REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation and application of certain provisions of Directive 2008/94/EC on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer
Date: 2011-02-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: employer, financial solvency, national implementing measure, pay, social security

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 28.2.2011 
COM(2011) 84 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL  

on the implementation and application of certain provisions of Directive 2008/94/EC on 
the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL  

on the implementation and application of certain provisions of Directive 2008/94/EC on 
the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Directive  2008/94/EC1  (hereinafter  ‘the  Directive’)  codifies  Council  Directive 
80/987/EEC2 as last amended by Directive 2002/74/EC3.  

The  Directive  aims  at  protecting  employees  in  the  event  of  the  insolvency  of  their 
employer in particular in order to guarantee payment of their outstanding claims. To 
this  end  Member  States  have  to  establish  a  body  which  guarantees  the  payment  of 
these claims. 

Article  15  of  the  Directive  requires  the  Commission  to  submit  to  the  European 
Parliament and to the Council a report on the implementation and application in the 
Member States of Articles 1 to 4, 9 and 10, Article 11, second paragraph, Article 12, 
point (c), and Articles 13 and 14. 

In preparation for this report, the Commission commissioned a study by independent 
experts, addressed a questionnaire to the Member States and to the European social 
partners and invited them to comment on the findings of the study. 

2. 

SCOPE AND DEFINITIONS (ARTICLES 1, 2 AND 13) 

2.1. 

Employees protected 

Apart  from  the  exceptions  mentioned  below,  the  Directive  applies  to  all  persons 
considered  to  be  employees  according  to  national  law.  The  Commission  notes  that 
employees  with  an  agreement  for  the  performance  of  a  work  assignment  are 
excluded from the protection provided by the Directive in the Czech Republic. The 
Commission  will  investigate  further  whether  these  persons  are  not  considered  as 
employees under Czech labour law since this exclusion could constitute a breach of 
the Directive.  

The  Directive  explicitly  obliges  Member  States  to  cover  part-time  employees, 
workers  with  a  fixed-term  contract  and  workers  with  a  temporary  employment 

1 

2 

3 

Directive  2008/94/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  22  October  2008  on  the 
protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer. OJ L 283, 28.10.2008, p. 36. 
Council  Directive  80/987/EEC  of  20  October  1980  on  the  approximation  of  the  laws  of  the  Member 
States  relating  to  the  protection  of  employees  in  the  event  of  the  insolvency  of  their  employer.  OJ  L 
283, 28.10.1980, p. 23. 
Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending 
Council Directive 80/987/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the 
protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer. OJ L 270, 8.10.2002, p. 10. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

                                                 
relationship  (Article  2(2)).  According 
Commission, all the Member States conform to this requirement.  

the 

to 

information  available 

to 

the 

The  Directive  forbids  the  Member  States  to  set  a  minimum  duration  of  the 
employment  relationship  in  order  for  workers  to  qualify  for  the  protection  (Article 
2(3)). The Commission notes that in Cyprus the legislation requires that an employee 
must have worked for the same employer for at least 26 weeks continuously before 
the  date  of  the  employer’s  insolvency,  in  order  to  be  entitled  to  payments.  This,  in 
the Commission’s view, could be a breach of the Directive.  

By  way  of  exception,  Member  States  are  allowed  to  exclude  certain  categories  of 
employees: 

a)  provided  that  other  existing  forms  of  guarantee  offer  the  persons  concerned  a 
degree  of  protection  equivalent  to  that  resulting  from  the  Directive  (Article  1(2)). 
Three  Member  States  have  made  use  of  this  possibility:  In  Belgium  workers  and 
apprentices  of  businesses  which  are  members  of  several  joint  committees  or  sub-
committees are excluded from the protection of the general Guarantee Fund but are 
protected  by  sectoral  funds  established  by  collective  agreement.  In  Cyprus  non-
resident  merchant  navy  crews  are  excluded.  In  the  United  Kingdom,  merchant 
seamen  are  excluded.  The  Commission  considers  that  the  ‘maritime  lien’4  which 
appears to be the main protection provided to seafarers in these two Member States 
in  case  of  insolvency  of  the  employer  may  not  always  offer  a  degree  of  protection 
equivalent  to  that  of  the  guarantee  institution  since  the  value  of  the  vessel  may  in 
some cases not cover the minimum amount of outstanding claims provided for by the 
Directive.  

