Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Outcome of the Public Consultation on the Commission’s Green Paper “Modernising labour law to meet the challenges of the 21st century“ {SEC(2007) 1373}
Date: 2007-10-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: employment policy, labour flexibility, labour law, labour market, labour relations, occupational safety, organisation of work, public opinion

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 24.10.2007 
COM(2007) 627 final 

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

Outcome of the Public Consultation on the Commission’s Green Paper “Modernising 
labour law to meet the challenges of the 21st century“ 

{SEC(2007) 1373} 

EN 

   EN 

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

Outcome of the Public Consultation on the Commission’s Green Paper “Modernising 
labour law to meet the challenges of the 21st century“ 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

By adopting a Green Paper on “Modernising labour law to meet the challenges of the 
21st  century”1,  the  Commission  launched  a  public  debate  in  the  EU  on  how  labour 
law can support the Lisbon Strategy's objective of achieving sustainable growth with 
more and better jobs. The Green Paper looked at the role labour law and collective 
agreements  might  play  in  advancing  a  “flexicurity”  agenda  in  support  of  a  labour 
market which is fairer, more responsive and more inclusive, and which contributes to 
making  Europe  more  competitive.  It  sought  in  particular:  to  identify  the  key 
challenges for adapting labour law to the evolving realities of the world of work; to 
engage  all  stakeholders  in  an  open  debate  about  how  labour  law  can  assist  in 
promoting  flexibility  and  security;  to  stimulate  discussion  on  how  flexible  and 
reliable  contractual  relations  combined  with  rights  can  facilitate  job  creation  and 
promote transitions in the labour market; and to contribute to the Better Regulation 
agenda. 

The public debate on the modernisation of labour law was not expected to pave the 
way  to  an  easy  consensus,  or  to  provide  the  basis  for  a  blueprint  for  legislative 
action.  The  divergent  views  expressed  in  the  course  of  the  consultation,  while 
making it difficult to establish major points of consensus, confirm the pertinence and 
timeliness of a debate that has been common to many Member States, but had yet to 
reach Community level.  

The  level  and  the  quality  of  the  debate  generated  by  the  publication  of  the  Green 
Paper  fully  met  the  Commission’s  objectives  for  this  exercise.  Over  450  responses 
were  registered  by  the  Commission,  encompassing  all  stakeholders  —  national 
governments, regional governments, national parliaments, social partners at EU and 
national  level,  NGOs,  individual  enterprises,  academics,  legal  experts  and  private 
individuals.  They  reflect,  for  the  most  part,  a  deep  awareness  of  the  challenges 
presented  by  the  emerging  European  labour  market  —  which  is  being  shaped  by 
increased labour mobility and trans-national corporate activity. The debate was also a 
focus  for  public  opinion  and  media  interest  as  many  governments  consulted  at 
national  level  with  social  partners,  public  authorities  and  independent  experts.  The 
discussion  conducted  within  a  number  of  EU  sectoral  social  dialogue  committees 
was  a  particularly  welcome  development,  resulting  in  the  adoption  of  several  joint 
positions by employer and trade union representatives2.  

1 
2 

COM (2006) 708 of 22.11.2006. 
For example in the audio-visual, live-performance and regional and municipal employment sectors. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  EU  institutions  also  contributed  actively  to  the  debate.  The  EU  Ministers  for 
Employment and Social Affairs had a preliminary discussion of the Green Paper at 
the  EPSCO  Council  meeting  in  Brussels  on  1  December  2006.  They  debated  the 
matter  further  at  a  meeting  convened  in  Berlin  on  18  January  2007  under  the 
auspices  of  the  German  Presidency.  The  conclusions  tabled  by  the  Presidency 
endorsed  the  “flexicurity”  concept  as  a  useful  method  but  stressed  the  value  of  the 
standard  full-time,  open-ended  contract  as 
the  cornerstone  of  employment 
relationships  in  the  EU,  while  allowing  for  other  more  flexible  forms  to  cater  for 
specific needs and individual situations3. 

The  European  Parliament  (EP)  adopted  a  Resolution  on  11  July  20074,  which 
responds positively to the Green Paper by identifying a Community dimension to the 
labour  law  issues  raised  in  the  Paper.  The  EP  resolution  was  adopted  by  a  large 
majority5,  reflecting  a  remarkable  consensus  on  a  report  that  had  been  intensely 
debated at each stage of the procedure. 

