COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Labour Authority
Date: 2018-03-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, European Commission
Subjects: EU office or agency, employment service, free movement of workers, labour mobility, operation of the Institutions, single market

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Strasbourg, 13.3.2018  SWD(2018) 68 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  IMPACT ASSESSMENT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Labour Authority {COM(2018) 131 final}  - {SWD(2018) 69 final}   
 
 
Contents  

1.  

2.  

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT ............................................................... 5 

PROBLEM DEFINITION .................................................................................................................... 7 

2.1   What are the problems? ..................................................................................... 7 
2.2   What are the problem drivers? .......................................................................... 9 
2.3   How will the problem evolve? ........................................................................ 20 
2.4   Scope of a European Labour Authority ........................................................... 22 

3.  

 WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? ....................................................................................................... 23 

3.1   Legal basis ....................................................................................................... 23 
3.2   Subsidiarity ...................................................................................................... 23 
3.3 Proportionality ..................................................................................................... 24 

4.   OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? ............................................................................... 24 

4.1   General objective ............................................................................................. 24 
4.2   Specific objectives ........................................................................................... 24 

5.   WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? .................................................................... 25 

6.    POLICY OPTIONS AND THEIR IMPACTS .................................................................................... 25 

6.1.   Baseline scenario ............................................................................................. 28 
6.2   Policy Option 1 (Support option) .................................................................... 28 
6.3   Policy Option 2 (Operational option) .............................................................. 29 
6.4  Policy Option 3 (Supervisory option) .............................................................. 29 
6.5.    Impacts of the different policy options in relation to tasks ............................. 31 
6.6.   Comparison of the different Policy Options .................................................... 42 

7.    DELIVERY OPTIONS AND THEIR IMPACTS .............................................................................. 44 

7.1   Delivery options .............................................................................................. 45 
7.2  
Impacts of different delivery options .............................................................. 49 
7.4.   Comparison of Delivery Options ..................................................................... 56 

8.  

PREFERRED POLICY AND DELIVERY OPTION ......................................................................... 58 

8.1   Policy  Option  2  (Operational  Option),  and  Delivery  Option  2  (New 

European Labour Authority building on existing EU bodies) ......................... 58 
8.2   REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency) ............................................ 61 

9.   HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? .................................. 63 

9.1.   Monitoring ....................................................................................................... 63 
9.2.   Evaluation ........................................................................................................ 66 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 68 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ....................................................................................... 71 

ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? .......................................................................................... 86 

ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS ..................................................................................................... 89 

ANNEX 5: ELA PROBLEM TREE ............................................................................................................. 95 

1 

 
 
 
ANNEX 6: EU ACQUIS RELEVANT FOR THE INITIATIVE................................................................. 96 

ANNEX  7:  EU  LEVEL  COMMITTEES  AND  STRUCTURES  IN  THE  FIELD  OF  LABOUR 

MOBILITY ....................................................................................................................................... 102 

ANNEX  8:  PRACTICAL  TOOLS  FOR  THE  SHARING  OF  ADMINISTRATIVE 
DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION BETWEEN NATIONAL AUTHORITIES IN THE 
FIELD OF LABOUR MOBILITY ................................................................................................... 104 

ANNEX 9: INFORMATION TOOLS AND PROBLEM-SOLVING SERVICES FOR CITIZENS 

AND BUSINESSES IN THE FIELD OF LABOUR MOBILITY .................................................... 106 

ANNEX 10: OVERVIEW OF POLICY AND DELIVERY OPTIONS .................................................... 109 

ANNEX 11: LEGAL CHANGES TO IMPLEMENT THE OPTIONS ..................................................... 113 

ANNEX 12: ANALYTICAL SUPPLEMENT ........................................................................................... 117 

ANNEX 13: EU DECENTRALISED AGENCIES IN THE AREA OF EMPLOYMENT ....................... 154 

2 

 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

AC 

Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security 
Systems 

BusinessEurope  

European Employers Organisation 

Cedefop 

EaSI 

ECJ 

ECPW 

ECR 

EESSI 

EFBWW 

EGF 

ELA 

ERRU 

EMCO  

EMU 

EPSCO 

ESDE 

ESSN 

ETF 

ETUC  

EU-OSHA 

EURES 

Eurofound 

FMW 

FTE 

ILO 

IMI 

INASTI 

European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training 

European Programme for Employment and Social Innovation 

European Court of Justice 

Expert Committee on the Posting of Workers 

Euro Control Route 

Electronic Exchange of Social Security Information 

European Federation of Building and Woodworkers 

European Globalisation adjustment Fund 

European Labour Authority 

European Register of Road transport Undertakings 

Employment Committee 

European Monetary Union 

Employment and Social Affairs Council 

Employment and Social Developments in Europe 

European Social Security Number 

European Training Foundation 

European Trade Union Confederation 

European Agency for Safety and Health at Work 

European network of employment services 

European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working 
Conditions 

Free Movement of Workers 

Full time equivalent 

International Labour Organisation 

Internal Market Information system 

L'Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs 
indépendants 

3 

 
 
JIT 

MISSOC 

ONSS 

OPC 

PES 

QFR 

SDG 

SME 

UDW Platform 

UEAPME  

Joint Investigation Teams 

Mutual Information System on Social Protection 

Office National de Sécurité Sociale 

Open public consultation 

Public employment services 

Quality Framework for Restructuring 

Single digital gateway 

Small and medium enterprise 

European Platform tackling undeclared work 

European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-sized 
Enterprises   

YEA 

Your Europe Advice 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
1.  

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT 

Strengthening fairness of the Internal Market has been one of the priorities of the mandate of 
the Juncker Commission1. On 17 November 2017, the European Parliament, the Council and 
the Commission jointly proclaimed at the Social Summit in Gothenburg the European Pillar 
of Social Rights2. The Pillar sets out a number of key principles and rights to support fair and 
well-functioning  labour  markets  and  welfare  systems.  It  is  designed  as  a  compass  for  a 
renewed  process  of  convergence  towards  better  working  and  living  conditions  across  the 
Union, ensuring the citizens equal opportunities and access to the labour market, fair working 
conditions  and  social  protection  and  inclusion.  Ensuring  fair  labour  mobility  in  Europe  is 
central to this objective. 

Intra-EU labour mobility benefits individuals, economies and societies as a whole. However, 
concerns  have  recently  increased  over  the  adequacy  of  existing  rules  to  uphold  fair 
competition and social standards in the context of stark economic and social differentials. The 
objective  of  deepening  the  Internal  Market  with  a  strong  accent  on  social  fairness  has  thus 
driven forward new EU legislative proposals to support cross-border mobility. These are the 
revisions of the Posting of Workers Directive3 and of the Regulations on the Coordination of 
Social Security systems4. These proposals come on top of previous EU legislation to facilitate 
the  free  movement  of  workers  and  job-seekers5  and  initiatives  such  as  the  set-up  of  a 
European Platform to tackle undeclared work6.  

Labour  mobility  has  implications  for  all  economic  sectors.  Yet,  enforcing  EU  labour  rules 
across  borders  proves  particularly  difficult  in  the  road  transport  sector  due  to  the  highly 
mobile nature of operations7.  This can affect negatively the protection of drivers, while also 
represent  a  source  of  unfair  competition  between  companies.  Therefore,  the  Commission 
adopted  the  package  "Europe  on  the  Move",  including  the  lex  specialis  on  the  posting  of 
workers  in  international  road  transport  operations8  which  will  strengthen  social  rules  in  this 
sector. 

While  the  EU  legal  framework  pertaining  to  EU-level  labour  mobility  keeps  evolving  to 
ensure  the  effectiveness  and  completeness  of  the  existing  acquis,  rule  enforcement  and 
information challenges remain. On several occasions, the European Parliament has underlined 
the need to ensure proper implementation of EU legislation on cross-border labour mobility, 

1  A New Start for Europe: My Agenda for Jobs, Growth, Fairness and Democratic Change, 10 Commission priorities for 

2015-19, (https://ec.europa.eu/commission/priorities_en). 

2  An overview of the European Pillar of Social Rights is available here: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/priorities/deeper-

and-fairer-economic-and-monetary-union/european-pillar-social-rights_en. 

3   COM(2016) 128 final  
4   COM(2016) 815 final. 
5     Directive 2014/54/EU on measures facilitating the exercise of rights conferred on workers in the context of freedom of 
movement for workers; Regulation (EU) 2016/589 on a European network of employment services (EURES), workers' 
access to mobility services and the further integration of labour markets. 

6     Decision (EU) 2016/344 on establishing a European Platform to enhance cooperation in tackling undeclared work. 
7     European Parliament Policy Department,, Social and working conditions of road transport hauliers (April 2013) 
8    COM/2017/0278 final  

5 

 
 
                                                            
asking to reinforce controls and coordination between and by Member States so as to promote 
standardisation  and  cooperation9,  including  through  strengthening  information  exchanges 
between labour inspectorates10. Moreover, the European Parliament has made a concrete call 
to  coordinate  and  reinforce  cooperation  on  road  transport  legislation,  including  through  a 
possible agency setting11.  The Council has also stressed the need to improve administrative 
cooperation and develop assistance and information exchanges in the context of fighting fraud 
related to the posting of workers, while emphasising the importance of clear and transparent 
information for service providers and workers12.  

Against this backdrop, in his State of the Union address 201713, President Juncker proposed 
the establishment of a  European Labour  Authority (ELA)  to ensure that  EU rules on labour 
mobility  are  enforced  in  a  fair,  simple  and  effective  way.  This  initiative  is  adopted  by  the 
Commission  as  part  of  the  Social  Fairness  Package,  together  with  a  proposal  on  Access  to 
Social Protection. It was informed by the results of an open public consultation (OPC) held 
between November 2017 and January 2018, as well as by various targeted consultations with 
stakeholders (see Annex 2). The Social Fairness Package will help to deliver on the principles 
and rights defined in the European Pillar of Social Rights, notably by ensuring that workers' 
and  citizens'  rights  to  equal  treatment  and  opportunities  regarding  employment  and  social 
protection are guaranteed in cross-border situations.  

As announced, the Authority will be competent to facilitate the implementation of the (i) EU 
labour  mobility  rules,  which  cover  the  areas  of  free  movement  of  workers,  posting  and 
undeclared  work,  and  this  for  all  economic  sectors  including  road  transport.  But  as  mobile 
workers enjoy both labour and social security rights, the Authority will also be competent for 
the  implementation  of  (ii)  EU  social  security  coordination  rules,  the  two  issues  being 
intrinsically connected. Therefore, the initiative will target all categories of persons who are 
subject  to  the  two  aforementioned  sets  of  EU  rules  -  workers,  self-employed  or  simply 
individuals who are Union citizens or third country nationals legally resident in the Union, as 
long as they are subject to EU labour mobility and social security coordination rules.  

This  initiative  has  a  self-standing  character  due  to  its  thematic  specialisation  and  focus  on 
cross-border  labour  mobility.  The  proposal  has  been  developed  in  parallel  to  an  ongoing 
evaluation  of  existing  decentralised  Agencies  in  the  employment  field.  This  Impact 
Assessment  discusses  the  potential  interaction  between  the  present  initiative  and  existing 
Agencies.  

9   European Parliament resolution of 14 September 2016 on social dumping in the European Union (2015/2255(INI). 
10  European  Parliament  resolution  of  14  January  2014  on  effective  labour  inspections  as  a  strategy  to  improve  working 

conditions in Europe (2013/2112(INI)) 

11   European Parliament resolution of 14 September 2016 on social dumping in the European Union (2015/2255(INI). 
12 European Council, General approach on the proposal for a Directive amending Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting 

of workers, 13612/17, 24 October 2017. 

13 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/state-union-2017_en.  

6 

 
 
                                                            
2.   PROBLEM DEFINITION 

Free  movement  of  workers  and  services  is  a  pillar  of  the  European  Union.  Mobility  enjoys 
wide support amongst EU citizens14 and provides the opportunity for workers and companies 
to seek work and to provide services across the whole of the EU.  

Around  17  million  EU  citizens  live  and/or  work  in  another  Member  State,  of  which  11.8 
million are mobile workers of working age (i.e. EU-28 citizens who reside in a Member State 
other  than  their  country  of  citizenship).  Moreover,  1.4  million  live  in  a  Member  State  but 
work  in  another  (so-called  'cross-border  workers')  and  a  further  2.3  million  are  posted 
workers, carrying out services in another Member States on a temporary basis (see Annex 12, 
Table 1). Finally, over 2 million workers in the road transport sector cross intra-EU borders 
on a daily basis transporting goods or passengers.  

However,  labour  mobility  remains  an  untapped  resource  in  Europe15.  While  the  number  of 
mobile workers has almost doubled compared to a decade ago16, they make up around 4% of 
the total EU workforce, a lower share than in the United States.17 Similarly, the potential for 
cross-border operations of companies is not yet fully exploited, most notably in some sectors 
such  as  construction  and  business  services.18  This  untapped  potential  has  strong  socio-
economic  impacts  on  the  job-search  or  career  opportunities  of  citizens,  on  the  efficient 
allocation of resources (skills and capital) in the EU labour and Internal Market, as well as on 
the shock-adjustment capacities within the Eurozone. 

2.1   What are the problems? 

The  EU  has  developed  an  extensive  body  of  legislation  regulating  the  free  movement  of 
workers and setting rules on the coordination of social security regimes. Annex 6 provides an 
overview of legislation in this field. In addition, a number of committees and networks have 
been  set  up  to  support  the  implementation  and  enforcement  of  those  rules  (see  Annex  7). 
Against  the  backdrop  of  this  formal  legislative  and  institutional  framework,  however,  two 
major challenges undermine effective cross-border labour mobility and compliance with EU 
rules. 

14     A large majority of Europeans in all 28 EU Member States continue to support “the free movement of EU citizens who  
       can live, work, study and do business anywhere in the EU” (81% in 2017), Standard   Eurobarometer 88, Autumn 2017. 
15     Barslund, M., Busse, M. and Schwarzwälder, J. (2015), Labour Mobility in Europe: An untapped resource? CEPS Policy 
Briefs, No. 327, March 2015; Bertelsmann Stiftung (2015), Harnessing Labour Mobility. Scenario analysis and policy 
recommendations. 

16   According to Eurostat data, in 2006 there were about 9 million EU citizens residing in a Member State other than their 

country of citizenship, whereas in 2017 these are 17 million.  

17      European  Commission,  2016  Annual  Report  on  intra-EU  Labour  Mobility,  p.  43-5;  OECD  (2016),  OECD  Economic 
Surveys: European Union 2016, OECD Publishing, Paris; Bruegel (2018), People on the Move: Migration and Mobility 
in the European Union, Blueprint Series 28. 

18   See: Impact Assessment Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the 

Council introducing a European services e-card and related administrative facilities  SWD(2016) 439 final.  

7 

 
 
 
                                                            
1)  Inadequate  information,  support  and  guidance  function  for  individuals  and 
employers in cross-border situations 

Awareness  of  rights,  obligations  and  procedures  deriving  from  EU  mobility  legislation  is  a 
crucial element in informing the decisions of citizens and companies to seek a job, work or 
operate in another Member State. Having access to relevant information – for instance, about 
applicable  wage  levels  or  administrative  requirements  when  posting  workers,  the  eligibility 
conditions  of  social  security  benefits  in  another  country,  national  contact  points  able  to 
provide assistance – is ultimately about the effective exercise of EU rights to free movement. 
In order to provide such information, the EU has produced a number of web-based portals and 
tools, which are summarised in Annex 9. 

While the European Commission has taken steps to improve guidance19 and recently proposed 
initiatives to streamline access to these existing online tools and portals20, challenges remain 
in the provision of tailored information and services to citizens and businesses to support their 
mobility  choices.  For  example,  in  the  road  transport  sector  specifically,  comprehensive 
information  sources to  assist road  transport  workers and operators are virtually inexistent  at 
the EU or national level. 

As  a  consequence  of  inadequate  information,  citizens  may  not  be  aware  of  their  rights,  for 
example, to access unemployment benefits in another EU Member State or of the wage level 
they  are  entitled  to  when  being  posted  to  another  Member  State.21  Likewise,  companies, 
especially SMEs without dedicated staff, may not be aware of the administrative requirements 
or  the  exact  wage  level  that  they  need  to  comply  with  when  posting  workers  to  another 
Member  State.  In  addition,  gathering  information  about  and  carrying  out  administrative 
procedures  to  establish  a  cross-border  subsidiary  or  hiring  employees  in  another  Member 
State is estimated to produce 80% extra costs with respect to a domestic business22.  

2) Inadequate cooperation between national authorities on rule enforcement  

The  capacity  of  national  authorities  to  enforce  EU  and  national  rules  in  the  field  of  labour 
mobility  is  in  certain  cases  highly  dependent  on  their  ability  to  cooperate  with  one another. 

19 COM(2014)6 final, Proposal for a European network of Employment Services, workers' access to mobility services and  
     the further integration of labour markets, 17.1.2014. 
20 COM(2017)256, Proposal for a regulation on establishing a single digital gateway to provide information, procedures,  
    assistance and problem solving services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012. The SDG aims to improve the  
    'findability' of online information and to offer easy access to information, assistance, and problem-solving services needed  
    by individuals and businesses when exercising their rights in the internal market. The Gateway will give access to  
    information on and links to seven assistance and problem-solving services for citizens and businesses, including EURES,  
     Points of Single Contact, Product Contact Points, Construction Product Contact Points, National Assistance Centres for  
    Professional Qualifications, Health Contact Points, and Online Dispute Resolution. See also Action plan on the  
    Reinforcement of SOLVIT (COM (2017) 255 final). 
21  Some Member States report that unemployed persons may leave the Member State where they have worked without  
     requesting the necessary document for the export of the unemployment benefits, because of lack of awareness of their  
     rights (European Commission, Coordination of social security systems at a glance. 2017 Statistical Report, p. 43) 
22    IA on establishing a single digital gateway to provide information, procedures, assistance and problem solving services 
and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012; SWD/2017/0213 final). 

8 

 
 
 
                                                            
For example, a national authority may need to contact a competent social security institution 
of another Member State in order to verify whether a posted worker is socially insured in that 
country.  Administrative  cooperation  includes  many  different  aspects,  including  common 
administrative and operational procedures, tools for data exchange, and a shared framework 
for  carrying  out  controls  and  inspections  involving  individuals  or  entities  operating  in  more 
than one Member State. The framework and tools for administrative cooperation in the EU are 
however inadequate to effectively address the challenges at hand. Section 2.2 presents a more 
detailed analysis of the drivers of this problem. 

Inadequate cooperation has adverse consequences on rule enforcement, mutual trust between 
administrations,  as  well  as  practical  effects  on  EU  citizens.  Fraudulent  practices  such  as 
letterbox companies are not effectively contrasted with tangible fiscal costs, including unpaid 
social  security  contributions,  ranging  between  an  estimated  EUR  64-86  million  EU-wide 
solely in the road transport sector.23 The fight against social fraud also has significant impact 
on businesses and workers affected by unfair competition. Timely communication of changes 
in  personal  information  of  citizens  living  in  different  Member  States  is  conducive  to  more 
efficient administration of cross-border cases with benefits for citizens, in terms of receipt of 
legitimate social security benefits, and for authorities, in terms of savings from avoiding cases 
of  unduly  paid  benefits.24  Smooth  experiences  with  portability  of  social  security  rights  may 
boost  the  propensity  to  move  abroad  for  professional  reasons,  while  ‘negative’  experiences 
are likely to have opposite effects. 

2.2   What are the problem drivers? 

The  two  major  problems  described  above  find  their  concrete  origins  in  a  set  of  underlying 
problem drivers summarised in Annex 5 and detailed below. 

2.2.1.  Inadequate support and guidance for individuals and businesses in cross-border 
situations, including incomplete or sparse information available to the public concerning 
their rights and obligations. 

The information provided on EU and national portals with a focus on mobility is incomplete 
with regard to a number of aspects. Your Europe Advice (YEA) and SME feedback database 
show numerous cases of request for practical information on requirements or rights in cases of 
posting  or  cross-border  work,  particularly  in  the  context  of  the  road  transport  sector  (see 
Annex 12). While the problem may sometimes be a lack of citizens' awareness of an existing 

23     SWD (2017) 194 final.  
24      Effective  systems  of  administrative  communication  between  Member  States  have  helped  the  Polish  Social  Insurance 
Institution  to  recover  EUR  560,000  in  2016  of  unduly  paid  pension  benefits of  citizens  living  in Germany.  Similarly, 
effective anti-dumping investigations have allowed Belgium to recover about EUR 1.5 million of unpaid social security 
contributions from  employers  circumventing  the rules  on  posting  (see  Jorens,  Y., Gillis,  D.  and De  Potter,  T.  (2017), 
Fraud and error in the field of EU social security coordination, Network Statistics FMSSFE, European Commission, . 
Anna  Cristina  d'Addio Maria  Chiara  Cavalleri,  "Labour  mobility  and  portability  of  social  rights”, CESifo  Economic 
Studies, Volume 61, Issue 2, 1 June 2015, Pages 346–376. 

9 

 
 
                                                            
source of information, in other cases the quality or the extent of information provided by EU 
or national sources may be  missing, inadequate or outdated. In the case of EURES, making 
available  EU-wide  information  about  national  vacancies  has  still  wide  margins  of 
improvement25.  The  new  EURES  regulation  aims  at  addressing  some  shortcomings  on  the 
transparency  of  information  on  vacancies  and  on  minimum-standard  services26,  national 
implementation being a necessary yet not sufficient factor.  

There  is  thus  a  need  for  continuous  work  on  information  provision  by  the  national  and  EU 
levels. For example, in the area of the posting of workers, practical information on applicable 
working conditions or administrative requirements should be offered by Member States in a 
single national website, the Commission having a support role.27 Continuous monitoring and 
content adaptations also in line with users' feedback are essential elements in order to ensure 
an uniform level of information standard, as well as a continuous update of information (e.g. 
applicable wage agreements) is delivered across the Member States. On EURES, an untapped 
potential  remains  with  a)  exploiting  labour  market  information  to  underpin  matching  and 
recruitment activities (involving the analysis of labour shortages and surpluses and including 
perhaps  the  use  of  big  data,  data  crawling  as  regards  job  opportunities  available)  b)  the 
strengthening  of  the  capacities  of  client  services  to  operating  across  borders,  and  c)  the 
provision of holistic and personalised information on working and living conditions in other 
countries.   

While  the  Commission's  proposal  on  a  Single  Digital  Gateway  (SDG)  will  address  issues 
related to the on-line 'findability' of information and easiness of access to existing EU portals, 
including  EURES,  content-feeding  and  strategic  planning  of  websites  will  remain  to  be 
effectively managed. 

Stakeholders' views 

Respondents  to  the  public  consultation  on  a  European  Labour  Authority  echoed  the  points 
outlined  above.  A  majority  of  respondents  were  of  the  view  that  insufficient  access  to 
information and transparency on cross-border mobility rules is a problem both for individuals 
and businesses (see Annex 2 for a more detailed analysis). Similarly, in the context of road 
transport, 53% of the respondents to an OPC carried out in 2017 considered that EU guidance 
on  explaining  relevant  EU  legislation  in  this  field  was  not,  or  only  partially,  useful.  This  is 
especially problematic in view of the different interpretation of EU road transport legislation.  

Within the context of the targeted consultations, certain stakeholders underlined the challenge 
of incomplete or scarce information concerning labour mobility conditions and opportunities. 
The  social  partners  considered  improvement  of  information  necessary,  with  employers 

25   See European Court of Auditors, "Free Movement of Workers – the fundamental freedom ensured but better targeting of 

EU funds would aid worker mobility", Special Report 6/2018. 

26    Regulation 2016/589. 
27     Directive 2014/67/EU, Article 5. 

10 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
focusing  notably  on  the  posting  of  workers  and  trade  unions  including  information  on 
industrial relation systems, wages and wage-setting systems28.  

2.2.2.         Insufficient access to and sharing of information between national authorities 

responsible for different domains of labour mobility and social security 
coordination  

Exchange of documents (notably in electronic form) and sharing of relevant data is essential 
to  the  enforcement  of  rules  in  the  area  of  cross-border  mobility,  including  with  a  view  to 
fighting  frauds  and  abuses.  Examples  illustrating  the  importance  of  information  sharing  are 
numerous. Public authorities in one country need to exchange data with another Member State 
concerning the social security rights and current residence of a worker in order to assess his or 
her eligibility to local social benefits (e.g. a worker work for a period in country A and apply 
for social security benefits in country B29). Similarly, the sharing of registration details of a 
company  may  serve  the  purpose  of  verifying  the  genuine  establishment  of  a  company  in  a 
Member State and of detecting possibly irregular situations.  

In  practice,  however,  the  lack  of  appropriate  and  timely  data  sharing  is  widely  seen  as  a 
barrier  to  fighting  abuse  of  EU  rules.  This  is  notably  the  case  in  the  fight  against  letterbox 
companies30, of infringements of social and market rules in the road transport sector, but also 
in  the  exchange  of  relevant  data  on  social  security  coordination,  including  for  example  to 
detect  fraudulent  use  of  the  European  Health  Insurance  Card  (EHIC).  Currently,  EU  and 
national  authorities  dispose  of  a  range  of  tools  for  the  sharing  of  administrative  documents 
and information (listed in Annex 8), such as the Internal Market Information (IMI) system and 
European Register of Road Transport Undertakings (ERRU). These information-sharing tools 
have  different  scope,  operational  functions  and  maintenance  management,  due  to  the 
specificity  of  their  respective  policy  areas  and legislative  basis.  As  they  were  not  originally 
conceived to interact with each other, the degree of inter-operability is very low. 

Yet, this separation of cooperation instruments between interdependent policy areas hampers 
the  effectiveness  of  rule  enforcement,  particularly  in  the  event  of  problematic  situations. 
Addressing  real-life  situations  of  fraud  requires  the  simultaneous  assessment  of  multiple 
elements (e.g. the employment contract, the social security position of a worker, the legal and 
economic status of a company, etc) whose information may be spread across different tools. 
Moreover, problems in the lack of horizontally used formalised procedures for administrative 
data  exchange,  such  as  in  the  case  of  social  security  coordination  where  an  electronic  data 

28    See Section 6.4 Stakeholders views on the possible tasks of a European Labour Authority for more detail. 
29   The  establishment  of  one's  pensions  rights  after  working  in  different  countries,  for  example,  implies  a  number  of 
reported  difficulties  in  the  collection  of  additional  documents  or  in  the  timely  receipt  of  the  ‘Certificate  concerning 
insurance  history’,  amongst  other  necessary  documents.  Cross-border  old-age,  survivors’  and  invalidity  pensions, 
Report on Portable Documents P1, Reference year 2016. 

30     European Platform Undeclared Work, Letterbox Companies. Survey Report, October 2017. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
exchange  system  is  currently  in  the  process  of  implementation  by  Member  States31,  can 
prevent  efficient  controls  on  cross-border  cases.  Finally,  lack  of  horizontal  coordination 
between  different  national  authorities  competent  for  separate,  however  inter-related  policy 
areas  amplifies  the limits  to  cooperation  at  EU  level,  for  instance,  between  labour  and  road 
transport inspectorates and social security institutions. In some cases, the first-step difficulty 
of cooperation is the identification of the relevant counterpart in another Member State, facing 
cross-country institutional variation32.  

EU-level  gaps  in  coordination  on  the  exchange  of  information  have  been  partially  filled  by 
bilateral  or  multilateral  cooperation  agreements,  in  the  areas  of  the  posting  of  workers  or 
undeclared work or international road transport operations. This aspect is discussed in section 
2.2.3 (see also Annex 12). 

