  a  pull 
factor for more illegal migration to the EU. In order to address the lack of sound evidence 
and up-to-date information, the Commission will in 2007 launch a study on regularisation 
measures.  

11 

As a comparison, with an estimated 10 million illegal immigrants, the USA is likely to host around 
the  same  number  of  illegal  immigrants  as  all  other  developed  countries  together.  Based  on  this 
assessment, illegal immigrants makes up 26% of the total USA immigration population, 5% of the 
workforce and 3% of the general population. Papademetrios, G., O’Neil, K. and Jachimowicz, M.: 
Observations  on  Regularization  and  the  Labour  Market  –  Performance  of  Unauthorized  and 
Regularized Immigrants (Migration Research Group, July 2004). 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.3. 

The  employment  of  illegally  staying  third-country  nationals:  nature  and 
effects 

A strong motivation for coming to the EU is the perception that comparatively well paid 
work is available. In practice this is less the case. Work that is accessible is mainly low 
paid  jobs  in  the  informal  unregulated  economy,  although  some  jobs  are  ‘close’  to  the 
formal sectors. This is possible because most countries have large informal sectors (quite 
how large is not clear as estimates vary significantly), within which nationals also work. 
However, the low salaries and bad working conditions that illegally staying third-country 
nationals are forced to accept make them sought after employees. 

Available  information  suggests  that  the  employment  of  illegally  staying  third-country 
nationals  does  not  necessarily  crowd  out  locals  from  jobs.  Instead,  there  are  signs  that 
whole industries are already dependent on illegally staying third-country nationals, as the 
kind  of  jobs  they  take  would  not  be  done  by  nationals  at  a  wage  level  that  would  still 
maintain  the  international  competitiveness  of  the  sector  concerned  (e.g.  horticulture).  In 
terms of effects on product/service markets, making use of undeclared work is widespread 
particularly in certain sectors, but not limited to third-country nationals. 

Effects on the product/service market may be positive in purely economic terms. Illegally 
staying  third  country  nationals  can  bring  substantial  economic  benefits  to  their  host 
countries in their capacity as workers. Their low wages bring down the costs of goods and 
services, making firms and sometimes entire industries more competitive, and often have 
important  ripple  (“up-“  and  “down-stream”)  economic  benefits  also  for  associated  firms 
and industries12, in the form of lower output prices, or increased purchases. 

Data  have  been  obtained  for  twelve  Member  States  (BE,  DK,  FI,  FR,  EL,  HU,  IT,  LV, 
NL,  PT,  ES,  UK)  on  the  sectors  in  which  illegal  migrants  work  and  is  presented  in 
Annex  3.  Construction,  agriculture  and  horticulture,  house  work  /  cleaning,  catering  and 
other  hospitality  services  are  repeatedly  identified  as  the  sectors  most  prone  to 
undocumented work, in general, and that of illegal migrants, in particular. This reflects in 
part the nature of the work that is required in these sectors (e.g. seasonal and flexible) and 
in part the variations in the presence of sectors in Member States. 

In Finland, France, Hungary and Portugal the highest concentrations of illegal migrants in 
work  are  found  in  construction.  In  Greece  and  Spain,  illegal  migrants  in  work  are 
predominantly  found  in  the  house  work  /  cleaning  sector,  whereas  in  Denmark,  the 
employment  of  illegal  migrants  is  particularly  high  in  agriculture.  In  the  Netherlands, 
catering and other hospitality services are a focus of recruitment of illegal migrants. 

The economic weight of these ‘sensitive sectors’ in the total employment in each Member 
State  also  differs  significantly,  ranging  from  10.8%  in  Sweden  to  38.8%  in  Romania  in 

12 

Papademetrios,  G.,  O’Neil,  K.  and  Jachimowicz,  M.:  Observations  on  Regularization  and  the 
Labour Market – Performance of Unauthorized and Regularized Immigrants (Migration Research 
Group, July 2004). 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
200513.  Annex  8  gives  an  overview  of  this  and  other  factors  that  indicate  a  country’s 
vulnerability to undeclared work in general, and that undertaken by illegally staying third 
country  nationals  in  particular.  It  goes  on  to  examine  which  countries  may  experience 
potentially adverse or beneficial effects from such employment. 

As concerns effects on competition and the single internal market, in countries where the 
informal economy14 is less strong, employers of illegal migrants pose unfair competition 
to others within certain sectors. In other countries, the custom of making use of undeclared 
work  in  general,  and  also  illegal  third  country  nationals,  is  so  wide-spread,  that  all 
companies  within  the  sectors  concerned  have  adapted  to  this  situation,  and  employ 
illegally themselves or cope with unfair competition by other means. 

Illegal migrants contribute positively economically to both the host economies (by making 
companies  or  even  sectors  more  competitive  due  to  low  salaries)  and  the  countries  of 
origin. Migrant sending countries benefit significantly from labour outflows as these offer 
relief from unemployment, boost the participation of female workers and produce a flow 
of remittances. For many third countries the dependency on these remittances, as a source 
of  foreign  exchange  and  as  a  percentage  of  the  GDP,  has  increased  over  the  years. 
However,  there  are  significant  costs  that  offset  these  benefits,  e.g.  lack  of  payment  of 
social  security  contributions,  exploitation  of  many  illegal  migrants,  and  the  distortion  of 
the labour market by downward pressure on wages and conditions15.  

The  problem  tree  below  summarises  the  links  between  the  problems  and  impacts  in 
relation to the employment of illegally staying third country. 

Problem tree 

13 

14 

15 

These  figures  are  based  on  the  data  collected  by  Eurostat  for  the  following  three  sectors: 
agriculture, hunting and forestry; construction; and hotels and restaurants. 
The term “informal economy” refers to the economic activities of workers and businesses that are 
not covered or insufficiently covered by formal arrangements. 
The  external  study  further  assesses  impacts  on  third  countries  (pp.  35-46),  and  on  the  illegally 
staying third-country nationals who work (pp. 46-50). 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
For the employed 
illegally staying 
TCN:

- Underpaid

For companies e.g.:

- Risk of exploitation

(1)

Company 
employing: 
lower wages

(2) Other 

- etc.

companies: 
distortion of 
competition

For Member State 
(nat / reg / local 
levels):

- Impacts on GDP

For EU: 

- Impacts on national 
aggregate GDP

- etc.

For third country::

- Remittances from 
employed illegally 
staying TCNs to 
countries of origin,

- etc,

Illegal employment

Human trafficking victim

Impacts

- No social security

For nationals:

- Downward 
pressure on wages 
and conditions

- Xenophobia

Illegal employment
(a pull factor for illegal 
immigration)

Illegal immigration
(also driven by other 
pull factors and by 
push factors)

Overstayer

Enter legally with 
valid visa/ study visa, 
seasonal work permit 
etc.

Enter on their own

Smuggled by facilitator

Human trafficking

2.4. 

Existing national measures targeting employers 

At least 26 of the 27 EU Member States already have employer sanctions and preventive 
measures  in  place  to  deal  with  employment  of  illegally  staying  third-country  nationals. 
The legislation of 19 Member States provide for criminal sanctions. Annexes 4, 5 and 6 
provide  more  details  on  the  national  measures16.  However,  not  only  does  the  content  of 
these  measures  vary  greatly,  but  also  the  combinations  of  measures  implemented.  The 
effectiveness of measures currently in place seems to be highly dependent on efforts and 
resources  put  in  place  for  enforcement.  Across  the  EU,  it  seems  that  units  or  agencies 
responsible for enforcement often struggle with scarce financial and human resources and 
that  enforcement  in  general  needs  to  be  improved.  The  low  numbers  of  prosecutions 
suggest that many employers that break the law avoid detection or prosecution. 

Most  Member  States  have  high  numbers  of  illegally  staying  third-country  nationals  in 
work despite having employer sanctions in place and this does not seem to be linked with 
types and levels of employer sanctions, but rather geographical location and possibilities 
to  find  work  in  certain  sectors.  This  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  the  fact  that  Member 
States  have  adopted  certain  sanctions  or  other  means  to  combat  illegal  employment  of 
third-country  nationals  does  not  mean  they  are  effective.  Many  stakeholders  (Member 
State  authorities,  employer  organisations,  trade  unions  and  enforcement  bodies)  instead 
point out that enforcement of the sanctions is key for an effective instrument. 

16 

The external study further describes the national measures (pp. 50-61), and includes more detailed 
case studies of Finland, Germany and Spain (pp. 66-68). 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Notwithstanding  the  creation  of  new  enforcement  bodes  by  Member  States,  information 
gathered  indicates  that  there  are  a  number  of  challenges  that  EU  Member  States  face  in 
enforcing their policies in relation to undeclared work. These include: 

–  Lack  of  coordination  and  cooperation  between  the  actors  responsible  for  combating 

illegal work at the local level and between the local, regional and national levels; 

–  Absence  of  a  structural  and/or  legislative  framework  that  governs  such  coordination 

and cooperation; 

–  Insufficient human resources allocated to the bodies or units that are expected to deter, 

detect and penalise undeclared work; 

–  Inadequate  financial  resources  at  the  disposal  of  the  competent  bodies  or  units  to 

undertake monitoring and act upon violations observed; 

–  Obstacles  to  field  operations  (e.g.  legislation  that  allows  employers  to  deny  access  to 

inspectors if they regard conditions on the site as unsafe); 

–  Lack  of  information  to  undertake  effective  controls  (e.g.  few  risk  analyses,  limited 
access  to  information  from  tax  authorities  and  banks  on  companies  under  suspicion, 
employees reluctant to testify against those who exploit them); 

–  Lack of data to assess the outcome of inspections; and, 

–  Insufficient international cooperation. 

The  inadequacy  of  enforcement  is  thus  not  just  about  the  level  of  financial  and  human 
resources  in  the  Member  States.  But  nor  can  it  be  excluded  that  more  such  resources 
would be needed to achieve effective enforcement. 

Member States have worked towards addressing some of these problems through new, or 
amendments to existing, legislation, through increasing the human and financial capacity 
of  enforcement  bodies,  and  pursuing  the  more  active  involvement  of  all  stakeholders. 
Stakeholders,  such  as  enforcement  bodies,  employer  organisations  and  trade  unions, 
underscore the importance of such steps in enhancing the effectiveness of planned and on-
the-spot  inspections.  However,  the  competitive  and  financial  advantages  of  informal 
employment, whether done by illegally staying third-country nationals or by EU citizens, 
is often still perceived as dwarfing the risk of being caught violating regulations.  

Alongside the problem of enforcement, the variety of existing national measures is also a 
problem.  First,  the  diversity  in  particular  of  preventive  measures  is  negative  for  the 
creation  of  a  level  playing  field  for  employers  across  the  Union.  Although  a  large 
proportion  of  Member  States  now  require  employers  to  declare  and  verify  the  status  of 
new employees, interviews with stakeholders have highlighted significant problems with 
such  measures.  The  procedures  that  employers  are  to  follow  are  often  experienced  as 
complex, long and hampering rapid responses to changes in the (labour) market. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
Secondly,  the  great  variety  of  e.g.  fines  for  employers  of  illegally  staying  third-country 
nationals,  which  range  from  a  maximum  amount  of  €700  in  one  Member  State  to  an 
unlimited amount in another, does not provide the picture that it is an EU common goal to 
fight the employment of illegally staying third-country nationals. An important part of the 
fight  against  illegal  immigration  is  attacking  the  problem  at  the  root,  i.e.  reducing  the 
impetus for third country nationals to leave their home countries for an illegal job in the 
EU  or  preventing  them  from  obtaining  such  a  job  once  in  the  EU.  It  is  likely  that  a 
message  to  third  countries  that  measures  against  illegal  work  by  third-country  nationals 
have been stepped up across the EU would have more impact than an individual or group 
of Member States revising their sanctions. In that sense, the current variation of measures 
can indeed be considered a problem. 

2.5. 

Does the EU have the right to act? 

The legitimacy for EU interventions in this field derives from the following: the common 
EU borders; the single market and policies to ensure fair competition between employers 
within the EU; and, commitments at the EU level to the free movement of persons within 
Europe. 

The legal base for EU level action is Article 63(3) of the EC Treaty that establishes that 
the  Council  is  to  adopt  "measures  on  immigration  policy  within  the  following  areas:  (b) 
illegal  immigration  and  illegal  residence,  including  repatriation  of  illegal  residents".  As 
from  1  January  2005,  decisions  in  this  field  are  taken  by  qualified  majority-voting  in 
Council, in co-decision with the European Parliament. 

If Member States act alone there is a risk of significantly different levels of sanctions and 
enforcement  in  different  Member  States.  This  could  lead  to  distortions  of  competition 
within  the  single  market  and  to  secondary  movements  of  illegally  staying  third-country 
nationals to Member States with lower levels of sanction and enforcement. 

In  an  area  without  internal  borders,  action  against  illegal  immigration  needs  to  be 
undertaken on a common basis. This is the case not only at the common borders but also 
with regard to action to reduce pull factors. Community action will be more effective in 
reducing  the  employment  pull  factor.  A  common  minimum  level  of  sanctions  (with 
effective  enforcement)  on  employers  will  ensure  (1)  that  all  Member  States  have 
sufficiently high sanctions to have deterrent value, (2) that sanctions are not so different as 
to  give  rise  to  secondary  movements  of  illegally  staying  third-country  nationals,  and  (3) 
that there is across the EU a level-playing field for businesses. 

3. 

OBJECTIVES 

3.1. 

The objectives of this exercise 

Whilst  the  overall  objective  is  to  contribute  to  reducing  illegal  immigration,  the  specific 
focus  of  this  initiative  is  to  tackle  the  pull  factor  for  illegal  immigration  that  is  the 
employment of illegally staying third-country nationals. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
In terms of general objectives: 

•  To contribute to reducing illegal immigration. 

In terms of specific objectives: 

•  To reduce employment of illegally staying third-country nationals 

•  To create a level playing field for EU employers. 

•  To contribute to reduced exploitation of illegally staying third-country nationals. 

Although the last of those specific objectives (to contribute to reduced exploitation) does 
not fall within the scope of the relevant legal base, Article 63(3)(b) EC, it is appropriate to 
include  it  in  view  of  the  exploitative  conditions  which  often  exist  in  this  area.  The 
Conclusions  of  the  1999  Tampere  European  Council  stipulate  that  in  tackling  the  root 
causes  of  illegal  migration  it  has  to  combat  “those  who  engage  in  trafficking  in  human 
beings and economic exploitation of migrants.” The EU has adopted legislation, such as 
Framework  Decision  2002/629/JHA  on  combating  human  trafficking17  and  Council 
Directive  2004/81/EC  on  issuing  residence  permits  for  victims  of  human  trafficking18. 
This objective is however secondary: while the policy options should be assessed as to the 
extent to which they contribute to reduced exploitation, the primary aim of this initiative is 
not to fight exploitation. 

3.2. 

Fundamental rights 

Positive and negative impacts on relevant fundamental rights have also been considered. 
The following fundamental rights of the Charter of Fundamental Rights are relevant: 

•  Respect for private and family life (Art. 7) 

•  Protection of personal data (Art. 8) 

•  Equality before the law (Art. 20) 

•  Non-discrimination (Art. 21) 

•  Fair and just working conditions (Art. 31) 

•  Right to an effective remedy and fair trial (Art. 47) 

•  Principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties (Art. 49) 

The impacts on some of these rights are inter-related. For example, if personal data (Art. 
8) are not protected, there will be negative impacts on the respect for private and family 

17 
18 

OJ L 203, 1.8.2002, p. 1. 
OJ L 261, 6.8.2004, p. 19. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
life  (Art.  7).  These  two  fundamental  rights  are  therefore  considered  together  when  the 
impacts  of  policy  options  are  assessed.  Similarly,  equality  before  the  law  (Art.  20)  is 
considered together with the right to an effective remedy and trial (Art. 47). Fair and just 
working conditions (Art. 31) are included in the policy objective and related assessment 
criterion ‘to reduce exploitation of illegally staying third-country nationals’. 

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

The  option  of  regularising  illegally  staying  third-country  nationals  was  considered  at  an 
early stage of the project, but has been left out due to a lack of data on current practices 
and  effects  of  regularisation  measures.  In  its  July  2006  Communication  on  Policy 
priorities  in  the  fight  against  illegal  immigration  of  third-country  nationals19,  the 
Commission  identified  the  need  to  address  regularisations  given  that  recent  large-scale 
regularisation  programmes  in  some  Member  States  have  given  rise  to  expressions  of 
concern and interest in other Member States. Given the current lack of sound evidence and 
up-to-date  information  a  study  to  be  launched  in  2007  on  current  practices,  effects  and 
impacts  of  regularisation  measures  will  constitute  the  basis  for  future  discussion. 
Regularisation was therefore not considered as a policy option for this exercise. Moreover, 
regularisation is argued by many to be a pull factor for illegal immigration and therefore 
unhelpful in this exercise. 

4.1. 

Policy Option 1 – Status quo 

No  changes  are  made  to  the  current  situation,  i.e.  the  following  EU  level  measures 
(legislative instruments, funding, and general measures) are maintained: 

•  Council Recommendation of 22 December 1995 on harmonising means of combating 
illegal  immigration  and  illegal  employment20  recommends  that  employers  wanting  to 
recruit foreign nationals should be encouraged to verify their residence or employment 
situations  and  that  an  employer  of  a  foreign  national  without  authorisation  should  be 
made  subject  to  penalties.  Council  Recommendation  of  27  September  1996  on 
combating  the  illegal  employment  of  third-country  nationals21  recommends  in 
particular that employment of third-country nationals who do not possess the necessary 
authorisation  should  be  prohibited  and  should  give  rise 
to  criminal  and/or 
administrative penalties. 

•  Directive  2002/90/EC  and  Framework  Decision  2002/946/JHA.  This  Directive  and 
Framework Decision define the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence 
and sets out a penal framework to prevent these phenomena. The Directive22 stipulates 
(Art.  1)  that  Member  States  are  to  adopt  sanctions  on  "any  person  who,  for  financial 
gain, intentionally assists a person who is not a national of a Member State, to reside 

19 
20 
21 
22 

COM(2006) 402. 
OJ C 5, 10.1.1996, p. 1. 
OJ C 304, 14.10.1996, p. 1. 
Directive 2002/90/EC defining the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
within the territory of a Member State in breach of the laws of the State concerned on 
the residence of aliens". The Framework Decision provides for criminal penalties.  

•  Framework  Decision  2002/629/JHA  of  19  July  2002  on  combating  trafficking  in 
human  beings.  This  provides  that  Member  States  are  to  incriminate  any  form  of 
recruitment, transportation, transfer or harbouring and any other treatment of a person 
for the purposes of labour exploitation, and provides for penalties23. 

•  In  2007  the  Framework  programme  Solidarity  and  Management  of  Migration 
Flows  will  be  launched.  This  programme  encompasses  four  new  funds  related  to: 
refugees; external borders; the integration of third-country nationals; and, return. 

•  General  measures  against  undeclared  work  in  the  framework  of  the  EU’s 
economic and social policy. For example the European Employment Strategy and the 
Employment  Guidelines  call  for  action  to  “foster  regular  employment”.  National 
measures  and  strategies  to  combat  undeclared  work  in  general,  including  illegal 
employment of third-country nationals, have been developed in this context. 

The  following  instruments  were  included  in  the  Council  Conclusions  of  14  and  15 
December  200624  and  are  in  preparation.  Even  though  the  content  has  not  yet  been 
decided,  the  adoption  of  such  instruments  nevertheless  needs  to  be  taken  into 
consideration in the status quo option: 

•  The  creation  of  an  entry-exit  system:  The  proposal  would  lead  to  the  creation  of  a 
generalised  and  automated  entry-exit  system,  complementing  databases  like  VIS  and 
SIS. It includes biometric technology. 

•  Improved  management  of  the  European  Union's  external  borders  on  the  basis  of 

the integrated border management strategy adopted by the Council in 2006. 

•  Improved  coordination  and  cooperation  between  country  of  origin  and  country  of 

transit.  

•  Commission  proposals  within  the  framework  of  the  Policy  Plan  on  Legal 
Migration  of  December  2005,  including  the  facilitation  of  immigration  of  highly 
skilled individuals, seasonal workers and rights of migrants.  

Measures  are  also  available  at  national  level.  At  least  26  of  the  27  EU  Member  States25 
have  employer  sanctions  in  place  in  terms  of  administrative  and/or  penal  sanctions.  In 

23 

24 
25 

Even  though  employers  of  trafficking  victims  are  not  specifically  targeted  by  sanctions  on 
employers of third-country nationals, they are covered to the extent they commit punishable acts in 
the  sense  of  Article  1  of  the  Framework  Decision  2002/629  JHA,  for  example,  deceptive  or 
fraudulent recruitment. This type of employment is, however, likely to only be minor compared to 
other types of illegal employment of third-country nationals when they enter the country either on 
their own or with the assistance of smugglers or facilitators. 
See: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/92202.pdf 
Information is not available for Cyprus 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
several Member States, sanctions have been increased in recent years. All Member States 
already have preventive measure(s) in place, including measures placing the responsibility 
on the employer to declare new employees and verify their status, measures encouraging 
employment  of  documented  workers,  and,  partnership  agreements  for  cooperation  and 
initiatives  to  prevent  illegal  work  (between  (1)  Member  States,  and,  (2)  Ministries  and 
Social Partners). Enforcement is undertaken with varying degrees and effectiveness.  

4.2. 

Policy  Option  2  –  Harmonised  sanctions  for  employers  of  illegally  staying 
third-country  nationals  across  the  EU,  with  an  enforcement  obligation  on 
Member States 

In  this  option,  which  requires  EU  level  regulatory  action,  harmonised  sanctions  for 
employers  of  illegally  staying  third-country  nationals  would  be  established  across  the 
EU26.  The  infringement  would  be  the  employment  of  an  illegally  staying  third-country 
national  through  the  present  employment.  Fines,  other  penalties  and  criminal  sanctions 
would be put in place. 

Except for serious cases, sanctions would consist of a fine and/or other penalties. The fine 
would amount to a sum per employee . The level of penalty would be proportionate to the 
offence  and  likely  to  represent  more  than  the  ‘savings’  that  the  employer  would  have 
made through not employing legally. Thus the fine should be viewed as both fair and as a 
deterrent. No maximum amount would be established. A ‘menu’ of penalties would be put 
in place, including, for example, temporary ineligibility for public contracts and subsidies, 
temporary  suspension  of  activity,  temporary  withdrawal  of  trading  licence  and/or 
confiscation  of  equipment.  One  or  several  penalties  could  be  imposed.  Small  scale 
offences would be considered ‘administrative’. 

The  exact  amount  of  fine  and/or  what  penalty/ies  would  be  at  the  discretion  of  relevant 
body27  in  the  Member  States.  The  level  of  the  fine  /  penalties  would  be  based  on  the 
following criteria: 

•  Intention / knowledgeable act: whether the employer deliberately and knowingly hired 

(an) illegally staying third country national(s); 

•  Repeat offence; 

•  Other circumstances (e.g. economic situation)  

In  serious  cases  employers  could  also  be  subject  to  criminal  sanctions,  based  on  the 
following alternative criteria: 

•  Repeat offence (e.g. second or third time / within a certain time period); 

26 

27 

The  proposed  sanctions  are  based  on  available  evidence  of  effectiveness  of  various  employer 
sanctions  already  in  place  in  the  Member  States  and  information  on  necessary  contextual 
circumstances and supporting measures for their success. Supporting material is provided in Annex 
5. 
What national body would be competent is dependent on the national structure. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  Employment of a significant number of third-country nationals; and/or 

•  Particularly exploitive working conditions. 

Under this option, the sanctions would cover all employers, i.e. both the employer and any 
intermediaries / subcontractors who themselves act as employers of (an) illegally staying 
third-country national(s). 

In view of the importance of enforcement, Member States would be required to undertake 
a  certain  number  of  controls  on  company  premises  (expressed  as  a  %  of  number  of 
registered companies) and on the basis of risk assessment. 

4.3. 

Policy Option 3 – Harmonised preventive measures: common requirements 
across the EU for employers to copy the relevant documentation (residence 
permit) and to notify the competent national bodies 

This  option  would  involve  legislative  action  at  Community  level  to  require  common 
measures to prevent the employment of third-country nationals across the EU. The policy 
option would involve actions by the employer and competent national authorities28. 

The  employer  would  be  required  to  ask  the  prospective  employee  for  the  following 
documents concerning residence rights in the Member State, and copy and forward them 
to the appropriate public authorities: residence permit or other authorisation to stay valid 
for the period of employment in question. 

The  employer  would  be  obliged  to  retain  a  copy  and  ensure  the  safe-keeping  and 
confidentiality of these documents. 

The relevant national authority would be responsible for checking whether the documents 
are  valid  /  not  forged,  and  the  status  of  the  migrant  and  informing  the  employer  if  the 
employee cannot be legally employed. 

The employer would not have to wait for the response from the authority to hire the new 
employee,  but  would  need  to  lay  off  the  person  in  case  of  a  negative  reply  from  the 
authorities. 

This  obligation  would  not  be  restricted  to  collection  of  documentation  ‘upon  suspicion’, 
but the employer would always be required to submit this type of information in order that 
the authorities responsible for issuing residence permits can verify whether the prospective 
employee is allowed to stay in the country. 

Employers failing to submit copies of relevant documentation to the competent authority 
would not necessarily be subject to a penalty, but employers who could show that they had 
carried  out  those  checks  would  not  be  considered  to  have  infringed  the  prohibition  and 
thus not liable to sanctions if the worker were subsequently found to have been an illegally 

28 

The  content  of  the  policy  option  has  been  elaborated  on  the  basis  of  available  information 
concerning preventive measures in the Member States, see Annex 6. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
staying  third-country  national.  This  could  be  the  case  for  example  if  the  competent 
national  body  later  finds  that  the  document  presented  by  an  employee  had  in  fact  been 
forged or misused. 

4.4. 

Policy Option 4 – Harmonised employer sanctions and preventive measures 

This  regulatory  option,  which  would  imply  EU  level  legislative  action,  consists  of  a 
combination of options 2 and 3 above.  

4.5. 

Policy Option 5 – EU awareness raising campaign on consequences of hiring 
an illegally staying third-country national 

This non-regulatory option would consist of the organisation of an EU awareness raising 
campaign. It would seek to make employers aware of their legal obligations and negative 
consequences of hiring illegally staying third-country nationals in terms of: 

–  unfair competition at sectoral, regional, national and/or EU levels; 

–  negative impact on tax income and social security payments; 

–  depression of wage levels for labourers in formal employment at sectoral, regional, or 

national level; 

–  general lowering of employment conditions for those working in informal and formal 

markets (rights of worker, minimum wage, working hours, etc.). 

The campaign could address social consequences such as: 

–  increased  (risk  of)  exploitation  and  slavery-like  conditions  for  illegally  staying  third-

country nationals; 

–  preventing  such  employees  from  benefiting  from  social  welfare  provisions  that 

employees in the formal sector have access to; 

–  poor housing and living circumstances; and 

–  increased (risk of) violation of the human rights of these workers. 

Social  partners  and  other  relevant  actors  could  be  involved  in  the  elaboration  of  the 
content of such a campaign. 

4.6. 

Policy  Option  6  –  Identification  and  exchange  between  Member  States  of 
good practices on the implementation of employer sanctions 

This  option  would  involve  the  identification  and  exchanges  of  good  practices  and 
information between Member States on different subjects (e.g. enforcement mechanisms, 
legislative  means,  identification  and  seizure  of  facilitators,  etc.)  taking  place  in  a 
structured  form,  e.g.  peer  learning,  with  assistance  from  the  Commission  in  issuing 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
guidelines,  identifying  national  contact  points  and  arranging  meetings.  Good  practice 
guidance and hand-books for training staff could be elaborated. 

5. 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

5.1. 

Assessment criteria 

A multi-criteria analysis has been used to assess and compare impacts: each policy option 
has been assessed against a set of criteria which derive from the problems in the current 
situation, policy objectives and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. In view of limits of the 
data available, no attempt has been made to quantify the impacts of each option. 

For each policy option, the anticipated impact has been assessed on an ‘intuitive’ scale of 
positive impact from one to five (five being the best score). Negative impact is highlighted 
by  –  ,  whilst  0  means  that  there  would  be  no  effect.  A  brief  explanation  of  rating  and 
aspects of the policy options necessary to achieve impacts is also provided in the grids.  

5.2. 

Identifying and assessing measurable impacts of each of the policy options 

The assessments of policy options are presented in Tables 5.1 to 5.6 below. 

Table 5.1 – Policy Option 1: Status Quo 

Objective to be achieved/ problem 
addressed 

To reduce employment of illegally 
staying third-country nationals 

Rating of 
impact (from – 
to √√√√√) 

0 or √ 

To reduce illegal immigration to the EU 

√ 

To create a level playing field for 
employers 

0 or – 

To contribute to reduced exploitation of 
illegally staying third-country nationals 

0 or – 

Explanation of rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve impact 

No effect or small decrease due to existing and forthcoming measures, 
such  as  the  proposed  entry-exit  system  and  measures  to  tackle 
undeclared  work.  While  most  MS  have  employer  sanctions  and 
preventive measures in place, necessary enforcement is poor. 

Existing and forthcoming measures, are likely to reduce the inflow and 
stock of illegal migrants to some extent.  

Fails  or  situation  would  deteriorate,  because  the  differences  between 
MS in terms of legislation, enforcement and work opportunities would 
remain or even increase.  

No  effect  or  worsening  situation  for  such  workers.  Push  factors  for 
labour  migration  are  gaining  force,  and  many  are  pressed  to  accept 
clandestine jobs with low wages and poor working conditions. 

To develop common rules which are 
likely to be complied with in practice and 
enforced 

To complement and reinforce existing 
(and forthcoming) acquis 

To reduce human trafficking, organised 
crime and smuggling 

Fundamental rights 

0 

No effect, as there would be no common rules. 

N/A 

0 or – 

N/A 

Push factors for labour migration are gaining force, resulting in fiercer 
competition to secure passage to the EU and jobs upon arrival. 

(cid:131)  Protection of personal data (Art. 8) 

(cid:131)  Right to an effective remedy and fair trial 

(Art. 47) 

(cid:131)  Non-discrimination (Art. 21) 

(cid:131)  Principles of legality and proportionality of 
criminal offences and penalties (Art. 49) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

EN 

No effect. 

No effect. 

No effect. 

No effect. 

18 

   EN 

 
 
Objective to be achieved/ problem 
addressed 

Rating of 
impact (from – 
to √√√√√) 

Explanation of rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve impact 

Benefits and advantages of option  

MS are not required to adopt new measures. No costs. Existing and forthcoming measures 
are likely to contribute to the reduction of such employment. 

Disadvantages  and  risks  of  policy  option 
(including  negative  economic  and  social  costs 
in EU and third countries) 

No  clear  message  to  employers  and  third  countries.  Marked  variations  between  MS  in 
opportunities  to  escape  sanctions  continue.  Some  deterioration  in  the  position  of  those  at 
risk of exploitation.  

Essential accompanying measures 

N/A. 

Economic effects on EU level 

Effects on EU labour markets 

Effects on consumers 

Financial cost 

Effects on third countries 

Minor economic effects. Due to Member States acting on own initiative, as well as better 
monitoring  through  the  proposed  entry-exit  system,  some  reduction  in  positive  economic 
effects  might  be  anticipated.  EU  companies,  especially  those  in  the  most  affected  sectors, 
will continue to have to cope with unfair competition. 

Pressures  on  wages  for  low-skilled  work  (whether  by  EU  citizens  or  legally  resident  and 
working TCNs) will remain particularly in the most affected sectors. 

For some goods and services in the affected sectors (e.g. horticultural products), consumers 
continue to benefit from lower prices resulting from employers use of (low paid) illegally 
employed TCNs. 

Zero. 

Minor or no economic effects. Numbers of illegal TCN workers may decrease slowly, but 
their earnings and remittances would remain stable or increase slightly (due to rising labour 
costs, better networks, improved skills, and decreasing taxation). 

in 

Issues  raised 
stakeholder 
consultations  

Many employer organisations and trade unions have highlighted that even though legal means exist today at national level 
which have the aim to combat employment of illegally staying third-country nationals , poor enforcement undermines 
their effectiveness. 

Issues  raised  by 
Member States 

The Council Conclusions of 14 and 15 December 2006 invited the Commission to present a proposal on measures against 
employers  of  illegal  immigrants.  However,  in  a  survey  by  the  Commission  a  majority  of  MS  considered  their  current 
legislative framework to be effective. Some Member States have pointed to the need to reinforce preventive measures and 
effective enforcement. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
Table 5.2 – Policy Option 2: Harmonised sanctions for employers of illegally staying 
third-country nationals, with an enforcement obligation on Member States  

Objective to be achieved/ problem 
addressed 

Rating of impact 
(rated from – 

Explanation of rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve impact 

To reduce employment of illegally 
staying third-country nationals 

to √√√√√) 

√√ 

To reduce illegal immigration to the EU 

√√ 

To create a level playing field for 
employers 

√√√ 

To contribute to reduced exploitation of 
illegally staying third-country nationals 

0 or - 

To develop common rules which are likely 
to be complied with in practice and 
enforced 

To complement and reinforce existing 
(and forthcoming) acquis 

√ 

√√ 

To reduce human trafficking, organised 
crime and smuggling 

0 or – 

0 

0 

0 

√ 

Fundamental rights 

(cid:131)  Protection of personal data (Art. 8) 

(cid:131)  Right to an effective remedy and fair trial 

(Art. 47) 

(cid:131)  Non-discrimination (Art. 21) 

(cid:131)  Principles of legality and proportionality of 
criminal offences and penalties (Art. 49) 

Benefits and advantages of option  

Disadvantages  and  risks  of  policy  option 
(including  negative  economic  and  social  costs 
in EU and third countries) 

Essential accompanying measures 

Economic effects on EU level 

Small  reduction  of  such  employment,  because  the  minimum  level  of 
sanctions  is  significantly  raised  in  several  MS,  and  criminal  sanctions 
introduced  in  those  MS  that  currently  do  not  have  them.  This  could 
discourage employers, but would require (more) effective enforcement 
in many MS. 

through 

improved  detection,  and 

Compared  with  the  status  quo  the  stock  of  illegal  migrants  could  be 
reduced 
illegal 
immigration  could  be  reduced  through  a  clear  message  being 
transmitted  to  third  countries  and  prospective  illegal  economic 
migrants.  The  impact  would  however  depend  upon  the  success  of 
implementation and enforcement.  

the  flow  of 

Establishes  common  sanctions  in  MS,  including  as  regards  criminal 
sanctions.  However,  even  with  the  enforcement  obligation,  variation 
among MS capacity of enforcement would remain.  

Some researchers, as well as NGOs, argue that stricter sanctions against 
employers  are  accompanied  by  increased  exploitation  of  illegally 
staying  third-country  nationals,  because  such  workers  are  pushed 
further underground and have a weaker bargaining position. However, 
such possible effects would be counterbalanced by the deterrent effect 
of  especially  the  proposed  criminal  sanctions  in  cases  of  particularly 
exploitative working conditions. 

The  instrument  consists  of  sanctions  which  have  been  evidenced  as 
effective in MS. However, compliance is still highly dependent on the 
enforcement of the sanctions which is the responsibility of the MS.  

The  policy  option  complements  existing  acquis.  It  is  unclear  if  it  will 
complement forthcoming measures. 

No  discernible  effect  on  human  trafficking  and  smuggling.  Situation 
might  deteriorate.  Unclear  effect  on  organised  crime.  If  sanctions  are 
effectively imposed on employers, organised crime  may be uncovered 
and tackled. 

No effect.  

No effect. 

Although  there  would  be  different  treatment  between  the  irregular 
employment  of  illegally  staying  third-country  nationals  and  that  of  by 
EU  citizens,  such  difference  is  justified  by  their  objectively  different 
statuses and thus cannot be considered discriminatory. 

Crime has to be defined across the EU and same sanction is imposed on 
those who commit this crime. 

Reduces  variation  in  legislation  and  its  enforcement.  Fosters  level  playing  field.  Clear 
communication to employers and third countries. 

Some negative effects on economy. 

Simplification of bureaucratic procedures for recruiting third-country nationals legally and 
hereby reducing waiting period. 

Awareness raising campaigns targeted at the employers and employees. 

Protective  measures  for  workers,  including  back  payment  of  wages,  burden  of  proof  of 
payment on employer, and complaint procedures that are safe. 

Enforcement of sanctions by administrative units with sufficient capacity.  

Some  reduction  of  illegal  employment  and  tax  revenues  foregone  may  occur  in  those  MS 
where  sanctions  will  increase.  Not  likely  to  have  significant  impact  on  those  MS  with  a 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
Objective to be achieved/ problem 
addressed 

Rating of impact 
(rated from – 

Explanation of rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve impact 

Effects on EU labour markets 

Effects on consumers 

Financial cost 

Effects on third countries 

Issues 
in 
stakeholder consultations  

raised 

to √√√√√) 

developed informal economy. Employers may circumvent long-lasting sanctions by setting 
up  new  companies.  Companies  in  the  most  affected  sectors  will  be  less  exposed  to  unfair 
competition. 

Wages and conditions of workers (whether EU citizens or legally resident and working third-
country  nationals)  in  certain  low-skilled  jobs  may  incrementally  benefit  from  the  tighter 
supply  of  labour  resulting  from  reduced  employment  of  illegally  staying  third-country 
nationals. Services with a stable domestic demand, i.e. catering and construction, are likely to 
benefit most. Sectors facing more international competition, e.g. the textile industry and parts 
of  agriculture  and  horticulture,  reliant  on  low-paid  workers,  may  lose  jobs  and  economic 
output. 

For goods and services in countries and the affected sectors where the employment of (low 
paid)  illegally  employed  third-country  nationals  will  significantly  decrease,  consumers  may 
have to pay more. This may affect catering services and construction, the textile industry and 
certain  seasonal  horticultural  goods  with  high  labour  intensity  and  less  foreign  competition 
(due  to  Protected  Designation  of  Origin,  its  perishable  nature  and/or  high  relative 
transportation costs). Other goods will face a loss of price competitiveness and increasingly 
be replaced by substitute products. Altogether, no significant effects are expected. 

Additional burden for at least some MS for enforcement, but many MS have already such 
measures and administrative and criminal sanctions in place. There will  also be additional 
costs for supporting measures. 

Clear message to third countries. As more stringent regulation will be introduced in some of 
the most popular target countries, it may reduce labour migration and, as a result, have small 
economic effects in the countries of origin concerned. 

Employer  organisations  generally  prefer  administrative  sanctions.  Criminalisation  of  individuals  –  and  not  of 
companies  –  is  considered  legitimate  if  an  employer  is  found  to  engage  in  criminal  activities.  Employer 
organisations  and  trade  unions  agree  that  fines  have  to  be  determined  according  to  the  severity  of  the  offence. 
They also share a preference for a fine per illegally staying third-country national employed and that offsets the 
economic advantage of such employment.  

Difference  of  opinion  regarding  the  need  for  additional  administrative  measures,  such  as  withdrawing  trading 
licence,  suspension  of  activity,  and  closure  of  company.  Employer  organisations  stress  the  negative  impact  of 
such measures on local economies (e.g. loss of jobs). 

Trade unions emphasise that a discussion about the nature of sanctions is only meaningful if tied to a ‘serious’ 
discussion about the enforcement of these sanctions. 

Some enforcement bodies indicated a preference for administrative sanctions. In the case of criminal sanctions, 
inter-regional variance in the level of sanctions imposed on employers has been observed. The discretion given to 
judges were considered too great and ineffective in discouraging employers. 

Issues  raised  by  Member 
States 

Most  Member  States  are  of  the  view  that  EU  legislation  should  contain  both  administrative  and  criminal 
sanctions. One Member States is of the view that administrative sanctions should be given preference.  

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
Table 5.3 – Policy Option 3: Harmonised preventive measures: common 
requirements across the EU for employers to copy the relevant documentation and to 
notify the competent national bodies 

Objective to be achieved/ problem 
addressed 

Rating of 
impact (from – 
to √√√√√) 

Explanation of rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve impact 

To reduce employment of illegally 
staying third-country nationals 

√ 

To reduce illegal immigration to the EU 

√√ 

To create a level playing field for 
employers 

To contribute to reduced exploitation of 
illegally staying third-country nationals 

To develop common rules which are likely 
to be complied with in practice and 
enforced 

To complement and reinforce existing (and 
forthcoming) acquis 

√√√ 

0 

√√ 

√√ 

To reduce human trafficking, organised 
crime and smuggling 

0 or – 

– 

0 

0 

√ 

Fundamental rights 

(cid:131)  Protection of personal data (Art. 8) 

(cid:131)  Right to an effective remedy and fair trial 

(Art. 47) 

(cid:131)  Non-discrimination (Art. 21) 

(cid:131)  Principles of legality and proportionality of 
criminal offences and penalties (Art. 49) 

Benefits and advantages of option  

Disadvantages  and  risks  of  policy  option 
(including negative economic and social costs in 
EU and third countries) 

Reduces, because  the administrative  procedure allows the employer to 
determine if a potential employee is allowed to work at an early stage of 
employment.  Limited  effect,  because  it  requires  effective  enforcement 
and additional sanctions for those who recruit such individuals anyway. 

Compared  with  the  status  quo  the  stock  of  illegal  migrants  could  be 
reduced through improved detection and the flow of illegal immigration 
could  be  reduced  through  a  clear  message  being  transmitted  to  third 
countries and prospective illegal economic migrants. The impact would 
however depend upon the success of implementation and enforcement. 

Promotes  a  level  playing  field,  because  the  instrument  requires 
employers across the EU to follow the same procedures. 

No effect. 

The instrument consists of preventive  measures  evidenced as effective 
in  MS.  Straightforward  procedures,  which  are  easy  to  understand  and 
comply with. Compliance still requires monitoring and enforcement.  

Complements  existing  acquis.  It  is  unclear  if  it  will  complement 
forthcoming measures. 

No  discernible,  positive  effect  on  human  trafficking  and  smuggling. 
Possible  negative  effect  on  organised  crime,  as  it  may  increase  the 
problem of identity fraud and the forgery of documents.  

Negative effects if data not appropriately handled. Depends on the type 
of  information  about  the  employee  that  employer  is  obliged  to  collect 
and submit to the public authorities. 

No effect. 

No effect. 

Improves. 

Places  minimum  burden  on  employers.  Straightforward  procedures,  which  can  be  easily 
complied  with.  Creates  level  playing  field  as  obligations  are  imposed  on  all  employers 
across EU. Small reduction of illegal employment.  

Some, albeit limited, effects on prevention and reduction of such employment. May increase 
organised crime due to increased demand for forged documents. 

Essential accompanying measures 

Measures safeguarding protection of personal data. 

Economic effects on EU level 

Effects on EU labour markets 

Identify competent authorities to collect and process data. 

Develop procedures to be followed by employers as documents to be submitted will depend 
on national legislation (residence permit or other authorisation for stay). 

Awareness raising campaigns targeted at employers and employees. 

Policies on issuing of work permits reflecting labour market needs. 

Limited,  due  to  limited  effect  on  prevention  and  reduction  of  such  employment.  Illegal 
employment of TCNs is usually intentional, and is, as undeclared work, combined with tax 
evasion in the sectors primarily associated with  this kind of work. It is not likely to effect 
reductions  on  labour  market  pressures  and  reduce  unfair  competition.  Companies  in  the 
most affected sectors will continue to be exposed to unfair competition. 

Workers  (whether  EU  citizens  or  legally  resident  and  working  third-country  nationals)  in 
certain low-skilled jobs may incrementally benefit from the tighter supply of labour resulting 
from reduced employment of illegally staying third-country nationals. Services with a stable 
domestic  demand,  i.e.  catering  and  construction,  are  likely  to  benefit  most.  Sectors  facing 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
 
Objective to be achieved/ problem 
addressed 

Rating of 
impact (from – 
to √√√√√) 

Explanation of rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve impact 

Effects on consumers 

Financial cost 

Effects on third countries 

Issues 
stakeholder consultations  

raised 

in 

more  international  competition,  e.g.  the  textile  industry  and  parts  of  agriculture  and 
horticulture, reliant on low-paid workers, may lose jobs and economic output. The effects are 
however not considered significant. 

For goods and services in countries and the affected sectors, where the employment of (low 
paid)  illegally  employed  third-country  nationals  will  significantly  decrease,  consumers  may 
have to pay more. This may affect catering services and construction, the textile industry and 
certain  seasonal  horticultural  goods  with  high  labour  intensity  and  less  foreign  competition 
(due  to  Protected  Designation  of  Origin,  its  perishable  nature  and/or  high  relative 
transportation costs). Other goods will face a loss of price competitiveness and increasingly 
replaced by substitute products. Altogether, no significant effects are expected. 

Small,  because  many  countries  have  already  such  preventive  measures  and  administrative 
sanctions in place, but there will be additional costs for supporting measures. 

Does not send a particularly clear message to third countries. Only limited economic effects. 
The number of TCNs working illegally in the EU may be only slightly reduced. 

Consensus among employer organisations and trade unions that procedures to declare and verify the status of the 
third-country national should be simplified and modernised. In addition to dealing with the complicated nature of 
current procedures, waiting period for obtaining work and/or residence permits should be significantly reduced to 
allow a more flexible and immediate response to labour shortages. Many employer organisations emphasised the 
need for additional support with fulfilling obligations through, for example, awareness raising and identification 
of  information  points.  Trade  unions  argued  for  a  credible  system,  which  does  not  ignore  the  local  or  national 
labour  force  in  analyses  of  labour  shortages.  Some  stakeholders  suggested  that  analyses  of  labour  shortages  in 
regions or sectors which are agreed by stakeholders and are regularly updates might secure widespread support 
and speed up applications. 

Issues  raised  by  Member 
States 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
 
Table 5.4 – Policy Option 4: Harmonised employer sanctions and preventive 
measures (i.e. Options 2 and 3 combined) 

Objective to be achieved/ problem 
addressed 

To reduce employment of illegally 
staying third-country nationals 

Rating of 
impact (from – 
to √√√√√) 

√√√ 

To reduce illegal immigration to the EU 

√√√ 

To create a level playing field for 
employers 

To contribute to reduced exploitation of 
illegally staying third-country nationals 

√√√√ 

0 or - 

To develop common rules which are likely 
to be complied with in practice and 
enforced 

√√ 

To complement and reinforce existing (and 
forthcoming) acquis 

√√√ 

To reduce human trafficking, organised 
crime and smuggling 

Fundamental rights 

(cid:131)  Protection of personal data (Art. 8) 

(cid:131)  Right to an effective remedy and fair trial 

(Art. 47) 

(cid:131)  Non-discrimination (Art. 21) 

(cid:131)  Principles of legality and proportionality of 
criminal offences and penalties (Art. 49) 

Benefits and advantages of option  

– 

– 

0 

0 

√ 

Explanation of rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve impact 

Loopholes  in  the  system  of  employing  TCN  are  reduced.  The  state 
provides the employer with tools and information to verify the status of 
employees  at  the  stage  of  recruitment.  High  sanctions  (including 
criminal  sanctions)  seek  to  persuade  the  employer  of  the  need  for 
compliance. Effectiveness still depends significantly on enforcement. 

Compared with the status quo and either policy option 2 or 3 the stock 
of illegal migrants could be further reduced through improved detection 
and the flow of illegal immigration could be further reduced through a 
clear  message  being  transmitted  to  third  countries  and  prospective 
illegal economic migrants. The sustained impact would however depend 
upon the success of implementation and enforcement.  

The  combination  of  simplified  procedures  and  potential  sanctions 
increases  the  likelihood  of  a  level  playing  field.  The  effectiveness  still 
depends on the MS capacity to enforce the common regulations.  

Possible  negative  effect  from  such  workers  being  pushed  further 
underground  and  having  a  weaker  bargaining  position  would  be 
counterbalanced  by  the  deterrent  effect  of  especially  the  proposed 
criminal  sanctions  in  cases  of  particularly  exploitative  working 
conditions. 

The  instrument  takes  on  board  employer  sanctions  and  preventive 
measures  which  have  been  evidenced  as  effective  in  MS.  Compliance, 
however,  is  easier  with  preventive  measures  than  with  sanctions;  the 
need for enforcement is particularly high in relation to the latter.  

Complements  existing  acquis.  It  is  unclear  if  it  will  complement 
forthcoming measures. 

No  discernible,  positive  effect  on  human  trafficking  and  smuggling. 
Possible negative effect on organised crime, as preventive measure may 
increase the problem of identity fraud and the forgery of documents.  

Negative  effects  if  date  is  not  appropriately  handled.  Depends  on  the 
type  of  information  about  the  employee  that  employer  is  obliged  to 
collect and submit to the public authorities. 

No effect. 

Although  there  would  be  different  treatment  between  the  irregular 
employment  of  illegally  staying  third-country  nationals  and  that  of  by 
EU  citizens,  such  difference  is  justified  by  their  objectively  different 
statuses and thus cannot be considered discriminatory. 

Crime has to be defined across the EU and same sanction is imposed on 
those who commit this crime. 

Straightforward  verification  procedures,  which  can  be  easily  complied  with.  Creates  level 
playing field as obligations are imposed on all employers across EU. Some reduction of such 
illegal migration and employment. Clear communication to employers and third countries. 

risks  of  policy  option 
Disadvantages  and 
(including negative economic and social costs in 
EU and third countries) 

Limited  reduction  and  prevention  of  such  employment.  If  measures  effectively  cut  cheap 
supply of labour for low-skill jobs, the competitiveness of certain horticultural activities and 
firms may be impaired. 

Essential accompanying measures 

Identify competent authorities to collect and process data of employee. 

Develop procedures to be followed by employers as documents to be submitted will depend 
on national legislation (e.g. residence permit or other authorisation for stay). 

Simplification  of  bureaucratic  procedures  for  recruiting  third-country  nationals  legally  and 
hereby reducing waiting period. 

Awareness raising campaigns targeted at employers and employees. 

Enforcement of sanctions by administrative units with sufficient capacity. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
Objective to be achieved/ problem 
addressed 

Rating of 
impact (from – 
to √√√√√) 

Explanation of rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve impact 

Protective  measures  for  workers,  including  back  payment  of  wages,  burden  of  proof  of 
payment on employer, and complaint procedures that are safe. 

Measures safeguarding protection of personal data. 

Positive  effects  in  terms  of  some  reduction  in  illegal  employment  of  TCNs,  and  resulting 
expansion of tax revenues might be expected in Member States where the stricter sanctions 
will be introduced. Wage pressure on the labour market may only slightly be reduced, as this 
is regarded as less sensitive to the actual number of illegal workers. If measures effectively 
cut cheap supply of low-skilled labour, the competitiveness of certain horticultural activities 
and firms may be highly impaired. Labour shortages in certain MSS may worsen. However, 
companies in the most affected sectors will be less exposed to unfair competition. 