b)  domestic  servants  employed  by  a  natural  person  and  share-fishermen,  provided 
that  such  exclusions  existed  already  in  national  legislation  at  the  time  of  the  entry 
into  force  of  Directive  2002/74/EC  in  the  Member  State  concerned  (Article  1(3)). 
The Commission notes that share-fishermen are excluded in Greece, Italy, Malta and 
the  United  Kingdom;  domestic  servants  are  excluded  in  Spain,  France,  Malta,  the 
Netherlands and Poland. 

2.2. 

Employers concerned 

The Directive applies to all employers, as defined by national law, who are in a state 
of insolvency. The Directive does not provide for the possibility of exclusion of any 
category of employer. 

An employer is deemed to be in a state of insolvency (Article 2(1)) if: 

–  a  request  has  been  made  for  the  opening  of  collective  proceedings  based  on 
insolvency  of  the  employer,  as  provided  for  by  national  law,  and  involving  the 
partial  or  total  divestment  of  the  employer’s  assets  and  the  appointment  of  a 
liquidator (or a person performing a similar task); 

4 

The maritime lien on a vessel gives priority to certain claims (including wage claims) over registered 
mortgages,  ‘hypothèques’  and  charges.  (International  Convention  on  Maritime  Liens  and  Mortgages 
1993). 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
–  the  competent  authority  has  decided  to  open  the  proceedings  (or  has  established 
that  the  employer’s  business  has  been  definitively  closed  down  and  that  the 
available assets are insufficient to warrant the opening of proceedings). 

The  Commission  notes  that  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1346/20005  applies  to 
collective  insolvency  proceedings  which  entail  the  partial  or  total  divestment  of  a 
debtor  and  the  appointment  of  a  liquidator  (Article  1(1)),  i.e.  the  same  insolvency 
proceedings  that  are  covered  by  the  Directive.  In  these  circumstances,  with  a  few 
exceptions,  Member  States  have  confirmed  to  the  Commission  that  the  types  of 
national  insolvency  proceedings  falling  within  the  scope  of  the  Directive  are  those 
listed  in  Annex  A  of  the  Regulation.  The  exceptions  are:  Germany,  where  only 
Insolvenzverfahren  gives  rise  to  a  claim  protected  by  the  Directive;  Greece,  which 
excludes cases where a) the company is put into provisional administration (Creditor 
administration and management) and b) the company is placed into receivership so 
that a compromise can be reached with its creditors; Ireland, where examinership and 
winding  up  of  partnerships  are  excluded;  Hungary,  where  only  the  liquidation 
proceedings  (‘felszámolási  eljárás’)  are  covered  by  the  national  implementing 
legislation;  Slovenia,  where  skrajšani  stečajni  postopek  and  prisilna  poravnava  v 
stečaju  are  excluded.  Given  that  the  definitions  of  the  insolvency  proceedings 
covered  by  both  instruments  are  the  same,  the  Commission  is  looking  further  into 
this  matter  in  order  to  ascertain  that  all  the  relevant  insolvency  proceedings  are 
covered. 

Moreover,  Belgian  legislation  uses  the  notion  of  closure  of  a  business  instead  of 
insolvency. Business closure means ‘definitive termination of the main activity of the 
business  when  the  number  of  workers  is  reduced  to  less  than  one  quarter  of  the 
number  employed  on  average  in  the  business  over  the  four  quarters  preceding  the 
quarter  during  which  the  definitive  termination  of  the  main  business  activity 
occurred’6. It is possible that situations of insolvency as defined by the Directive are 
not covered by the Belgian guarantee fund.  