Stakeholders' views 

A majority (64%) of respondents to the public consultation were of the view that the difficulty 
that national authorities faced in accessing relevant documentation from other Member States 
constituted a challenge to effective cross-border cooperation. Similarly, within the context of 
the  targeted  consultations,  the  challenge  most  frequently  mentioned  by  the  various 
stakeholders in relation to cross-border cooperation related to the effectiveness of information 
exchanges. The majority of Employment Committee (EMCO) members and certain members 
within  the  Committee  of  Experts  on  Posting  of  Workers  (ECPW)  and  within  the  Mutual 
Information  System  on  Social  Protection  (MISSOC),  saw  inefficiencies  in  terms  of 
information exchange and access to information by competent authorities as a major cause of 
social security fraud and abuse and a major challenges to overcome at EU level.  

2.2.3   Insufficient capacity of competent national authorities to organise cooperation 

with authorities across borders 

The  staffing  and  organisation  of  national  enforcement  authorities,  such  as  labour 
inspectorates, social security institutions or public employment services, are clearly a national 
competence and different national traditions account for the diversity in the organisation and 
competences of national authorities. However, effective and efficient handling of cross-border 
issues  requires  a  good  operational  capacity  to  cooperate  between  competent  authorities  in 
different Member States. Faced with an increasing demand to respond quickly to challenges 
and requests from other countries, Member States' national administrative capacities  are not 
always  adequate.  This  is  notably  demonstrated  in  cases  of  cross-border  administrative 
exchanges, possibly including requests for further controls and inspections. Yet, it can also be 
the  case  in  situations  of  labour  market  disruptions,  such  as  restructuring  of  companies, 

31    Jorens, Y., Gillis, D. and De Potter, T. (2017), Fraud and error in the field of EU social security coordination, Network 

Statistics FMSSFE, European Commission, p. 53. 

32    Ibidem, p. 68. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
affecting several Member States. While national authorities and stakeholders may have partial 
awareness  of  available  EU  guidance,  legal  and  financial  instruments  when  dealing  with 
restructuring33, cooperation with relevant stakeholders in other affected Member States or at 
EU level may be unsystematic.  

First,  there  are  marked  cross-country  differences  in  staff  and  resources  on  competent 
authorities. In  the  case of  labour  inspectorates, human  resources  can  range  from  over  2,300 
labour inspectors in France to 56 in Ireland, with a ratio of 'inspector per employed persons' 
being  1/11,290  and  1/36,000,  respectively.34  Resource  limitation  is  particularly  acute  in  the 
road transport field, where the capacity of national enforcement authorities – responsible for 
carrying out controls of compliance with driving and resting time rules – has been decreasing 
continuously  since  2010.  A  drastic  drop  of  75%  in  the  number  of  road  transport  control 
officers (from 383.500 to 96.700) was noted between 2010 and 201235, followed by a further 
decrease of 16% between 2012 and 201436. 

Second,  many  national  competent  authorities  lack  the  specialised  knowledge  to  deal 
effectively with cross-border cases. A number of challenges can be pointed out. There is an 
issue with specialisation on cross-border cooperation and  EU rules, as some Member  States 
have  dedicated  staff  working  on  cross-border  issues,  whereas  others  do  not  (see  Annex  12, 
table  3).  In  this  regard,  training  is  crucial.  Investigative  staff  sometimes  lacks  a  common 
understanding of procedures, in the case of social security coordination37, or the capacity to 
analyse  data  in  digital  tachographs,  in  the  case  of  international  road  transport  legislation38. 
Against the background of budgetary restrictions, funds for training dedicated authorities may 
not  always  match  the  real  needs39.  Similarly,  linguistic  difficulties  are  reported  to  be  a 
significant hurdle to efficiently and effectively operate in a cross-country context, making it 
difficult  for  untrained  staff  to  communicate  with  a  counterpart  in  another  Member  State 
and/or  to  understand  a  relevant  document  in  another  language40.  Finally,  IT  development 
capacities  also  differ  across  countries,  due  to  different  levels  of  digitalization  of 
administrative  acts  or  procedures,  for  example  in  case  of  registration  systems  on  posting  or 

33   See for instance the European Quality Framework for anticipation of change and restructuring (COM (2013 882 final) 

and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. See also Annex 6 for further relevant legislation. 

34   It should be noted that the target set by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) at one inspector for every 10,000 
workers  Williams,  C.  (2017),  Platform  Survey  Report,  European  Platform  Undeclared  Work,  August  2017.  See  also 
European  Parliament,  Effective  labour  inspections  as  a  strategy  to  improve  working  conditions,  European  Parliament 
resolution of 14 January 2014 (2013/2112(INI)). 

35     SWD(2014) 342 accompanying the Commission report COM(2014) 709. 
36     SWD(2017)100 accompanying the Commission report COM(2017) 117. 
37      EU  Platform  to  combat  cross-border  social  security  fraud  and  error,  "Survey  on  mutual  assistance  in  cross-border  

investigations. Report to the Administrative Commission".  

38    The number of trained enforcement officers in this sector in Europe decreased by around 35% (from 38.595 to 25.148) 

between the reporting periods 2009-2010 and 2013-2014, SWD (2017)186. 

39     OECD (2017), Skills for a High Performing Civil Service, OECD Publishing, Paris. 
40    FreSsco (2017), Ad-hoc request on the Capacities of labour inspectorates to deal with cross-border cases in the Member 
States;  see  also  Jorens,  Y.,  Gillis,  D.  and  De  Potter,  T.  (2017),  Fraud  and  error  in  the  field  of  EU  social  security 
coordination, Network Statistics FMSSFE, European Commission, p. 55. 

13 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
the  digitalization  of  sickness  insurance  registers.  This  can  also  have  an  impact  on  the 
effectiveness of possible checks and controls41. 

Different administrative capacities may impact in the efficiency of administrative processes, 
for example the time  necessary  to  reply to  a request  by another Member State, which often 
requires  more  complex  checks  on  national  data42.  In  addition,  the  training  of  administrative 
staff  on  cross-border issues  may  also  directly  impact  on  citizens,  if  local  authorities  are  not 
prepared to handle correctly and clearly information on social security coordination rights or 
establishment  requirements43.  Almost  60%  of  enquires  to  SOLVIT  concern  social  security 
issues and their number doubled up to 1,100 per year between years 2012 and 2015.44  

EU  coordination  on  supporting  administrative  capacity-building  on  handling  cross-border 
situations  so  far  is  limited.  At  a  more  general  policy  level,  recommendations  on  undeclared 
work were issued in the context of the European Semester45. Also, the EU supports different 
projects,  which  remain  of  small-scale.  This  includes  the  mutual  learning  activities  in  the 
context  of  the  UDW  Platform,  training  programmes  of  PES    under  the  provision  of  the 
common  training  programme  for  EURES  (procurement  under  the  European  Programme  for 
Employment  and  Social 
such  as 
Eurodetachement46 on the posting of workers. In road transport, Euro Contrôle Route (ECR) - 
a  voluntary  network  of  European  Transport  Inspection  Services  –  regularly  organises  the 
training  of  controllers,  albeit  with  limited  geographical  scope,  as  only  some  Member  States 
participate in such activities, and no harmonised training curriculum is in use. 

individual  projects, 

(EaSI)),  and 

Innovation 

Stakeholders' views 

A majority (60%) of respondents to the public consultation on a European Labour Authority 
were of the view that Member States' insufficient resources constituted a challenge to cross-
border  cooperation.  Similarly,  within  the  context  of  targeted  consultations,  stakeholders 
highlighted  that  differences  in  administrative  capacities  among  the  Member  States  act  as  a 
barrier to effective cross-border cooperation; this was especially the case among members of 
the Mutual Information System on Social Protection (MISSOC). 

41    Specific training on cross-border cases is also important in the context of employment services. EURES holds a common 
training programme to ensure that staff acquire specific knowledge on cross border matters and rules, and learn about 
the different tools that facilitate cooperate in its network.  

42    As shown in Annex 12 (Figure 2), average answering speed to IMI requests vary across the Member States. Answering 
speed may depend on the complexity of the cases at hand but also on the relationship between the amount of cases to be 
treated and the available staff (and internal procedures) on the receiving end.   
43   See Annex 12, feedback from Your Europe Advice and SME feedback database.  
44     Assessment of the performance of SOLVIT, Commission Staff Working Document, SWD(2017) 210 final.   
        SOLVIT provides swift solutions to issues encountered by citizens and businesses caused by the misapplication of  
        EU law by public authorities in cross-border situations. The service is provided by the national administrations. 
45    From 2013, eight recommendations were issued as regards to fighting undeclared work in the framework of the European 

Semester to Latvia (2013), Bulgaria (2013, 2015, 2016, 2017), Italy (2014) and Romania (2014, 2015, 2017). 

46    VS/2016/0063 (http://www.eurodetachement-travail.eu/default.asp).    

14 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
2.2.4   Weak or absent mechanisms for joint cross-border enforcement activities  

Effective rule enforcement requires credible deterrence measures and capacities to detect and 
sanction frauds and abuses, such as non-genuine postings, bogus self-employment, and letter-
box companies. While labour inspections are a national competence, the EU does not provide 
a  comprehensive  institutional  framework  or  operational  support  to  inspection  activities  in 
cross-border cases, with the exception of pilot activities in the context of the UDW Platform. 
At  present,  coordination  in  cross-border  inspections  rests  on  voluntary  cooperation  between 
Member  States,  which  implies  uneven  geographical  and  thematic  coverage,  resources,  and 
patterns of cooperation. In the social security coordination domain, for example, international 
inspections  and  monitoring  actions  are  reported  to  be  insufficient,  beyond  a  few  Member 
States47.  

An established tradition of bilateral agreements (or informal arrangements) has developed as a 
result of the lack of EU-level cooperation on inspections in the field of the posting of workers, 
undeclared work and health and safety regulation. While there is no comprehensive and up-to-
date  record  of  such  agreements,  some  examples  have  been  collected  and  analysed  via  the 
UDW  Platform48  and  by  the  Eurodetachement  project  (see  Annex  10.2).  The  Benelux 
Workgroup  has  a  particularly  ambitious  cooperation  on  cross-border  fraud  in  the  field  of 
posting and social security coordination,49 and similar arrangements are developed within the 
Nordic Council50. In the road transport sector, Euro Control Route (ECR) - a voluntary group 
of European Transport Inspection Services – puts together 14 Member States to improve road 
safety, fair competition and labour conditions in road transport, including through concerted 
enforcement initiative51.  

While bi-/ or multilateral cooperation agreements have the advantage of being tailored to the 
specific  needs  of  the  involved  Member  States,  they  also  bear  the  risks  of  non-
institutionalisation and non-systematic approaches. An assessment of existing agreements in 
the  field  of  undeclared  work  pointed  to  key  barriers,  such  as  the  lack  of  cooperation  and 
enforcement mechanisms, the volatility of political investment in  cooperation, and technical 
barriers  to  the  exchange  of  information  (e.g.  differing  legal  competences  between  the 
contracting  authorities,  languages,  and  data  collection  methods)52.  In  the  social  security 
coordination  field,  moreover,  bilateral  agreements  on  data  exchange  resulted  in  a  variety  of 

47   Jorens, Y., Gillis, D. and De Potter, T. (2017), Fraud and error in the field of EU social security coordination, Network 

Statistics FMSSFE, European Commission.,  

48    Stefanov,  R.  and  Mineva,  D.  (2017),  National  and  Bilateral  Agreements  and  Memoranda  of  Understanding  to  Tackle 

Undeclared Work. UDW Platform Learning Resource Paper, April 2017.  

49  Benelux joint declaration on cooperation in the fight against social dumping, Benelux Social Summit, 14 February 2014, 

Brussels. 

50  Members of the Nordic Council are Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, the Faroe Islands, Aland and Greenland. 
51   Members of ECR are: BE, LU, NL, FR, DE, IE, UK, PL, AT, RO, BG, HU, IT, HR.   
52    Stefanov and Mineva (2017), ibidem. FreSsco, "On the capacities of labour inspectorates to deal with cross-border cases 

in the Member States" ad-hoc study, November 2017 

15 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
rules  and  procedures,  with  the  resulting  administrative  complication53,  to  be  overcome  with 
the  introduction  of  the  Electronic  Exchange  of  Social  Security  Information  (EESSI)  IT 
system54.  Moreover,  national  administrations  bear  the  entire  operational  and  administrative 
brunt of the organisation of concerted actions, including the coverage of unexpected limits to 
an  investigation  as,  for  example,  the  need  for  a  translator  with  workers  of  different 
nationalities  involved  in  a  case.55  Similarly,  the  scope,  content  and  functioning  of  these 
bilateral  agreements  can  vary  substantially,  with  exchange  of  information  and  operational 
aspects being subject to the will of the parties to comply with engagements.  

The lack of common analytical and intelligence capacities can be seen as a related problem. 
Some Member States dispose of advanced IT tools to collect, share, match and mine data with 
a specific focus on fighting tax and social security fraud and undeclared work – complete with 
early warning systems which may trigger inspections on the ground.56 However, these tools 
rarely  reach  out  beyond  national  borders,  despite  of  the  potential  for  fighting  cross-border 
fraud showed by some best practices, such as that of the Benelux Union57. While in the road 
transport sector the lack of data sharing seems to be particularly important, also in the field of 
social security there have been calls to set up a European level database registering migration 
outflows  and  inflows  for  the  purpose  of  monitoring  the  place  of  residence  of  workers  and 
recipients of cross-border social security benefits.58   

Stakeholders' views 

Respondents to the OPC favoured an EU-level role in the coordination of joint inspections by 
national  administrations  by  64%.  Within  the  context  of  targeted  consultations,  a  number  of 
institutional  stakeholders  underlined  the  value  of  national  competence  to  carry  out  labour 
inspections and the functioning of cooperation through bilateral agreements.  

2.2.5  Lack of a cross-border mediation mechanism between Member States across all 
domains of labour mobility and social security coordination 

The management of cross-border cases involving national authorities in two or more Member 
States may give rise to administrative disputes, for example in case of contested information 

53    Jorens, Y., Gillis, D. and De Potter, T. (2017), Fraud and error in the field of EU social security coordination, Network 

Statistics FMSSFE, European Commission, p. 92.. 

54   EESSI is currently being implemented by Member States: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=869  
55    Mineva, D. (2018), Belgium-Netherlands cooperation: the case of the Port of Antwerp, UDW Platform. 
56      European  Platform  to  Tackle  Undeclared  Work,  Thematic  Review  Workshop  on  Data  Mining  for  More  Efficient 

Enforcement 1 & 2 June 2017, Helsinki, Finland. 

57   In the case of the Benelux Union, the Steering Committee on Social Fraud/Social Dumping has promoted the automatic 
data  sharing,  matching  and  mining on  the  issue  of  sham  constructions.  Political will  and  trust  between  the  parties,  as 
well as effective national systems are deemed as key factors to build upon in order to develop such capacities (European 
Platform  to  Tackle  Undeclared  Work,  Summary  report  from  the  Follow-up  Visit  on  'Data  Mining  for  More  Efficient 
Enforcement', 27-28 September 2017, Brussels, Belgium). 

58    Jorens, Y., Gillis, D. and De Potter, T. (2017), Fraud and error in the field of EU social security coordination, Network 

Statistics FMSSFE, European Commission, p. 92. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
in  PD  A1  documents  for  posted  workers.  Recourse  may  be  made  to  national  courts  and 
ultimately  to  the  European  Court  of  Justice  (ECJ).  However,  judicial  recourse  and 
infringement  proceedings  are  costly  in  terms  of  time  and  resources.  Conciliation  may 
represent a more efficient and rapid resource.  

At  EU  level,  a  conciliation  mechanism  exists  only  in  the  social  security  coordination  area. 
Annex  12  describes  how  the  Conciliation  Board  (CB)  acts  within  the  Administrative 
Commission  (AC)  to  resolve  disagreements.  The  dialogue  and  conciliation  procedure  has 
certain in-built shortcomings.59 Both parties need to agree to bring the case in front of the CB, 
the  scope  of  conciliation  is  limited  to  the  social  security  aspects  of  posting,  while  such 
interpretation  discussions  and  disagreements  are  also  very  relevant  in  other  areas  of  social 
security coordination such as family benefits or the determination of applicable legislation for 
situations other than posting. Decisions are not binding and there is a lack of monitoring and 
follow-up mechanisms.  

Because  of  these  challenges  and  the  length  of  the  process,  the  vast  majority  of  cases  are 
resolved  in  a  bilateral  manner  between  Member  States  during  the  two  phases  of  dialogue 
procedure. Between 2010 and 2017 only nine cases were submitted to the Conciliation Board 
of the AC. The full "life-cycle" of a case can be as long as over 3 years. 

There  is  therefore  potential  for  two-fold  improvements.  First,  the  existing  conciliation 
procedure in the context of the AC can be made more effective and a review is on-going to 
address  existing  challenges.  Second,  a  more  comprehensive  approach  and  more  systematic 
follow up to dispute settlement could be beneficial, extending to other areas of social security 
coordination, to the posting of workers and to social legislation in the road transport sector, 
where currently there is no dispute settlement mechanism among national authorities.60  

Stakeholders' views 

A majority (51%) of respondents to the public consultation on a European Labour Authority 
were of the view that the lack of fora for dispute settlement constituted a challenge to cross-
border  cooperation.  Within  the  context  of  targeted  consultations61,  social  partners  disagreed 
on this point. While employers organisations, such as BusinessEurope, were more sceptical of 
the idea of giving the ELA a dispute resolution function due to potential interference with the 
work national courts and the ECJ, trade unions, including the ETUC, were more in favour of 
the idea so long as the ELA provided out-of-court solutions. For the Nordic-Baltic-Polish EU 

59   See e.g. EP Question E-009697-16 on Application of the dialogue and conciliation procedure established by Decision of  
      the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems No A1. 
60  Enforcement  Directive  2014/67/UE  has  provided  procedural  rules  for  the  exchange  of  information  and  administrative 
cooperation between national authorities. No specific provision addresses the possible insurgence of disputes between 
national administrations, for example in cases of non-compliance with requests for information or to execute sanctions.  

61 Specifically at the dedicated hearing with social partners which took place 11 December 2017. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Information  Group that  absence  of a forum  for  dispute settlement beyond the area of social 
security coordination was a challenge. 
2.2.6.  Insufficient cooperation set-up at EU level  

Several  EU  committees  and  networks  operate  in  the  area  of  labour  mobility  and  social 
security  coordination  (henceforth  referred  to  as  "bodies").  They  are  based  on  separate  legal 
acts  and  refer  to  specific  thematic  domains.  While  all  were  designed  to  support  the 
implementation of relevant EU rules, because they were developed independently, these EU 
bodies are characterised by an asymmetric institutional design. For instance, only the AC has 
quasi-legislative  powers  –  being  able  to  adopt  interpretative  Decisions  –  and  meets  on  a 
regular  basis.  Other  committees  (ECPW,  FMW)  act  as  discussion  fora  with  little  to  no 
decision-making  or  operational  powers.  The  UDW  Platform  constitutes  a  forum  based  on 
voluntary  participation,  with  an  analytical  and  operational  focus,  the  latter  having  however 
limited resources62. Annex 7 provides a detailed presentation of each body and an overview of 
its  tasks.  A  further  comitology  Committee  on  Road  Transport  plays  an  advisory  role  to  the 
Commission  and  facilitates  dialogue  and  mutual  assistance  between  Member  States  in  the 
field of implementation of the social legislation in road transport63.  

Box 1. EU bodies in the areas of labour mobility and social security coordination 

The EU bodies that make up the EU's institutional landscape in the areas of labour mobility and social 
security  coordination  are:  the  Administrative  Commission  for  the  Coordination  of  Social  Security 
Systems (AC) (including its Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Social Security Systems, the 
Conciliation and the Audit Boards, and its Technical Commission) the Technical Committee (FMW) 
and the Advisory Committee (AFMW) on the Free Movement of Workers, the Committee of Experts 
on Posting of Workers (ECPW), the European Platform tackling Undeclared Work (UDW Platform) 
and  the  EURES  coordination  group.  They  play  a  valuable  role  in  supporting  cooperation  between 
national authorities. However, an analysis of their work reveals a number of shortcomings.  

First,  these  EU  bodies  are  limited  in  their  ability  to  provide  operational  and  technical  support  to 
national  authorities.  Because  of  their  asymmetric  institutional  design,  only  two  of  them  provide 
limited  operational  and  technical  support  to  national  authorities.  Specifically,  the  AC  has  a 
conciliation  mechanism,  where  a  dedicated  Conciliation  Board  addresses  disagreements  between 
national  authorities  in  matters  of  social  security  coordination.  Similarly,  the  UDW  Platform  is 
mandated to facilitate common activities between Member States. Otherwise, EU bodies are primarily 
designed as fora for the exchange of information, good practices and ideas between relevant national 
authorities and stakeholders. Accordingly, they are either not mandated or lack the capacity to provide 
operational  support  to  national  authorities  to  strengthen  cross-border  cooperation.  In  practice,  this 
involves a limited number of activities to support staff exchanges, joint campaigns, trainings, and joint 

62    The Senior labour Inspectors' Committee (SLIC) represents another relevant committee to discuss enforcement problems 
related to EU legislation on health and safety at work. Although SLIC has recently adopted some initiatives addressing 
the posting of workers, notably the application of health and safety rules in the case of cross-border temporary agency 
workers, its focus is not strictly related to the scope of this initiative. Therefore, for the sake of brevity, its role is not 
thoroughly analysed in the remainder of this report.  

63    Its tasks include exchange of information on infringements against the social road transport rules, and penalties for such 
infringements, discussing the cases of different national interpretations and application of the rules, promoting common 
approach to implementation and enforcement. It meets irregularly and has no operational competencies. 

18 

 
 
                                                            
inspections.  Yet  operational  support  on  cross-border  issues  is  something  that  Member  States  would 
benefit from and which the EU is best placed to provide. The lack of operational capacity translates 
into a joint action gap to address problems of cross-border nature.  

Second, artificial separations exist between these bodies. In-depth specialisation of each committee on 
its target legislation is not matched by the development of interlinkages with other bodies competent 
on neighbouring policy areas. For instance, in the case of posting expertise is divided between labour 
law specialists in the ECPW (on working conditions issues) and social security experts in the AC (on 
security aspects, including the issuing of PD A1 forms), and likewise between the TFMW and the AC 
as regards to mobile workers, while problematic issues may cut across the two policy areas. Certain 
activities  thus  overlap  leading  to  duplications  in  their  work,  for  instance  this  is  the  case  of  UDW 
Platform and the ECPW.64  

Third, these bodies have no permanent structure. The frequency of the meetings varies greatly between 
the  over  90  meetings  per  year  of  the  Administrative  Commission  (and  of  its  attached  committees, 
under various formations and sub-groups) and the two meetings per year of the ECPW and technical 
committee of FMW. 

In addition, the EU has four decentralised Agencies in the employment and social domain (see 
Annex  13).  However,  none  of  them  has  a  cross-border  focus  in  their  mandate  and,  despite 
valuable  expertise  in  related  fields  such  as  labour  market  research  (Eurofound),  health  and 
safety  at  work  (EU-OSH)  and  vocational  education  and  training  (Cedefop),  they  do  not 
provide any operational support to Member States either. Similarly, there is no EU agency in 
the  road  transport  sector,  unlike  in  the  other  modes  of  transport  (railways,  aviation,  and 
maritime transport).   

Box 2. Decentralised Agencies in the area of Employment 

Four  decentralised  agencies  operate  in  the  employment  policy  area:  European  Foundation  for  the 
Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound), European Centre for the Development 
of Vocational Training (Cedefop), EU-OSHA (European Agency for Safety and Health at Work) and 
European  Training  Foundation  (ETF)  and  they  are  currently  object  of  a  comprehensive  evaluation. 
Annex 13 provides an overview of their work.  

An on-going meta-evaluation has been mandated to examine synergies among them. This evaluation is 
done  in  line  with  the  Commission's  Better  Regulation  Guidelines  and  the  Financial  Regulation 
requirements.  It encompasses both an individual assessment of each agency as well as a cross-cutting 
and  comparative  perspective  for  the  period  2011-2016,  and  a  prospective  assessment  with  regard  to 
the future functioning of the agencies. The evaluation is not linked to the landscape of committees and 
policy bodies in the area of cross-border labour mobility and social security coordination. 

From  a  preliminary  assessment,  the  material  scope  and  functioning  of  each  Agency  presents  few 
elements of commonality with the present initiative. None of these agencies has a cross-border focus, 
while  the  ETF  operates  in  the  EU  neighbourhood  area.  Conversely,  the  specific  expertise  of  each 
agency contributes to relevant employment policy objectives in their respective fields, while the cross-

64    Cross-cutting issues in the implementation rules are dealt by the two structures separately. At the same time, the Platform 
to Tackle Undeclared Work may discuss several cross-border fraudulent phenomena involving the posting of workers, 
both  under  the  labour  law  and  the  social  security  perspectives,  yet  in  a  different  framework  from  that  of  the  two 
competent committees.   

19 

 
 
 
                                                            
border labour mobility has a strong horizontal dimension. The predominant research-centred approach 
of most agencies (except the ETF) only limitedly fits with the operational needs in the labour mobility 
area.  While  there  may  be  potential  synergies  as  regards  the  research  area,  the  analytical  needs  to 
enhance operational cooperation on mobility exceed existing availabilities in the agencies and require 
further and integrated expertise. A more thorough assessment of the possible interaction between this 
initiative and the existing decentralised agencies is provided in section 8. 

Stakeholders' views 

As  mentioned  above,  both  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  and  targeted  consultation 
highlighted that differences in the administrative capacities among the Member States act as a 
barrier  to  effective  cross-border  cooperation,  thus  supporting  the  view  that  insufficient 
operational support at EU level was a challenge. On the issues of fragmentation,  a majority 
(70%)  of  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  noted  that  the  fragmentation  of  EU 
cooperation networks in different areas of cross-border mobility was a challenge to effective 
cooperation between national authorities. 

2.3   How will the problem evolve? 

EU labour mobility has shown an upward trend throughout the crisis (the number of people 
living or working abroad almost doubled over the past decade, to 17 million by 2017), mainly 
due  to  flows  from  the  EU-13  and  increasingly  from  Southern  European  Member  States 
towards  Northern  Europe.65  Besides,  patterns  of  mobility  have  also  evolved  to  cross-border 
mobility and temporary mobility for the purpose of care treatment or service provision. The 
posting of workers has surged by 68% compared to 2010 (from 1.23 to 2.3 million in 2016). 
While remaining relatively low as a proportion of the total working population, EU mobility 
still involves some 17 million EU citizens and particularly affects some countries (both from a 
sending and from a receiving perspective) and economic sectors (see Annex 12.1). Also due 
to the stabilising role played by labour mobility in the Eurozone in case of asymmetric shock, 
there are few elements to assume that the relevance of EU mobility  – in its various forms  - 
may scale down in the future.  

In  addition,  the  recent  years  have  witnessed  increasing  concerns  as  regards  to  social  fraud 
related to cross-border mobility, e.g. in connection to social security coordination or posting 
rules. Experimental estimates on a plurality of sources indicate a lower bound of about 2.6% 
of  EU-mobile  workers  (about  400,000  individuals)  possibly  involved  in  undeclared  work 
activities  with  variations  across-countries.  Similarly,  fraud  in  social  security  coordination 
does not currently affect but a minority of the total (See Annex 12.4). The phenomenon may 
be  underestimated,  as  it  is  based  on  figures  from  a  few  countries,  although  there  is  little 
evidence that cross-border fraud is higher than domestic fraud.66 It could also be argued that, 

65    See European Commission (2018), Annual Report on Intra-EU labour Mobility 2017. 
66  Indeed,  estimates  in  Annex  12.4  show  that  undeclared  work  may  affect  2.8%  of  cross-border  workers  and  3.6%  of 

domestic workers.  

20 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
absent  adequate  cross-border  controls,  social  fraud  is  not  realistically  detected.  In  any  case, 
with possibly increasing mobility flows, social fraud will continue to represent an associated, 
persistent element.  