Wages  and  conditions  of  workers  (whether  EU  citizens  or  legally  resident  and  working 
third-country  nationals)  in  certain  low-skilled  jobs  may  incrementally  benefit  from  the 
tighter  supply  of  labour  resulting  from  reduced  employment  of  illegally  staying  third-
country  nationals.  Services  with  a  stable  domestic  demand,  i.e.  catering  and  construction, 
are  likely  to  benefit  most.  Sectors  facing  more  international  competition,  e.g.  the  textile 
industry  and  parts  of  agriculture  and  horticulture,  reliant  on  low-paid  workers,  may  lose 
jobs and economic output. 

For  goods  and  services  in  countries  and  sectors  where  the  employment  of  (low  paid) 
illegally employed third-country nationals will significantly decrease, consumers may have 
to  pay  more.  This  may  affect  catering  services  and  construction,  the  textile  industry  and 
certain seasonal horticultural goods with high labour intensity and less foreign competition 
(due  to  Protected  Designation  of  Origin,  its  perishable  nature  and/or  high  relative 
transportation costs). Other goods will face a loss of price competitiveness and increasingly 
replaced by substitute products. Altogether, no significant effects are expected. 

Additional  burden  for  at  least  some  MS  for  enforcement,  because  many  countries  have 
already  such  preventive  measures  and  administrative  and  criminal  sanctions  in  place,  but 
there will be additional costs for supporting measures.  

Conveys  clear  message.  May  reduce  labour  migration  and,  as  a  result,  may  have  small 
economic effects. 

See comments in relation to policy options 2 and 3. 

See comments in relation to policy options 2 and 3. 

Economic effects on EU level 

Effects on EU labour markets 

Effects on consumers 

Financial cost 

Effects on third countries 

Issues raised in stakeholder 
consultations  

Issues  raised  by  Member 
States 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
 
Table 5.5 – Policy Option 5: EU awareness raising campaign on consequences of 
hiring an illegally staying third-country national 

Objective to be achieved/ problem 
addressed 

Rating of 
impact (from – 
to √√√√√) 

Explanation of rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve impact 

To reduce employment of illegally 
staying third-country nationals 

To reduce illegal immigration to the EU 

To create a level playing field for 
employers 

To contribute to reduced exploitation of 
illegally staying third-country nationals 

To develop common rules which are likely 
to be complied with in practice and 
enforced 

To complement and reinforce existing (and 
forthcoming) acquis 

To reduce human trafficking, organised 
crime and smuggling 

Fundamental rights 

(cid:131)  Protection of personal data (Art. 8) 

(cid:131)  Right to an effective remedy and fair trial 

(Art. 47) 

(cid:131)  Non-discrimination (Art. 21) 

(cid:131)  Principles of legality and proportionality of 
criminal offences and penalties (Art. 49) 

Benefits and advantages of option  

Disadvantages and risks of policy option 
(including negative economic and social costs in 
EU and third countries) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

√ 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

No  effect,  because  employers,  employer  organisations  and  trade  unions 
are  already  well  aware  of 
the  negative  consequences  of  such 
employment.  

No effect as the pull factor of EU wage rates would not be reduced. 

No effect.  

No effect, as stakeholders are well aware of the negative economic and 
social consequences of such employment.  

No common rules are developed.  

Complements  existing  and  forthcoming  acquis,  but  will  not  add 
significant value. 

No  discernible  effect  on  human  trafficking,  smuggling  and  organised 
crime.  

No effect. 

No effect. 

No effect. 

No effect. 

Requires minimal human and financial resources for its organisation. May have a temporary, 
positive contribution to compliance.  

No medium- or long-term reduction and prevention of such employment. 

Essential accompanying measures 

None 

Economic effects on EU level 

Effects on EU labour markets 

Effects on consumers 

No  effect.  Companies  in  the  most  affected  sectors  will  continue  to  be  exposed  to  unfair 
competition. 

No effect. Pressures on wages for low-skilled work (whether by EU citizens or legally resident 
and working TCNs) will remain particularly in the most affected sectors. 

No  effect.  For  goods  and  services  in  the  affected  sectors  (e.g.  horticultural  products), 
consumers  continue  to  benefit  from  lower  prices  resulting  from  employers  use  of  (low  paid) 
illegally employed TCNs. 

Financial cost 

Requires minimal human and financial resources for its organisation. 

Effects on third countries 

No effect. 

Issues raised in stakeholder 
consultations  

Employers, employer organisations and trade unions are already well aware of the negative economic and social 
consequences of such employment.  

raised  by  Member 

Issues 
States 

All Member States that replied to the survey undertaken in this assignment have recently organised awareness 
raising campaigns. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
 
Table 5.6 – Policy Option 6: Identification and exchange between Member States of 
good practices on the implementation of employer sanctions 

Objective to be achieved/ problem 
addressed 

Rating of 
impact (from – 
to √√√√√) 

Explanation of rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve impact 

To reduce employment of illegally 
staying third-country nationals 

√ 

To reduce illegal immigration to the EU 

√√ 

To create a level playing field for 
employers 

To contribute to reduced exploitation of 
illegally staying third-country nationals 

To develop common rules which are likely 
to be complied with in practice and 
enforced 

√ 

√√ 

√ 

To complement and reinforce existing (and 
forthcoming) acquis 

√√√ 

To reduce human trafficking, organised 
crime and smuggling 

Fundamental rights 

(cid:131)  Protection of personal data (Art. 8) 

(cid:131)  Right to an effective remedy and fair trial 

(Art. 47) 

√√ 

0 

0 

(cid:131)  Non-discrimination (Art. 21) 

0 or √ 

(cid:131)  Principles of legality and proportionality of 
criminal offences and penalties (Art. 49) 

0 or √ 

Better  methods  for  enforcement  may  improve  the  identification  and 
sanctioning  of  employers  hiring  such  workers.  However,  the  level  of 
sanctions  will  continue  to  vary  and  may  not  offset  the  economic 
advantage in some countries. 

Compared with the status quo exchange of experience and good practice 
and  capacity  building  of  enforcement  bodies  is  likely  to  lead  to  more 
effective  enforcement.  The  policy  option  is,  however,  only  likely  to 
increase the effectiveness to some extent, as numbers  of inspectors will 
still be dependent on resources set aside by Member States.  

Limited  contribution,  because  variation  in  sanctions  and  preventive 
measures remains and may increase depending on MS actions. However, 
greater enforcement could ensure that existing regulations and sanctions 
are actually imposed. 

Reduce exploitation as a result of exchange of good practices on how to 
protect  victims  of  such  exploitation.  Share  info  on  how  to  mitigate 
negative effects for those who collaborate with law enforcement.  

No  common  rules  would  be  developed.  However,  stricter  and  better 
enforcement is likely to increase compliance. 

The option is likely to reinforce national policy and legislation as well as 
EU  level  acquis.  Exchange  of  information  and  good  practice  increases 
the  capacity  of  law  enforcement  bodies,  which  in  turn  strengthens  the 
monitoring of the implementation of regulations. 

Reduce,  because  as  MS  exchange  info  and  good  practices  on  how  to 
encourage  such  workers  to  report  violations  the  chances  of  catching 
employers systematically engaged in criminal activities increases. 

No effect. 

No effect.  

No  effect  or  positive  effect,  because  the  detection  and  sanctioning  of 
undeclared work in general would also benefit from a greater capacity in 
law enforcement. 

No  effect  on  the  definition  of  the  crime.  However,  enhancing  the 
capacity  of  law  enforcement  makes  it  more  likely  that  all  those  who 
violate the regulations are identified and adequately sanctioned. 

Benefits and advantages of option  

Disadvantages  and 
risks  of  policy  option 
(including negative economic and social costs in 
EU and third countries) 

Essential accompanying measures 

Economic effects on EU level 

Effects on EU labour markets 

EU  added  value.  Complements  existing  acquis  and  national  measures  adopted  in  the  fight 
against  such  employment.  Addresses  the  problem  of  lack  of  enforcement  capacity  and  of 
knowledge of effective approaches. Potentially sends clear message to third countries that EU 
MS are actively cooperating. Reduces such illegal employment. Contributes to the reduction 
of exploitation and organised crime.  

Does not address the variation in sanctions and preventive measures in MS.  

None. 

Better regulation, newly introduced preventive and punitive measures may result in reduced 
illegal  employment  of  TCNs.  Improved  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  enforcement  bodies 
could  positively  influence  the number  of offences  uncovered.  This  will  in  return  reduce  tax 
evasion.  Companies  in  the  most  affected  sectors  may  become  less  exposed  to  unfair 
competition. 

Wages and conditions of workers (whether EU citizens or legally resident and working third-
country  nationals)  in  certain  low-skilled  jobs  may  incrementally  benefit  from  the  tighter 
supply  of  labour  resulting  from  reduced  employment  of  illegally  staying  third-country 
nationals. Services with a stable domestic demand, i.e. catering and construction, are likely to 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
Objective to be achieved/ problem 
addressed 

Rating of 
impact (from – 
to √√√√√) 

Explanation of rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve impact 

Effects on consumers 

Financial cost 

Effects on third countries 

benefit most. Sectors facing more international competition, e.g. the textile industry and parts 
of  agriculture  and  horticulture,  reliant  on  low-paid  workers,  may  lose  jobs  and  economic 
output. 

For goods and services in countries and sectors where the employment of (low paid) illegally 
employed  TCNs  will  significantly  decrease,  consumers  may  have  to  pay  more.  This  may 
affect catering services and construction, the textile industry and certain seasonal horticultural 
goods with high labour intensity and less foreign competition (due to Protected Designation 
of  Origin,  its  perishable  nature  and/or  high  relative  transportation  costs).  Other  goods  will 
face  a  loss  of  price  competitiveness  and  increasingly  replaced  by  substitute  products. 
Altogether, no significant effects are expected. 

Some limited resources needed to undertake the identification and exchange activities. 

If  combined  with  Policy  options  2  and  3,  conveys  clear  message  to  third  countries.  May 
reduce (illegal) labour migration and, as a result, have economic effects. 

Issues  raised  in  stakeholder 
consultations  

Trade unions emphasise that a discussion about the nature of sanctions is only meaningful if tied to a ‘serious’ 
discussion about the enforcement of these sanctions. 

Employer organisations and especially trade unions claimed that the number of inspections in the country or in 
their  sector  was  insufficient  to  deter  employers  to  employ  illegally  staying  third-country  nationals.  Greater 
enforcement  was  deemed  necessary  to  persuade  employers  that  the  risk  of  being  uncovered  and  sanctioned  is 
high.  Enforcement  operations  often  go  hand  in  hand  with  media  reports,  in  which  the  illegal  employment 
practices of particular companies or employers are unveiled and offenders are confronted with their potential fate. 

raised  by  Member 

Poor enforcement has been highlighted as the main problem in the current situation by many Member States. 

Issues 
States 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
 
5.3. 

Compliance  costs  for  public  authorities  and  business  under  the  policy 
options 

The  table  below  summarises  the  estimated  relative  compliance  costs  of  the  six  policy 
options.  These  include  enforcement  costs  and  administrative  costs29  of  the  six  policy 
options. Policy option 1 would not require additional resources. 

The  enforcement  obligation  on  Member  States  that  is  part  of  option  2  may  require 
additional  resources  at  Member  State  level.  They  would  be  created  by  the  need  to  carry 
out  additional  on-the-spot  checks  in  companies.  Considerable  differences  exist  among 
Member  States  as  regards  the  frequency  of  checks.  Data  is  only  available  for  some 
Member States30. This evidence suggests that some Member States carry out significantly 
more checks than others31. Italy and Spain alone conduct per year checks on a number of 
companies  representing  more  than  1%  of  European  companies.  Available  evidence 
suggests that other countries conduct a significantly lower amount of checks. Comparing 
these figures with the number of companies in the EU (22 million in 2005)32, an estimate 
would be to assume that across Europe, 2% of companies are being checked yearly.  

The proposal foresees 10%  of  registered companies  to  be  checked.  An  additional  8%  of 
companies to be checked would amount to 1.76 million checks, costing an estimated €1.14 
billion of enforcement costs across the EU to Member States authorities33. 

Administrative  costs  for  employers  would  only  be  incurred  as  regards  the  increased 
number of checks. A limited number of inspections can be estimated to be conducted in 
the Member States, as mentioned above. The introduction of an obligation to check 10% 
of  registered  company  per  year  would  lead  to  an  estimated  8%  of  companies  being 

29 

30 
31 

32 
33 

of 

on 

costs: 

guidelines 

assessment 

administrative 
and 

http://eur-
Impact  Assessment 

Commission 
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2005/com2005_0518en01.pdf 
Guidelines have been taken into consideration. 
See annex A7.3 and A7.4 for available statistics per Member State. 
For example, in 2005 the number of inspections was already 79,481 in Spain and 163,013 in Italy, 
compared to e.g. 18,272 and 9,933 in Austria and Czech Republic, respectively. 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/smes/facts_figures_en.htm. 
This figure is based on an estimated 1.76 million additional checks to be carried out and the average 
hourly employment costs in the EU increased by overheads of 50% (€18 + 50% = €27). Contacts 
with  enforcement  bodies  suggest  an  average  3  person  days  per  check,  split  over  the  tasks  of: 
preparation including risk assessment (30% of time), the on-site inspection (40%), follow up with 
the company, internal processing including filing (10%). This time allocation takes account of the 
diversity  of  monitoring  and  enforcement  approaches  adopted  by  Member  States,  which  was 
revealed in the consultation of national authorities and enforcement bodies. For example, whereas 
some Member States opt for a more selective approach, investing a significant part of their human 
and  financial  resources  in  risk  assessments,  others,  such  as  Italy  and  Spain,  undertake  large 
numbers  of  inspections.  See  attached  enforcement  costs  reporting  sheet  in  annex  10  for  more 
details. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
                                                 
checked  in  addition.  Associated  costs  of  €190  million  would  have  to  be  borne  by 
companies per year34. 

Additional  costs  stemming  from  prosecutions  of  employers  are  not  included  in  this 
estimate but it is reasonable to assume that these would be offset by fines paid. In practice 
these enforcement costs would not necessarily be additional because most countries have 
existing  sanctions  and  enforcement  regimes,  and  the  inspections  could  be  used  to  also 
check compliance with other employment legislation. 

Apart  from  the  enforcement  aspect,  options  2  and  3  would  require  low  levels  of 
administrative  resources  at  the  EU  and  Member  State  levels  in  order  to  draft,  transpose 
and  implement  the  legislation.  The  costs  of  option  4  in  this  respect  are  only  marginally 
greater than policy option 2 but greater than option 3. Option 5 would require a budget of 
a minimum of €2 million and funding at the EU level. Some ‘matching’ resources would 
also be required at Member State level to ensure that the campaign communicated the key 
messages effectively. It is envisaged that option 6 would require the commitment of time 
and resources at the Member State level. 

Beyond  the  costs  for  additional  checks,  other  options  would  not  impose  significant 
additional costs on employers that were acting legally because the procedures envisaged 
would  only  impose  ‘light’  obligations  on  them.  Moreover,  it  has  to  be  noted  that  the 
preventive measures currently in place in most Member States impose significantly higher 
obligations  on  employers  than those  proposed  in  option  3  and  4  (e.g.  20  Member  States 
require employers to verify the status of the migrant worker)35.The costs on third country 
governments  would  be  low  but  in  so  far  as  they  contributed  to  communication  to 
prospective illegal migrants the nature of the new regime, and hence its potential deterrent 
effect, then some costs would be incurred. 

The evidence cited in this report that there are very large number of third country nationals 
working in the EU that do not have the right to do so does raise questions over whether 
current  methods  of  enforcement  of  existing  sanctions  are  cost  effective.  Available  data 
from enforcement bodies in three Member States show that the number of inspectors (Full 
Time  Equivalent)  has  been  increased  in  two  of  the  three  Member  States  from  2003  to 
2005:  In  Spain  from  1,526  to  1,632;  and  in  Latvia  from  98  to  116.  In  Italy  from  2,215 
numbers  decreased  from  2,215  to  1,949.  However,  these  figures  cover  inspections  in 
general and not only of illegal employment of third-country nationals. No figures on costs 
for running the body are available for any of the three Member States.  

A number of limitations of the enforcement cost and administrative cost calculations need 
to  be  stressed:  the  calculations  provided  in  annex  rely  on  a  number  of  assumptions  as 
regards the duration of checks, their number, and the hourly employment costs involved. 

34 

35 

4  hours  estimated  by  company  necessary  to  cooperate  with  the  checking  authorities,  27  EUR  of 
hourly wage and overhead costs, applied to 1.76 million checks. See administrative cost calculation 
details in annex 9. 
17  Member  States  already  demand  employers  to  immediately  declare  new  employees  to  the 
appropriate (local, regional or national) authorities and many have set up new registers or databases 
to facilitate the implementation of such preventive measures. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The preferred option does for example not decide on the duration of checks, whilst this is 
a  crucial  parameter  to  calculate  the  costs.  Also,  the  current  level  of  checks  in  Member 
States was only available for selected Member States. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
Table 6.7 – Summary of the relative financial and administrative costs of the policy options 

Types of costs 

Policy Options 

PO1 Status Quo 

PO2  Harmonised 
sanctions 

employer 

PO3  Harmonised  preventive 
measures 

PO4  Combination  of  PO2 
and 3 

PO5  EU  level  awareness 
campaign 

PO6 
exchange of good practices 

Identification 

and 

EU staff resources 

No additional resources 

3 months FTE for preparation and 
channelling of legislation 

3  months  FTE  for  preparation 
and channelling of legislation 

4  months  FTE  for  preparation 
and channelling of legislation 

€2.0 million 

1  month  FTE  annually  for 
support activities 

Member 
Governments 

State 

No additional resources 

Transposition  of 
months FTE per Member State 

legislation  2 

Transposition  of  legislation  2 
months FTE per Member State 

Transposition  of  legislation  3 
months FTE per Member State 

Transposition, 
report. 4 months per 2 years 

implementation 

Transposition,  implementation 
report. 4 months per 2 years 

Transposition,  implementation 
report. 5 months per 2 years 

Additional  resources  for  meeting 
enforcement  obligation  and  for 
supporting 
(see 
enforcement  costs  calculation  in 
annex 10)  

measures 

for 
resources 
Additional 
and 
effective 
enforcement 
supporting  measures 
(no 
estimates  made  but  costs  not  a 
direct result of PO) 

resources 

Additional 
for 
meeting enforcement obligation 
and  for  supporting  measures 
costs 
enforcement 
(see 
calculation in annex 10) 

€2.0  million 
and 

to 
convey 
awareness 

of 

Say 
implement 
messages 
campaign  

Costs of time of participants in 
the  activities.  Notional  costs  of 
time  of  participants,  say  0,5 
month FTE per Member State 

Employers 

No additional resources 

(acting legally)  

for 
Possible  additional  costs 
undergoing 
(see 
administrative costs calculation in 
annex 9) 

checks 

Possible 
processing costs  

reductions 

in 

in 
reductions 
Possible 
processing 
possible 
costs; 
additional  costs  for  undergoing 
checks (see administrative costs 
calculation in annex 9) 

No additional costs 

No additional costs 

Third 
Governments 

Country 

No additional resources 

Potential  costs  if  they  become 
involved  in  communicating  new 
regime to TCN 

Potential  costs  if  they  become 
communicating 
involved 
new regime to TCN 

in 

Potential  costs  if  they  become 
communicating 
involved 
new regime to TCN 

in 

No additional costs 

No additional costs 

EN 

32 

EN 

 
  
6. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS 

6.1. 

Comparison of policy options 

Table 6.1 compares the ‘ratings’ of the six policy options elaborated in Section 5. 

Table 6.1 – Assessment of Policy Options – comparison 

Objective to be achieved/ problem addressed 

Policy Options (Anticipated impacts rated from – to √√√√√) 

Option 1 

Option 2 

Option 3 

Option 4 

Option 5 

Option 6 

To reduce employment of illegally staying 
third-country nationals 

0 or √ 

√√ 

√ 

√√√ 

To reduce illegal immigration to the EU 

√ 

√√ 

To create a level playing field for employers 

0 or – 

√√√ 

√√ 

√√√ 

To contribute to reduced exploitation of 
illegally staying third-country nationals 

0 or – 

0 or - 

0 

To develop common rules which are likely to be 
complied with in practice and enforced 

0 

√ 

To complement and reinforce existing (and 
forthcoming) acquis 

N/A 

√√ 

√√ 

√√ 

√√√ 

√√√√ 

0 or - 

√√ 

√√√ 

To reduce human trafficking, organised crime and 
smuggling 

0 or – 

0 or – 

0 or – 

– 

Fundamental rights 

(cid:131) 

(cid:131) 

(cid:131) 

(cid:131) 

Protection of personal data (Art. 8) 

Right to an effective remedy and fair 
trial (Art. 47) 

Non-discrimination (Art. 21) 

Principles of legality and 
proportionality of criminal offences 
and penalties (Art. 49) 

Costs relative to status quo  

+ Higher cost than status quo; 0 Unchanged costs; 
– Lower costs than status quo 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

6.2. 

The preferred option 

0 

0 

0 

√ 

+ 

– 

0 

0 

√ 

+ 

– 

0 

0 

√ 

+ 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

√ 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

√ 

√√ 

√ 

√√ 

√ 

√√√ 

√√ 

0 

0 

0 or √ 

0 or √ 

+ 

+ 

On the basis of the comparison of the options and their impacts on meeting policy objectives 
and contributing to and respecting fundamental rights, and in the light of Member States’ and 
stakeholder views, and practicality and costs, the preferred option is a combination of: 

•  Option 4: Harmonised sanctions for employers of illegally staying third-country nationals, 
with an enforcement obligation on Member States, and harmonised preventive measures: 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
 
common  requirements  across  the  EU  for  employers  to  copy  the  relevant  documentation 
and to notify the competent national bodies; and, 

•  Option 6: Identification and exchange between Member States of good practices. 

Harmonised  sanctions  for  employers  who  employ  illegaly  staying  third-country  nationals 
would increase clarity over the nature of the offence within the EU. Universal presence and 
minimum  levels  of  sanctions  across  the  Union  would  increase  their  deterrent  effect.  There 
would  be  rapid  progress  towards  a  level  playing  field  for  companies  across  the  EU  and 
employers could be confident that the principles of sanctions would be applied in a consistent 
manner. The preventive measures would impose a universal but ‘light’ burden to request and 
keep documentation on prospective employees but the onus on checking the bona fide nature 
of  these  documents  would  rest  with  competent  authorities.  This  would  allow  employers  to 
proceed  in  good  faith  to  engage  workers  who  had  provided  documentation  that  appeared  to 
meet requirements.  

As illustrated in the assessment of option 4, beneficial impacts on the main policy objectives 
would  result  from  the  combination  of  sanctions  and  preventive  measures.  However,  the 
impact  and  effectiveness  of  option  4  is  heavily  dependent  upon  whether  the  legislation 
envisaged  is  transposed  and  enforced  in  practice.  For  this  reason  option  4  includes  a 
requirement for Member States to undertake a particular level of enforcement activity, and it 
is  proposed  to  complement  the  legislative  measures  within  option  4  with  the  proposal  in 
option  6  for  the  identification  and  exchange  of  good  practice  on  implementation  and 
enforcement. 

Requiring  Member  States  to  inspect  10%  of  registered  companies,  as  foreseen  in  the 
legislative  proposal,  would  be  a  significant  step  towards  improving  the  enforcement  of 
harmonised sanctions across the EU. Such a level of enforcement would send a clear message 
to employers that the threat of being caught in case of violation is real or increased. Employer 
organisations would be more reassured that unfair competition stemming from the recruitment 
of illegally staying third-country nationals is taken seriously by national governments and is 
being dealt with across the EU. 

Option 6 has been described above as a mechanism for fostering cooperation and exchange of 
experience  of  current  national  policies  and  practices.  However,  in  the  preferred  option  the 
exchange of experience would in particular aim to ensure that the new legislation in terms of 
harmonised sanctions and preventive measures is effective. In this new context it is envisaged 
that  the  identification  and  communication  of  good  practice  could  cover  activities  such  as: 
systems  of  employer  inspections;  the  training  of  employers;  methods  for  regularising/ 
removing third country nationals identified as working illegally; the application of sanctions; 
the detection of systematic and large scale illegal employment; the links between employment 
of  illegally  staying  third  country  nationals  and  the  wider  informal  economy.  The  methods 
used  in  this  exchange  of  experience  could  include  research,  evaluation  and  peer  learning 
activities. In order to provide a framework for the exchanges, a network of national contact 
points could be established. 

This  combination  of  policy  options  would  contribute  EU  added  value  and  complement 
existing  and  forthcoming  acquis  by  targeting  the  employment  pull  factor.  The  preferred 
option would achieve a better result than any of the options alone, or any other combinations 
of  options.  However,  the  positive  effects  of  adopting  the  preferred  option  would  be  limited 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
and  none  of  the  objectives  would  be  fully  achieved  nor  the  problems  fully  eliminated. 
Common  employer  sanctions  and  preventive  measures  across  the  EU,  supported  by 
identification and exchange of good practices would, however, reduce both the problems due 
to the variation of types and levels of employer sanctions between the Member States and the 
current lack of enforcement, which was highlighted by stakeholders across the EU as the key 
challenge in the present situation.  

Because enforcement is the main problem in the current situation it could be argued that there 
would be merit in adopting Option 6 in the first instance. However, exchange of experience 
would be more effective where the applicable legislation was harmonised rather than varied as 
at  present  between  Member  States.  Also,  prevention  within  countries  of  origin  is  of  key 
importance. If harmonised measures are effective in reducing employment and this message is 
conveyed to third countries, it is likely to lead to a decreased impetus to enter or stay in the 
EU  illegally  and  thereby  result  in  decreases  in  illegal  immigration.  A  clear  message  from 
across the EU of the commitment to fighting employment of illegal third country nationals is 
likely to be stronger and have greater impacts than mere signals that it is difficult to find work 
in  one  or  a  few  Member  States.  The  message  is  likely  to  be  even  stronger  if  harmonised 
sanctions and improved enforcement mechanisms are adopted at the same time. 

The main benefits of the preferred option  

The preferred option would have positive impacts on the reduction of illegal employment of 
third-country  nationals.  The  preventive  notification  procedures  employers  would  be  obliged 
to follow would be straightforward and easy to comply with. Minimum sanctions would help 
to  persuade  the  employer  of  the  need  for  compliance  and  the  employer  would  know  what 
sanction s/he faces if s/he employed an illegaly staying third-country national. More resources 
and  better  methods  of  enforcement  may  improve  the  identification  and  sanctioning  of 
employers  hiring  illegally  staying  third-country  nationals.  There  would  also  be  positive 
impacts on the creation of a level playing field at sectoral level as employers across the EU 
would  be  subject  to  the  same  sanctions.  This  would  be  particularly  relevant  for  those 
employers who do not hire illegally staying third-country nationals, as salaries of the latter are 
in  general  lower.  Furthermore,  in  some  countries  where  verification  of  status  of  workers  is 
required  from  employers,  there  would  be  a  slightly  decreased  administrative  burden  on 
employers  as  the  new  requirements  to  copy  and  forward  documentation  would  require  less 
work than current obligations. 

The  preferred  option  takes  account  of  employer  sanctions  and  preventive  measures  which 
have  been  evidenced  as  effective  in  Member  States.  Exchange  of  information  and  good 
practice  world  increase  the  capacity  of  law  enforcement  bodies,  which  in  turn  would 
strengthen the monitoring of the implementation of regulations. The enforcement obligation 
would ensure stricter and better enforcement, and thus increased compliance.  

As concerns fundamental rights, overall it can be expected that exploitation would be reduced 
as a result of exchange of good practices on how to protect victims of such exploitation and 
sharing of information on how to mitigate negative effects for those who collaborate with law 
enforcement. Positive impacts are also likely on the principles of legality and proportionality 
of criminal offences and penalties as the crime would be defined across the EU. 

The  preferred  option  is  also  likely  to  have  a  positive  impact  on  the  reduction  of  human 
trafficking, organised crime and smuggling, because as Member States exchange information 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
and  good  practices  on  how  to  encourage  such  workers  to  report  violations  the  chances  of 
catching employers systematically engaged in criminal activities would increase. 

The main disadvantages of the preferred option  

Illegal employment of third country nationals would not be eliminated. Effectiveness in this 
respect  depends  largely  on  enforcement,  which  is  the  responsibility  of  the  Member  States. 
Even with the enforcement obligation and the the sharing of good practices, the effectiveness 
of inspections would still be dependent on the Member States.  

Also,  in  terms  of  reduction  of  illegal  immigration  to  the  EU,  as  only  one  pull  factor 
(employment) is affected by the preferred option, impacts are likely to be limited. The extent 
to which illegal immigration is reduced is dependent on (1) the effectiveness of the measures 
introduced;  (2)  the  effectiveness  of  enforcement  thereof;  and,  (3)  communication  of  this  to 
third  countries  (so  as  to  reduce  the  impetus  for  third-country  nationals  to  try  to  find 
employment in the EU illegally). 

For  employers,  disadvantages  include  that  more  employers  would  be  criminalised.  In  some 
countries  where verification of status  of  workers is currently not required, there would be a 
slight  additional  administrative  burden  on  employers  due  to  the  new  requirements  to  copy 
(and ensure the safe-keeping of) and forward documentation. 

terms, 

sensitive 

(mainly  construction,  agriculture, 
In  purely  economic 
housework/cleaning,  catering  and  other  hospitality  services),  are  likely  to  be  negatively 
affected with respect to international competition, as they to some extent rely on the flexible 
and  relatively  cheap  labour  of  illegaly  staying  third-country  nationals  provide.  As  a  result, 
certain  Member  States,  where  these  sensitive  sectors  are  particularly  important,  may  see  a 
negative economic impact on their national economies. 

sectors 

Concerning fundamental rights, there is a risk that exploitation of some illegally staying third-
country nationals may increase as higher employer sanctions may lead those who still employ 
them to seek greater control over the movements and activities of their employees. However, 
that risk should be counterbalanced in particular by the proposed criminal sanctions in cases 
of  particularly  exploitative  working  conditions.  There  are  also  possible  negative  effects  on 
protection of personal data. To what extent this would occur depends on what measures are 
taken by employers and authorities to ensure the confidentiality thereof. 

The preferred option may have a small negative effect on organised crime, if the preventive 
measures lead to increased identity fraud and the forgery of documents. 

Third  (sending)  countries  would  also  experience  negative  impacts  if  illegal  employment  of 
their  nationals  in  the  EU  decreased,  as  the  level  of  remittances  would  be  likely  to 
decrease.Support measures for the preferred option 

In order to maximise the positive benefits and mitigate or minimise disadvantages / risks, it is 
proposed that this preferred policy option would be accompanied by the following supporting 
measures at Member State level: 

•  Each  Member  State  would  identify  the  competent  authorities  to  which 

employers are to submit relevant documentation.  

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
•  Protective  measures  would  be  introduced  in  order  to  deal  with  the  threat  to 

privacy and data protection that such data exchange / collection entails.  

•  Member States would need to ensure compliance with the requirement to submit 

relevant documentation. 

•  Establishment  of  protective  measures  for  illegally  employed  third-country 
nationals  in  case  of  sanctions  for  the  employer,  e.g.  back  payment  of 
(minimum) wages; burden of proof on the employer to show that s/he has paid the 
employee; safe channels for employees to report illegal practices (confidentiality 
secured, ombudsman or responsibility for trade unions); and, payment of return of 
the illegal worker. 

•  Support in the form of awareness raising campaigns36 targeted at the employers 

(in particular SMEs) and employees. 

6.3. 

Assessment and considerations of proportionality and EU added value 

Proportionality 

The preferred option would constitute a relatively minor change from the status quo in terms 
of both the weight of legislation and the burden on legitimate employers. Most Member States 
have  both  sanctions  and  employer  obligations  in  place  similar  to  those  envisaged  in  the 
preferred  option.  Member  States  may  have  increased  burdens  resulting  from  the  need  to 
enforce the rules, but these are justified in relation to the objectives. 

The preferred option should be seen as just one contributory measure in the management of 
migration  in  the  EU  and  in  achieving  the  objectives  of  reducing  illegal  immigration  and 
reducing employment of illegaly staying third country nationals. 

European added value 

The preferred option has the potential to generate the following European added value: 

A  more  level  playing  field:  every  EU  employer  would  be  aware  that  their  peers  and 
competitors were subject to the same minimum sanctions should they employ illegally staying 
third-country nationals, and minimum obligation to request provide and keep documentation. 
Were  employers  also  confident  that  levels  of  enforcement  were  consistent  there  would  be 
increased European added value. 

The  identification  and  transfer  of  good  practice:  the  challenges  of  achieving  effective 
enforcement  and  the  mitigation  of  negative  consequences  are  great.  The  exchange  of 
experience component of the preferred option would bring significant EU added value. 

Key  messages  to  third  countries  and  prospective  illegal  migrants:  The  following 
circumstances are relevant: there are large numbers of illegally staying third country nationals 

36 

The organisation of an awareness raising campaign as a supportive measure would be different from the 
awareness raising campaign described and assessed as Policy Option 5 as it would focus on the positive 
aspects of the new interventions.  

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
                                                 
who are working; there are many employers acting illegally; it is apparently ‘easier’ to find 
illegal  employment  in  some  national/sectoral  contexts  than  others;  it  is  possible  to  move 
relatively freely within the EU; and, the likelihood of existing sanctions being imposed is low 
and  varies  between  countries/regions.  Given  those  circumstances,  the  adoption  of  the 
preferred option would provide a signal that these problems are being addressed and that the 
risks to illegal migrants have increased. Such a message emanating from the EU level would 
have a value distinct from and potentially greater than that stemming from the national level. 
The  value  would  be  enhanced  were  the  likelihood  of  enforcement  strong  and  were  the 
preferred option seen as part of a range of measures to improve the management of migration 
and  the  possibilities  for  legal  migration  and  to  reduce  the  marked  economic  disparities 
between the EU and countries of origin of illegal migrants.  

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

Table  7.1  includes  some  suggestions  for  indicators  that  could  be  developed  to  assess  the 
progress and effectiveness of the preferred option in achieving the main policy objectives. 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
Table 7.1 – Potential monitoring and evaluation indicators of the preferred option  

Main Policy Objectives 

Potential indicators 

Sources of information 

To reduce the employment of illegally 
staying third-country nationals 

illegally 
Number  of 
nationals detected through inspections. 

staying 

third-country 

Implementation agencies 

Member State statistics to be collected under 
forthcoming Regulation on Community 
statistics on migration and international 
protection37. 

Estimates  of  the  numbers  of  illegally  employed 
third country nationals. 

Sources as used by the external study in 
characterisation of problem. 

To reduce illegal immigration to the EU  Numbers  of  illegal  migrants  apprehended  at  EU 

borders. 

Number of overstayers. 

Estimates of flows of illegal migrants. 

Estimates of the stocks of illegal migrants. 

Member State statistics to be collected under 
forthcoming Regulation on Community 
statistics. 

Sources as used by the external study in the 
characterisation of problem. 

To create a level playing field for 
employers 

To contribute to reduced exploitation of 
third-country nationals no or limited 
rights to work that are exceeded  

To develop common rules which are likely 
to be complied with in practice and 
enforced 

To complement and reinforce existing (and 
forthcoming) acquis 

To reduce human trafficking, organised 
crime and smuggling 

Impacts on fundamental rights 

(cid:131)  Protection of personal data (Art. 8) 

Transposition of legislation 

Member State monitoring reports 

Actual sanctions and obligations imposed 

Implementation agencies 

Conditions  of  work  of  illegally  employed  third 
country nationals detected through inspections 

Implementation agencies 

Resources available for implementation 

Member States 

Numbers 
proceedings and criminal prosecutions 

successful 

of 

administrative 

Numbers  of  administrative  proceedings  and 
criminal  prosecutions  relative  to  estimates  of 
scale of the problem  

Progress with respect to other measures 

EU level monitoring 

Number  of  successful  prosecutions  originally 
detected through inspections 

Measures put in place to protect personal data 

Impacts of identification and exchange of good practices and experience 

Instances of validated good practice 

Products developed (e.g. training products) 

37 

The indicator covered by the Regulation is "third-country nationals found to be illegally present". The 
additional disaggregation by “grounds for the apprehension” that would be required for the suggested 
indicator  “illegally  staying  third-country  nationals  detected  through  inspections”  could  be  adopted  by  the 
Commission under the implementing rules provided for the by the Regulation; discussions would need 
to be initiated not later than two years after the entry into force of the Regulation. 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Main Policy Objectives 

Potential indicators 

Sources of information 

Application of products 

Activities undertaken 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  1  –  METHODS  FOR  ASSESSING  NUMBERS  OF  ILLEGALLY  STAYING  THIRD-COUNTRY 

NATIONALS  

By  the  very  nature  of  the  phenomenon  “illegal  migration”,  the  extent  thereof  is  difficult  to 
establish, since illegal immigrants do not identify themselves to the authorities. To study these 
‘undocumented  and  unobservable’  events,  Jandl  (2004:142)  argues  that  ‘it  follows  that  any 
description  of  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  phenomenon  has  to  rely  on  certain  indirect 
methods,  which  in  turn  depend  on  the  availability  of  alternative  statistical  indicators  in  a 
given  country’.  In  order  to  estimate  the  extent  of  annual  inflows  of  illegally  staying  third-
country nationals, Member States use a range of indicators linked to the phenomenon, such as 
the numbers of refused entries and removals, apprehensions of illegal migrants at the border 
or in the country, rejected applications for asylum or other forms of international protection, 
or  applications  for  national  regularisation  procedures.  Normally,  to  these  numbers  the 
considerable  number  of  those  who  do  not  apply  for  any  form  of  international  protection 
(either because they entered legally or the “overstay”) must be added. In order to infer the size 
of  the  irregular  population,  indirect  methods  are  often  used  such  as  comparing  different 
population censuses and registers, including data on births and deaths. 

There are two central features to consider when estimating irregular migration: the stock and 
the flow of irregular immigrants. The former represent the total irregular population residing 
in the country and the latter comprise the movement of irregular migrants across borders.  

Jandl  (2004)  has  recently  reviewed  available  methodologies  for  estimating  the  irregular 
migration stock, annual inflows, and those in employment. He starts with discussing methods 
for  estimating  the  total  amount  of  third-country  nationals  with  no  or  limited  rights  to  work 
that  are  exceeded  in  a  country.  In  the  USA,  the  stock  of  undocumented  immigrants  is 
calculated  at  regular  intervals  using  the  “residual”  estimation  techniques  (Jandl  2004:143). 
This technique consists of comparing the census data with other registries of immigrants and 
identifying any differences. According to Jandl, this type of indirect method is rarely used in 
EU  Member  States  as  the  censures  are  deemed  to  ‘be  seriously  undercounting  irregular 
migrants  in  Europe’.  The  only  Member  State,  in  which  the  “residual”  estimation  technique 
could be applied is Spain, where incentives (e.g. free health care) for registering in municipal 
population registers are far greater than the drawbacks (Jandl 2004:144). The data collected in 
these registers are not used to remove illegal residents from the country. In the UK, the Home 
Office  recently  published  its  first  estimate  of  the  ‘illegal’  migrant  stock  based  upon  the 
indirect residual method. 

Jandl (2006:144) presents the “multiplier” estimation technique as producing better estimates 
of  undocumented  migrants.38  In  relation  to  the  stock  of  third-country  nationals  with  no  or 
limited  rights  to  work  that  are  exceeded,  demographic  methods,  such  as  comparing  age 
structures,  birth  and  death  rates  of  illegal  residents  with  those  of  legally  resident  foreigners 
have been used in migration studies (e.g. Wanner 2002), but few were conducted in relation to 
the situation in EU countries. Another method would be to survey experts on the subject and 
using their estimations to come up with an appropriate multiplier. But this survey method has 

38 

This method is based on the assumption that there is a stable relation between the unknown variable, 
which is the subject of enquiry, and a variable that can be measured. If the “right” multiplier is found, 
the problem of estimation can be addressed. 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
                                                 
also  rarely  been  used  to  estimate  the  number  of  third-country  nationals  with  no  or  limited 
rights  to  work  that  are  exceeded  in  European  countries.  “Evidence  based  on  regularisation 
data” can also be used for estimations of immigrant stocks in the country and, to some extent, 
the extent to which they are working in various sectors (Jandl 2004:146).39  

In order to gather data on the number of illegal migrants that are employed, analyses are made 
on the basis of, for example, regularisation programmes (e.g. Greece), of the employment rate 
of legal immigrants (e.g. United Kingdom) and of surveys conducted by national employment 
or unemployment agencies (e.g. Poland). While for a number of countries no data have been 
obtained, for others data are available on the number of violations observed or reported by the 
Labour  Inspectorates  (e.g.  the  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  France,  Latvia,  and  Spain). 
Estimates  of  the  extent  of  irregular  foreign  employment  often  draw  upon  the  figures  of  the 
national  Inspectorates  of  Labour,  which  undertake  controls  at  worksites  and  other  types  of 
enforcement  actions.  These  data  include  the  number  of  violations  recorded  and  of  illegal 
foreign  workers  apprehended.  The  problem  with  using  these  data  as  an  indicator  of  the 
number  of  third-country  nationals  who  work  (and  reside)  illegally  is,  as  Jandl  (2004:148) 
explains,  ‘that  these  routine  control  checks  do  not  constitute  a  random  sample  of  all 
workplaces  but  –  due  to  resource  restrictions  and  low  staffing  levels  –  concentrate  on 
“suspicious” workplaces only.’  

Nevertheless, this method for estimating illegal foreign employment can give an indication of 
the sectors in which the phenomenon is more widespread, of the trends in numbers over time, 
and  of  (changing)  demographic  characteristics  of  those  apprehended.  The  number  of  illegal 
foreign workers apprehended is sometimes extrapolated to estimate the total amount of illegal 
foreigners  residing  on  the  national  territory.  The  Central  Agency  for  Statistics  of  the 
Netherlands, for example, used this method in the 1990s and concluded that there was a rising 
trend  of  illegal  migrant  stocks:  between  3,000  and  55,000  in  1994  and  between  50,000  and 
100,000  in  1999.  The  assumptions  that  ‘2/3  of  the  illegal  workers  stayed  illegally  in  the 
country  and  10%  of  total  illegal  residents  had  no  work  at  all’  underpinned  this  calculation 
(Jandl 2004:149).  

According to Jandl (2004:149), the only method that is currently used to estimate the annual 
flows of illegal  migrants  to  European countries is the  “projection of border  apprehensions”. 
He continues that there are a number of problems with this method. For one thing, ‘much of 
the  statistical  data  collected  by  border  enforcement  agencies  is  kept  secrete  and  only  few 
countries in Europe regularly publish their apprehension data’ (Jandl 2004:150). As a result, 
informal  channels  have  to  be  drawn  upon  to  obtain  data.  Furthermore,  even  in  those  cases 
where  enforcement  agencies  publish  or  share  their  statistics,  the  validity  of  the  estimation 
depends on identifying the “correct” multiplier. A multiplier has to be designed that reflects 
the likelihood for being caught when attempting to cross the border illegally. 

39 

Especially  in  southern  European  countries,  where  governments  have  opted  for  regularisation 
programmes on more or less regular intervals, this method is often used to calculate the national stock 
of illegal migrants. This method has been used in Spain and Greece. To ascertain the extent to which 
the  number  of  applications  for  regularisation  programmes  constitutes  a  valuable  indicator  for  this 
phenomenon,  a  number  of  issues  have  to  be  taken  into  consideration.  While  the  number  of  illegal 
migrants  who  cannot  or  will  not  register  for  such  programmes  underestimates  the  stock,  those 
foreigners  who  travel  from  neighbouring  countries  to  benefit  from  the  amnesty  overestimate  it.  The 
latter phenomenon has been observed for Italy, where ‘a large presence of foreigners living in France, 
Switzerland and Austria’ cross the border at the time of the regularisation programme (Sciortino 2003 
in Jandl 2004:147). 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
                                                 
ANNEX 2 – TOTAL NUMBER OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS BY MEMBER STATE AND NUMBER IN WORK 

Table A2.1 – Total number of illegal immigrants in the EU and Member States  

Member State 

Total population 

Total no. of illegal 
immigrants  

Comments  on  estimates  of  total  no.  including  trends 
(increasing / decreasing numbers by year if possible) 

Brief description of how numbers were calculated 

EU 

2,000,000-
3,000,000 

The irregular foreign population would correspond to 10-
15% of the size of the officially recorded resident 

foreign population, which was around 20 million in 
199740 

Estimates on the basis of the total border apprehensions of illegal 
migrants in 200141 

15 

EU 

In 
(incomplete): 
286,000 

the  EU  25 

In 
(incomplete): 
373,000 

3,000,000 

IOM (World Migration Report 2000) estimates that the 
upper limit of unauthorised migrants in Europe at 3 
million in 1998, as compared to less than 2 million in 
1991. Dependent on the calculation methods used, illegal 
migrants are thought to represent between 10 and 15% of 
migrants already present and between 20 and 30% of 
inflow 42 

40 

41 

42 

EN 

GLOBAL  MIGRATION  PERSPECTIVES,  No.  53,  October  2005,  Crisis  in  countries  of  origin  and  illegal  immigration  into  Europe  via  Italy, 
http://www.gcim.org/mm/File/GMP%2053.pdf  
International  Centre 
http://www.icmpd.org/uploadimg/Metropolis%20Presentation%2D9%2D2003%2DMJ%2D1.pdf  
(Committee  on  Migration,  Refugees  and  Demography  "Conference  on  the  situation  of  illegal  migrants  in  Council  of  Europe  member  states,  Paris  13  December 
2001). http://www.ecre.org/factfile/realfacts.shtml#illeg  

for  Migration  Policy  Development,  Estimates  on 

the  number  of 

in  Europe, 

immigrants 

smuggled 

illegal 

and 

43 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
                                                 
Member State 

Total population 

Total no. of illegal 
immigrants  

Comments  on  estimates  of  total  no.  including  trends 
(increasing / decreasing numbers by year if possible) 

Brief description of how numbers were calculated 

Table A2.1 – Total number of illegal immigrants in the EU and Member States  

4,500,000 

Austria 

8,102,200 

38,530 (2004) 

The nine largest former EU15 Member States would 
have between 4.4 and 5.5 million illegal migrants. 
Transposing these figures to the EU25 would give an 
estimate of between 6 to 8 million undocumented 
migrants.  

Another way to estimate the number of illegal migrants is 
through the number of migrants included in 
regularisation programmes, particularly in Southern 
Europe and in France and Belgium. Since the 1970s, the 
EU Member States regularised 3.5 

Million persons, most of them in recent years.43 

In the European Union (EU), unauthorized or “irregular” 
immigrants are estimated to be at least one percent of the 
population of the EU 25 (about 4.5 million persons) and 
are growing at annual rates that are into the mid-
hundreds of thousands(2005).44 

The total numbers of illegally entering and/or illegally 
resident persons can only be estimated. For this purpose, 
a variety of diverse methods and techniques have been 
developed. Only few estimates following these 
techniques have been published in Austria. Of these few 
estimates, each refers to a particular group of illegally 
resident immigrants and not to the phenomenon as a 
whole, e.g. illegally resident pupils or illegally employed 
foreigners.  

Data sources include data on apprehensions of illegally entering or 
resident immigrants recorded by the MoI/Criminal Intelligence 
Services or client data of NGOs and welfare institutions working in 
the field of migration and asylum.  

43 

44 

EN 

is 

going 

Who 
http://www.eurofound.eu.int/docs/areas/populationandsociety/krieger050422.pdf  
The 
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/PolicyBrief_No4_Sept05.pdf  

“Regularization”  Option 

in  Managing 

Migration 

where? 

trends 

in 

the 

EU 

context 

SIPTU 

National 

Women’s 

Forum, 

Illegal  Migration  More  Effectively:  A  Comparative  Perspective,  September  2005  No.  4, 

44 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Member State 

Total population 

Total no. of illegal 
immigrants  

Comments  on  estimates  of  total  no.  including  trends 
(increasing / decreasing numbers by year if possible) 

Brief description of how numbers were calculated 

Table A2.1 – Total number of illegal immigrants in the EU and Member States  

Looking at apprehension data (such as smuggled persons 
or illegally entering and/or residing persons), the number 
has been declining since 2003. In 2004, 38,530 persons 
were apprehended, a fall of over 14% from the previous 
year. 45 

100,000 
estimate) 

(high 

Low  and  high  estimates  of  stocks  of  illegal  migrants  (source 
Jandl 2003)46 

Belgium 

10,355,800 

The  number  of 
illegal  persons  is 
to  be 
estimated 
several 
tens  of 
thousands.47 

The  number  of 
illegal  persons  is 
to  be 
estimated 
several 
tens  of 
thousands. 

Countries each time involved in interceptions these last years – 
who may partially be considered as countries of origin of aliens 
without  legal  residence  –  are  Yugoslavia,  the  future  member 
states  Romania  and  Bulgaria,  the  Maghrib  countries,  Polish 
moonlighters,  Iran,  other  countries  around  the  Black  Sea, 
“population  giants”  China  and  India,  Albania,  Afghanistan  and 
Iraq  (surely  for  the  last  two  countries  identity  hiding  is  a 
phenomenon  to  reckon  with).  Nevertheless,  extended  research 
has shown that in the case of certain nationalities the number of 
illegal  migrants  is  (was)  by  all  means  (much)  higher  than  the 
population  of  the  legal  community  (e.g.  Poland,  Colombia). 

Estimated on basis of regularisation.48 

There  is  no  sound  information  on  the  number  of  aliens  in  Belgium  –  we  do 
not know how many tens of thousands are involved. During the last 15 years, 
some  few  estimates  have  been  circulating  based  on  different  techniques 
(mostly  the  Delphi  method),  but  they  should  be  interpreted  with  much 
caution, as is the case with the number of intercepted illegal migrants. 