The  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  (EESC)  adopted  an  opinion  on  the 
Green  Paper6,  expressing  disagreement  with  the  timing  and  method  of  consultation 
as well some aspects of the underpinning analysis.  

Flexible and reliable contractual arrangements  through modern labour laws are one 
of the four key policy components of a broader flexicurity approach alongside life-
long  learning  strategies,  active  labour  market  policies  and  modern  social  security 
systems,  as  spelled  out  in  the  Commission's  Communication7  "Towards  Common 
Principles  of  Flexicurity:  More  and  better  jobs  through  flexibility  and  security  " 
which was adopted on 27 June 2007. 

The purpose of this Communication is to present in summary form the outcome of 
the public consultation launched by the Green Paper, and to identify the key policy 
issues arising. In presenting an objective summary of the views of respondents, the 
Commission  does  not  take  any  position  on  particular  comments  or  on  their  factual 
accuracy.  A  working  document  by  the  Commission  services  providing  a  more 
detailed review of the responses is attached. This Communication, together with the 
publication of all responses received in the course of the consultation8, is justified by 
the  need  to  ensure  maximum  transparency.  It  marks  the  conclusion  of  the  public 
consultation process on the modernisation of labour law. 

3 

4 
5 
6 

7 
8 

Presidency  Conclusions,  Informal  meeting  of  Ministers  for  Employment  and  Social  Affairs,  Berlin, 
19.1.2007. 
P6_TA-PROV (2007) 0339. 
479 votes in favour and 61 against, with 54 abstentions. 
CESE  398/2007  of  30  May  2007.  Adopted  by  a  majority  vote  (140  in  favour,  82  against  and  4 
abstentions).  A  counter-opinion  (submitted  by  Group  I  representatives)  was  appended  to  the  EESC 
opinion.  
COM (2007) 359 of 27.6.2007. 
The responses are published online in the site: 
http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/labour_law/green_paper_responses_en.htm See also the full 
listing of submissions in the annex attached to the Services document SEC. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2. 

THE POLICY CONTEXT AND THE ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK INFORMING THE GREEN 
PAPER 

The conduct of the public consultation 

For some social partners, primarily trade unions, the consultation should have taken a 
form of formal consultation of the EU social partners on the basis of Article 138 EC. 
They  perceived  the  conduct  of  an  open  consultation  on  labour  law  by  means  of  a 
Green  Paper  as  a  down-grading  of  the  Social  Dialogue  and  of  their  pivotal  role  as 
representatives  of  employers  and  workers.  The  EP  and  the  EESC  also  expressed 
reservations  about  the  Commission’s  recourse  to  a  public  consultation.  However,  a 
large  majority  of  the  Member  States  and  Social  NGOs  positively  welcomed  the 
openness of the consultative process.  

The analytic framework put forward in the Green Paper 

For  a  number  of  Member  States,  trade  unions,  social  NGO  stakeholders  and 
academic  respondents,  labour  law  reform  should  be  considered  from  the  outset 
within the framework of fundamental rights, in particular the Charter of Fundamental 
Rights of the European Union.9 In their view, such a framework would provide the 
basis for a more assertive approach by the Commission to using its right of initiative 
in  the  interests  of  “Social  Europe”.  Some  trade  union,  social  NGO  and  academic 
respondents questioned the Green Paper's focus on the contribution that labour law, 
as  a  component  of  employment  and  social  policy,  could  make  to  economic  growth 
and  competitiveness.  Employer  stakeholders  and  several  Member  States  stressed, 
however,  the  significance  of  an  appropriate  labour  law  framework  for  promoting 
jobs, growth and competitiveness. 

Trade union stakeholders, a number of Member States and academic experts, warned 
against viewing the standard, indefinite employment contract as somehow obsolete, 
or  as  an  obstacle  to  the  creation  of  jobs.  In  their  view,  the  Green  Paper  could  be 
interpreted as expressing a preference for more diverse contractual forms and for the 
introduction  of  weaker  employment  laws.  Many  respondents,  including  the  EP, 
EESC and Member States, stressed the stability and security offered by the standard 
work  contract.  Conversely,  employer  stakeholders,  together  with  some  Member 
States, considered that flexible work contracts had not been treated in a sufficiently 
positive light. There was no agreement on the application of the concept of “insiders” 
and “outsiders” to segmented labour markets. In the view of employers, the only real 
“outsiders”  are  the  unemployed  and  the  “insiders”  are  all  those  legally  employed. 
Trade unions maintain that the gap between “insiders” and “outsiders” can only be 
eliminated by improving the protection of precarious workers.  