Recent  legislative  developments  have  addressed  the  problems  of  better  information  and 
services  to  mobile  citizens  and  companies,  although  more  support  will  still  be  needed.  As 
mentioned in section 2.2.1, the Single Digital Gateway proposal, if adopted, may improve the 
'findability' and quality-check of information provided through various EU sources, including 
EURES.  Nevertheless,  content-feeding  and  constant  updates  of  EU  portals  will  remain 
challenging  and  resource-consuming  tasks  to  be  carried  out.  As  regards  posting,  the  full 
implementation  of the 2014 Enforcement Directive  has  consolidated a set of single national 
websites67,  while  the  free  movement  bodies  established  to  support  equal  treatment  and 
provide  legal  assistance  will  also  stabilise.68  However,  ensuring  even  quality  standards  and 
constant  updates  across  the  Member  States  will  require  constant  monitoring  at  EU  level. 
Some sector-specific information, most notably on the working conditions and requirements 
in  international  road  transport  operations,  will  have  to  be  produced  also  in  light  of  new 
legislative  initiatives  in  that  area.  Through  the  implementation  of  the  2016  EURES 
Regulation,  the  number  of  job  vacancies  and  CVs  available  on  the  Portal  is  expected  to 
substantially  increase.  Limits  to  national  capacities  and  human,  financial  and  IT  resources 
may  however  affect  the  expansion  of  the  EURES  network,  with  consequent  needs  for  a 
stronger  involvement  of  partner  organizations  for  a  holistic  approach  and  reinforcement  of 
activities in relation to information and services provision.      

Recent  legislative  initiatives  have  also  aimed  at  strengthening  enforcement  tools.  Following 
the  2014  Enforcement  Directive,  the  use  of  the  IMI  system  to  exchange  administrative 
information  and  notifications  between  the  Member  States  on  postings  will  continue  to  take 
hold. For social security coordination, EESSI will replace the current paper based exchanges 
and  it  will  allow  national  competent  institutions  to  contact  their  counterparties  in  other 
Member  States  electronically.  It  should  create  a  faster,  more  efficient,  and  secure  data 
exchange. However, at the same time, the reasons for difficulties in cooperation encountered 
today, beyond those of the inherently time consuming nature of postal exchanges, remain to 
be tackled. There is a need to improve clarity on national case handling deadlines, put in place 
operational  procedures  for  addressing  situations  of  delayed  replies,  and  provide  support  to 
Member States with capacity building to optimise the handling of cross-border cases, as well 
as  to  provide ongoing  support and training  for the  introduction and use of EESSI across  all 
institutions.  Limitations  (for  instance  in  the  case  of  undeclared  work)  and  further 
developments will be managed at EU level, although it is unlikely that synergies between the 
instruments will be exploited.  

67  https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/work/work-abroad/posted-workers/index_en.htm  
68  http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1277&langId=en  

21 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Current  cooperation  tools  will  come  under  increasing  pressure  to  ensure  consistent  and  fair 
enforcement  of  new  rules  currently  under  negotiations  on  posting,  posting  in  the  road 
transport  sector  and  social  security  coordination.  While  IMI  statistics  currently  show  that 
information requests on the establishment and registration of companies rank as most frequent 
(see Annex 12.4), control tools on letterbox companies would remain inadequate, for example 
on  the  inspection  angle.  The  UDW  Platform  provides  for  limited  resources  to  support  joint 
inspections  and  capacity  building,  but  the  organisational  effort  in  providing  effective 
coordination  would  continue  falling  on  the  Member  States.  Bilateral  agreements  would 
continue providing the basis for cooperation with uneven functioning across the EU and few 
extra EU resources to cover for limited resource capacities in some Member States, especially 
where  staff  availabilities  do  not  yield  specialisation  in  cross-border  issues.  The  problem 
would  notably  be  intense  in  the  road  transport  area,  where  poor  EU-wide  coordination  of 
control  activities  would  leave  voluntary  networks  shouldering  the  impact  of  high  pressure, 
possibly new rules, and decreasing national enforcement capacities. While the UDW Platform 
would  continue  to  providing  a  forum  of  exchange  of  best  practices,  the  cross-border 
dimension represents but one aspect in the agenda and operational resources remain essential, 
beside  the  limitation  of  the  voluntary  participation.  In  addition,  mobility  being  constant, 
ineffectiveness  or  absence  of  conciliation  mechanisms  between  administrations  would 
continue discouraging dispute settlement fora and rather encourage court settlement. Finally, 
in  the  occurrence  of  labour  disruptions  affecting  multiple  Member  States,  the  relevant 
authorities and stakeholders would dispose of the Globalisation Adjustment Fund and would 
benefit from the guidance of the Quality Framework for Restructuring, yet with little further 
assistance or coordination from the EU level. 

2.4  

Scope of a European Labour Authority 

The  thematic  scope  of  the  initiative  will  focus  on  the  core  areas  of  cross-border  labour 
mobility and social security coordination rules through the efficient and effective enforcement 
of  Union  law  on  labour  mobility  and  social  security  coordination,  as  well  as  of  collective 
agreements implementing such Union law.  EU law on labour mobility pertains to the (1) free 
movement  of  workers  and  the  (2)  posting  of  workers,  which  lay  down  workers'  rights  in 
different mobility situations. Cooperation on (3) undeclared work is included, as it addresses a 
phenomenon  with  particular  relevance  also  in  a  cross-border  context.  Social  security 
coordination rules are tightly inter-connected, as they establish the rights to social security of 
mobile  workers,  as  well  as  of  job-seekers  and  inactive  persons  when  moving  to  another 
Member State.  

In  line  with  the  above  legislation,  the  present  initiative  encompasses  all  economic  sectors. 
However,  an  additional  focus  is  cast  on  the  international  road  transport  sector.  The  highly-
mobile nature of the sector creates specific problems for the enforcement of EU work-related 
legislation in a cross-border context, in particular posting. Inconsistent and ineffective cross-
border  enforcement, 
lacking  cooperation  and  coordination  of  controls  have  severe 
consequences on the fairness of competition for both drivers and companies. 

22 

 
 
 
The personal scope of the initiative would be in line with that of the EU legislation covered 
in the initiative's thematic scope. This means that ELA would support Member States in the 
implementation  of  EU  rules  in  relation  to  the  persons  who  are  covered  by  these  rules,  for 
instance by providing advice to workers on exercising the right to free movement of workers 
or supporting the implementation of social security coordination rules in relation to all insured 
persons to whom these rules apply (whether worker, family member, pensioner, tourist, etc.).  
It also includes mobile third-country nationals, including EU Blue-Card holders, as regards to 
posting of workers, road transport and social security coordination69. 

3.  

  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? 

3.1   Legal basis 

The legal basis for ELA pertains to the free movement of persons and services and the right to 
establishment, established in Articles 46, 48, 53(1), 62, and 91(1) TFEU.   

Article 46 assigns to the European Parliament and Council the duty to issue rules on the free 
movement of workers, including the cooperation between national employment services, the 
abolition of obstacles to the search, matching and take-up of employment in another member 
State. Article 48 provides a similar task with respect to the adoption of measures in the field 
of  social  security  as  a  necessary  accompanying  measure  to  the  freedom  of  movement  for 
workers.  As  regards  to  the  freedom  to  provide  services  across-border,  Article  53(1)  TFEU 
foresees  measures  to  facilitate  taking  up  and  pursuing  activities  as  self-employed  persons, 
facilitating  posting,  while  Article  62  TFEU  foresees  measures  to  facilitate  the  freedom  to 
provide  services,  relevant  in  the  framework  of  posting.  Article  91(1)  TFEU  posits  common 
rules applicable to international transport, in the framework of a common transport policy. 

3.2  

Subsidiarity 

The  subsidiarity  principle  applies  since  the  proposal  does  not  fall  under  the  exclusive 
competence of the EU. The objectives of the proposal cannot be sufficiently achieved by the 
Member States at national, regional or local level and can be better achieved at Union level 
for the following reasons: 

  Providing  high  quality  and  up-to-date  information  and  services  to  the  public  about 
their rights and obligations in cross-border situations needs to be coordinated at Union 
level in order to ensure a consistent, clear, and efficient approach.  

69     Regulation (EU) No 1231/2010 extending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 to nationals 

of third-countries who are not already covered by these Regulations solely on the grounds of their nationality. 

23 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
  The application of Union law in the fields of cross border labour mobility and social 
security coordination relies on cooperation between Member States, meaning that no 
Member State can act alone.  

 

In order to increase synergies and support cooperation between Member States in the 
application  of  Union  law  across  the  fields  of  labour  mobility  and  social  security 
coordination, to ensure legal certainty for administrations and individuals alike and to 
arrive at a shared understanding of enforcement needs, it is also necessary to develop a 
coordinated  and  joint  approach  at  Union  level  instead  of  relying  on  what  can  be  a 
complex network of bilateral or multilateral agreements.  

3.3 Proportionality 

The initiative is a proportional response to the need for operational support and does not go 
beyond what is necessary to achieve this goal. It does not impose new obligations on Member 
States,  individuals  or  employers;  rather  it  focuses  on  supporting  cross-border  mobility  and 
creating  new  opportunities.  The  proposal  does  not  impinge  on  national  decision-making, 
legislation,  or  enforcement  activities,  which  remain  the  competence  of  Member  States. 
Moreover, it leaves to a large extent to the discretion of Member States how they make use of 
the possibilities put in place by the initiative. 

4.   OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? 

4.1  

General objective 

The  establishment  of  ELA  will  help  strengthen  fairness  and  trust  in  the  Single  Market  by 
ensuring  that  EU  rules  on  cross-border  labour  mobility  and  social  security  coordination  are 
enforced in a fair, simple and effective way and by supporting the mobility of individuals and 
businesses through practical information and assistance.  

4.2  

Specific objectives 

ELA will function as a permanent structure and will pursue three objectives in this context: 

 

Improving  access  to  information  by  individuals  and  employers  about  their  rights  and 
obligations  in  the  areas  of  labour  mobility  and  social  security  coordination,  as  well  as 
access to relevant services; 

  Strengthening  operational  cooperation  between  authorities 

in 

the  cross-border 

enforcement of relevant Union law, including facilitating joint inspections; 

  Providing  mediation  and  facilitating  solutions  in  cases  of  disputes  between  national 
authorities and cross-border labour market disruptions, such as restructuring of companies 
affecting several Member States.  

24 

 
 
 
5.   WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? 

Options  to  meet  the  aforementioned  three  specific  objectives  are  of  two  kinds:    first,  what 
should be done (tasks) and second, how should this be done (delivery aspects). In analysing 
the  different  policy  and  delivery  options,  no  environmental  impacts  have  been  identified. 
Therefore  this  document  does  not  consider  environmental  impacts  as  a  criterion  to 
differentiate between the options. 

Prior to examining possible policy options, this section outlines options that were discarded at 
an early stage. 

1) Transferring new competences from the national to the European level 

Rule enforcement, information collection and treatment and inspection responsibilities are the 
competence of national authorities, in line with subsidiarity and proportionality requirements. 
These  competences  cannot  thus  be  transferred  to  the  Union  level,  either  in  the  form  -  for 
example  -  of  a  European  labour  inspectorate  or  through  more  competences  and  powers 
granted to the European Commission. This option is rejected by the unanimity of institutional 
stakeholders and social partners.  

2)  Extending  the  scope  of  the  proposal  to  cover  EU  legislation  dealing  with  industrial 
relations  

EU  legislation  in  the  area  of  cross-border  industrial  relations  covers  negotiations  and 
agreements in EU transnational companies (that have a workforce in more than one Member 
State) and workers' representation in multinational companies (European Work Councils) in 
companies with over 1000 workforce, and at least 150 in each of two or more Member States. 
The implementation of industrial relations in cross-border labour situations is the domain of 
the social partners, not Member State authorities, and is hence left out of the present initiative. 
This  is  also  in  line  with  the  ETUC’s  position  that  there  should  be  no  interference  with 
collective bargaining or the right to take collective action. While ETUC supports the set-up of 
tools  such  as  mediation  mechanisms  to  resolve  disputes,  on  a  voluntary  basis,  on  the 
implementation of transnational agreements in the case of multi-national companies, this was 
not echoed by other stakeholders throughout the OPC. 

6.    POLICY OPTIONS AND THEIR IMPACTS 

In  order  to  address  the  identified  challenges  that  undermine  compliance  with  EU  rules  and 
effective  cross-border labour  mobility (see  section  2),  seven  general  tasks  are  envisaged  for 
the EU level: 

  Labour  mobility  services  and  information  for  individuals  and  businesses  tackles  the 
problem of  inadequate support and guidance for individuals and businesses in cross-
border situations (section 2.2.1); 

25 

 
 
  Cooperation and exchange of information between national authorities addresses the 
problem  of  insufficient  access  to  and  sharing  of  information  between  national 
authorities (section 2.2.2); 

  Support to joint inspections: tackles weak EU-level mechanisms for joint cross-border 

enforcement activities (section 2.2.4) 

  Cross-border  labour  mobility  analyses  and  risk  assessment;  targets  both  insufficient 
capacities to organise cooperation (section 2.2.3) and the weak mechanisms for cross-
border enforcement (section 2.2.4); 

  Capacity building: enhances the capacities of competent authorities (section 2.2.4); 
  Mediation  between  national  authorities  fills  the  gaps  in  the  existing  conciliation 

mechanism (section 2.2.5); 

  Facilitating cooperation in cases of labour market disruptions affecting more than one 
Member  State  addresses  the  issue  of  insufficient  capacities  to  cooperate  (section 
2.2.3). 

As  regards  to  the  specific  problem  of  insufficient  cooperation  set-up  at  EU  level  (section 
2.2.6),  this  is  addressed  by  all  of  the  above  tasks,  which  together  would  provide 
comprehensive operational and technical support to national authorities. 

Below,  following  the  presentation  of  a  baseline  scenario,  three  policy  options  (‘support’, 
‘operational’,  ‘supervisory’)  are  presented,  each  addressing  the  seven  tasks  outlined  above. 
The  options  are  cumulative,  that  is,  each  option  broadly  incorporates  the  features  of  the 
previous  one.  They  each  provide  a  set  of  coherent  and  interdependent  tasks,  making  them 
almost indivisible. Table 1 below provides a synoptic overview of how the seven tasks will be 
addressed in each of the three policy options. A more detailed explanation and comparison of 
the tasks as envisaged under the three policy options is provided in Annex 10.  

  For instance, under Policy Option 2, it is envisioned that the EU level has an important 
role in pooling of analyses, collecting data, and organising peer reviews (task 'Cross-
border labour  mobility analyses  and risk assessment'). This  task is intimately linked 
with 
the  creation  of  a  comprehensive  mutual-learning  programme  and 
training/technical  assistance  programme  (task  'capacity  building'),  since  the  data 
analyses will feed into the design of these programmes. The two complementary tasks 
have the same level of ambition.  

  Similarly,  for  instance,  under  Policy  Option  3,  the  EU's  task  to  undertake  in-depth 
assessments  of    Member  States  to  identify  problems  (task  'Cross-border  labour 
mobility  analyses  and  risk  assessment')  is  intimately  linked  with  the  task  of 
establishing standards for the provision of services at national level based on EU rules 
(task  'Labour  mobility    services  for  individuals  and  businesses'),  and  establishing 
mandatory requirements on information exchange (task Cooperation and exchange of 
information between national authorities), also only envisioned under Option 3. The 
two  complementary  tasks  have  the  same  level  of  ambition  and  are  interdependent 

26 

 
 
since the standards and mandatory requirements it establishes would form a basis for 
recommendations.  

Table 1. Synoptic overview of policy options, in relation to tasks   

Tasks 

1.  Labour  mobility  
information 
and 
services for individuals 
and businesses 

Policy Option 1  
(Support Option) 

Definition  of  user  needs  and 
business  requirements  of  the 
EURES  Portal.  Cooperation 
with relevant initiatives, tools 
and  bodies  at  EU  and 
(e.g.  Your 
national 
Europe,  Border  Focal  Point, 
national services). 

level 

Policy Option 2  
(Operational Option) 
Coordination  and  enhancement 
of  EURES  network.  Technical 
support  to  MS  for  the  provision 
of  services  at  national  level, 
including 
compliance  with 
relevant  obligations  (e.g.  SDG 
and  enforcement  directive  on 
posting).  

2.  Cooperation  and 
exchange 
of 
information  between 
national authorities 

Coordinating role and liaison 
point 
existing 
bodies. 

between 

3.  Support 
inspections 

to 

joint 

Support  to  Member  States  in 
joint 
coordinating 
inspections,  i.e.  organisation 
of coordination meetings and 
development 
of  model 
agreements 

Active  support  and  expertise  to 
competent  authorities  ensuring 
cooperation  and  promoting  the 
exchange of information through 
the  use  of  relevant  IT  tools 
(ESSI, IMI). 

Pro-active  proposals  for  joint 
inspections,  logistical  support, 
monitoring and follow-up 

4. Cross-border labour 
mobility  analyses  and 
risk assessment 

5. Capacity Building 

studies 
and 
relevant  EU 

Sharing 
of 
analyses  by 
bodies 
of  mutual 
Coordination 
learning  activities  across  all 
mobility areas 

6.  Mediation  between 
national authorities 

Provision  of  expert  opinion 
upon  request  on  all  mobility 
areas 

Facilitating 
7. 
cooperation  in  cross-
border 
labour 
disruptions 

Framework 

raising  among 
Awareness 
stakeholders  about  the  EU 
Quality 
for 
Anticipation  of  Change  and 
Restructuring  (QFR)  and  of 
relevant  EU  legislation  and 
financial instruments.   

of 

Analyses,  risk  assessment,  data 
collection,  peer 
reviews  and 
follow-up recommendations.   
comprehensive 
Set-up 
training  and 
mutual-learning, 
technical 
assistance 
programmes,  exchange  of  best 
practices. 
Facilitation of dispute settlement 
across  all  areas  by  mediation, 
including  possibility  to  adopt 
recommendations. 

Upon  request,  set-up  of  ad  hoc 
support  to  national  authorities 
to  facilitate 
and  stakeholders 
cooperation, 
administrative 
and 
information 
coordination  in 
the  event  of 
cross-border  events  of  company 
restructuring. 

sharing 

27 

Policy Option 3 
(Supervisory Option) 

Establishing  standards  for 
the  provision  of  services  at 
national  level  based  on  EU 
rules. 
Establishment  of  a  single 
physical  national  contact 
point on labour mobility. 

Establishing 
mandatory 
requirements  on  information 
not 
exchange, 
provided  for  by  current  EU 
legislation 

where 

Development  and  inventory 
of  user-friendly  templates  in 
aid  of  comparability  of 
national procedures.     
Possibility  to  launch  (joint)-
its  own 
inspections  on 
initiative 
Management  of  European 
Inspection  Corps  (drawing 
on 
States' 
inspectorates)  

Member 

In-depth 
Member States  

assessments 

of 

Development  of  pilot  code 
for labour inspections.  

Development of pilot on out-
of-court dispute settlement  

to 

regards 

Issuing  of  recommendations 
as 
the 
management  of  cross-border 
restructuring,  and 
the 
implementation  of  relevant 
including 
EU 
business 
and 
information and consultation 
of workers. 

legislation, 

insolvency 

to 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.1.   Baseline scenario   

Without  any  action,  the  existing  legislative  framework  continues  to  apply  to  mobility 
information and rule enforcement support, with possible integrations deriving from proposals 
currently under negotiation or implementation. 

Content  creation,  update  and  expansion  of  the  Your  Europe  and  the  EURES  Job  Mobility 
portals  remains  mainly  up  to  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States,  with  limited  EU 
coordination and support on other mobility issues such as posting or road transport. Exchange 
of  administrative  information  takes  place  through  the  IMI  and,  from  2019,  EESSI,  beside 
other  channels  possibly  established  on  an  ad-hoc  basis  through  bilateral  agreement.  The 
Commission carries out labour mobility analyses, while more sophisticated risk assessments 
are  developed  at  national  level  with  little  to  no  pooling  at  EU  level.  Coordination  of  cross-
border inspections remains limited to voluntary action within the current scope and means of 
the  UDW  Platform  and,  for  what  concerns  the  road  transport  sector,  the  ECR.  Existing 
conciliation mechanisms continue to apply in the social security coordination domain, but not 
in other mobility areas. Capacity building is limited to the mutual learning programme of the 
UDW Platform and to voluntary action within the scope of the ECR in the road transport area. 
The  Commission  raises  awareness  on  the  good  practice  collected  in  the  2013  Quality 
Framework  for  Restructuring  and  runs  the  European  Globalisation  Adjustment  fund,  while 
Eurofound  monitors  company  restructuring  events  and  provides  information  on  national 
frameworks for restructuring through the European Restructuring Monitor. 

6.2  

Policy Option 1 (Support option) 

The  ‘support’  Option  1 constitutes  a  ‘light-touch’  approach  adding  up  a  few  changes  to  the 
baseline  scenario  whereby  the  EU  level  expands  or  coordinates  existing  activities  or 
programmes, or extends these from one specific area to all other mobility areas. The EU-level 
expands and coordinates existing information services by ensuring further development of the 
EURES portal and, in cooperation with Your Europe, by monitoring information provided on 
posting  and  road  transport  sector  legislation.  It  also  builds  on  existing  cooperation  tools  in 
different  mobility  areas  by  promoting  coordination  between 
them  and  suggesting 
improvements on issues of cross-cutting concern (e.g. letterbox companies). It extends current 
support to joint inspections in the context of the UDW Platform by facilitating coordination 
meetings between labour inspectorate authorities and developing model agreements, upon the 
request  of  Member  States.  It  compounds  analytical  reports  dealing  with  different  mobility 
aspects produced by EU and national institutions and ensures follow-up to problems signalled 
by citizens and companies on SOLVIT. Mutual learning activities under the UDW Platform 
are  extended  to  all  mobility  areas  in  order  to  support  administrative  capacity  building  in 
accordance with strategic priorities. The EU level extends the conciliation mechanism of the 
social security coordination area to all mobility areas through the provision of expert opinions 
and  monitors  the  follow  up  to  those  opinions.  Drawing  on  the  Quality  Framework  for 
Restructuring,  the  EU  level  raises  awareness  of  its  legislation,  financial  instruments  and 

28 

 
 
guidance also based collection of experiences through Eurofound's Monitoring instrument in 
order to support stakeholders affected by restructuring cases with cross-border implications. 

6.3  

Policy Option 2 (Operational option) 

The ‘operational’ Option 2 expands activities laid down in the previous Option 1 by adding 
further operational activities in each task. Through the management of the EURES network, 
the EU level extends the scope of its activities to technical support to the Member States for 
the  provision  of  information  to  citizens  and  business  all  across  the  mobility  spectrum,  thus 
including posting and social legislation in the road transport sector. The information exchange 
is actively supported through the promotion of the use of electronic tools and procedures (e.g. 
EESSI, EURES and IMI) also with a view to their further evolution, as well as on facilitating 
cooperation  through  National  Liaison  Officers.  In  agreement  with  the  involved  Member 
States, it assumes the role of launching and providing coordination and logistical support to 
joint  cross-border  inspections  including  action  to  ensure  their  follow  up.  The  EU  level 
compounds  analyses  and data  collection on different labour mobility aspects from  different 
sources,  and  becomes  a  permanent  observatory  on  mobility,  also  through  the  collection  of 
more specific data to inform joint inspections or capacity building programmes; it organises 
peer  reviews  among  Member  States  and  outlines  possible  measures  to  address  identified 
challenges.  The  EU  level  runs  comprehensive  mutual  learning  and  technical  assistance 
programmes, also in accordance with the priorities identified in the other tasks. The existing 
conciliation mechanism, which is extended to all mobility areas, is formalised by a mediation 
mechanism  aimed  to  provide  the  possibility  of  recommendations  to  the  involved  Member 
States  to  solve  issues  identified.  In  the  event  of  restructuring  cases  with  cross-border 
implications,  the  EU  level  activates  –  upon  national  authorities'  request  -  ad  hoc  support 
charged  facilitating  administrative  cooperation,  providing  guidance  on  EU  legislation  and 
financial instruments and coordinating interventions, including through involving EURES. 

6.4 

Policy Option 3 (Supervisory option) 

The ‘supervisory’ Option 3 expands activities laid down in the previous Option 2 to achieve a 
more thorough EU-level integration of certain functions which are not foreseen in the current 
framework,  yet  within  the  limits  of  EU  competences.  Through  the  management  of  EURES, 
the EU level adds up standards for the provision of  mobility-related services to citizens and 
companies at national level with a view on the establishment of single physical contact points. 
Where  necessary,  the  EU  level  can  set  additional  mandatory  information  exchange 
requirements to be implemented through the existing tools. On joint inspections, the EU level 
retains the right of initiative and sets up a specialised 'European Inspection Corps' composed 
of national detached experts. Drawing on peer reviews and labour mobility analyses, the EU 
level can launch in-depth assessments of Member States capacities for a thorough analysis of 
potential  weaknesses  and  shortcomings,  and  on  these  basis  issues  recommendations  to 
Member  States.  In  addition  to  the  mutual  learning  and  technical  assistance  programmes  for 
capacity building envisaged in Option 2, the EU level lays down a common rule-book (code) 

29 

 
 
laying down standard procedures for labour inspections. The mediation mechanism extends to 
include a pilot out-of-court arbitration systems for certain cases. The EU level intervenes both 
to  provide  guidance  on  available  EU  resources  to  address  cross-border  labour  disruptions, 
but also to provide recommendations to national authorities and stakeholders on the effective 
application  of  relevant  EU  legislation,  including  on  insolvency  and  information  and 
consultation of workers. 

Stakeholders views on the possible tasks of a European Labour Authority  

Regarding the possible tasks for a European Labour Authority, the open public consultation 
showed that a majority of respondents envisioned that a new Authority could usefully provide 
a wide range of operational support to Member States. These include: coordinating systematic 
cooperation  and  information  exchanges  between  national  authorities  (75%),  providing 
technical  assistance  and  capacity  building  to  enforcement  authorities  (67%),  providing 
analytical  support  and  intelligence  (67%),  coordinating  joint  inspections  (64%),  providing  a 
dispute resolution  mechanism  (64%),  supporting  the  provision  of  information  to  individuals 
and businesses  (73%), support the rationalisation and streamlining of administrative practices 
at EU level (73%). 

Results of the targeted consultations echoed the same support for a broad range of tasks; in 
particular  members  of  the  Administrative  Committee  were  generally  supportive  of  ELA 
having an operational focus. Consulted stakeholders, most notably within the EMCO and the 
UDW  Platform,  also  underlined  that  an  Authority  could  support  the  better  integration  and 
coordination of existing EU bodies in order to ensure greater synergies between them. 

There was clear support among stakeholders – including within the AC, the ECPW, the PES 
network,  social  partners  (UEAPME,  ETUC,  EFBWW,  etc.),  and  a  number  of  civil  society 
organisations - for a new European Labour Authority to play a role in providing a single point 
of access to standardised information available in all European languages to individuals and 
organisations  alike.  A  number  of  stakeholders  underlined  that  the  Authority  could  also  be 
charged collecting and regularly updating listings of EU and national relevant legislation and 
competent authorities.  

Similarly, there was strong support among stakeholders for a new European Labour Authority 
to  act  as  a  platform  for  information  exchange  between  national  authorities.  It  was  also 
underlined by certain stakeholders that ELA could manage IT solutions (such as EESSI, the 
future ESSN) and ensure statistical data collection. Closely related to this, some stakeholders 
(including members of the AC)  underlined that  ELA could support research and analysis  in 
the area of cross-border mobility. 