45 

46 

47 

48 

EN 

for  Migration  Policy  Development,  Estimates  on 

The  most  important  countries  of  origin  among  smuggled  persons  are  the  Russian  Federation,  India,  Moldova  and  Georgia;  the  main  countries  of  origin  among 
illegally entering and/or residing persons are Romania, Bulgaria, Moldova and Serbia and Montenegro.  
International  Centre 
http://www.icmpd.org/uploadimg/Metropolis%20Presentation%2D9%2D2003%2DMJ%2D1.pdf  
DAEM,  G.  (2006)  Repression  towards  illegal  persons  and  undeclared  work  of  undocumented  workers  in  Belgium,  PROGRESS  Lawyers  Network  Belgium, 
http://www.progresslaw.net/eng/text/Slovenie_GD_0506.pdf 
DAEM,  G.  (2006)  Repression  towards  illegal  persons  and  undeclared  work  of  undocumented  workers  in  Belgium,  PROGRESS  Lawyers  Network  Belgium, 
http://www.progresslaw.net/eng/text/Slovenie_GD_0506.pdf 

the  number  of 

in  Europe, 

immigrants 

smuggled 

illegal 

and 

45 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
Member State 

Total population 

Total no. of illegal 
immigrants  

Comments  on  estimates  of  total  no.  including  trends 
(increasing / decreasing numbers by year if possible) 

Brief description of how numbers were calculated 

Table A2.1 – Total number of illegal immigrants in the EU and Member States  

There  is  also  evidence  that  the  illegal  transit  migration  has 
diminished in 2004 by comparison with previous years.  

Czech Republic 

10,203,300 

55,00049 

90,000-150,000 

Low  and  high  estimates  of  stocks  of  illegal  migrants  (source 
Jandl 2003)50 

30,000-40,000 

There  were  an  estimated  30,000  to  40,000  illegal  migrants  in 
Belgium in 199951 

13,206 
(apprehensions  at 
the border) 

21,350 
residence permit) 

(without 

The Czech Republic is no longer considered a transit country by 
illegal migrants. Statistics released by the Czech Foreign Police 
earlier this week, suggest that the number of people attempting 
to  cross  the  borders  into  Germany  and  Austria  illegally  has 
decreased, while the number of foreigners staying in the country 
without residence permits is on the rise.  

In  2003,  some  13,206  illegal  migrants  were  caught  on  the 
borders  with  Germany  and  Austria;  535  less  than  the  year 
before.  The  number  of  foreigners  caught  without  a  residence 
permit reached 21,350 in 2003; some 2,000 more than the year 
before. 

295,000-335,000 

The  number  of  illegal/irregular  migrants  can  only  be  estimated 
and  stands  between  295,000  and  335,000  (at  the  end  of  2000). 
Of  these  people,  165,000  could  be  irregular  migrants  active  on 

Estimates on the basis of apprehensions of illegal migrants 

49 
50 

51 

EN 

Loobuyck, P. (2003), ‘Vlaanderen, Belgie en Europa als “immigratiesamenlevingen”: Enkele consequenties, http://www.flwi.ugent.be/cie/CIE/loobuyck4.htm 
International  Centre 
http://www.icmpd.org/uploadimg/Metropolis%20Presentation%2D9%2D2003%2DMJ%2D1.pdf  
Northern Europe, Migration News Vol. 6 No. 4, October 1999, http://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/more.php?id=1935_0_4_0  

for  Migration  Policy  Development,  Estimates  on 

the  number  of 

immigrants 

smuggled 

illegal 

and 

in  Europe, 

46 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Member State 

Total population 

Total no. of illegal 
immigrants  

Comments  on  estimates  of  total  no.  including  trends 
(increasing / decreasing numbers by year if possible) 

Brief description of how numbers were calculated 

Table A2.1 – Total number of illegal immigrants in the EU and Member States  

the Czech labor market, 30,000 their dependants and 100,000 – 
140,000 transit migrants (their number is declining).52 

Cyprus 

715,100 

40,000 

The number of illegal immigrants is estimated to correspond to 
just more than 10% of the gainfully employed. 53 

Denmark 

5,383,300 

Estonia 

1,356,000 

5,000-10,000 

According to official estimates, there were at least 5,000-10,000 
illegal aliens in Estonia as of the end of April 2004. 54 

Finland 

5,206,300 

France 

59,635,000 

300,00055 

300,000-500,000  Low  and  high  estimates  of  stocks  of  illegal  migrants 

(source Jandl 2003)56 

300,000-400,00057 

52 
53 
54 

55 
56 

57 

EN 

Migration online, http://www.migrationonline.cz/101.shtml  
Czech Republic no longer considered transit country by illegal migrants, http://www.radio.cz/en/article/49771  
Extract  from  the  IHF  report,  Human  Rights  in  the  OSCE  Region:  Europe,  Central  Asia  and  North  America,  Report  2005  (Events  of  2004),  Estonia.  www.ihf-
hr.org/viewbinary/viewdocument.php?doc_id=6330  
Boswell, C. and Straubhaar, T. (2004) The Illegal Employment of Foreigners in Europe, http://www.migration-research.org/dokumente/articles/ie0401-forum.pdf 
International  Centre 
http://www.icmpd.org/uploadimg/Metropolis%20Presentation%2D9%2D2003%2DMJ%2D1.pdf  
Who 
Migration 
http://www.eurofound.eu.int/docs/areas/populationandsociety/krieger050422.pdf  

for  Migration  Policy  Development,  Estimates  on 

the  number  of 

immigrants 

smuggled 

Women’s 

National 

context 

where? 

SIPTU 

in  Europe, 

Forum, 

illegal 

trends 

going 

and 

EU 

the 

in 

is 

47 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
Member State 

Total population 

Total no. of illegal 
immigrants  

Comments  on  estimates  of  total  no.  including  trends 
(increasing / decreasing numbers by year if possible) 

Brief description of how numbers were calculated 

Table A2.1 – Total number of illegal immigrants in the EU and Member States  

Germany 

82,536,700 

100,000-1,000,000 

It can be assumed, as a minimum level, that the number amounts 
to 100,000 people. As for the upper limit, some authors estimate 
as  much  as  1  million  illegally  resident  migrants.  After  the 
number of illegally resident migrants had continuously increased 
in the 1990s, the tendency is now that numbers remain stable or 
even decrease. This is, among other reasons, due to the fact that 
since the EU enlargement on May 1, 2004, citizens of the new 
Member  States  can  no  longer  be  counted  as  illegally  resident 
migrants.  

Even  a  thorough  analysis  of  available  data  sources  (statistics  of  the  Federal 
Border  Police,  Police  Crime  Statistics,  Statistics  of  the  Federal  Labour 
Agency)  cannot  provide  reliable  data  on  the  size  and  composition  of  the 
illegally  resident  population  in  Germany.  The  so-called  principle  of 
multiplication cannot be used for projections of the total number of illegally 
resident migrants as it is based on estimates. 

500,00058 

500,000-
1,500,000 

Geece 

11,006,400 

150,000-200,000 

Low  and  high  estimates  of  stocks  of  illegal  migrants  (source 
Jandl 2003)59 

In 2004 it was estimated that immigrants accounted for at least 
10%  of  the  total  population  and  for  about  15%  of  the  total 
working-age population. 

The  evolution  of  illegal  immigration  since  2002  is  not  easy  to 
document.  Trade  union  representatives  and  officials  from  the 
Ministry  of  Public  Order  estimate  the  current  stock  of  illegal 
immigrants to around 400,000. However, such a number should 
be considered as an overestimation. It should be pointed out that 
the number of those who received a temporary residence permit 
was 361,110 in the second regularisation.  

Thus,  after  the  first  stages  of  the  second  regularisation 

 The  main  and  sole  collector  of  statistical  information  related  to  illegal 
immigration in Greece is the Ministry of Public Order. However data related 
in  general  with  migration  can  be  useful  when  trying  to  measure  illegal 
migration.  The  Ministry  of  Interior,  the  UNHCR,  the  National  Statistical 
Service of Greece and the Employment Manpower Organisation are the main 
collectors of such data. 

58 
59 

EN 

Boswell, C. and Straubhaar, T. (2004) The Illegal Employment of Foreigners in Europe, http://www.migration-research.org/dokumente/articles/ie0401-forum.pdf 
International  Centre 
http://www.icmpd.org/uploadimg/Metropolis%20Presentation%2D9%2D2003%2DMJ%2D1.pdf  

for  Migration  Policy  Development,  Estimates  on 

the  number  of 

immigrants 

smuggled 

illegal 

and 

in  Europe, 

48 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Member State 

Total population 

Total no. of illegal 
immigrants  

Comments  on  estimates  of  total  no.  including  trends 
(increasing / decreasing numbers by year if possible) 

Brief description of how numbers were calculated 

Table A2.1 – Total number of illegal immigrants in the EU and Member States  

programme the number of those lapsed into illegality is actually 
relatively  small  and  the  number  of  those  who  remained  illegal 
(taking  into  account  asylum  rejections)  should  be  around  to 
150,000  persons.  Moreover,  because  of  the  new  arrivals  of 
illegal  immigrants  it  seems  that  the  total  number  of  illegal 
immigrants  currently  could  be  approximately  estimated  up  to 
200,000. 

400,000 

The  number  of  illegal  immigrants  is  so  high  that  it  is  hard  to 
measure except through regularisation programmes.  

In 2001 there were 219,598 apprehensions of illegal immigrants, 
of which 167,168 from border guards and 6,864 from the coast 
guard. 

Estimated on the basis of apprehensions at the borders60 

351,110 

Estimate based on regularisation programmes (2001)61 

250,000-1,000,000 

Low  and  high  estimates  of  stocks  of  illegal  migrants  (source 
Jandl 2003)62 

Hungary 

10,142,400 

1,000,00063 

Since  1990,  the  border  guards  have  recorded  152,000  cases  of 
foreigners  attempting  to  enter  illegally,  and  80,000  efforts  to 
leave Hungary illegally.64 

60 
61 
62 
63 

64 

EN 

Boswell, C. and Straubhaar, T. (2004) The Illegal Employment of Foreigners in Europe, http://www.migration-research.org/dokumente/articles/ie0401-forum.pdf. 
Boswell, C. and Straubhaar, T. (2004) The Illegal Employment of Foreigners in Europe, http://www.migration-research.org/dokumente/articles/ie0401-forum.pdf. 
Boswell, C. and Straubhaar, T. (2004) The Illegal Employment of Foreigners in Europe, http://www.migration-research.org/dokumente/articles/ie0401-forum.pdf. 
Who 
http://www.eurofound.eu.int/docs/areas/populationandsociety/krieger050422.pdf  
Hungary: Transit Country Between East and West, http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=181  

Migration 

Women’s 

National 

context 

where? 

SIPTU 

trends 

going 

EU 

the 

in 

is 

Forum, 

49 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Member State 

Total population 

Total no. of illegal 
immigrants  

Comments  on  estimates  of  total  no.  including  trends 
(increasing / decreasing numbers by year if possible) 

Brief description of how numbers were calculated 

Table A2.1 – Total number of illegal immigrants in the EU and Member States  

Ireland 

3,963,700 

8,902 in 2004 

Almost  no  statistics  exist  on  stocks  of  illegally  resident 
immigrants  beyond  the  number  of  outstanding  deportation 
orders (8,902). Data on the number  of persons refused leave to 
land  (4,477  in  2004)  may  be  indicative  of  flows  of  illegal 
immigrants  to  Ireland,  however  it  should  be  noted  that 
permission  to  enter  Ireland  may  be  refused  for  a  range  of 
reasons.  

The  Immigrant  Council  of  Ireland’s  records  give  some 
indication of the proportion of migrants who entered illegally to 
undocumented  migrants.  Of  231  cases  of  undocumented 
migrants  accessing  the  services  of  the  Immigrant  Council  179 
cases,  or  77  per  cent  had  entered  Ireland  legally  and  later 
became  undocumented.  A  further  52  cases  or  23  per  cent  had 
entered illegally (Immigrant Council of Ireland, 2005).  

The Garda National Immigration Bureau provides some statistics on 
illegal immigration. NGOs such as the Immigrant Council of Ireland 
hold  some  data  on  illegally  resident  immigrants  who  use  their 
support services (see below).  

No official source has estimated the number of illegally resident immigrants. 
Data regarding apprehended and removed aliens supplied by the Department 
of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to Eurostat is supplied in Table 3 below. 
The  information  was  produced  for  the  Annual  Report  on  Statistics  on 
Migration, Asylum and Return 2002. Table 3: Annual Totals of Apprehended 
Non Nationals Illegally Present and Removed Aliens 1999-2002  

99  00 

01 

02 

Number of apprehended aliens 24 25 52 115  

Number of removed aliens 6 186 364 521  

Source: Hughes (2005).  

20,0000 

Low  and  high  estimates  of  stocks  of  illegal  migrants  (source 
Jandl 2003)65 

Italy 

57,321,100 

800,000 

Estimate made by the three largest Italian labour unions CGIL, CISL 
and UIL in 200666 

- 200,000  

- 600,000 

- 800,000 

The  number  of  illegal  immigrants  living  today  in  Italy  is  not 
known, and, currently, there is no way to fill in this information 
gap.  By  way  of  example,  we  can  report  the  greatly  varying 
estimates  of 
immigrant  numbers  provided  by 
organisations that work in the sector.  

illegal 

65 

66 

EN 

International  Centre 
http://www.icmpd.org/uploadimg/Metropolis%20Presentation%2D9%2D2003%2DMJ%2D1.pdf  
Workpermit.com (2006) ‘Italy offers citizenship to illegal migrants after 5 years’, http://www.workpermit.com/news/2006_07_06/eu/italian_citizenship.htm 

for  Migration  Policy  Development,  Estimates  on 

the  number  of 

immigrants 

smuggled 

illegal 

and 

in  Europe, 

50 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Member State 

Total population 

Total no. of illegal 
immigrants  

Comments  on  estimates  of  total  no.  including  trends 
(increasing / decreasing numbers by year if possible) 

Brief description of how numbers were calculated 

Table A2.1 – Total number of illegal immigrants in the EU and Member States  

They are as follows:  

-  200,000  according  to  the  ISMU  Foundation  (Multi-ethnic 
Initiatives  and  Studies),  an  organisation  with  offices  in  Milan 
that  has  been  publishing  an  annual  immigration  report  since 
1995.  

-  600,000  according  to  the  three  largest  Italian  trade  unions 
(CGIL, CISL and UIL).  

-  800,000  according  to  Eurispes,  a  research  institute  that 
publishes an annual report on the situation in the country.  

These large differences make it possible to say that no plausible, 
unambiguous measurements of the phenomenon exist.  

Trends  as  recorded 
regularisation during the different regularisation programmes: 

through  number  of  applications  for 

2002: 702,156 

1998: 250,747 

1995: 258,761 

The  first  15  countries  of  origin  (in  terms  of  quantitative 
importance) of illegal immigration into Italy between 1990 and 
2000:  the  home  country  with  the  highest  number  of  illegal 
immigrants  is  Albania,  which  has  an  annual  average  value  of 
11,800  units,  followed  by  Morocco  (6,600),  Yugoslavia  and 
Romania  (3,600)  and  Tunisia  (2,400).  The  highest  average 
number  of  legal  immigrants  comes  from  Morocco  (73,500), 
followed by Albania (44,200), Tunisia (36,500) and Yugoslavia 

EN 

51 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
Member State 

Total population 

Total no. of illegal 
immigrants  

Comments  on  estimates  of  total  no.  including  trends 
(increasing / decreasing numbers by year if possible) 

Brief description of how numbers were calculated 

Table A2.1 – Total number of illegal immigrants in the EU and Member States  

(31,000).67 

total  number  of  expulsion  orders 

The 
immigrants in Italy increased markedly 

issued 

to 

illegal 

Estimates based on expulsions. 

between  1990  and  1994  (from  10,000  to  57,000),  stabilized  in 
1995, fell in 1996-97 (to 

35,000 and 49,000), almost doubled in 1998 (91,000), and then 
rose sharply again, reaching a 

peak of 131,000 in 2000.68 

700,000 

Estimate based on regularisation programmes (2002-2003) 

200,000-1,000,000 

Low  and  high  estimates  of  stocks  of  illegal  migrants  (source 
Jandl 2003)69 

300,000-400,00070 

Latvia 

2,331,500 

“Very few” 

In  Latvia  and  some  other  transition  countries  labour  codes  are 
not  so  cumbersome  and  not  as  strictly  enforced  as  in  Western 
Europe [EU 15] and there are very few illegal migrants. 

Lithuania 

3,462,600 

67 

68 
69 

70 

EN 

GLOBAL  MIGRATION  PERSPECTIVES,  No.  53,  October  2005,  Crisis  in  countries  of  origin  and  illegal  immigration  into  Europe  via  Italy, 
http://www.gcim.org/mm/File/GMP%2053.pdf  
Ibid.  
International  Centre 
http://www.icmpd.org/uploadimg/Metropolis%20Presentation%2D9%2D2003%2DMJ%2D1.pdf  
Who 
Migration 
http://www.eurofound.eu.int/docs/areas/populationandsociety/krieger050422.pdf  

for  Migration  Policy  Development,  Estimates  on 

the  number  of 

in  Europe, 

immigrants 

smuggled 

Women’s 

National 

context 

Forum, 

where? 

SIPTU 

illegal 

trends 

going 

and 

EU 

the 

in 

is 

52 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Member State 

Total population 

Total no. of illegal 
immigrants  

Comments  on  estimates  of  total  no.  including  trends 
(increasing / decreasing numbers by year if possible) 

Brief description of how numbers were calculated 

Table A2.1 – Total number of illegal immigrants in the EU and Member States  

Luxembourg 

448,300 

Malta 

397,300 

Netherlands 

16,192,600 

70-150,000  

125,000 
225,000 

to 

60,000 

The  estimated  combined  figure  that  includes  both  non-
Western  and  European  illegal  aliens  comes  to  between 
125,000  and  225,000  illegal  aliens  annually..  As  far  as 
the  country  of  origin  of  illegal  aliens  is  concerned,  the 
picture is a very diverse one. The number of individuals 
from the so-called asylum countries is not rising quickly, 
but is rising nevertheless. 

Estimates  of  illegal  migrants:  7.3%  of  545.000  legally 
staying  foreigners.  There  are  40,000  illegally  staying 
foreigners  in  four  cities  (Amsterdam,  Rotterdam,  Den 
Haag  and  Utrecht).  The  projection  to  the  whole  of  the 
Netherlands is 60,000. (1998) 

There are no exact figures on illegal employment in the Netherlands. 
The estimation is that about 70-150,000 people reside illegally in the 
Netherlands. 

No institution in the Netherlands is specifically engaged in collecting 
statistical data in relation to illegal immigration, as this information 
is  simply  not  available.  Information  obtained  from  the  police 
however (the number of people stopped and questioned in connection 
with illegal residence) is regarded as the best indication to be used in 
research into the nature and extent of this phenomenon.  

Analysis of police apprehension figures of foreigners71 

112,000-163,000 

Analysis of data from 25 police districts (1997-2000)72 

60,000-160,000 

Low  and  high  estimates  of  stocks  of  illegal  migrants 
(source Jandl 2003)73 

Poland 

38,218,500 

Whereas the total number of seizures was showing signs 
of  being  decreasing,  or  at  least  stabilising,  before  2002, 

71 

72 
73 

EN 

for  Migration  Policy  Development,  Estimates  on 

International  Centre 
http://www.icmpd.org/uploadimg/Metropolis%20Presentation%2D9%2D2003%2DMJ%2D1.pdf  
Ibid.  
Ibid. 

the  number  of 

illegal 

and 

smuggled 

immigrants 

in  Europe, 

53 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Member State 

Total population 

Total no. of illegal 
immigrants  

Comments  on  estimates  of  total  no.  including  trends 
(increasing / decreasing numbers by year if possible) 

Brief description of how numbers were calculated 

Table A2.1 – Total number of illegal immigrants in the EU and Member States  

45,000-50,000 

observers  noted  an  increase  in  seizures  of  illegal 
immigrants and those transiting in 2003 and 2004.74 

The  2003  Aliens  Act  marks  Poland's  first  regularization 
program  for  unauthorized  immigrants.  The  Office  of 
Repatriation and Foreigners estimated just the number of 
illegal  Vietnamese  in  Poland  in  2003  at  30,000  and  the 
total  undocumented  population  at  around  45,000  to 
50,000.75 

However, according to the authorities responsible for the 
program, the regularization has been a failure. No formal 
information  about  the  program  was  written,  and  the 
information that was provided did not reach the majority 
of illegal immigrants.  

In  total,  only  3,508  persons  —  1,626  Armenians  and 
1,341  Vietnamese  —  submitted  applications.  As  of 
November  2004,  2,413  applications  (69  percent)  had 
been  approved,  with  1,052  Armenians  and  1,001 
Vietnamese receiving legal status. 

Portugal 

10,407,500 

The  communication  from  the  European  Commission  on  undeclared 
work (1998) states that, in Portugal, the great majority of undeclared 
workers  are  illegal  immigrants,  women,  and  unregistered  workers. 
Women are employed in less autonomous jobs, earn less and tend to 
have  informal  jobs  out  of  economic  necessity,  rather  than  to  earn 
extra cash on the side as men do (European Commission, 2004). 

74 
75 

EN 

Migration Research Group (2005), Focus Migration: Country Profile: Poland, http://www.migration-research.org/dokumente/focus-migration/CP03_-_Poland.pdf  
EU  Membership  Highlights 
http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?id=302  

Poland's  Migration  Challenges,  By  Krystyna 

International  Relations,  Warsaw 

Iglicka,  Center 

for 

54 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
Table A2.1 – Total number of illegal immigrants in the EU and Member States  

Member State 

Total population 

Total no. of illegal 
immigrants  

Comments  on  estimates  of  total  no.  including  trends 
(increasing / decreasing numbers by year if possible) 

Brief description of how numbers were calculated 

90,000 

Estimate based on regularisation programmes (2001)76 

30,000-200,000 

Low  and  high  estimates  of  stocks  of  illegal  migrants 
(source Jandl 2003)77 

35,00078 

Slovakia  

5,379,200 

Slovenia 

1,995,000 

Spain 

41,550,600 

700,000 

Dramatic  increase  since  1993  (200,000  to  300,000 
according to Cornelius and Tsuda 2004).  

Current estimate based on 2005 regularisation scheme.79 

Estimate based on regularisation programmes 

The work of foreign nationals has been subject to 'special 
legalisation'.  This  has  attempted  to  deal  with  illegal 
situations  outside  the  mechanisms  established  by  the 
general system or the quota system. Since the passing of 
Law 7/1985 on foreign persons, there have been five sets 
of  special  legalisation  measures.  The  last  two  were 
established  by  Law  4/2000  (offering  over  160,000 
authorisations  to  work)  and  its  reform  at  the  end  of  the 
same  year  (offering  over  240,000  authorisations). 
However,  this  did  not  put  an  end  to  the  existence  of 
illegal immigrants.80 

76 

77 
78 
79 
80 

EN 

for  Migration  Policy  Development,  Estimates  on 

International  Centre 
http://www.icmpd.org/uploadimg/Metropolis%20Presentation%2D9%2D2003%2DMJ%2D1.pdf  
Ibid.  
Spain, Italy, Bosnia, Turkey, Migration News Vol. 8 No. 4, February 2001, http://migration.ucdavis.edu/MN/more.php?id=2305_0_4_0  
IPPR (2006) Irregular migration in the UK, April 2006, www.ippr.org 
European 
on-line, 
relations 
http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2004/10/feature/es0410203f.html  

the  number  of 

immigration 

observatory 

smuggled 

examines 

industrial 

illegal 

CES 

and 

and 

the 

labour 

immigrants 

in  Europe, 

55 

market, 

Spain, 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Member State 

Total population 

Total no. of illegal 
immigrants  

Comments  on  estimates  of  total  no.  including  trends 
(increasing / decreasing numbers by year if possible) 

Brief description of how numbers were calculated 

Table A2.1 – Total number of illegal immigrants in the EU and Member States  

614,377 
applications 

Estimate based on regularisation programmes (2001)81 

150,000-500,000  Low  and  high  estimates  of  stocks  of  illegal  migrants 

(source Jandl 2003)82 

600,000 

20,000 

An amnesty in Spain in 2005 gave legal status to 600,000 
clandestine entrants.83 

Estimate based on regularisation programmes 

Spain  has  about  940,000  foreigners  (2001);  they are  2.5 
percent  of  Spanish  residents,  and  they  include  an 
estimated  200,000  unauthorized 
foreigners.  About 
11,000 migrants were caught after crossing the Straits of 
Gibraltar  in  2000,  double  the  number  apprehended  in 
1999.84 

Sweden 

8,940,800 

United 
Kingdom 

59,328,900 

430,000 

The  Home  Office  indicated  that its  best  estimate  is  430,000  but the 
number could be between 310,000 and 570,000.85 

1,000,000 

Low  and  high  estimates  of  stocks  of  illegal  migrants 
(source Jandl 2003)86 

81 

82 

83 
84 
85 

EN 

for  Migration  Policy  Development,  Estimates  on 

for  Migration  Policy  Development,  Estimates  on 

International  Centre 
http://www.icmpd.org/uploadimg/Metropolis%20Presentation%2D9%2D2003%2DMJ%2D1.pdf  
International  Centre 
http://www.icmpd.org/uploadimg/Metropolis%20Presentation%2D9%2D2003%2DMJ%2D1.pdf.  
Financial Times, EU to crack down on illegal migrant work, Published: November 30 2006, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/daaa22e0-80ab-11db-9096-0000779e2340.html  
Spain, Italy, Bosnia, Turkey, Migration News Vol. 8 No. 4, February 2001,http://migration.ucdavis.edu/MN/more.php?id=2305_0_4_0  
BBC 
‘Illegal 
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/overview.asp#5 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4637273.stm. 

the  number  of 

the  number  of 

in  Europe, 

in  Europe, 

immigrants 

immigrants 

immigrant 

revealed,’ 

smuggled 

smuggled 

(2005), 

illegal 

illegal 

figure 

2005, 

also: 

June 

and 

and 

See 

30 

56 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table A2.1 – Total number of illegal immigrants in the EU and Member States  

Member State 

Total population 

Total no. of illegal 
immigrants  

Comments  on  estimates  of  total  no.  including  trends 
(increasing / decreasing numbers by year if possible) 

Brief description of how numbers were calculated 

Table A2.2 – Total number of illegal immigrants working (by Member State) 

Member 
State 

Total 
population 

Total  no.  of 
illegal 
immigrants  in 
work 

Austria 

8,102,200 

114,000 (2004) 

Comments on estimates of total numbers 
including  trends  (increasing  / decreasing 
numbers) 

Indications  that  most  foreigners  origin 
from  a  specific  country(ies)  including 
trends (increasing / decreasing numbers) 

Brief  description  of  how  numbers  were 
calculated 

to  2004, 

From  1995 
the  number  of 
foreigners  employed  illegally  (in  black 
economy  activities)  increased  from  75,000 
to  around  114,000.  This  corresponds  to 
fifth  of  working 
approximately  one 
foreigners 
in  Austria.  This  percentage 
increased  continuously  until  2000  since 
when it has fallen slightly. 

Major  source  countries  of  growth  in  cross-
border 
labour  supply:  Turkey,  Bosnia 
Herzegovina,  Croatia,  Serbia  as  well  as  its 
eastern neighbours and Poland  

the  majority  of 

Until  2002, 
illegally 
working  immigrants  came  from  the  central 
European  countries  (e.g.  Poland,  Slovakia) 
and  the  successor  states  of  the  former 
Yugoslavia.  Since  mid-2002,  data  on  the 
nationality  of  illegal  foreign  workers  are 
not  available.  It  is  therefore  usually  not 
possible  to  determine  whether  there  is  a 
dominance  of  certain  ethnic  or  national 
groups 
the 
conditions under which they work.  

in  particular  niches,  or 

86 

EN 

International  Centre 
http://www.icmpd.org/uploadimg/Metropolis%20Presentation%2D9%2D2003%2DMJ%2D1.pdf  

for  Migration  Policy  Development,  Estimates  on 

the  number  of 

illegal 

and 

smuggled 

immigrants 

in  Europe, 

57 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
Member State 

Total population 

Total no. of illegal 
immigrants  

Comments  on  estimates  of  total  no.  including  trends 
(increasing / decreasing numbers by year if possible) 

Brief description of how numbers were calculated 

Table A2.1 – Total number of illegal immigrants in the EU and Member States  

Estimations refer to the early nineties.87 

Between 
80,000 
90,000 

and 

on 

based 

statistics 

the 
Figures 
Inspectorate  of  Labour  from  a  sample  of 
illegally  employed  foreigners  found  to  be 
present at worksites during routine controls. 

form 

Belgium 

10,355,800 

Czech Republic 

10,203,300 

Large numbers.88 

1,037 (2005)  

Illegal  employment  of  foreigners:  mainly 
from Ukraine.  

In 2005, the majority of illegally employed 
foreigners  came  from  Ukraine,  Slovenia, 
Bulgaria,  Vietnam,  Taiwan,  Moldavia  and 
Romania. 90 

Of  the  4,410  persons  checked  (3-rd  country 
nationals, EU/EEA/Swiss), 1,037 were found to 
be illegally employed. This data is to be found 
in the law enforcement statistics made available 
by the Labour Offices. 91 

On  the  basis  of  the  law  enforcement 
statistics  made  available  by  the  Labour 
Offices,  it  seems  that  while  there  was  an 
increase  in  the  number  of  foreigners  (3-rd 
country  nationals,  EU/EEA/Swiss)  who 
were  found  to  be  illegally  employed  over 
the  last  three  years  (2002:  1,396;  2003: 
1,429;  2004:  1,617),  2005  observed  a 
decrease (1,037). 89 

Cyprus 

715,100 

Undeclared work is thought mostly to affect 
specific  categories  of  workers  who  are 

87 

88 

89 
90 
91 

EN 

for 

Policy 

Centre 

Migration 

International 
http://www.icmpd.org/uploadimg/Estimation%20of%20illegal%20migration%20in%20Europe%2Dfinal.pdf  
The issue of granting an amnesty for illegal / irregular migrants who have been working in the country for some time is very controversial in the Czech Republic. 
Despite the large numbers (see estimates in Drbohlav 2003b), a regularization campaign is not on the agenda. Drbohlav, D., Janska, E., and Horakova, M. (2005) 
‘Czech Republic’, in Jan Niessen, Yongmi Schibel and Cressida Thompson (eds.) (2005) Current Immigration Debates in Europe: A Publication of the European 
Migration Dialogue, http://www.migpolgroup.com/multiattachments/2961/DocumentName/EMD_Czech_2005.pdf  
CIA questionnaire. 
CIA questionnaire. 
CIA questionnaire. 

Development, 

migration 

Estimates 

Europe, 

illegal 

of 

in 

58 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Member State 

Total population 

Total no. of illegal 
immigrants  

Comments  on  estimates  of  total  no.  including  trends 
(increasing / decreasing numbers by year if possible) 

Brief description of how numbers were calculated 

Table A2.1 – Total number of illegal immigrants in the EU and Member States  

more  vulnerable  generally,  particularly 
foreign workers and Turkish Cypriots92 

Denmark 

5,383,300 

is  uncertain,  however, 

The  number 
is 
extremely difficult to exist as an ‘illegal worker’ 
due  to  the  highly  regulated  nature  of  labour 
market and welfare system.93  

it 

(a) 62 (2006) 

(a) decline as compared to 121 in 2005 

(b) 93 (2006) 

(b) decline as compared to 138 in 2005 

Estonia 

1,356,000 

Finland 

5,206,300 

Currently,  there  are  no  estimates  of  the 
overall  involvement  of  legal  or  illegal 
immigration in undeclared work in Finland.  

(a)  complaints  against  companies  for  using 
foreign  labour  without  having  necessary  valid 
documents 

(b) complaints against illegal employees94 

Finnish Construction Trade Union estimates 

industry, 

the  construction 

legally.  The  estimate  of 

the  Finnish 
In 
Construction Trade Union suspects that only half 
of  the  estimated  9,000-10,000  foreign  workers 
are  working 
the 
Confederation of Finnish Construction Industries 
is,  however,  lower  even  as  regards  the  legally 
working  foreigners  and  the  employers  do  not 
want to give an estimate of the amount of illegal 
workers. 

92 

93 

94 

EN 

relations 

industrial 

European 
http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2004/06/tfeature/cy0406104t.html  
Stenum, H. (2005) ‘Denmark’, in Jan Niessen, Yongmi Schibel and Cressida Thompson (eds.) (2005) Current Immigration Debates in Europe: A Publication of the 
European Migration Dialogue, http://www.migpolgroup.com/multiattachments/2965/DocumentName/EMD_Denmark_2005.pdf 
CIA questionnaire 

observatory 

undeclared 

industrial 

Thematic 

relations 

Cyprus, 

on-line, 

feature 

work, 

and 

- 

59 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
Member State 

Total population 

Total no. of illegal 
immigrants  

Comments  on  estimates  of  total  no.  including  trends 
(increasing / decreasing numbers by year if possible) 

Brief description of how numbers were calculated 

Table A2.1 – Total number of illegal immigrants in the EU and Member States  

France 

59,635,000 

(a) 188 (2004) 

(b) 444 (2004) 

Germany 

82,536,700 

Greece 

11,006,400 

375,000 (1) 

470,000 (2) 

Hungary 

10,142,400 

200,000 

1997-1998:  Algeria  (increasing),  Morocco 
(decreasing),  China  (new),  Dem.  Rep.  of 
Congo (new), Tunisia (declining)95 

(a) Figures from Ministry of Justice. 

(b) Figures from ILO.96 

1997-1998:  Albania,  Egypt,  Bulgaria, 
Pakistan, Romania97 

(1)  This  is  the  number  of  applications  for  the 
first  regularisation  programme  of  1998,  most 
concern employed persons.98 

(2) Estimate by Lianos et al (1996).99 

Many migrant workers leave their countries 
of  origin  because  the  conditions  for  their 
daily  subsistence  are  not  fulfilled.  In  the 
Eastern  European  transition  countries,  a 
large  part  of  the  population  is  suffering 
from the recent changes. Large numbers of 
Romanian and Ukrainian nationals come to 

analysts  believe 

that 
foreign  workers 

illegally 
Most 
employed 
greatly 
outnumber  –  and  in  the  high  season  are 
twice  as  much  as  -  those  foreigners  with 
work permits [>100,000].100  

95 
96 
97 
98 
99 

100 

EN 

OECD (2000), Combating the Illegal Employment of Foreign Workers, Paris: OECD. 
CIA questionnaire. 
OECD (2000), Combating the Illegal Employment of Foreign Workers, Paris: OECD. 
OECD (2000), Combating the Illegal Employment of Foreign Workers, Paris: OECD. 
Woodbridge,  J. 
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/rdsolr2905.pdf 
Juhasz, J. (2003), ‘Hungary: Transit Country Between East and West’, http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?id=181.  

(illegal)  migrant  population 

the  United  Kingdom 

the  unauthorised 

(2005)  Sizing 

in 

in  2001,  Home  Office  Report,  29/05 

60 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Member State 

Total population 

Total no. of illegal 
immigrants  

Comments  on  estimates  of  total  no.  including  trends 
(increasing / decreasing numbers by year if possible) 

Brief description of how numbers were calculated 

Table A2.1 – Total number of illegal immigrants in the EU and Member States  

Hungary 
unemployment.101 

to  escape 

low  wages  and 

The inspections highlighted the widespread 
illegal  employment  of  migrant  workers 
from  neighbouring  countries,  such  as 
Romania. 

There is a significant level of illegal employment 
of  people  from  the  Roma  community,  who 
participate very little in the formal labour market 

Inspection campaign 

A  two-day  central  inspection  campaign  by 
the Labour Inspectorate in 2003 found that 
about  20%  of  the  inspected  agricultural 
enterprises employed people in violation of 
the  relevant  legal  regulations.  A  two-day 
inspection campaign in restaurants and bars 
found  that  50%  of  inspected  undertakings 
employed  people  in  violation  of  legal 
regulations,  although  only  5%  of 
the 
undertakings  employed  people  without  an 
employment  contract.  The  use  of  various 
forms  of  undeclared  work  is  especially 
widespread among small and medium-sized 
enterprises. 102 

120 (2006) 

2005: 121 

2004: 65 

2003: 54 

Ireland 

3,963,700 

There is no evidence to suggest a crackdown on 
illegal  working.  Although  no  official  figures  are 
available,  the  number  of  employers  fined  for 
illegally  employing  migrant  workers  since  the 
introduction of employer sanctions in April 2003 

Estimates  on  the  bases  of  number  of  fines 
imposed by the migration authority (OIN). 103 

101 

102 

103 

EN 

MIGRATION 

INTERNATIONAL 
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/migrant/download/imp/imp30.pdf  
European 
http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2004/06/tfeature/hu0406103t.html  
CIA questionnaire. 

on-line,  Hungary, 

observatory 

PAPERS, 

industrial 

relations 

Illegal 

labour 

migration 

and 

employment 

in 

Hungary, 

Thematic 

feature 

- 

industrial 

relations 

and 

undeclared  work, 

61 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
Member State 

Total population 

Total no. of illegal 
immigrants  

Comments  on  estimates  of  total  no.  including  trends 
(increasing / decreasing numbers by year if possible) 

Brief description of how numbers were calculated 

Table A2.1 – Total number of illegal immigrants in the EU and Member States  

is thought to be very low104.  

The total number of work permits issued to non-
EU  nationals  increased  from  5,750  in  1999  to 
40,504  in  2002,  which  is  equivalent  to  an 
increase of more than 600 percent (Table 2). The 
number  of  work  permits  issued  in  2003  is 
expected  to  significantly  exceed  that  in  2002; 
during  January-September  2003,  36,682  permits 
(including 18,463 renewals) were issued already. 
As work permits are valid for a maximum of one 
year, the number of total work permits issued in 
any given year also gives a good indication of the 
stock  of  legally  employed  non-EU  workers  in 
Ireland.105 

Italy 

57,321,100 

(a) 560,000 

(decreasing),  Albania 
1996:  Morocco 
(increasing), Philippines (increasing), China 
(new),  Senegal 
(decreasing),  Tunisia 
(decreasing)106 

(a)  According  to  Djaii  (2001)  70%  of  illegal 
migrants are expected to work illegally107 [2006 
figure of 800,000] 

(b) 460,000  

(b) estimates by Reyneri 2003108 

104 

105 

106 
107 

108 

EN 

in  Immigration  Policy,  By  Martin  Ruhs,  Centre  on  Migration,  Policy  and  Society  (COMPAS)  Oxford  University, 

Ireland:  A  Crash  Course 
http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?id=260  
Emerging  Trends  and  Patterns  in  the  Immigration  and  Employment  of  Non-EU  Nationals  in  Ireland:  What  the  Data  Reveal,  Martin  Ruhs,  Trinity  College 
Dublinhttp://www.policyinstitute.tcd.ie/working_papers/PIWP06%20-%20Martin_Ruhs.pdf  
OECD (2000), Combating the Illegal Employment of Foreign Workers, Paris: OECD. 
S.  Djaji  (2001)  ‘Illegal  Immigration  Trends,  Policies  and  Economic  Effects’,  in:  S.  Djaji  (ed.):  International  Migration:  Trends,  Policies  and  Economic  Impact, 
London and New York 2001, Routledge, pp. 137-161. 
In:  OECD  Employment  Outlook  2004.  Chapter  5: 
(http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/25/34846912.pdf)  

Informal  Employment 

a  Salaried  Economy 

and  Promoting 

the  Transition 

to 

62 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
Member State 

Total population 

Total no. of illegal 
immigrants  

Comments  on  estimates  of  total  no.  including  trends 
(increasing / decreasing numbers by year if possible) 

Brief description of how numbers were calculated 

Table A2.1 – Total number of illegal immigrants in the EU and Member States  

lacking  work 

(c)  According  to  the  EEO  review  in  2004109 
foreign  workers 
permits 
accounted, in 2001, for roughly one sixth of the 
total number of irregular workers. It is thought, 
that the last immigration amnesty (“sanatoria”) 
that occurred in 2002, enabled roughly 700,000 
immigrants  without  work  permits  to  regularise 
their situation.  

On the basis of stay permit applications 

(c) 700,000  

700,000 

According  to  Istat,  there  are  516,000  irregular 
the  agricultural  and 
in 
immigrant  workers 
construction  sectors  alone.  In  total,  more  than 
700,000 foreign workers - of whom  360,000 are 
in  subordinate  employment  and  340,000  in 
domestic  work  -  applied  for  stay  permits 
legal  provisions  on 
recent  new 
following 
regularising illegal work 

According  to  Caritas  (the  agency  of  the  catholic 
church which assists immigrants) there are about 
1  million  illegal  immigrants  in  Italy.  Their 
position means that some of these people may be 
perceived as being engaged in criminal activities 
such  as  drug-pushing,  prostitution  and  petty 
crime.110 

Latvia 

2,331,500 

153 (2005)  

2004: 179 

Estimate  based  on  aggregated  number  of 
persons  punished  for  employing  third  country 
nationals  without  valid  work  permit  or  for 
providing  opportunity  to  reside  illegally  in  the 

109 

110 

EN 

European Employment Observatory; Review autumn 2004. Chapter on “Thematic Overview: Fighting the immeasurable? Addressing the phenomenon of undeclared 
work in the European Union”. 
http://www.eiro.eurofound.ie/2002/09/feature/it0209103f.html  

63 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Member State 

Total population 

Total no. of illegal 
immigrants  

Comments  on  estimates  of  total  no.  including  trends 
(increasing / decreasing numbers by year if possible) 

Brief description of how numbers were calculated 

Table A2.1 – Total number of illegal immigrants in the EU and Member States  

country.111 

(95%  of 

The  relationship  between  undeclared  work 
and  migration  has  not  been  studied  in 
in  Latvia 
Latvia.  Legal  migration 
is 
total  migratory 
insignificant 
movements are within the country), so there 
are  grounds  for  believing  that  it  has  no 
impact  on  undeclared  work.  It  has  been 
observed  that  undeclared  work  is  more 
connected  with  illegal  immigration,  the 
extent of which is unknown112 

Lithuania 

3,462,600 

Luxembourg 

448,300 

Malta 

397,300 

Netherlands 

16,192,600 

Two  thirds  of 
total 
the 
number 
of 
illegal 
immigrants 
work  without  a 
work  permit  or 
permit 
of 
residence 
(FNV, 2003b). 

+- 80,000 

111 
112 

EN 

CIA questionnaire. 
European industrial relations observatory on-line, Italy, New legislation regulates immigration, http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2004/06/tfeature/lv0406103t.html  

64 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
Member State 

Total population 

Total no. of illegal 
immigrants  

Comments  on  estimates  of  total  no.  including  trends 
(increasing / decreasing numbers by year if possible) 

Brief description of how numbers were calculated 

Table A2.1 – Total number of illegal immigrants in the EU and Member States  

run 

into 

The  number  of  illegal  aliens  seems  to 
fluctuate,  depending  upon  the  season  and 
upon  the  clandestine  employment  market. 
In  major  cities  in  which  many  Turkish 
people 
employment 
temporary 
agencies,  Bulgarian  males  appear  to  be 
recruited 
labour.  The 
seasonal 
reception  of  Moroccans  and  immigrants 
from  Africa  and  Eastern  Europe  is  said  to 
be  somewhat  less  well  organised  however. 
Illegal  aliens  of  Moroccan  or  Somalian 
origin 
be 
unemployed.  Many  female  illegal  aliens 
from Bulgaria are employed in prostitution. 
90%  of  illegal  agricultural  workers  come 
from Poland.  

particular 

appear 

to 

in 

Poland 

38,218,500 

100,000 
150,000  

to 

Countries  of  the  former  Soviet  Union,  Sri 
Lanka,  and  Afghanistan,  although  an 
increasingly larger number are coming from 
Southeast Asia, particularly Vietnam.113 

Estimate  by 
the  National  Unemployment 
Office.  Other  estimates  range  from  250,000  to 
1.5 million persons.114 

According  to  the  same  survey,  three  quarters  of 
the domestic workers held Ukrainian citizenship, 
every  eighth  had  Belorussian  citizenship,  and 
every  tenth  was  Russian;  only  one  household 
worker  in  30  hailed  from  a  different  country. 
Thus,  Polish  households  usually  hire  help  from 
the countries immediately to the east. 

113 
114 

US Department of State (2002) Country reports on Human Rights Practices in 2001: Poland, http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/eur/8321.htm 
US Department of State (2002) Country reports on Human Rights Practices in 2001: Poland, http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/eur/8321.htm 

EN 

65 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Member State 

Total population 

Total no. of illegal 
immigrants  

Comments  on  estimates  of  total  no.  including  trends 
(increasing / decreasing numbers by year if possible) 

Brief description of how numbers were calculated 

Table A2.1 – Total number of illegal immigrants in the EU and Member States  

150,000-
200,000 

The  Ministry  of  Labour  and  Social  Affairs  esti-
mated,  for  instance,  in  1999,  that  there  were 
150,000  to  200,000  migrants  working  illegally 
(Lentowicz, 1999).115  

Portugal 

10,407,500 

In Portugal, in spite of the lack of data, the 
available  statistics  point  to  a  significant 
number  of  undeclared  workers.  A  large 
proportion  of  these  workers  are  illegal 
immigrants.  

742 (2006) 

2005: 577  

2004: 284 

2003:340 

40,000118 

immigration 

increased 
Clandestine 
dramatically.  According  to  unofficial  data,  there 
may be as many as 40,000 illegal workers in the 

has 

It  is  difficult  to  estimate  the  number  of 
Vietnamese  in  Poland  due  to  their  high 
spatial  mobility  and  their  status.  Many 
migrants  come  to  Poland  as  “tourists”,  but 
remain there and work illegally. According 
to representatives of the Polish government 
the  number  of  Vietnamese  immigrants  is 
estimated  to  be  a  maximum  of  50,000, 
whereas the leaders of the community claim 
that  in  Poland  there  are  no  more  than 
20,000 – 30,000 Vietnamese. 

1996:  Angola,  Guinnea-Bissau,  Cape 
Verde,  Brazil,  Sao  Tome  and  Principe, 
Senegal116 

These  immigrants  come  primarily  from 
Africa,  especially  from  Portugal's  former 
colonies,  such  as  Guinea-Bissau,  and  from 

Estimates based on the number of trials started 
resulting from a complaint of violating Art. 144 
of the Law regarding Foreigners.117 

115 

116 
117 
118 

EN 

Paper 

Sussex  Migration  Working 
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/migration/documents/mwp8.pdf  
OECD (2000), Combating the Illegal Employment of Foreign Workers, Paris: OECD. 
CIA questionnaire.  
European  industrial  relations  observatory  on-line,  PORTUGAL,  New  measures  seek  to  ensure  decent  working  conditions  for  immigrant  workers, 
http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2000/06/feature/pt0006199f.html  

Representations: 

Vietnamese 

Formation 

Poland, 

Ethnic 

The 

The 

no. 

of 

in 

8, 

66 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Member State 

Total population 

Total no. of illegal 
immigrants  

Comments  on  estimates  of  total  no.  including  trends 
(increasing / decreasing numbers by year if possible) 

Brief description of how numbers were calculated 

Table A2.1 – Total number of illegal immigrants in the EU and Member States  

country.  

Slovakia  

5,379,200 

Slovenia 

1,995,000 

Spain 

41,550,600 

7,296 (2006) 

Sweden 

8,940,800 

central  and  eastern  European  countries.  In 
the  latter  case,  the  workers  concerned  are 
considered skilled and have rapidly become 
highly  productive  from  the  standpoint  of 
the Portuguese economy, but they are at the 
same  time  more  vulnerable  because  they 
often do not speak Portuguese and there are 
no established central and eastern European 
communities in Portugal. 

Levels  of  legal  immigration  are  relatively  low 
and legal immigrants usually do not participate in 
undeclared  work.  Some  undeclared  work  is 
performed by foreign workers employed without 
work  permits  and  without  long-term  residential 
permits allowing employment.119 

(decreasing), 

1996:  Morocco 
Peru 
(decreasing), China (decreasing), Argentina 
(new),  Poland  (decreasing),  Dominican 
Republic (decreasing)120 

Figure  based  on  the  number  of  violations 
in 
uncovered  by 
2006.121 

the  Labour  Inspectorate 

feature 

- 

industrial 

relations 

and  undeclared  work, 

industrial 

relations  observatory  on-line,  SLOVAK.REPUBLIC,  Thematic 

European 
http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2004/06/tfeature/sk0406105t.html  
OECD (2000), Combating the Illegal Employment of Foreign Workers, Paris: OECD. 
CIA questionnaire. 

119 

120 
121 

EN 

67 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Member State 

Total population 

Total no. of illegal 
immigrants  

Comments  on  estimates  of  total  no.  including  trends 
(increasing / decreasing numbers by year if possible) 

Brief description of how numbers were calculated 

Table A2.1 – Total number of illegal immigrants in the EU and Member States  

United Kingdom 

59,328,900 

216,850 

of 

rate 

Calculated  on  the  assumption  that  irregular 
migrants have the same age characteristics and 
employment 
recently-arrived 
immigrants.  Kyambi  (2005)  uses  aggregated 
Labour Force Survey data for 2000-04 to show 
that, in 2004, some 82 per cent of immigrants in 
the  UK  since  1990  were  of  working  age  (aged 
16-64) and had an employment rate of 61.5 per 
cent.122 

9,227 
2006) 

(2005-

2004-05: 3,854 

2003-04: 2,304 

2002-03: 1,099 

Number  of  ‘immigration  offenders’  detected 
and removed by the authorities. 123 

122 
123 

IPPR (2006) Irregular migration in the UK, April 2006, www.ippr.org 
CIA questionnaire. 

EN 

68 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 3 – TOTAL NUMBER OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS IN WORK BY MEMBER STATE AND SECTOR 

Table A3.1 – Total number of illegal immigrants in work by Member State and sector 

Member State 

number 

Total 
of 
illegal  immigrants  (in 
work) 

Construction 

Agriculture 

Catering 

House work / Cleaning  Other 
sector) 

(please 

specify 

No. 

% 

No. 

% 

No. 

% 

No. 

% 

No. 

% 

No. 

% 

Austria 

Belgium 

Czech Republic 

Cyprus 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

114,000 

x 

x 

x 

3,000124 (1) 

` 

4,500125 (1) 

1 

2 

x 

2 

cleaning services 

Hospitality-
tourism  business 
sector 

x 

Transport, 
and 
shipyard industry. 

in 

levels 

High 
garment 
industry126  

of 
40% 
citations  in 
1992 

20% 

of 

124 

125 

EN 

Estimate  by  trade  union  ‘3F’  mentioned  in  Stenum,  H.  (2005)  ‘Denmark’,  in  Jan  Niessen,  Yongmi  Schibel  and  Cressida  Thompson  (eds.)  (2005)  Current 
Immigration 
Dialogue, 
of 
http://www.migpolgroup.com/multiattachments/2965/DocumentName/EMD_Denmark_2005.pdf 
The  Finnish  Construction  Trade  Union  (Rakennusliitto)  suspects  that  only  half  of  the  sector's  estimated  9,000-10,000  foreign  workers  are  working  legally. 
http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2004/06/tfeature/fi0406204t.html 

Publication 

Migration 

European 

Debates 

Europe: 

the 

in 

A 

69 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table A3.1 – Total number of illegal immigrants in work by Member State and sector 

Member State 

number 

Total 
of 
illegal  immigrants  (in 
work) 

Construction 

Agriculture 

Catering 

House work / Cleaning  Other 
sector) 

(please 

specify 

No. 