The scope of the Green Paper 

Some Member States, together with the trade union stakeholders, and most academic 
experts  would  have  preferred  a  wider  scope  for  the  Green  Paper  —  integrating 
collective  labour  law  aspects,  rather  than  focussing  on  the  individual  employment 
relationship.  Only  such  an  approach  could  capture,  in  their  view,  the  complex 

9 

As proclaimed in Nice on 7 December 2000, by the presidents of the European Parliament, the Council 
and the Commission. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
interplay between the overall regulatory framework in each country and the role of 
collective bargaining in regulating the world of work. The EP and the EESC urged 
that the modernisation of labour law should be considered within the framework of a 
wider  flexicurity-based  approach.  The  Commission,  in  its  Communication  on 
Flexicurity, endorses the need for an integrated strategy that can, at the same time, 
enhance flexibility and security in the labour market. 

Many  business  submissions,  recalling  the  limitation  of  EU  competences,  called  for 
labour law reform to be pursued exclusively within a national context. 

Social  NGOs  focused  on  the  role  of  labour  law  in  guaranteeing  fair  and  adequate 
remuneration, in particular through the minimum wage. In their view labour law, in 
conjunction  with  social  protection  systems,  should  contribute  to  combating  poverty 
and  should  be  all-inclusive  in  its  personal  scope  so  as  to  avoid  creating  further 
segmented  labour  markets.  Reforms  should  aim  to  improve  rights  for  those  in 
precarious employment, without reducing existing rights. 

Subsidiarity 

Most Member States, the EP and the EESC, national parliaments and the EU social 
partners recalled the division of responsibilities between EU and Member States. The 
development  of  labour  law  within  the  EU  is  generally  viewed  as  falling  within  the 
competence  of  the  Member  States  and  the  social  partners,  with  the  role  of  the 
Community  acquis  being  to  complement  the  actions  of  the  Member  States.  Some 
respondents stress the importance of minimum standards that take account of diverse 
forms  of  national  practices  and  the  need  to  maintain  the  competitiveness  of  the 
Community economy. 

National  reform  agendas  were  paramount  for  some  Member  States,  national 
parliaments  and  employer  stakeholders.  A  more  structured  exchange  of  experience 
on  particular  developments  in  labour  law  and  contractual  arrangements  was  thus 
viewed positively. Some national employer confederations called for urgent action at 
national level to ease individual and collective dismissal regulations and to facilitate 
greater  recourse  to  new  forms  of  contracts  (i.e.  alternatives  to  the  standard, 
indefinite,  full-time  employment  contract).  However,  they  did  not  see  the  need  for 
further legislative initiatives at Community level in this field. 

EU-level activity on key issues of employment rights should not be confined to the 
open  method  of  coordination  (OMC),  in  the  view  of  trade  union  stakeholders, 
academics, and several other Member States. Trade unions emphasised that emerging 
European labour markets can no longer be managed by relying on national rules in 
the  social  sphere  as  internal  market  and  competition  rules  are  being  accorded 
primacy over national social policy provisions.  

The Better Regulation Agenda  

The EP highlighted the  immense influence that labour law has on the behaviour of 
undertakings and how their decisions to create more and better jobs depend on stable, 
clear  and  sound  legal  provisions.  A  number  of  Member  States  see  reform  of  their 
labour codes or the codification of fragmented legislation as an opportunity to reduce 
fundamental  objectives.  The 
administrative  burdens  without 

jeopardising 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
development of the OMC is also seen as a means of promoting better regulation in 
the field of labour law. 

Several Member States acknowledged the relevance to labour law reform of a range 
of  measures  associated  with  the  Better  Regulation  agenda,  e.g.  consultations  with 
stakeholders,  impact  assessments,  evaluation  of  the  alternatives  to  regulation, 
simplification and clarification of laws, awareness campaigns regarding employment 
law,  etc.  While  Member  States  are  generally  agreed  that  regulations  to  protect 
employees  must,  in  principle,  apply  equally  to  large  corporations  and  small 
businesses,  most  of  them  consider  that  there  is  some  scope  in  particular  cases  to 
tailor measures to the special circumstances of SMEs. 