A number of targeted stakeholders shared the view that ELA could usefully provide technical 
assistance and capacity building to enforcement authorities. In particular, BusinessEurope was 
of the opinion that technical assistance and capacity building for national enforcement bodies 

30 

 
 
should be the central aim of the initiative. A common opinion by the PES network suggested 
that ELA could help to strengthen collaboration among different labour market actors at EU 
level and support a systematic approach for evidence-based learning between Member States, 
building on the Benchlearning exercise of the PES network. 

the 

Institutional  stakeholders  broadly  underlined 
importance  of  respecting  national 
competencies, particularly in the area of labour inspections which should remain in the hands 
of Member States. However, a great number of stakeholders (including those who underlined 
the importance of respecting national competencies) were also of the opinion that a European 
Labour Authority could valuably support national authorities in conducting joint cross-border 
investigations. In particular, this point was made by members of EMCO. A report adopted by 
the UDW on the creation of ELA noted that while any joint investigations should be entrusted 
to  national  authorities,  ELA  could  address  outstanding  issues,  such  as  cross-border 
participation  in  controls  in  another  Member  States,  facilitating  the  understanding  of  other 
national laws and procedures, and of the effective use of evidence during inspections. At the 
dedicated  hearing  with  social  partners,  trade  unions  noted  that  while  a  European  Labour 
Authority  should  not  interfere  in  functioning  of  national  labour  inspections,  it  could  have 
complementary  role  in  cross-border  cases,  providing  technical  and  logistical  support.  The 
European  Parliament's  Employment  and  Social  Affairs  Committee  argued  that  ELA  could 
conduct investigation in cases of fraud and abuse.  

Similarly,  a  number  of  targeted  stakeholders  were  of  the  view  that  a  new  Authority  could 
carry out dispute resolution mechanisms in cross-border and social security matters, but were 
split on whether the decisions should be binding or whether the process should be voluntary 
and  decisions  non-binding.  For  instance  the  UDW  platform  noted  that  ELA  could  act  as  a 
discussion board to facilitate exchanges and as mediator to solve problems between Member 
States  on  a  voluntary  basis.  Similarly,  in  a  strategic  dialogue  with  civil  society,  certain 
organisations noted that ELA could support a dispute settlement mechanism similar to the one 
currently in place within the Administrative Commission. It was suggested that such a dispute 
settlement mechanisms could be extended beyond social security coordination to other areas 
of cross-border mobility and could be binding.  

6.5.   

Impacts of the different policy options in relation to tasks 

This  section  summarises  the  main  expected  social  and  economic  impacts  of  each  the  three 
policy  options  outlined  in  the  previous  section.  The  assessment  has  a  strong  qualitative 
approach. While better cooperation has an impact on improving enforcement, the causal link 
between the set-up of a new body and socio-economic impacts, including mobility flows, is 
rather remote, owing to the influence of national legislation and to actual rule implementation. 
Therefore, the quantification of social or economic impacts was not deemed realistic. 

31 

 
 
 
 
6.5.1   Social impacts 

Overall, the social impacts of the three policy options would be direct only in the cases of the 
task  relating  to  citizens'  information  and  services  and  to  the  facilitation  of  solutions  during 
company  restructuring  processes.  The  remaining  benefits  would  rather  be  indirect,  as  a 
consequence of better cooperation and information-sharing between national administrations.  

Under  the  baseline  scenario  mobile  workers  and  citizens  would  continue  experiencing 
information  gaps  and  to  be  exposed  to  the  risk  of  abuse  or  of  administrative  inefficiencies. 
Posting  conditions  (e.g.  applicable  wages)  may  become  more  transparent  thanks  to  single 
national  websites,  but  still  work  would  need  to  be  done  to  improve  the  sector-specific 
targeting of information, notably - but not exclusively - on road transport posting and social 
rules.  Channelled  through  the  SDG,  EURES  would  gain  more  findability  but  still  incur 
limitations  in  the  extent  of  information  provided,  as  well  as  in  the  capacity  to  extend  job 
vacancy  supply.70  Exposure  to  fraud  or  administrative  inefficiencies  would  witness  some 
improvements, but still present some gaps, with particular effect on the road transport sector. 
Information  exchange  through  IMI  contributes  to  strengthening  controls,  and  so  will  the 
implementation  of  EESSI,  also  with  a  view  on  administrative  efficiency.  Nevertheless, 
varying  degrees  of  administrative  capacities  and  extent  of  bilateral  cooperation  with  other 
Member  States  would  continue  negatively  affecting  the  effectiveness  of  protection  against 
abuses,  for  instance  in  fraudulent  posting  situations,  with  generally  few  opportunities  for 
coordinated cross-border controls and inspections. Information gaps – also cause by the lack 
of preparation of administration staff may continue leading to low take-up of social security 
benefits  across  border  simply  because  of  citizens'  low  awareness.  In  turn,  ineffective 
communication channels between social security institutions may result in the missing out on 
acquired rights or could lead to double payments (see Annex 12, section 4)71. In the event of 
company restructuring cases with cross-border implications, the EU level would continue to 
offer  soft  policy  guidance  on  the  basis  of  the  Quality  Framework  for  Restructuring  and 
financial assistance through the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, within the limits of 
eligibility conditions to that fund. Tailored support may continue to be provided ad hoc such 
as in the case of the closure of the Caterpillar plant in Gosselies (Belgium)72. 

Policy  Option  1  (support  option)  would  marginally  improve  the  provision  of  information 
through  more  integration  of  EURES  with  other  information  areas,  including  on  terms  and 
conditions  for  posting.  A  citizen  may  thus  find  on  the  EURES  portal  more  comprehensive 

70  EU Court of Auditors, Free Movement of Workers – the fundamental freedom ensured but better targeting of EU funds 

would aid worker mobility, Special Report 6/2018. 

71      Your  Europe  Advice  documents  real  cases  where  documents  and  information  requests  are  made  by  individuals  even 
though  national  authorities  should  communicate  directly  with  one  another.  For  example,  a  Romanian  citizen  living  in 
France  experienced  long  delays in  obtaining  details  of  his  pension  rights for  the years  he  had  worked  in  Romania.  In 
another  instance,  a  Lithuanian  citizen  working  in  Italy  could  not  receive  confirmation  that  she  was  paying  social 
insurance contributions in Italy and was therefore requested to still contribute to the Lithuanian health insurance. 

72  Following the 2016 closure of the Caterpillar plant in Gosseliens, Belgium, the Commission set up a joint taskforce with 
the national and regional authorities, upon their request, to support the Charleroi region in dealing with the employment 
and social impacts. 

32 

 
 
                                                            
information regarding its citizenship, labour, social and fiscal rights when moving to another 
Member  State,  under  different  forms  of  mobility  (permanent  or  temporary  mobility). 
However,  information  as  well  as  some  underlying  services  would  be  provided  at  a  fairly 
general  level  which  may  not  reflect  his/her  particular  needs  in  a  given  sector,  e.g.  road 
transport, or administrative area. EU support to activities in the areas of cross-border labour 
inspections,  intelligence  and  dispute  settlement  would  remain  limited,  therefore  tangible 
benefits  for  workers  would  be  unlikely  to  materialise.  Under  largely  voluntary  cooperation 
arrangements  between  Member  States,  workers  in  or  from  non-cooperating  countries  would 
notably be at a disadvantage in relation to workers in or from cooperating countries choosing 
to  engage  in  exchange  of  information  and  cooperation.  Therefore,  the  benefits  would  be 
uneven for the workforce and citizens across the EU and not be available or easily accessible 
to  all  those  that  need  them.  In  case  of  relevant  company  restructuring  processes,  EU 
intervention would be limited to awareness raising on the available EU instruments but would 
not  translate  into  more  concrete  support  to  the  involved  stakeholders,  thus  with  a  limited 
impact on the involved workers.   

further 

to  check 

technical  monitoring  and  support  provided 

Policy Option 2 (operational option) would lead to a wider access to targeted  information 
and  a  wider  inter-connection  between  all  EU  provided  services,  basing  on  the  EURES 
network.  With 
the 
comprehensiveness  of  information,  EU-level  assistance  would  integrate  sector-specific 
guidance  for  example  on  posting  and  help  aligning  with  SDG-mandated  quality  standards. 
Therefore,  a  citizen  moving  to  another  Member  State  to  work  in  a  particular  sector,  e.g. 
construction, would find targeted information on working conditions in that sector, including 
for  example  the  relevant  collective  agreement  or  specific  health  and  safety  requirements,  in 
this  case  thanks  to  collaboration  with  the  competent  agency  EU-OSHA.  With  EU-provided 
coordination  of  investigations,  notably  focusing  on  problematic  cross-country  flows  and 
sectors  identified  thorough  risk  assessment,  workers  would  rely  on  stronger  deterrence 
potential,  as  well  as  on  a  contact  point  to  which  they  could  turn  to  in  case  of  need.  For 
example,  in  the  road  transport  case,  more  uniform  controls  would  ensure  legal  clarity  and 
predictability for drivers and guarantee equal treatment in case of non-compliant behaviour, 
due  to  more  uniform  assessment  standards.  Citizens  would  also  benefit  from  better 
administrative efficiency resulting in faster and more certain procedures for the assignment of 
cross-border social security benefits, and less uncertainty in case of problematic situations as 
a  result  of  more  structured  information  exchange  between  authorities  in  all  areas.  The 
intensification  of  EU-provided  training  for  national  administration  staff  would  also  ensure 
better  information  being  conveyed  to  citizens,  for  example  on  their  cross-border  social 
security rights, and workers, notably including international transport drivers. While citizens 
would  continue  solving  possible  disputes  with  administrations  through  existing  means  (e.g. 
SOLVIT  or  courts),  new  mediation  functions  may  shorten  the  period  for  a  decision  on 
disagreements between national administrations and increase the impact of such decision. In 
the event of company restructuring with cross-border implications, the facilitating role which 
the EU level would play would especially benefit the affected workers. National stakeholders, 

33 

 
 
notably  including  the  social  partners,  would  receive  advice  and  guidance  on  applicable  EU 
legislation  and  possible  financial  instruments  to  assist  the  affected  workers,  as  well  as 
administrative  support  to  coordinate  interventions  between  countries  for  example  on 
collaboration with EURES for job-search beyond national borders. 

Policy  Option  3  (supervisory  option)  would  entail  more  mandatory  requirements  on  the 
services  provided  through  the  EURES  network  of  experts,  which  would  advise  –  as  in  the 
option above – on all policy areas. The set-up of physical contact points for labour mobility at 
national level would enable citizens to access a face-to-face service to collect practical advice 
in  view  of  their  moving  to  another  Member  State.  More  stringent  EU  requirements  would 
empower  information  exchange  and  cooperation  on  inspections,  and  strengthen  institutional 
capacities.  Citizens  would 
integration  between  national 
administrations  in  carrying  out  controls  against  abuses  as  well  as  in  exerting  more  ordinary 
administrative  procedures,  for  instance  in  posting  situations.  EU  level  recommendations  on 
the management of cross-border company crises may have an appealing character insofar as 
they may put pressure on authorities and stakeholders to mobilise all possible EU and national 
resources to help workers retrain or re-employ.    

thus  benefit 

from  more 

6.5.2   Economic Impacts 

Examining  the  economic  impacts  of  different  policy  options  covers  both  the  impacts  on 
national authorities and on companies. 

6.5.2.1. Impacts on national authorities 

This section discusses the impact of the three options on the work of national authorities to 
improve their cooperation, to better enforce rules, to facilitate labour mobility and to provide 
information to workers and business. 

In  the  baseline  scenario,  competent  enforcement  authorities  would  continue  operating  with 
only partially adequate and resource-intensive tools, thus with partial effectiveness in terms of 
contrasting social fraud and ensuring administrative efficiency. The fight against social frauds 
would  continue  to  be  pursued  through  the  existing  (and  forthcoming)  information  exchange 
tools  and  several  structures  working  in  parallel  with  a  focus  on  specific  areas  (such  as 
undeclared work, or social security). While the full implementation of IT tools is expected to 
continue  providing  added  value73,  enforcement  authorities  would  continue  to  work  with  a 
focus  on  questions  related  to  specific  policy  areas  (such  as  posting,  social  security 
information, or transport company information), with little incentive to exploiting the possible 
synergies between them to investigate potentially fraudulent cases requiring a multiplicity of 

73     Annex 12 shows that information exchanges on the posting of workers through the IMI system have increased from 806 
in 2012 to 1689 in 2016 and over 3,600 in 2017. However, the use of IMI varies substantially between Member States, 
with Austria, Belgium and France being the most frequent users. Moreover, the IMI modules may not always be fit for 
the  specific  request  needed  for  an  investigation  (Horodnic,  I.A.,  Belgium-Romania  cooperation.  An  overview  of  IMI 
cases, 2018, UDW Platform).  

34 

 
 
                                                            
policy details. Authorities would continue lacking a common source of intelligence and risk 
analysis. Most notably, however, the effort to organise joint actions (e.g. in-depth information 
exchange and coordinated inspections) would continue falling upon national authorities with 
no external support. Investigative cooperation would be efficient to the extent that authorities 
share  similar  or  common  investigative  methods  and  procedures,  basing  on  a  common 
understanding of the respective laws and on a common action framework, such as a bilateral 
agreement74.  One  or  more  of  these  factors  being  absent  or  weak,  for  instance  the  lack  of 
mutual  language  understanding  or  the  difficulty  in  identifying  one  authority's  exact 
counterpart  in  the  other  Member  State,  would  continue  making  joint  action  very  resource-
intensive and ineffective, notably against the background of staff resource scarcity across the 
Member States. All in all, the inadequacy of tools and cooperation would continue producing 
considerable  losses  in  fiscal  and  social  security  revenue,  while  feeding  in  mistrust  between 
administrations.75  In  the  absence  of  changes  to  the  conciliation  mechanism  addressing  its 
unpredictable length, national authorities would remain encouraged to settle possible disputes 
on an ad hoc basis and relying on bilateral exchanges in the social security coordination area. 
Finally, in cross-border labour disruptions events, national authorities would continue to turn 
to the EU level to apply for and seek technical assistance on the available funds, including the 
European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. Policy support would continue to take place in the 
soft form of the Quality Restructuring Framework.   

Policy Option 1 (support option) would partially improve the tools available to enforcement 
authorities.  National  authorities  would  also  benefit  from  an  EU-level  support  and  tentative 
coordination of joint inspections, coupled with tailored mutual learning activities embracing 
all  mobility  areas  to  reinforce  administrative  capacities  on  priority  areas  to  be  identified 
depending  on  need.  Yet,  EU-level  oversight  on  information  exchange  tools  would  not 
significantly  contribute  to  advancing  the  capacities  of  enforcement  authorities,  with  a 
particularly negative effect in the road transport area, due to very limited cooperation and lack 
of support platforms. Authorities may also benefit from expert opinions in all mobility areas 
in case of disputes, but this would limitedly increase the incentives to use this route to settle 
disputes.  This  option  would  partially  improve  the  visibility  and  mobilisation  of  EU  tools 
available  to  competent  authorities  and  stakeholders,  who  would  increase  their  awareness  of 

74        Belgian  and  Dutch  authorities,  for  example,  share  an  established  tradition  of  cross-border  cooperation  leading  to  a 
common understanding of each other's services' competences, working methods and needs. A common language is also 
reported  to  be  an  important  success  factor  of  cooperation  (Mineva,  D.,  Belgium-Netherlands  cooperation:  Port  of 
Antwerp case, 2018, UDW Platform).  

75        In  the  road  transport  sector,  it  is  estimated  that  the  fiscal  loss  per  vehicle  per  year  for  the  Member  State  where  the 
company should be established (where the haulier actually operates) is around €6,000. Labour-related losses per driver 
per  year  for  the  Member  State  where  the  drivers  should  be  paying  social  contributions  are  in  the  range  of  €30,000-
€40,000 and could yield an EU-wide annual loss of income for the Member States where the drivers should be paying 
social contributions in the range of €64.5-€86 million (IA to support proposal on Better access to the EU road haulage 
market (SWD(2017) 194 final). As an example, In March 2017, there was an investigation by the Belgian authorities 
into Belgian hauliers having established letterbox companies in Portugal and Slovakia. The Belgian authorities found 25 
letterbox companies registered in the same address in Slovakia. The estimated unpaid social contributions in Belgium 
amounted 
(http://www.dhnet.be/actu/belgique/perquisitions-transport-des-dizaines-d-entreprises-
belges-a-la-meme-adresse-en-slovaquie-58c98319cd705cd98df5f04c.) 

to  €6-€7  million 

35 

 
 
                                                            
existing instruments and measures applied in different national frameworks and restructuring 
cases as inspiration for developing national policies, although no further operational  support 
than is currently provided would be offered. 

Policy  Option  2  (operational  option)  would  significantly  reinforce  the  cooperation  and 
coordination tools available to public authorities, with possibly  more tangible effects on the 
capacity  to  address  social  fraud  and  manage  cross-border  situations.  National  authorities 
would benefit from a more centralised support for IT tools for information exchange and from 
more  comprehensive  oversight  and  recommendations  on  possible  synergies  and  follow-up 
actions to address problems. A more coordinated hands-on approach may also incentivise the 
further digitalisation of procedures. A more structured, integrated and operational intelligence 
capacity  would bring an added value to national enforcement authorities to the extent that it 
would  enable  to  compound  different  data  sources,  identify  recurrent  patterns  of  mobility  or 
possible fraud, and draw general lessons for the follow up, thus helping national authorities to 
target their cooperation and investigative action. EU-level support to joint investigations and 
inspections  would  both  facilitate  operations  thanks  to  a  progressive  streamlining  of 
procedures and  practically complement  national resources  on  more  resource-intensive tasks, 
including for example translation of relevant documents. The virtue of EU-support to cross-
border  investigative  activities  has  already  been  proven  in  the  existing  example  of  Eurojust, 
which  would  provide  a  useful  model.76  On  the  basis  of  common  activities,  mutual  learning 
and  technical  assistance  programmes  would  have  a  more  concrete  reference.  In  case  of 
dispute,  a  revamped  conciliation  mechanism,  which  can  relate  to  all  cross-border  labour 
mobility  areas  but  also  lead  to  recommendation  on  how  to  follow-up  would  contribute  to 
resolve cases more timely. Finally, national authorities would benefit from technical support 
in complying with relevant obligations in the provision of services and information to citizens 
and  businesses,  which  would  contribute  to  reducing  cases  of  duplication  of  requests  and 
addressing  gaps  in  specific  policy  domains,  for  instance  in  the  road  transport  sector.  In  the 
event  of  labour  disruptions  with  cross-border  implications,  authorities  –  but  also  the  social 
partners  -  may  have  the  option  of  requiring  assistance  to  the  EU  level  to  help  facilitating  a 
solution in order to mitigate the social consequences of restructuring processes, most notably 
through  the  coordination  of  the  involved  stakeholders  across  borders  and  support  to 
application for EU funding opportunities. 

Policy Option 3 (supervisory option) would provide for more stringent cooperation rules for 
national  authorities  with  possible  negative  impact  on  national  capacities,  especially  in 
Member States with administrative staff shortages. The creation of physical contact points for 
information  to  citizens  and  companies  would  require,  for example,  dedicated  infrastructures 
and  resources,  which  may  also  duplicate  existing  obligations  in  other  fields.  Mandatory 

76    In the context of Eurojust, joint inspection teams (JIT) jumped from 5 in 2003 to 69 in 2016. The number of coordination 
meeting increased from 20 in 2002 to 197 in 2014. The number of coordination centres has increased steady since their 
creation  in  2011,  with  seven  set  up  in  2012  and  2013  and  ten  set  up  in  2014.  Eurojust,  Evaluation  of  the  Eurojust 
Council Decision and the activities carried out by Eurojust, Final report, 2015. 

36 

 
 
                                                            
information  exchange  requirements,  in  addition  to  those  agreed,  for  example,  in  the  IMI 
system,  may  place  an  excessive  burden  on  Member  States,  also  in  relation  to  the 
administrative  capacities  of  a  Member  State.  Likewise,  the  possibility  for  the  EU  level  to 
request joint inspections and send a dedicated EU team on the ground for support may create 
excessive burden on Member States, and staff resources may not be sufficient to comply with 
multiple requests. Strengthening capacity building through a binding code for inspections may 
have  the  advantage  of  harmonising  information  exchange  and  inspection  procedures. 
However,  it  may  set  an  excessive  constraint  on  national  competent  authorities  in  respecting 
different procedures than their own national ones, thus also reducing their degree of freedom 
in line with national legislation and practices. EU-level recommendations, albeit non-binding, 
on the management of cross-border labour disruption cases would risk going beyond the EU's 
role  in  such  instances,  interfering  with  the  prerogatives  of  national  authorities  and  of  the 
social partners.   

6.5.2.2  

Impacts on employers 

This section analyses the impact of the considered options on employers. As in section 6.5.1 
impacts  are  direct  as  regards  to  the  information  and  the  restructuring  tasks,  whereas  on  the 
remaining  tasks  impacts  can  be  assumed  to  be  mostly  indirect,  as  a  consequence  of  more 
effective rule enforcement and transparency.  

In the baseline scenario, employers would continue to rely on existing tools – however more 
accessible  thanks  to  the  SDG  –  to  retrieve  information  on  working  conditions,  fiscal  and 
social security when establishing or posting workers in another Member States. To the extent 
that this information is not transparently provided, also as a consequence of varying quality of 
national  sources,  or  is  sparse  across  different  portals,  companies  –  especially  SME's  –  will 
continue having difficulties in accessing crucial information and guidance. Tools such as IMI 
and  EESSI  will  lead  to  improvements  in  administrative  efficiency  as  regards  to  the 
verification, for example, of contested information on the social security position of a posted 
worker  or  of  a  company.  However,  improvements  are  not  foreseen  in  terms  of  fastening 
delayed  replies  in  the  social  security  coordination  area,  with  consequences  on  the  possible 
persistence  of  inefficiencies.  The  limited  scope  of  cross-country  cooperation  on  intelligence 
and  cross-border  inspections  will  have  an  effect  on  the  persistence  of  fraudulent  forms  of 
competition,  negatively  affecting  the  playing  field,  especially  for  cost-sensitive  SME's.  The 
weakness  of  conciliation  procedures  in  case  of  disputes  between  Member  States  would 
continue to discourage this settlement mode, in favour of non-action or unilateral action, with 
consequence on the uncertainty for the involved company. In restructuring cases, employers 
will  continue  to  rely  on  dedicated  EU  resources  to  buffer  the  social  costs  of  retraining  and 
job-search of redundant workers, while soft guidance is provided on a fair management and 
anticipation of restructuring processes. 

Policy Option 1 (support role) would limitedly improve the information basis for business to 
the  extent  that  the  Your  Europe  Portal  –  in  coordination  with  other  EU  networks  -  would 

37 

 
 
promote  the  tailoring  of  information  provided  by  national  and  EU  sources  to  companies’ 
needs. As today, a SME seeking to understand, for example, the administrative requirements 
for  posting  in  another  Member  State  would  turn  to  the  Your  Europe  Portal,  which  would 
collect links to national posting websites while monitoring the accuracy of information from a 
business  standpoint,  also  through  feedbacks  from  SOLVIT  or  the  SME  feedback  device. 
Companies  would  benefit  from  partial  improvements  on  rule  enforcement  deriving  from  a 
relatively stronger EU role in the coordination of cross-border inspections and wider mutual 
learning  programmes  to  strengthen national  administrative  capacities, including  those  in  the 
road  transport  sector.  While  the  EU-level’s  role  would  still  be  limited,  some  improvements 
may be observable for companies in terms of better efficiency of administrations to deal with 
problematic  cross-border  cases  and  to  exert  a  deterrence  effect  on  fraudulent  companies. 
Companies  will  need  to  turn  to  national  courts  for  possible  disputes  with  national 
administrations. However, the possibility for one Member State to request a third-party expert 
opinion in  case  of  administrative  dispute  may  incentivise  the  use  of a EU-level  conciliation 
mechanism,  with  benefits  for  companies  involved  in  such  disputes  in  terms  of  certainty  of 
results.  Companies  would    get  increased  guidance  on  how  to  deal  with  major  labour 
disruptions  drawing  on  the  Quality  Framework  for  Restructuring  and  on  available  EU 
financial tools, without additional EU level operational intervention. 

Policy Option 2 (operational role) would improve the quality and targeting of information 
for companies through wider EU-level technical support to national administrations in order 
to promote more uniform information standards across the Member States. Companies would 
gain  the  advantage  of  accessing  to  similar  information  standards  for  example  when  posting 
workers to different countries in Europe. For SME’s, the development potential of the EURES 
Portal  services  would  also  provide  better  recruitment  opportunities77.  Wider  information 
exchange  between  administrations,  as  well  as  more  thorough  mutual  learning  and  technical 
assistance  programmes  would  increase  national  administrative  capacities  and  make  them 
more effective to deal with cross-border cases involving companies. Particularly in the road 
transport  sector,  the  training  of  enforcement  authorities,  coupled  with  a  stronger  EU 
framework for coordinated cross-border inspections would allow smoother control processes 
and more guarantees of fight against unfair competition practices.78 A more efficient toolkit 
for national administrations to detect and offset fraudulent competitors would be a particular 
gain for companies, especially SME’s, with the development of a coordinated and logistical 
support structure to joint inspections. In addition, EU-level support may cater for translation 
of  documents  or  assist  host  state  administrations  in  processing  documents,  thus  yielding 
possible  reductions  in  the  administrative  burden  for  companies  undergoing  checks  and 
controls.  Faster  solutions  of  inter-state  disputes  would  reduce  the  uncertainty  period  of 
involved  companies,  including  in  restructuring  cases.    While  companies  would  still  need  to 

77   Almost 90% of registered companies with EURES are SMEs according to employers' registration profile in the EURES 
Job Portal in the beginning of January 2018. The highest individual share have micro companies (38 %), followed by 
small (31%) and medium ones (19%). [EURES Portal information]. 
78    Eurofound, Fraudulent contracting of Work: Road Haulage Sector, 2017. 

38 

 
 
                                                            
turn to national courts for possible disputes with administrations, the conciliation route may 
become  more effective and quicker  in case of disputes  between  administrations. Companies 
with contested PD A1 documents, for example, may benefit from possibly shorter periods of 
uncertainty  while  two  administrations  verify  the  necessary  documents.  EU  support  in  the 
facilitation  of  cross-border  labour  disruption  events  would  have  a  direct  impact  on  larger 
companies, i.e. those having a cross-border business organisation. However, SME's may also 
indirectly benefit from EU facilitation insofar as smaller sub-contractors of affected territories 
may  receive  information  about  possible  EU  assistance  and  participate  in  multi-stakeholder 
collaboration facilitated at EU level. 

Policy  Option  3  (supervisory  role)  would  entail  that  information  and  service  standards  be 
mandatory for Member States to respect, thus ensuring that companies receive the same actual 
quality of information for their cross-border activities; physical national contact points would 
also provide an additional point of reference for employers in need for concrete assistance in 
mobility  situations.  Companies  would  also  benefit  from  stricter  rule  enforcement  through 
deeper administrative integration in data exchange, EU-led cross-border inspections mandated 
by  evidence-based  indications  on  suspicious  flows  and  a  based  on  common  procedures. 
However,  the  specific  arrangements  would  need  to  be  tailored  in  order  to  avoid  excessive 
information requests and to pursue the objective of quick decisions. The consequent increase 
in  the  deterrence  effect  vis-à-vis  fraudulent  companies  would  contribute  to  lower  levels  of 
social fraud and a more level playing field. Finally, out-of-court settlement possibilities may 
increase  the  possibilities  for  administrations  to  settle  disputes  between  each  other,  although 
individual employers would continue, as in the previous options to rely on instruments such 
SOLVIT or adhere to courts in order to settle disputes with national administrations. Finally, 
EU-level recommendations on the management of cross-border restructuring events may risk 
excessively  interfering  on  the  decisions  of  companies,  although  affected  companies,  for 
example  SME's  in  the  subcontracting  chain  of  larger  companies,  may  benefit  from  the 
mitigating effect of wider EU intervention also supporting their recovery. 