% 

No. 

% 

No. 

% 

No. 

% 

No. 

% 

No. 

% 

Transport 

citations  in 
1997 

Germany 

Greece 

375,000  to 
470,000 

Hungary 

200,000 

Ireland 

Italy 

460,000  to 
560,000 

2 

1 

x 

4 

x 

3 

x 

of 
20,400 
the  147,900 
regularised 
in 1996127 

1 

of 
59,200 
the  147,900 
regularised 
in 1996128 

Hospitality 
business 
retail trade 

and 

Entertainment, 
clothing 
textiles sectors 

and 

and 

Sizeable 
increasing 
proportion 
in 
manufacturing129 

Industry:  31,500 
the  147,900 
of 
in 
regularised 

126 

127 
128 
129 

130 

EN 

2004.  Chapter 
OECD  Employment  Outlook 
(http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/25/34846912.pdf). Also reiterated in the 2000 OECD report. 
OECD (2000), Combating the Illegal Employment of Foreign Workers, Paris: OECD. 
OECD (2000), Combating the Illegal Employment of Foreign Workers, Paris: OECD. 
OECD  Employment  Outlook 
(http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/25/34846912.pdf) 
OECD (2000), Combating the Illegal Employment of Foreign Workers, Paris: OECD. 

Informal  Employment 

Informal  Employment 

2004.  Chapter 

5: 

5: 

and 

and 

Promoting 

the  Transition 

to 

a 

Salaried  Economy 

Promoting 

the  Transition 

to 

a 

Salaried  Economy 

70 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
Table A3.1 – Total number of illegal immigrants in work by Member State and sector 

Member State 

number 

Total 
of 
illegal  immigrants  (in 
work) 

Construction 

Agriculture 

Catering 

House work / Cleaning  Other 
sector) 

(please 

specify 

No. 

% 

No. 

% 

No. 

% 

No. 

% 

No. 

% 

No. 

1996130 

% 

The  forestry,  and 
industrial 
sectors131  

x 

3 

1 

70,000 
150,000 

to 

40,000 

x 

2 

1 

2 

2 

and 

hotels 
metalworking 
industries132 

2187  of  the 
13,076 

16.8% 
… 

of 

1,839 of the 
13,076 

14.1% 

Hotels: 
2,231 of the 

17.2% of… 

2,814 of the 
13,076 

21.6% 
… 

of 

Care  of  persons, 
textile 
hotels, 

industrial 

European 
http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2004/06/tfeature/lv0406103t.html  
European  industrial  relations  observatory  on-line,  PORTUGAL,  New  measures  seek  to  ensure  decent  working  conditions  for  immigrant  workers, 
http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2000/06/feature/pt0006199f.html  

undeclared  work, 

observatory 

LATVIA, 

Thematic 

industrial 

relations 

relations 

on-line, 

feature 

and 

- 

71 

EN 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Slovakia  

Slovenia 

Spain 

131 

132 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table A3.1 – Total number of illegal immigrants in work by Member State and sector 

Member State 

number 

Total 
of 
illegal  immigrants  (in 
work) 

Construction 

Agriculture 

Catering 

House work / Cleaning  Other 
sector) 

(please 

specify 

No. 

% 

No. 

% 

No. 

% 

No. 

% 

No. 

% 

No. 

% 

regularised 
in 1996133 

regularised 
in 1996 

13,076 
regularised 
in 1996 

regularised 
in 1996 

manufacturing 
workshops 
CD copying.134 

, 
and 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 

216,815 

x 

x 

x 

x 

133 
134 

EN 

OECD (2000), Combating the Illegal Employment of Foreign Workers, Paris: OECD. 
European 
workhttp://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2004/06/tfeature/es0406209t.html  

observatory 

industrial 

relations 

SPAIN, 

on-line, 

Thematic 

feature 

- 

industrial 

relations 

and 

undeclared 

72 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
ANNEX 4 – OVERVIEW OF LEGISLATION IN THE MEMBER STATES 

Table A4.1 – Relevant legislation 

Member 
State 

Relevant legislation 

Date of legislation and reforms 

Specific  legislation  regarding  employment  of  illegal  third-country  nationals  (in  addition  to  legislation  regarding  undocumented 
work) 

Austria 

Ausländerbeschäftigungsgesetz, BGBl. Nr. 218/1975 
i.d.g.F.,  

das  Arbeitsvertragsrechts-Anpassungsgesetz,  BGBl.  Nr. 
459/1993 i.d.g.F.,  

das  Allgemeines  Sozialversicherungsgesetz,  BGBl.  Nr. 
189/1955 i.d.gF.,  

das  Arbeitslosenversicherungsgesetz  1977,  BGBl.  Nr. 
609/1977 i.d.g.F.,  

die Gewerbeordnung, BGBl. Nr. 194/1994 und  

das  Einkommensteuergesetz  1988,  BGBl.  Nr.  400/1988 
i.d.g.F.  

Belgium 

See  transposition  data:  Art.  7  §8  of  the  Law  of  15 
December concerning aliens? 

Denmark 

Aliens Act139 

Estonia 

Aliens Act135 

Finland 

Aliens Act139  

Note: Criminal sanctions laid down in Penal Code 

2005:  Under  the  Posted  Workers  Act,  a  foreign  company 
which does not have a business location in Finland must have 
a  representative in  Finland  who  has  in  his  or  her  possession 
the information on the employment and employees. 

2006: Under the proposed Act concerning the consumer’s obligation 
to obtain information before employment starts, the consumer must, 
for example, find out if the person who performs the work is liable to 
pay advance tax. Sanction: administrative fine. 

Germany 

Foreigners Act – 1990 

Reform in 1994, 1997, 2005 

Schwarzarbeitsbekämpfungsgesetz  (Law  on  black  work)  – 
2004 

Measures have been in place since 1970, and subsequent reforms of 
foreign-resident law have imposed harder sentences for illegal entry, 
residency and human smuggling.  

Gesetz  über  den  Aufenthalt,  die  Erwerbstätigkeit  und  die 
Integration von Ausländern im Bundesgebiet136 

Immigration Act – 2005 

German tax code 

In 2003 the federal government decided on accompanying measures 
to  reforms  concerning  black  work  in  terms  of  a  far-reaching 
measures  and  legislation  package  involving  e.g.  increased  control 
measures, with start from 2004.  

The  2005  Immigration  Act  replaced  the  Foreigners  Act  (e.g. 

135 
136 

No further information given in CIA questionnaire. 
http://www.bundesrecht.juris.de/aufenthg_2004/ 

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table A4.1 – Relevant legislation 

Member 
State 

Relevant legislation 

Date of legislation and reforms 

introducing  additional  offences  for  smuggling  of  foreign  nationals 
and extended the maximum prison sentence to ten years). 

The  illegal  employment  of  third  country  nationals  usually  coincides 
with tax fraud, therefore German tax law is also applicable. 

Greece 

Legislation  regarding  the  employment  of  migrants 
from  third  countries  deals  with  undeclared  –  illegal 
work137 

Hungary 

Act  XXXIX  of  2001  on  the  Entry  and  Stay  of 
Foreigners 

2001 

Note: Criminal sanctions laid down in Penal Code 

Italy 

Legislation on foreigners 

The 
Netherlands 

Employment  of  Aliens  Act:  admin.  and  penal 
sanctions 

Since 2005 

2007: employers will be obliged to assist the Labour Inspectorate in 
verifying the identity of employees during on site inspections. If not, 
employer  can  be  fined  with  the  same  penalties  as  for  employing 
illegal aliens. 

Poland 

Ordinance  of  the  Minister  of  Labour  and  Social 
Policy of 19 December 2001 on the performance of 
work by foreign persons with no need to obtain work 
permit 

2001 ? 

2003, 2006 : modifications 

Portugal 

Spain 

United 
Kingdom 

Ordinance  of  the  Minister  of  Labour  and  Social  Policy  of 
21  July  2006  on  the  mode  and  conditions  of  issuing  work 
permit for a foreign person 

Acts of 13 June 2003 on aliens 

Foreigners legal framework (artº 144º of Decree-law 
nº  244/98,  of  August  8,  changed  by  the  Dec.-law 
34/2003, of February 25) 

1998 

2003: modification 

Article  36  and  50  of  Ley  Orgánica  4/2000,  of  11 
January about the rights and liberties of foreigners in 
Spain and about social integration  

2000,  modification  of  the  1995  legislation:  Ley  Orgánica 
10/1995, of 23 November 

Immigration Act 1971 

1971, 1996, 2002, 2006 (will come into force by 2008) 

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 1996 

Asylum and Immigration Act 2002 

Asylum and Immigration Act 2006 

The  Asylum  and  Immigration  Act  1996  introduced  direct  penalties 
on  employers.  Previously  they  were  liable  to  prosecution  only  for 
assisting an illegal worker’s entry or residence. It is now a criminal 
offence to employ any person subject to immigration controls who is 
not authorised to reside or work in the UK. 138 

137 
138 

Further details will be requested, including year. 
Thematic  feature:  industrial  relations  and  undocumented  work:  United  Kingdom.  June  2004. 
http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2004/06/tfeature/uk0406104t.html 

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Table A4.1 – Relevant legislation 

Member 
State 

Relevant legislation 

Date of legislation and reforms 

Legislation regarding undocumented / illegal work in general 

Czech 
Republic 

2004 

Act  on  Employment:  Section  5  e)  (definition  of  the 
term  illegal  employment),  Section  139  Art.  1  c), 
Section  139  Art.  3,  Section  139  Art.  4  (natural 
persons),  Section  140  Art.  1  d)  (corporate  bodies) 
Act No. 435/2004 Coll. on employment, Section 89 
on  obligation  for  employer  to  employ  only  a 
foreigner with a valid work permit as well as a valid 
visa/residence permit. 

France 

Employment legislation 

institutionnel 
1974:  Creation  of  MILUTMO  (dispositif 
interministériel pour lutter contre les trafics de main-d’œuvre 
étrangère) :  originally  created 
the 
interministerial  mission  to  fight  against  foreign  labour,  but 
mission  evolved  to  include  all  forms  of  employment  and 
irregular employment independent of the nationality of those 
responsible of fraud and of the victims.  

the  context  of 

in 

1997 :  MILUTMO  was 
interministérielle à la lutte contre le travail illégal) 

replaced  by  DILTI 

(Délégation 

2004-2005 : National Action Plan is launched to convey the message 
that the fight against illegal work is a priority for the government 

Law of 24 July 2006 on immigration and integration : emphasises the 
obligations imposed on the employer to verify the status of the future 
employee 
in  previous  employment 
legislation)  

(and  already  established 

Latvia 

Labour Law139  

2004: ‘Regulations Regarding Work Permits for Aliens’ 

Criminal Law139  

Note: Art. 6 Cabinet Regulations No.44, 20 January 2004: 
‘Regulations Regarding Work Permits for Aliens’ 

2005139: Policy paper ‘National Lisbon Programme of Latvia for the 
period  2005-2008’:  here  the  reduction  of  illegal  employment  is 
discussed as one of the primary measures to improve the flexibility of 
national labour market. 

Slovakia 

Employment legislation  

2000, modifications in 2005 and 2006:  

Sanctions against illegal employment have also been governed by the 
Act  No.  95/2000  Coll.  on  Labour  Inspection  and  on  amendment  of 
certain acts which was with effect from July 1, 2006 replaced by the 
Act No. 125/2006 Coll. on Labour Inspection and as amended by the 
Act No. 82/2005 Coll. on Illegal Work and Illegal Employment and 
on amendment of certain acts. 

139 

[Year to be verified]. 

EN 

75 

   EN 

 
                                                 
ANNEX 5 – EMPLOYER SANCTIONS BY MEMBER STATE (SUPPORTING MATERIAL FOR OPTIONS 2 AND 4) 

Table A5.1 – Administrative sanctions by Member State 

Minimum  and  Maximum  amounts 
of fines /  

Description  

a) Fine imposed per illegally hired employee 

Evaluation  of  /  comments  on  effectiveness  of  the  measure  and  planned 
changes 

Austria 

min 1,000 euro 

max 50.000 euro 

Administrative  fine  for  each  employee  without  working  permission;  the 
amount depends on the number of workers and previous conviction 

to enforce prevention the amounts were raised in 2005 

(§ 

12)…oder 

Gemäß  §  28  Abs.  1  Z.  1  AuslBG  begeht  eine 
Verwaltungsübertretung,  wer  einen  Ausländer 
beschäftigt  der  …weder  eine  Zulassung  als 
Schlüsselkraft 
eine 
Niederlassungsbewilligung  -  unbeschränkt  (§  8) 
oder  einen  Aufenthaltstitel  Daueraufenthalt  EG  (§ 
45) oder einen Niederlassungsnachweis (§ 24 FrG) 
verfügt. Die Strafen reichen, je nach Wiederholung 
und Erschwernisgrund von 1.000,-- E bis 50.000,-- 
€. 

über 

Belgium 

(1) 

(2) 3,750 per worker 

(1)  Employers  who  do  not  properly  report  employees'  information  to  the 
social security administration can be administratively fined.  

(2)  Employers  can  be  subject  to  civil  fines  for 
hiring workers without residence and work permits, 

EN 

76 

EN

 
  
 
Table A5.1 – Administrative sanctions by Member State 

Minimum  and  Maximum  amounts 
of fines /  

Description  

Evaluation  of  /  comments  on  effectiveness  of  the  measure  and  planned 
changes 

i.e. unauthorised foreign workers. 

Bulgaria 

500-5,000 for individuals 

BGN  20  000  for 
entities 

legal 

Recommitment: 

BGN  1,000  –  BGN  10,000 
for individuals  

40,000  BGN 
entities 

for 

legal 

Greece 

3,000 to 15,000 euro per worker 

Hungary 

EN 

Fines  at  the  amount  of  BGN  500-5,000  for  individuals  (included  illegally 
hired foreigner) and sanctions at the amount of BGN 20 000 for legal entities. 

Comments:  the  measure  is  generally  effective;  problems  exists  with  ascertainment  and 
collection  

In  case  of  recommitment  -  BGN  1,000  –  BGN 
10,000  for  individuals  and  40,000  BGN  for  legal 
entities respectively. 

(rate  euro  /  BGN:  1,955800  BGN,  February  2006, 
Inforeuro, DG BUDG) 

It is forbidden to engage and employ TCNs without valid residence permit or 
a certification that they have applied the necessary supporting documentation 
for  the  issue  or  the  renewal  of  it.  Additionally,  employers  have  to  inform 
immediately the competent authority of the Region in the case of engagement 
of a foreign worker or when they change his employment contract (dismissal, 
resignation  etc.).  If  employers  violate  the  above  provisions,  the  General 
Secretary of the Region levies on them a fine (see left).  

77 

EN

 
  
 
 
Table A5.1 – Administrative sanctions by Member State 

Minimum  and  Maximum  amounts 
of fines /  

Description  

Evaluation  of  /  comments  on  effectiveness  of  the  measure  and  planned 
changes 

(1)  Max:  500,000  forints 
(approx.  1,940  euro)  per 
TCN 

(2)  Fine:  100,000  (approx. 
390 euro) 

(1) Act on Foreigners: Fine if employer fails to check their foreign employees 
before  entering  into  employment  in  order  to  ensure  that  the  foreigners  have 
valid visa or residence permit issued for employment purposes.  

In accordance with Article 40, paragraph (6)-(7) of 
the Act, the costs of expulsion shall be borne by the 
employer,  provided  the  residence  of  the  residence 
or employment of the foreigner is illegal. 

the  permitted  employment  of 

(2)  The  employers  are  also  obliged  to  report  the 
the 
failure  of 
foreigner or the termination of his/her employment 
within  the  period  of  validity  of  the  work  permit  to 
the competent labour authority within five working 
days. 

Failing  these  obligations  (under  the  Decree  of  the 
Minister  of  Labour  No.  3/1996.  (IV.  5.)  MüM  on 
administrative  fines),  the  employer  will  be  subject 
to an administrative fine up to 100,000 forints (390 
€).140 

Italy (to verify whether admin and/or penal) 

5,000 euro per TCN 

Fines. 

140 

CIA questionnaire 

EN 

78 

EN

 
  
 
 
 
                                                 
Table A5.1 – Administrative sanctions by Member State 

Minimum  and  Maximum  amounts 
of fines /  

Description  

Evaluation  of  /  comments  on  effectiveness  of  the  measure  and  planned 
changes 

Lithuania 

Fines per TCN: 

First time offence:  

Min: 870 euro 

Max: 2,900 euro, 

Repeat offence:  

Min 2,900 euro 

Max 5,800 euro 

Netherlands 

Fine for each illegally employed alien:  

For  employers  acting  as 
natural persons: 4,000 euro 

For  employers  acting  as  a 
legal  entity 
(enterprise): 
8,000 euro. 

The  Code  of  Administrative  Violations  of  Law  (2004)  contains  a  specific 
article on Illegal Work (Article 41(3)) as follows: 

All  statistics  concerning  illegal  work  in  the  Republic  of  Lithuania  include  all  cases  of 
illegal work. Until 2006 illegal work of third-country nationals were not separated from 
the absolute number of illegal work. 

In  2006  7  third-country  nationals  were  detected  working 
illegally. 

“Illegal  work  –  Brings  a  penalty  on  employers  or 
their authorised persons from three thousand to ten 
illegally 
thousand 
employed person. 

(870-2,900  euro)  per 

litas 

The  same  acts  taken  by  a  person  with  a  history  of 
previous penalties for the violations set forth in the 
first paragraph of this Article – Brings a penalty on 
employers  or  their  authorised  persons  from  ten 
thousand  to  twenty  thousand  litas  (2,900-5,800 
euro) per illegally employed person.“ 

Since  1  January  2005,  the  Employment  of  Aliens 
Act has included the possibility of an administrative 
penalty.  

EN 

79 

EN

 
  
 
 
Table A5.1 – Administrative sanctions by Member State 

Minimum  and  Maximum  amounts 
of fines /  

Description  

Portugal 

Fine:  2,000  to  27,500  euro  for  each 
foreign citizen in an irregular situation.  

Fines. 

The  owner  who  doesn’t  obtain  from  the  other 
contracting  party  (employer)  a  declaration  of  the 
fulfilment  of  obligations  laid  down  by  the  law 
relative to immigrant workers possibly hired is also 
liable.  

Evaluation  of  /  comments  on  effectiveness  of  the  measure  and  planned 
changes 

If the owner is the Public Administration the person 
responsible 
the  declaration 
mentioned  in  the  preceding  paragraph  is  liable  of 
disciplinary procedure. 

requiring 

for  not 

Infractions  pursued  with  mere  negligence  are 
punishable and in this case the amount of the fines 
is reduced to half. 

The attempt is not punishable.141 

Romania 

Government 
Emergency  Ordinance 
no.194/2002  on  the  regime  of  aliens  in 
Romania,  with  further  amendments  and 

But,  there  are  a  lot  of  provisions  which  establish  administrative  or  criminal 
sanctions in this field:  

(cid:190) 

For  aliens,  whose  access  on  the  labour  market  is  stipulated  by 

So far, the Romanian Authority for Aliens did not uncover or sanction criminal acts like 
those mentioned, and there are no statistics as regards the contravention sanctions applied 
to  employers,  the  sanctions  being  applied  by  employees  of  the  Territorial  Labour 

141 

CIA questionnaire 

EN 

80 

EN

 
  
 
                                                 
Evaluation  of  /  comments  on  effectiveness  of  the  measure  and  planned 
changes 

Inspectorates  during  their  joint  activities  with  territorial  units  of  Authority  for  Aliens, 
according to the agreements concluded between these two institutions. 

Both institutions have drafted a common methodology of inspection (control), in order to 
counter-fight illegal work on the black market labour and illegal stay of aliens. 

Table A5.1 – Administrative sanctions by Member State 

Minimum  and  Maximum  amounts 
of fines /  

completions,  does  not  include  special 
sanctions  against  employers  of  illegal 
workers (those who have illegal stay) 

Description  

Bilateral  Agreements  between  Romania  and  other  states,  the 
employers  shall  be  bound  to  inform  in  writing  the  Romanian 
Authority  for  Aliens  with  territorial  competence,  within  5  days 
from  the  entry  of  that  aliens  in  Romania,  on  certain  situation  of 
those persons (article 57 paragraph 2 corroborated with article 124 
point 7 and article 125 point c of Romanian GEO no. 194/2002 on 
the  regime  of  aliens  in  Romania,  with  further  amendments  and 
completions);  not  complying  of 
these  obligations  shall  be 
sanctioned by fine; 

(cid:190)  Also, facilitating, by any  means (even by hiring the alien without 
legal  forms),  the  illegal  stay  of  aliens  in  Romania  shall  be 
considered minor offence and shall be sanctioned with fine (article 
124  point  14  corroborated  with  article  125  point  c  of  Romanian 
GEO  no.  194/2002  on  the  regime  of  aliens  in  Romania,  with 
further amendments and completions); 

Another  legal  provision,  with  character  of  complementary  penalty,  for  the 
employer  of  an  alien  with  illegal  stay  is  that  provided  under  article  132 
paragraph  2  of  Romanian  GEO  no.  194/2002,  which  stipulates  that  the 
employer,  individual  or  legal  entity,  shall  be  bound  to  bear  the  expenses  for 
the removal of the alien whom he employed illegally or whose stay permit is 
no longer valid. 

All these sanctions shall be applied to any employer even if he/she is private 
or commercial employer. 

There is not any fine for the foreign employee, only 
for the employer. 

EN 

81 

EN

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A5.1 – Administrative sanctions by Member State 

Minimum  and  Maximum  amounts 
of fines /  

Description  

Evaluation  of  /  comments  on  effectiveness  of  the  measure  and  planned 
changes 

According  to  paragraph  1 
letter  e)  of  Article  276  of 
Romanian Law no. 53/2003 
the  Labour  Code, 
– 
by  Romanian 
amended 
Emergency 
Government 
Ordinance 
no.55/2006, 
“accepting  for  work  of  a 
person,  without  concluding 
labour 
an 
to 
contract, 
article  16  paragraph  (1),  is 
sanctioned  with  fine  from 
1,500  to  2,000  RON  for 
person, 
each 
the 
without 

individual 

exceeding 

according 

identified 

According to Article 61 of Romanian Law no. 203/1999 on 
work  permits, 
republished  with  amendments  and 
completions, within 30 days from the starting date of their 
activity  in  Romania,  the  aliens,  who  are  working  in 
Romania  without  work  permit  (exceptions  provided  by 
law),  have  to  register  themselves  to  the  Romanian  Office 
for Labour Force Migration (OLFM).  

The  Romanian  Law  no.  203/1999  does  not  yet  provide 
sanctions  for  the  aliens,  in  such  cases  of  intentional 
avoidance  of  complying  with  the  obligations  set  in  these 
provisions. Thus, one of proposals, advanced by Romanian 
Ministry  of  Labour,  Social  Security  and  Family,  on 
amending  Romanian  Law  no.  203/1999 
the  one 
regarding  the  sanctions  which  will  be  applied  in  cases  of 
infringement of provisions of Article 61.  

is 

EN 

82 

EN

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A5.1 – Administrative sanctions by Member State 

Minimum  and  Maximum  amounts 
of fines /  

Description  

Evaluation  of  /  comments  on  effectiveness  of  the  measure  and  planned 
changes 

cumulated value of 100 000 
RON”  (cir.  440-590  Euro, 
max: 29,410 Euro ) 

(rate euro / RON: 3,409000 
RON, 
2006, 
February 
Inforeuro, DG BUDG) 

Law 

according 

Also, 
to 
paragraph 1 of article 11 of 
no. 
Romanian 
203/1999  on  work  permits, 
with 
republished 
and 
amendments 
completions, 
“the 
employment without a work 
permit  or  maintaining  in 
employment  of  an  alien, 
who  has  not  a  valid  work 
permit, by a natural or legal 
person  in  Romania,  except 
of  the  cases  established  in 
article  6  of  Romanian  Law 
no.  203/1999,  republished, 
contravention 
represents 
and  it  is  sanctioned  with 

EN 

83 

EN

 
  
Table A5.1 – Administrative sanctions by Member State 

Minimum  and  Maximum  amounts 
of fines /  

Description  

fine  from  5,000  RON  to 
10,000  RON.”  (cir.  1470-
2,940 Euro) 

Evaluation  of  /  comments  on  effectiveness  of  the  measure  and  planned 
changes 

situation 

The sanctions shall apply to 
the  employer,  not  to  the 
is 
alien.  This 
applicable 
the  cases 
in 
where  the  alien  concluded 
an 
labour 
contract  in  written  form, 
without  first  obtaining  a 
work permit.  

individual 

Spain 

Minimum: 6001 euro 

Maximum: 60,000 euro 

employed 

illegally 

per 
person 

United Kingdom 

“La contratación de trabajadores extranjeros sin haber obtenido con _dministr 
previo  el  correspondiente  autorización  de  trabajo,  incurriéndose  en  una 
infracción  por  cada  uno  de  los  trabajadores  extranjeros  ocupados”  es  una 
infracción _dministrative del tipo referido, sancionable con multa de 6.001 a 
60.000 euros (por cada trabajador) según el artículo 55.1.c) de la misma Ley 
Orgánica.” 

There  has  not  been  an  evaluation  and  there  is  a  feeling  that  the  fines  are  effective. 
However, there are many companies that continue to get fined year after year for using 
illegal TCNs. There are even some companies that continue to get fined year after year 
and can become insolvent, but these are usually small companies.  

There  are  currently  no  administrative 
sanctions in place.  

N/A 

Following  evaluation  of  the  current  legislation  on  the  prevention  of  illegal  migrant 
working  (section  8  of  the  Asylum  and  Immigration  Act  1996),  it  was  decided  that 
changes  should  be  made  to  the  law  in  this  area.  New  measures,  contained  in  the 
Immigration Asylum and Nationality Act (“the 2006 Act”) are due to come into force in 
late 2007. The 2006 Act introduces a two-pronged approach to tackling illegal  migrant 
working; administrative sanctions (civil penalties) for negligent employers, as well as a 

EN 

84 

EN

 
  
Table A5.1 – Administrative sanctions by Member State 

Minimum  and  Maximum  amounts 
of fines /  

Description  

Evaluation  of  /  comments  on  effectiveness  of  the  measure  and  planned 
changes 

tough new criminal offence for those found to be knowingly and deliberately employing 
illegal  migrant  workers.  An  employer  convicted  for  the  new  “knowing  offence”  could 
face imprisonment for up to two years and/or an unlimited fine.  

The  2006  Act  provides  for  a  civil  penalty  (maximum 
amount  to  be  decided  following  public  consultation  and 
Parliamentary  debate)  per  employee  working  illegally.  If 
employers  wish  to  avail  themselves  of  a  statutory  excuse 
from  liability  to  a  civil  penalty  they  are  advised  to 
undertake  pre-employment  checks  (by  checking,  copying 
and  retaining  a  copy  of  specified  documents  which 
demonstrate a job applicant’s right to work in the UK). The 
employer  may  be  served  with  a  civil  penalty  if  they  are 
found to be employing an illegal migrant worker and either 
have  not  availed  themselves  of  the  statutory  excuse,  or 
were negligent in undertaking the recommended document 
into 
checks.  Individual  circumstances  will  be 
consideration when deciding on the level of the penalty to 
be administered.  

taken 

These  measures  are  due  to  be  implemented  late  2007, 
following public consultation in Spring 2007.  

b) Single fine for the offence 

Czech Republic 

EN 

85 

EN

 
  
 
Table A5.1 – Administrative sanctions by Member State 

Minimum  and  Maximum  amounts 
of fines /  

Description  

Evaluation  of  /  comments  on  effectiveness  of  the  measure  and  planned 
changes 

 0 – 2 millions CZK 

For an employer in case of employment of illegally staying or working third-
country nationals; sanctions are also for illegal employees (0 – 10 000,- CZK) 

Increased sanctions were issued in 2004, they seem to be enough effective, the amount is 
quite high in consideration of the situation in the CR. 

(rate euro / CZK: 28,300000 CZK, February 2006, 
Inforeuro, DG BUDG) 

Estonia 

Private employers: Up to 18,000 kroons 

The amount of the fine differs for enterprises and private employers.142 

Since  the  fines  are  quite  low  at  the  moment,  it  is  under  consideration  to  change  the 
regulation – raise the max amount and add non-financial sanctions. 

Enterprises:  Up  to  50,000 
kroons. 

Finland 

Min 1,500 

Max 15,000 

In December 2006, Parliament passed an Act on customer liability and this 
has  come  into  force  in  January  2007.  This  Act  regulates  the  customer 
company’s  responsibilities  and  liability  to  gather  information  when  using 
external labour force. It establishes that a customer company has a liability to 
establish  if  the  company  is  entered  in  the  Withholding  Tax,  Employer,  and 
VAT Registers. This liability also includes an extract from the Trade Register, 
certificate  of  payment  of  taxes,  tax  liability  certificate  or  a  report  of  having 
prepared  a  payment  plan  of  tax  liabilities.  This  liability  would  also  cover 
information  on  pension  insurance  and  on  collective  agreement  or  central 
employment conditions applicable to the work. (PIELAMI report) 

An administrative fee Code may be imposed on an 
employer  who  neglects  his  or  her  duty  to  obtain 
information.  It  may  amount  from  EUR  1,500  to 

142 

CIA questionnaire 

EN 

86 

EN

 
  
 
                                                 
Table A5.1 – Administrative sanctions by Member State 

Minimum  and  Maximum  amounts 
of fines /  

Description  

Evaluation  of  /  comments  on  effectiveness  of  the  measure  and  planned 
changes 

15,000 and its amount would be determined by the 
seriousness  of  the  offence.  The  decision  on  the 
penalty would be made by the Occupational Safety 
and  Health  Office  of  the  Occupational  Safety  and 
Health 
supervise 
compliance with the act.  

Inspectorate,  which 

to 

is 

Aliens  Act,  section  186:  violations  of  the  Aliens 
Act by employers are sanctioned with a fine. Aliens 
Act  outlines,  among  other  things  (sections  70,  73), 
the  requirement  on  the  part  of  the  employer  to 
declare and verify the status of new employee. Act 
does not stipulate min. or max. fine. 

The  payment  of  a  wage  below  the  collective 
agreements  or  a  violation  of  other  working 
conditions  constitutes  a  breach  of  the  collective 
agreements.  Violation  of  the  collective  agreements 
is sanctioned by the Collective Agreements Act by 
a fine. 

France 

EN 

87 

EN

 
  
 
 
Table A5.1 – Administrative sanctions by Member State 

Minimum  and  Maximum  amounts 
of fines /  

Description  

Min: 500 times minimum wage 

Max:  5000  times  minimum 
wage 

(Note:  July  2006:  1000 
times  min.  wage  =  3,170 
Euro) 

Fines  paid  to  ANAEM:  L’employeur  verbalisé  pour  l’emploi  d’un  étranger 
sans  autorisation  de  travail  doit  payer  une  contribution  spéciale  à  l’Agence 
nationale  de  l’accueil  des  étrangers  et  des  migrations  (ANAEM),  au  titre  de 
l’article L.341-7 du code du travail. Le montant de cette pénalité s’établit à 1 
000 fois le taux horaire du minimum garanti, soit 3 170 € au 1er juillet 2006. 
La contribution spéciale peut être minorée ou majorée : elle est comprise entre 
500 et 5 000 fois le taux horaire du minimum garanti. Dans certains cas, cette 
contribution spéciale peut être payée par le donneur d’ordre qui a eu recours à 
cet employeur.143 

En  outre, 
l’employeur  doit  verser  au  salarié 
embauché irrégulièrement une indemnité forfaitaire 
équivalente à un mois de salaire. 

Evaluation  of  /  comments  on  effectiveness  of  the  measure  and  planned 
changes 

La  pénalité  administrative  de  la  contribution  spéciale  applicable  à  tout  employeur  d’un 
étranger sans titre de travail a concerné 1 201 salariés étrangers en 2003 et 956 salariés 
étrangers en 2005.  

La  France  a 
renforcé  son  système  de  sanctions 
administratives,  d’une  part  en  augmentant  le  taux  de  la 
contribution spéciale et d’autre part en créant une nouvelle 
pénalité  administrative :  la  contribution  forfaitaire  (décret 
n° 2006-660 du 6 juin 2006). 

des 

une 

relevant 

En  cas  de  condamnation,  il  est  exclu  pendant  cinq 
ans  des  marchés  et  des  contrats  publics.  Enfin, 
lorsque  l'autorité  compétente  a  connaissance  d'un 
procès-verbal 
infractions 
constitutives de travail illégal, elle peut, eu égard à 
la  gravité  des  faits  constatés,  à  la  nature  des  aides 
sollicitées  et  à  l'avantage  qu'elles  procurent  à 
l'employeur,  refuser  d'accorder,  pendant  une  durée 
maximale de cinq ans, les aides publiques à l'emploi 
et  à  la  formation  professionnelle  à  la  personne 
physique  ou  morale  ayant  fait  l'objet  de  cette 
verbalisation.  

143 

CIA questionnaire 

EN 

88 

EN

 
  
 
                                                 
Table A5.1 – Administrative sanctions by Member State 

Minimum  and  Maximum  amounts 
of fines /  

Description  

Evaluation  of  /  comments  on  effectiveness  of  the  measure  and  planned 
changes 

Germany 

Max 500,000 euro 

Latvia 

Fine: for private employers: 140-700 euro  

Fine:  for  enterprises:  700-
14,000 euro 

Malta 

Romania 

Maximum  penalty  for  illegal  employment  of  aliens,  regarded  as  particularly 
harmful  for  society,  was  recently  increased  from  250,000  to  500,000  euro. 
According to German law it is not possible to impose sanctions on a physical 
person  (legal  entity),  only  natural  persons.  The  amount  of  the  fine  is 
dependent on the seriousness of the crime, and once this has been determined, 
personal and financial status of the person are taken into account. 

The  main  indicator  of  infringement  is  the  absence 
of a valid work permit. 

The previous penalty of 25 Maltese Lira (58 euro) for employers employing 
staff  without  declaring  their  employment  –  irrespective  of  the  number  of 
persons employed – was raised significantly in January 2005. On payment of 
the  fine,  the  employer  will  be  compelled  to  complete  the  ETC  engagement 
form.144 

2,000 
(approx. 590 – 880 Euro) 

3,000  RON 

– 

144 

EN 

European Employment Observatory; Review autumn 2004. Chapter on “Thematic Overview: Fighting the immeasurable? Addressing the phenomenon of 
undeclared work in the European Union”. 

89 

EN

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table A5.1 – Administrative sanctions by Member State 

Minimum  and  Maximum  amounts 
of fines /  

Description  

Slovak Republic 

Evaluation  of  /  comments  on  effectiveness  of  the  measure  and  planned 
changes 

Fine:  max:  up  to  1,000,000 
SKK 

A  fine  up  to  1,000,000  SKK  may  be  imposed  on  legal  entity  or  a  natural 
person  who  is  an  entrepreneur  for  illegal  employment  under  a  special 
regulation.  

Was not realised 

(rate euro / SKK: 35,278000 SKK, February 2006, 
Inforeuro, DG BUDG) 

Slovenia 

Fines:  vary  between  SIT  50,000  (212 
euro) and SIT 5 million (21,200 euro). 

Penalties envisaged by the LPBWE.145 

Unclear if fine is imposed per illegal worker or for the offence 

Poland 

Administrative fine. Obligation to incur the costs of expulsion. 

Obligatory  refusal  to  grant  the  work  permit  for  a 
foreign  person  issued  in  relation  to  an  employer 
who  violated 
the  provisions  of  employment 
promotion and market labour institutions (duration: 
one year).146 

145 
146 

EN 

Thematic feature: industrial relations and undocumented work: Slovenia. June 2004. http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2004/06/tfeature/si0406205t.html 
CIA questionnaire. 

90 

EN

 
  
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table A5.1 – Administrative sanctions by Member State 

Minimum  and  Maximum  amounts 
of fines /  

Description  

Sweden 

Administrative fine 

Table A5.2 – Penal sanctions in the Member States 

Minimum  and  Maximum  amounts 
of fines /  

Description  

Years of imprisonment 

Austria 

Evaluation  of  /  comments  on  effectiveness  of  the  measure  and  planned 
changes 

Evaluation  of  /  comments  on  effectiveness  of  the  measure  and  planned 
changes 

Fine from 1,000 to 50,000 euro 

Fine, amount according to seriousness of crime and repeat crime. 

Min  6  months 
imprisonment 

to  max  5  years 

Penal  sanctions  for  not  paying  contributions  to  social  insurance  or  organising 
illegal  employment  Organised  illegal  employment  is  presumed  when  employing 
about 10 persons. 

The Act of Social Fraud was launched March, 1st 2005. Due to lasting court procedures 
more time for evaluation is needed. 

Belgium 

Min 15,000 euro per worker 

Employers  can  be  subject  to  criminal  fines  for  hiring  unauthorised  foreign 
workers.  

Fines ranging from 12,500 to 62,500 euro 
and/or  prison  sentences  ranging  from  8 
days to 1 year. 

Employers  who  do  not  properly  report  employees'  information  to  the  social 
security administration can be subject to penal sanctions. 147 

Denmark 

147 

CIA questionnaire 

EN 

91 

EN

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table A5.2 – Penal sanctions in the Member States 

Minimum  and  Maximum  amounts 
of fines /  

Description  

Years of imprisonment 

DKR  10,000  per  employed  foreigner  per 
month 

Any  person  who  employs  an  alien  not  issued  with  the  requisite  work  permit  or 
does so in violation of the conditions laid down for the issue of a work permit is 
liable to a fine or imprisonment for up to 2 years. 

DKR  20,000  per  employed  foreigner  per 
month (aggravating circumstances) 

There is no requirement of intent. Negligence is sufficient for criminal sanctions to 
be applied.  

Max  prison  sentence  illegal  migrant:  1 
year 

Attempt is also criminalised. 

Max prison sentence employer: 2 years 

It  is  considered  an  aggravating  circumstance  if  the  violation  was  committed 
intentionally or by gross negligence, if, through the violation, a financial gain was 
obtained or intended for the benefit of the person involved or others, or if the alien 
is not entitled to stay in Denmark.148 

Finland 

Max: 1 or 4 years imprisonment if offence 
is aggravated 

The  use  of  illegal  foreign  labour  is  punishable  under  the  Penal  Code.  Only 
intentional acts are punishable. Section 6a of the Penal Code establishes sanctions 
for  work  permit  offences  committed  by  the  employer,  namely  employing  a 
foreigner without a work permit, with a fine or imprisonment for up to one year. In 
practice, the use of illegal foreign labour often also involves other offences, such 
as tax fraud and accounting offence. If the offence is aggravated, the sanction may 
be up to four years imprisonment. Furthermore, the employer may be sentenced to 
forfeit the proceeds of crime and to compensate the damage caused to the injured 
party. 

France 

(1) Max: 5 years of imprisonment, 15,000 
euro fine for every illegal worker 

(1) Violation by employer. 

Evaluation  of  /  comments  on  effectiveness  of  the  measure  and  planned 
changes 

En 2003, selon les statistiques du ministère de la justice, les tribunaux correctionnels ont 
prononcé 110 condamnations pour emploi d’étrangers sans titre de travail. En 2004, ce 
chiffre  s’élève  à  188,  dont  67  peines  d’emprisonnement  ferme  ou  avec  sursis  et  94 

148 

CIA questionnaire 

EN 

92 

EN

 
  
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation  of  /  comments  on  effectiveness  of  the  measure  and  planned 
changes 

amendes.  

Dans son rapport au Bureau international du travail (BIT) sur l’activité des services de 
l’inspection du travail pour l’année 2004, le ministère du travail indique que l’infraction 
d’emploi d’étranger sans titre de travail a donné lieu à 444 procès-verbaux et à 12 peines 
d’emprisonnement ferme ou avec sursis et 63 amendes. 

Table A5.2 – Penal sanctions in the Member States 

Minimum  and  Maximum  amounts 
of fines /  

Description  

Years of imprisonment 

(2)  Max:  10  years  of  imprisonment, 
100,000 euro fine for every illegal worker 

(2) Violation by organised gangs.  

Penal sanctions: If the employer is found to be a foreigner him/herself, s/he can be 
prohibited  to  reside  on  the  national  territory  during  5  or  more  years  (art.364-8-6 
modifié du code du travail). If the infringement is commited within the context of 
a gang / organised group, all or part of the employers’ goods can be confiscated 
(art.364-8 modifié du code du travail)..149 

Germany 

(1)  Max  prison  sentence  for  employment 
of at least five illegal immigrants: 1 year 

(1)  If  at  least  five  foreigners  are  employed  without  work  permit  the  maximum 
sentence is one year. 

(2) Max prison sentence: three years 

(2) The maximum penalty for legal employment itself is three years imprisonment 
in particularly aggravating circumstances.  

Greece 

Max.: 3 to 6 months of imprisonment 

Hungary 

Max: 2 years of imprisonment 

The employment without the appropriate residence permit drives to imprisonment 
sentence. Prison sentence for at least 3 months and, in case of recurrence, up to 6 
months.  Aggravated  circumstances  apply  (e.g.  illegal  work  in  nightclubs  or 
prostitution). 150 

In  criminal  law,  under  Article  310/A  (Employment-related  Tax  Fraud)  of  the 
Penal  Code  to  evade  the  payment  of  any  mandatory  contribution  payable  by  the 
payer of personal wages to any sub-system of the central budget on behalf of an 

149 
150 
151 

CIA questionnaire 
CIA questionnaire 
CIA questionnaire 

EN 

93 

EN

 
  
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Table A5.2 – Penal sanctions in the Member States 

Minimum  and  Maximum  amounts 
of fines /  

Description  

Years of imprisonment 

Evaluation  of  /  comments  on  effectiveness  of  the  measure  and  planned 
changes 

employee who is employed: 

a) without an employment contract; 

b) by a fictitious contract; 

if  the  combined  amount  of  taxes  thus  evaded  results  in  minor  losses  in  tax 
revenues constitutes an offence and shall be punished by imprisonment up to two 
years. 

Criminal  sanctions  are  increased  if  the  activities  are  linked  to  criminal  actions 
related to human trafficking, enslaving or minors trafficking.151 

All persons/employers who contravene Section 2 of the Employment Permits Acts 
2003 and 2006 are on summary conviction liable to a fine not exceeding €3,000 or 
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both, or if the offence is an 
offence  consisting  of  a  contravention,  on  conviction  on  indictment,  to  a  fine  not 
exceeding €250,000 or imprisonment not exceeding 10 years or both. 

(1)  Legislation:  The  person  who  acts  as  a  go-between  in  the  labour  field  can  be 
sanctioned  as  follows:  arrest  up  to  6  months  and  a  fine  ranging  from  1,500  to 
7,500 euros. Aggravating circumstances are provided for in case of child labour as 

Ireland 

Fine 

Minimum: ? 

Maximum: 3,000 euro / 250,000 euro 

Imprisonment 

Maximum: 12 months / 10 years 

Italy 

(1)  For  the  person  who  acts  as  a  go-
between: 
Max. 

imprisonment: 

months 

6 

152 

CIA questionnaire 

EN 

94 

EN

 
  
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation  of  /  comments  on  effectiveness  of  the  measure  and  planned 
changes 

Table A5.2 – Penal sanctions in the Member States 

Minimum  and  Maximum  amounts 
of fines /  

Description  

Years of imprisonment 

Min. 
Max. fine: 7,500 euro 

fine: 

1,500 

euro 

well as penalty reduction if the activity is not profit-making. 

(2) Imprisonment: Min. 3 months, max. 1 
year 
Fine: 5,000 euro for each worker illegally 
employed.  

(2)  Legislation  on  foreigners:  Should  illegally  staying  foreign  workers  be 
employed,  the  penalty  for  the  employer  ranges  from  3  months  to  1  year 
imprisonment and a 5,000 euros fine for each worker employed. 

Criminal  sanctions  are  increased  if  the  activities  are  linked  to  criminal  actions 
related to human trafficking, enslaving or minors trafficking.152 

Latvia 

Fine (Art. 196: Max. 80 min. salaries, Art. 
280: Max. 50 min. salaries, Art. 285: max. 
100 salaries) 

The  Criminal  Law  of  Latvia  does  not  stipulate  the  criminal  liability  specifically 
for employing illegally staying third country nationals. However, where such fact 
is  established,  following  provisions  of  the  Criminal  Law  may  be  applied  to 
employers, depending on the particular substance of the case:  

Custodial arrest (Art. 196, Art. 280) 

Community  service  (Art.  196,  Art.280, 
Art. 2851.) 

Article  196:  Intended  misuse  or  abuse  of  authority:  Article  280:  Violation  of 
employment  provisions:  Article  2851(3):  Ensuring  with  the  opportunity  to  reside 
illegally in Latvia. 

Confiscation (Art. 196, Art. 2851) 

Under the provisions of Criminal Law negligence is sufficient.153 

Imprisonment  (Art.  196:  max.  5  years, 
Art.  280:  max.  1  year,  Art.  2851,  max.  5 
years) 

Luxembourg 

Fine  

153 

CIA questionnaire. 

EN 

The  Law  of  3  August  1977:  Article  8  specifies  that  breaches  of  the  law  are 
punished by a fine and, in cases of re-offending within five years, by a penalty of 
imprisonment ranging between 8 days and 6 months and a fine of up to twice the 

95 

EN

 
  
 
 
 
                                                 
Table A5.2 – Penal sanctions in the Member States 

Minimum  and  Maximum  amounts 
of fines /  

Description  

Evaluation  of  /  comments  on  effectiveness  of  the  measure  and  planned 
changes 

Years of imprisonment 

Imprisonment:  Min.  8  days,  max.  6 
months 

Netherlands 

Max fine: 67.000 euro 

Max imprisonment: 1 year 

Poland 

Min fine: 3,000 PLN 

Max: 5,000 PLN 

maximum  penalty,  or  one  of  these  penalties  only.  In  all  the  cases  specified  in 
Articles 1 and 2, the cessation of the illegal working is ordered. 

Article 9 creates the possibility of an agreed settlement.  

Anyone who employs an alien who has entered the Netherlands illegally or should 
have serious reasons to suspect illegal entrance of the alien can be prosecuted and 
sentenced for a maximum of 1 year imprisonment or a fine of the 5th category. 

Aggravated circumstances: 

-  making  it  a  profession  or  habit:  maximum  3  years  imprisonment  /  5th  cat.
-  Committing  a  crime  in  any  profession  or  as  an  public  servant:  refusal  of 
profession or public service  

In the Netherlands minimum sanctions are not applied. 

The performance of work or entrusts to a person the performance of work at post 
or  under  conditions  other  than  those  specified  in  the  work  permit  is  liable  to  a 
financial penalty not lower than 3 000 PLN. Adjudication in the above mentioned 
cases follows the procedure of provisions in the Act of 24 August 2001 – Code of 
proceedings in cases of petty offences. The upper limit for sanctions in Poland is 
5 000  PLN.  Attempt,  instigation  and  assistance  are  not  subject  to  penalty.  It  is 
possible  though  to  commit  the  above  mentioned  offence,  both  intentionally  and 
unintentionally, in the form of conscious inadvertence (colloquially: recklessness), 
as  well  as  in  the  form  of  unaware  inadvertence  (colloquially:  negligence). 
Aggravating circumstances. 154 

154 

CIA questionnaire. 

EN 

96 

EN

 
  
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation  of  /  comments  on  effectiveness  of  the  measure  and  planned 
changes 

Table A5.2 – Penal sanctions in the Member States 

Minimum  and  Maximum  amounts 
of fines /  

Description  

Years of imprisonment 

Criminal sanctions may also extend to the undeclared workers; a person engaging 
in gainful employment while registered as unemployed and who neglects to notify 
the state labour office of this fact  may be fined PLN 500, and a foreign national 
working  in  Poland  without  the  appropriate  work  permit  may  be  fined  PLN 
1,000.155 

Romania 

provisions 

Before  the  end  of  2004,  there  were  not 
any 
the  Romanian 
in 
legislation  stipulating  sanctions  imposed 
for illegally hired employees.  

Romanian  Government  Emergency  Ordinance  no.194/2002  was  amended  in 
November 2004 by Romanian Law no. 482/2004 and in July 2005 by Romanian 
Government  Emergency  Ordinance  no.113/2005,  which  was  approved,  with 
amendments, by Romanian Law no. 306/2005. 

Law  no.  482/2004  and  GEO  no.113/2005  introduce  new  articles  in  the  text  of 
GEO no. 194/2002, such as art. 1301 and 1302.  

If  the  facilitation,  by  any  means,  of  illegal  stay  of  aliens  in  Romania  implies  a 
social risk with high potential, this shall be considered major offence.  

Article 1301 stipulates that:  

Paragraph  1  -  Intentional  facilitation,  by  any  means,  of  illegal  stay  of  aliens  in 
Romania shall represent major offence and shall be sanctioned with imprisonment 
from 6 months to 5 years.  

Paragraph 2 - The offence stipulated in paragraph 1 is considered aggravated if it 
is committed under the following circumstances aggravated: 

a) 
b) 

by two or more persons together;  
if there has been caused a serious injury to life or corporal integrity, it 
shall be sanctioned with imprisonment from 2 years to 8 years; 

155 

EN 

Thematic feature: industrial relations and undocumented work: Poland. June 2004. http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2004/06/tfeature/pl0406107t.html 

97 

EN

 
  
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Table A5.2 – Penal sanctions in the Member States 

Minimum  and  Maximum  amounts 
of fines /  

Description  

Years of imprisonment 

Paragraph 3 - If the offence had as a result the death of the alien, the sentence shall 
be imprisonment from 3 to 15 years; 

Evaluation  of  /  comments  on  effectiveness  of  the  measure  and  planned 
changes 

Paragraph 31 – If the offence stipulated in paragraph 1 was committed by a person 
who  is  member  of  an  organised  group  or  the  person  has  obtained  for  himself  or 
someone  else 
the 
inprisonment period shall be supplimented with 3 years. 

important  material  benefits, 

the  special  maximum  of 

Paragraph 4 - The attempt shall be punished. 

Article 1302 stipulates that: 

Paragraph 1 - If the offence stipulated in article 1301 was committed in the name 
or  interest  of  a  legal  person,  by  its  bodies  or  representatives,  it  is  sanctioned  by 
fine. 