3. 

THE THEMES OF THE CONSULTATION 

A Flexible and Inclusive Labour Market  

Member  States  considered  that  the  means  of  achieving  a  balance  between  security 
and flexibility, the level at which it might be established and the exact form it should 
take are likely to vary between Member States and to be susceptible to change over 
time. However, they welcomed a more in-depth exchange of experience, involving in 
particular the social partners, in order to develop a clearer understanding of common 
challenges affecting the regulation of contractual arrangements.  

Social  NGOs  stressed  the  need  for  better  coordination  between  labour  law  and 
employment  policies  on  the  one  hand  and  social  protection  systems  on  the  other 
hand.  Social  protection  and  minimum  income  should  enable  citizens  to  choose 
between employment, training and socially meaningful activity. Periods of maternity, 
paternity and parental leave, career breaks and part-time employment (in particular in 
order  to  fulfil  caring  responsibilities  for  dependent  people)  should  be  taken  into 
account in the calculation of pension and insurance entitlements. 

Facilitating employment transitions 

Employers  stressed  the  impact  that  an  easing  of  employment  protection  law  could 
have  on  employment  levels  and  on  the  employment  prospects  of  vulnerable 
categories. In their view a meaningful labour law reform agenda should focus more 
on giving people the skills they need to remain adaptable throughout their working 
lives, rather than on protecting individual jobs. Trade unions rejected any assumption 
that  a  more  flexible  employment  protection  law  would  facilitate  labour  market 
transitions. 

Trade  unions  and  legal  experts  called  for  the  development  of  new  regulations  to 
promote  the  transition  from  fixed-term  and  part-time  contracts  into  full-time  work. 
They  urged  measures  to  promote  greater  worker  mobility  by  enabling  workers  to 
carry  rights  forward  in  the  event  of  changes  in  employment.  Among  employers, 
UEAPME10  urged  investigation  at  national  level  as  to  how  the  continuity  of  social 
protection  rights  could  facilitate  the  transitions  between  employment  and  self-
employment. 

10 

European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Some Member States and social partner stakeholders considered that both labour law 
and  collective  agreements  could  contribute  to  promoting  access  to  training  and 
facilitating  the  transition  between  different  contractual  forms  for  upward  mobility 
over the course of a working life. BusinessEurope11, however, had reservations about 
whether legislation was an appropriate instrument to influence learning behaviour. In 
its  view,  the  experience  in  Member  States  implementing  a  “right  to  training” 
demonstrated little impact for the workers who are most in need – the least qualified. 
Some  social  partner  respondents  emphasised  their  experience  of  negotiating 
collective agreements to promote access to training, improved in-service training and 
smoother  transitions  into  employment  from  education  and  apprenticeships.  Social 
NGOs,  in  particular,  stressed  the  contribution  labour  law  should  make  to  ensuring 
equal access to training and life-long learning for all.  

Uncertainty with regard to the definition of the employment relationship  

The  EP’s  recognition  of  the  complexity  of  defining  what  are  workers  and  self-

employed  persons  under  Community  law  was  echoed  by  the  majority  of  Member 

States. This complexity was acknowledged to have increased as a consequence of the 
cross-border provision of services. Most Member States wanted to rely upon national 
law and well-tested legal procedures to resolve such problems. Together with many 
social partner organisations they favour the position whereby the definition of worker 
under  most  labour  law  directives  remains  at  the  discretion  of  the  Member  States. 
While employer interests at EU and national levels generally dismissed the need for 
more  convergent  national  definitions,  social  partner  interests  in  the  service, 
entertainment,  media  and  retail  sectors  considered  that  the  definitions  used  in 
different  Member  States  to  define  the  status  of  those  referred  to  as  freelancers, 
casual  or  independent  workers  might  be  listed  and  explained  to  facilitate  a  better 
understanding of the employment status of the persons concerned. 

The  EP  called  for  an  initiative  towards  convergence  in  the  national  definitions  of 
worker  status  to  ensure  a  more  coherent  and  efficient  implementation  of  the 
Community acquis. It urged the Member States to promote the implementation of the 
2006 ILO Recommendation on the employment relationship.12 Some Member States 
also suggested that the Recommendation be used as a basis for discussion among the 
Member States and social partners about how to cope better at a European level with 
the phenomenon of concealed employment relationships. 