6.5.3   Legal impacts  

Annex  11  provides  a  detailed  presentation  of  the  legal  changes  which  the  different  options 
would  provide.  Current  on-going  initiatives  before  the  co-legislators  related  to  the  final 
adoption of the revision of the Posting of Workers Directive and of the Regulation on Social 
Security  Coordination,  the  Regulation  on  the  Single  Digital  Gateway  and  legal  acts  in  road 
transport sector would cater for changes already in the baseline scenario.  

Overall,  Policy  Option  1  would  entail  limited  and  targeted  changes  to  the  legal  acts 
establishing and regulating different bodies and tools in order to redefine EU's role in relation 
to  these.  Policy  Option  2  would  imply  more  extensive  revisions  for  example,  to  the  Social 

39 

 
 
 
 
Security Coordination and EURES  Regulations.  Policy  Option 3 would bring the most far-
reaching changes including with a view to ensuring that there is sufficient legal basis for the 
code for labour inspections enshrined in the founding act of the new Authority, which implies 
a certain level of harmonisation of national rules and procedures.  

6.5.4   Budgetary impacts  

The  impacts  on  EU  budget  have  been  made  starting  from  existing  activities  currently 
managed by the Commission and whose precise cost is known. The sources for redeployment 
would  be  prerogatives  (2.6  MEUR)  and  EaSI  (16.5  MEUR).  In  order  to  calculate  the 
additional costs from one option to another, two methodologies have been pursued, depending 
on the availability of data. First, some benchmarking exercise has been undertaken with other 
similar  activities  currently  existing  and  implemented  by  other  agencies.  As  an  example,  the 
cost  of  the  joint  inspections  has  been  compared  to  both  EUROJUST  and  FRONTEX  joint 
inspections,  taking  into  consideration  common  features  and  adjusting  to  respective 
specificities. Second, when no data were available for comparison with existing activity, the 
credits have been adjusted comparing the relative scope from one option to another.  

The  table  below  shows  the  results  of  this  analysis  at  cruising  speed.  The  experience  drawn 
from the creation of other agencies shows that a five-year phasing in period is necessary for a 
body  to  become  fully  autonomous  and  operational.  Inspiration  was  taken  from  brand  new 
agencies (EASO (2010-2014 or five years), eu-LISA (2011-2015 or five years), EBA (2011-
2014 or five years)) or major amendments in agencies' mandates (FRONTEX, EASO (2017-
2020 or 4 years)). Hence, cruising speed is expected to be reached in 2023, after a phasing in 
pattern 10% - 20% - 60% - 80% 100%  from 2019 on. More details are provided in Annex 4. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
Table  2:  Operational  expenditures  related  to  tasks  assessed  to  be  borne  by  the  EU 
budget 

Delivering the identified tasks would entail some budgetary impacts, the most significant of 
which  being  under  Policy  Option  3  both  for  the  EU  and  for  national  budgets.  This  would 
mostly  be  due  to  additional requirements  imposed  on  national  authorities  and  for  new  tasks 
and services to be provided by the new body.  

Policy  Option  2  will  mainly  influence  the  EU  budget  with  minimum  requirements  for 
national  authorities.  For  example,  as  regards  joint  inspections  it  is  assumed  that  Member 
States  would  be  able  to  cover  the  related  costs  by  retrieving  unpaid  taxes  or  contributions. 
Efforts to be made by national authorities to comply with the existing obligations (e.g. for the 
timely exchange of information or data collection) are not considered as an additional burden.  

The difference between Option 2 and Option 3 is explained by the more ambitious scope of 
Option  3  in  general  and  in  particular  by  two  new  elements  which  generate  significant 
additional costs:  

1.  the  creation  of  a  European  Inspection  Corps  assessed  at  ca.  3,3  MEUR  having 

FRONTEX as a benchmark under Task No. 3  

2.  the  establishment  of  a  network  of  single  physical  national  contact  points  on  labour 
mobility, for which financial support to IT costs was assessed at ca. 300.000 EUR per 
Member State, or ca. 8 MEUR under Task No. 1  

41 

 
 
 
 
Policy  Option  1  will  mainly  influence  the  EU  budget,  while  the  impacts  on  national 
authorities  would  be  limited  to  carrying  out  joint  inspections.  It  has  to  be  noted  that  the 
additional  budget  needed  on  Option  2  compared  to  Option  1  (750.000  EUR)  is  marginal  in 
comparison with the effectiveness, efficiency and coherence gained under Option 2.  

6.5.5   Impacts on fundamental rights 

The  processing  of  personal  data  is  implied  in  the  tasks  relating  to  information  exchange, 
cooperation  between  inspectorates,  and  risk  assessment  functions.  An  adequate  protection 
standard  of  personal  data  is  guaranteed  across  all  options  through  the  setting  of  safeguards, 
such as limits to data exchange across borders on social security holder and/or by companies 
carrying out activities across borders. 

The  General  Data  Protection  Regulation  and  Regulation  (EC)  45/200179  would  apply  to  all 
tasks  provided  for  by  the  legislation  setting  up  the  Authority  during  which  personal  data 
would be processed by Member States and by EU institutions; bodies and agencies involved. 
In compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation, any processing of personal data 
would  be  limited  to  what  is  necessary  and  proportionate.  Data  would  be  collected  for 
specified,  explicit  and  legitimate  purposes  and  not  further  processed  in  a  manner  that  is 
incompatible with those purposes. 

All  three  options  would  build  on  EU  and  national  data  protection  legislation  without  going 
beyond the limits set thereby80, Under Policy Option 1 the Authority's systemising of data and 
sharing with Member States and the Commission (Tasks 1 and 3) as well as data originating 
from Member States' joint inspections the Authority supports (Task 4) shall be processed in 
compliance  with  EU  and  national  protection  laws  of  natural  persons  and  of  commercial 
interests.  Under  Options  2  and  3,  the  collection  of  micro-data  at  the  individual  level  of 
companies and/or workers necessary for performing a detailed risk assessment (Task 3) in the 
domain  of  posting  of  workers  shall  be  carried  out  in  compliance  with  EU  and  national 
protection laws of natural persons and of commercial interests. The same shall apply to data 
originating  from  Member  States'  joint  inspections  the  Authority  coordinates  (Task  4).  The 
operational measures to that effect shall be established after consultation of the European Data 
Protection Supervisor. 

6.6.   Comparison of the different Policy Options 

The comparison of three policy options is done against the core criteria of: 

79    Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of 
individuals  with  regard  to  the  processing  of  personal  data  by  the  Community  institutions  and  bodies  and  on  the  free 
movement of such data. 

80   To include compliance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 
on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such 
data  for  which  the  transposition  period  ends  25  May  2018  -  two  Member  States  have  currently  adopted  the  national 
legislation. A new EU Regulation for the EU Institutions and bodies to comply is in legislative procedure.    

42 

 
 
                                                            
  effectiveness, i.e. meeting three specific objectives of the initiative (section 4.2),  
  efficiency,  the  extent  to  which  objectives  can  be  achieved  for  a  given  cost  (cost-

effectiveness),81  

  coherence:  the  coherence  and  contribution  in  meeting  Union’s  objectives  and 
implementing  relevant  policy  policy  initiatives  notably  in  the  area  of  single  market, 
justice and fundamental rights, transport; migration and home affairs and in the area of 
employment and social policy. 

The key results are presented in table 3, which includes also summary of benefits and costs 
(economic/social impacts) presented in the impact sections.  

Table 3: Comparison of Policy Options 

Policy Option 1 

Policy Option 2 

Policy Option 3 

(Support) 

(Operational) 

(Supervisory) 

Effectiveness (meeting objectives)  

Improved transparency and access to 

information 

Improved operational cooperation  

Mediation in cross-border disputes 

Efficiency 

Coherence [including fundamental 

rights] 

0/+ 

0/+ 

0/+ 

0/+ 

0/+ 

+ 

++ 

++  

++  

++  

++ 

++ 

+++ 

+++ 

++/+++ 

+++ 

-- 

++ 

Notes: For the purpose of comparing the impacts of options with the baseline scenario, all criteria have equal 
weight  and  a  seven-stage  qualitative  grading  scale  is  used:  significant  positive  impact/gains  (+++),  medium 
(++),  small (+), No impact (0), small negative impact/cost (-), medium (--), significant (---).. 

For reasons of internal coherence and effectiveness, options are assessed in blocks. Elements 
of  single  tasks  are  related  to  one  another  depending  on  the  different  degrees  of  ambition. 
Singling out different elements of each task would unbalance and therefore reduce the overall 
coherence of the option and the effectiveness of the overall impact. 

Policy  Option  2  is  the  preferred  one.  It  achieves  the  best  balance  in  meeting  objectives, 
ensuring benefits (positive impacts) for national authorities, workers and businesses without 
significantly  increasing  costs  and  has  strong  support  of  stakeholders.  With  respect  to  the 
baseline scenario, delivering the envisaged tasks obviously entails additional costs. However, 
these  tasks  appropriately  balance  the  increased  costs  with  material  benefits  in  terms  of 
cooperation,  information  and  mediation,  thus  remaining  proportionate  to  achieve  the 
objectives.  The  coordination  of  the  EURES  network  and  the  technical  support  provided  to 
Member  States  to  fulfil  their  legal  obligation  on  information  provisions  remain  in  line  with 
existing legislation while providing added value to improve the completeness and quality of 

81 The underlying assumption is that the budgetary impacts of governance aspects have same impact across policy options.   

43 

 
 
 
                                                            
information to citizens and business. Cooperation is achieved through an integrated approach 
across  different  mobility  areas  in  the  direct  management  of  EU  tools  for  administrative 
information  exchange,  logistical  support  and  coordination  on  joint  cross-border  inspections, 
and  strategic  design  of  mutual  learning  programmes  for  capacity  building.  The  EU  role  in 
mediation is provided in a more extensive way across all mobility areas yet without going past 
current  practices.  In  the  event  of  company  restructuring  with  cross-border  implications,  the 
EU  can  assume  an  active  facilitating  role,  if  national  authorities  so  request,  yet  without 
interfering  with  national  and  companies'  decisions.  As  opposed  to  Option  3,  Option  2 
combines  expected  effectiveness  (which  is  lower  in  Option  1  but  in  principle  greater  under 
Option 3) with a proportionate approach, especially in terms of costs (which would double in 
Option 3), while also respecting subsidiarity concerns with respect to national competences, 
especially in the inspection and conciliation tasks.  

Indeed,  Option  3  goes  in  several  aspects  beyond  what  is  needed  in  the  current  context, 
especially in activities related to joint inspections and labour mobility services for individuals 
and  businesses.  Also,  the  possibility  to  launch  inspections  on  the  Authority's  own  initiative 
would  limit  the  scope  for  national  decision.  While  the  idea  of  European  Inspection  Corps 
could be an useful enhancement of national inspection capacity, it seems disproportionate to 
establish such system compared to the size problem identified in the framework of this report. 
Similarly, the establishment of single physical national contact points or mandatory standards 
and requirements regarding provision of service would give less scope for national decisions 
and would be more disruptive to existing well-established arrangments. Conversely, Option 2 
leaves  sufficient  scope  for  national  decision  and  respects  well-established  national 
arrangements.  This  is  ensured  by  providing  operational  support  and  framework  for  joint-
activities, but leaving to the discretion of Member States of how and when act.  

Policy  Option  1  does  not  contribute  sufficiently  to  overcome  the  identified  problems.  Its 
constituent  elements  cater  only  for  limited  improvements  across  the  different  tasks  with 
respect to existing actions and programmes, on which it heavily builds. While this option may 
be quicker to implement because of the fundamental continuity with the baseline scenario, its 
tasks  add  little  value 
to 
citizens/employers.  Operational  cooperation  remains  limited  to  the  scope  of  the  UDW 
Platform for capacity building and joint inspections, while completedness of information and 
services across all mobility areas cannot be fully ensured by the EURES network. Finally, the 
dispute-mediation role is not adequately fulfilled by experts’ opinions, with a low impact on 
administrative effectiveness and rule enforcement for citizens and companies.   

to  support  cooperation  on  enforcement  and 

information 

7.    DELIVERY OPTIONS AND THEIR IMPACTS  

This section examines different delivery options for the tasks identified in the preferred option 
of section 6. They are fully compliant with EU competences and take into account the current 
role of EU bodies in the labour mobility and social security domains (see box 1 under 2.2.6), 

44 

 
 
while  presenting  possible  changes.  The  considered  options  also  comply  with  the  non-
delegation doctrine82 and the EU Common Approach to decentralised agencies83. 

These  options  respond  to  the  problem  identified  in  section  2.2.6,  namely  that  operational 
support at EU level is insufficient to ensure effective cooperation between Member States and 
provide information on labour mobility in cross-border situations.   

7.1  

Delivery options  

7.1.1   Baseline scenario 

Under the baseline scenario, no new action is taken at EU level to address the shortcomings in 
the EU operational capacity in supporting Member States to enforce mobility rules. The UDW 
Platform represents the only body entrusted with some potential to facilitate joint inspections 
across borders and to offer some capacity building to national administrations. However, its 
legal mandate does not provide for a specific coordination role, and its scope remains limited 
to  undeclared  work  issues  (thus  excluding,  for  instance,  operations  on  most  areas  of  social 
security fraud).  Labour mobility analysis is coordinated by the Commission, with statistical 
and  administrative  data  being  treated  separately  across  different  labour  mobility  bodies 
depending  on  their  mandate.  For  example,  the  AC  manages  the  analysis  of  data  concerning 
social  security  coordination  including  in  connection  to  posting,  as  well  as  data  on  social 
security  fraud  and  error,  while  cross-border  challenges  related  to  undeclared  work  are 
examined  in  the  framework  of  the  UDW  Platform.  Labour  shortages  and  surpluses 
information,  with  a  potential  for  cross-border  matching,  are  entrusted  to  the  EURES 
coordination  group,  on  the  basis  of  PES  administrative  data  collected  separately  from  the 
other  labour  mobility  data.  The  conciliation  function  is  exclusively  carried  out  by  the 
Conciliation Board within the AC and limited to some aspects of social security coordination. 
No comparable forum exists in the other mobility areas.   

7.1.2   Delivery Option 1: a European Network is established coordinating existing EU 

labour mobility bodies and the Commission takes on new operational tasks 

Under Delivery Option 1, the Commission ensures policy coordination across different labour 
mobility  domains  by  establishing  an  EU  Network,  composed  of  representatives  from  the 
existing EU bodies in  the area of labour mobility and social  security coordination. This  EU 
Network is managed by the Commission. No new dedicated body is created and the existing 
EU bodies remain unchanged.  

82 Case C-9/56, Meroni & Co v High Authority (13.06.1958). 
83 Joint Statement of the European Parliament, the Council of the EU and the Commission on decentralised agencies, 19 July 

2012 (Common Approach is of a political character, not a legally binding character).  

45 

 
 
 
                                                            
The  Network  meets  periodically  so  that  representatives  of the  existing  EU  bodies  can  share 
information  on  each  other's  work  agenda,  discuss  mobility  aspects  of  common  interest, 
coordinate policy strategies and work plan and, possibly, undertake common initiatives across 
two  or  more  committees.  In  this  scenario,  the  Commission  assumes  a  stronger  coordinating 
and  supporting  role  than  is  the  case  today  by  providing  the  Network's  secretariat.  The 
Commission puts forward proposals of common work between the bodies, sets the agenda of 
the Network's meetings and ensures follow-up of the Network's decisions downstream in the 
committees  which  it  chairs.  The  existing  bodies  pursue  existing  activities  and  meetings  and 
seek to operationalise decisions taken by the EU network under their own scope of action.  

In  addition  to  supporting  this  newly  created  Network,  the  Commission  takes  on  new 
operational tasks as described in the preferred policy option 2 (section 6.3) to complement the 
work of existing EU bodies.  

7.1.3   Delivery Option 2: a new European Labour Authority is established performing 

operational tasks, building on existing labour mobility bodies 

Under  delivery  option  2,  a  European  Labour  Authority  (ELA)  is  established  as  a  new  EU 
agency,  following  the  Common  Approach  on  EU  decentralised  agencies84.  It  enjoys 
independent  legal  status  and  is  managed  by  an  Executive  Director  appointed  and  a 
Management  Board  comprising  representatives  from  each  Member  State  and  two  from  the 
Commission, all with voting rights.  

The Authority is not tripartite. This is justified by material and legal considerations. Its focus 
will  be  to  support  applying  the  Union  law  based  on  Internal  Market  legal  basis  (free 
movement  of  workers,  posting,  and  social  security  coordination).  The  tasks  are  operational 
and relate to support cooperation between competent authorities in cross-border matters and 
to improve access to information and services to the public. It thus will not directly address 
aspects such as improvement of working environment or working conditions.  The structure is 
aligned with the suggested Common approach on agencies too. 

Compared to the previous option, in this case ELA performs technical/operational tasks that 
are  currently  not  in  the  mandate  of  existing  labour  mobility  bodies  or  poorly  delivered  and 
further  develops  them  within  a  permanent  structure  for  cooperation.  Concretely,  ELA 
becomes  the  organisation  mandated  to  execute  the  tasks  listed  in  the  preferred  option  2.  In 
line  with  the  non-delegation  doctrine85,  only  technical/operational  tasks are  attributed  to  the 
Authority. All binding decisions remain with the Commission and the Member States, and are 
addressed in the context of existing committees and networks, as is the case today.  

84 Council general approach, December 2016 (new founding regulation Eurofound confirms a tripartite management structure 

deviating from the EU Common Approach.    

46 

 
 
 
                                                            
 
ELA introduces relevant changes to the current landscape of EU bodies in the area of labour 
mobility  and  social  security  coordination  (see  box  1  under  2.2.6)  by  taking  over  seven 
existing functions/bodies, namely:  (i) the EURES European Coordination Office, in order to 
deliver the task of coordinating information,  guidance and assistance  services to individuals 
and  businesses  facilitating  the  exercise  of  the  right  to  work  in  another  EU  country;  (ii)  the 
Conciliation Board from the AC, with a view on extending its scope beyond social security 
coordination matters to all labour mobility areas, as well as the (iii) Audit Board and the (iv) 
Technical Commission of the AC, due to their operational nature; (v) the European Platform 
to  tackle  Undeclared  Work  with  a  view  to  streamlining  operational  activities,  notably  on 
capacity-building, analysis and joint inspections; (vi) the Expert committee on the Posting of 
Workers;  and  (vii)  the  Technical  Committee  on  the  Free  Movement  of  Workers,  on  the 
grounds  of  their  technical  nature  (exchange  of  information  between  public  authorities).  The 
tasks currently performed by these bodies would be carried out by the Authority.  

In  addition,  a  Stakeholder  Group  with  advisory  functions  is  created  within  the  Authority 
which  convenes  representatives  of  the  social  partners  with  the  objective  to  submit  opinions 
and advices on all the issues of competence of the Authority.  

In  addition,  ELA  would  develop  cooperation  with  the  three  remaining  committees  in  the 
labour mobility and social security coordination field, which have a more policy steering role, 
namely  the  Administrative  Commission  and  its  Advisory  Committee,  and  the  Advisory 
Committee  on  the  Free  Movement  of  Workers.  These  remain  and  will  not  change  with  the 
creation  of  ELA.  ELA  liaises  with  them  as  with  other  decentralised  agencies  (in  the 
employment  field,  as  well  as  with  others  such  as  Europol)  as  necessary  to  ensure 
complementary of work. Likewise, the comitology Committee on Road Transport would not 
be affected, as it has no operational or technical competences that could be taken over, shared 
or duplicated by ELA.  

7.1.4   Delivery Option 3: a new European Labour Authority is established building on 

an existing EU Agency in the area of employment 

Under delivery option 3, a European Labour Authority is established through a merger with 
one  of  the  existing  EU  agencies  in  the  field  of  employment.  Agencies  to  be  considered  for 
such a merger are Eurofound, Cedefop and EU-OSHA. The ETF, because of its third-country 
focus, is not deemed as a suitable basis for ELA’s tasks and objectives. 

The  "host"  agency  changes  its  mandate  to  incorporate  the  new  operational  tasks  of  the 
European Labour Authority (as outlined in  the preferred policy option 2, section 6.3), while 
continuing to deliver on its existing tasks.  

The  mandate  of  the  European  Labour  Authority  remains  as  presented  in  delivery  option  2 
(section 7.1.3).  

47 

 
 
 
 
Stakeholders' views on the possible organization of a European Labour Authority 

The  input  to  the  stakeholders'  consultation  did  not  present  any  concrete  option  on  the 
organization  of  ELA.  Therefore,  the  replies  do  not  directly  address  the  above-mentioned 
options. However, they provide important indications (see Annex 2 for more details). 

Overall,  stakeholders  tend  to  agree  on  the  fact  that  no  organisational  structure  can  be 
determined if the scope and objectives of the Authority are not clearly defined as this would 
risk resulting in increased administrative complexity. Moreover, there is a general consensus 
on the fact that the new Authority should have a role in stimulating exchange of information 
and  operational  cross-border  action  through  coordinating  the  work  of  Member  State  bodies 
and  existing  EU-level  bodies  or  mechanisms  dealing  with  cross-border  mobility.  Some 
stakeholders proposed a strong governance structure for the ELA to the extent that is possible 
in  respect  of  the  principle  of  subsidiarity  (ECPW:  ES,  FR,  IT,  RO  members;  ETUC;  civil 
society  organisations).  For  instance,  the  ECPW  and  ETUC  argued  that  representatives  from 
the competent Member State authorities as well as social partners should hold key positions in 
the governance of the ELA.  

Many  stakeholders  suggested  the  need  to  improve  the  coordination  of  existing  EU  labour 
mobility bodies and of national authorities at the same time. It was stressed that overlaps and 
duplication of effort should be avoided. The overall EMCO position was that the ELA should 
build  on  existing  bodies  and  tools  so  that  no  additional  reporting  requirements  or  costs  are 
passed on to the Member States, with the Finnish member adding that the ELA could exist as 
a  supporting  network  and  not  a  physical  agency.  EPSCO  and  the  PES  Network  shared  the 
view that, absent clarification of ELA's concrete tasks, ELA could be envisaged as a network 
focused on solving concrete problems. Oher stakeholders argued that the ELA should have a 
supportive  rather  than  an  authoritative  role  so  as  to  safeguard  the  competencies  of  Member 
State  authorities  (UDW;  SLIC;  ECPW:  LV,  PL,  PT,  SE  members;  MISSOC  CZ  and  LV 
members; FMW SE member; PEARLE; REIF, Nordic-Baltic-Polish EU Information Group). 

Finally, a number of stakeholders supported stronger cooperation between existing EU bodies 
to address cross-border challenges without increasing their capacity or changing the way they 
are  governed.  Respect of  subsidiarity  is  key to  this  position,  with  a  considerable  number  of 
EMCO members (CZ, HU, IT, LU, NL, SE) emphasising the need not to transfer regulatory 
or legal competencies away from Member State authorities and to first assess the performance 
and objectives of current EU instruments. Similarly, many members within the AC (BE, CZ, 
DE, HU, LT, LV, NL, PL) and the PES Network (BE, CZ, DE, FI, HR, IE, SE, UK) argued 
against the risks of complexity and duplication. Synergies between existing organisations and 
national  labour  inspectorates  could  be  enhanced,  in  their  opinion,  without  establishing  a 
dedicated body. The same view was shared by Business Europe, the Estonian ECPW member 
and the Czech MISSOC member.  

48 

 
 
7.2  

Impacts of different delivery options 

This  section  analyses  the  impacts  of  the  delivery  options  from  the  point  of  view  of  the 
effectiveness  in  delivering  the  six  tasks  as  defined  in  the  preferred  policy  option  2  (section 
6.3). It also assesses their legal and budgetary impacts.  

7.2.1.   Effectiveness  

An assessment on effectiveness examines the extent to which the different options address the 
problem of the insufficient EU operational capacity (section 2.4.6), support the delivery of the 
tasks envisaged for a European Labour Authority as set out in policy option 2 (section 6.3), 
and ultimately contribute to meeting the stated objectives of such an authority (section 4). 

In the baseline scenario, where no new action is taken to strengthen EU operational capacity 
in the field of labour mobility, the current mandates and resources of the EU bodies and the 
Commission  do  not  create  the  conditions  to  appropriately  deliver  on  the  envisaged  tasks. 
Improvements  on exploiting  synergies  between different  labour  mobility  and  social security 
areas can only be delivered through the competent EU bodies, albeit limited to their area of 
specific competence. Existing Commission’s human and material resources are in themselves 
not  sufficient  to  support  the  new  operational  tasks  defined under  the  preferred  option  2,  for 
example on joint inspections and capacity-building on a wide scale. Today the Commission 
coordinates or directly delivers regular reports and provides data analysis on various aspects 
of  labour  mobility,  also  in  cooperation  with  Eurofound,  the  AC  and  the  UDW  Platform  in 
their respective domains of competence. However, it would require additional resources and a 
clear research re-orientation to provide more integrated and in-depth assessments of specific 
enforcement measures  or  reports feeding  into  possible joint inspections or  capacity-building 
programmes all across the mobility spectrum. Finally, it is not possible to deliver wider and 
more  effective  conciliation  mechanisms  under  the  current  framework,  which  would  remain 
limited to the social security coordination area and its AC.   

Delivery  Option  1  (a  European  Network  coordinating  existing  EU  labour  mobility 
bodies  is  established  and  the  Commission  takes  on  new  operational  tasks)  would  yield 
some improvements in delivering the tasks in a coordinated way. On one side, the set-up of a 
Network  to  coordinate  across  different  bodies  would  improve  policy  cooperation  on  cross-
cutting issues, for example between the UDW Platform and the AC on letterbox companies, 
thus promoting an integrated approach to rule enforcement and a strategic steer to operational 
tasks. However, this option would bear two considerable disadvantages. First, it would create 
an additional layer of EU-level governance without significantly augmenting the operational 
capacity at national level. The EU Network would promote a common agenda, but the various 
bodies  would  still  have  different  competences  to  concretely  deliver.  The  most  significant 
example  is  that  of  conciliation,  whereby  administrative  disputes  would  remain  solvable 
exclusively in the social security coordination area. Second, the Commission would assume a 
wider range of tasks, including feeding in the coordination of the EU Network and carrying 

49 

 
 
out operational tasks on its own, such as supporting inspections. Additional staff would need 
to be recruited. While the Commission's role would be suitably deployed in providing policy 
steer to the EU Network, the Commission would not be best placed to carry out operational 
tasks as those require specialised staff, proximity on the ground, and national powers. To sum 
up,  while  this  option  would  help  addressing  policy  coordination  issues  with  an  integrated 
policy  steer,  both  the  different  competences  of  EU  bodies  and  the  ill  placement  of  the 
Commission to carry out operational actions on the ground would reduce the effectiveness of 
delivering on the envisaged tasks.  

Delivery Option 2 (creation of new European Labour Authority building on EU labour 
mobility  bodies)  would  clearly  assign  a  new  operational  role  to  the  Authority  in  order  to 
complement and, in many instances replace existing EU-level bodies, which are currently ill-
equipped  for  the  tasks  required.  By  incorporating  those  bodies  with  technical  and/or 
operational  functions86,  the  Authority  would  promote  a  strong  streamlining  of  the  existing 
institutional  landscape  and  taking  up  their  functions  to  carry  them  out  in  a  more  integrated 
way.  The  Authority  would  improve  the  current  provision  of  labour  mobility  analysis,  by 
pooling  relevant  sources,  with  the  advantages  to  eliminate  possible  duplications,  to  develop 
further  the  EU-level  intelligence  capacities  and  to  creating  synergies  with  other  more 
operational tasks. The Authority would have a more solid starting position for supporting joint 
inspections thanks to specialised and dedicated staff, building on and reinforcing the current 
mandate and operational resources of the UDW Platform, which would be absorbed into the 
Authority.  Finally,  the  presence  of  National  Liaison  Officers  would  constitute  an  important 
coordination  mechanism  in  facilitating  bilateral  or  multilateral  information  exchanges 
requiring  the  involvement  of  a  plurality  of  competent  authorities  –  e.g.  labour  inspectors, 
social security institutions - in the Member States concerned. 