Paragraph 2 - The same fine shall be applicable if the offence stipulated in article 
1301 was committed in the name or interest of a legal person, as a result of non-
applying  control  attributions  by  the  persons  stipulated  by  paragraph  1,  by  any 
person under their authority. 

Paragraph  3  -  The  responsibility  of  the  legal  person  does  not  entail  exemption 
from  penal  responsibility  of  the  persons  who  participated  in  committing  the 
offence stipulated by Article 1301. 

Spain 

Fine: 6-12 months 

Prison sentence: 2-5 years 

Infringement  to  employ  foreigners  without  work  permit  under  conditions  that 
disregard rights conferred by law, collective agreement or individual agreement; to 
promote or facilitate immigration or clandestine. Fines and prison sentences. 

In  Spain  there  are  either  penal  or  administrative  fines.  For  the  same  crime  a  company 
cannot  receive  both  charges,  so  if  the  charge  becomes  penal  it  is  no  longer 
administrative.  There  is  a  special  protection  for  foreigners  but  this  is  more  around 
human trafficking.  

Las conductas tipificadas como delito en los artículos 312 y 313 del Código Penal, 
previamente señaladas, tienen previstas unas penas de prisión de dos a cinco años 

EN 

98 

EN

 
  
 
Table A5.2 – Penal sanctions in the Member States 

Minimum  and  Maximum  amounts 
of fines /  

Description  

Years of imprisonment 

y multa de seis a doce meses.  

Para la imposición de dichas penas por los Jueces y Tribunales, se tienen en cuenta 
las reglas generales, establecidas en el mencionado Código Penal, de aplicación de 
las  penas  y  de  determinación  de  las  circunstancias  que  atenúan  o  agravan  la 
responsabilidad criminal o eximan, en su caso, de la misma. 

If  an  employer  wishes  to  avail  himself  of  a  statutory  defence  from  prosecution 
under section 8 of the 1996 Act, he should undertake prescribed pre-employment 
checks, by checking, copying and retaining a copy of specified documents which 
demonstrate  a  job  applicant’s  right  to  work  in  the  UK.  He  will  then  have 
established a defence from prosecution for the duration of the employment of that 
worker, and may not be liable for prosecution.  

United Kingdom 

Following  conviction  under  section  8  of 
the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 (as 
amended)  (“the  1996  Act”),  an  employer 
can be fined up to the statutory maximum 
(currently  £5,000)  per  illegal  worker  in  a 
Magistrates/Sheriff Court and can receive 
an unlimited fine in a Crown Court.  

(rate  euro 
February 2006, Inforeuro, DG BUDG) 

/  GBP:  0,660300  GBP, 

Evaluation  of  /  comments  on  effectiveness  of  the  measure  and  planned 
changes 

Measures in the 1996 Act make no attempt to distinguish between those employers who 
are  negligent  in  their  recruitment  practices,  and  those  who  deliberately  and  knowingly 
seek  to  employ  illegal  migrant  workers.  That  is  why  the  2006  Act  introduces  the 
criminal offence of knowingly employing illegal migrant workers.  

Under section 21 of the 2006 Act, a person found guilty of the “knowing” offence shall 
be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years and/or an unlimited fine in 
a Crown Court. In a Magistrates/Sheriff Court, the offence carries a maximum 6 month 
prison  sentence  in  England  or  Wales,  or  3  months  in  Scotland  and  Northern  Ireland, 
and/or a fine up to the statutory maximum. The “knowing” offence will come into force 
in late 2007, alongside the introduction of civil penalties. However as stated above, the 
evaluation  of  existing  legislation  led  to  the  proposal  of  these  new  administrative  and 
criminal sanctions.  

The  introduction  of  civil  penalties  will  provide  a  swift  an  effective  means  of  tackling 
negligent employers, without criminalising them. This will allow us to concentrate our 
prosecution  resources  on  rogue  employers  who  knowingly  and  deliberately  use  illegal 
migrant workers, often for their own personal financial gain.  

EN 

99 

EN

 
  
ANNEX 6 – PREVENTIVE MEASURES BY MEMBER STATE (SUPPORTIVE MATERIAL FOR OPTIONS 3 AND 4) 

Table A6.1 – Preventive measures 

Country 

Description of measure 

Evaluation of / comments on effectiveness of the measure: and planned changes  

3.1 Measures placing the responsibility on the employer to declare new employees and verify their status 

a) (Limited) declaration of workers:  

Immediate  declaration  of  new  employees  by  their  employers  to  the  appropriate  (local,  regional  or  national)  authorities,  often  local  employment  office  or  social  security  body).  Information  to  be  declared  include  e.g.  the 
employee’s social security number and nationality, pay rate, working hours, and employment entry date. In some cases new registers or databases have been set up to facilitate the implementation of this measure. 

In a number of Member States this declaration of workers is limited, e.g. is only applicable when hiring TCN, for certain sectors, or when working time exceeds a specified number of days and/or a specified minimum number 
of employees are employed. 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Since 1 January 2003 employers must declare employees immediately.  156 Employers are required to 
electronically  report  information  on  new  employees  to  the  social  security  administration.  This 
information includes the employees' social security number and employment entry date.157  

Submission  of  notice  (declaration  within  a  3-day  period  from  the  conclusion  of  labour  contract)  for 
new employees by their employers to the local directorates of the National Agency on Revenues.  

Comments: the measure is effective because by the notice the employer declares data related to 
its and the new employee’s identification numbers and also data for the employment contract. 

Czech Republic 

TCN according to Czech Employment Act: 

need work permit 

some special categories do not need work permit 

Employers of both categories have to announce the day when TCN commences work to local Labour 
Office in written form. They also have to announce all changes concerning TCNs’ work activity (quit 
work, change of residence status).  

156 

157 

OECD  Employment  Outlook  2004.  Chapter  5: 
(http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/25/34846912.pdf) 
CIA questionnaire.  

Informal  Employment  and  Promoting 

the  Transition 

to  a  Salaried  Economy 

EN 

100 

EN

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table A6.1 – Preventive measures 

Country 

Description of measure 

Evaluation of / comments on effectiveness of the measure: and planned changes  

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Greece 

158 
159 
160 

EN 

Employers are due to keep a record of all foreign employees.  

In early July 2004, following an inspection campaign on undeclared work the minister responsible for 
taxation announced new  measures,  which include the registration of all employees  with the relevant 
authorities from their first working day.158 

In case of short-term employment the person is obliged to register it in the Citizenship and Migration 
Board. 

According  to  paragraph  73  of  the  revised  Aliens  Act  (301/2004),  an  employer  that  hires  a  'third-
country'  employee  must  without  any  delay  report  this  to  an  employment  office  and  also  inform  the 
workplace about the recruitment of the foreign worker and the collective agreement that applies.159 

No evaluation of effectiveness of measure. 

Since  1993,  employers  are  obliged  to  declare  an  employee  (currently  via  the  déclaration  préalable  à 
l’embauche, DPAE) to the social security body URSSAF before work starts. 160 

Environ 2,8 M de DPAE sont déposées chaque mois. 

Le défaut de DPAE constitue une infraction passible de sanctions pénales. 

La  mise  en  place  de  cette  mesure  rencontre  donc  un  véritable  succès  dans  la  facilitation  du 
contrôle et dans la promotion de la transparence de l’emploi.  

Effectiveness is enhanced due to the fact that,  in addition, the relevant  employer organisation 
and trade union is to be informed about the recruitment of ‘foreign workers’, i.e. third-country 
nationals  and  EU  citizens.  This  obligation  has  been  adopted  in  a  number  of  legislative 
documents: e.g. Client’s Liability Act, (Amendment to) the Posted Workers Act, Aliens Act. 

In  addition  to  notification  of  engagement  to  the  competent  local  employment  services  –  i.e.  the 
branches of the Labour Force Employment Organisation (OAED), employers must pay their own and 
the  employees’  social  security  contributions,  and  see  to  it  that  all  the  necessary  documentation  is 
submitted to the relevant social insurance organisations.  

See also CIA questionnaire: Every foreign worker owes to declare to the competent Directorate of the 
Regional authority every change regarding his employer, his employment contract and his specialty as 

Thematic feature: industrial relations and undocumented work: Denmark. June 2004. http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2004/06/tfeature/dk0406102t.html 
Thematic feature: industrial relations and undocumented work: Finland. June 2004. http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2004/06/tfeature/fi0406204t.html 
OECD  Employment  Outlook  2004.  Chapter  5: 
(http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/25/34846912.pdf). Confirmed by CIA questionnaire. 

Informal  Employment  and  Promoting 

to  a  Salaried  Economy 

the  Transition 

101 

EN

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table A6.1 – Preventive measures 

Country 

Description of measure 

Evaluation of / comments on effectiveness of the measure: and planned changes  

soon as a month after it has happened (par.2 art.73 Act 3386/2005).161 

Ireland 

All  new  employees  must  be  in  possession  of  a  valid  work  permit  issued  by  the  Department  of 
Enterprise,  Trade  and  Employment  prior  to  commencing  employment.  Applications,  which  are 
currently  made  by  prospective  employers  must  include  details  of  nationality,  qualifications,  current 
status and proposed terms of employment including pay rate and working hours.  

Under the Employment Permits Act 2006, prospective employees will be able to apply for work 
permits directly. 

The  “Towards  2016”  Agreement  between 
the  Government,  Employers  and  Union 
representatives contains a commitment that the employment of non-EEA students be the subject 
of an employment permit application. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is 
currently  consulting  with  all  the  relevant  bodies  regarding  the  procedures  and  format  of  this 
type of employment permit. It has been alleged in some quarters that there has been significant 
abuse of the student visa system.  

Hungary 

A  new  Unified  Labour  Register  (known  as  EMMA)  came  into  operation  in  on  1  May  2004.  All 
employers  must  now  register  new  employees  before  they  start  working  and  provide  information  on 
matters such as pay rates and working hours.162 Employers have to report any changes in the status of 
their employees to this central database.  

Employers are able to meet their reporting obligations not just through the traditional mailing method, 
but  also  through  a  PIN  number-protected  telephone  number  and  through  the  Internet.  At  the  same 
time, employees are also able to access the database through the Internet to check their employment 
status. 

Under  national  law,  every  employer  has  to  inform  the  social  security  body  in  one  day  period  about 
every  new  employee.  Information  to  be  declared  include  the  employee’s  social  security  number, 
working hours, employment entry date and etc.  

There  is  no  obligation  of  immediate  declaration  of  new  employees  by  their  employers  to  the 
appropriate authorities as such in Latvia. However in order to hire TCN:  

The current practice has proved to be relatively effective, while at the same time an obligation 
of declaring all employed third country nationals and to notify any changes to the appropriate 
authorities could be welcomed.  

there has to be declared vacancy; 

CIA questionnaire 
Thematic feature: industrial relations and undocumented work: Hungary. June 2004. http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2004/06/tfeature/hu0406103t.html 

102 

EN

Lithuania 

Latvia 

161 
162 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Table A6.1 – Preventive measures 

Country 

Description of measure 

Evaluation of / comments on effectiveness of the measure: and planned changes  

the employer has to submit to the State Employment Agency for approval a work invitation for TCN; 

According to the legislation: 

in order to approve a work invitation the employer inter alia has to submit an employment contract or 
a work-performance contract — a copy of the employment contract or a copy of a work-performance 
contract co-ordinated. 

3.  A  natural  or  a  legal  person  who  in  conformity  with  the  Law  On  State  Social  Insurance  is 
deemed to be an employer (hereinafter — employer) is permitted to employ a foreigner only in 
the profession, speciality or position which is specified in the work permit of the foreigner. 

9.  If  within  the  term  specified  in  the  work  permit  conditions  which  formed  the  basis  for  the 
issue of the work permit change (for example, the employer, position, working time, place of 
work  changes),  foreigner  has  a  duty  to  receive  a  new  work  permit  in  accordance  with  the 
procedures specified in these Regulations. 

10. If employment legal relationships with a foreigner are terminated prior to the term specified 
in the work permit, the employer shall before the end of the term specified in the work permit, 
but not later than three working days after termination of employment relationships, notify the 
Office  thereof  in  writing.  If  an  employer  has  failed  to  notify  regarding  the  termination  of 
employment relationships in accordance with the procedures prescribed in this Paragraph, the 
head of the Office, by taking an appropriate decision, may set a prohibition for the employer for 
one year (counting from the day of disclosure of the violation) to request approval of new work 
invitations and/or receive work permits for the foreigners. 

Article 5 of the Regulations on Work Permits for Aliens stated If an employer has intended to employ 
a foreigner (except for the persons referred to in Paragraphs 28.1, 29, 30 and 31 of these Regulations) 
by entering into an employment contract, the work invitation may be approved if a vacant position or a 
specialist vacancy is registered at the branch of the Agency and subsequent to the registration it has 
been  vacant  not  less  than  one  month  up  to  the  day  of  submission  of  the  documents  referred  to  in 
Paragraph 18 of these Regulations. 

The Article 18 of the Regulations stated that in order to approve a work invitation an employer or his 
or  her  authorised  representative  shall  submit  to  a  branch  of  the  Agency  the  following  documents 
together with the work invitation: 

18.1. a submission where the necessity to employ a foreigner is substantiated; 

18.2.  a  statement  of  the  State  Revenue  Service  certifying  that  the  employer  does  not  have  such  tax 
payment  debts  as  are  administered  by  the  State  Revenue  Service  (the  statement  shall  be  valid  three 
months from the issue thereof); 

18.3. if the profession of the foreigner is regulated — a copy of the education document and a copy of 
the  certification  acknowledging  qualifications,  which  certify  conformity  of  the  education  and 
professional  qualifications  acquired  in  foreign  states  with  the  requirements  provided  for  in  the 
Republic of Latvia. If the profession of a foreigner is not regulated, a  copy of a legalised education 
document  and  a  copy  of  the  document  certifying  qualifications  (legalisation  is  not  necessary  if 
international agreements to which Latvia is a member state provide for different procedures) shall be 
submitted; 

18.4.  if  the  work  of  the  foreigner  in  the  Republic  of  Latvia  is  provided  for  in  accordance  with  an 
employment contract or a work-performance contract — a copy of the employment contract or a copy 
of a work-performance contract co-ordinated in conformity with Paragraph 15 of these Regulations; 

18.5.  a  copy  of  a  registration  certificate,  articles  of  association,  by-laws  or  another  document 
certifying the legal status of the employer; 

18.6.  a  copy  of  a  permit  (licence),  if  the  employer  intends  to  employ  the  foreigner  in  such  work  as 

EN 

103 

EN

 
  
 
Table A6.1 – Preventive measures 

Country 

Description of measure 

Evaluation of / comments on effectiveness of the measure: and planned changes  

Malta 

Romania 

requires a permit (licence) for the performance thereof; 

18.7.  a  power  of  attorney  if  the  submitter  of  documents  is  an  authorised  representative  of  the 
employer; and 

18.8. a document certifying payment to the Agency for the examination of the documents referred to 
in Sub-paragraphs 18.1, 18.2, 18.3, 18.4, 18.5, 18.6 and 18.7 of these Regulations and approval of the 
work invitation. The fee for the examination of documents and approval of the work invitation under 
normal  procedures  (within  10  working  days  after  submission  of  the  documents  referred  to  in 
Paragraph  18  of  these  Regulations)  shall  be  three  lats,  under  accelerated  procedures  (within  five 
working days after submission of the documents referred to in Paragraph 18 of these Regulations) — 
five lats.  

The  ETC  has  the  mandate,  under  the  Employment  and  Training  Services  Act  (1990),  to  maintain  a 
register of persons in employment and of those seeking employment. Employers are obliged by law to 
submit engagement and termination forms to the ETC when recruiting or releasing employees. 

For aliens whose access on the labour market is regulated by Bilateral Agreements between Romania 
and  other  states,  the  employers  shall  be  bound  to  inform  in  writing  the  Authority  for  Aliens  with 
territorial  competence,  within  5  days  from  the  entry  of  those  aliens  in  Romania  about  the  nominal 
situation of  these persons  (Article  57  paragraph 2  corroborated  with  Article  124 point  7  and  Article 
125  point  c  of  Romanian  GEO  no.  194/2002  on  the  regime  of  aliens  in  Romania,  with  further 
amendments and completions); not complying of these obligations shall be sanctioned by fine. 

Law  no.  203/1999  on  work  permits,  republished  with  amendments  and  completions,  regulates  the 
employment and deployment of aliens in Romania. 

Thus,  regarding  aliens  excepted  from  the  obligation  of  obtaining  a  work  permit,  in  accordance  with 
Article  61  of  Romanian  Law  no.  203/1999  on  work  permits,  these  must  register  themselves  to  the 
Romanian  Labour  Force  Migration  Office  within  30  days  from  the  date  they  begun  their  activity  in 
Romania. 

The  measure  imposed  by  Article  61  of  Romanian  Law  no.  203/1999  on  work  permits  is 
necessary  for  the  management  of  aliens,  who  are  involved  in  labour  activity  in  Romania, 
without holding a work permit. 

Slovak Republic 

Pursuant to the Act No.85/2005 on Illegal Labour and Illegal Employment the employer is obliged to 
report the employee to the register of the insured persons of Social Insurance Company immediately 
on  the  date  of  start  of  work  (personal  birth  number).  That  number  serves  as  the  identifier  for  the 
contributions to the social insurance) 

Was not realised 

Spain 

Article 16 obligates companies to communicate with the Public Office of Employment regarding new 
employees otherwise they could be sanctioned  

No evaluation if this works or not, but this can be measured by the numbers of fines. 

EN 

104 

EN

 
  
 
 
Table A6.1 – Preventive measures 

Country 

Description of measure 

Evaluation of / comments on effectiveness of the measure: and planned changes  

b) Explicit / implicit requirement to verify status of workers  

Employers are required to check the residence and work permits of foreign workers to verify foreign workers’ authorisation to work in the Member State. In cases when this is done, the employer is either required to submit 
copies  of  such  permits  to  the  relevant  authority  and/or  keep  the  information  for  inspection  by  labour  protection  authorities.  In  some  Member  States  there  is  an  explicit  obligation  to  do  so,  whereas  in  other  countries  this 
requirement is implicit. 

Austria 

Belgium 

There is no explicit obligation to verify status at federal level, however, some regions have this as an 
explicit requirement, e.g. Kernten. 

Employers are required to check the residence and work permits of foreign workers to verify foreign 
workers' authorisation to work in Belgium (N.B.: In order to be able to work in Belgium, third-country 
nationals,  other  than  those  from  Member  States  of  the  European  Economic  Area,  must  have  a  valid 
work permit. These foreign workers also require a visa to stay in Belgium for longer than 3 months. A 
foreigner entering Belgium for work purposes requires the following documents: a passport or other 
travel document that is valid for at least 1 year, a medical certificate by a Belgian embassy-recognized 
physician,  and  an  employment  authorisation  document.  A  Belgium-based  employer  applies  for  the 
employment authorisation on behalf of the foreign worker and is issued to the foreign worker together 
with the work permit.) 163  

Bulgaria  

The  requirement  to  verify  the status  of  workers  is  implicit  for  the  employers,  as  they  are  obliged  to 
apply for a work permit for the third-country nationals whom they wish to employ. 

Czech Republic 

It is established in law that employers are allowed to employ a foreigner only with a valid work permit 
as well as a valid visa/residence permit.164 

Estonia 

The law (Aliens Act) states that if an alien does not have a legal basis for residing in Estonia then it is 
forbidden to sign an employment contract with him/her. It is therefore the employer’s duty to check if 
a  person  whom  he/she  wants  to  hire  is  staying  in  Estonia  legally.165  If  a  person  wishes  to  work  in 
Estonia  short-term  under  a  visa  then  it  is  necessary  to  have  an  official  confirmation  from  the 

163 
164 
165 

CIA questionnaire 
CIA questionnaire 
CIA questionnaire 

EN 

105 

EN

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table A6.1 – Preventive measures 

Country 

Description of measure 

Evaluation of / comments on effectiveness of the measure: and planned changes  

Finland 

employer. Also, a  precondition for legal short-term employment is its  registration in the Citizenship 
and Migration Board. 

Under the Aliens Act, paragraph 73, an employer must attach written information as laid down by law 
regarding the application for a residence permit for an employed person. The employer  must ensure 
that the foreign national entering his or her service has the required residence permit or that he or she 
does  not  need  a  residence  permit.  In  addition,  the  employer  is  obliged  to  keep  the  information  and 
documents  for  inspection  by  labour  protection  authorities.  Under  the  Aliens  Act,  these  duties  are 
applied to the main contractor or client operating in Finland, if the employees are posted workers or 
agency  employees.  An  employer  who  deliberately  or  through  (aggravated)  negligence  violates  the 
Aliens Act may be sentenced to a fine. 166 

Important measure. 

However: There is not a clear list of the documents that employers are to provide for ‘foreign 
workers’. Some of the documents may not be available from the worker’s country of origin and 
then it is up to the employer to decide what constitutes a valid alternative. A further constraint 
is  that  the  employer  has  to  decide  whether  the  documents  are  valid  (e.g.  copy  passport)  and 
haven’t been forged. 

France 

According  to  employment  legislation  (le  code  du  travail  et  la  jurisprudence),  the  employer  has  to 
verify the status of person s/he is about to employ, including their nationality and work permit.167  

Voir éléments indiqués dans la colonne C de la question 3.1 a). 

Greece 

Hungary 

L’employeur  doit  demander  à  la  préfecture  de  vérifier  l’authenticité  du  titre  de  séjour  et  de  travail, 
puis transmettre la DPAE. 

In case an employer hires third country nationals who reside in Greek territory he ought to check the 
lawfulness of their residence permits for work. Otherwise: Each employer, in order to hire employees 
with  a  contract  of  dependent  employment,  through  the  procedure  of  invitation,  deposits,  before  the 
entry  of  the  third  country  national  into  the  Hellenic  Territory,  a  guarantee  which  correspond  to  the 
amount that is at least equal to the income of an unskilled worker for three months, for the coverage of 
the cost of living of a third country national in Greece for three months and to an amount which covers 
the expenses for his return or expulsion to his Country of origin.168 

On the basis of Decree of the Minister of Social and Family Affairs No. 8/1999. (IX.10.) SZCSM on 
the  authorisation  of  the  employment  of  foreigners  in  Hungary,  the  employer  has  to  apply  for  the 
authorisation of the employment of third country nationals. As a general rule, work permits may only 
be granted after the employment authority has completed a labour market test. 

166 
167 
168 

CIA questionnaire 
CIA questionnaire 
CIA questionnaire 

EN 

106 

EN

 
  
 
 
 
                                                 
Table A6.1 – Preventive measures 

Country 

Description of measure 

Evaluation of / comments on effectiveness of the measure: and planned changes  

According to the Act on Foreigners, employers are required to check their foreign employees before 
entering into employment in order to ensure that the foreigners have valid visa issued for employment 
purposes or residence permit. This Act also imposes an obligation on the employer to report the failure 
of  the  permitted  employment  of  the  foreigner  or  the  termination  of  his/her  employment  within  the 
period of validity of the work permit to the regional aliens policing authority competent according to 
the place of work within three working days. 

Ireland 

Employers are explicitly required to keep such records for inspection by the Labour Inspectorate  

Section 2 of the Employment Permits Act 2006 provides that a person who engages a second person to 
carry  out  work  or  render  a  service  in  circumstances  where  it  is  contemplated  that  third-country 
nationals  will  be  employed  for  that  purpose,  the  primary  contractor  must  ensure  that  the  secondary-
contractor has secured employment permits for the recruitment of these third-country nationals. 

The employer who hires a foreign worker must verify that this person holds a regular residence permit 
qualifying him/her for work. The Italian system does not provide for a work permit as such, i.e. the 
qualification to carry out a job activity stems from the holder’s type of permit. 

Lithuania  has  in  place  a  general  prohibition  to  employers  to  employ  third-country  nationals  who  do 
not  hold  the  necessary  valid  permits.  In  Lithuania  an  employer  may  conclude  a  contract  of 
employment only with an alien who holds a valid work permit, with the exception of cases specified. 
Besides, employers have obligations to notify about termination of a contract of employment with the 
alien in possession of a temporary residence permit.  

Although not stated explicitly, the obligations for employers to verify (ensure) the lawfulness of the 
immigration and labour market status of a third country-national before employing that person exist in 
Latvian  legislation.  According  to  Article  37(8)  of  Labour  Law  the  third  country  national  can  be 
employed  only  on  condition  that  he/she  has  a  valid  work  permit,  unless  the  third  country  national 
qualifies  under  one  of  exceptional  categories  exempted  from  work  permit  requirement  under 
provisions of Immigration Law. In Latvia a work permit can be issued only on the basis of (together 
with) a valid visa, residence permit or asylum seeker’s identity document (Art.6 Cabinet Regulations 
No.44 adopted 20 January 2004 “Regulations Regarding Work Permits for Aliens”), thus a situation 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Latvia 

EN 

There  is  some  evidence  to  suggest  to  indicate  a  need  for  increased  enforcement  “To  support 
more  effective  inspections,  it  is  proposed  to prescribe  the form  in  which  payroll  and  working 
time records must be kept by employers…” 

A new National Employment Rights Authority is being established  

This  mechanism  shall  be  regarded  as  effective  since  the  work  permit  cannot  be  issued  to 
persons who reside in the county illegally. 

107 

EN

 
  
 
 
 
Table A6.1 – Preventive measures 

Country 

Description of measure 

Evaluation of / comments on effectiveness of the measure: and planned changes  

where a person would hold a valid work permit without having a legal authorisation to reside at the 
same time is not possible in Latvia. 169 

Luxembourg 

The grand-ducal regulation of 4 November 1994 

A grand-ducal regulation of 4 November 1994 indirectly created one means for detecting undeclared 
working.  For  building  sites  where  the  presumed  duration  of  the  works  is  longer  than  thirty  working 
days and more than twenty workers are employed at any one time, or where the number of workers is 
more than 500 per day, the project manager or the contractor must communicate a certificate of prior 
notice to the Inspectorate of Labour before the work begins. 

This certificate must state, among other things, the presumed maximum number of workers on the site, 
the number of companies and self-employed persons expected on the site, and identify the companies 
already selected. This enables the Inspectorate of Labour to carry out the appropriate monitoring. 

In the Netherlands employers are obliged by law to verify the identity of any person before he/she can 
be employed. If the person to be employed is an alien the employer has to verify the labour  market 
status of the employee.170 

Polish law establishes an obligation for employers to check whether a foreign person – a third-country 
national  –  is  in  Poland  on  a  legal  basis  prior  to  employment.  A  condition  for  legal  employment  in 
Poland  is  prior  obtainment  of  a  work  permit,  which  in  turn  is  issued  after  legalisation  of  a  foreign 
person’s stay in Poland. Some foreign persons are excepted from the obligation to have a work permit. 
Such categories of foreigners are described the Ordinance of the Minister of Labour and Social Policy 
of 19 December 2001.171 

The Romanian Office for Labour Force Migration (OLFM) gives information to alien employers and 
aliens  on  legal  stay  for  work  in  Romania.  Information  is  available  on  the  OLFM’s  website: 
www.omfm.ro,  where  the  information  is  in  Romanian,  English  or  French  language.  Also,  the 
employers  or  aliens  can  contact  directly  the  Documentation  and  Information  Centre  for  Migrant 
Workers within OLFM, where they are advised, according to the legal provisions.  

In September 2006, the Department for Labour Abroad, OLFM and Policy Sciences University 
from  Oradea  have  developed  an  Impact  Study,  which  was  entitled:  “Opportunities  and  risks. 
Open  labour  market”,  which  proved  that  Romanian  employers  preferred  native  labour  force, 
because out of 10,000 work permits, which were allotted by a Government Decision from 2006 
for aliens, only around 5,000 work permits were granted.  

Netherlands 

Poland 

Romania 

169 
170 
171 

CIA questionnaire 
CIA questionnaire 
CIA questionnaire 

EN 

108 

EN

 
  
 
 
 
                                                 
Table A6.1 – Preventive measures 

Country 

Description of measure 

Evaluation of / comments on effectiveness of the measure: and planned changes  

In  July  2006,  OLFM  along  with  the  Department  for  Labour  Abroad  launched  the  Awareness 
Campaign: “Choose legal migration of labour force!”. During this campaign, leaflets and info guides 
were published, in order to inform and raise awareness about the risks, they could deal with, in case of 
breaching legal provisions.  

One of actions foreseen for OLFM in Romanian National Strategy for Immigration 2007-2010 
is to organise a raising awareness campaign about the legal provisions on aliens regime, their 
employment, social security system, as well as risks of which the migrants could deal with, in 
cases  in  which  they  do  not  respect  the  legal  provisions.  This  campaign  will  be  carry  out  by 
OLFM and the Authority for Aliens. 

Slovak Republic 

Employers are required to check the residence and work permits of foreign workers to verify foreign 
workers’ authorisation to work. 

Was not realised 

Spain 

Article  36  of  the  Ley  Orgánica  4/2000  (Autorización  para  la  realización  de  actividades  lucrativas) 
establishes  that  foreigners  above  the  age  of  16  who  wish  to  exercise  a  ‘lucrative,  labour  or 
professional’ activity have to request authorisation to work.  

Employers  must verify the status but they do not have to then send the documents to another 
government body. Since the government issues the permits, they have already seen them..  

The same Article also establishes that ‘To hire a foreigner, the employer has to seek authorisation for 
the foreigner to work or to verify that s/he has already received such authorisation / work permit.  

Criteria for giving such administrative authorisation are set out in Article 50.172 

United Kingdom 

An employer may engage staff without undertaking any checks as to whether an individual has a right 
to work in the UK although in the event that he is found to be employing illegal migrant workers, he 
may be liable to prosecution (or a civil penalty from late 2007).  

Our current and future legislation however allows an employer to establish a statutory defence/excuse 
from prosecution (or civil penalty from late 2007) if he undertakes prescribed checks to see, copy and 
retain a copy of a document/documents which confirms that a job applicant has the right to work in the 
UK and do the job in question. The records can then be inspected by the relevant department.  

There is no obligation for employers to verify that a person has the right to work with the authority, 
although we do provide a verification service for employers where an applicant may have difficulty in 
demonstrating their right to work in the UK.  

3.2 Measures to encourage employment of documented workers 

172 

CIA questionnaire 

EN 

109 

EN

 
  
 
                                                 
Table A6.1 – Preventive measures 

Country 

Description of measure 

Evaluation of / comments on effectiveness of the measure: and planned changes  

a) Modernising or simplifying administrative formalities for employers  

Simplification of administrative procedures by e.g. a fast-track administrative system for companies in specified sectors. 

Czech Republic 

Work permit can  be issued immediately depending on the situation on the labour  market.  Employer 
has to apply for Permit for obtaining employees from abroad, but not in every case (exemptions form 
rule). 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Since the employer may be punished for employing illegal immigrants, it is the responsibility of the 
employer to ensure that the foreigner has a legal residence- and work permit in Denmark.173 

Registration of short-term employment is free of state fee. The deadlines for procedures are also quite 
short (10 days). 

Finland 

Procedures for employing third-country nationals are complicated.  

Working group in Ministry of Labour has been established to simplify work permit system.  

It  is  under  consideration  to  facilitate  the  procedures  so  that  the  application  of  registration  of 
short-term employment can be submitted by the employer. According to the existing regulation 
it has to be done by the employee (while residing abroad) and a confirmation of the employer is 
added to the application. 

The  simplification  of  the  work  permit  system  was  one  of  the  measures  proposed  by  the  new 
Migration Policy Programme which was launched in October 2006. Working group is to report 
and present proposal at end of March. 

In the past, administrative procedures have been simplified with regards to the employment of family 
members and the access of students to the labour market. 

Also responds to demand by employer organisations 

France 

Simplification  of  administrative  formalities  were  initiated  in  1991  through  ‘Cheque  schemes’  in 
various  sectors,  including  the  ‘Service  Employment  Cheque  Scheme’;  and,  ‘Simplified  Agricultural 
Employment Document’. The creation of the Service Employment Cheque enabled private individuals 
employing  a  person  in  the  home  (for  housework,  childcare,  gardening,  etc.)  to  simplify  the 
administrative  formalities  significantly,  and  the  same  was  the  case  for  agricultural  employers  with 
seasonal labour.  

Ont  également  été  mis  en  place  des  Centres  for  Business  Formalities  (a  kind  of  one-stop-shop  for 
start-up  companies)  and  the  ‘Non-profit  Organisation  Employment  Cheque’  or  the  ‘Enterprise 
Employment Document’, which came into use gradually and in different sectors during 2004 (in the 

This had a significant impact on concealed working: “in the year following its creation, 140,000 
employers  used  the  system”  and  it  has  been  an  undeniable  success  since  then  (900,000  users 
today)”. 

173 

CIA questionnaire 

EN 

110 

EN

 
  
 
 
                                                 
Table A6.1 – Preventive measures 

Country 

Description of measure 

Evaluation of / comments on effectiveness of the measure: and planned changes  

Germany 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Lithuania 

Latvia 

hotels and catering, building and public works and commercial sectors, among others). 

There  is  an  implicit  requirement  that  employers  are  to  check  residence  and  work  permit  status  of 
foreigners  before  employing  them  (§  4  Abs.  3  AufenthG).  However,  in  further  amendments  of  the 
relevant legislation it will become an explicit obligation to check status. 

In 2001, the new Labour Code extended the list of formal criteria concerning employment contracts. 
Most importantly,  employment contracts  must now be  in written form  and include certain elements, 
such as the amount of the basic wage, a job description and the location of the work. 

The  Employment  Permits  Act  2006  provides  for  a  “Green  Card”  System  for  workers  from  workers 
from certain highly skilled sectors. This will allow for immediate family reunification and normally a 
pathway to permanent residency after only two years. 

Administrative procedures are simplified for companies in specified sectors by issuing special D visas 
(which are valid for at least 6 months during which third country migrant worker is obliged to receive 
a temporary residence permit, with the exception of long-haul route drivers) and work permits which 
enable to shorten the procedure by two times. 

In the Regulations on Work Permits for Aliens there are stated persons and groups which can receive a 
work permit (without approval of an employer’s work invitation at a branch of the States Employment 
Agency)  in  conformity  with  the  term  specified  in  the  temporary  residence  permit,  with  the  term  of 
validity of the visa for a period not exceeding 90 days over a period of six months (counting from the 
day of first entry). 

At the moment there is an on-going discussion on policy of labour force migration in the country. Due 
to that reason an inter-institutional work group has been formed to deal with migration policy issues; 
the  group  is  presently  working  on  the  “Strategy  of  migration  policy  relating  to  employment”.  Inter 
alia,  Strategy  proposes  to  simplify  administrative  procedures  both  for  employers  and  employees  for 
receiving  work  and  residence  permit,  for  example,  introduction  of  “one-step  agency  principle”  and 
reduction of fee for processing of documents.  

NB: Please take note that the Strategy has not been fully developed yet and still has to be approved by 
the government, therefore the information provided above are of preliminary nature. 

EN 

111 

EN

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Table A6.1 – Preventive measures 

Country 

Description of measure 

Evaluation of / comments on effectiveness of the measure: and planned changes  

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

The  single  most  important  statute  regulating  establishment  of  the  labour  relationship  is  the  Labour 
Code whose Article 29 imposes an obligation to conclude a written employment contract..174 

The  legal  framework  for  foreigners  establishes  sanctions  for  whoever  employs  a  foreign  citizen  not 
holding the document needed to exercise a professional activity (residence permit, permanence permit 
or  working  visa),  thus,  the  employer  is  required  to  check  if  the  foreign  citizen  he/she  wants  to  hire 
holds any of those documents.175 

The  Romanian  Office  for  Labour  Force  Migration  (OLFM)  issues  favourable  notices,  necessary  for 
obtaining  the  work  visa  by  third-country  citizens  within  15  working-days;  also,  work  permits  are 
issued by OLFM within 10 working-days.  

According  to  Government  Ordinance  no.49/2006,  which  amends  Law  no.203/1999,  aliens  married 
with Romanian citizens have free access to the labour market. 

Spain 

There are some activities occurring around this with respect to sectors employing TCN in their home 
country.  There  have  been  moves  to  make  this  process  smoother  for  employers  and  to  fast  track 
documents 

United Kingdom 

The  points-based  system  for  managing  migration  is  being  introduced  on  a  rolling  basis  from  2008. 
There are plans to simplify the endorsements used, which will assist employers in understanding what 
conditions are attached to various categories e.g. hours of work permitted etc.  

In  line  with  EU  regulations,  we  are also  introducing  Biometric  Immigration  Documents  (BID)  from 
2008.  A  BID  will  be  a  highly  secure  card  containing  the  holder’s  unique  biometric  data  and 
biographical information for recording and verification purposes. Currently employers can expect to 
be  presented  with  around  50  different  types  of  document  and  we  recognise  this  can  be  difficult  for 
employers. In the future it is envisaged that BIDs will provide a swift and secure way for employers to 
make checks of an applicant or employee’s right to work in the UK.  

b) Requirement for written employment contracts 

Requirement that employment contracts must be in written form. 

Simplifying the process would be helpful for employers and decrease the number of infractions.  

174 
175 

EN 

Thematic feature: industrial relations and undocumented work: Poland. June 2004. http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2004/06/tfeature/pl0406107t.html 
CIA questionnaire 

112 

EN

 
  
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table A6.1 – Preventive measures 

Country 

Description of measure 

Evaluation of / comments on effectiveness of the measure: and planned changes  

Bulgaria 

YES 

Czech Republic 

Employment contracts do not need to be in written form. 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Ireland 

According  to  the  Employment  Contracts  Act  of  the  Republic  of  Estonia  it  is  allowed  to  conclude  a 
verbal contract only if the working period doesn’t exceed two weeks.  

If no written employment contract is given, the employer is obliged to provide a document with the 
(key) employment terms and/or the collective agreement that is applicable has to be identified. 

Effectiveness  derives  from  the  universally  binding  collective  agreements  which  have  for 
decades  been  regularly  concluded  between  trade  unions,  employer  organisations  and  the 
Finnish government. 

PIELAMI  report,  pg.  16:  ‘The  condition  of  an  employment  contract,  which  is  in  conflict  with  the 
corresponding  provision  of  a  universally  binding  collective  agreement,  is  void,  and  instead  the 
provisions  of  this  […]  agreement  should  be  observed  according  to  section  7  of  the  Employment 
Contract Act. 

[…]  Like  all  other  employees,  migrants  working  in  Finland  are  also  covered  under  the  collective 
agreement of the corresponding sector.’ 

Il doit y avoir une formalisation écrite de la relation de travail. 

Cette formalité permet de s’assurer de la transparence de l’emploi. 

Work permit applications must be accompanied by written contracts  

Lithuania 

Employment contracts must be in written form 

Latvia 

According to the provisions of the Labour Law of Latvia, in particular Art. 40, employment contracts 
shall be concluded in a written form. The Labour Law specifies what information shall be included in 
the contract.  

There are still cases when the employment contracts are not concluded in writing. However, the 
provisions of laws and regulations on this matter shall be regarded effective. The law makes all 
the necessary conditions to promote the effectiveness of employment contract. 

However, the Labour Law stipulates that if the written form has not been complied with, an employee 
has the right to request that the contract is expressed in writing. If the employee and the employer, or 
at least one of the parties, has started to perform the duties contracted for, an employment contract that 
does  not  conform  to  the  written  form  shall  have  the  same  legal  consequences  as  an  employment 
contract expressed in writing. 

Romania 

Article  16  paragraph  1  of  Law  no.53/2003,  the  Labour  Code,  stipulates  that:  “An  individual  labour 
contract shall be concluded based on the parties' consent, in written form, in Romanian language. The 
employer has the obligation to conclude the individual labour contract in written form, before starting 

EN 

113 

EN

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A6.1 – Preventive measures 

Country 

Description of measure 

the work relations.” 

According to Article 36 of Romanian Labour Law (Code), the labour contract is signed after the work 
permit has been acquired.  

United Kingdom 

Employees (those directly engaged by an employer) are entitled to a written statement of particulars 
(Employment Rights Act 1996 Part I). 

Slovak Republic 

Yes 

Evaluation of / comments on effectiveness of the measure: and planned changes  

Spain 

There are some activities occurring around this with respect to sectors employing TCNs in their home 
country.  There  have  been  moves  to  make  this  process  smoother  for  employers  and  to  fast  track 
documents 

Simplifying the process would be helpful for employers and decrease the number of infractions.  

c) Financial incentives for employers  

Various fiscal measures (reduced taxation for companies, differentiated social security system for domestic services, subsidised social security contributions for new recruits etc.) 

Czech Republic 

There are no specific financial incentives for employers of TCN. 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

See point a about the state fee. 

Not available in Finland 

Financial  incentives  to  encourage  the  employment  of  document  workers  based  mainly  on  the 
simplification  of  administrative  formalities  through  ‘Cheque  schemes’  in  various  sectors  (Service 
Employment  Cheque  Scheme,  in  the  agricultural  sector,  Simplified  Agricultural  Employment 
Document, Non-profit Organisation Employment Cheque and Enterprise Employment Document). 

Il existe également des exonérations ou des réductions importantes de cotisations sociales, notamment 
pour les emplois de courte durée dans le secteur agricole. 

Enfin, il existe des exonérations ou des allégements de cotisations sur les embauches de bas salaires. 

Germany 

Financial incentives to encourage the employment of documented workers 

En  matière  d’emploi  domestique,  l’augmentation  du  nombre  d’employeurs,  de  salariés  et  de 
cotisations démontre un certain succès de la démarche. 

EN 

114 

EN

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A6.1 – Preventive measures 

Country 

Description of measure 

Evaluation of / comments on effectiveness of the measure: and planned changes  

Ireland 

Italy 

No such incentives operate in Ireland.  

However,  the  period  since  2001  has  seen  the  devising  of  new  strategies  centred  on  fiscal  measures, 
intended  to  induce  firms  to  regularise  their  position  by  offering  temporary  relief  from  labour  costs, 
enacted by law 383 of 2001. Those employers and workers that join the regularisation programme and 
thus  legalise  their  positions  benefit  from  relief  on  taxes  and  social  security  contributions  over  the 
period  2002-4  and  retrospective  regularisation  of  their position  in previous  years  (2001  and  before). 
Regularisation must lead to the hiring of the irregular worker on a contract of employment or, if the 
regularisation  concerns  sums  paid  off  the  books  (i.e.  'grey'  work)  it  may  concern  only  dependent 
employees  (excluding  'employer-coordinated  freelance work'  ,  a  common  form  of  'semi-subordinate' 
work).  In  order  to  be  covered  by  the  law's  provisions,  employers  had  to  submit  a  'declaration  of 
regularisation' by 15 May 2003. 176 

Netherlands 

Financial incentives to encourage the employment of documented workers. 

Slovak Republic 

Neither  the  taxation  system  nor  the  social  protection  system  currently  works  directly  to  eliminate 
undeclared work. However, a 19% flat rate of income and profit tax, introduced in 1 January 2004, has 
reduced the taxation burden of entrepreneurs and self-employed people.177 

Was nott realised 

Spain 

There  are  many  incentives  for  hidden  economic  activity  to  become  legitimate,  such  as  reduced 
taxation  for  companies,  a  differentiated  social  security  system  for  domestic  services,  and  subsidised 
social security contributions for new recruits. However, it appears that in many cases these incentives 
are insufficient to outweigh the advantages of informal employment.178 

These  measures  could  be  effective  and  could  decrease  the  amount  of  informal  labour  but  no 
more specific information is available. 

3.3 Awareness raising 

General information campaigns 

Information campaigns targeted at employers/enterprises 

Information campaigns targeted at workers 

176 
177 
178 

EN 

Thematic feature: industrial relations and undocumented work: Italy. June 2004. http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2004/06/tfeature/it0406107t.html 
Thematic feature: industrial relations and undocumented work: Slovakia. June 2004. http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2004/06/tfeature/sk0406105t.html 
Thematic feature: industrial relations and undocumented work: Spain. June 2004. http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2004/06/tfeature/es0406209t.html 

115 

EN

 
  
 
 
 
                                                 
Table A6.1 – Preventive measures 

Country 

Description of measure 

Evaluation of / comments on effectiveness of the measure: and planned changes  

Awareness raising activities include general information campaigns or campaigns targeted at employers / enterprises and/or workers. Not all activities are large-scale information campaigns, but use has also been made of e.g. 
informative letters to enterprises in specific sectors that had formal labour costs remarkably lower than the average of similar enterprises in the same field, asking them to check data on taxes and make appropriate corrections. 

Belgium 

Campaigns  have  regularly  been  launched  to  raise  awareness  amongst  employers  about  their 
administrative duties when recruiting third country nationals and potential sanctions if they fail to do 
that.179 

Czech Republic 

General information concerning employment of foreigners is available on Ministry’s official websites. 
They are updated. 

We intend to lead information campaigns targeted at employers/enterprises. 

Information  campaigns  targeted  at  workers  are  led  in  the  CR.  We  also  distribute  information  for 
workers in countries of their origin (sending countries).  

Estonia 

In  Spring  2004,  the  Estonian  Tax  Board  chose  a  new  strategy  of  combating  concealed  salaries  by 
sending  informative  letters  to  enterprises  that  had  formal  labour  costs  remarkably  lower  than  the 
average of similar enterprises in the same field and asking them to check their data on taxes and make 
appropriate corrections. Otherwise there would be an audit by the Board. Three sectors receiving most 
of the letters were construction, hotels and catering, and car sales and repair. The method has proved 
to  be  very  cost-effective  as  first  experiences  have  shown  that  about  a  quarter  of  the  enterprises 

179 
180 

Het Nieuwsblad (2004), Preventiecampagne over illegalen in tuinbouw. 26 June 2004. http://www.nieuwsblad.be/Article/Detail.aspx?articleID=g115hv5n. 
Äripäev 25.05.2004 

EN 

116 

EN

 
  
 
 
 
                                                 
Table A6.1 – Preventive measures 

Country 

Description of measure 

Evaluation of / comments on effectiveness of the measure: and planned changes  

receiving these letters improved their tax-reporting immediately180. 

Finland 

Information disseminated to employers and workers181 

In the Construction sector, Memorandum of Understanding between employer organisation and trade 
union has recently been adopted regarding the dissemination of information to employers. Info on the 
requirements for employing ‘foreign workers’, including third-country nationals and EU citizens. 

In the past, the Construction Trade Union put together guidelines for employers on the regulations and 
procedures  which  need  to  be  adhered  to  when  employing  a  new  employee,  in  particular  a  ‘foreign 
worker’. 

Directorate  of  Immigration:  website  outlines  different  requirements  for  those  wishing  to  become 
resident and/or work in Finland.  

France 

Des campagnes diverses sont menées régulièrement (télévision, radio, internet, etc.) pour développer 
la lutte contre le travail illégal. Il convient de souligner que ces initiatives ne visent pas la catégorie 
des étrangers de manière spécifique  mais cherchent plus généralement à promouvoir la transparence 
de la relation de travail et le paiement des cotisations. 

Par  ailleurs,  dans  le  secteur  agricole,  la  Fédération  nationale  des  syndicats  d’exploitants  agricoles 
(FNSEA) organise des campagnes. 

Effective, as there is a perceived need for such information. PIELAMI report, pg. 21: ‘As the 
OSH  Inspectorate  for  Uusimaa  noted,  employers  are  responsible  for  understanding  and 
following  a  wide  range  of  regulations  and  employers  need  to  be  supported  in  order  to  fully 
understand  their  obligations.  Similarly,  there  is  a  real  need  to  provide  information  to  migrant 
workers.’ 

La campagne nationale d’information sur le chèque-emploi-service a permis de « légaliser » des 
emplois non déclarés dans le secteur des services à la personne. 

Une campagne de communication par voie d’affichage a été menée du 8 novembre 2004 au 3 
janvier 2005 par les URSSAF dans les lieux publics de 9 villes. Cette opération était destinée à 
déclencher une prise de conscience du grand public qui considère le travail illégal comme une 
pratique banale et courante. Cette campagne visait donc à inverser cette image complaisante et à 
révéler les véritables traits de ce fléau.  

Les caisses de mutualité sociale agricole ont constaté une augmentation du nombre de salariés 
et  de  cotisations.  Toutefois,  aucune  étude  n’a  été  conduite  permettant  d’étayer  de  manière 
précise l’impact pressenti sur le travail dissimulé. 

Ireland 

Employment  Rights  Information  Section  of  the  Department  of  Enterprise,  Trade  and  Employment 
conducts regular information campaigns in relation to the area of employment rights, including both 
migrant  workers  and  Irish  nationals.  A  great  deal  of  information  on  the  relevant  employment  rights 
entitlements and protections is widely disseminated. 

A new Employment Rights Authority Compliance is being established. It is intended that this 
new Office will initiate a publicity campaign, with an emphasis on workers from overseas and 
on the sectors in which they are employed in significant numbers, setting out their rights in a 
range of languages.  

Lithuania 

State Labour Inspectorate in the summer 2005 performed national campaign against illegal work.  

181 

OECD (2000), Combating the Illegal Employment of Foreign Workers, Paris: OECD. 

EN 

117 

EN

 
  
 
                                                 
Table A6.1 – Preventive measures 

Country 

Description of measure 

Evaluation of / comments on effectiveness of the measure: and planned changes  

State  Labour  Inspectorate  diffuses  information  about  public  mischief  on  national  and  regional  TV 
stations, radio, magazines. Special booklets are being released habitually. 

Latvia 

At  the  beginning  of  2004  the  Cabinet  of  Ministers  accepted  the  guideline  paper  “On  Measures  to 
Combat Undeclared Work”. Some of the proposed measures are as follows: 

Raising social awareness and promotion of legal awareness and compliance 

More resources will be channelled for dissemination of information about labour law. 

Increased attention will be devoted to the explanation of the tax system and the uses to which taxes are 
put. 

Netherlands 

Information campaigns aimed at employers and foreign workers 

Romania 

The  Office  for  Labour  Force  Migration  (OLFM)  provides  to  alien  employers  and  aliens  all  the 
necessary data regarding the legal stay for work in Romania. The data is available on OLFM website: 
www.omfm.ro,  in  Romanian,  English  and  French  language.  Also,  the  employers  and  aliens  can 
contact directly the Information and Documentation Centre for Migrant Workers within OLFM, where 
they are advised, according to legal provisions.  

During  the  first  semester  of  2007,  OLFM  and  the  Authority  for  Aliens  will  perform  an 
awareness  campaign  regarding  legal  provisions  related  to  aliens  regime,  their  employment, 
social  security  system  and  the  risks,  which  they  can  deal  with,  in  case  of  breaching  legal 
provisions.  This  action  is  part  of  the  Action  Plan  of  National  Strategy  for  Immigration  2007-
2010. 