Most Member States and social partners are opposed to the introduction of any third 
intermediary  category,  such  as  the  so-called  “economically  dependent  worker”, 
alongside those of dependent workers and independent self-employed workers. Even 
in Member States where such a concept already exists in national law, such as Italy, 
there were reservations about whether an unequivocal definition could be devised at 
European  level.  BusinessEurope  accepts,  however,  that  some  added  value  could  be 
gained by sharing experience on the impact of such measures so that Member States 
might learn from each other. Trade unions favour re-focusing the scope of labour law 

11 
12 

The Confederation of European Business.. 
ILO  Recommendation  198  on  the  Employment  Relationship  adopted  at  the  95th  session  of  the 
International Labour Conference in June 2006. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
through  national  reforms  to  extend  the  protection  associated  with  the  standard 
employment contract to all workers. 

ETUC13 calls upon the EU Institutions, together with the Social Partners at EU level, 
to develop an EU-wide supportive legal framework, consisting of a combination of 
EU  ‘rules  of  the  game’  and  certain  EU  minimum-standards  to  establish  a  “core  of 
rights”  while  ensuring  respect  for  national  social  policies  and  industrial  relations. 
Social NGOs also support the idea of a common set of rights, linked to a commonly 
agreed  definition  of  “worker”  established  under  Community  law,  in  order  to 
underpin the principle of freedom of movement.  

Three-Way Relationships  

The  Member  States  and  the  social  partners  reiterated  their  established  positions  on 
the  merits  of  the  proposed  directive  on  temporary  agency  work.  A  number  of 
Member  States  called  for  its  adoption  as  a  priority  for  labour  law  reform.  Trade 
unions called for the proposed directive to be adopted as a complement to the Posting 
of Workers Directive and the Services Directive. Employer organisations, however, 
considered the status of temporary workers to be sufficiently well-defined in national 
law. 

The  EP  highlighted  the  need  to  regulate  joint  and  several  liability  for  principal 
undertakings to deal with abuses in subcontracting and outsourcing in the interests of 
ensuring a level playing field for companies in a transparent and competitive market. 
Some  Member  States  also  favour  establishing  a  principle  of  subsidiary  liability  to 
ensure  compliance  with  employment  rights  throughout  the  EU.  Other  Member 
States,  however,  are  satisfied  with  the  provisions  on  secondary  liability  for  sub-
contracting relationships in their national labour laws.  

ETUC and its sectoral affiliates considered that a Community initiative is required in 
the  form  of  an  instrument  to  regulate  the  “chain  responsibility”  of  user  enterprises 
and  intermediaries  in  the  case  of  agency  work  and  sub-contracting.  Employer 
organisations  doubted  whether  a  proposal  to  establish  for  a  principle  of  subsidiary 
liability would prove effective. Rather, user enterprises should be able to rely on the 
fact that sub-contractors have to fulfil their labour law responsibilities.  

Organisation of Working Time  

The EP called for working time arrangements to be sufficiently flexible to meet the 
needs of employers and employees and to enable people to better balance work and 
family  life,  so  as  to  safeguard  competitiveness  and  improve  the  employment 
situation. A number of Member States identified the revision of the Working Time 
Directive as a key priority at EU level. 

ETUC  and  its  affiliates  recalled  the  positions  they  had  taken  since  the  first  and 
second  stages  of  consultation  of  the  EU  social  partners  on  the  revision  of  the 
Working Time Directive in 2004. They want an unambiguous recognition of inactive 
on-call time as working time, without any opt-outs. BusinessEurope and most of its 

13 

European Trade Union Confederation. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
affiliates  consider  EU  regulation  in  this  area  to  have  been  misconceived  in  its 
original  form.  Employers,  however,  urge  the  adoption  of  proposals  to  revise  the 
Working Time Directive to solve the problems created for healthcare and the private 
economy  as  a  consequence  of  the  European  Court  of  Justice  judgment  in  the 
Simap/Jaeger  case.  They  wish  to  see  the  opt-out  provision  retained  as  a  way  of 
ensuring greater labour market flexibility. 