By  way  of  example,  the  phenomenon  of  letterbox  companies  would  be  addressed  in  one 
forum in an integrated manner, rather than by the UDW Platform, the ECPW and possibly by 
the AC under different angles.  Upon prior  decision by the Management Board to  undertake 
work  on  letterbox  companies  as  a  priority,  for  example,  the  Authority  may  deploy  its 
analytical capacity to examine various policy challenges and possible responses in the fields 
of labour law and social security; examine the information exchange tools in order to assess 
their  adequacy  to  provide  relevant  information;  provide  targeted  training  to  national 
competent authorities on how to detect and to address fraudulent cases, and, upon request by 
Member States, coordinate concerted or joint inspections on concrete cases also on the basis 
of the collected expertise.  

86    See section 7.1.3 - Namely, the EURES European Coordination Office, the UDW Platform, the Conciliation 
and  Audit  Boards  as  well  as  the  Technical  Commission  of  the  AC,  the  Technical  Committee  on  the  Free 
Movement of Workers and the Expert Committee on the Posting of Workers. 

50 

 
 
                                                            
In  the  case  of  the  AC,  the  absorption  of  the  Conciliation  Board  would  allow  to  extend  the 
conciliation  function  to  other  mobility  areas  on  a  permanent  basis,  thus  also  extending  the 
range of expertise needed for opinions and fastening the procedures. The AC Audit Board and 
Technical  Commission  would  be  absorbed  on  the  grounds  of  the  technical  nature  of  their 
tasks,  respectively  in  overviewing  and  facilitating  cross-border  payments  settlement  of 
reimbursement claims  between social  security institutions, for example  related to  the use  of 
the European Health Insurance Card, and in providing a forum to discuss technical aspects of 
the IT tools used in social security coordination, notably for the exchange of information (i.e. 
EESSI).  

Effectiveness would also improve in reaching out to individuals and employers by tapping on 
clear economies of scale. Through the coordination of EURES, there could be more synergies 
between its common training programme, analyses and communication activities with similar 
activities  carried  out  by  other  bodies.  This  would  in  particular  benefit  the  preparation  of 
activities  for  bodies  which  are  tasked  to  provide  other  forms  of  information  and  advice  to 
individuals  and  businesses,  such  as  bodies  responsible  for  the  enforcement  of  posting  of 
workers  and  the  free  movement  of  workers.  Joint  capacity  building  and  training  measures 
could  be  initiated  and  outreach  activities  to  workers  and  employers  could  be  expanded  to 
cover a broader range of topics and/or a wider audience.   

The  Authority  would  interact  with  the  remaining  bodies,  namely  the  AC  and  its  Advisory 
Committee, the Advisory Committee on the Free Movement of Workers, and the comitology 
Committee  on  Road  Transport  providing  preparatory  input  for  their  policy  steering  and 
decision making roles as necessary.  These committees, together with the Stakeholder Group 
would  also  constitute  the  key  fora  for  exchange  with  the  social  partners  on  labour  mobility 
policy  issues.  The  Stakeholder  Group  would  provide  a  permanent  EU-level  forum  for 
discussion  and  advice  on  operational  matters  between  the  Authority  and  the  social  partners 
embracing  all  labour  mobility  areas  in  an  integrated  way,  thus  also  compensating  for  the 
integrated role of the social partners in the UDW Platform.  

Concretely, by absorbing the Audit Board and the Technical Commission, the Authority will 
support  the  Administrative  Commission  decisions  linked  to  financial  and  technical  matters 
related to the application of social security coordination rules.  

For example, on the financial side, the Authority would support the AC as follows:  

-  gather  information  from  Member  States  regarding  the  statements  of  their  annual 

accounts and prepare yearly reports on it;  

-  verify the method of calculating average costs by Member States to be used as a basis 
for  reimbursements  of  healthcare  costs  of  persons  receiving  such  benefits  in  cross-
border situations, 
facilitate  the  final  closing  of  accounts  in  cases  of  disputes  between  Member  States 
about reimbursement claims.    

- 

51 

 
 
On  the  technical  side,  the  Authority  would  support  the  AC  on  questions  on  electronic  data 
exchange and data processing as follows: 

-  organise a forum to bring together national IT experts for matters related to the EESSI 

system and play a key role in the governance of this IT solution, 

-  provide a source of expertise and prepare reports and studies to support decisions on 
the  future  evolution  of  the  IT  tools  in  place,  or  ensuring  preparatory  work  for  new 
initiatives, 
supporting and promoting the use of IT tools by Member States, and explore ways in 
which a further digitalisation of procedures can be achieved. 

- 

The Authority would also support and feed into the work of the Administrative Commission 
in  other  areas  (beyond  financial  and  technical  aspects),  by  providing  analytical  work  and 
reporting,  including  support  and  streamlining  of  the  statistical  data  collection  and  analysis 
under  the  framework  of  the  Administrative  Commission,  for  example  by  the  further 
development  of  questionnaires  in  use  and  by  preparing  analytical  reports  based  on  data 
collected. Wherever needed for reporting purposes, a representative of the Authority would be 
invited to the meetings of the Administrative Commission.  

The Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Social Security Systems and the Advisory 
Committee on the Free Movement of  Workers would continue their work  as  they do today. 
Likewise, the Committee on Road Transport would continue its ordinary work as part of the 
EU  comitology  structure.  However,  the  future  Authority  may  feed  into  discussions  within 
these fora for example, by presenting the findings of reports prepared by the Authority which 
are relevant to the scope of those committees.   

Delivery  Option  3  (a  Labour  Authority  building  on  an  existing  agency)  would  build  on 
the previous option 2 and at the same time proceed with the integration of the new Authority 
with an existing agency. This two-step-at-once approach would add up on the advantages of 
option 2 while seeking synergies with the expertise and management of an existing agency. 
However,  building  on  an  existing  decentralised  agency  would  pose  a  number  of  challenges 
(see also Box 1 in section 2.2.6 and Annex 13). First, none of the existing EU agencies has a 
cross-border  specialisation,  except  for  the  ETF  which,  however,  has  a  focus  on  the  third 
countries of the EU neighbourhood. Moreover, labour mobility issues fall outside the scope of 
expertise of most agencies, with the partial exception of Eurofound. In the short-term, at least, 
the  effectiveness  of  the  new  Authority  would  be  low  due  to  a  necessary  integration  and 
leaning process. Second, while the tasks envisaged for this initiative have a strong operational 
nature,  the  existing  agencies  are  more  research-centred.  While  the  ETF  has  an  operational 
character,  its  focus  on  third-country  ill  fits  with  an  Authority  set  to  work  on  the  EU.  There 
could be some scope for integrating the risk assessment function, for instance with Eurofound 
or EU-OSHA. Nevertheless, this task has a broader ambition under the present initiative than 
it  is  currently  carried  out  in  the  decentralised  agencies,  as  risk  assessment  also  entails  the 
analysis of administrative data. Finally, from a governance viewpoint, existing agencies have 

52 

 
 
a tripartite structure which is not deemed the ideal arrangement for the new Authority, which 
has  a  strong  operational  mandate.  The  reform  of  the  governance  structure  may  reveal  itself 
problematic.  

This notwithstanding, the finalisation of the evaluation process of the existing Agencies may 
provide  some  input  to  further  explore  the  potential  of  synergies  and  streamlining  between 
each of the existing Agencies and the new labour Authority, with a view to possible political 
decisions  in  the  longer  term.  By  way  of  example,  there  may  be  scope  for  streamlining  a 
number of logistical and managerial arrangements across the agencies, including the support 
services  (e.g.  by  locating  the  ICT  and  the  Brussels  Liaison  Offices  in  one  place),  the  joint 
procurement of ICT and audio-visual equipment and services, cloud services, and putting in 
place common systems  in the area of performance management, monitoring and evaluation. 
At the same time, as the new Authority will tap on existing research resources developed by 
the  existing  agencies  in  their  respective  competence  area,  this  could  lead  to  pooling  of 
resources  or  production  of  joint  reports  on  issues  of  common  concern,  for  example 
restructuring  or  the  respect  of  occupational  health  and  safety  rules  in  mobility  situations, 
including posting, in the context of the risk assessment task.  

7.2.2.   Legal impacts 

While  the  baseline  scenario  would  not  require  any  legislative  change,  the  other  delivery 
options,  most  notably  Delivery  Option  2  and  Option  3  with  the  establishment  of  the 
European Labour Authority would require revisiting a number of EU legal acts in the areas of 
labour mobility and coordination of social security (a detailed inventory is included in Annex 
11).  Delivery  Option  3  would  require  additional  legislative  revision  in  order  to  amend  the 
Regulation establishing the Agency on which ELA would be built.  

Delivery Option 1 would entail formalising the European Network, which could be achieved 
by  a  legal  act  such  as  a  Decision  of  the  Commission.  This  approach  would  not  impact  on 
legislation establishing the currently active committees and structures at EU level. 

Delivery Option 2 would bring about streamlining of a number of existing committees and 
structures  by  incorporating  the  operational  tasks  of  these  in  a  new  European  Labour 
Authority.  The  establishment  of  the  Authority  would  be  done  by  a  Regulation,  and  several 
Union acts would need to be amended or repealed in the process (as set out in Annex 11) in 
order  to  achieve  that  it  delivers  on  the  tasks  identified  in  the  preferred  Policy  Option  in 
section 6:  

 

 

taking over the management of the EURES European Coordination Office, currently 
ensured  by  the  Commission  (amendment  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  589/2016 
establishing it); 
replacing the Technical Committee on the Free Movement of Workers (amendment of 
Regulation (EU) No 492/2011); 

53 

 
 
 

 

 

replacing  the  Committee  of  Experts  on  Posting  of  Workers  (repeal  of  Decision 
2009/17/EC); 
replacing the Technical Commission, the Audit Board, and take over the conciliation 
function  of  the  Administrative  Commission  for  the  Coordination  of  Social  Security 
Systems (AC) (amendment of Regulations (EC) No 883/2004 and 987/2009); 
replacing  the  European  Platform  on  tackling  undeclared  work  (repeal  of  Decision 
(EU) 2016/344.). 

Delivery  Option  3  would  have  similar  legal  impacts  as  Delivery  Option  2,  with  the  key 
difference that instead of a new Regulation needed to set up the Authority, one of the existing 
Agency’s founding Regulations would need to be amended. 

7.2.3. Budgetary impacts 

This section presents the budgetary impact of the different delivery options proposed. It does 
so by assuming that the new entity carries out the tasks as defined in preferred Option 2 on 
tasks (see section 6).  

The baseline scenario is presented as regards the costs of existing running EU bodies in the 
field  of  labour  mobility.  Logistic  and  reimbursements  for  expert  meetings  absorb  the  lion’s 
part  of  budgetary  costs  of  existing  EU  bodies.  These  costs  are  particularly  high  for  the 
Administrative Commission, although they are motivated by the large number of participants 
with respect to other bodies and by the frequent number of meetings, in different formations, 
on  a  yearly  basis.  Bodies  such  as  the  ECPW  and  the  technical  and  advisory  committees  on 
FMW  meet  on  a  more  sporadic  basis,  and  this  justifies  lower  running  costs  and  less 
Commission staff assisting them.  

Delivery Option 1 would not change the related running costs for the existing EU bodies that 
would be the same as in baseline. However, additional costs would ensue for the meetings of 
the  new  EU  Network,  including  reimbursements  for  meetings,  logistics  etc.  At  least  two 
meetings  a  year  should  be  envisaged,  thereby  increasing  the  costs  and  the  administrative 
burden accordingly. It is likely that the number of participants in meetings would increase, as 
each group would send a representative in other groups' meetings. In turn, this option would 
entail  that  a  dedicated  group  of  Commission  officials  is  employed  full  time  in  the  new 
Network's secretariat. The costs of such a secretariat are assessed as being similar to those of 
PES or EURES support network or ca. EUR 2 million per year.  

In addition, the additional operational costs that would be incurred to carry out the new tasks 
would be incurred in that case by the Commission. Also, it would need to recruit additional 
staff  and  acquire  related  space  and  equipment,  to  run  those  additional  tasks,  just  like  the 
agency would do. These costs would range around EUR 13 million.   

54 

 
 
Delivery Option 2 would entail budgetary costs related to ELA administration (recruitment 
of new staff, rental of premises - unless the host country would provide for it -, furniture and 
IT  costs),  on  top  of  the  operational  costs  mentioned  in  section  6.1.4  under  the  preferred 
option, i.e. the operational one. The extra costs for title 1 and title 2 would range around 22-24 
MEUR  (see  table  below),  but  would  serve  all  other  parameters  taken  into  consideration  for 
comparison: effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and long-term impact.  

Delivery Option 3 would likely result in a few savings due to some unique functions being 
not  repeated  (Executive  Director,  accountant,  Head  of  HR  department).  The  immediate 
benefit is clearly that the agency would become operational more quickly. But as the agency 
will grow gradually, the administrative services will have to grow proportionally to face the 
inevitably  increasing workload.  In terms of governance, it would completely destabilise our 
existing  agencies,  considering  their  budget  is  about  half  the  size  of  the  future  one  and  their 
current  staffing  at  best  equivalent.  Their  field  of  competence  is  also  quite  different,  being 
rather  research-oriented,  which  means  that  there  would  be  very  little  synergies  in  terms  of 
staffing  profile  as  well.  Owing  to  the  tripartite  nature  of  our  existing  agencies,  dedicated 
governance  would  need  to  be  set  up  within  the  agency,  which  would  increase  the 
administrative burden and thus decrease the efficiency. Also, in the medium term, the cost of 
enlarging the premises to accommodate the necessary extra staff would not necessarily result 
in savings as compared to renting new premises.  

As  a  result  it  is  expected  that  the running  costs of  the  agency  under  this  governance  option 
would be marginally reduced compared to option 2, yet still within the range of 22-24 MEUR, 
on top of the operational costs mentioned in section 6.1.4 under the preferred option, i.e. the 
operational one. These marginal gains would need to be weighed against all other criteria of 
effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and long-term impact. 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4. Comparison of costs by delivery option 

7.4.   Comparison of Delivery Options 

The  delivery  options  are  assessed  against  the  core  criteria  of  effectiveness  (section  4.2), 
efficiency  (cost-effectiveness)  and  coherence  (the  coherence  and  contribution  in  meeting 
Union’s  objectives  in  the  area  of  employment  and  social  policy  and  in  relation  to  general 
policy Union's budgetary and organisational objectives ).  The key results of the comparison 
are presented in table 5.  

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 5: Comparison of Delivery Options  

Delivery Option 1 
(European 
Network) 

Delivery Option 2 
(New Agency  
building on 
existing bodies) 

Delivery Option 3 
(ELA builds on 
Agency) 

Effectiveness (meeting 

objectives)  

Transparency and access to 

information  

Improved operational 

cooperation 

Mediation between 

Member States 

Efficiency 

Coherence  

+ 

+ 

+ 

0 

0 
+ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

++ 
+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+ 
+ 

Notes:  For  the  purpose  of  comparing  a  seven-stage  qualitative  grading  scale  is  used:  significant  positive 
impact/gains  (+++),  medium  (++),    small  (+),  No  impact  (0),  small  negative  impact/cost  (-),  medium  (--), 
significant (---). 

The  comparison  of  options  shows  clearly  that  Delivery  Option  1  cannot  be  considered  as 
preferred one. Although there is some merit in considering the advantages of stronger policy 
coordination  between  EU-level  bodies  and  of  entrusting  the  Commission  to  carry  out 
operational  tasks,  the  positive  impact  would  be  relatively  small.  An  additional  governance 
layer would be created. The Commission would need additional staff and specific skills which 
its new role would require. In addition, carrying out operational tasks may imply the risk  of 
driving the Commission astray from its key policy-making role. On top of it, further resources 
would  need  to  be  dedicated  to  providing  an  appropriate  secretariat  to  the  EU  network, 
preparing its meetings and ensuring adequate follow up. Finally, the staff involved could not 
deliver  on  operational  tasks  requiring  constant  work  on  the  ground  in  an  effective  way, 
especially on support to joint inspections between the Member States.  

Delivery  Option  2  has  the  same  degree  of  effectiveness  in  delivering  the  task  as  Option  3, 
since the latter builds on the former. However, Option 2 scores higher in terms of efficiency 
and coherence than Option 3. Both criteria have to do with the long-term impact of a possible 
integration  between  the  Authority  and  an  existing  agency.  Both  options  would  require 
additional  resources  with  respect  to  the  baseline  scenario  and  to  Option  1.  Therefore,  they 
may appear less coherent with the Union's budgetary and organisational objectives, including 
that  of  progressive  staff  reductions  in  all  EU  bodies.  However,  new  resources  would  be 
matched  by  the  delivery  of  new  tasks  that  are  poorly  done  or  that  are  not  carried  out  at  all 
under the current set-up.  

57 

 
 
 
 
In the short term, there might be a small advantage for the  Delivery Option 3 compared to 
Option  2  in  terms  of  costs,  as  the  new  Authority  would  use  existing  infrastructures  and 
administrative  capacities.  However,  the  new  Authority  would  be  considerably  larger  than 
existing  small  or  medium-sized  agencies87.  This  would  imply  an  overhaul  of  human 
resources,  with  the further risks  of greater management complexity and of downplaying  the 
policy  objective  of  the  selected  existing  agency  vis-à-vis  the  operational  needs  of  the  new 
Authority.  Given  the  size  of  the  bigger  Agency,  additional  administrative  and  infrastructure 
sources would be needed, as well as additional staff to carry out operational tasks requiring 
specific  expertise.  The  challenges  in  bringing  together  two  structures  with  rather  different 
modus operandi (e.g. research vs operational support, management of different stakeholders, 
role of the ELA in supporting co-operation in road transport) and governance structures would 
make the ELA be operational (in terms of delivering its tasks) faster in Option 2 rather than in 
Option  3.  Another  specific  problem  with  Option  3  would  be  represented  by  the  tripartite 
governance structure of all existing employment agencies which may be ill-suited to the faster 
responsiveness and operational flexibility required for the new Authority. As a result, it could 
be concluded that while there could be a potential for building the new Authority on top of an 
existing agency, the complementarities would not be immediate.  

Taking this all into account, the preferred Option is Delivery Option 2. Option 2 scores best 
also in terms of proportionality. The problems that the initiative aims to address are related to 
poor cooperation, information and fragmentation in the area of labour mobility bodies. While 
Option  1  doesn’t  go  far  enough,  the  Option  3  goes  beyond  what  is  necessary.  Option  3 
involves an entirely different reform agenda – the one on the restructuring of agencies – into 
the mobility agenda. It seems disproportionate to restructure the Agencies only with a view on 
solving  problems  regarding  labour  mobility.  In  addition,  although  the  initiative  creates  a 
financial cost for the Union and national governments, they are minimised and commensurate 
with the objective to be achieved.  Overall, Option 2 would combine effectiveness in carrying 
out the tasks with the provision of an adequate operational structure at EU level to perform 
the needed tasks in an integrated way, while achieving efficiency gains across neighbouring 
mobility  domains  by  rationalising  existing  bodies.  Implementing  this  option  would  require 
more  far-reaching  institutional  changes,  which  would  be  accompanied  by  some  degree  of 
resource optimisation. 

8.   PREFERRED POLICY AND DELIVERY OPTION  

8.1   Policy Option 2 (Operational Option), and Delivery Option 2 (New European 

Labour Authority building on existing EU bodies) 

The  preferred  option  is  the  establishment  of  a  European  Labour  Authority  with  operational 
role (Policy Option 2) building on EU bodies in the area of labour mobility (Delivery Option 

87 The staff of existing agencies ranges between 40 and 90 establishment posts and budgets up to EUR 20 million. The new 

Authority would require a staff 113 posts and a budget of around EUR 50 million (see section 7.2). 

58 

 
 
                                                            
2).88 This new Authority will also develop enhanced cooperation with existing agencies in the 
employment area ensuring complementarities and adapting to their future evolution. 

The  ‘operational’  Option  2  envisages  pro-active  support  to  information  and  services  to 
citizens  and  employers,  cooperation,  joint  inspections,  analysis  and  risk  assessment, 
information  exchange,  and  capacity  building,  while  facilitating  the  adoption  of  decisions  as 
regards conciliation mechanisms and cooperation in case of cross-border labour disruptions. 
Such mechanisms are extended to all core labour mobility areas including the road transport 
sector in line with the institutional framework in these fields.  

The  combined  preferred  option  achieves  the  best  balance  in  meeting  objectives,  ensuring 
benefits (positive impacts) for national authorities, workers and businesses while the costs are 
commensurate  with  the  objectives.  It  is  respecting  well  the  proportionality  and  subsidiarity 
principle  as  it  leaves  sufficient  scope  for  national  decision,  and  respects  well-established 
national  arrangements.  This  is  ensured  by  the  new  body  providing  operational  support  and 
framework  for  joint-activities,  but  leaving  to  the  discretion  of  Member  States  of  how  and 
when  they  use  it,  and  with  its  focus  on  cross-border  labour  mobility  issues  where  Member 
States  alone  cannot  achieve  objectives  satisfactoriliy  as  it  was  demonstrated  in  the  problem 
section.89  The  preferred  option  combines  effectiveness  in  delivering  operational  tasks  by 
complementing  but  also  rationalising  the  current  set-up  of  bodies  on  labour  mobility  and 
social  security  coordination,  thus  addressing  two  important  concerns  raised  by  relevant 
stakeholders. 

The preference for Option 2 does not rule out future decisions to build the new Authority on 
an existing decentralised Agency (as presented in Option 3). However, such decision needs to 
be informed by the completion of the evaluation process of these agencies which will provide 
some input to the possible synergies and risks of building the Labour Authority on one of the 
existing Agencies. 

The  benefits  for  individuals,  especially  the  mobile  workers,  will  be  better  protection  and 
reduced  exposure  to  the  risk  of  fraud  and  abuse,  especially  in  the  road  transport  sector. 
improved legal clarity and predictability of procedures. Further benefits arrive from improved 
possibilities to exercise their rights to the freedom of movement.  

Business, especially SMEs, will benefit from more fair competition and equal playing field 
and from reduced uncertainty about their situation, especially relevant in relation to posting of 
workers.  That  together  with  better  information  can  facilitate  their  decisions  to  engage  in 
cross-border activities, including recruitment. 

88  Explanation  on  the  selection  of  preferred  option  was  provided  earlier  and  is  not  repeated  here.  Please,  see  the  relevant 

section (section 7.2.for Policy Option) and section 8.3 (for Governance). 

89 See also section 2, and 7.2. . 

59 

 
 
                                                            
Benefits for national authorities are their reinforced cooperation and control capacities for 
better rule enforcement. Benefits of structured cooperation are expected to increase over the 
time as more national authorities decide to use the new operational capacity.  

The  wider  macro-economic  benefits  of  the  initiative  is  improved  labour  market  functioning 
and improved prospects for individuals and companies to expand their cross-border activities 
with positive impacts for productivity, employment and GPD.  

At  cruising speed,  the  sum  of  the  costs  relating  to  Title  1 (Staff)  and  Title  2  (Infrastructure 
and  operating  costs)  would  range  from  EUR  22  to  24  million  per  year,  depending  on  the 
category  of  staff  hired  (temporary  agents,  contract  agents,  external  providers)  and  the 
premises  chosen  (number  of  meeting  rooms,  security  features,  potential  share  of  costs  with 
other tenants for the reception, etc.). In terms of staff costs and other administrative expenses 
(building,  movable  property,  telecommunications,  etc.),90  the  seat  of  the  agency  will  be  a 
determining factor. As the seat is not known at this stage, the costs have been calculated on 
the assumption that the agency would be Brussels-based (no correction coefficient applied to 
salaries and real estate market based on Commission's buildings).  

The assessed salary costs under Title 1 comprise the Establishment Posts as presented below 
(69 posts at cruising speed) as well as 60 Seconded National Experts and 15 contract agents. 
Other administrative expenses under  Title 2 were assessed based on the benchmarking  with 
decentralised  agencies  that  have  similarly  operational  nature  of  tasks  (e.g.  Frontex,  EFCA) 
and are of a similar size (ca. 100 staff (see Annex 10 for more details). As building costs are a 
significant part of Title 2, comparison has been made with agencies whose staff numbers are 
similar, i.e. GSA, ERA, EBA, ESMA and eu-LISA and an average price has been calculated 
on the basis of their annual (rental) costs. Detailed explanations per item for Title 1 and Title 
2  are  available  in  Annex  4.  The  number  of  staff  has  been  made  with  a  view  to  ensure  a 
proportionate balance between operational activities and administrative support.  

Table 6: Staff needed for ELA (Policy Option 2 "Operational Option") 

Cumulative EP posts 

Start-up phase 

2019 
16 

2020 
33 

2021 
50 

2022 
69 

cruising speed 
2023 
69 

The cooperation of ELA with other agencies is expected to have minor financial and staff 
impacts to ensure coordination based on the available practice from existing agencies, such as 
the network of DG HOME agencies (EUROPOL, CEPOL, FRONTEX, eu-LISA, EASO and 
EMCDDA). The costs are rather linked to mission costs. All these agencies are well equipped 

90 Typically foreseen under the Title 2 of a decentralised agency. 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
with  videoconference  material  which  allows  for  having  efficient  communication  within  the 
network.  

8.2   REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency) 

The proposal to establish ELA will transform EU institutional landscape in the area of cross-
border mobility. By reorganising the existing activities and processes the foreseen changes in 
term  of  simplification  and  streamlining  will  allow  to  deliver  more  and  better  quality  results 
compared  to  today,  when  committees  work  in  parallel  and  in  silos.  The  impacts  are  not 
quantified  because  it  was  not  possible  to  gather  the  needed  data  within  the  time  constraints 
under which the initiative was prepared. Key direct impacts will be felt by national competent 
authorities, but the revised system will be beneficial also for individuals and companies. 

The expected key simplifications and improvements for national authorities are savings 
in  terms  of  time  and  resources  in  exchanging  information,  coordinating  activities  and  in 
providing  information.  The  Authority  will  not  only  facilitate  the  identification  of  relevant 
counterparts in other Member States, but would also ensure that information is exchanged in 
time  and  is  complete.    This  would  reduce  the  need  to  conclude  bilateral  and  multilateral 
agreements  that  are  currently  needed  in  the  area  of  posting.  Model  agreements  and 
coordination  meetings  for  joint  inspections  -  which  are  currently  not  available,  notably  in 
carrying out concerted checks in road transport - would reduce organisation and coordination 
efforts of Member States.  Revamped conciliation mechanism (shorter decision making cycle 
deadlines;  enhanced  support,  including  translations)  would  improve  the  possibilities  for 
national  authorities  to  solve  their  disputes  in  the  area  of  social  security  coordination  faster 
than before, and provide an opportunity to solve disputes also in other areas.  

Reorganisation of the existing committees  will lead to  simplification.  Seven  existing EU 
bodies  will  be  replaced  by  ELA  that  will  streamline  and  integrate  the  technical  and 
operational tasks of the existing EU bodies into a permanent framework (see section 7.1.3), 
while  the  EU  bodies  with  policy-shaping  and  legal  tasks  powers  will  stay  in  place.  This 
change  would  simplify  the  institutional  set-up  as  there  would  be  a  clear  division  of  tasks 
(technical/operational  vs  policy  shaping),  thereby  making  communication  and  interaction 
easier,  but  also  allowing  the  bodies  to  focus  on  their  key  tasks.  E.g.  integrating  the 
conciliation function of the AC in the Authority would allow this committee to focus on its 
key role of discussing legal matters of implementation and further development of the social 
security coordination rules. 