In  July  2006,  the  OLFM  and  the  Department  for  Labour  Abroad  have  launched  the  awareness 
campaign:  ‘Choose  legal  migration  of  labour  force!’  During  this  campaign,  there  were  published 
leaflets  and  info  guides,  in  order  to  inform  and  raise  awareness  aliens  about  the  risks,  which  they 
could deal with, in case of breaching the legal provisions.  

Slovak Republic 

The Labour Inspectorate has recently issued an informative brochure, which aims to draw the attention 
of employers and employees to the negative consequences of undeclared work. 

Was not realised 

Spain 

Sweden 

EN 

Information campaigns were done for regularisation that occurred 2 years ago however the campaigns 
were targeted at employers not workers. The campaign was mainly through articles in newspapers and 
political and social debate, which is strong in Spain.  

This was effective. Offices extended their opening hours to after hours and weekends to ensure 
that  employers  could  access  the  inspectorate  to  regularise  their  employees.  This  was  a 
temporary change only for regularisation. 

Concerted efforts to raise social awareness of undeclared work have been undertaken through a joint 
campaign by the tax authorities and the recently founded. This started in 2000. The co-operation also 
involves branch organisations and trade unions in various sectors of the economy. 

118 

EN

 
  
 
 
 
 
Table A6.1 – Preventive measures 

Country 

Description of measure 

Evaluation of / comments on effectiveness of the measure: and planned changes  

United Kingdom 

In November 2006 the Home Office commenced a nationwide campaign to remind employers of their 
responsibilities under the legislation on the prevention of illegal migrant working. The campaign used 
direct mailing to small- and medium-sized enterprises in high risk sectors (construction, catering and 
hospitality,  agriculture),  as  well  as  adverts  in  the  national  press  and  radio.  We  also  re-launched  a 
website  which  provides  employers  with  a  step  by  step  guide  on  the  document  checks  they  should 
undertake if they wish to establish a statutory defence.  

Information on employment rights sent to workers applying under the Worker Registration Scheme. 
Working  with  other  Member  States,  information  on  employment  rights  in  UK  available  to  those 
intending to travel to work in UK from other Member States. 

Information sent to employers regarding new legislation.182 

3.4 Social security provisions and Proof of identity 

Some Member States link the right to health care to residence and work permit, and a proof of identify. This means that illegally staying TCN do not have any right to health care, which could provide a discouragement for 
employers to hire an illegally staying TCN compared to a legally staying TCN or EU national. 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Estonia 

Finland 

182 
183 

EN 

Only  permanent  residents  and  persons  with  refugee  or  humanitarian  status  or  right  to  asylum  are 
subject to the compulsory health insurance. There is no link to employment activity for the TCN. 

At a meeting held on 21 April 2004 at the Department of Labour of the Ministry of Labour and Social 
Insurance,  the  social  partners  agreed  immediately  to  implement  a  Ministerial  Committee  decision 
taken on 15 December 2003 with regard to medical care for migrant workers in Cyprus. This decision 
makes healthcare insurance for migrant workers mandatory and also makes such cover a precondition 
for issuing entry permits or renewing temporary residence and work permits to such workers. 183 

NA 

Proof of identify: In February 2006: Amendment to Act on Occupational Safety and Health Working 
Security: all workers on construction sites must carry a photo a (ID). The ID card has to detail whether 
the person working on the site is an employee or a self-employed person. The main constructor has to 
check  on  the  fulfilment  of  the  obligations.  The  site  can  be  closed  on  failure  to  implement  this 

Proof of identity: Effective measure, has been tested / implemented in the past. Past collective 
agreements in the construction sector had included this measure. A legislative change followed 
in February 2006. 

OECD (2000), Combating the Illegal Employment of Foreign Workers, Paris: OECD. 
Thematic feature: industrial relations and undocumented work: Cyprus. June 2004. http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2003/11/feature/cy0311103f.html 

119 

EN

 
  
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation of / comments on effectiveness of the measure: and planned changes  

Social security / rights of TCN workers: Barriers: PIELAMI report, pg. 21: ‘The challenge is to 
ensure  that  information  is  understood  (i.e.  that  is  delivered  in  different  languages  and  in 
different formats) and that employees feel that they can benefit from the information.’ 

In  addition,  Finnish  (employment)  law  foresees  the  backpayment  of  wages  …  but  only  if 
employee goes to court. Many ‘foreign workers’ do not have the means to take their employer 
to court or are afraid to denounce him/her. 

Le système français, qui protège l’étranger employé de manière irrégulière en le reconnaissant 
comme victime et en lui associant des droits, nous semble être une garantie fondamentale. 

Table A6.1 – Preventive measures 

Country 

Description of measure 

obligation. 

Social  security:  As  mentioned  in  the  above,  collective  agreements  apply  to  Finnish  workers  and 
‘foreign workers’ equally.  

France 

Greece 

Ireland 

Lithuania 

Latvia 

According to French legislation, a foreign employee without a work permit is considered a regularly 
employed wage earner. In addition to the payment of his/her work hours and paid holidays, s/he has 
the right to a damage claim amounting to a salary of one month. The foreigner also has rights which 
can  be  claimed  before  French  tribunals,  with  the  help  of  intermediaries  (trade  unions  and 
associations).  Furthermore,  s/he  benefits  from  social  protection  if  s/he  becomes  a  victim  of  a  work 
accident. As such, the responsibility / burden lies with the employer of the foreigner. 

A  legislative  provision  safeguards  the  right  of  foreign  workers  to  be  paid  at  least  with  the  same 
monthly salary as the Greek unskilled worker. This fact provides them for a satisfactory level of living 
discouraging  them,  in  this  way,  to  work  illegally.  Also,  third  countries  nationals  that  are  working 
legally have the same social insurance rights and they are enjoying equivalent transfers from the social 
insurance organizations.184 

Access to Public Health Services will be addressed in the context of the Immigration, Residence and 
Protection Bill which is currently being drafted.  

Only if migrant works legally then worker and his or her family members under 18 years of age have 
the right to health care; of course, basic medical aid is provided to all migrants free of charge. 

Latvia to a great extent provides health care for illegally staying third country nationals, while at the 
same time they do not have access to social security provisions.  

Netherlands 

The proposed law extending compulsory identification was implemented from 1 January 2005. As a 
result of these measures, the ability to require proof of identity has now been expanded. 

184 

CIA questionnaire 

EN 

120 

EN

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table A6.1 – Preventive measures 

Country 

Description of measure 

Evaluation of / comments on effectiveness of the measure: and planned changes  

Romania 

After acquiring the work permit, the labour contract between the Romanian employer and alien can be 
concluded.  The  conclusion  of  labour  contract  implies  the  employer’s  duty  to  subscribe  to  the 
Romanian social insurance system, also to Romanian health insurance system. 

Slovak Republic 

Employer is obliged to report the employee into the Health insurance company on the date of start of 
work. 

Was not realised 

Alien  who  stays  legally  in  the  territory  of  the  Slovak  Republic  must  have  the  health  insurance. 
Granting of the residence permit is subject to the health insurance. 

Spain 

In Spain anyone residing either legally or illegally in the country is allowed healthcare by registering 
with the local authority. Once they register with the local authority they get a form of ID. 

United Kingdom 

The Workers Registration Scheme (A8 Nationals) and A2 Worker Authorisation schemes provide full 
access to benefits for those who register after 12 months continuous employment, TCN’s do not have 
access to public funds or health care unless it is an emergency. 

3.5 Partnership agreements for cooperation and initiatives to prevent illegal work 

a) Bilateral and/or European agreements between Member States.  

Signature of bilateral agreements to combat undeclared work between certain Member States. 

Bulgaria 

Several  such  agreements  are  in  the  process  of  elaboration  –  with  Germany,  Austria,  France  and 
Belgium. 

Spain has never denied healthcare to its residents and there has been no move to do so in the 
future. The political opinion is that healthcare is a basic human right. There are issues that occur 
with this healthcare such as certain autonomous communities in Spain have more illegal TCNs 
and  since  they  do  not  receive  extra  funding  from  the  government,  they  are  having  budgetary 
issues. 

Further legislative change is likely. Identity cards ('entitlement cards' ) were announced in 2002. 
They  would  be  used  to  check  rights  to  health  service  treatment,  education  and  state  benefits, 
and  to  clamp  down  on  illegal  working  and  benefit  fraud.  In  January  2004  the  House  of 
Commons  home  affairs  select  committee  urged  the  government  to  use  the  Proceeds  of  Crime 
Act  to  crack  down  on  illegal  working  after  an  'extremely  low  level'  of  prosecutions  under 
immigration rules. Businesses that made money employing illegal immigrants would have their 
profits seized.185 

185 

EN 

Thematic 
http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2004/06/tfeature/uk0406104t.html 

industrial 

relations 

feature: 

and 

undocumented 

work: 

United 

Kingdom. 

June 

2004. 

121 

EN

 
  
 
 
 
                                                 
Table A6.1 – Preventive measures 

Country 

Description of measure 

Evaluation of / comments on effectiveness of the measure: and planned changes  

Czech Republic 

We  are  negotiating  some  agreements  concerning  mutual  cooperation  and  exchange  of  information 
with several MS. 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Ireland 

Latvia 

Netherlands 

Romania 

There are no such agreements. 

Negotiations / Discussions with Estonia were recently started. 

With  the  development  of  transnational  fraud  and  the  difficulty  the  French  authorities  have  had  in 
controlling it, the campaign against undeclared working has also been based on a gradually developing 
European co-operation and on bilateral agreements signed with Germany (May 2001), Italy and Spain 
(2002) and Belgium (2003). More recently, there have been contacts between the DILTI and some of 
the new Member States (Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia). 

Cf.  réponse  adressée  le  24  janvier  2007  par  les  autorités  françaises  (DILTI  et  DGT)  au 
questionnaire de la Commission européenne relatif au détachement de travailleurs dans le cadre 
d’une  prestation  de  services.  La  coopération  administrative  entre  les  Etats  membres  par 
l’intermédiaire  des  bureaux  de  liaison  est  en  nette  progression,  sur  le  plan  qualitatif  et 
quantitatif. 

 There are no such agreements applicable in the case of Ireland  

Negotiations have been conducted with the German officials in order to conclude a bilateral agreement 
on cooperation on social insurance and on illegal employment issues. 

Some employers’ and employees’ associations are also involved in fraud prevention and detection and 
usually work with one or more of the official agencies. The employers’ association for agriculture and 
horticulture, LTO Nederland, co-operates with the Centre for Work and Income (CWI) in the Seasonal 
Labour  project  (Project  Seizoenarbeid),  helping  companies  in  these  sectors  to  fill  their  temporary 
vacancies.  One  of  the  aims  of  this  project  is  to  decrease  illegal  employment  caused  by  labour 
shortages in peak production periods. 

For aliens whose access on the labour market is regulated by Bilateral Agreements between Romania 
and  other  states,  the  employers  shall  be  bound  to  inform  in  writing  the  Authority  for  Aliens  with 
territorial  competence,  within  5  days  from  the  entry  of  that  aliens  on  the  Romanian  territory  on  the 
nominal  situation  of  these  persons  (article  57  paragraph  2  corroborated with  article  124  point  7  and 
article 125 point c of our GEO 194/2002 on the regime of aliens in Romania with further amendments 
and completions); not complying of these obligations shall be sanctioned by fine 

Slovak Republic 

Memorandum  of  understanding  between  the  Ministry  of  Labour,  Social  Affairs  and  Family  of  the 
Slovak  Republic  and  the  Ministry  of  Social  Affairs  and  Employment  of  the  Kingdom  of  the 
Netherlands  on  cooperation  concerning  enforcement  of  the  rules  on  social  policy,  in  case  of  cross-
border labour and services, and the enforcement of social assistance regulations. 

Memorandum was signed on 6 November 2006. 

EN 

122 

EN

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A6.1 – Preventive measures 

Country 

Description of measure 

Evaluation of / comments on effectiveness of the measure: and planned changes  

Spain 

A  tri-partite  organisation  involving  the  government,  trade  unions  and  employers  organisation  was 
formed in 2006 to discuss these issues 

The tri-partite group has strong political influence on policy. It is used as an advisory board for 
issues around immigration.  

AN  agreement  around outsourcing  and  subcontracting was  reached  to  curb  illicit  activities  but  I  did 
not receive any additional details on it 

Sweden 

Concerted efforts to raise social awareness of undeclared work have been undertaken through a joint 
campaign by the tax authorities and the recently founded. This started in 2000. The co-operation also 
involves branch organisations and trade unions in various sectors of the economy. 

United Kingdom 

We have co-operated with the Portuguese, Polish and Lithuanian Governments on information leaflets 
for their nationals. These are available from the DTI website and are made available in the countries of 
origin through UK embassies and government offices. 

b) Partnership agreements and initiatives by Social Partners 

(1)  Conclusion  of  agreements  between  the  central  government  and  employer  organisations  and  trade  unions.  Cooperation  agreements  concerning  specific  activities  have  also  been  established  between  different  national 
authorities (in the same Member State). 

(2) Conclusion of agreements between trade unions and employer organisations in the same sector (e.g. construction industry) establishing bilateral agreements of actions to curb illicit activities. 

Czech Republic 

There  is  no  agreement,  but  there  is  an  interdepartmental  body  called  “Interdepartmental  body  for 
repressing  the  illegal  employment  of  foreigners”,  where  participation  of  social  partners  plays 
important role. 

Estonia 

There are no such agreements though joint seminars and information events have been held between 
employers’ organizations and the central government. 

Finland 

Initiatives by Social Partners 

Very effective. [Also established in interviews with employer organisation and traded union.]  

PIELAMI  report  (pg.  16):  ‘  For  decades  the  national  labour  and  employer  confederations  and  the 
Finnish  government  have  regularly  concluded  comprehensive  income  collective  agreements.  […] 
Even  though  employers  or  employees  might  not  be  part  of  a  collective  agreement  they  are 
nevertheless bound to the provisions of a collective agreement, which is considered representative in 

Employers who do not comply with collective agreements can expect pressure from employees. 

186 

CIA questionnaire. 

EN 

123 

EN

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table A6.1 – Preventive measures 

Country 

Description of measure 

the sector in question […]’. Migrants working in Finland are covered. 

The  Finnish  Construction  Trade  Union  on  the  employee  side  and  the  Confederation  of  Finnish 
Construction Industries on the employer side have been actively seeking to curb illicit activities in the 
construction industry. They have agreed bilaterally that: 

Companies  must  demand  proof  of  payment  of  tax  and  pension  contributions  from  prospective 
contractors when they call for tenders. If these payments have not been met, it is justifiable to reject a 
bid; 

Information about contracts must be delivered quarterly to the tax administration; 

Electronic pass systems must be used for workers and contractors at building sites. 

It appears that in assessing the state of the black economy, the electronic pass system has proved the 
most  effective  of  the  measures  in  the  construction  industry.  It  has  made  it  possible  to  monitor  all 
contractors and workers at building sites effectively. As a result, illicit activity is now easier to detect. 

Furthermore, the Finnish Construction Trade Union has unilaterally conducted inspections of building 
sites in order to gather details of outsourced firms and their adherence to collective agreements. It has 
forwarded this information to the tax authorities. 

In addition, social partners in construction have co-operated in informing construction firms about the 
proper use of foreign labour. In May 2004, they published a guidebook on the subject. This followed 
EU enlargement, which had prompted concerns about an influx of foreign temporary agency workers 
to Finland.186 

France 

Partnership agreements concluded between central government and employers’ organisations. 

Evaluation of / comments on effectiveness of the measure: and planned changes  

Trade  unions  can  exert  pressure  on  employers,  informing  them  that  they  have  received 
complaints about working conditions not being respected. According to Finnish law, employees 
can  take  their  employer  to  court.  Furthermore,  trade  unions  in  Finland  have  also  adopted  the 
strategy of organising boycotts.  

Entre  1992  et  2006,  15  conventions  nationales  ont  été  signées  entre  l’Etat  et  les  partenaires 
sociaux  pour  un  engagement  actif  contre  le  travail  illégal  (coiffure,  intérim,  déménagement, 
spectacle,  artisanat).  En  2005,  300  conventions  départementales  ont  été  conclues  avec  les 
organisations professionnelles.  

En décembre 2005, une Charte nationale du bâtiment et des travaux publics a été signée entre 
l’Etat et 7 organisations professionnelles destinée à favoriser les bonnes pratiques en matière de 
sous-traitance et de lutte contre le travail illégal. 

Ireland 

The  National  Partnership  Agreement  between  Government,  Employers  and  Employees  entitled 
“Towards  2016”  provides  for  the  enactment  of  the  Employment  Permits  Act,  2006  which  provides 

EN 

124 

EN

 
  
 
Table A6.1 – Preventive measures 

Country 

Description of measure 

Evaluation of / comments on effectiveness of the measure: and planned changes  

important  new  protections  for  migrant  workers.  These  workers  can  apply  and  reapply  for  their  own 
permit, which is then issued to them rather than to the employer as was previously the case.  

There is also provision that employment permits cannot be granted in respect of employment where 
the  remuneration  is  below  the  National  Minimum  Wage  as  stipulated  under  Minimum  Wage 
legislation. 

The  policy  paper  “National  Lisbon  programme  of  Latvia  for  the  period  2005  –  2008”  proposes  to 
create  an  enabling  environment  for  reinforcing  the  good  reputation  of  socially  responsible 
entrepreneurship by strengthening the role of trade unions and employers’ associations.187 

In 2006, the Office for Labour Force Migration (OLFM) had concluded a collaboration protocol with 
the Turkish Businessmen Association, which has the main goal to inform the Turkish aliens about the 
legislation  on  work  permit.  OLFM  will  give  information  that  will  help  the  Turkish  Businessmen 
Association to issue leaflets and guides in Turkish language. 

Latvia 

Romania 

United Kingdom 

No formal social partnership agreements have been made. However, we are working with trade unions 
and employers on vulnerable worker pilot projects to be launched shortly, including migrant workers. 

OLFM is open to collaborate with other agencies, which will have the task to inform and raise 
awareness about the illegal migration of labour force. 

187 

CIA questionnaire 

EN 

125 

EN

 
  
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 7 – ENFORCEMENT IN THE MEMBER STATES (SUPPORTING MATERIAL FOR OPTION 6) 

Table A7.1 – Enforcement: qualitative information provided by Member States 

Member State 

Situation in the country 

Please provide the name of the administrative body or unit which is responsible for the monitoring and enforcement of the 
regulations regarding employment of illegally staying third-country nationals.  

Austria 

KIAB (Kontrollen illegaler Arbeitnehmerbeschäftigung). 

Belgium 

Federal committee 

Bulgaria 

Executive Agency “General Labour Inspectorate” 

Czech Republic 

The  Labour  Offices  and  the  Inspectorates  of  Labour;  the  Custom  Offices  (they  are  under  the  Ministry  of 
Finance, they only conduct controls and collect fines, do not make administrative procedures) 

Estonia 

Finland 

Citizenship and Migration Board, The Police Board, Board of Border Guard. 

1) Surveillance Unit for Illegal Foreign Labour 

2) Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) inspectorates 

3) VIRKE project for the Development of Inter-Authority cooperation 

France  

National Committee on Illegal Work: Délégation interministérielle à la lutte contre le travail illégal (DILTI) 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

En matière d’emploi illégal des étrangers, le comité interministériel de contrôle de l’immigration (CICI) a également une 
compétence. 

Labour Inspectorate (SEPE), which replaced the former labour inspectorates operating under the supervision 
of the prefectural authorities.188 

In  cases  of  illegal  employment  of  non-residents  (migrant  workers),  OMMF  (the  Labour  Inspectorate)  can 
fine the employer. 189 

The response to the CIA questionnaire refers to that ‘Fines are imposed by migration authority OIN’.  

The  Department  of  Enterprise,  Trade  and  Employment  is  responsible  for  the  monitoring  and  enforcing  of 
employment rights legislation/regulations in respect of all workers, regardless of whether or not the workers 
concerned are migrant workers from outside the EU/EEA, migrant workers from within the EU/EEA or Irish 
workers. 

Lithuania 

State Labour Inspectorate 

Latvia 

The administrative body responsible for monitoring and enforcement of regulations regarding employment of 
illegally staying third-country nationals is State Labour Inspectorate (SLI).  

Generally, State Board Guard (SBG) is the administrative body that enforces regulations regarding illegally staying third-
country nationals. 

Malta 

Law Compliance Unit 

188 

189 

EN 

Law  2639/1998  on  'regulation  of  labour  relations,  establishment  of  a  Labour  Inspectorate  and  other 
provisions'  specified  the  competencies,  staffing  and  other  issues  regarding  the  operation  of  the 
Inspectorate. 
Thematic 
http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2004/06/tfeature/hu0406103t.html 

relations  and  undocumented  work:  Hungary. 

June  2004. 

industrial 

feature: 

126 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Table A7.1 – Enforcement: qualitative information provided by Member States 

Member State 

Situation in the country 

Netherlands 

Labour Inspectorate 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Control  of  the  legality  of  employment  is  attended  to  by  inspection  units  informally  known  as  the  labour 
police. 

The competent entity to apply the sanctions is the general director of Serviço de Estrangeiros e Fronteiras, 
and he/she can delegate the decision.190 

Romanian Labour Inspection, by Territorial Labour Inspectorates, and the employers of Romanian Office for 
Labour Force Migration (OLFM), appointed by Order of the Romanian Minister of Labour, Social Solidarity 
and Family – according to Article 12 paragraph 1 of Law no. 203/1999, republished. 

OLFM has competencies regarding the issue and extension of work permits for aliens. Also, OLFM along 
with the Labour Inspection have competences in checking and sanctioning employers, who use alien labour 
force. 

The Authority for Aliens has competencies in checking and sanctioning illegal stay of aliens in Romania. 

Slovak Republic 

The forthcoming Act date on illicit work and illicit employment will nominate the labour inspectorates as the 
competent authority to carry out surveillance over illicit work and illicit employment. 

Slovenia 

The Labour Inspectorate 

Spain 

Sweden 

Inspection of Labour and Social Security (ITSS). 

the National Economic Crimes Bureau (Ekobrottsmyndigheten, EBM)191 

United Kingdom 

UK Immigration Service & Police 

Is this body under the auspices of any government department (which?) or is it an independent authority? 

Austria 

 The Ministry of Finance 

Bulgaria 

It is an agency under the Minister of Labour and Social Policy 

Czech Republic 

Under Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Ireland 

Fall under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Interior. 

1) part of the National Bureau of Investigation, which is a national unit of the Finnish Police.  

2) Department for Occupational Safety and Health, under ministry of Social Affairs and Health.  

3) Overall responsibility: Ministry of Finance 

 La DILTI dépend du ministère chargé du travail. 

The  Department  operates  a  labour  inspectorate  in  respect  of  all  the  above  workers.  It  is  in  the  process  of 
setting  up  a  National  Employment  Rights  Authority  to  manage/coordinate  a  greatly  increased  labour 
inspectorate (a trebling in numbers in 2007 to 90. 

Italy 

Ministry of Labour 

190 
191 

EN 

CIA questionnaire 
Thematic 
http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2004/06/tfeature/se0406101t.html 

industrial 

relations 

feature: 

and  undocumented  work:  Sweden. 

127 

June  2004. 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Table A7.1 – Enforcement: qualitative information provided by Member States 

Member State 

Situation in the country 

Lithuania 

State Labour Inspectorate is subordinated to the Ministry of Social Security and Labour 

Latvia 

Malta 

Poland 

Romania 

State Border Guard is established under the subordination of the Ministry of the Interior, while State Labour 
Inspectorate is under the supervision of the Ministry of Welfare. 

The public employment service 

As of January 1, 2002, these are subordinated to the voivod (i.e. regional level). 

The  Labour  Inspection  is  a  specialized  agency  of  central  public  administration,  subordinated  to  Romanian 
Ministry of Labour, Social Solidarity and Family, and has in its subordination territorial labour inspectorates. 

The Office for Labour Force Migration (OLFM) is a public agency subordinated to Romanian Ministry of Labour, Social 
Solidarity and Family (MLSSF) and to State Secretary, who coordinates the Department for Labour Abroad. 

The Authority for Aliens is direct subordinated to the Ministry of Administration and Interior. 

Slovak Republic 

Labour  Inspectorate  is  under  the  auspices  of  Ministry  of  Labour,  Social  Affairs  and  Family  of  the  Slovak 
Republic 

United Kingdom 

Home Office.  

The  Immigration  and  Nationality  Directorate  (which  includes  the  UK  Immigration  Service)  moving  to  shadow  agency 
status this year – to be called the Border & Immigration Agency. 

Spain 

Ministry of Labour and Social Security 

Is coordination and cooperation required? (i.e. are several government departments or other authorities involved?) Is there 
any legislative framework that structures this coordination?  

Austria 

Since 2002 the Ministry of Finance is assisting KIAB in these controls.  

As from January 2007 control teams are integrated in tax offices due to the close connection with tax and social security 
contributions fraud and in order to make enforcement more effective. 

‘Steuerhinterziehung,  Sozialversicherungsbetrug  und  illegale  Beschäftigung  von  Ausländern  werden  in  Tateinheit 
begangen.  Durch  die  Ansiedelung  der  Prüfung 
in  Verbindung  mit  der 
Verständigungspflicht  ist  ein  Höchstmaß  von  Synergien  erzielbar,  da  jede  illegale  Beschäftigung  von  Ausländern  im 
Zusammenhang mit Steuerhinterziehung und Sozialversicherungsbetrug steht.’ 

im  Rahmen  der  Finanzverwaltung 

Belgium 

The government has introduced a federal committee to coordinate efforts to combat illegal labour practices, 
tax fraud, and human trafficking.  

Bulgaria 

YES 

Czech Republic 

Yes.  Cooperation  of  the  Labour  Offices  and  the  Custom  Offices  is  established  in  the  Employment  Act 
(435/2004  Coll.).  All  authorities  coordinate  their  activities  in  “Interdepartmental  body  for  repressing  the 
illegal employment of foreigners” established by the government in 2000. 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

Inspections are conducted in co-operation with the Directorate of Labour and the police, which control for 
abuse of unemployment benefits and for the employment of illegal workers. 

According  to  the  Aliens  Act  all  aforementioned  state  authorities  are  justified  to  check  the  presence  of 
documentation  allowing  to  work.  State  authorities  will  cooperate  in  case  of  necessity.  A  cooperation 
agreement  between  Citizenship  and  Migration  Board  and  Board  of  Border  Guard  is  currently  being 
concluded. 

1) The unit cooperates closely with local police and other authorities, various agents of business life and with 
trade and employers’ associations. Cooperates with OSH and tax offices on 10-20 joint investigations / per 
year. 

EN 

128 

   EN 

 
Table A7.1 – Enforcement: qualitative information provided by Member States 

Member State 

Situation in the country 

2) Cooperates with NBI and tax offices on 10 to 20 joint investigations per year. 

3) ‘This project was set up on the basis of the idea that the fight against the informal economy and economic crime would 
be  more  effective  if  cooperation  between  different  authorities  was  developed.’  (PIELAMI  report,  pg.  20).  The  team 
includes: representatives from police, taxation, customs and distraint authorities. 

France  

Il existe deux types de coordination : 

coordination  institutionnelle  :  1/  entre  les  différents  interlocuteurs  nationaux;  2/  entre  la  structure  nationale  et  ses 
représentations départementales ; 

coordination opérationnelle : opérations de contrôle conjointes ou concertées. 

Ireland 

Italy 

Lithuania 

The  Department  actively  cooperates  with  other  Department,  including  the  Department  of  Justice,  Equality 
and Law Reform and the Department of Social and Family affairs. 

An important recent development is legislative decree no. 124 of 23 April 2004 which, in implementation of 
Article 8 of law 30/2003 (the 'Biagi law' on labour market reform), reforms the labour inspection services. 
The  decree  has  created  a  specific  section  at  the  Ministry  of  Labour  responsible  for  the  coordination  of 
inspectors (including those working for the social security institutes and social insurance agencies). 192 

According  to  2001-11-21  Governmental  Act  No.  1407  State  Labour  Inspectorate  coordinates  activities  of 
State  Social  Insurance  Fund  Board,  State  Tax  Inspectorate,  Financial  Crime  Investigation  Service,  Police 
Departament and Regional Divisions of State Labour Inspectorate in combating illegal work. 

Latvia 

Yes,  coordination  and  cooperation  is  required  and  advisable;  there  is  a  special  “Agreement  of  cooperation 
between Labour Inspection and State Border Guard” (No 58) adopted on the 4th of July 2006. 

The involved authorities are: State Revenue Service, State Labour Inspectorate, State Border Guard. 

Netherlands 

The  employers’  association,  LTO  Nederland,  co-operates  with  the  Labour  Inspectorates  to  combat  illegal 
employment in the agriculture and horticulture sectors. 

Poland 

Romania 

The labour police may work in conjunction with the State Labour Inspection, the social insurance institution, 
the tax offices, the police, and with other bodies, as appropriate. 193 

The Territorial Labour Inspection carries out joint activities with territorial units of the Authority for Aliens 
according  to  the  agreements  concluded  between  these  two  institutions.  Both  institutions  have  drafted  a 
common methodology of inspection (control) in view of combating illegal work on the black market labour 
and illegal stay of aliens. 

The  Office  for  Labour  Force  Migration  (OLFM)  concluded  a  cooperation  protocol  with  the  Authority  for 
Aliens and General Directorate for Consular Affairs within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 

Also, OLFM cooperates with the Labour Inspection, due to similar competences of checking the aliens. 

Slovak Republic 

The special law requires the amendment of several related laws, including the Labour Code, Act on Labour 
Inspection,  Act  on  Social  Insurance,  Act  on  Employment  Services.  An  important  change  in  these  laws 
concern improvements in the mutual co-operation of competent bodies in combating illicit work. 

Slovenia 

Monitoring is undertaken by the Market Inspectorate, the Labour Inspectorate, the Traffic Inspectorate, the 
Tax  Administration,  the  police  and  other  supervisory  bodies,  together  with  the  Ministry  of  Finance,  the 
Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry for Labour.194 

192 

193 

EN 

feature: 

industrial 

Thematic 
http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2004/06/tfeature/it0406107t.html 
Thematic 
http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2004/06/tfeature/pl0406107t.html 

industrial 

relations 

relations 

feature: 

and 

and  undocumented  work:  Poland. 

undocumented  work: 

Italy. 

June 

2004. 

129 

June  2004. 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Table A7.1 – Enforcement: qualitative information provided by Member States 

Member State 

Situation in the country 

Spain 

Investigations  are  also  undertaken  by  la  Comisaría  General  de  Extranjería  y  Documentación  (Ministry  of 
Internal Affairs) regarding trafficking of persons, illegal immigration and falsification of documents. 195 

United Kingdom 

Various directorates within IND have an interest in the employment of migrant workers (legal and illegal). 

Other Government departments also have an interest in workplace enforcement issues e.g. tax, health and safety etc. Co-
ordination and co-operation is therefore required across Government departments. A recent pilot led by the Home Office 
has suggested that information sharing is key to cross Government working. Legal gateways exist, and work is underway 
to identify whether any further legislation is required to allow government departments to work together further. 

When was this administrative body or unit set up? 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

2003 

1991 

Czech Republic 

LO  –  1991;  IL  –  2005  (change  of  structure  and  competences);  CO  –  competences  in  the  sphere  of 
employment since 2004 

Finland 

1) 2004. The project was given a mandate of five years which is scheduled to expire at the end of 2008. 

3) set up in March 2000 and will continue to the end of 2008. 

France 

1997.  

Toutefois,  la  France  a  mis  en  place  dès  1974  un  dispositif  institutionnel  interministériel  pour  lutter  contre  les  trafics  de 
main-d’œuvre  étrangère  en  créant  la  mission  interministérielle  de  lutte  contre  les  trafics  de  main  d’œuvre  étrangère 
(MILUTMO),  dont  les  missions  ont  évolué  dans  le  temps  pour  s’intéresser  à  toutes  les  formes  majeures  de  travail  et 
d’emploi  irréguliers,  quelle  que  soit  la  nationalité  des  responsables  de  ces  fraudes  ou  des  victimes  de  celle  ci.  La 
MILUTMO a été remplacée en 1997 par la DILTI. 

Ireland 

The  National  Employment  Rights  Authority  already  has  a  Chief  Executive,  from  February,  2007  and 
arrangements are rapidly being put in place for the establishment of the Authority. 

Lithuania 

1992-12-16 

Latvia 

State Labour Inspectorate was set up in 1992. 

State Border Guard was re-established in 1991. 

State Revenue Service was set up in 1993. 

Romania 

The Labour Inspection was set up in 1999, according to Law no. 108/1999, republished. 

The  Office  for  Labour  Force  Migration  was  set  up  on  January  15th  2002,  according  to  Government  Decision  no. 
1320/2001, modified and amended. 

Slovak Republic 

2005 

Spain 

This specific department was set up in 1996, but it has existed under different departments since 1906. 

Sweden 

1998 

United Kingdom 

The Immigration Service first came into being in 1919 with the establishment of the Aliens Restriction Act 

194 

195 

EN 

feature: 

Thematic 
http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2004/06/tfeature/si0406205t.html 
CIA questionnaire 

industrial 

relations  and  undocumented  work:  Slovenia. 

June  2004. 

130 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
Table A7.1 – Enforcement: qualitative information provided by Member States 

Member State 

Situation in the country 

Is the sole task of this body or unit to check illegal employment, or does it also deal with other employment issues (as, for 
example, laid down in employment legislation / labour law)?  

Austria 

Bulgaria 

KIAB  is  a  special  law  enforcement  unit  to  combat  illegal  work  practices.  The  core  work  is  control  of 
employment of illegal foreigners. 

The agency inspects the implementation of labour legislation in ensuring occupational safety and health and 
in  carrying  out  labour  relations,  realises  a  specialised  control  of  observation  the  Law  on  Employment 
Promotion and the other acts concerning the occupation and unemployment, gives information and technical 
advice  to  the  employers  and  employees  about  the  most  effective  methods  for  complying  with  labour 
legislation, informs the competent bodies about omissions and defects of the labour legislation which is in 
force. 

Czech Republic 

LO  –  provide  employment  and  several  other  services,  control  activities  in  these  spheres  (also  control  of  i/ 
legality of labour relations and work permits) 

IL – control activities concerning observance of most of labour law regulations 

CO – executive authority by the Ministry of Finance 

Estonia 

Finland 

Aforementioned state authorities deal with checking the presence of documentation allowing to work. It is 
not their task to create and develop labor law. Still they are justified to propose amendments to legal acts that 
concern illegal employment. 

1)  Aimed  at  monitoring  and  preventing  the  use  of  illegal  foreign  workforce.  In  practice,  the  cases  under 
investigation involve economic crime, such as (aggravated) tax fraud. Two tasks: expose informal economy 
crime based on Police Act + conduct pre-judicial inquiries. 

2) PIELAMI report, pg. 18: ‘The OSH Administration supports employers and employees to improve working conditions 
and  fulfil  employment  obligations  as  well  as  integrate  occupational  safety  and  health  into  other  activities  of  the 
workplace.’ 

3) Tasks (PIELAMI report, pg. 20):  

- ‘distribute information on economic crime to different authorities in order to support their control activities; 

- maintain a general picture of the economic crime as well as evaluate effectiveness of control actions;  

- make initiatives to improve legislation and authority cooperation; 

- develop methods to prevent economic crime.’ 

France  

Greece 

La DILTI s’occupe du seul travail illégal mais elle est associée à l’ensemble des réflexions visant à alléger ou 
simplifier les formalités et les procédures liées à l’embauche ou à l’emploi. 

The  basic  objective  of  the  Labour  Inspectorate  is  to  supervise  and  monitor  the  implementation  of  the 
provisions  of  labour  legislation.  The  IKA  (social  insurance  organizations’  control  mechanism)  carries  out 
similar  monitoring,  though  restricted  to  checking  whether  social  insurance  legislation  is  being  complied 
with.196 

Ireland 

The Authority will have responsibility for monitoring/enforcing employment rights in respect of all workers, 
regardless of whether they are Irish or foreign nationals. 

Lithuania 

Illegal employment is not the sole task of this body. It is also responsible for control over compliance with 

196 

EN 

feature: 

Thematic 
http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2004/06/tfeature/gr0406104t.html.  Also 
questionnaire. 

industrial 

relations 

and  undocumented  work:  Greece. 

confirmed 

June  2004. 
by  CIA 

131 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Table A7.1 – Enforcement: qualitative information provided by Member States 

Member State 

Situation in the country 

the regulatory provisions of the Labour Code, labour laws, other regulatory acts and collective agreements 

Latvia 

State  Border  Guard  (SBG)  is  a  direct  administrative  institution  which  according  to  Article  13(15)  of  the 
Border Guard law controls compliance with regulations of entry, residence, exit and transit of foreigners in 
the Republic of Latvia, inter alia concerning employment of foreigners.  

The  State  Labour  Inspectorate  (SLI)  also  deals  with  other  employment  issues,  such  as  the  monitoring  and  controlling 
observance of the requirements of regulatory enactments regarding employment legal relationships, labour protection and 
technical supervision of dangerous equipment. 

Netherlands 

The  Labour  Inspectorate  reserves  about  19%  of  its  capacity  for  investigating  illegal  employment  at 
employment agencies, focusing investigations around the use of false identity papers or false social / fiscal 
numbers. One third of the capacity is used to conduct checks in the agriculture and horticulture sector. 

Poland 

Romania 

The  inspectors’  mandate  comprises  control  proceedings  with  respect  to  all  employers,  self-employed 
individuals, and any other institutions and private individuals as regards their retaining of Polish nationals as 
well as of foreigners. 

The Labour Inspection has competencies in the field of labour, work relations, security and health in work – 
according to provisions of Government Decision no. 767/1999 on approving the Regulation for organising 
and functioning of Labour Inspection, completed and amended. 

Beside issuing and extending the work permits for aliens (and to check aliens too), the Office for Labour Force Migration 
has  also  the  following  competences:  putting  in  force  the  bilateral  treaties  and  agreements  on  labour  force  exchange; 
recruiting  and  placing  labour  force  in  states  with  which  Romania  hasn’t  concluded  such  agreements;  information  and 
documentation; cooperation with other agencies from Romania and abroad. 

Slovak Republic 

Labour Inspectorate deal with different employment issues like occupational and health and safety. 

Sweden 

The EBM deals primarily with dishonesty towards creditors, tax crimes, infringements of the insider trading 
legislation,  and  crimes  against  the  financial  interests  of  the  European  Union.  EBM  is  thus  a  prosecuting 
authority that combats economic crime of a certain importance.197 

United Kingdom 

In addition to carrying out enforcement operations, the Service has additional tasks detecting and removing 
illegal immigrants. 

How  are  these  enforcement  actions  organised?  What  data  inform  them,  if  any  (e.g.  research)?  Are  particular  sectors  or 
businesses targeted (if yes, why these)?  

Austria 

Belgium 

‘Im  Rahmen  der  Kontrolltätigkeit  in  Bezug  auf  die  Überwachung  der  Einhaltung  der  Bestimmungen  des 
Ausländerbeschäftigungsgesetzes  haben  die  Abgabenbehörden  zu  diesem  Zweck  nicht  nur  umfangreiche 
Kontrollbefugnisse,  sondern  auch  Parteistellung  in  bestimmten  Verwaltungsstrafverfahren  nach  dem 
Ausländerbeschäftigungsgesetz, unabhängig davon, durch wen dieses eingeleitet wurde.’ 

Each  month,  the  federal  committee  plans  a  worksite  enforcement  action  targeted  against  employers  in 
specific industries, such as construction or restaurants, and coordinates the activities of various enforcement 
agencies  in  Belgium,  including  the  Belgian  Labour  inspectorate,  police,  the  Immigration  Office  and  other 
government agencies, in conducting the enforcement operations. These enforcement actions occur over a 3-
day period. 

Raids are organised and are targeted at ‘risk sectors’ such as agriculture, horticulture, construction and others. 198 

Bulgaria 

The  control  is  specific  –  it  is  not  based  on  targeting  specific  sectors.  The  general  observation  is  that 
companies  with  foreign  capital  most  often  violate  the  rules  related  to  work  permits  requirements  and 

197 

198 

EN 

feature: 

industrial 

Thematic 
http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2004/06/tfeature/se0406101t.html 
Het  Nieuwsblad 
illegalen 
http://www.nieuwsblad.be/Article/Detail.aspx?articleID=g115hv5n. 

(2004),  Preventiecampagne  over 

relations 

and  undocumented  work:  Sweden. 

June  2004. 

in 

tuinbouw.  26  June  2004. 

132 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Table A7.1 – Enforcement: qualitative information provided by Member States 

Member State 

Situation in the country 

registration  of  posted  workers.  The  local  calls  for  infringement  are  the  other  information  source  for 
inspections. 

Czech Republic 

They have a schedule of control actions, planned for one year, and they also act on the basis of notifications.  

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

They work in mutual cooperation with other control bodies (e.g. police) 

The  tax  authorities  have  intensified  their  control  of  the  sectors  where  undeclared  and  illegal  work  is  most 
widespread. This includes on-the-spot inspections of hotels and restaurants in a specific geographic area. 

This is regular surveillance/ monitoring activity. Some checks are definitely carried out due to tip-offs. 

1) Main target areas: ship building, construction, hotels and restaurant. It ‘carries out a limited number of on-
site  inspections  of  informal  labour  enterprises  in  which  they  also  check  workers  for  permits.  These 
inspections are usually based on criminal suspicion.’ (PIELAMI report, pg. 19) 

2) Sectors targeted: construction, hotels and restaurants, cleaning, and the metal industry. No inspections of 
private  households.  OSH  carries  out  on-site  inspections  to  check  the  working  conditions  and  terms  of 
employment of employees according to Finnish regulations. ‘Inspections are random or based on hints from 
other companies, the police, tax authorities, etc. (PIELAMI report, pg. 18) 

3) ‘It collects, analyses and distributes intelligence to different authorities, including information related to 
foreign labour and the practices of foreign companies working in Finland, for example. In particular: focus 
on tax evasion of employees and companies registered abroad but working in Finland. ’ (PIELAMI report, 
pg. 20) Disposes of tax database, which it can draw upon when tips are received. 

France  

Le  gouvernement  a  lancé  un  Plan  national  de  lutte  contre  le  travail  illégal  2004-2005,  reconduit  en  2006-
2007. Ce Plan fixe des priorités d’action pour les services de contrôle et détermine 4 secteurs professionnels 
prioritaires : Bâtiment et travaux publics, agriculture, hôtellerie-restauration, spectacles.  

Chaque année, un bilan statistique est établi pour indiquer les résultats obtenus.  

Ireland 

Data monitoring will be addressed in the context of the establishment of the Employment Rights Authority  

Lithuania 

State  Social  Insurance  Fund  Board,  State  Tax  Inspectorate,  Financial  Crime  Investigation  Service,  Police 
Department inform State Labour Inspectorate about accidents of illegal work. 

State Labour Inspectorate analyses the results of detecting illegal work and prognosticates tendencies  

The most hazardous sectors are segregated: 

(cid:131)  Building sector 

(cid:131)  Wholesale business and retail trade 

(cid:131)  Garages 

(cid:131) 

Timber industry 

(cid:131)  Agriculture 

(cid:131)  Hotels and restaurants. 

Latvia 

Information  about  possible  violation  of  law  is  collected  mainly  from  the  applications,  anonymous  calls, 
cooperative  inspections  together  with  State  Board  Guards,  usage  of  the  data  base  from  State  Revenue 
Service. 

In regard of illegally employed workers particularly targeted are those sectors of business where the majority 
of illegally employed workers are involved. They are the following: building and construction, agriculture, 
wholesale, hotels/restaurants, woodworking. 

Most recently, efforts have been intensified in the fight against “envelope wages”. 

EN 

133 

   EN 

 
Table A7.1 – Enforcement: qualitative information provided by Member States 

Member State 

Situation in the country 

Netherlands 

Poland 

From  1  January  2007  employers  are  obliged  to  assist  the  Labour  Inspectorate  in  verifying  the  identity  of 
employees  during  on  site  inspections.  If  the  employer  is  not  able  to  do  so  he  can  be  fined  with  the  same 
penalties as for employing illegal aliens.199 

The Polish law provides for regulations aimed at securing the effectiveness of employment lawfulness. Such 
control  may  include  employers,  entrepreneurs  and  other  institutions,  as  well  as  natural  persons.  Foiling  or 
hindering the said control is punishable by a fine not lower than 3 000 PLN.200 

Romania 

The Labour Inspection carries out specific campaigns in different fields of activity. 

Slovak Republic 

- after receiving complaints/intimations 

The Act on Labour Inspection specifies obligations of employers, entrepreneurs and employees towards the 
labour  inspectorate.  These  include,  inter  alia,  the  obligation  of  the  employer  to  enable  free  access  of 
inspectors to the workplace and create conditions for a swift inspection, to submit upon request the identity 
of persons present at his/her workplace and documents proving a labour relation to such persons. Any person 
present at the workplace of an employer is obliged to prove his/her identity and explain the reason for such 
presence at the workplace. However, as reality shows, it is not difficult for employers and employees who 
engage in undeclared activities to avoid sanction. In many cases it is not possible for the inspector to prove 
that a person is not just helping out a friend (e.g. at a construction site). The NLI admits that such a form of 
work is not considered to be illicit work.  

Current  legislation  does  not  enable  labour  inspectors  to  perform  inspections  of  private  non-commercial 
property where undeclared work is suspected.201 

United Kingdom 

The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 gives immigration officers new powers to enter business 
premises and requires public authorities, employers and banks to share information about suspected illegal 
workers with the Immigration Service.202 

What happens when inspectors observe violations of regulations? 

Austria 

‘Die  Organe  der  Abgabebehörde  sind  im  Rahmen  ihrer  Kontrolltätigkeit  gemäß  der  Bestimmung  des  §  26 
Abs.  4  AuslBG  befugt,  die  Identität  von  Personen  festzustellen,  sowie  Fahrzeuge  und  sonstige 
Beförderungsmittel zu überprüfen, wenn Grund zur Annahme besteht, dass es sich bei diesen Personen um 
ausländische Arbeitskräfte handelt die beschäftigt werden, oder zu Arbeitsleistungen herangezogen werden. 
Die Organe der Abgabenbehörde sind, wenn Gefahr in Verzug besteht und das Einschreiten von Organen des 
öffentlichen  Sicherheitsdienstes  nicht  abgewartet  werden  kann,  auch  ermächtigt,  Ausländer  für  die 
Fremdenpolizeibehörde  festzunehmen.  Den  Organen  der  Abgabenbehörde  kommen  dabei  die  im  §  35 
Verwaltungsstrafgesetz (VStG) geregelten Befugnisse der Organe des öffentlichen Sicherheitsdienstes zu.’ 

Czech Republic 

They make a protocol, then conduct administrative procedure, and then they impose a fine, if necessary 

Estonia 

Finland 

199 
200 
201 

202 

If  a  violation  is  ascertained  then  a  misdemeanor  procedure  is  carried  out  with  the  employer  and  a  fine  is 
imposed  with  an  obligation  to  end  the  violation  and  pay  the  fine  by  a  certain  date.  The  misdemeanor 
procedure is also carried out with the employee. If it is discovered that an employee resides in the country 
without  a  legal  basis  then  he/she  will  be  detained  and  required  to  either  leave  or  legalize  oneself  and  if 
necessary expelled. 

1)  The  unit  conducts  ‚pre-judicial  inquiries  through  real  time  crime  investigation  based  on  Criminal 
Investigations  Act  and  Coercive  Measures  Act  to  expose  tax  offences,  accounting  offences,  money 
laundering and more’ (PIELAMI report, pg. 19). 

CIA questionnaire. 
CIA questionnaire 
Thematic 
http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2004/06/tfeature/sk0406105t.html 
Thematic  feature:  industrial  relations  and  undocumented  work:  United  Kingdom.  June  2004. 
http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2004/06/tfeature/uk0406104t.html 

relations  and  undocumented  work:  Slovakia. 

June  2004. 

industrial 

feature: 

EN 

134 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Table A7.1 – Enforcement: qualitative information provided by Member States 

Member State 

Situation in the country 

2) After each on-site inspection, the inspection officer writes an inspection report. Employers are provided with a list of 
requirements they must meet. OSH inspectorate then makes follow-up visits to supvervise compliance. If no compliance: 
sanctions imposed. (PIELAMI report, pg. 19) 

France 

Ireland 

Les inspecteurs du travail ont le libre choix des suites de leurs enquêtes lorsqu’elles révèlent des violations 
de  la  loi.  Ils  peuvent  demander  une  régularisation,  faire  un  rappel  à  la  loi,  ou  dans  les  cas  les  plus  graves 
dresser un procès-verbal transmis aux autorités judiciaires.  

The  Inspectors  are  proactive  in  dealing  with  violations  and  cases  are  brought  to  Court/Legal  Process  as 
required. 

Lithuania 

Inspectors draw up the record of administrative violation of law and brings it to the administrative court. 

Latvia 

After the violations are observed and established, information about the illegally employed third-country nationals is given 
to the State Board Guards (SBG).  

Under the competence of the SBG there are two Articles of the Code of Administarative Violations that could be applied: 
Article 189 „Employment without the passport or permission to work” and Article 189¹ „Work without the permission to 
work”.  

An administrative charge upon the employer is imposed. 

Romania 

When  the  labour  inspectors  find  that  the  legal  provisions  have  been  breached,  according  to  their 
competencies, they can apply contravention sanctions or can apprise the bodies of criminal investigation. 

Slovak Republic 

The Act on Labour Inspection also establishes the authorisation of the inspectorate to impose penalties for 
violation of these laws. 

Do you consider the current approach to enforcement effective? Why /why not? 

Bulgaria 

The control authorities meet difficulties with the identification of offenders. 

Czech Republic 

Main problem is a personal capacity. Otherwise it seems to be effective enough. 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Greece 

Ireland 

Lithuania 

Penalties for employers need to be reviewed and made more severe. 

“Quite  effective.  Wider  front  established,  because  a  range  of  bodies  are  involved  in  enforcement,  are  well 
aware of the tasks and activities of the other bodies, and often cooperate with one another.“ 

Oui. Dès lors que la lutte contre le travail illégal présente un double aspect, préventif et répressif, et qu’elle 
est  placée  sous  l’angle  de  l’interministérialité  en  associant  l’ensemble  des  services  de  l’Etat  et  des 
organismes de protection sociale. 

Further  reinforcement  needed:  The  main  tool  will  be  the  Common  Ministerial  Decision  (art.89  of  Act 
3386/2005)  that  will  provide  for  the  legislative  framework  so  that  the  competent  control  mechanisms  of 
Ministry of Labor and Social Protection can become more effective in the application of the labor and social 
insurance legislation being in force.203 

There  has  been  evidence  to  suggest  the  need  for  increased  enforcement  and  this  is  now  being  addressed 
through the establishment of the Authority.  