Denmark, which is not bound by the Regulation, has informed the Commission that 
the following situations are covered by the national guarantee fund: a) bankruptcy; b) 
in  the  event  of  the  employer  ceasing  trading  when  it  is  established  that  he  is 
insolvent;  c)  in  the  event  of  the  employer’s  death,  if  his  estate  is  administered  as 
insolvent or is wound up without administration. 

In  any  case,  the  Directive  (Article  2(4)) allows  Member  States  to  extend  employee 
protection to other situations of insolvency that do not fulfil the conditions required 
by Article 2(1). 

The  Directive  makes  no  distinction  between traders  and  non-traders,  large  or  small 
employers,  and  profit-making  or  non-profit-making  employers,  and  neither  should 
the guarantee schemes in the Member States. The Commission notes, however, that 
only certain types of persons or entities may be subject to bankruptcy proceedings in 
Hungary.  Similarly,  in  Luxembourg  bankruptcy  proceedings  can  only  be  initiated 
against a commercial company or a natural person who is considered as a trader. This 

5 

6 

Council  regulation  (EC)  No  1346/2000  of  29  May  2000  on  insolvency  proceedings.  OJ  L  160, 
30.6.2000, p. 1. 
Article 3, subpara. 1, indent 1 of the Act of 26 June 2002. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
could  amount  to  exclusion  of  workers  employed  by  certain  legal  and  physical 
persons from the protection of the Directive. 

3. 

CLAIMS COVERED BY THE GUARANTEE INSTITUTION (ARTICLES 3 AND 4) 

The claims to be taken over by the guarantee institution are outstanding pay claims 
arising from an employment contract and relating to a period prior to and/or after a 
given  date  determined  by  Member  States.  Bulgaria,  the  Czech  Republic,  Denmark, 
Greece,  Malta,  Portugal  and  Austria  have  fixed  a  reference  period  of  six  months 
before  the  request  for  insolvency  to  which  the  claims  must  relate;  Poland  uses  a 
reference  period  of  nine  months;  Italy  and  Latvia  a  period  of  12  months;  Slovakia, 
Ireland and Lithuania a period of 18 months; Cyprus uses 78 weeks; Belgium uses a 
period going from 12 months before the closure of the company to 13 months after it. 
Several Member States have not fixed a reference period but just a date before and/or 
after which the claims must relate to. This is the case with Estonia, France, Germany, 
Luxembourg, Hungary, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Finland, Sweden 
and the United Kingdom. 

Definition of the term ‘pay’ is left to national legislation, which leads to differences 
between Member States as to the extent of the guarantee. Nevertheless, national law 
must  respect  the  general  principle  of  equality  and  non-discrimination  when 
specifying the benefits payable by the guarantee institution7. 

The  Directive  (Article  4(1))  also  allows  Member  States  to  limit  the  liability  of  the 
guarantee institution in two ways: 

(a) 

(b) 

by specifying the length of the  period  for which outstanding claims are to be 
met, provided that this period covers at least the remuneration of the last three 
months of the employment relationship or eight weeks if the reference period is 
at least 18 months (Article 4(2)). Belgium, Denmark, France, Hungary, Austria 
and Finland have not used this option. Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Germany, 
Estonia,  Greece,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Malta,  Poland,  Romania,  Slovenia 
and Slovakia have opted for a maximum period of three months; the maximum 
period is eight weeks in Ireland and the United Kingdom, 13 weeks in Cyprus 
and 19 weeks in the Netherlands; in Spain it is 150 days while in Luxembourg 
and Portugal it is six months; in Sweden it is eight months.  

by setting ceilings on the payments made by the guarantee institution, provided 
that these ceilings do not fall below a level which is socially compatible with 
the social objective of the Directive (Article 4(3)). All the Member States have 
fixed  such  ceilings  with  the  exception  of  the  Netherlands,  but  the  method  of 
calculating  the  ceilings  varies  greatly.  The  Directive  contains  no  precise 
stipulations  in  this  regard.  However,  as  the  Commission  acknowledged  in  its 
report  on  the  implementation  of  the  Directive  of  19958,  it  is  assumed  that  if 
guarantee payments were in the final analysis equivalent to welfare payments 

7 

8 

Judgment  of  the  Court  (First  Chamber)  of  16  December  2004.  Case  C-520/03.  José  Vicente  Olaso 
Valero v Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa). ECR 2004 Page I-12065, point 34. 
COM (95) 164 of 15 June 1995. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
or  to  the  statutory  minimum  wage,  problems  of  compatibility  with  the  social 
objective of the Directive might arise.  