The  establishment  of  the  Authority  would  create  potential  for  streamlining  and 
improving efficiency due to the pooling of resources and of operational tasks.  There is a 
streamlining  potential  from  coordinating  tasks  in  relation  to  training  and  capacity  building 
activities currently undertaken by different EU bodies. Training curriculum can be enriched to 
take into account broader range of cross-cutting aspects and it can be more easily offered to a 
broader and more diversified group of participants. This helps to bring economies of scale in 

61 

 
 
 
 
relation  to  developing  training  curriculum  and  encourage  creation  of  new  ones.  As  an 
example, the Authority could ensure that the mutual learning activities on undeclared work in 
the  context  of  the  UDW  Platform  would  become  more  accessible  to  others  or  could  more 
easily move away from the current focus on undeclared work only to other areas.  

In addition, the Authority will create synergies and thereby improve the quality of discussions 
and policy outcomes. For instance, even if the fight against letterbox companies was on the 
agenda of the UDW Platform, it couldn’t act actively against it due to the lack of operational 
instruments91 and because of the separation of tools for exchanging information. This would 
be now possible with the Authority bringing tasks together under one operational body.  

The  Authority  as  an  agency  would  be  able  to  benefit  from  sharing  services  with  other 
decentralised Agencies joined in the inter-agency network. The network provides a catalogue 
of  almost  900  shared  services  available  to  members  of  the  network  (e.g.  in  the  IT,  HR, 
procurement).92 Authority will be organising quite a number of various events (e.g. trainings, 
mutual  learning  events,  operational  meetings  to  support  joint  inspection  or  dispute 
settlements). This would allow it to achieve economies of scale in logistic or support services 
(e.g. lower prices for renting meeting rooms, reducing reimbursement costs by providing all-
inclusive  packages93).  In  anticipating  the  number  of  events,  the  Agencies’  infrastructural 
resources could be selected to cater for this (i.e. availability of own meeting rooms to avoid 
renting).  

The  Authority  activities  will  ensure  complementarities  and  avoid  overlaps  with  the 
information tools/policies and problems-solving services for individuals and employers (e.g. 
Single  Digital  Gateway;  SOLVIT,  Your  Europe,  Your  Europe  Advice,  Enterprise  Europe 
Network). ELA will complement them, contribute to their improved use, but also benefit from 
them. This will be done by Authority managing the EURES, which is included in SDG.  The 
Authority assistance would help integrate sector-specific guidance, for example on posting or 
road transport. Further to that, the Authority will provide technical support to Member State 
to  facilitate  their  compliance  with  relevant  obligations  laid  down  in  the  proposal  on  Single 
Digital  Gateway,  notably  on  the  quality  of  the  information  provided.  This  support  will 
streamline national efforts and help national authorities to work in more focused way. Finally, 
the  Authority  will  use  information  gathered  via  Your  Europe  Advice,  Solvit  or  Enterprise 
Europe  Network  to  inform  its  capacity  building  activities  and  training  for  national 
administration  staff  to  ensure,  that  they  convey  relevant  and  up-to  date  information  to 
individuals and employers.  

92 The evaluation of four agencies shows in general positive experience of agencies in using those services, e.g. in IT.  
93  The  evaluation  of  four  EMPL  agencies  showed  that  Eurofound  was  able  to  cut  the  overall  event  costs  by  €72,000  by 
opting-in for “all-inclusive” policy meaning that each delegate was entitled to an economy flight, hotel accommodation and 
catering (the latter two items in line with the ceiling in place for Ireland).  

62 

 
 
 
                                                            
 
The  Authority  will  improve  situation  for  individuals  and  companies,  including  SMEs,  to 
undertake  cross-border  action.  The  initiative  improves  the  transparency,  information  and 
services  provided  to  the  public  about  rights,  obligations  and  opportunities  related  to  cross-
border  labour  mobility,  thus  simplifying  access  to  such  information  and  services  for 
individuals  and  companies.  The  Authority  support  in  catering  for  translations  of  documents 
and assisting host state administrations in processing documents could reduce the employers 
burden related to that. 

The Authority will coordinate closely with the four existing agencies in the employment area, 
notwithstanding possible decisions on future streamlining of agencies. On analytical tasks of 
common concern, as well as on complementary aspects to labour mobility rules, such as skills 
or occupational health and safety, the Authority is set to exchange information and possibly 
program joint work with the other competent agencies.  

9.   HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED?  

9.1.   Monitoring 

With the new body changing the institutional set-up of the Union, its functions will have to be 
closely assessed and  possibly adapted to  the situation  on the ground.  Providing for a robust 
monitoring  and  evaluation  mechanism  is  therefore  crucial  to  ensure  that  the  envisaged 
beneficial effects of the Regulation materialise in practice.  

implementation  requirements  and 

The  following  monitoring  framework  would  inform  on  progress  towards  achieving  the 
objectives of the Regulation and will be subject to  further adjustment according to the final 
legal  and 
timeline.  To  avoid  putting  additional 
administrative  burden  due  to  the  collection  of  data  or  information  for  the  purpose  of 
monitoring,  the  proposed  monitoring  framework  rely  as  far  as  possible  on  established  data 
sources, especially the Annual Activity Report of the new body. The below table provides an 
overview of the operational objectives of the Regulation and their corresponding monitoring 
indicators. Being a horizontal objective, progress in meeting the objective of streamlining and 
rationalisation will be assessed in the context of the evaluation, in particular when assessing 
efficiency. 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 7. Indicators on progress towards objectives  

Specific objectives 

Operational objectives 

Indicators 

Source of data 

Improving access to 
information and 
services for individuals 
and employers 

To enhance 
comprehensiveness and 
quality of labour mobility 
service 

Strengthening 
operational cooperation 
between authorities 

To enhance effectiveness 
and efficiency of  
information exchange 
between national authorities  

To provide relevant 
analytical and technical 
support to national 
authorities for cross-border 
co-operation 

Stakeholders’ satisfaction with the 
clarity and completeness of the 
information on rights and obligations 
in  the area of cross-border labour 
mobility 

Share of vacancies posted on EURES 
as a proportion of national vacancies 

Number of persons who found a job 
in another country with the help of a 
EURES 

Share of information exchanged 
within deadlines  

Stakeholders' opinion on 
administrative burden related to 
information exchange 

(Level of) Stakeholders' satisfaction 
with the timeliness and completeness 
of monitoring and statistical data 

Stakeholders' satisfaction with the 
mutual learning assistance 

Stakeholders' satisfaction with the 
analysis provided  

Stakeholders' satisfaction with the 
technical support 

To enhance up-take of joint 
inspections 

Number of joint inspections (per area 
under ELA remit). 

Number of trainings per joint 
inspection. 

Number of countries participating in 
joint inspections 

Benefits generated by joint 
inspections (e.g. improved workers 
situation, collection of social security 
contributions). 

Cases on cross-border fines, 
notification of fines, recovered tax 
and social security contributions 

Costs of joint inspections 

Time needed to settle disputes  

Increase in number of areas under 
ELA remit for which dispute 
settlement is used  

Share of implemented/respected 

64 

Mediating and 
facilitating a solution in 
cases of disputes  

To enhance effectiveness of 
administrative dispute 
settlements 

Annual Activity Report (new 
available with the 
establishment of the 
Authority) 

Single market scoreboard 
(existing) 

Eures statistics (existing) 

Single Digital Gateway (user 
feedback and statistics) (in 
development) 

Annual Activity Report (new 
available with the 
establishment of the 
Authority) 

Single Market Scoreboard 
(existing) 

Stakeholders feedback (new) 

Annual Activity Report (new 
available with the 
establishment of the 
Authority) 

Single Market Scoreboard 
(existing) 

Stakeholders feedback (new) 

Annual activity report (new 
available with the 
establishment of the 
Authority) 

Labour inspection reports, 
including figures and cases on 
cross-border fines, 
notification of fines, 
recovered tax and social 
security contributions  

UDW platform annual report 
(existing) 

Stakeholders feedback (new)  

Evaluation report of joint 
inspections (new available 
with the establishment of the 
Authority) 

Annual activity report (new 
available with the 
establishment of the 
Authority) 

Stakeholders feedback (new) 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
To facilitating cooperation 
in cases of labour market 
disruptions affecting several 
Member States 

decision 

Number of cases where the Authority 
is required to intervene 

Number of application for the use of 
the European Globalisation 
Adjustment Fund. 

Annual activity report (new 
available with the 
establishment of the 
Authority) 

While  the  preceding  analysis  (section  2)  suggests  that  the  problems  are  likely  to  remain 
without  an  EU  action,  it  is  difficult  to  foresee  how  situation  would  evolve  in  relation  to  all 
above indicators and to establish the benchmarks for success. Having said that some elements 
of success could be outlined for some of the indicators, subject to further development in line 
with the guidelines on “Performance indicators in EU agencies”94 once the Authority and its 
mandate  is  confirmed.  Stakeholders  consultation  demonstrated  dissatisfaction  with  the  way 
information is exchanged today. Thus high share of information exchanged within deadlines 
(i.e. timeliness of action) and high share of stakeholders considering that the burden related to 
exchange  was  reduced  could  be  considered  as  a  success.  In  the  area  of  joint  inspections 
success could be differentiated between road transport and other areas. A target could be set 
for the concerted checks in the road transport in terms of how many should be carried out and 
in terms of costs. Member States are obliged to carry out at least 6 checks per year, leading to 
minimum 90 checks per year, while currently only half of Member States are actually doing 
them. Thus, success could be defined as carrying out the minimum required number of checks 
and reducing the costs of the inspections, taking costs of current inspections that are assisted 
by EuroContole Route-voluntary network of inspection authorities as a benchmark.  In other 
areas, success would be uptake of the instrument given the early stage of implementation of a 
new function, i.e. increase in the number of inspection and Member State using it, especially 
those  that  have  previously  established  bilateral  agreements.  Similar  considerations  apply  to 
the enhancement of dispute settlement. In the area of risk analysis and capacity building one 
dimension  is  that  users  find  outputs  and  services  relevant  and  of  good  quality.  Thus,  the 
success would be high level of their satisfaction. This could be compared to the satisfaction 
levels  in  areas  where  training  and  mutual  learning  programmes  were  already  provided  (e.g. 
Eures, EESI or UDW Platform).  Other dimension, particularly for risk assessment could be to 
what  extent  the  analysis  helped  to  increase  the  number  of  joint-inspection  proposed  by  the 
Authority  and  accepted  by  the  Member  States.  In  the  area  of  information,  performance 
indicators should  build on the performance  measurement  system for EURES95 and  proposed 
performance system for the SDG.96 

94  Developed  by  the  Working  Group  on  Performance  measurement  of  the  Performance  Development  Network  of  the  EU 
Agencies. 
95 Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/170 of 2 February 2018 on uniform detailed specifications for data 
collection and analysis to monitor and evaluate the functioning of the EURES network (Text with EEA relevance.) 
96 Presented in section on monitoring and evaluation of the IA accompanying the proposal for regulation, SWD (2017) 231 
final, PART 1/3. 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
For  measuring  the  performance  of  the  Director/Head  of  Agency  in  achieving  operational 
objectives  (as  reflected  in  the  Agency’s  Programming  document97)  and  in  managing  the 
financial and human resources allocated for this purpose, key performance indicators should 
follow the respective Commission Guidelines.98  

Progress  will  be  assessed  by  using  the  regular  reports  by  the  new  body  (Annual  Activity 
Report99,  Multiannual  and  annual  work  programme),  reports  on  EURES  activity  (art  33), 
Single Market Scoreboard100, Single Digital Gateway, PES network and UDW Platform. 

The Annual mobility reports under EURES regulation101, will serve to track general mobility 
flows  and  the  policy  background  of  the  European  Social  Pillar  and  the  Social  scoreboard 
established to monitor progress on the ground will serve to track general employment/labour 
market  conditions  and  societal  trends  and  performances  across  countries.  With  further 
evidence  provided  through  the  annual  review  on  Employment  and  Social  Developments  in 
Europe (ESDE), the Commission will be able to produce reporting on improved compliance 
and enforcement.  

Eurostat  (EU  Labour  Force  Survey)  and  National  labour  market  data  could  also  be  used  to 
monitor the impact of a Regulation.  

The Commission might also run Eurobarometer surveys and/or promote independent studies 
to survey specific aspects of the Regulation along the policy or contextual needs and where 
those aspects are requesting dedicated research. 

9.2.   Evaluation 

The Commission will evaluate the Regulation 5 years after the Regulation enters into force in 
line with the requirements of Financial Regulation102 and Better regulation Guidelines.103   

The evaluation will include an assessment of whether the objectives  of the Regulation have 
been  reached.  The  assessment  will  build  on  the  information  described  in  this  Impact 
Assessment and will take into account available monitoring data. Additional information and 
views  will  be  collected  by  a  public  consultation  and/or  specific  stakeholder  consultation 

97 Article 32 of the Framework Financial Regulation.  
98 Guidelines on key performance indicators (KPI) for directors of EU decentralised agencies, SWD (2015) 62 final. 
99 Regulation (EU) No. 1271/2013 of 30 September 2013 on the framework financial regulation for the bodies referred to in 
Article 208 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No. 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Financial Regulation 
1605/2002. 
100 http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/scoreboard/index_en.htm   
101  Regulation (EU)  2016/589  of the  European  Parliament and  of the  Council  of  13  April  2016  on  a  European  network  of 
employment  services  (EURES),  workers'  access  to  mobility  services  and  the  further  integration  of  labour  markets,  and 
amending Regulations (EU) No 492/2011 and (EU) No 1296/2013. 

102 Regulation (EU) No. 1271/2013 of 30 September 2013 on the framework financial regulation for the bodies referred to in 
Article 208 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No. 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Financial Regulation 
1605/2002. 
103 Better Regulation Guidelines, SWD (2017) 350. 

66 

 
 
                                                            
and/or  a  survey  of  stakeholders  to  review  the  impact  of  the  Regulation  on  the  different 
categories of stakeholders, especially on national authorities.  

A  particular  focus  will  be  cast  on  the  evaluation  criteria  required  by  the  Better  Regulation 
guidelines,  i.e.  effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence,  EU  value  added  and  relevance.  The 
periodic  evaluation  of  the  Authority  will  also  allow  exploring  further  synergies  and 
streamlining opportunities with the four Agencies active in the area of employment and social 
policy. 

Evaluation  of  the  Regulation  will  be  also  informed  by  other  relevant  studies  and  future 
evaluations of legislation in line with legal requirements in the area of cross-border mobility 
(e.g.  Enforcement  Directive,  Posting  of  Workers,  Eures)  and  in  related  areas  (e.g.  Single 
Digital Gateway, Solvit action plan, IMI). 

The scope of the Authority could be extended to additional areas following evaluation results. 

67 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION  

  Lead DG, DEcide Planning/CWP references 

The  lead  DG  for  this  initiative  is  DG  EMPL.  This  impact  assessment  report  concerns  
initiative with Decide planning reference 2017/EMPL/1746 - "European Labour Authority."  

Foreseen adoption date: 13 March 2018. 

  Organisation and timing 

A Commission inter-service steering group (ISG), jointly chaired by the Secretariat-General 
was established in November 2017 for preparing this initiative.  

The following DGs and services were invited to the inter-service group included: SG, ECFIN, 
TAXUD,  SANTE,  HOME,  CAB-JUNCKER,  HR,  OLAF,  ESTAT,  EAC,  BUDG,  GROW, 
JUST, SJ, DIGIT, CNECT, FISMA, COMM, MOVE,  

The ISG met 2 times in the period from November 2017 to January 2018. Additional bilateral 
meetings as well more intensive cooperation was organised with the DGs most concerned by 
the  initiative  (notably  GROW,  MOVE,  DIGIT,  COMM)  as  well  as  with  DGs  that  manage 
Agencies of similar operational nature (notably HOME, JUST, FISMA). 

  Consultation of the RSB 

The Regulatory Scrutiny Board ("RSB") was consulted on 7 February 2018. The RSB issued 
a negative opinion. A second version of the document was submitted on 15 February 2018. 
The tables below shows how this report takes into account the RSB comments.  

1st RSB Opinion (copy of the RSB comments 
from the opinion) 

How and where comments have been 
addressed 

1. The report does not clearly define or explain the 
scope of the initiative, nor does it develop the 
rationale for it. 

The thematic and personal scope has been 
frontloaded in the introduction (p.7) and 
explained more extensively in section 2.4 
(pages 23), including the rationale for it. 

2. The analysis does not sufficiently explain how it 
arrived at the preferred option and why it discarded 
some measures of other options.   

The introduction to Section 6 (p. 27-28) 
explains the rationale for the presentation 
of the policy options in blocks of inter-
linked elements and their cumulative 
nature. 

A more thorough explanation of the 
comparison and of the preferred option has 
been added in Section 6.6 (pp. 42-43). 

(3) The report does not differentiate between 

Sections 6.1 to 6.4 (pp. 29-31) clarify 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
responsibilities transferred to the ELA and new 
competence for enforcement. It does not 
adequately show how creating an ELA would 
result in synergies without losing the specificities 
of existing procedures and bodies.   

(4) The report does not sufficiently explain what 
governance provisions would apply to the ELA or 
the High Level Labour Council (HLLC). The 
report does not explain the relationship between 
the ELA and the HLLC. 

(5) The report does not sufficiently present the 
views of stakeholders. 

(6) The report does not provide robust cost 
estimates of the ELA. 

which of the proposed new tasks build on 
tasks currently performed by 
committees/networks and which would be 
entirely new. 

As regards the Delivery Options (Section 7, 
p. 43 and ff), the procedures and bodies 
continue to operate and ELA ensures 
complementarities. 

This option is not presented in this version 
as a consequence of a different approach 
(based on delivery and not on governance). 

More complete presentations of the 
stakeholders' views have been presented 
under each policy driver (section 2.2.1, p. 
11-12; section 2.2.2, p. 13; section 2.2.3, 
p.15; section 2.2.4, page 17; section 2.2.5, 
p. 18; section 2.2.6, p. 21) and more 
thoroughly in a dedicated section at p. 30-
31. 

Stakeholders' views on the possible set-up 
of an Authority are presented in a dedicated 
paragraph in section 7.1.4., p. 45-46. 

Annex 2 provides an overview of the 
stakeholders' consultation. 
More budget and technical details have 
been added in the Section 6.5.4 (pp. 39-40) 
as regards to the costs of the tasks; Section 
7.2.3 (pp 48 ff) with details on the costs of 
delivery options; and Section 8.1 (p. 56) 
with details on the preferred options. 

Further technical details are laid down in 
Annex 4.  

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2nd RSB Opinion (copy of the RSB comments 
from the opinion) 

How and where comments have been 
addressed 

1. The report does not clearly address the risks of 
complexity and potential duplication associated 
with the creation of an ELA while maintaining the 
6 bodies in the area of labour mobility and social 
security coordination.   

Insofar as still relevant to the proposal, an 
explanation has been added to sections 
7.2.1 ("Effectiveness", p. 49-50) and 7.2.2 
("Legal impact", pp. 51-52). 

2. While an evaluation of existing decentralised 
Agencies in the employment field is ongoing, the 
report does not take into account the potential 
streamlining and increased synergies between the 
existing Agencies and the ELA.    

(3) The report does not provide for robust budget 
estimates. It does not clearly explain the 
aggregated total costs associated with the preferred 
combination of tasks and structure for the ELA. 

The Report explains in depth the possible 
risks associated to streamlining the existing 
Agencies and the ELA (sections 2.2.6, Box 
1, p. 20, and 7.2.1, p. 50-51) and includes a 
preliminary analysis of possible synergies 
in section 7.2.1, p. 50-51. 

The report presents the necessary estimates 
in part 7.2.3 (p .52-54), including 
breakdowns by task and by delivery option 
with updates. Annex 4 provides a complete 
explanation of the estimation methods 
adopted. 

  Evidence, sources and quality 

The  Commission  used  various  existing  or  forthcoming  sources  as  quoted  in  the  impact 
assessment,  its  internal  analytical  capacities  including  for  the  assessment  of  budgetary 
impacts  and  drew  on  its  existing  contracts  to  gather  evidence  that  was  used  to  support  this 
impact assessment. This included: 

o  Ad hoc request to the FreSsco experts from all Member States on the capacities of 

labour inspectorates to deal with cross-border cases  

o  Ad-hoc  request  under  the  ICF  contract  for  UDW  Platform  support  services  to 
develop 3 case studies on the basis of qualitative interviews on resources for cross-
border cooperation in the enforcement area.  

The  Commission  awarded  a  contract  to  the  ICF  for  the  analysis  of  replies  to  targeted 
consultation  and  to  open  public  consultation  (Tender  for  VT/2017/056  “Analysis  and 
Summary  of  the  replies  received  in  the  framework  of  the  public  consultation  for  the 
establishment  of  a  European  Labour  Authority  and  the  introduction  of  a  European  Social 
Security Number”).  

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION  

In his 2017 State of the European Union address, the European Commission's President Jean-
Claude  Juncker  proposed  that  a  European  Labour  Authority  (ELA)  be  established  to 
strengthen  cooperation  between  labour  market  authorities  at  all  levels  and  better  manage 
cross-border situations. In line with the Commission's Work Programme, the Commission is 
scheduled to present a proposal in the first semester of 2018. 

This report analyses and summarises the replies to the open public consultation (OPC) and the 
targeted consultation of stakeholders on the establishment of an ELA. 

Description of consultation activities carried out: 

A 6-week internet-based OPC was launched by the European Commission on 27 November 
2017 in order to explore the views of the citizens and stakeholders on the establishment of a 
European  Labour  Authority  (ELA).  Alongside,  the  Commission  had  launched  a  targeted 
consultation to stakeholders that had begun on 6 November 2017 with a view to collect views 
and  positions  from  practitioners,  including  Member  States,  public  authorities  and  social 
partners. The consultation process was concluded on 7 January 2018. 

An  additional  targeted  stakeholder  consultation  in  the  transport  sector  was  launched  on  12 
January 2018 and closed on 2 February 2018. 

1. Overview of the consultation process  

Open public consultation  

A  total  of  8,809  replies  to  the  web-based  OPC  were  received.  While  there  were  only  389 
unique replies, a campaign led by the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) resulted 
in  8,420  identical  replies  in  favour  of  the  establishment  of  ELA.  These  responses  were 
excluded from the OPC analysis as they would have otherwise skewed the results towards the 
answers predefined by the campaign. The opinion brought forward by the campaign is taken 
into account in the analysis of the open-ended questions. 

The majority of respondents overall (77%) were located in Austria and Germany. Among the 
389 respondents who submitted a non-campaign reply, the highest number of unique replies 
came from the United Kingdom (61), followed by Belgium and Germany (both 24).  

Most  respondents  indicated  being  in  employment.  Among  non-campaign  respondents,  49% 
had either current or past mobility experience compared to 26% of campaign respondents. 

Few responses were received on behalf of organisations, based on what could be established 
from  the  data.  Social  partners  more  frequently  took  part  in  the  OPC  than  other  types  of 
organisation. 

71 

 
 
 
Targeted Consultation  

Position  papers  submitted  by  organisations  taking  part  in  the  consultation,  including  in  the 
transport sector, as well as the minutes of stakeholder hearings on the ELA were reviewed and 
analysed.  

2. Analysis of the consultation responses 

2.1. Challenges as regards EU labour mobility 

The  European  Commission  bases  its  proposals  for  a  ELA  on  two  challenges  as  regards  EU 
labour mobility:  

 
 

Inadequate cooperation between national enforcement authorities 
Incomplete or sparse information on labour mobility rights and obligations 

Results from the open public consultation 

About two thirds of respondents agree or strongly agree that the existing cooperation between 
national  authorities  is  not  enough  for  an  effective  employment  and  social  security  policy 
implementation in the EU involving cross-border situations (0). 

Q1. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree that existing cooperation 
between national authorities is insufficient to ensure the effective implementation of EU 
employment and social security rules in cross-border situations 

Source:  ICF  based  on  responses  to  the  OPC  for  the  establishment  of  a  European  Labour  Authority  and  of  a 
European Social Security Number. Answers of respondents from the Campaign are excluded.  

A clear majority of OPC respondents agreed that the issues listed by the Commission were as 
many  challenges  to  effective  cooperation  between  national  authorities  on  EU  cross-border 
mobility 0.  

72 

Q1No answerDon't know / cannot answerStrongly disagreeDisagreeNeutralAgreeStrongly AgreeN%7%2%9%7%7%33%34%389 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Q2. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree that the elements presented 
in  the  figure  below  constitute  challenges  to  effective  cooperation  between  national 
authorities on EU cross-border mobility: 

Source: ICF based on responses to the OPC for the establishment of a European Labour Authority. Answers of 
respondents  from  the  Campaign  are  excluded.  Percentages  are  calculated  on  the  total  number  of  responses 
(N=389). 

A number of respondents raised concerns about the lack of common EU standards for cross-
border  cooperation  on  employment  and  social  security  matters  and  the  administrative  costs 
that  this  brings  about.  This  is  also  combined  with  the  lack  of  information,  unclear 
communication and lack of transparency as well as unclear rules. 

The  sample  sizes  were  too  small  to  detect  statistically  differences  in  responses  by  
organisation  type,  country,  or  labour  status.  This  was  mostly  due  to  the  high  number  of 
nonresponses for these categorical variables. 

Results from the targeted consultation 

Most of the responding stakeholders agreed with the analysis presented in the note on ELA of 
the most significant challenges linked to improving cooperation at EU level on cross-border 
employment and social security matters104. 

The  challenge  most  frequently  mentioned  by  the  various  contributors  relates  to  the 
effectiveness  of  information  exchange.  Most  EMCO  members,  EPSCO  as  well  as  certain 
members  within  the  ECPW  (EE,  ES,  FR,  LV,  PL)  and  MISSOC  (AT,  IT)  highlighted 
inefficiencies  in  terms  of  information  exchange  and  access  to  information  by  relevant 

104 Question 1: "Do you share the above analysis of the most significant challenges linked to improving cooperation at EU 

level on cross-border employment and social security matters?" 

73 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Member  State  authorities  as  a  major  cause  of  social  security  fraud  and  abuses  and  a  major 
challenge to overcome. 

Along  with  issues  around  information  exchange,  many  of  the  abovementioned  stakeholders 
highlighted  that  differences  in  administrative  capacity  between  the  Member  States  act  as  a 
barrier  to  effective  cooperation.  This  was  especially  the  case  among  MISSOC  members 
overall.  

A number of stakeholders (French government; AC: BE member; EFBWW; ECPW: ES FR, 
IT,  LV,  PL  members;  PES  Network;  SLIC;  UDW;  ETUC  and  affiliates)  highlighted  that 
issues  around  cooperation  and  coordination  between  Member  State  authorities are  primarily 
caused  by  specific  and  complex  national  administrative  landscapes  and  the  lack  of 
streamlined  procedures,  often  with  implications  for  institutional  capacity.    In  its  common 
position, the PES Network added that challenges on cross-border mobility and social security 
coordination  remain  as  systems  in  the  EU  are  not  harmonised  arguing  that  the  ELA  could 
address  issues  around  capacity  building  which  prevents  effective  cross-border  cooperation. 
The  UDW  highlighted  the  fragmentation  of  efforts  to  address  cross-border  mobiilty  issues, 
with  many  different  tools  for  cooperation  existing  on  EU  level;  in  addition,  there  are  many 
different bilateral agreements between Member States.  

Weak  or  absent  mechanisms  for  joint  cross-border  investigation  and  for  dispute  settlement 
was also a challenge mentioned by certain stakeholders, albeit less frequently. This view was 
shared  among  the  European  Parliament's  Employment  and  Social  Affairs  Committee,  the 
UDW,  PES  Network,  the  ILO  and  the  Nordic-Baltic-Polish  EU  Information  Group.  Social 
partners overall also highlighted the absence of a dispute resolution forum as a challenge for 
resolving  litigation  on  cross  border  cases.  While  employer  organisations  such  as  Business 
Europe were overall sceptical of  the idea of giving the ELA a dispute resolution function due 
to potential interference with the ECJ, trade unions such as ETUC were more in favour of the 
idea so long as the ELA provided out-of-court solutions. 