From the low number of detected third-country nationals we can draw inference, that the current approach to 
enforcement is effective. 

203 

CIA questionnaire 

EN 

135 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Table A7.1 – Enforcement: qualitative information provided by Member States 

Member State 

Situation in the country 

Malta 

In 2003, however, the inspectorate section of the ETC was heavily criticised in parliament by a Labour MP, 
for finding too few violations. This was attributed to depletion of staff from the Law Compliance Unit and 
the lack of co-operation sometimes experienced with other departments.204 

Slovak Republic 

Yes 

Slovenia 

According to the head of the governmental commission for discovering and preventing undeclared work and 
employment,  very  good  results  in  preventing  and  combating  undeclared  work  have  been  achieved  through 
the well-coordinated collective actions of the Labour Inspectorate and other agencies.205 

Are  current  administrative  and  penal  sanctions  considered  effective  in  discouraging  the  employment  of  illegally  staying 
third-country nationals? If yes/no, why? Any changes to be proposed? 

Bulgaria 

The amount of the current administrative sanctions is effective in discouraging the employment of illegally 
staying third-country nationals, but still there are problems related to implementation. 

Czech Republic 

The Czech Republic prefers administrative type of sanctions and focusing on both commercial and private 
employers,  but  it  is  important  to  act  proportionally  to  their  economical  etc.  situation  and  their  position  on 
labour market (e.g. adjust the amount of fine). However, administrative fines are not effective enough, when 
used  solely.  Preventive  actions seem  to  be  the most important measures,  mainly  when  focused  on  roots  of 
illegal immigration (on a concrete territory, push factors, informational level of would-be migrants, etc.), and 
on roots of preference of illegal employment by employers. 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Greece 

According to the latest statistics the amount of illegally employed immigrants has declined. The number of 
reports  and  complaints  against  companies  for  using  foreign  labour  without  having  the  necessary  valid 
documents in order has declined from 121 in the second quarter of 2005 to 62 in the second quarter of 2006. 

Current sanctions are not severe enough, especially for legal persons 

CIA questionnaire: The legislation in force gives the authorities a good opportunity to monitor the right of 
people  coming  from  third  countries  to  reside  and  take  up  employment  in  the  country.  As  regards  the 
effectiveness and impact of current bills, no assessments can be made yet. In practice they do not, however, 
affect  the  work of  the  police,  because  responsibility  for  monitoring  rests  with labour  protection authorities 
under the Customer Liability Act, and with fiscal authorities under the reforms in the tax law. 

From  the  crime  investigation  perspective,  the  most  efficient  way  of  combating  illegal  foreign  labour  and  foreign  labour 
working in the shadow economy is to target  measures at the employers  who employ illegal employees or operate in the 
shadow economy. In these cases, economic crime investigation is often carried out, and the most typical forms of crime are 
(aggravated) tax fraud or (aggravated) accounting offence. The investigation of such cases requires a good and effective 
cooperation  between  the  police  and fiscal  authorities.  It  is  particularly  important  to  trace  and  confiscate  the  proceeds of 
crime the criminals have acquired through the use of illegal foreign labour or foreign labour in the shadow economy.  

See above Customer Liability Act, introduced in January 2007. 

Oui. L’objectif est de décourager les employeurs d’embaucher des étrangers clandestins originaires des pays 
tiers. La loi du 24 juillet 2006 relative à l’immigration et à l’intégration renforce cet objectif.  

The combination of measures aiming at the smooth integration of foreign workers in Greece with adequate 
legislative provisions applying sanctions to employers and workers contribute positively to the reduction of 
undeclared work. Nevertheless, what is needed is further reinforcement, both on the administrative level and 
in  regard  with  the  legislation  application  issue,  of  the  control  mechanisms  in  order  to  be  more  effective 
during their effort (see above). The main tool to this aim will be the Common Ministerial Decision (art.89 of 
Act 3386/2005) that will provide for the legislative framework so that the competent control mechanisms of 
Ministry of Labor and Social Protection can become more effective in the application of the labor and social 

204 

205 

European Employment Observatory; Review autumn 2004. Chapter on “Thematic Overview: Fighting 
the immeasurable? Addressing the phenomenon of undeclared work in the European Union”. 
Thematic  feature  on  Industrial  Relations  and  Undocumented  Work.  Slovenia.  June  2004. 
http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2004/06/tfeature/si0406205t.html 

EN 

136 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Table A7.1 – Enforcement: qualitative information provided by Member States 

Member State 

Situation in the country 

insurance legislation being in force. 

Ireland 

Lithuania 

Latvia 

Portugal 

Ireland considers that the foregoing arrangements represent an effective deterrent and reduce the possibility 
for illegally staying third-country nationals of finding work. 

According  to  the  economy  level,  administrative  sanctions  for  illegal  work  are  strict.  The  Code  of 
Administrative Violations of Law determines the fines: 3,000-10,000 Litas. 

The  current  sanctions  are  considered  relatively  effective,  however  in  order  to  further  improve  the 
effectiveness,  there  are  changes  planned  in  the  Administrative  Offence  Code,  however  it  cannot  be 
ascertained whether the issue of illegally staying third-country nationals will be involved. 

The  consequences  of  the  measures  to  reduce  permanence  of  citizens  in  an  illegal  situation  are  not  easy  to 
account  for.  However,  experience  tell  us  that  the  application  of  economic  sanctions  to  employers  is  an 
efficient  measure  to  fight  illegal  immigration  as,  in  one  hand,  is  a  form  of  inhibition  for  employers  and 
immigrant manpower abusers and, on another hand, is a source of compensatory financial resources to bear 
the cost of the action against illegal immigration. 

We consider that sanctions of an administrative/economic nature are the most suitable to fight employment 
of  foreign  citizens  in  an  irregular  situation,  rather  than  measures  of  a  penal  nature,  and  are  those  that  best 
pursue a general and special prevention. 

Romania 

So far, the Authority for Aliens has not uncovered and sanctioned relevant criminal acts (e.g. facilitation). 

It  is  difficult  to  evaluate  the  efficiency  of  measures  and  sanctions  available  in  the  area,  but  if  the  sanctions  are  small 
(especially fines) and the authorities’ checks are not continuously carried out, sanctions will not help in carrying out the 
general task: decreasing the possibility of third country nationals to find the opportunity of being hired without legal forms. 

The  assessment  of  checks  undertaken  by  the  Office  for  Labour  Force  Migration  at  Romanian  employers,  who  have 
employed aliens, relieved that there must be taken more severe sanctions than the current ones. 

Slovak Republic 

Yes 

United Kingdom 

As detailed in the answers above, the current legislation (section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996) 
is  due  to  be  repealed  and  new  measures  (civil  penalties,  the  new  “knowing”  offence)  as  introduced  in  the 
Immigration Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 are due to come into force in late 2007. 

Political support for enforcement actions: Is the fight against undocumented / illegal work (in general and that of illegally 
staying third-country nationals in particular) a governmental priority? 

Czech Republic 

Yes, of course. Government established a special body, mentioned above. 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Ireland 

Lithuania 

Reducing  the  possibilities  for  illegal  working  has  not  been  explicit  governmental  priority  though  it  has 
always been very important subject. 

Yes,  it  has  been  a  governmental  priority.  This  has  been  reflected  in  the  range  of  policy  and  legislative 
measures that the current government put in place (e.g. Policy Migration Programme, Amendment to Act on 
Occupational Safety and Health Working Security, Amendment to Posted Workers Act).  

However, new elections and new government to arrive soon. 

Oui. La lutte contre l’immigration irrégulière et le travail illégal constitue une priorité du Gouvernement.  

It is a Government priority as indicated in the latest Agreement with Social Partners, Towards 2016  

Combating  illegal  work  is  the  priority  of  the  Government  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania.  A  special 
Commission  which  coordinates  combating  black  economy  was  established  under  supervision  of  the 
Government. 

Latvia 

Yes,  the  fight  against  undocumented  /  illegal  work  (in  general  and  that  of  illegally  staying  third-country 

EN 

137 

   EN 

 
Table A7.1 – Enforcement: qualitative information provided by Member States 

Member State 

Situation in the country 

nationals) is one of the governmental priorities. 

Romania 

In  order  to  put  into  force  the  policies  from  immigration  area,  the  Romanian  National  Strategy  for 
Immigration was drafted. 

Slovak Republic 

There is wide political support for the fight against illegal work. 

United Kingdom 

Enforcement of the immigration laws are a Government priority. Illegal working operations are a key method 
used to detect and remove those who do not have the right to be/work in the UK.  

How much of the successes (or problems) in relation to the enforcement do you attribute to the enforcement capacity? 

Czech Republic 

It is very important for effectiveness. 

Estonia 

Sometimes it’s difficult to prove that the employer is enabling illegal employment. It’s not always enough to 
catch the person in the act of providing services. If the person claims to be “learning” or just “watching” then 
support and evaluation is required from the court. 

Finland 

The effectiveness of monitoring depends in practice on the resources allocated to monitoring. 

France 

Ireland 

Lithuania 

Il est nécessaire de renforcer les moyens et les effectifs qui sont chargés de lutter contre le travail illégal.  

A good deal of success can be attributed to enforcement capacity. 

Pursuing the control of illegal work State Labour Inspectorate notices to the most hazardous sectors (building 
sector, wholesale business and retail trade, garages). It helps to control illegal work more efficiently. 

Latvia 

Both the financial and human resources are appropriate to achieve results at present. 

Romania 

Every year, in order to put into force the Romanian National Strategy for Immigration, the appointed Inter-
ministerial Group drafts an Action Plan, approved by Government Decision. 

Slovak Republic 

No, it is necessary personally strengthen the Labour Inspectorate  

United Kingdom 

Resources are an issue as they are in all Government departments. 

In terms of the human and financial capacity of the enforcement body, are these appropriate or should they be increased / 
decreased? Why? 

Czech Republic 

They should be increased, as mentioned above. Controls could be more frequent then. 

Estonia 

Finland 

Human and financial resources need to be increased. Increase in financial resources will allow hiring of more 
competent staff. 

The  new  unit  established  at  the National  Bureau  of  Investigation,  the  Surveillance  Unit  for  Illegal  Foreign 
Labour, and the new public offices at the labour protection districts have increased the resources for control 
and investigation. 

OSH: In 2005, 9 inspectors were hired specifically to inspect foreign labour in light of amendment to the Alien’s Act in 
2004, which included inspection of foreign employees’ right to work. 

France 

Le Gouvernement vient de décider d’augmenter le nombre d’inspecteurs du travail.  

Over the years, there has been increased monitoring by the public services and the other bodies responsible: the URSSAF, 
for example, are supposed to devote 10% of their activity to workplace  checks, a level  they have gradually  managed to 
attain (the number of such actions has risen by a factor of 3.3 in 10 years).206 

206 

CIA questionnaire 

EN 

138 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Table A7.1 – Enforcement: qualitative information provided by Member States 

Member State 

Situation in the country 

Ireland 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Latvia 

Malta 

Romania 

The number of Labour Inspectors is scheduled to increase from 31 to 90 over the course of 2007 

The need is felt for the permanent training of inspectors, who are still insufficient in number (Italy has the 
lowest number of inspectors in Europe). 

Till now illegal work of third-country nationals has not been a serious problem but in the future the number 
of  third-country  nationals  might  increase.  Therefore,  the  human  and  financial  capacity  of  the  enforcement 
body is appropriate, but possibly it should be increased in the future. 

Both the financial and human resources are somewhat sufficient to achieve results at present. However, since 
the fight against illegal employment is one of the governmental priorities, it will be essential to increase the 
human and financial capacity in the near future. 

In  2003,  the  capacity  was  criticised.  With  effect  from  October  2004,  the  staff  complement  in  the  Law 
Compliance Unit within the public employment service would be increased from six to ten inspectors. This 
was intended to increase infringement detection. Furthermore, in 2005, all Law Compliance Officers would 
be trained in investigative and reporting skills.207 

Regarding  the  human  and  financial  resources  allotted  to  the  Office  for  Labour  Force  Migration,  there  is  a 
deficit for both segments. In this respect, 2007 Action Plan of the National Strategy for Immigration, actions 
in order to cover these deficits were foreseen. 

Slovak Republic 

The  labour  inspectors  are  widely  considered  to  be  too  thinly  spread  around  the  country  and  their  control 
activities are often regarded as insufficient.208 

United Kingdom 

The Government has recently committed to doubling enforcement capacity of the Immigration Service. 

In Table 5 below we ask you to complete figures on enforcement. In relation to changes of financial costs (overall and for 
human resources), please comment on why increases / decreases have been made (or not). 

Ireland 

Latvia 

Data not yet available. 

At  the  beginning  of  2004  the  Cabinet  of  Ministers  accepted  the  guideline  paper  “On  Measures  to  Combat 
Undeclared  Work”.  Among  other  things  it  proposes  more  inspections  by  the  State  Revenue  Service  (SRS) 
and the State Labour Inspectorate (SLI) in industries and activities where the risk of illegal employment is 
believed to be high. 

The  policy  paper  also  proposes  to  increase  the  number  of  inspectors  in  the  SRS  and  to  devote  more  attention  to  he 
education and motivation of staff. 

United Kingdom 

E&R resources 

Table A7.2 – Enforcement: qualitative information provided by enforcement bodies 

Member State 

Situation in the country 

Please provide the name of the administrative body or unit which is responsible for the monitoring and enforcement of the 
regulations regarding employment of illegally staying third-country nationals.  

Czech Republic   The responsible body is the Czech Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs and the executive organs are the local 

labour offices.  

207 

208 

EN 

European Employment Observatory; Review autumn 2004. Chapter on “Thematic Overview: Fighting 
the immeasurable? Addressing the phenomenon of undeclared work in the European Union”. 
Thematic 
http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2004/06/tfeature/sk0406105t.html 

relations  and  undocumented  work:  Slovakia. 

June  2004. 

industrial 

feature: 

139 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Table A7.1 – Enforcement: qualitative information provided by Member States 

Member State 

Situation in the country 

Finland  

1) Surveillance Unit for Illegal Foreign Labour 

2) Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) inspectorates 

3) VIRKE project for the Development of Inter-Authority cooperation 

France  

Hungary  

Italy  

Latvia  

Latvia2 

There  are  several  bodies  responsible  for  control  of  the  regulations  regarding  employment  of  illegally  staying 
third-country  nationals:  the  police,  Gendarmerie,  border  police,  labour  inspectorate  and  the  custom  officers. 
DILTI is the body which coordinates the work of all these control bodies. 

The  responsible  body  is  the  Hungarian  Labour  Inspectorate  (‘Országos  Munkavédelmi  és  Munkaügyi 
Főfelügyelőség’,  lit.:  ‘National  Inspectorate  General  for  Work  Safety  and Labour’).  Within  the  Inspectorate,  a 
separate  Unit  for  Labour  supervision,  and  regional  devolved  supervision  units  are  responsible  for  the  above 
tasks. 

In  Italia,  l’organo  amministrativo  che  si  occupa  del  lavoro  attinente  gli  extracomunitari  è  il  Ministero  del 
Lavoro e della Previdenza sociale. Nel particolare, all’interno del Ministero due sono le Direzioni Generali che 
si  occupano  di  tali  soggetti:  la  Direzione  Generale  del  mercato  del  lavoro,  per  quanto  riguarda  i  flussi 
migratori;  la  Direzione  Generale  per  l’attività  ispettiva  per  quanto  attiene  al  controllo  e  alla  verifica  della 
corretta  applicazione  della  normativa  sugli  extracomunitari  con  i  conseguenti  aspetti  sanzionatori  e  ispettivi. 
Tale  Direzione  coordina  gli  uffici  dislocati  su  tutto  il  territorio  nazionale  (Direzioni  provinciali  del  lavoro 
situate in ogni capoluogo di provincia e Direzioni regionali del lavoro situate in ogni capoluogo di regione). 

The  State  Border  Guard  of  the  Republic  of  Latvia  (ENG:  http://www.rs.gov.lv/?setl=2)  is  the  primary 
enforcement  body.  The  State  Border  Guard  in  cooperation  with  the  State  Labour  Inspectorate  (SLI)  (ENG: 
http://www.vdi.lv/index.php?lang_id=2)  carries  out  inspections  in  the  work  places  since  2004.  An  official 
cooperation agreement between the two institutions exists since 14 June 2006. Labour Inspectorate is responsible 
for  the  monitoring  the  situation  and  enforcing  the  low  concerning  legal  contracts  to  work.  The  State  Border 
Guard is dealing with the rest of the issues (from the immigration and employment point of view). 

The  State  border  guard  has  nine  Territorial  Boards,  which  oversee  some  30  Immigration  departments  in  the 
regional  cities.  These  are  the  bodies  responsible  for  the  Inner  State  affairs  and  thus  also  for  the  employment 
checks. The Immigration Services of the Territorial Boards are responsible for the enforcement and these efforts 
are coordinated by the Central Board under Chief of the State Border Guard. 

Netherlands  

Arbeidsinspectie, Directie Arbeidsmarkt Fraude  

Spain  

Labour and Social Security Inspectorate 

Slovakia  

The  National  Labour  Inspectorate  (Narodny  Inspektorat  Prace  http://www.safework.gov.sk/)  and  its  executive 
bodies. The executive bodies are eight Labour Inspectorates (one per region).  

Is this body under the auspices of any government department (which?) or is it an independent authority? 

Czech Republic   Labour offices are under the auspices of the ministry of labour.  

Finland  

1) part of the National Bureau of Investigation, which is a national unit of the Finnish Police.  

2) Department for Occupational Safety and Health, under ministry of Social Affairs and Health.  

3) Overall responsibility: Ministry of Finance 

France  

The DILTI is under the auspices of the Prime Minister.  

Hungary  

Italy  

EN 

The  Inspectorate  General  may  be  regarded  as  a  semi-autonomous  authority.  It  is  not  subordinated  to  any 
Government department, but reports to the Minister for Social Affairs and Labour. 

Come già specificato al punto 1) questa Direzione Generale del Ministero del Lavoro e della Previdenza sociale 
si occupa di coordinare gli uffici territoriali programmando gli obiettivi strategici e politici fissati con direttiva 
annuale del Ministro del Lavoro, per l’intervento ispettivo sul territorio, quale ad esempio la lotta al lavoro nero 

140 

   EN 

 
Table A7.1 – Enforcement: qualitative information provided by Member States 

Member State 

Situation in the country 

e agli infortuni sul lavoro. 

Latvia  

State Border Guard - under the subordination of the Ministry of the Interior  

Labour Inspection - under supervision of the Ministry of Welfare 

Latvia2 

State Border Guard is under the subordination of the Ministry of the Interior. 

Netherlands  

Ministerie van Sociale zaken en Werkgelegenheid = Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment 

Spain  

This authority is part of the Ministry of Labour and Social Services and works both nationally and locally  

Slovakia  

The National Labour Inspectorate is under the auspices of The Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family.  

Is coordination and cooperation required? (i.e. are several government departments or other authorities involved?) Is there 
any legislative framework that structures this coordination?  

Czech Republic   Coordination between the labour offices and the customs police is required in order not to duplicate tasks. There 
is an inter-ministerial body for the coordination of issues related to illegal employment of foreigners. This body 
involves the Ministry Labour, Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Industry and Trade.  

All  these  bodies  cooperate  also  at  the  level  of  regions  –  for  example  the  labour  offices,  with  the  tax  offices  and  the  trade 
registers. However coordination is not always simple.  

Finland  

1) The unit cooperates closely with local police and other authorities, various agents of business life and with 
trade and employers’ associations. Cooperates with OSH and tax offices on 10-20 joint investigations / per year. 

France  

Hungary  

2) Cooperates with NBI and tax offices on 10 to 20 joint investigations per year. 

3) ‘This project was set up on the basis of the idea that the fight against the informal economy and economic crime would be 
more  effective  if  cooperation  between  different  authorities  was  developed.’  (PIELAMI  report,  pg.  20).  The  team  includes: 
representatives from police, taxation, customs and distraint authorities. 

Since its creation in 1997, the DILTI works under a clear legislative framework which sets up the cooperation 
between the various bodies, the role of each body and the tasks of the DILTI in the fight against illegal work. 

Cooperation  is  required  by  legal  act  on  the  supervisory  activities  concerning  immigrants.  A  joint  Ministerial 
Order  (from  the  ministers  responsible  for  the  interior,  finances  and  labour)  obliged  the  Police,  the  Border 
Guards, Hungarian Customs and Finance Guard, and the Inspectorate General to cooperate in the fight against 
illegal immigration, all acting within their respective range of competence (e.g. the police concerned with human 
trafficking). 

Cooperation  covers  joint  actions  and  a  well-established  exchange  of  information  (including  information  on  violators,  on 
experience from on-the-spot checks, etc.), effecting in the development tools like the setting up of migrants’ maps. E.g. there is 
day-to-day  communication  with  the  Border  Guards,  and  opportunities  for  requesting  ad-hoc  help  exist.  The  cooperation 
between  the  bodies  had  already  been  studied  within  an  EU  initiative,  and  was  considered  unparalleled  and  best  practice  (as 
labour inspectorates do not participate in these kind of cooperation elsewhere). 

There are examples of cooperation that is not required by regulations. One example concerns the county and regional labour 
centres  (issuing  work  permits):  they  provide  information  in  relation  with  work  permits  requested  for  foreign  nationals.  This 
information  is  mainly  used  to  devise  the  annual  work  programme  for  supervisions,  or  to  initiate  on-the-spot  checks  when 
fraudulent practices are suspected.  

Cooperation  with the  Unit  for  Work  safety  within  IG  is  also  done  (meaning  joint  actions from  time  to  time,  and  notices  on 
malpractices detected). 

There is also some cooperation with the national tax office. 

In  addition,  the  IG  also  participates  in  international  cooperation,  covering  mainly  duties  under  the  ‘Posting  of  Workers 
Directive’. Dr. Zara is the liaison officer for Hungary. 

EN 

141 

   EN 

 
Table A7.1 – Enforcement: qualitative information provided by Member States 

Member State 

Situation in the country 

Italy  

Trattandosi di sanzione penale sono gli agenti e gli ufficiali di polizia giudiziaria che, a vario titolo, effettuano 
gli accessi ispettivi nei vari luoghi di lavoro. Per gli ulteriori profili di natura lavoristica e previdenziale, sono 
competenti,  invece,  gli  ispettori  del  lavoro  che  investono  gli  Enti  previdenziali,  INPS  (Istituto  nazionale 
previdenza  sociale)  e  INAIL  (Istituto  nazionale  Infortuni  sul  lavoro)  per  il  recupero  contributivo  e  dei  premi 
assicurativi. 

Latvia  

Yes, coordination and cooperation is required and advisable; 

Tax administration, Labour Inspection, State Border Guard - the authorities, which are involved in cooperation; 

Agreement of cooperation between Labour Inspection and State Border Guard 

Latvia2 

The  State  Border  Guard  undertakes  inspections  with  other  institutions  involved  in  the  enforcement  process, 
mostly together with the Labour Inspectorate. 

The  State  Border  Guard  and  its  Immigration  Services  cooperate  with  State  Police  (cooperation  agreement  on  information 
sharing signed December last year). All institutions have access to each others databases and if one discovers some breach of 
law in the field of competence of the other, this respective body is informed. 

The State Border Guard also has an institutional agreement with the Labour Inspectorate which foresees information exchange 
and meetings at least once in three month (Interagency agreement Nr. 58 was signed on July 4, 2006) 

The Border Guard cooperation in the field of employment control: 

Ministry of the Interior of the 
Republic of Latvia 

Ministry of Welfare of the 
Republic of Latvia 

Labour Inspection

Ministry of Finance of the 
Republic of Latvia 

State Revenue Service 

Netherlands  

Yes, coordination and cooperation occurs with the tax authority (Ministry of Finance), de ‘vreemdelingendienst’ 
(=immigration/foreigners  service)  which  is  located  in  the  Ministry  of  Justice  and  that  of  Internal  Affairs  and 
towns/cities.  

Two  types  of  enforcement  actions  take  place:  (1)  those  that  are  initiated  by  the  unit  –  specific  sectors  and  businesses  are 
targeted – and (2) those that are requested by cities/towns. An ‘interventiedienst’ (‘a service of intervention’) is set up in the 
latter  cases,  which  consists  of  inspectors  of  the  Directie  Arbeidsmarkt  Fraude,  tax  authority,  policy,  representatives  of  local 
public services, etc. Normally, this intervention team comprises 10 persons and allows the companies under inspection to be 
assessed in a number of areas / legal requirements.  

40%  of  the  unit’s  capacity  is  allocated  to  the  organisation  of  actual  enforcement  operations  /  actions.  This  is  preceded  by 
discussions  at  the  national  level  of  which  problem  areas  –  particular  sectors,  businesses  and  requests  from  cities  –  will  be 
responded to. 

There  is  no  legal  framework  that  regulates  this  coordination  and  cooperation.  However,  there  are  written  agreements  – 
‘convenanten’ as they are coined. Proposal for intervention teams have to go through a procedure for their approval by political 
power.  

Spain  

The situation of illegal workers in Spain is handled by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs because they 
are in charge of developing government politics on foreigners and immigration. The Labour Inspectorate is in 
this  body,  as  previously  discussed.  The  Ministry  of  Interior  is  also  involved  in  foreign  affairs  issues  and  they 
have the power to execute penal charges. This inspectorate is only involved in the administrative process, not the 
penal. 

EN 

142 

   EN 

 
 
 
Table A7.1 – Enforcement: qualitative information provided by Member States 

Member State 

Situation in the country 

Slovakia  

The National Labour Inspectorate cooperates with the Centre for Labour, Social affairs and Family (UPSVAR) 
and  the  Social  Insurance.  UPSVAR  is  the  head-office  of  the  local  labour employment  offices. Both  UPSVAR 
and  the  Social  Insurance  have  information  and  data  which  are  additional  to  the  information  and  data  of  the 
Labour Inspectorate.  

There is no legislative framework which structures this cooperation.  

When was this administrative body or unit set up? 

Czech Republic   Labour  offices  were  set  up  in  1991.  The  customs  police  in  1991.  The  above  mentioned  inter-ministerial  body 

was set up in 2000.  

Finland  

1) 2004. The project was given a mandate of five years which is scheduled to expire at the end of 2008. 

3) set up in March 2000 and will continue to the end of 2008. 

France  

In 1997. 

Hungary  

Italy  

The Inspectorate General was founded in 1993. The labour supervisory function, including tasks related to illegal 
employment  of  immigrants  was  deployed  to  the  IG  by  Act  No.  LXXV  of  1996,  coming  into  effect  from  1 
January 1997 

La Direzione Generale per l’attività ispettiva, che coordina l’azione del personale ispettivo, è stata creata con il 
Decreto legislativo n. 124/2004 che all’art. 2, comma 1, espressamente prevede: “Presso il Ministero del lavoro 
è istituita, senza oneri aggiuntivi per la finanza pubblica, , con regolamento emanato ai sensi dell’art.17, comma 
4bis,  della  legge  23  agosto  1988  n.400,  e  successive  modificazioni,  una  direzione  generale  con  compiti  di 
direzione  e  coordinamento  delle  attività  ispettive  svolte  da  soggetti  che  effettuano  vigilanza  in  materia  di 
rapporti  di  lavoro,  di  livelli  essenziali  delle  prestazioni  concernenti  i  diritti  civili  e  sociali  che  devono  essere 
garantiti su tutto il territorio nazionale e di legislazione sociale, compresi gli enti previdenziali..”. 

Latvia  

Labour Inspection – 2005, as regards illegal employment. 

Latvia2 

Immigration Police has existed already some 15 years. The Immigration Services in the regions exist since 2003. 

Netherlands  

Labour  Inspectorate:  1890.  Current  form  /  structure:  2003.  Since  1979  illegal  employment  has  become  to  the 
attention  /  a  particular  focus  of  the  organisation.  In  1995,  current  law  regarding  the  employment  of  illegally 
staying third-country nationals was adopted.  

Spain  

This body originated with the Social Reforms which dated 1 March 1906.  

Slovakia  

The National Labour Inspectorate was set up in 2000 and it replaced the Office for Labour Safety.  

Is the sole task of this body or unit to check illegal employment, or does it also deal with other employment issues (as, for 
example, laid down in employment legislation / labour law)?  

Czech Republic   Currently labour offices have various responsibilities, such as controlling the employment situation in the region, 
registration of unemployed, implementation of active labour market policies, etc. In relation to foreigners they 
issue work permits.  

They  used  to  be  responsible  for  controlling  implementation  of  employment  legislation  but  this  is  currently  under  the 
responsibility of Labour Inspectorates.  

Finland  

1)  Aimed  at  monitoring  and  preventing  the  use  of  illegal  foreign  workforce.  In  practice,  the  cases  under 
investigation  involve  economic  crime,  such  as  (aggravated)  tax  fraud.  Two  tasks:  expose  informal  economy 
crime based on Police Act + conduct pre-judicial inquiries. 

2) PIELAMI report, pg. 18: ‘The OSH Administration supports employers and employees to improve working conditions and 

EN 

143 

   EN 

 
 
Table A7.1 – Enforcement: qualitative information provided by Member States 

Member State 

Situation in the country 

fulfil employment obligations as well as integrate occupational safety and health into other activities of the workplace.’ 

3) Tasks (PIELAMI report, pg. 20):  

- ‘distribute information on economic crime to different authorities in order to support their control activities; 

- maintain a general picture of the economic crime as well as evaluate effectiveness of control actions;  

- make initiatives to improve legislation and authority cooperation; 

- develop methods to prevent economic crime.’ 

France  

The  DILTI  coordinates  the  work  of  all  the  control  bodies.  It  has  also  a  role  of  technical  and  methodological 
support: for ex., it produces guides on how to undertake and inspection or an interview. The body provides also 
training for officers  

The  DILTI  deals  with  illegal  employment  in  general  (not  only  of  third  country  nationals).  The  body  deals  with  all  types  of 
infringements concerning employment issues.  

Hungary  

The IG is also responsible for supervisory activities connected to Work safety, and also for the monitoring and 
enforcement of other regulations of employment legislation. 

Italy  

Latvia  

La Direzione si occupa di tutti i profili di tutela delle condizioni di lavoro e previdenziali nonché alcuni aspetti 
sulla sicurezza del lavoro. 

In  accordance  to  “State  Labour  Inspection  Law”  (Sect  3,  part  1)  the  task  of  the  Labour  Inspection  is  to  take 
measures  to  ensure  effective  implementation  of  State  policy  in  the  field  of  employment  legal  relationships 
generally.  

Labour  Law  and  other  regulatory  enactments  regulate  employment  legal  relationships  between  employers  and  employees  if 
their mutual legal relationships are based on an employment contract. There are no specific rules as regards the third – country 
nationals. 

As  concerning  Labour  Law,  it  does  not  deal  with  illegally  staying  third-country  nationals.  Therefore,  monitoring  and 
supervision of illegally staying third-country nationals, regarding employment, is not the task of the Labour Inspection. Labour 
Inspection  also  deals  with  the  other  employment  issues,  for  example,  health  and  safety  at  work,  supervision  of  dangerous 
equipment. 

Latvia2 

In  the  context  of  the  inspections  the  Border  Guard  has  a  primary  competence  in  all  that  concerns  illegal 
employment of foreigners. The contractual issues are in the competence of the Labour Inspectorate. 

Other responsibilities  

Netherlands  

It is mainly concerned with illegal employment and respect / adherence to the Aliens Act. An additional focus, to 
be  introduced  through  a  law  which  will  be  approved  in  Parliament  next  week,  is  the  enforcement  of  a  law 
regarding minimum wages. This issue is of particular relevance to Poles, which are often underpaid. This law is 
to  enforce  workers’  rights  to  minimum  wages.  Previously,  the  labour  inspectorate  could  inform  the  employee 
that s/he did not receive the minimum wage, but it was the employee who was to charge the employer. The new 
law  will  allow  labour  inspectors  to  impose  fines  directly  on  those  employers  who  do  not  provide  minimum 
wages for their employees. Effectiveness will have to be tested in practice. 

In NL, workers have the right to a minimum wage. Employers can also be obliged to pay the renumeration s/he is still owes to 
employee.  

Spain  

This  department  monitors  labour  law  including  health  and  safety  legislation,  immigrant  working,  and 
unemployment. The department is also involved in mediation and arbitration. 

Slovakia  

The Labour inspectorates are regulated by the law 125/2006 on labour inspection.  

The main tasks of the labour inspectorate are: 

EN 

144 

   EN 

 
Table A7.1 – Enforcement: qualitative information provided by Member States 

Member State 

Situation in the country 

To control the compliance with labour regulations 

To control the compliance with regulations on health and safety at work 

To control the observance of collective agreements 

To control the compliance with the regulations on illegal employment 

International cooperation 

Juridical advice to employers as well as to individuals  

How are these enforcement actions organised?  

Czech Republic   Actions  are  often  organised  in  cooperation  with  customs  police.  Customs  police  is  an  armed  body  and  labour 

offices controllers appreciate being accompanied by customs police.  

The controller(s) present themselves at the work place with permission for a control. In case illegal employment of foreigners 
is observed a protocol is signed and a legal procedure is launched.  

Employers can be fined up to 2.000.000 CKK (69.000€). Illegally employed foreigners are fined 10.000 CKK (340€).  

The decision on the financial sanction is up to the controller.  

Finland  

1) Main target areas: ship building, construction, hotels and restaurant. It ‘carries out a limited number of on-site 
inspections of informal labour enterprises in which they also check workers for permits. These inspections are 
usually based on criminal suspicion.’ (PIELAMI report, pg. 19) 

2) Sectors targeted: construction, hotels and restaurants, cleaning, and the metal industry. No inspections of private households. 
OSH  carries  out  on-site  inspections  to  check  the  working  conditions  and  terms  of  employment  of  employees  according  to 
Finnish  regulations.  ‘Inspections  are  random  or  based  on  hints  from  other  companies,  the  police,  tax  authorities,  etc. 
(PIELAMI report, pg. 18) 

3) ‘It collects, analyses and distributes intelligence to different authorities, including information related to foreign labour and 
the  practices  of  foreign  companies  working  in  Finland,  for  example.  In  particular:  focus  on  tax  evasion  of  employees  and 
companies registered abroad but working in Finland. ’ (PIELAMI report, pg. 20) Disposes of tax database, which it can draw 
upon when tips are received. 

Enforcement actions are organised at department level through coordination meetings with the prosecutors. Also, 
informal contacts between the responsible bodies are an effective way to organise enforcement actions. 

The IG performs the majority of the checks on the basis of an annual work programme, defining ‘emphasised 
supervisory tasks’, which take into account the priorities as set by the Minister and last year’s lessons (reflecting 
an analysis of risk). The work programme is prepared by the central units, and forwarded after adoption to the 
regional  bodies.  They  assemble  their  respective  work  plans  on  this  basis,  but  introducing  also  regional 
specificities. Larger-scale central on-the-spot check actions are initiated by the central units. 

Other,  specific  checks  are  carried  out  when  requested  by  the  competent  authorities,  or  on  the  basis  of  complaints  (reaching 
several thousand per annum). 

The on-the-spot checks may include members of other bodies (e.g. Border Guards). 

Gli  ispettori  del  lavoro  svolgono  la  propria  attività  ispettiva  in  base  ad  un  programma  che  viene  fatto 
settimanalmente dall’ufficio di appartenenza. In tale programma vengono indicate le ditte da ispezionare, con i 
relativi indirizzi, che si trovano ubicate all’interno della propria Provincia. 

According to the State Labour Inspection Law, the SLI officials (SLI director and the inspectors of all levels) 
have the right upon showing their work card to visit a work place, request information, carry out an inspection, 
demand  documents  and  make  measurements  of  environmental  factors  without  prior  notice  or  reception  of 
permission in any time of the day also in the absence of employer or the employee responsible for the dangerous 
devices. 

France  

Hungary  

Italy  

Latvia  

EN 

145 

   EN 

 
Table A7.1 – Enforcement: qualitative information provided by Member States 

Member State 

Situation in the country 

To acquire documental prove on the breach of Law, the control is carried out simultaneously by two or more inspectors – one 
visiting  the  work  place  (e.g.  a  construction  site)  and  the  other  the  office  of  the  employer.  Wile  the  fist  is  checking  the 
workplace situation and asking questions to particular employees on the location, the second (also upon receiving a particular 
indications from the first) may verify data on the workplace and contracts/documents on these people in the office.  

The  information  on  possible  breaches  of  Law  is  received  though  applications  (employers  are  required  to  inform  the  Borger 
guards of any illegal workers in a written form), anonymous calls, cooperative inspections together with State Board Guards, 
usage of the data base from Tax Administration. 

Most recently, efforts have been intensified in the fight against “envelope wages”. 

Latvia2 

The  information  and  inspection  plans  are  shared  though  meetings  and  though  different  databases.  The 
inspections also may come as a result of controls carried out by other institutions that have revealed suspicious 
irregularities. 

The process of the inspection depends on the type of the object and the intelligence on the severity of possible breaches of the 
law. Depending on these conditions the inspection may vary from questioning of the employer to the surrounding of the work 
site. 

Most of the time, however, the border guards simply ask employers questions concerning their employees. The site is searched 
only if there is some suspicion of illegal employment of foreigners. 

Netherlands  

See above.  

In addition, the administrative unit receives notifications from employees and trade unions.  

Inspectors are allowed to enter companies and to ask employees to identify themselves.  

Trade unions and employer organisations are contacted and informed/ consulted regarding upcoming enforcement actions.  

Note: employers often complain about the lengthy and cumbersome procedures they have to start / engage in in order to obtain 
work permits for foreigners. For some foreigners, the procedures have been simplified, for example, for those coming from EU 
Member States. Although employers complain about the lengthy administrative procedures and ask them to be simplified, they 
do agree that those who engage in illegal employment have to be punished as they foster ‘false competition’.  

Spain  

Until recently these enforcement actions were only based on reporting but now there is an element of prevention. 

Slovakia  

Enforcement  actions  are  either  initiated  by  the  work  programme  or  based  on  citizens’  incentives.  The  Labour 
inspectorate has a work programme which contains names of companies to be inspected in a given period.  

When the labour inspector presents himself in a company, he/she specifies what are the reasons for the control. The inspector 
can undertake a control o several areas under the responsibility of the inspectorate at the same time. It should be noticed that 
illegal employment is always being checked.  

Based on the materials (documents and eventually testimonies) she/he observes a contravention or not. 

If not a report is written.  

If  yes  a  protocol  is  written.  The  employer  has  a  set  period  to  express  his/her  comments  to  the  protocol.  If  comments  are 
presented they are expressed in the protocol.  

The protocol is a basis for the sanctions. 

What data inform them, if any (e.g. research)? Are particular sectors or businesses targeted (if yes, why these)? 

Czech Republic   Controls are executed on basis of: 

action plan 

individual denunciations 

Each labour office has its own action plan. These are based on previous experience and on the knowledge of the employment 

EN 

146 

   EN 

 
Table A7.1 – Enforcement: qualitative information provided by Member States 

Member State 

Situation in the country 

situation in the region. The targeted sectors are those where prior controls showed the most success rate (e.g. construction or 
wood industry).  

Finland  

See above 

France  

Hungary  

Enforcement actions are based on researches and field work of the INSEE (national statistical institute) as well 
as  of  the  DILTI  itself.  Four  sectors  are  particularly  targeted:  the  construction,  agriculture,  Horeca  and 
“spectacle”. 

The  IG  uses  a  sizeable  internal  database,  including  data  on  companies,  structured  by  legal  form,  sector, 
employee  number,  etc.  The  database  is  used  when  establishing  the  work  programme,  and  for  the  sampling 
exercise. 

Previous  years’  experience,  as  well  as  information  from  the  Labour  Centres  is  mostly  considered  in  establishing  the  work 
programme. 

There  are  sectors  and  businesses  emphasised,  defined  in  the  annual  work  programme  (outlined  in  the  Minister’s  priorities). 
This  is  also  based  on  experience  of  previous  years.  Currently,  illegal  employment  is  the  core  priority,  with  construction, 
agriculture, retail, and hospitality are the sectors emphasised. 

Companies that were previously found to offend against regulation may be subject to repeated checks. 

Italy  

I  programmi  di  cui  al  punto  precedente  vengono  stabiliti  dall’ufficio  in  base  sia  alle  direttive  impartite  dalla 
Direzione  generale  per  l’attività  ispettiva,  sia  in  base  alle  esigenze  del  territorio  che  necessita,  a  volte,  di 
intensificare la vigilanza in settori particolari, sia infine su richieste di intervento provenienti dalla denunce di 
lavoratori. 

Latvia  

Applications, anonymous calls; usage of the data base from Tax Administration; 

Inspections together with State Board Guards;  

Latvia2 

Netherlands  

Building  and  construction,  agriculture,  wholesalers,  hotels/restaurants,  woodworking  (because  the  majority  of  illegally 
employed workers are in these branches). 

Particular sectors targeted are construction, ship building (recently there were Bulgarian workers found working 
illegally  as  ship  builders,  while  they  were  registered  as  sailors),  US  citizens  in  sports  industry,  the  heads  and 
managerial staff in firms (which is often hired from abroad), language teachers, etc. 

Decisions  for  targeting  particular  sectors  or  companies  or  for  responding  to  requests  from  towns  through 
intervention  teams  are  based  on  (a)  past  experience  of  the  labour  inspectorate  and  (b)  risk  analyses.  Such 
employment tends to take place in relation to / in the sectors of the labour market which draw upon unskilled 
labour, manual labour, where the cost of wages constitutes a primary element / is the primary determinant of the 
cost of products and where the employer seeks to depress wages through the use of irregular work.  

Sectors:  Construction,  catering,  horticulture,  etc.  Employment  agencies.  Old  city  districts,  where  small  –  and  struggling  – 
companies are based.  

Spain  

In Spain the underground economy is especially prevalent in the agricultural, hospitality/tourism, construction, 
textiles, confectionary, toys and domestic service and homeworking sctors. In general irregular working is more 
common in small business and also business that lend themselves to subcontracting.  

Because  Spain  is  separated  into  Autonomous  Communities  it  is  important  for  the  Inspectorate  to  work  as  much  as  possible 
with local authorities in various sectors. For this reason they use the following methods to prevent irregular working: 

-checking companies track records for illegal working 

-the participation of many team leaders in the Inspectorate who know about issues of fraud in different areas of Spain 

-the participation of local authorities who are knowledgeable about the labour and social security issues for foreigners in their 
regions  

-the  participation  of  various  planning  bodies  that  work  directly  with  the  sectors  that  have  higher  indices  of  illegal  workers 

EN 

147 

   EN 

 
Table A7.1 – Enforcement: qualitative information provided by Member States 

Member State 

Situation in the country 

(construction, hospitality, etc.) 

-information requests from local authorities around licensing of business in different sectors and any information about their 
detection of illegal working 

-consulting trade unions, professional associations and local social agencies 

-Consulting local NGOs especially those that work with foreigners to obtain additional information on areas of fraud 

-revising any press articles 

-going over any studies conducted by local social agencies. 

Slovakia  

An inspection may be undertaken based on a citizen complain or based on the work programme.  

When  a  contravention  is  observed  the  employer  is  always  controlled  again  to  check  whether  the  contravention  has  been 
removed.  

The sectors where illegal employment is most frequent are: Construction, Industry and Catering and Hotel business.  

Are on the spot checks undertaken both at work places which are legal entities and in private households?  

Czech Republic   Labour offices can only undertake spot check in work places.  

But in cases of serious suspicion of illegal employment in private households controls can be organised in cooperation with 
police.  

Finland  

Yes, at work places, but not in private households. 

France  

Yes.  Nevertheless,  spot  checks  in  private  households  have  to  be  previously  authorised  by  the  landlord  or  on 
demand of the public prosecutor. The DILTI can ask for such an authorisation. 

Germany  

Controls can only take place at work places. Controls at households are forbidden.  

Hungary  

Employers not being legal entities may also be subject to on-the-spot checks. These would e.g. relate to illegal 
employment in garden work, orchards. 

Household helps may also be subject to the supervisory activities, but the IG is not allowed to enter and check private homes. 
On some cases, the police or the Border Guards (authorised to enter) would ask them to participate. 

Italy  

Le ispezioni avvengono, di regola, con un accesso sui posti di lavoro che, a seconda del settore merceologico 
ispezionato, può essere la sede legale della società oppure semplicemente in luogo di lavoro in cui si svolgono i 
lavori (es., in edilizia le ispezioni avvengono nei cantieri di lavoro e non nella sede legale della ditta). 

Latvia  

At work places only 

Latvia2 

Border  guards  also  have  the  right  to  enter  private  households  (the  present  law  is  being  changed  to  more 
specifically  establish  these  rights).  These  inspections  are  rare  and  the  intelligence  on  possible  breaches  of  law 
comes  mainly  from  the  Invitations  database.  Checks  are  carried  out  to  determine  who  is  invited,  what  are  the 
aims of the visit and how do these correlate to other factors (like seasons, destination and other intelligence). 

In these inspections border guards mostly talk with the person who has invited the people to establish possible irregularities 
related to the say of the invitees. For the inspection in a private household border guards usually require the permission of the 
owner, although this is not a condition laid down by law. The owners of the propriety usually consent to such inspections, as 
their not doing so would cause even more suspicion. 

Netherlands  

Yes. In relation to checks of private households, the inspector has to be granted the authorisation to do so, either 
by a member of the household or by a ‘justice officer’ who grants a written authorisation to enter / search the 
property. The labour inspector wil have to demonstrate to the ‘justice officer’ that s/he has a suspicion that illegal 
employment is occuring. Interviewee comments that it is reasonably easy to obtain such authorisation.  

EN 

148 

   EN 

 
Table A7.1 – Enforcement: qualitative information provided by Member States 

Member State 

Situation in the country 

Spain  

Effectively the department has the ability to enter workplaces as they wish to conduct an investigation. However, 
one  limiting  factor  is  that  the  department  does  not  have  the  right  to  enter  private  homes.  As  much  illegal 
working, with respect to home working and care giving occurs in the home, this creates a problem for inspection. 

What happens when inspectors observe violations of regulations? 

Czech Republic   As said above a protocol is signed and the legal action is launched.  

Typically  a  fine  is  applied.  Illegally  working  employees  have  to  stop  working.  They  may  be  expulsed  from  the  country  but 
only if other violations are observed, such as lack of residence permit.  

Finland  

1)  The  unit  conducts  ‚pre-judicial  inquiries  through  real  time  crime  investigation  based  on  Criminal 
Investigations  Act and  Coercive  Measures  Act  to  expose tax  offences,  accounting  offences,  money  laundering 
and more’ (PIELAMI report, pg. 19). 

2)  After  each  on-site  inspection,  the  inspection  officer  writes  an  inspection  report.  Employers  are  provided  with  a  list  of 
requirements  they  must  meet.  OSH  inspectorate  then  makes  follow-up  visits  to  supvervise  compliance.  If  no  compliance: 
sanctions imposed. (PIELAMI report, pg. 19) 

France  

Inspections lead to two different actions (depending on the gravity of the facts): 

-The employer can receive an “appeal” for regularisation of the employee. 

-A criminal prosecution is started against the employer 

Hungary  

When  offends  are  detected,  an  administrative  procedure  begins  immediately.  The  inspectors  set  up  an  official 
protocol on-the-spot. They are authorised to call on all concerned persons to prove their identity and to question 
them, to copy or even to seize documents, to make audio or video recordings. 

Italy  

A the end of the procedure, a decision is made by the competent regional body. Appeals may be directed towards the central 
Unit for Labour supervision. 

la  manodopera  occupata, 

Gli  ispettori,  al momento  dell’accesso,  verificano  i  lavoratori  presenti  sul luogo di  lavoro controllando  i  libri 
obbligatori, i libri paga e matricola, in cui sono registrati tutti i dati necessari all’identificazione dei lavoratori 
in regola. Nel caso in cui verificano che ci sono delle inadempienze da parte del datore di lavoro, in quanto ha 
l’ispettore  predispone  un  verbale  di 
omesso  di  assumere  regolarmente 
contestazione/notificazione  con  il  quale  viene  quantificata  la  sanzione  pecuniaria  da  irrogare  al  trasgressore. 
Da questo momento in poi prende vita la procedura esecutiva di riscossione della sanzione (Legge n.689/81). La 
materia della tecnica ispettiva richiede forse un approfondimento anche alla luce del D. Lgs. n.124/04 che ha 
introdotto  delle  sostanziali  novità  in  materia  ispettiva.  Si  rinvia,  pertanto,  se  ritenuto  utile  da  codesta 
Commissione Europea, di specificare ulteriormente gli istituti riguardanti la tecnica ispettiva. Nel caso in cui il 
personale ispettivo trovi sul luogo di lavoro, persone extracomunitarie prive del permesso di soggiorno e non 
regolarmente iscritte nei libri obbligatori provvederà a: 1) denunciare, con rapporto, all’autorità giudiziaria la 
notizia  di  reato  ai  danni  del  datore  di  lavoro  che  ai  sensi  dell’art.  22,  comma  12,  D.Lgs.286/98,  così  come 
modificato  dall’art.  18  della  Legge  189/2002  “occupa  alle  proprie  dipendenze  lavoratori  stranieri  privi  del 
permesso di soggiorno…, ovvero il cui permesso di soggiorno sia scaduto e del quale non sia stato chiesto, nei 
termini  di  legge,  il  rinnovo,  revocato  o  annullato”.  La  pena  è  quella  dell’arresto  da  tre  ad  un  anno  e 
dell’ammenda  di  5.000  euro  per  ogni  lavoratore  impiegato;  2)  fare  rapporto  agli  istituti  previdenziali  per  il 
conseguente recupero contributivo.  

Latvia  

Information about illegally employed third-country nationals is given to the State Board Guards. Administrative 
charge is imposed on employer.  

For the employment without the work contact an employer who is a civil person may receive a fine up to 350 LVL for the first 
breach of law and up to 500 LVL for the second breach within one year. An employer, if a legal entity, may have to pay up to 
1000LVL  for  the  first  instance  of  illegal  employment  and  up  to  5000  for  the  second.  The  amount  of  the  administrative 
sanctions is not proportionate to the number of illegally employed. 

Latvia2 

Nothing happens with the illegal workers nor with the employers providing them with work. They both receive 
administrative fines. There are no cases of expatriation due to illegal work. There are two possible scenarios – 
the first, illegal workers and employers complete the necessary documents to regularise the situation, or second, 

EN 

149 

   EN 

 
Table A7.1 – Enforcement: qualitative information provided by Member States 

Member State 

Situation in the country 

the person who has been employed illegally leave the country.  