Enforcement of employment rights and combating undeclared work 

The  EP  stressed  that  labour  legislation  is  only  efficient,  fair  and  strong  if  it  is 
implemented  by  all  Member  States,  applied  equally  to  all  actors  and  enforced  on  a 
regular  basis  and  in  an  efficient  manner.  There  was  general  support  for  better 
cooperation  at  EU  level  and  a  better  exchange  of  information  and  good  practices. 
Member  States  supported  action  at  EU  level  to  combat  undeclared  work,  given  the 
increasing supranational aspects of the problem. The type of action advocated varies, 
however, from declaratory instruments such as Council resolutions, to exchanges of 
good practice and multi-lateral and bi-lateral forms of administrative co-operation. 

The  establishment  of  cooperative  links  between  relevant  agencies  at  EU  level  (e.g. 
labour  inspectorates,  tax  offices,  social  security  bodies)  was  proposed  by  some 
Member  States.  The  social  partners  reveal  mixed  views,  reflecting  their  sectoral 
diversity as well as the differences in the way their organisations assist the authorities 
in  enforcing  employment  rights  and  combating  undeclared  work.  ETUC  and  some 
EU  sectoral  federations  called  for  the  establishment  of  a  permanent  European 
coordination  structure  to  ensure  enforcement  of  Community  law,  while  employers 
viewed  this  as  primarily  a  matter  for  the  national  authorities.  Employers  also 
highlighted initiatives taken under EU technical assistance programmes to help build 
the capacity of social partner organisations in the new Member States. 

4. 

THE NEXT STEPS 

The Commission concludes that the public consultation has achieved its purpose in 
generating debate at EU and national level on the need to improve labour law to meet 
the  challenges  of  the  21st  century.  The  responses  provide  useful  information  on 
current  developments  in  the  labour  law  and  industrial  relations  systems  of  the 
Member  States  —  many  of  which  correspond  to  themes  addressed  in  the  Green 
Paper. 

The debate has highlighted the extent to which labour law is an important tool, not 
only in dealing with the management of the workforce, but also in providing a sense 
of security to workers and citizens in a world of rapid change and high mobility of 
capital  and  technology.  The  debate  has  also  shown  the  extent  to  which  reforms  of 
labour law, social security and training systems are closely interwoven. Through the 
Green Paper on labour law and the Communication on Flexicurity, the Commission 
launched an open debate about matters that are of key  importance for  the future of 
labour markets and social cohesion in Europe. The message was understood by the 
main  stakeholders,  whatever  their  views  about  the  directions  for  reform.  The 
Commission  will    work  with  the  Member  States  with  a  view  to  conclusions  on 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
common  principles  of  flexicurity  being  adopted  at  the  European  Council  in 
December 200714. The Commission will also follow the joint analysis of the social 
partners on the key challenges facing European labour markets15 in order to frame an 
agenda  designed  to  advance  an  integrated  approach  to  implementing  flexicurity-
based principles. It encourages social partners to engage in negotiations, in particular 
on life-long learning. 

The  Commission  will,  accordingly,  take  the  necessary  steps  in  2008  to  pursue  the 
issues  raised  in  this  Communication  in  the  wider  "flexicurity"  context.  Despite  a 
difference  of  views  on  the  extent  and  nature  of  EU  action,  the  consultation  has 
identified a demand for improved cooperation, more clarity, or just more and better 
information and analysis, in a number of areas, such as: 

•  The  prevention  and  combating  of  undeclared  work,  especially  in  cross-border 

situations16, 

•  The  promotion,  development  and  implementation  of  training  and  life-long 

learning to ensure greater employment security over the life cycle; 

•  The  interaction  between  labour  law  and  social  protection  rules  in  support  of 

effective employment transitions and sustainable social protection systems; 

•  The clarification of the nature of the employment relationship to promote greater 

understanding and facilitate cooperation across the EU; 

•  The  clarification  of  the  rights  and  obligations  of  the  parties  involved  in  sub-
contracting  chains,  to  avoid  depriving  workers  of  their  ability  to  make  effective 
use of their rights. 

14 

15 
16 

The EPSCO Council is expected to adopt conclusions on flexicurity on 5 December 2007. The ECOFIN 
Council already adopted conclusions on flexicurity on 9 October 2007. 
Presented at the Informal Tripartite Social Summit on 18 October 2007. 
See Commission’s Commmunication "Stepping up the fight against undeclared work" COM(2007) xxx 
of 24.10.2007: 

EN 

10 

   EN