4. 

TRANSNATIONAL SITUATIONS (ARTICLES 9 AND 10) 

The Directive provides that where an undertaking with activities in the territories of 
at least two Member States is in a state of insolvency, the institution responsible for 
meeting  employees’  outstanding  claims  is  the  one  in  the  Member  State  in  whose 
territory  they  work  or  habitually  work  (Article  9(1)).  In  its  judgment  in  Case  C-
310/079 the ECJ ruled that in order for an undertaking established in a Member State 
to  be  regarded  as  having  activities  in  the  territory  of  another  Member  State,  that 
undertaking  must  have  a  stable  economic  presence  in  the  latter  State,  featuring 
human resources which enable it to perform activities there, but it is not necessary to 
have a branch or fixed establishment in that other State. 

The Commission notes (cf. Table 4 in the Annex) that in the period 2006-2008 there 
were 239 cases where a guarantee institution in one Member State made payments to 
workers  of  an  insolvent  undertaking  in  another  Member  State.  The  number  of 
employees  concerned  was  1 158 and the sums paid amounted to about 10.8 million 
euro. 

The Commission has been assisting Member States in drafting a standard form that 
can be used for exchanging information, which is currently being finalised, thereby 
facilitating the implementation of Article 10(1) of the Directive. 

Moreover,  the  contact  details  of  the  competent  administrative  authorities  and/or 
its  website 
guarantee 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=706&langId=en&intPageId=198 
in accordance with Article 10(2) of the Directive and are regularly updated. 

institutions  are  published  by 

the  Commission  on 

5. 

NON-REGRESSION CLAUSE (ARTICLE 11, SECOND PARAGRAPH) 

The Commission has not found instances where the implementation of the Directive 
has led to a regression in relation to the situation prevailing in the Member States on 
the  date  of  entry  into  force  of  the  Directive  or  in  relation  to  the  general  level  of 
protection of employees in cases of insolvency of the employer. On the contrary, the 
implementation of the Directive has reinforced the protection of employees since it 
has  led  to  the  setting-up  of  guarantee  institutions  in  Member  States  which  did  not 
have them.  

6. 

THE POSITION OF THE EMPLOYEE-SHAREHOLDER (ARTICLE 12 (C)) 

Under the Directive Member States may refuse to provide protection, or may reduce 
it,  in  the  case  of  an  employee  who,  on  his/her  own  or  together  with  his/her  close 
relatives, was the owner of an essential part of the undertaking concerned and had a 
considerable influence on its activities. 

9 

Judgment of the Court of 16 October 2008. Svenska staten v Anders Holmqvist. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
Several Member States have made use of this option (the Czech Republic, Denmark, 
Germany,  Greece,  Cyprus,  Latvia,  Malta,  the  Netherlands,  Austria,  Slovenia  and 
Sweden). In other Member States (Spain, Ireland, Finland), the denial of protection 
to those persons is done indirectly through the definition of ‘employee’, i.e. persons 
owning part of the undertaking and having considerable influence on its activities are 
not considered to be ‘employees’. In Bulgaria it is sufficient that the employee is a 
partner or member of the company’s managing body for him/her to be excluded from 
protection. Since there is no requirement that the shareholding be essential and that 
the  employees  have  considerable  influence  on  the  undertaking's  activities  this  does 
not  appear  to  be  in  conformity  with  the  Directive.  The  remaining  Member  States 
(Belgium, Estonia, France, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, 
Romania, Slovakia and the United Kingdom) have not made use of this option. 

7. 

OVERVIEW OF CASES 

At the beginning of 2010 the Commission addressed a questionnaire to the Member 
States in order to collect data on the number of insolvencies treated by the national 
guarantee institutions, as well as the number of workers concerned and the sums paid 
out to them (cf. Tables 1, 2 and 3 in the Annex)10.  