The cooperation with the Immigration departments of the cities helps to assure these situations receive the necessary follow up. 
There is also a possibility to annul the visa for the person illegally employed, but there have been no such precedents so far. 

The Articles in the Latvian Administrative Infringement code relating to the Border Guard and the administrative sanctions for 
illegal employment state: 

Article 189.pants. “Employment without passport or work permit” 

- For hiring a person, if he or she does not posses a valid passport or birth certicfivccate (if the person is younger than 16), a 
fine of 50 to 150 LVV is charged. 

- For employment of one or several persons (until the total of five), if the person does not have work permit that is required by 
the normative acts, fees of 100 to 300 LVL are charged for the civil persons and for legal entities from 500 to 10000 LVL. 

- For the employment of more that five persons, if they do not have work permit that is required by the normative acts, fees of 
300 to 500 LVL, but for legal entities from 2500 to 10000 LVS are charged. 

Article 189.1 “Working without work permit” 

For working without work permit that is required by the normative acts, fees of 100 to 500 LVL are to be charged. 

Netherlands  

The inspector writes up a ‘boeterapport’ (= fine report), the observations and findings (which include the story / 
viewpoint/  defense  of  the  employer,  of  the  employees  who  act  as  witness,  additional  information  acquired 
through the Centre for Work and Income), and subsequently sends the rapport to the authority / administrative 
unit which imposes the fines: ‘Afdeling Bestuurlijke Boete’. They demand from the employer to pay the fine. 
The  employer  has  two  weeks  to  defend  the  case  and  to  start  an  appeal.  No  criminal  justice  involved 
(‘Bestuursrecht, geen strafrecht’). Fines consist of 8,000 Euro per illegally employed foreigner. ‘High amount’. 

In the past, until January 2005, all cases were sent to the criminal court and fines normally amounted to less than 1,000 Euro. 
That procedure and that level of fine was considered too low for such a serious violation of regulations.  

If the employer offends again within 2 years: 12,000 Euro per illegally staying third country national employed. 

If the employer offends a third time, s/he is sent to the criminal where s/he risks imprisonment (‘hardly ever happens’).  

If employment agency involved, both employer and employment agency receive fines. Excuse that the employer did not know 
that employment agency engaged such (illegal) actions is not considered valid. If an employment agency offers labour at 60% 
of the price /wages that the competitor offers, then an alarm bell should go off...  

Spain  

They sanction employers where there are illegal workers.  

Slovakia  

If a contravention is observed the inspector: 

Verifies  that  it  is  ceased/  removed  –  in  case  of  illegally  employed  third  country  nationals  this  means  that  the  person  stops 
working in the work place. 

Can  apply  a  sanction  –  in  case  of  illegal  employment  this  can  only  be  a  fine.  Fines  can  go  up  to  1.000.000  SKK  (approx. 
28.000€).  But  usually  they  are  between  10.000  and  60.000  SKK.  The  interviewee  mentioned  that  the  highest  fine  he  came 
across was 100.000 SKK. The sanction is based on the number of people affected/ for how long/ what is the problem.  

Do employers of illegally staying third country nationals often (or rarely) hire more than one such irregular worker? 

Czech Republic   Yes. The proportion of illegally employed foreigners among the total number of controlled employed foreigners 

is usually 1/5 to 1/3.  

Finland  

Yes 

Hungary  

In about 70% of the cases, the offence may be regarded as done intentionally with the purpose of violating the 
law,  with  none  of  the  third  country  nationals  having  a  work  permit.  In  30%  of  cases,  the  violation  rather 
originates  in  negligence:  some  of  the  workers  have  permits,  others  are  overdue,  or  not  covering  the  specific 

EN 

150 

   EN 

 
Table A7.1 – Enforcement: qualitative information provided by Member States 

Member State 

Situation in the country 

activity in question. But legal liability is objective in this case, negligence does not prevent from the fines. 

Repeated offends by private persons are very unlikely, as fines are very retentive. Companies may repeatedly employ illegally 
staying third country nationals. 

Italy  

Dai  dati  in  possesso  della  scrivente  Direzione,  risulta  che  gli  organi  ispettivi  hanno  accertato  lavoratori 
irregolari senza il permesso di soggiorno pari a n. 4.965. Occorre precisare che si tratta di un dato complessivo 
riferito all’anno 2006, pertanto non è possibile stabilire la dinamicità e periodicità con cui un datore di lavoro 
occupi tale personale. 

Latvia  

No information 

Latvia2 

Have to see statistics. 

Netherlands  

Average number: 2,7 employees. In 70 % of violations: 1 employees, in another 30: 2 employees. Exceptions: up 
until 20 employees.  

Spain  

It  depends  on  the  case.  The  do  not  have  figures  on  the  numbers  but  anecdotal  evidence  points  to  it  being 
common that companies hire various illegal workers from the same country.  

Slovakia  

Most frequently contraventions concern 2-3 people but in some cases it can be much higher.  

Do you consider the current approach to enforcement effective? Why /why not? 

Czech Republic   Globally it is effective, but it could be improved by better human capacity of labour offices and better exchange 

of information among the different bodies (e.g. social security, tax offices, etc.).  

Finland  

France  

Hungary  

Italy  

Ideally two controllers in labour offices should be dedicated to the control of illegal employment of foreigners. This not so for 
the moment.  

When labour inspectorate overtook some of the competences of labour offices the numbers of controllers were brought down.  

“Quite effective. Wider front established, because a range of bodies are involved in enforcement, are well aware 
of the tasks and activities of the other bodies, and often cooperate with one another. “ 

The current approach is effective. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of exchange of information between the control 
bodies could be enhanced. 

The approach is considered to be effective. Fines are retentive. The still inadequate capacities (although stepped 
up by 100 new staff the end of 2006) are the bottleneck: only 5-6% of employers are checked in a year, which is 
lagging behind the EU’s figure of 15-18%. 

Il sistema ispettivo italiano si basa su una organizzazione complessa ed anche completa, in quanto il personale 
ispettivo è altamente qualificato e si occupa di verificare la corretta applicazione di tutte le leggi in materia di 
lavoro.  Questa  complessità  porta  alla  necessità  di  formare  e  aggiornare  costantemente  gli  ispettori  sia  con 
elementi  di  teoria,  sia  con  elementi  di  tecnica  ispettiva.  Questa Direzione Generale  si  occupa  anche  di  questi 
aspetti  inviando  agli  uffici  circolari  esplicative  sulle  nuove  normative,  ovvero  circolari  esplicative 
sull’affinamento  della  tecnica  ispettiva  (all’uopo  è  stato  istituito  anche  un  codice  di  comportamento  degli 
ispettori)  al  fine  di  rendere  non  solo  omogeneo  e  uniforme  l’attività  ispettiva  svolta  dal  personale  presso  gli 
uffici, ma anche per rendere più efficace ed efficiente l’intervento ispettivo su tutto il territorio nazionale. 

Latvia  

The  existing  regulations  don’t  allow  to  detect  the  fact  of  illegal  employment  as  such,  because  there  are  no 
complete regulations as concerning to identifying the workers. 

Efficiency  is  diminished  by  the  lack  of  connection  between  number  of  illegal  persons  employed  and  the  amount  of  the 
administrative sanctions (e.g. fines may be the same whether a person employs 100 or one illegal worker, although instructors 
do consider to the extent possible the severity of each individual case). 

Latvia2 

It is hard to say. Of course there could be ways of improving the information exchange between the institutions. 
Such  possibility  always  exists.  The  biggest  problems  of  illegal  work  are  with  the  representatives  of  those 
countries  that already are  in the  EU. Lithuanians,  now  lately  Bulgarians, also  some  people  from  Ukraine. The 

EN 

151 

   EN 

 
Table A7.1 – Enforcement: qualitative information provided by Member States 

Member State 

Situation in the country 

system of shared databases seems to be sufficiently effective.  

Netherlands  

Effective,  because  of  the  high  fines  –  no  financial  advantage  for  illegal  employment  –  and  because  both 
employer and employment agency receive fine in case of violations. Effectiveness is reflected in figures: since 
2005  there  is  less  repeated  offending.  Before:  40  %  were  found  to  re-offend.  Now:  has  declined  to  25%.  In 
addition to the high fines, the fact that the media paid a lot of attention to these high fines and to enforcement 
actions has been productive/ beneficial.  

Spain  

A big problem is the Southern border to the EU where a lot of immigrants come from Africa and Latin America 
as well as the borders to the East where people come from Bulgaria, although not as problematic now that they 
are part of the EU, as well as the Ukraine. An important part of enforcement is to monitor and better control the 
borders. There should also be an EU police force dedicated specifically to immigration issues. 

Slovakia  

Yes.  It  has  considerably  improved  since  the  new  regulation  on  “illegal  employment2  which  defines  in  details 
what is “illegal employment”.  

The  new  regulation  had  raised  employers  awareness  on  what  is  illegal  employment.  It  was  also  accompanied  by  series  of 
targeted controls.  

Are  current  administrative  and  penal  sanctions  considered  effective  in  discouraging  the  employment  of  illegally  staying 
third-country nationals? If yes/no, why? Any changes to be proposed? 

Czech Republic   The legal framework is adapted to the situation of CR. The maximum fine of 2 millions CKK is appropriate. It 

would not be considered appropriate to have penal sanctions just fro illegal employment.  

The  only  eventual  problem  is  that  clear  and  applicable  indicators  would  be  needed  for  controllers  to  decide  on  the  level  of 
fines.  

Finland  

CIA  questionnaire:  The  legislation  in  force  gives  the  authorities  a  good  opportunity  to  monitor  the  right  of 
people  coming  from  third  countries  to  reside  and  take  up  employment  in  the  country.  As  regards  the 
effectiveness  and  impact  of  current  bills,  no  assessments  can  be  made  yet.  In  practice  they  do  not,  however, 
affect the work of the police, because responsibility for monitoring rests with labour protection authorities under 
the Customer Liability Act, and with fiscal authorities under the reforms in the tax law. 

France  

Hungary  

From  the  crime  investigation  perspective,  the  most  efficient  way  of  combating  illegal  foreign  labour  and  foreign  labour 
working in the shadow economy is to target measures at the employers who employ illegal employees or operate in the shadow 
economy.  In  these  cases,  economic  crime  investigation  is  often  carried  out,  and  the  most  typical  forms  of  crime  are 
(aggravated)  tax  fraud  or  (aggravated)  accounting  offence.  The  investigation  of  such  cases  requires  a  good  and  effective 
cooperation between the police and fiscal authorities. It is particularly important to trace and confiscate the proceeds of crime 
the criminals have acquired through the use of illegal foreign labour or foreign labour in the shadow economy.  

See above Customer Liability Act, introduced in January 2007. 

Administrative and penal sanctions have been recently increased by the Ministry of Labour (2004-2005). They 
are effective tools in discouraging the employment of illegally staying third-country nationals. 

Administrative sanctions (fines) are considered effective. They are high enough to be retentive, and are seen as 
extraordinary high in the Hungarian context. 

The fines (they are termed “payment liabilities” instead of “fines”, to be paid to the Labour Market Fund) are fixed per law and 
non-negotiable, no equity may be granted.  

In most cases, the fine is set to be 4 x the wages paid out from the commencement of illegal employment, but not less 8 times 
the  minimum  wage  per  illegal  employee,  regardless  of  how  short  the  time  period  of  employment  they  claim  to  be  (the 
minimum  wage  in  2007  is  65,500  HUF,  approx.  €260,  thus  fines  amount  to  approx.  €2,080  at  least  per  person  illegally 
employed). 

No penal sanctions are imposed as per the respective legislation. There are rare occasions where a violation of other laws may 
result in prosecution, with the IG reporting to the police (e.g. suspicion of human trafficking). But this is outside the scope of 
employment legislation. 

Italy  

Le sanzioni penali appaiono le misure più idonee a scoraggiare il fenomeno in esame. 

EN 

152 

   EN 

 
Table A7.1 – Enforcement: qualitative information provided by Member States 

Member State 

Situation in the country 

Latvia  

Any proprietor of an establishment, employer or person managing an establishment in the employer’s stead who 
wilfully or negligently commits a breach of the provisions of Code of Administrative Offences of Latvia shall be 
liable to a fine, depending on complicity, in accordance with Article 189.  

Latvia2 

Netherlands  

Spain  

A  person  guilty  of  the  offences  under  Article  189,  Code  of  Administrative  Offences  of  Latvia,  may  be  liable  to  a  fine  not 
exceeding LVL 10,000 (employment without passport or work permits.  

They seem to be effective for the workers (up to 500 LVL is a lot for an illegally staying individual). Also for the 
firms/employers they seem to be sufficient as there are no discovered repeated breaches of the law (for the illegal 
employment of the Bulgarians, the employer received a fine of 4000LVL). 

Administrative  sanctions  are  preferred  over  penal  ones.  Faster  and  better.  Previously,  when  dealt  with  by 
criminal  courts  /  judges,  much  more  variation  between  fines  imposed  (also  inter-regional  variation).  Now 
sanctions  are  imposed  by  one  and  the  same  administrative  unit  and  they  decide  the  level  of  the  fine.  Equal 
approach across the nation.  

This question can be answered by what was discussed in the previous question however it is important to add 
that general contractors should be held responsible for all members of the workforce that is participating in their 
project.  For  example,  this  process  could  be  used  in  construction  where  currently  the  general  contractor  often 
washes his/her hands of the situation of illegal working attributing it more to the subcontractors.  

Slovakia 

There is a reduction in the number of contraventions observed, this can however be due to the fact that when the 
new regulations on illegal employment started to apply a number of targeted controls had been organised.  

Political support for enforcement actions: Is the fight against undocumented / illegal work (in general and that of illegally 
staying third-country nationals in particular) a governmental priority? 

Czech Republic  

It is among the political priorities for several reasons. Illegal employment leads to tax fraud and also to social 
contributions fraud.  

It is also very closely linked to crime such as human trafficking.  

There is a general effort to lessen illegal employment together with the above mentioned issues.  

Finland  

Yes, it has been a governmental priority. This has been reflected in the range of policy and legislative measures 
that the current government put in place (e.g. Policy Migration Programme, Amendment to Act on Occupational 
Safety and Health Working Security, Amendment to Posted Workers Act).  

France  

Hungary  

Italy  

Latvia  

Latvia2 

However, new elections and new government to arrive soon. 

The  fight  against  undocumented  /  illegal  work  is  a  clear  priority  of  the  government  since  2003.  The  DILTI  is 
regularly required to report to the Ministry of Labour and the Prime Minister on the state of the problem. 

Political support has become very prominent in the last years. The fight against illegal employment is high on 
government agenda. The budget had been significantly increased, an additional staff of 100 had been awarded to 
the  IG.  The  government  is  receptive  to  the  recommendations  of  the  IG,  including  proposed  changes  in 
regulation. 

Tra gli obiettivi primari di questo ministero rientra proprio la lotta al lavoro sommerso e per il raggiungimento 
di tale traguardo è stata investita questa Direzione Generale con il compito di individuare specifiche e attente 
campagne di attività ispettiva. 

Yes,  the  fight  against  undocumented  /  illegal  work  (in  general  and  that  of  illegally  staying  third-country 
nationals) is one of the governmental priorities. 

The political engagement could be evaluated to some 50 per cent. The Border Guard law is being changed now 
to better define the rights and competences of border guards and employers alike. This new wording is taking 
already  ½  years  to  agree  upon.  There  are  institutions  concerned  for  the  citizens’  rights  to  privacy.  Thus  the 
political engagement could be better.  

EN 

153 

   EN 

 
Table A7.1 – Enforcement: qualitative information provided by Member States 

Member State 

Situation in the country 

Netherlands  

Past government (new government to be sworn in next week) did provide political support. There was a political 
consensus that tackling illegal employment is a key priority and that the necessary funds have to be reserved to 
enforce  employment  legislation.  Until  2003:  only  100  inspectors.  During  the  subsequent  government  period, 
parliament  made  the  decision  to  invest  10  million  Euro  per  year  in  the  labour  inspectorate.  This  explains  its 
expansion to 180 inspectors. In addition, an amendment to the law was accepted: the state secretary, briefed by 
the  inspectorate  for  the  need  for  a  higher  level  of  fines,  proposed  an  increase  in  fines  to  4,000  Euro.  The 
parliament raised that number to 8,000 Euro per employee.  

Inspectorate  /  administrative  unit  feel  they  can  influence  policy-making  in  relation  to  the  topic.  For  example:  on  1  January 
2007,  a  new  element  was  introduced  to  relevant  legislation:  employer  now  has  to  cooperate  with  the  identification  of  the 
employees  on  the  worksite.  Suggestion  given  by  the  inspectorate  on  the  basis  of  problems  experienced  by  employees. 
Recommendation to increase fines also derived from inspectors. 

However, there are decisions that are made ‘beyond the reach of the inspectorate’. For example, the new government which is 
to be sworn has announced that it will pursue the goal of reducing government administration with 20 %. How will this affect 
the inspectorate? Will their unit be shrunk as well?  

Spain  

The Spanish government has taken an initiative to control illegal immigration but it is also important to monitor 
all borders and to take care in choosing workers from the country of origin and monitor their visa status. There 
should  be  more  collaboration  between  Spain  and  sending  countries.  Currently  there  are  programmes  to  hire 
workers  from  sending  countries  with  specific  skills.  These  are  good  programmes  but  at  the  same  time  the 
government needs to work with sending countries to ensure workers do not overstay their visas and that those 
who do come have the necessary skills to perform the job they are hired for.  

Currently the EU is conducting a study to make the situation for contracting workers in their country of origin easier. The EU 
is also investigating the possibilities of having a universal police force that controls for immigration. There is political will to 
fight against the irregular economy in Spain. Most recently, 2 years ago, a type of ‘amnesty’ was offered illegal workers to 
legalise their status. There were thousands of workers who were legalised during this process. 

Slovakia  

The fight against illegal employment of third country nationals is not directly the priority of the current Slovak 
government. However it is indirectly related to the government priority to lower unemployment. Rather than a 
priority it is a means to reach this goal.  

How much of the successes (or problems) in relation to the enforcement do you attribute to the enforcement capacity? 

Czech Republic  

If the human capacity was better controls could be quicker and therefore more effective. It is necessary in this 
area to detect problems quickly and to be able to act rapidly, not after several years of illegal employment.  

Finland  

The effectiveness of monitoring depends in practice on the resources allocated to monitoring. 

France  

The success is mainly due to the competence and the knowledge of the functionaries working within the body. 
Nevertheless, the effectiveness of exchange of information between the control bodies could be enhanced. 

Hungary  

The problems still rest with inadequate number of staff. 

Italy  

Latvia  

Si  ritiene  che  il  valore  da  attribuire  alla  capacità  dell’azione  ispettiva  per  il  raggiungimento  dell’obiettivo 
primario del ministero, non possa quantificarsi in termini numerici, bensì debba riconoscersi nella capacità per 
ciascun ufficio di raggiungere il risultato richiesto. 

Not very effective, there are the changes, concerning improvement to increase the capacity are to be proposed. 
There  are  reasons  and  indications  that  the  number  of  illegal  workers  will  rise  with  the  enlargement.  If  such 
occurs the increase of financial and human capacity to deal with the illegal work may be reconsidered. 

Latvia2 

There are no great problems with enforcement. It is reasonably effective. The need for more capacity may grow 
together with the opening of borders with following Latvia’s signing of the Schengen agreement. 

Netherlands  

Enforcement capacity is very important (see above, expansion in budget and number of inspectors).  

Spain  

It is not just a question of how much capacity we have to enforce but it is also important to limit the number of 
TCN  who  enter  the  country  illegally  and  then  look  for  work.  Undeclared  work  is  an  issue  even  with  Spanish 
people.  This  department  has  the  responsibility  of  controlling  that  as  well.  Similarly  there  are  also  cases  of 

EN 

154 

   EN 

 
Table A7.1 – Enforcement: qualitative information provided by Member States 

Member State 

Situation in the country 

migrant workers who are legally allowed to work but do not receive benefits which means that they are working 
irregularly eventhough they are not ‘illegal’ 

Slovakia  

This is difficult to estimate.  

In terms of the human and financial capacity of the enforcement body, are these appropriate or should they be increased / 
decreased? Why? 

Czech Republic   As mentioned above ideally two people in each labour office should be dedicated to this task and this is so far 

not the case.  

Finland  

The  new  unit  established  at  the  National  Bureau  of  Investigation,  the  Surveillance  Unit  for  Illegal  Foreign 
Labour, and the new public offices at the labour protection districts have increased the resources for control and 
investigation. 

OSH: In 2005, 9 inspectors were hired specifically to inspect foreign labour in light of amendment to the Alien’s Act in 2004, 
which included inspection of foreign employees’ right to work. 

France  

An increased human capacity would certainly increase the effectiveness of the body. Also the technical capacity 
of the Agency (the information exchange system) should be increased. 

Hungary  

(see above)  

Italy  

Latvia  

Latvia2 

Negli  ultimi  anni  è  stato  riconosciuta  la  possibilità  al  ministero  del  lavoro  di  assumere,  tramite  concorso 
pubblico,  nuovo  personale  ispettivo.  Anche  nell’ultima  Legge  Finanziaria  2007  (L.296/2006),  è  prevista 
l’assunzione  di  altri  300  ispettori  per  arrivare  ad  un  numero  complessivo  di  circa  3.000  ispettori  su  tutto  il 
territorio  nazionale.  Queste  nuove  assunzioni  attestano  l’importanza  dell’attività  svolta,  tale  da  dover 
potenziare l’organico esistente.  

Both  the  financial  and  human  resources  are  appropriate  to  achieve  significant  results  at  present.  The  problem 
may increase in the future according to the opening the labour market in 2007. Then definitely the human and 
financial capacity will have to be increased. 

Unambiguously the capacity could be greater, especially in the Riga capital region. However, there are plans to 
increase the number of border guards working in this field from around 150 at the moment to some 500, after 
Latvia joins the Schengen agreement and the inspection on the internal borders are no longer required. Roughly 
three times more human resources are needed than available at the moment. 

Netherlands  

‘We have 180 inspectors, not more.’ As explained in the above, we are not sure what will happen to the labour 
inspectorate under the new government.  

Although there might be less irregular / illegal employment in the future – as the employment of Poles is now allowed / has 
been  regularised  (note  how  the  focus  /  the  definition  of  the  problem  is  redefined  as  laws  and  procedures  change,  good 
example!).  In  previous  years,  40  percent  of  the  third-country  nationals  or  EU  ciitzens  found  to  be  illegally  employed  were 
Poles. But now they can work in NL legally. However, we intend to focus our checks / enforcement actions on respect for law 
on minimum wages (as said in the above, this often affects the employment situation of Poles).  

Spain  

It is important increase the resources for this body so that more inspections can be performed. Howver it is also 
important  for  there  to  be  resources  to  conduct  more  studies  to  understand  where  there  are  greater  numbers  of 
illegal workers.  

Slovakia  

Opinions  differ  and  the  situation  is  different  in  the  various  regions  of  Slovakia.  In  the  east  the  illegal 
employment of third country nationals is higher than in the west.  

The Labour Inspectorates have recently reduced the numbers of inspectors but a new recruitment phase is planned, though it 
has not yet been agreed.  

In Table 5 below we ask you to complete figures on enforcement. In relation to changes of financial costs (overall and for 
human resources), please comment on why increases / decreases have been made (or not). 

EN 

155 

   EN 

 
Table A7.1 – Enforcement: qualitative information provided by Member States 

Member State 

Situation in the country 

Czech Republic   There  are  no  penal  sanction  for  illegal  employment  of  foreigners  in  Czech  Republic.  Penal  sanctions  can 

however apply, if there are other violations of the law such as forced labour 

France  

The financial costs have remained stable over the past years. 

Latvia  

Increases haven’t been made, but could be made according to the opening of the labour market in 2007. 

Latvia2 

Detailed information would be hard to find. Some general data could be available.  

Some was sent, see below. 

From the web: http://robsardze.gov.lv/index.php?sadala=744&id=3491  

20 Feb. 2007 

Expected  changes  after  Latvia’s  joining  the  Schengen  Zone,  as  well  as  new  changes  to  the  Border  Guard  law,  would  make 
more precise the rights of border guards in controlling the enterprises, propriety and premises of legal and civil persons, to find 
out the aim of foreigners arrival and residence as well as to check the accuracy of information provided by the foreigner or 
his/her inviter. 

The Head of the State Labour Inspectorate expressed her satisfaction about the good regional Labour Inspectorate official and 
State border guard cooperation in the fight against the illegal employment. In cooperation with the State Border Guard, SLI 
undertook 205 common inspections in enterprises. In these common inspections the State Border Guard officials established 
131 delinquencies in the field of immigration. 

. 

EN 

156 

   EN 

 
Table A7.3 – Enforcement figures provided by CIA members 
2003 

2002 

2004 

2005 

Country 

a)Number of work place inspections 

. 

AT 

BE 

CZ 

LV 

LV2 

NL 

PL 

RO 

SK 

SL 

UK 

23,222

6,000

9 112 
(1 430)

18,272 

9 933 (1 631) 

1408 
(SBG)

1109 (SBG)  

6,602

21,140

11 078 (1 382 
controls of 
employers 
employing 
foreigners)

10 597 
(1 760)

980 (State 
Border 
Guard fig.) 

717

24,581

25,766

OLFM 
129 
Labour 
Inspection
50

8,407 

303

9,095 

446

9,914 

1,618

8,500 

OLMF 76 
Labour 
Inspection 
46 

10,600 

9,421  

2,850 

b)Number  of  work  places  employing  illegally  staying  third  country 
nationals 
FR 

5,873

LV 

PL 

RO 

SK 

UK 

103 (SBG)

34 (SBG)

26 (SBG) 

2,711

231

390

45

1

150 

40 

1,999 

c)Numbers  of  detected  illegally  staying  third  country  nationals 
employed 
AT 

7,421 

1,293

5,690

6,201

BE 

CZ 

FR 

LT 

LV 

MT 

RO 

SK 

SL 

UK 

1 646

1 466

1,201

499

565 

2 017 

956 

103 (SBG) 

64 (SBG) 

28 (SBG) 

96

77

2,304

0

78

3,854

0 

565 

77  

9,227 

1 488

722

46

1,099

d) Proportion of inspections which led to administrative charges? (as 
a % of total number of inspections by year) 

CZ 

100%

100%

100%

100% 

EN 

157 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A7.3 – Enforcement figures provided by CIA members 
2003 

2002 

2005 

2004 

Country 

EE 

100%

100%

100%

100% 

e)Proportion  of  inspections  which  led  to  penal  charges?  (as  a  %  of 
total number of inspections by year) 

UK 

1%

1%

1%

1% 

f)Absolute numbers of administrative charges. 

CZ 

EE 

RO 

SL 

17

12

34 256 500,- 
CZK 

66 

76 

11

129

2,236 

2,962 

3,378 

2,175  

g) Absolute numbers of penal charges 

BE 

UK 

2

2

3,000

11

23 

h)Total  number  (or  proportion)  of  charges  (if 
distinguish between admin and penal) 

impossible  to 

AT 

BE 

LT 

NL 

3,588

3,372

234

185

3,974 

26% 

26% 

i)Proportion  of 
sanctions? (as a % of total number of inspections by year) 

inspections  which  have 

led  to  administrative 

CZ 

EE 

LT 

NL 

100%

82 (in 3 cases 
the procedure 
was ended)

100%

100

100%

100

593

241

100% 

88 (in 8 cases 
the procedure 
was ended) 

2,200 

j)Proportion of inspections which have led to penal sanctions? (as a 
% of total number of inspections by year) 

FR 

110

188

k)Absolute numbers of administrative sanctions. 

CZ 

EE 

SL 

RO 

14

29 

12

6 

11

18 
129

l) Absolute numbers of penal sanctions 

UK 

1

1

8

1 254 

58 

4  
76 

13 

m)Total  number  (or  proportion)  of  sanctions  (if  impossible  to 
distinguish between admin and penal) 
HU 

121 

54

65

LV2 

182

179

153 

n)Total amount of fines incurred (as million euro) 

AT 

CZ 

EE 

4,326

8,890

13,776

17,150 

74900 EEK

43400 EEK

26600 
EEK

34 256 500,- 
CZK 

144460 EEK 

EN 

158 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A7.3 – Enforcement figures provided by CIA members 
2003 

2005 

2004 

2002 

Country 

LV2 

RO 

SL 

12,660 LVL 
(nearly 
19,000 
euro) or just 
over 100 
euro per 
firm

0,0765 
mil Euro

0,03 mil Euro 

 SIT 
106,250,035,71  

o) Numbers of employers convicted to imprisonment 

FR 

67 

p) Number of inspectors (FTE[1]) 

AT 

CZ 

LT 

SL 

88

187

75 

195

76 

196

82 

300 (2006) 

Circa 150 

211 

86  

q)Percentage  of  staff  or  of  their  time  (FTE)  that  is  dedicated  to  the 
control of the employment of third-country nationals: 

CZ 

r)Costs for human resources 

CZ 

s)Total costs for running this body 

CZ 

Circa 15 - 20% 

Circa 500 000,- 
CZK 

2.3 mld.CZK 

EN 

159 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
. 

Table A7.4 – Enforcement figures provided by enforcement 
bodies  
2003 

2002 

2004 

2005 

Country  

 a)Number of work place inspections  

 ES  
 IT  
 LV1  
 RO  
 SK  

25,862  
143,336  
10  

30,409  
178,637  
8  

34,301  
188,125  
11  
8,489  
4,817  

79,481  
163,013  
20  
11,085  
10,624  

 b)Number  of work  places  employing  illegally  staying  third  country 
nationals  
 IT  
 LV1  
 c)Numbers  of  detected  illegally  staying  third  country  nationals 
employed  
 ES  

12,766  
 -  

10,543  
1  

8,147  
5  

9,345  
7  

8,413 
4,398 

10,152 
2,969 

13,8 
2,939 

9,535  
4,969  

5 

17 

18 

 -  

 IT  

 LV1  

 SK  

 15 
(10 in 1st 
semester of 
2006)  
 d)Proportion  of  inspections  which  led  to  administrative  charges? 
(as a % of total number of inspections by year)  

3 

 ES  

 IT  

 LV1  

 32,66 
78,954 

0 

 33,47 
91,549 

0 

 40,31 
67,135 

 0,2 % 

 f)Absolute numbers of administrative charges,  

 ES  

 LV1  

8,446 
5 

10,178 
7 

13,828 
1 

 13,93  
51,961  

 -  

11,069  
 -  

 i)Proportion  of  inspections  which  have  led  to  administrative 
sanctions? (as a % of total number of inspections by year)  

 ES  

 32,53 

 33,38 

 40,23 

 12,00  

 k) Absolute numbers of administrative sanctions,  

 ES  

 IT  

 RO  

 SK  

8,413 
 269,65 

10,152 
221,857 

 13,8 
197,735 

50 

56 

9,535  
169,418  

46  

574  

 l)Absolute numbers of penal sanctions  

 IT  

35,002 

33,614 

34,766 

25,126  

 n)Total amount of fines incurred (as million euro)  

 ES  

 IT  

 LV1  

 RO  

 51,34 
56,412,215 

 60,53 

 200 LVL 
(284,5 euro) 

 250 LVL 
355,7 (euro) 

 84,98 
60,194,661 

 100 LVL 
(nearly 142 
euro) 

 2,010,000 
(thousand 
lei) 

 59,30  
67,176,342  

 151,000 
(thousand lei)  

EN 

160 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Table A7.4 – Enforcement figures provided by enforcement 
bodies  
2003 

2004 

2005 

2002 

Country  

 SK  

 2,363,600 
SK 
(~65,500€) 

 6 523 000 SK 
(~181,100€)  

 p Number of inspectors (FTE[1])  

 ES  
 IT  
 LV1  

1,526 
2,215 
98 

1,571 
2,175
98 

1,614 
2,06 
95 

1,632  
1,949  
116  

 q)Percentage of staff or of their time (FTE) that is dedicated to the 
control of the employment of third-country nationals:  

 LV1  

 0,09 %  

 0,07 %  

 0,11 %  

 0,25 %  

 r)Costs for human resources  

 LV1  

 662,28 
LVL (
942,3 euro) 
 s)Total costs for running this body  

 547 
LVL 
(778,3 euro) 

852
LVL 
(1212,3 
euro) 

 3,520  
LVL  
(5008,7 euro)  

 LV1  

 735,871 
LVL 
(1,047,054.6 
euro)  

 781 450 
LVL 
(1,111,909.5 
euro)  

 774 581 
LVL 
(1,102,135.7 
euro) 

 1,408,083 
LVL  
(2003533 
euro)  

EN 

161 

   EN 

 
 
 
ANNEX 8 – TYPOLOGY OF MEMBER STATES TO ASSESS THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF 
THE EMPLOYMENT OF ILLEGALLY STAYING THIRD-COUNTRY NATIONALS 

Member States show a great diversity as regards of the share of illegal third-country nationals 
in the workforce, their countries of origin, the significance of undeclared work in general. The 
variety in figures substantiate the notion that no single ’European case’ exists. 

Member States may have very different immigration situations and histories, as well as very 
different  labour  market  and  economic  structures.  This  may  justify  a  subdivision  of  the 
countries  to  three,  internally  more  homogenous  groups,  based  on  similar  patterns  in  illegal 
immigration  and  the  illegal  employment  of  third-country  nationals,  and  the  assumed 
motivations  of  employers  behind  that.  The  classification  takes  account  of  suggestions  made 
by Rindoks, Penninx, Rath [2006]209. 

The grouping allows for a more coherent analysis of the current situation and likely effects of 
interventions,  as  the  different  socio-economic  situation  in  the  Member  States  may  result  in 
different  effects  and  impacts.  The  ex  ante  assessment  of  expected  outcomes  of  the  single 
policy options take account of this classification. The groups formed are the following: 

Group A brings together „old” immigration countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, 
France, Germany, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Sweden, UK). These have been traditionally 
target countries for immigrants. Being amongst the economically most advanced and richest 
countries,  but  lacking  sufficient  workforce  in  labour-intensive  industries,  they  have  often  in 
the past actively promoted immigration from their foreign colonies or third countries. These 
Member  States  are  characterised  by  high  wage  levels  and  standards  of  living,  while  still 
lacking adequate supply of workers for low- and medium-skilled jobs. Therefore, they are still 
prime target countries for illegal immigrants intending to work in the European Union. Their 
labour  market  structures  and  regulations  are  often  rigid,  and  trade  unions  may  thwart 
employers’ ambitions concerning low-wage employment, as well as more flexible hiring and 
firing.  The  usually  high  taxation  of  low-  and  medium-skilled  labour  (measured  by  the  ’tax 
wedge’210  on  low  wages,  i.e.  67%  of  the  respective  national  average  wage)  creates  an 
opportunity  for  a  significant  competitive  advantage  in  labour-intensive  industries  for  firms 
capitalising on undeclared work – Luxemburg and the UK being the exception. Sanctions and 
enforcement, however, are considered relatively strict and effective. 

Group  B  is  made  up  of  mostly  southern  European  Member  States  that  may  be  termed  as 
„new”  immigration  countries  (Cyprus,  Greece,  Ireland,  Italy,  Malta,  Portugal,  Spain). 
Although  they  were  seen  as  a  sending  rather  than  receiving  countries  of  immigrants  in  the 
past, they have become nowadays target countries themselves, thanks to their increased wage 
levels.  The  Member  States  of  Group  B  have  started  to  experience  labour  shortage  in  the 
sectors requiring significant amounts of relatively low-skilled and, accordingly, less well-paid 
labour,  despite  relatively  high  unemployment  figures  in  some  countries.  Therefore  they 
measure  up  to  Group  A  in  attracting  TCN  workforce.  As  they  are  closer  to  a  number  of 
sending countries in geographic terms, they are also more accessible for them. The informal 
sector, including undeclared work tends to be more significant in these countries, which may 

209 
210 

A. Rindoks, R. Penninx, J. Rath – Gaining From Migration. 
Defined as the share of income tax plus social contributions, paid by both employer and employee, as a 
percentage of the total labour costs of the earner (see Eurostat). 

EN 

162 

   EN 

 
                                                 
be attributed to tradition, a general culture of mistrust in authorities, milder sanctions, or the 
inadequate headcount of enforcement bodies (but it should be noted that the tax wedge on low 
wages  is  below  European  average).  These  are  all  phenomena  that  encourage  companies  to 
employ illegal immigrants.  

Group C consists of the 10 newly joined Central and Eastern European countries (Bulgaria, 
Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Hungary,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Poland,  Romania,  Slovakia  and 
Slovenia  )  that  are  both  senders  and  recipients  of  low-  to  medium-skilled  workforce.  These 
countries  are  characterised  by  relatively  low  wages,  that  are  less  appealing  to  illegal 
immigrants  from  distant  countries  (for  whom  getting  into  the  EU  is  a  significant  financial 
investment),  but  competitive  to  workers  from  neighbouring  countries211  who  are  able  to 
access the CEE countries’ labour markets easily and cheaply. The illegally employed usually 
reside temporarily in the Member State, are mostly employed in seasonal and occasional jobs 
(agriculture, construction, hotel/catering), and do not intend to stay permanently. They often 
fill vacancies in sectors that have been abandoned by locals, who themselves work – legally 
or  illegally  –  in  other  European  countries.  Dynamically  rising  wages  and  shrinking 
unemployment are all signals of labour shortages. The informal sector, and undeclared work 
in particular, reaches very high levels in countries in Group C, with illegally employed third-
country nationals only playing a minor part in it. This is predominantly motivated by the high 
tax wedge on labour, which makes it almost impossible in labour-intensive sectors to compete 
with firms that are using undeclared work, and is encouraged in some countries by relatively 
lax regulation, mild sanctions and/or insufficient enforcement capacities. 

Table  A8.1  presents  a  scoreboard  of  the  Member  States  in  the  three  country  groups,  with 
statistical  data  used  to  highlight  the  countries  that  are  potentially  more  vulnerable  to  the 
illegal employment of third-country nationals.  

The statistical data taken into consideration are: 

•  The  weight  of  the  traditionally  ‘sensitive’  sectors  in  total  employment,  using  the  NACE 
classification,  i.e.:  A.  Agriculture,  hunting  and  forestry,  F.  Construction,  H.  Hotels  and 
restaurants. The higher the share, the higher the case and potential for illegal employment. 

•  Average hourly wage in euro, derived from the respective Eurostat statistical table for the 
year 2005. Higher wages are more attractive to third-country nationals and traffickers and 
the  wider  gap  in  the  compensation  of  workers  secures  even  greater  benefits  for  the 
employers  of  illegally  staying  third-country  nationals.  This  in  turn  increases  the  pressure 
on  wages  for  legally  employed  workers  and  the  likelihood  of  unfair  competition  for 
employers. 

•  Monthly  labour  cost  in  the  sensitive  sectors,  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  average 
labour  cost  in  manufacturing.  Manufacturing  has  been  selected  as  a  benchmark,  because 
within this branch of the private sector employment  is usually legal, the knowledge- and 
skill-intensity  is  average  and  trade  unions  are  present.  A  significantly  lower  labour  cost 
may indicate a reliance on low-skill and/or undeclared work, which already exerts pressure 
on wages in the sector. 

211 

E.g. Ukraine, Moldova. 

EN 

163 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  Tax  wedge  on  low  wages  (i.e.  a  wage  corresponding  to  66.7%  of  the  country’s  median 
wage), average for 2000-2005, taken from OECD’s “Taxing Wages 2006” report. A large 
gap  between  the  labour  cost  to  the  company  and  the  net  salary  of  workers  creates  high 
incentives for undeclared work and, within that, the employment of illegally staying third-
country  nationals.  In  addition,  the  huge  potential  for  tax  evasion  may  exert  considerable 
pressure on other companies due to unfair competition. 

The  unemployment  rate  in  the  Member  State  could  constitute  another  interesting  indicator, 
but has not been included as the relationship with the extent of illegally staying third-country 
nationals in work and the effects on the national labour market could be hypothesised to go 
either way. Third-country nationals may respond to labour shortages, in particular in relation 
to  low-paid  or  low-skilled  jobs,  both  in  countries  with  higher  or  lower  levels  of 
unemployment. 

For each indicator, the scoreboard assesses whether the country falls within the lower, middle 
or upper third of all Member States (a small correction in the clustering has been undertaken 
to group countries with very similar indicator values into the same group). To keep the input 
information,  the  cells  contain  the  original  statistical  data,  but  their  shading  represents  the 
specific  scoreboard  value:  no  shading  –  lowest  third;  light  blue  –  second  third;  dark 
blue/inverted – highest third. Where no data was available, the country was assumed to rank 
in the middle third. 

The final column calculates the country’s vulnerability by adding up the individual scores on 
the five indicators. Lower vulnerability of a specific country does not necessarily mean that 
the employment of illegally staying third-country nationals would be low, but indicates that 
the impacts of such employment on, amongst other things, the national labour market or intra-
firm competition will probably be less adverse than in countries with a higher score. 

EN 

164 

   EN 

 
Table A8.1 – Country vulnerability scoreboard (Groups A-C) 

of 

Weight 
sensitive 
sectors in total 
employment, 
in % (2005)212 

Average 
hourly  wage 
EUR 
in 
(2005) 

Monthly labour 
sensitive 
cost: 
vs. 
sectors 
manufacturing 
(2004) 

Tax  wedge  on 
low 
wages 
(average  2000-
2005) 

Total score 

Country 

Group A 

Austria 

Belgium 

Denmark 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Luxemburg 

Netherlands 

Sweden 

20.1 

11.9 

12.6 

14.5 

13.8 

12.5 

13.4 

13.0 

10.8 

United Kingdom 

13.5 

Group B 

Cyprus 

Greece 

Ireland 

Italy 

Malta 

Portugal 

Spain 

Group C 

23.9 

27.2 

24.2 

17.2 

18.3 

27.7 

24.2 

Bulgaria 

20.3 

Czech Republic 

17.3 

24.2 

29.0 

29.0 

24.3 

27.2 

25.6 

27.4 

25.4 

28.8 

24.4 

10.0 

12.1 

.. 

20.1 

7.9 

9.4 

14.2 

1.4 

5.3 

.. 

69.3 

86.4 

74.5 

96.3 

61.1 

63.6 

83.1 

.. 

86.8 

109.9 

.. 

.. 

.. 

99.0 

89.7 

71.8 

77.2 

86.2 

43.1 

50.0 

40.0 

40.7 

45.2 

47.4 

29.9 

40.3 

47.3 

28.9 

17.9 

34.7 

18.1 

42.1 

17.7 

32.4 

35.2 

36.9 

41.7 

10 

10 

8 

9 

8 

10 

8 

8 

9 

6 

7 

8 

8 

9 

6 

7 

9 

7 

7 

212 

Based on Eurostat employment data for the year 2005 

EN 

165 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Country 

Estonia 

Hungary 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Poland 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

of 

Weight 
sensitive 
sectors in total 
employment, 
in % (2005)212 

Average 
hourly  wage 
in 
EUR 
(2005) 

Monthly labour 
sensitive 
cost: 
sectors 
vs. 
manufacturing 
(2004) 

Tax  wedge  on 
low 
wages 
(average  2000-
2005) 

Total score 

16.5 

17.0 

23.4 

25.1 

25.0 

38.6 

18.3 

19.3 

3.8 

4.9 

2.4 

3.0 

5.0 

1.7 

3.9 

10.0 

89.3 

70.3 

80.9 

89.3 

87.5 

84.2 

76.1 

94.9 

39.2 

46.2 

41.2 

41.4 

42.0 

43.9 

39.8 

39.6 

6 

9 

9 

7 

8 

9 

8 

7 

The findings presented in Table A8.1 suggest that the countries in Group A, with a relatively 
rigid labour market, high wages and high taxes, seem to be the most vulnerable to the adverse 
effects  of  the  employment  of  illegally  staying  third-country  nationals.  Here  the  problem  of 
creating unfair competition to others within certain sectors and depressing the wages of those 
legally  employed  is  expected  to  be  the  greatest.  In  countries  of  Group  B  and  C,  the 
employment of illegally staying third-country nationals is not expected to have a significant 
adverse influence on the labour market and on competition. Here, the custom of making use 
of  low-skilled,  low-paid  and/or  undeclared  work,  whether  done  by  EU  citizens  or  third 
country  nationals,  is  so  wide-spread,  that  all  companies  within  the  sectors  concerned  have 
adapted to this situation, and employ illegally themselves or cope with unfair competition by 
other means. 

EN 

166 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 9 – ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS CALCULATION 

Proposal on minimum sanctions for employers of illegally staying 
third-country nationals 

Tariff 
(€ per 
hour) 

TIme  
(hour) 

Price 
(per 
action 
or 
equip) 

Freq 
(per 
year) 

Nbr  
of  
entities 

Total nbr
of  
actions 

Total cost 

Regulatory 
origin 
(%) 

No. 

Ass. 
Art. 

Orig. 
Art. 

Type of 
obligation 

Description of 
required action(s) 

Target group 

i 

e 

i 

e 

Int 

EU 

Nat 

Reg 

1 

15(1) 

Cooperation 
with audits 

Companies 

Inspecting and 
checking (including 
assistance to 
inspection by 
public authorities) 

27 

4,00 

108,0 

1 

1.760.000 

1.760.000 

190.080.000 

100% 

Obligation for companies: need to cooperate with enforcement body conducting the check. 

Total administrative costs (€) 

190.080.000 

Administrative costs by origin (€) 

EU 

190.080.000 

Assumptions on duration of steps: 

–  One check could be assumed to require 0.5 man days from the per company being checked. 

It needs to be underlined that the legal act does not determine the procedure or duration of such checks. Sequence of necessary steps, time and cost 
required are estimations based on: 

Contacts with enforcement bodies in Member States in the context of the impact assessment study and average employment costs at EU level (source 
for 
2005, 
Mercer 
http://www.mercerhr.com/pressrelease/details.jhtml/dynamic/idContent/1175865). 

employment 

Consulting, 

Resource 

Human 

figures 

costs: 

April 

EU 

25 

by 

11 

EN 

167 

EN 

 
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Calculation of hourly rate (EUR): 

–  average yearly employment costs across EU: 

28269 

–  average hourly employment costs (200 working days à 8 hours): 18 

–  including 50 % estimated overheads 

27 

Assumptions on frequency of checks: 

–  Only a minority of Member States (data in annex 7,3 and 7,4 of the IA report) has provided replies on the frequency of checks. For example 79,481 
inspections are reported per year in Spain and 163,013 in Italy (in 2005). Other Member States report a far lower number of checks, e.g. Austria 18, 
(source: 
an 
272 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/smes/facts_figures_en.htm),  a  careful  estimate  could  be  that  on  the  average,  already  2%  of  companies  are  being 
checked across Europe. The proposal foresees annual checks of 10% of registered companies. This would amount to 2.2 million checks per year. 
The additional number of checks compared to the estimated baseline would therefore be 1.76 million checks. 

and  Czech  Republic 

22  million 

9,933.  On 

in  Europe 

companies 

estimated 

basis 

the 

of 

EN 

168 

EN 

 
  
ANNEX 10 – ENFORCEMENT COSTS CALCULATION 

Proposal on minimum sanctions for employers of illegally staying third-
country nationals 

Tariff 
(€ per 
hour) 

TIme  
(hour) 

Price 
(per 
action 
or 
equip) 

Freq 
(per 
year) 

Nbr  
of  
entities 

Total nbr
of  
actions 

Total cost 

Regulatory 
origin 
(%) 

No. 

Ass. 
Art. 

Orig. 
Art. 

Type of 
obligation 

Description of 
required action(s) 

Target group 

i 

e 

i 

e 

Int 

EU 

Nat 

Reg 

1 

15(1) 

Inspection 

2 

15(1) 

Inspection 

3 

15(1) 

Inspection 

4 

15(1) 

Inspection 

Retrieving relevant 
information from 
existing data 
Inspecting and 
checking (including 
assistance to 
inspection by public 
authorities) 
Submitting the 
information 
(sending it to the 
designated 
recipient) 
Filing the 
information 

Enforcement 
bodies in MS 

Enforcement 
bodies in MS 

Enforcement 
bodies in MS 

Enforcement 
bodies in MS 

Explanation of steps for public bodies: 

Step 1: Preparation of inspection by public body 

Step 2: on-the-spot check 

27 

7,20 

194,4 

1 

1.760.000 

1.760.000 

342.144.000 

100% 

27 

9,60 

259,2 

1 

1.760.000 

1.760.000 

456.192.000 

100% 

27 

4,80 

129,6 

1 

1.760.000 

1.760.000 

228.096.000 

100% 

27 

2,40 

64,8 

1 

1.760.000 

1.760.000 

114.048.000 

100% 

Step 3: Follow-up work after check (e.g. processing results, request for additional info) 

Step 4: Filing and processing of results 

Total enforcement costs (€)  1.140.480.000 

EN 

169 

EN 

 
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Enforcement costs by origin (€) 

EU 

1.140.480.000 

Assumptions on duration of steps: 

–  One check could require 3 man days (à 8 hours) from the public sector bodies, 

–  The estimated total time could distribute as follows: step 1: 30% (7,2h), step 2: 40% (9,6h), step 3: 20%(4,8h), step 4: 10% (2,4h). 

It needs to be underlined that the legal act does not determine the procedure or duration of such checks. Sequence of necessary steps, time and cost 
required are estimations based on: 

Contacts with enforcement bodies in Member States in the context of the impact assessment study and average employment costs at EU level (source 
2005, 
Mercer 
for 
http://www.mercerhr.com/pressrelease/details.jhtml/dynamic/idContent/1175865). 

employment 

Consulting, 

Resource 

Human 

figures 

costs: 

April 

EU 

by 

25 

11 

Calculation of hourly rate (EUR): 

–  average yearly employment costs across EU: 

28269 

–  average hourly employment costs (200 working days à 8 hours): 18 

–  including 50 % estimated overheads 

27 

Assumptions on frequency of checks: 

–  Only a minority of Member States (data in annex 7,3 and 7,4 of the IA report) has provided replies on the frequency of checks. For example 79,481 
inspections are reported per year in Spain and 163,013 in Italy (in 2005). Other Member States report a far lower number of checks, e.g. Austria 18, 
(source: 
an 
272 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/smes/facts_figures_en.htm),  a  careful  estimate  could  be  that  on  the  average,  already  2%  of  companies  are  being 
checked across Europe. The proposal foresees annual checks of 10% of registered companies. This would amount to 2.2 million checks per year. 
The additional number of checks compared to the estimated baseline would therefore be 1.76 million checks. 

and  Czech  Republic 

22  million 

9,933.  On 

in  Europe 

companies 

estimated 

basis 

the 

of 

EN 

170 

EN 

 
  
EN 

171 

EN