In the period 2006-2009, the national guarantee institutions intervened in more than 
420 000  cases  of  insolvency  (cf.  Table  1  in  the  Annex).  In  the  same  period,  3.4 
million workers benefited from payments of the guarantee institutions on account of 
the insolvency of their employers (cf. Table 2 in the Annex). Moreover, 17.7 billion 
euro have been paid out by the guarantee institutions to those workers (cf. Table 3 in 
the  Annex).  The average number  of workers per case in the period 2006-2009 was 
eight,  while  the  average  amount  paid  to  each  worker  by  the  national  guarantee 
institutions was 5 187 euro.  

The Commission notes the significant increase in the number of cases between 2008 
and  2009  (+19 %)  and,  above  all,  the  number  of  workers  (+  61 %)  and  the  money 
spent (+ 72 %), which can be attributed to the economic crisis. The average size of 
the companies becoming insolvent in 2009 also increased (from 7.4 workers per case 
in  2008  to  10.0  workers  per  case  in  2009,  i.e.  an  increase  of  35 %)  as  well  as  the 
amount  of  unpaid  remuneration  (from  5 059  euro  per  worker  in  2008  to  5 409  euro 
per worker in 2009, i.e. an increase of 7 %).  

While  Germany  is  the  Member  State  with  the  highest  number  of  cases  (146 673  in 
the period 2006-2009), France accounts for the highest number of workers (953 887 
in the period 2006-2009) and the most money paid out (6.4 billion euro).  

8. 

VIEWS OF THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL PARTNERS 

The  seven  BUSINESSEUROPE  federations  that  made  observations  as  well  as 
UEAPME  consider  that  the  Directive  has  met  its  objective  of  ensuring  a  minimum 
degree  of  protection  of  employees  in  the  event  of  the  insolvency  of  their  employer 

10 

IT and LU have not replied to the questionnaire. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
and  that  the  ceilings  set  under  Article  4(3)  are  socially  compatible  with  the  social 
objective of the Directive.  

ETUC  regards  Directive  2008/94/EC  as  an  indispensable  instrument  of  Union  law, 
providing  minimum  protection  to  workers  throughout  Europe.  However,  it  is  very 
concerned  about  the  low  ceilings  and  very  short  time  limits  set  by  Member  States 
under  the  possibility  offered  by  Articles  4(2)  and  4(3).  According  to  ETUC,  a 
significant  number  of  national  members  have  expressed  strong  concerns  that,  for  a 
large  number  of  workers,  unpaid  wages  exceed  the  limits  set  by  national  law. 
Furthermore, ETUC stresses that the wording of Articles 4(2) and 4(3) in particular 
is  very  vague  and  leaves  a  considerable  amount  of  discretion  to  Member  States  to 
significantly  water  down  their  obligations  under  the  Directive.  As  a  result,  ETUC 
considers  that  a  revision  of  these  provisions  should  be  envisaged.  Another 
problematic  area  for  ETUC  concerns  the  scope  of  application  of  the  Directive,  in 
particular the understanding of ‘outstanding claim’ since a number of Member States 
apply  a  narrow  definition  of  remuneration  (e.g.:  excluding  severance  pay,  bonuses, 
reimbursement arrangements, etc.). This, according to ETUC, can result in the non-
fulfilment of considerable claims. 

9. 

CONCLUSIONS 

More  than  30  years  after  the  adoption  of  the  original  Directive  in  1980,  the 
Commission  considers  that  it  continues  to  play  a  key  role  in  providing  a  minimum 
degree  of  protection  of  workers’  rights  in  the  internal  market.  Member  States  have 
been obliged to set up guarantee institutions that intervene in insolvency situations to 
cover  employees’  outstanding  claims.  The  3.4  million  workers  who  have  benefited 
from the safety net provided by the intervention of the guarantee institutions in the 
last four years, mostly in times of economic crisis, prove its usefulness. The revision 
carried  out  in  2002  clarified  the  legal  consequences  of  transnational  situations  and 
adapted  the  provisions  to  take  into  account  changes  in  the  insolvency  laws  in  the 
Member States, thus enhancing legal certainty.  

The  above  analysis  shows  that,  in  general,  the  provisions  subject  to  the  reporting 
obligation  have  been  correctly  implemented  and  applied.  There  are  still,  however, 
some  areas  of  concern  that  the  Commission  intends  to  tackle  with  the  appropriate 
means, including infringement proceedings where necessary. 

The  Commission  will  continue  to  monitor  the  functioning  of  the  Directive,  taking 
into account further developments in the fields of labour law and insolvency law so 
as to ensure that its aim is adequately achieved.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

TECHNICAL ANNEX 

Table 1: Number of cases where the intervention of the Guarantee Institution has been 
requested 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009  Total 2006-2009 

Belgium 

4.256 

3.744 

3.967 

4.174 

16141 

Bulgaria 

6 

3 

9 

Czech Republic 

449 

382 

386 

750 

Denmark 

1.221 

1.091 

1.847 

3.167 

18 

1967 

7326 

Germany 

38.133  38.711 

35.447 

34.382 

146673 

Estonia 

Ireland 

131 

94 

176 

491 

167 

194 

287 

671 

Greece 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Spain 

France 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

12.431  12.654 

13.229 

16.466 

19.655  19.577 

24.046 

27.113 

7 

95 

5 

60 

1 

84 

2 

138 

892 

1319 

- 

54780 

90391 

15 

377 

Lithuania 

379 

293 

300 

340 

1312 

Luxembourg 

Hungary 

1.273 

1.235 

1.419 

2.222 

Malta 

0 

1 

0 

1 

Netherlands 

3.796 

2.392 

2.580 

4.641 

Austria 

Poland 

4.036 

3.508 

3.563 

4.036 

635 

631 

338 

401 

Portugal 

583 

795 

1.216 

2.889 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovak Republic 

4 

88 

58 

22 

76 

62 

47 

108 

174 

92 

80 

Finland 

Sweden 

2.167 

2.098 

2.243 

2.965 

2.200 

1.900 

2.400 

3.300 

6149 

2 

13409 

15143 

2005 

5483 

73 

364 

374 

9473 

9800 

United Kingdom 

9.369 

8.036 

7.593 

12.135 

37133 

EUR 27 

101.155  97.557  101.285  120.622 

420619 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
Table 2: Number of employees whose outstanding claims have been totally or 
partially paid by the Guarantee Institution 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009  Total 2006-2009 

Belgium 

19.104 

16.628 

17.414 

18.922 

72068 

Bulgaria 

45 

20 

433 

Czech Republic 

7.549 

6.888 

5.055 

19.451 

Denmark 

9.886 

10.244 

19.328 

34.694 

498 

38943 

74152 

Germany 

189.695  167.593  173.004 

304.719 

835011 

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

1.256 

1.158 

2.292 

6.661 

4.687 

6.609 

9.704 

20.172 

758 

284 

432 

148 

11367 

41172 

1622 

57.738 

56.382 

63.994 

99.071 

277185 

France 

220.812  208.233  235.062 

289.780 

953887 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

48 

16 

2 

63 

2.598 

928 

1.029 

2.015 

Lithuania 

11.140 

5.794 

6.894 

8.110 

Luxembourg 

0 

129 

6570 

31938 

0 

Hungary 

21.319 

15.888 

12.665 

28.664 

78536 

Malta 

0 

32 

0 

17 

49 

Netherlands 

30.729 

21.554 

27.890 

59.243 

139416 

Austria 

Poland 

34.521 

30.986 

28.219 

36.191 

129917 

20.321 

17.151 

20.319 

35.674 

Portugal 

9.530 

12.220 

14.120 

18.263 

Romania 

618 

2.578 

2.353 

Slovenia 

1.276 

430 

448 

6.259 

Slovak Republic 

2.604 

2.821 

4.308 

8.114 

Finland 

6.022 

5.021 

7.714 

9.253 

Sweden 

17.100 

14.000 

19.100 

29.100 

93465 

54133 

5549 

8413 

17847 

28010 

79300 

United Kingdom 

92.516 

86.006 

76.416 

164.083 

419021 

EUR 27 

761.209  687.529  748.007  1.201.453 

3398198 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
  
Table 3: Sums paid by the Guarantee Institution (in euro) 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009  Total 2006-2009 

Belgium 

132.410.251 

110.682.560 

122.806.878 

151.927.588 

517.827.277 

Bulgaria 

- 

14.265 

5.115 

232.022 

251.402 

Czech Republic 

6.477.066 

7.060.182 

6.026.217 

31.928.617 

51.492.081 

Denmark 

28.287.595 

36.372.910 

89.592.275 

157.395.719 

311.648.498 

Germany 

983.495.381 

849.977.920 

822.226.706  1.755.302.560 

4.411.002.567 

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

954.629 

1.476.662 

4.329.696 

13.492.496 

20.253.484 

4.308.000 

5.727.000 

10.068.000 

19.958.000 

40.061.000 

2.130.303 

496.418 

986.256 

311.315 

3.924.292 

269.549.468 

327.130.512 

359.752.446 

643.538.235 

1.599.970.661 

France 

1.458.000.000  1.400.000.000  1.463.000.000  2.117.000.000 

6.438.000.000 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

96.147 

7.803 

1.910 

14.554 

120.414 

1.937.982 

821.591 

1.850.184 

2.724.831 

7.334.587 

Lithuania 

6.835.032 

3.880.908 

5.271.084 

6.545.412 

22.532.437 

Luxembourg 

Hungary 

21.360.781 

16.841.854 

18.043.815 

32.734.634 

88.981.085 

Malta 

0 

35.816 

0 

22.062 

57.878 

Netherlands 

205.314.711 

141.211.281 

174.557.007 

398.691.488 

919.774.487 

Austria 

Poland 

184.854.654 

208.047.412 

208.055.837 

277.579.642 

878.537.545 

18.203.753 

21.036.816 

27.170.354 

43.977.262 

110.388.185 

Portugal 

40.198.540 

52.988.075 

70.475.958 

80.900.936 

244.563.509 

Romania 

Slovenia 

- 

431.282 

1.067.814 

1.168.956 

2.668.052 

2.163.308 

744.805 

849.295 

13.321.203 

17.078.611 

Slovak Republic 

2.570.000 

2.304.056 

5.111.233 

9.872.000 

19.857.289 

Finland 

Sweden 

18.930.558 

16.447.990 

24.135.752 

35.396.292 

94.910.592 

101.854.253 

90.453.076 

101.734.753 

224.435.216 

518.477.298 

United Kingdom 

415.375.589 

245.454.000 

267.021.651 

479.967.226 

1.407.818.465 

EUR 27 

3.905.308.001  3.539.645.194  3.784.140.235  6.498.438.266 

17.727.531.696 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
Table 4: Interventions in the period 2006-2008 by the guarantee institution in 
favour of employees against whose employer the opening of insolvency 
proceedings has been requested in another Member State 

Number of cross border insolvencies per Guarantee 
institution 

Number of employees concerned 

Sums paid (in €) 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Germany 

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Hungary 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovak Republic 

Finland 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 

EUR 27 

48 

0 

2 

26 

22 

0 

0 

39 

6 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

156 

2.093.600 

0 

2 

0 

19.119 

188 

400.850 

43 

0 

0 

139.949 

0 

0 

163 

2.513.154 

6 

0 

0 

29 

0 

0 

156.458 

0 

0 

129.368 

0 

0 

Figures are not available since the Dutch guarantee institution did not register separately the transnational 
cases 

59 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

15 

13 

6 

214 

1.346.751 

0 

17 

0 

3 

0 

69 

259 

9 

0 

111.172 

0 

3.855 

0 

434.253 

3.415.180 

65.214 

239 

1.158 

10.828.924 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
EN 

13 

   EN