2.2. Incomplete or sparse information on labour mobility rights and obligations 

Results of the open public consultation 

A  vast  majority  of  the  respondents  agreed  that  insufficient  access  to  information  and 
transparency on cross-border mobility rules is a problem for individuals and businesses 0. 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Q3. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree that insufficient access to 
information  and  transparency  on  cross-border  mobility  rules  is  a  problem  for 
individuals and businesses: 

Source: ICF based on responses to the OPC for the establishment of a European Labour Authority. Answers of 
respondents  from  the  Campaign  are  excluded.  Percentages  are  calculated  on  the  total  number  of  responses 
(N=389). 

Again,  a  clear  majority  of  OPC  respondents  agreed  with  the  challenges  identified  by  the 
Commission to fair and easy access to information and transparency of labour mobility rules 
(0) 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Q4. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree that the elements presented 
in the table constitute challenges to fair and easy access to information and transparency 
of labour mobility rules: 

Source: ICF based on responses to the OPC for the establishment of a European Labour Authority. Answers of 
respondents  from  the  Campaign  are  excluded.  Percentages  are  calculated  on  the  total  number  of  responses 
(N=389). 

Note: percentages labels below 5% have been omitted from the figure to improve readability. 

Among  the  respondents  who  provided  additional  comments105  the  most  frequent  cause 
mentioned  was  institutions'  limited  administrative  capacity  to  deal  with  mobility,  while  the 
most  frequently  cited  solutions  were  the  creation  of  a  one-stop  shop  or  a  better 
communication channel where straightforward clear information is accessible to all.  

The  sample  sizes  were  too  small  to  detect  statistically  differences  in  responses  by  
organisation  type,  country,  or  labour  status.  This  was  mostly  due  to  the  high  number  of 
nonresponses for these categorical variables. 

Responses of the targeted consultation 

A few contributions explicitly mentioned incomplete or sparse information concerning labour 
mobility rights and obligations as a challenge to cross-border mobility.  A number of issues 
were raised, such as: circumvention of the law caused by unclear or insufficient information 
(French  EMCO  member),  technicality  of  the  legislation  causing  confusion  in  enforcement 

105 “Please explain” question after Question 4 

76 

 
 
 
                                                            
(HR  and  IT  MISSOC  members),  lack  of  awareness  to  seek  the  right  information  (Swedish 
PES),  and  need  for  clarification  on  EU  rules  on  the  posting  of  workers  (employer 
organisations overall). 

3. Policy options in relation to tasks carried out by a European Labour Authority 

Results of the open public consultation 

All the potential functions for the ELA proposed in the OPC received strong support overall, 
in  particular  supporting  information  exchange  for  businesses,  individuals  and  between 
national authorities.  

Q5.  Please  indicate  the  extent  to  which  you  agree  or  disagree  that  following  functions 
could be usefully carried out by a permanent EU body dealing with labour mobility and 
social security in cross-border situations: 

Source: ICF based on responses to the OPC for the establishment of a European Labour Authority. Answers of 
respondents  from  the  Campaign  are  excluded.  Percentages  are  calculated  on  the  total  number  of  responses 
(N=389). 

Note: percentages labels below 5% have been omitted from the figure to improve readability. 

Among the OPC respondents who further commented106, a frequent observation was that an 
ELA would clearly improve data collection and communication with added value in terms of 
law  enforcement,  dispute  resolution,  social  dumping  prevention  and  support  for  national 

106 Please explain” question after Question 5 

77 

 
 
 
                                                            
authorities  to  post  workers.  A  few  respondents  were  concerned  about  data  privacy  and 
expressed scepticism about the need for a central EU body. 

The  sample  sizes  were  too  small  to  detect  statistically  differences  in  responses  by  
organisation  type,  country,  or  labour  status.  This  was  mostly  due  to  the  high  number  of 
nonresponses for these categorical variables. 

Results of the targeted consultations 

Stakeholders were asked what exactly a newly created ELA could do to support cross-border 
institutional  cooperation  to  fight  fraud  and  abuse  and  to  improve  the  availability  of 
information to individuals and organisations concerned with labour mobility107.  

The most recurrent views were that the ELA should be above all a platform for information 
exchange  between  other  institutions  and  structures.  Sharing  this  position,  the  PES  Network 
added  that  that  the  ELA  could  offer  digital  solutions  to  help  with  data  collection,  exchange 
and analysis. EMCO members argued that this could be achieved through synergies between 
the ELA and existing EU instruments. Among the social partners, ETUC and the UEAPME 
shared the view that the ELA should act as a.  

In  this context, a  number of stakeholders held the view that the ELA would create value in 
acting  as  a  "liaison"  plarform  or  a  support  service  for  national  enforcement  authorities 
providing  intelligence  and  other  resources  especially  to  remedy  capacity  issues  (AC; 
MISSSOC:  HR,  IT  members;  UDW;  ETUC;  UAEPME;  EFBWW,  Austrian  Chamber  of 
Labour).  

In  addition to the potential  intelligence  gathering function  that the ELA could have, several 
EU agencies have expressed an interest in complementing the work of the ELA based on their 
own specialisms. For Cedefop, the ELA could provide expertise relating to the cross-border 
challenges  that  emerge  from  the  digital  economy  and  work  towards  improving  the  cross-
border recognition of qualifications, access to training for all EU workers and the forecasting 
of skills needs. The ETF argued that its expertise on third country qualification systems and 
skills recognition could potentially complement the work of the ELA. EU-OSHA also offered 
to complement the work of the ELA while Eurofound argued that the ELA could be granted 
powers  to  request  critical  data  from  national  labour  inspectorates  for  further  investigation 
which would result in up-to-date information on frequency and types of labour mobility and 
incidence of abuse.  

A smaller share of the respondents to the targeted consultation showed themselves in favour 
of  an  ELA  with  advanced  functions,  with  greater  responsibility  for  inspections  and 

107  Question  2:  "Drawing  on  existing  structures,  tools  and  legislation,  how  could  the  Authority  effectively  support 
cooperation at an operational level among Member States for the smooth handling of procedures and to become more 
effective  in  fighting  cross-border  fraud  and  abuse?  Do  you  see  the  need  to  review  any  existing  structures  or  tools  to 
better achieve these goals?" 

78 

 
 
                                                            
enforcement  activities  (AC:  AT,  BE,  RO  members;  ECPW:  FR  member;  MISSOC:  PT 
member, Austrian Chamber of Labour). The ILO noted that while the EU has made progress 
in  cross-border  cooperation  on  labour  inspections  thanks  to  the  SLIC  and  the  UDW,  this 
should be further intensified through the creation of an ELA. For civil society organisations 
overall, the ELA should support cross-border labour inspections beyond the scope of bilateral 
agreement while  respecting  national specificities in  this  area (e.g. in countries where  labour 
inspections involve social partners).  

There  is  clear  support  among  stakeholders  for  establishing  the  ELA  as  a  single  EU 
information portal available in all European languages to individuals and organisations alike: 
e.g.  a  "one-stop-shop"  dealing  with  all  information  requests  on  mobility  and  redirecting  to 
other  EU  mobility  online  services  (AC:  AT  and  BE  members;  ECPW:  DE,  FR,  IT,  RO 
members;  FMW;  UDW;  ETUC;  UEAPME;  REIF,  Austrian  Chamber  of  Labour).  Cedefop 
highlighted  the  need  to  offer  citizens  easy  access  to  information  on  the  conditions  for,  and 
opportunities of, mobility. This includes the portability of workers’ rights from one country to 
another, pension rights but also understanding of labour market needs and job opportunities in 
other  countries.  Eurofound  argued  that  the  ELA  could  aim  to  make  EURES  a  real  job 
matching  portal  directly  accessible  by  employers  and  jobseekers  and  bring  together  a  wide 
array  of  information  sources  on  national  labour  market  developments,  industrial  relations 
systems,  wages  and  working  conditions.  The  PES  Network  suggested  that  the  ELA  could 
provide an online tool allowing EU workers to check their social security status anywhere and 
anytime which may, in turn, decrease non-legal employment and abuse cases. Similarly, the 
EFBWW proposed a multilingual website and helpline where all forms of cross-border fraud 
and  abuse  of  social  protection  can  be  reported  immediately.  For  Eurodiaconia,  the  ELA 
should  ensure  the  setting  up  of  services  offering  guidance  and  support  to  those  EU  mobile 
citizens  lacking  information  about  their  social  rights  as  such  services  are  currently  often 
provided solely by humanitarian organisations to EU mobile citizens who struggle to receive 
any kind of help in registering to the local employment agency and social security system. 

Conversely,  several  members  within  the  MISSOC  expressed  the  view  that  a  unified  EU 
information portal for both workers and companies could be realised without the need for an 
ELA  –  instead,  this  could  be  done  through  the  effective  cooperation  of  relevant  DGs  (CZ 
member)  or  by  improving  the  visibility  and  availability  of  the  EURES  portal  (IT  and  PT 
members). The UK PES highlighted that bringing together information into an ELA portal to 
meet the needs of citizens and businesses engaging in cross-border activities could undermine 
the Single Digital Gateway SDG’s objective of being a one-stop-shop for digital information 
and procedures. 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
4. Potential impacts 

Results of the open public consultation 

About  three-quarters  the  respondents  agreed  with  the  envisaged  impacts  resulting  from 
improved  cooperation  among  the  Member  States  on  cross-border  employment  and  social 
security matters (0). 

Q6. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree that improving cooperation 
between  Member  States'  authorities  on  EU  employment  and  social  security  rules  in 
cross-border situations would have the following impacts? 

Source: ICF based on responses to the OPC for the establishment of a European Labour Authority. Answers of 
respondents  from  the  Campaign  are  excluded.  Percentages  are  calculated  on  the  total  number  of  responses 
(N=389). 

Note: percentages labels below 5% have been omitted from the figure to improve readability. 

Most of the respondents who further commented to their reply were confident that improved 
cooperation between Member States would improve data collection and exchange, with some 
respondents  expecting to  see  positive  results  on  employment  with  better  work  opporutnities 
for  all.  Certain  other  respondents  expressed  reservations  regarding  the  centralisation  of 
personal information on the grounds of data privacy. 

The majority of respondents also agreed that improved cooperation among the Member States 
would lead to  a  series of improvements (as those  listed in  the OPC) (0).The results suggest 
that agreement is highest with regard to raising awareness among individuals and businesses 
of EU rules and rights.  

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Q7.  Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree that improving access to 
information  and  transparency  for  individuals  and  businesses  on  EU  employment  and 
social security rules in cross-border situations would have the following impacts? 

Source: ICF based on responses to the OPC for the establishment of a European Labour Authority. Answers of 
respondents  from  the  Campaign  are  excluded.  Percentages  are  calculated  on  the  total  number  of  responses 
(N=389). 

Note: percentages labels below 5% have been omitted from the figure to improve readability. 

None  of  the  respondents  who  further  commented  on  their  reply108  mentioned  negative 
impacts. Rather, they proposed ideas regarding the possible functions of the ELA (e.g. include 
seconded  national  experts  proving  technical  support  and  advice,  introduce  a  centralised 
complaints system etc.). 

The  sample  sizes  were  too  small  to  detect  statistically  differences  in  responses  by  
organisation  type,  country,  or  labour  status.  This  was  mostly  due  to  the  high  number  of 
nonresponses for these categorical variables. 

Results of the targeted consultations 

The  responding  organisations  were  asked  to  share  views  on  how  the  ELA  could  provide 
added  value  in  improving  procedures  to  address  issues  around  social  security  coordination 
among the Member States and labour mobility109.  

Overall, many of the stakeholders thought that the primary role of the ELA should be limited 
to facilitating the exchange of information among the relevant Member State authorities (such 
as  labour  inspectorates,  etc.)  to  maximise  its  added  value.  This  view  was  shared  by  the 

108 “Please explain” question after Question 7. 
109  Question  4:  How could  the  Authority  provide  added  value  in  enhancing  and  extending  current  procedures  and fora  for 

addressing differences in the social security coordination and labour mobility areas? 

81 

 
 
 
                                                            
Finnish and Swedish governments, EPSCO and EMCO members, the latter highlighting that 
the  establishment  of  the  ELA  should  not  result  in  additional  reporting  requirements  on  the 
Member States 

Going beyond the added value the ELA could create by facilitating cross-border information 
exchange, a number of stakeholders pointed out the potential efficiency gains the ELA could 
generate e.g. by increasing the level of trust and cooperation between national administrations 
and  stakeholders,  or  by  creating  synergies  with  other  existing  instruments.  The  proposals 
made  in  this  regard  include  streamlining  procedures  for  decision  on  cross-border  cases 
(ECPW: ES, IT members); fostering intelligent collaboration with national authorities, social 
partners and SOLVIT contact points (ECPW: FR member; EFBWW); focusing interventions 
on fewer areas of higher relevance or where EU instruments are lacking (EMCO).  

For  certain  stakeholders,  improved  information  exchange  and  efficient  administrative 
coordination  through  the  ELA  will  bring  added  value  in  terms  of  raising  awareness  of  EU 
rules and rights, with positive consequences for law enforcement. EU-OSHA suggested that 
the ELA could support an enlarged Senior Labour Inspectors’ Committee (SLIC) which will 
improve enforcement by the Member States of Community law on health and safety at work 
while Eurofound suggested that the ELA could extend its remit to cover cross-border issues 
linked to  the  information  and  consultation  of  workers in  multinational companies  or  arising 
from the digital economy and other new forms of work. The ETUC suggested that the added 
value  of  ELA  could  come  from  the  establishment  of  an  early  warning  system  or  alert 
mechanism to record and act upon infringement cases. Several stakeholders suggested that the 
ELA  would  generate  value  by  acting  as  a  forum  for  the  exchange  of  good  practices  and 
lessons learned (AC BE member; ECPW EL member; EFBWW). 

For a select number of stakeholders, giving the ELA sufficient scope for action will generate 
considerable added value in terms of reducing the risk of social security fraud and abuse  in 
cross-border  situations.  This  primarily  means  that  the  ELA  should  be  responsible  for  the 
coordination  of  joint  investigations  or  cross-border  inspections  and  for  acting  as  a  dispute 
resolution  forum  on  cross-border  cases  (views  shared  by  the  French  government;  the 
European  Parliament;  EPSCO:  BE,  FR,  SE;  EMCO  ES,  EL  members;  EFBWW,  Austrian 
Chamber of Labour).  

A  considerable  number  of  stakeholders  were  concerned  about  the  risk  of  duplication  or 
overlaps resulting from the co-existence of the ELA and other EU-level bodies involved in the 
area  of  cross-border  mobility  (view  shared  by  AC:  BE,  NL,  CZ,  PL,  LT,  HU,  DE,  LV,  IT 
members;  PES  Network  BE,  CZ,  DE,  IE,  PL,  SE;  MISSOC;  UDW;  SLIC;  ILO;  Business 
Europe). Many of these respondents agreed that increasing administrative complexity through 
the creation of a new ELA would cancel out any of its added value.  

82 

 
 
 
 
3. Delivery options 

Results of the open public consultation 

Respondents  to  the  OPC  were  asked  what,  in  their  view,  the  relationship  between  the  ELA 
and other EU agencies, notably those in the employment domain should be (Question 8 of the 
OPC). Most of the responses were related to  the role that the ELA should have,  with  many 
respondents agreeing tha the ELA should have a coordinating role to improve on existing EU 
tools  and  EU  networks  rather  than  a  new  body  with  broader  scope  substituting  already 
existing  organisations.  A  small  number  of  respondents  asked  for  the  establishment  of  a 
centralised EU body incorporating existing EU tools and networks. 

The  sample  sizes  were  too  small  to  detect  statistically  differences  in  responses  by  
organisation  type,  country,  or  labour  status.  This  was  mostly  due  to  the  high  number  of 
nonresponses for these categorical variables. 

Results of the targeted consultations 

Regarding options for establishing the ELA, the views of the organisations taking part in the 
targeted  consultation110  were  relatively  similar  to  those  expressed  by  the  majority  of  OPC 
respondents  in  that  if  a  new  authority  was  to  be  created,  its  role  should  be  limited  to 
coordinating the work of Member State bodies and existing EU-level bodies or mechanisms 
dealing with cross-border mobility. Stimulating the exchange of information and operational 
cross-border  action  among  competent  national  authorities  should  be  the  priority.  As  such, 
most  the  responding  stakeholders  believe  that  creation  of  a  new  ELA  should  not  imply  a 
transfer of competences away from the Member States. 

Another recurring view shared by the different stakeholders is that no organisational structure 
can be determined if the scope and objectives of the ELA are not clearly defined as this would 
risk resulting in increased administrative complexity.  

Thus, the most preferred option for a number of stakeholders is stronger cooperation between 
existing  relevant  EU  bodies  to  address  cross-border  challenges  without  increasing  their 
capacity  or  changing  the  way  they  are  governed  (a  so-called  "status  quo").  Member  State 
governments  overall  favoured  improving  existing  EU  level  structures  and  mechanisms 
dealing with cross-border labour mobility rather than creating a new EU body as subsidiarity 
needs to be respected. A considerable number of EMCO members (CZ, HU, IT, LU, NL, SE) 
pointed out that there should not be any transfer of regulatory or legal competencies to ELA 
away  from  Member  State  authorities,  and  that  the  need  for  an  ELA  would  first  need  to  be 
assessed against the performance and objectives of current EU instruments. Similarly, many 
members within the AC (BE, CZ, DE, HU, LT, LV, NL, PL) and the PES Network (BE, CZ, 
DE,  FI,  HR,  IE,  SE,  UK)  argued  that  a  new  body  may  increase  complexity  and  the  risk  of 

110  Question 5: Which organisational structure would you consider to best enable the Authority to efficiently carry out its 

tasks? 

83 

 
 
                                                            
that  synergies  between  existing  organisations  and  national 

labour 
duplication  and 
inspectorates should instead be further enhanced without having an ELA. The same view was 
shared by Business Europe, the Estonian ECPW member and the Czech MISSOC member.  

Many other stakeholders suggested that a new EU-level network to improve the coordination 
of existing EU labour mobility bodies and of national authorities could be created. This option 
would require no change in the structure of existing bodies, but would however introduce a 
new  governance  arrangement.  In  such  a  case,  overlaps  and  duplication  of  effort  should  be 
avoided. The overall EMCO position was that the ELA should build on existing networks and 
tools so that no additional reporting requirements or costs are passed on to the Member States, 
with the Finnish member adding that the ELA could exist as a supporting network and not a 
physical  agency.  EPSCO  and  the  PES  Network  shared  the  view  that  having  the  ELA  as  a 
network  focused  on  solving  concrete  problems  especially  given  the  lack  of  clarification  of 
what the ELA's relationship with existing instruments such as EESSI or IMI would be. While 
sharing  these  views,  many  other  stakeholders  argued  that  the  ELA  should  only  have  a 
supportive  rather  than  an  authoritative  role  so  as  to  safeguard  the  competencies  of  Member 
State  authorities  (UDW;  SLIC;  ECPW:  LV,  PL,  PT,  SE  members;  MISSOC  CZ  and  LV 
members; FMW SE member; PEARLE; REIF, Nordic-Baltic-Polish EU Information Group). 

A select number of stakeholders showed themselves more favourable to the creation of a new 
agency or authority, some highlighting that the proposed mandate of the ELA would still need 
to  be  further  clarified  (FMW,  MISSOC).  Other  stakeholders  proposed  a  strong  governance 
structure for the ELA to the extent that is possible in respect of the principle of subsidiarity 
(ECPW:  ES,  FR,  IT,  RO  members;  ETUC;  civil  society  organisations).  In  this  respect,  the 
ECPW and ETUC argued that representatives from the competent Member State authorities 
as well as social partners should hold key positions in the governance of the ELA.  

In addition, the responding EU agencies (Cedefop, Eurofound, EU-OSHA, ETF) all suggested 
that  the  governance  of  the  ELA  could  partly  integrate  their  own  specific  mandates  or 
competencies in the areas of employment and mobility. The French government also argued 
that this could potentially increase the visibility of the activities undertaken by these various 
agencies. 

Lastly,  it  should  be  noted  that  several  organisations  who  had  contributed  to  the  targeted 
consultation did not express an opinion on what would be the most appropriate structure for 
the ELA – this relates to the general view that the objectives and scope of the ELA would first 
need to be clarified to discuss the proposed options for establishing it.  

5. Conclusions 

Support  for  the  ELA  very  strong among  respondents  to  the  OPC  whereas  views  were  more 
mixed among the stakeholders taking part in the targeted consultations. 

84 

 
 
The  majority  of  respondents  across  the  OPC  and  the  targeted  consultation  agreed  with  the 
Commission's analysis of the challenges to cooperation and communication between Member 
State authorities on cross-border employment and social protection cases.  

Plans for establishing an ELA were  rather well received overall. The general  view was that 
the ELA should focus on improving cooperation among national authorities by facilitating the 
exchange of information, intelligence and good practice.  

The  general  opinion  is  that  the  establishment  of  the  ELA  should  not  result  in  a  transfer  of 
competencies away from the Member States, and should not create administrative complexity 
and duplication. 

Many  of  the  stakeholders  taking  part  in  the  targeted  consultation  believed  that  the  mandate 
and  objectives  of  the  ELA  need  to  be  further  clarified  before  deciding  on  its  governance 
arrangements.  Some  among  them  suggested  that  an  assessment  of  existing  structures  and 
instruments (e.g. EESSI, EURES, IMI, SOVLIT, UDW) would be needed before deciding on 
whether to establish the ELA.  

The general opinion with Member States' administrations is that the establishment of the ELA 
should not result in a transfer of competencies away from the Member States, and should not 
create administrative complexity or duplication.  

85 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW?  

o  Practical implications of the initiative 

If the initiative is accepted its key obligations will apply for the Commission, Member States, 
and the new Authority, while individuals and businesses will mainly benefit from it. 

Member  States  will  have  to  propose/determine  the  seat  of  the  new  Authority  before  the 
adoption of the act by the co-legislators and selected “Host” country will have to implement 
the actions proposed. In addition, they will have to appoint Members of Management Board 
of the ELA, who will have to actively participate in the meetings and they will possibility to 
sending national experts to ELA. They will have to nominate National Liaison Officers to the 
Authority and cover related costs. 

Commission’s  obligations  will  be  related  initially  to  the  preparatory  work  to  set-up  the 
Authority(establishment of project team, art-up toolkit ; handling and supporting the process 
of  reorganisation  of  existing  labour  mobility  bodies,  redeployment  of  staff/resources, 
management of legislative changes of EU legislation etc.) Over the long-term the Commission 
will supervise the ELA’s reporting and contribute to its work. 

ELA’s obligations are related to work/delivering tasks in line with its mandate, its day-to day-
management  of  work  and  more  strategic  working  organisation  (e.g.  reporting,  joint 
programmes etc.) 

o  Summary of costs and benefits 

The assessment of benefits and costs had a strong qualitative approach especially for benefits. 
While  the  better  cooperation  has  an  impact  on  improving  enforcement,  the  causal  link 
between the set-up of a new body and socio-economic impacts, including mobility flows, is 
rather remote, owing to the influence of national legislation and to actual rule implementation. 
Therefore, the  quantification  of  social  or  economic  impacts  and  particularly  of  benefits  was 
not deemed as realistic.  

The  benefits  for  individuals,  especially  the  mobile  workers,  will  be  better  protection  and 
reduced  exposure  to  the  risk  of  fraud  and  abuse,  especially  in  the  road  transport  sector, 
improved legal clarity and predictability of procedures.. Further benefits arrive from improved 
possibilities to exercise their rights to the freedom of movement.  

Business, especially SMEs, will benefit from more fair competition and equal playing field 
and from reduced uncertainty about their situation, especially relevant in relation to posting of 
workers.  That  together  with  better  information  can  facilitate  their  decisions  to  engage  in 
cross-border activities.  

Benefits for national authorities are their reinforced cooperation and control capacities for 
better  rule  enforcement  as  well  as  savings  in  terms  of  time  and  resources  in  exchanging 

86 

 
 
information,  coordinating  activities  and  in  providing  information.  Benefits  of  structured 
cooperation are expected to increase over the time as more national authorities decide to use 
the new operational capacity.  

Cost of the preferred option will mainly influence the EU budget with minimum requirements 
for national authorities related to the National Liaisons Officers and contributions to the EU 
budget. The EU budget costs refer to the situation in 2023 (cruising speed). Costs for tasks are 
compared  to  baseline,  but  not  for  the  delivery  option.    Efforts  to  be  made  by  national 
authorities  to  comply  with  the  existing  obligations  (e.g.  for  the  timely  exchange  of 
information or data collection) are not considered as an additional cost or burden compared to 
baseline. 

I. Overview of costs – Preferred option 

Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses 

Administrations/EU budget 

One-off 

Recurr
ent 

One-off  Recurrent 

One-off 

Recurrent 

Labour 
mobility  
information 
and services 
for individuals 
and businesses 

Cooperation 
and exchange 
of information 
between 
national 
authorities  

Cross-border 
labour 
mobility 
analyses and 
risk 
assessment 

Support to 
joint 
inspections 

Capacity 
building 

Direct costs 

No costs 
expected. 

Indirect costs   

Direct costs 

Indirect costs   

Direct costs 

Indirect costs   

Direct costs 

Indirect costs   

Direct costs 

Indirect costs   

5,500,000 

2,900,000 

6,700,000 

2,300,000 

Cost to MS 
to be 
compensated 
by retrieving 
unpaid taxes 
or 
contributions 

9,500,000 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mediation 
between 
national 
authorities  

Facilitation of 
cooperation 
between 
relevant 
stakeholders in 
the event of 
cross-border 
labour market 
disruptions 

Governance 
(administrativ
e costs) 

Direct costs 

Indirect costs   

Direct costs 

Indirect costs   

Direct Cost 

700,000 

400 000 

22-24 million 
euro in cruising 
speed (2023), not 
compared to 
baseline, 
Brussels-based 

MS contribution 
to the EU budget 

(1) Estimates to be provided with respect to the baseline; (2) costs are provided for each identifiable action/obligation of the 
preferred option otherwise for all retained options when no preferred option is specified; (3) If relevant and available, please 
present information on costs according to the standard typology of costs (compliance costs, regulatory charges, hassle costs, 
administrative costs, enforcement costs, indirect costs; see section 6 of the attached guidance). 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS 

Assumptions  and  approaches  in  estimating  budgetary  impacts,  together  with  results,  are 
presented below.  

The budgetary  impact has  been  made  in  details for Policy  Option  2 and Delivery Option  2. 
The other options have been drawn up in comparison to this milestone.  

For Title 1 and Title 2, comparison of most items has been made with three other agencies, 
namely  the  European  Fisheries  Control  Agency  (EFCA),  the  European  Border  and  Coast 
Guard Agency (FRONTEX) and the European Foundation for the improvement of Living and 
Working conditions (EUROFOUND). EFCA has been chose because it is Brussels-based and 
has a mandate to coordinate inspections by Member States; FRONTEX because it has similar 
activities as those envisaged for ELA (inspections, training of trainers, training curriculum); 
EUROFOUND because it has more or less the same number of staff.  

Table 1 – Titles 1 and 2 

For staff, the average costs as updated on 13/12/2017 and communicated through the Réseau 
des Unités Financières (RUF) has been applied.  

89 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 2 – Average staff costs used 

Category of personnel 

Official  
Temporary agent 
Seconded National Expert 
Contractual agent 

Total average cost to be used for the 
financial statements(*)  

143.000 €/year 
143.000 €/year 
82.000 €/year 
74.000 €/year 

These unit costs have been applied to the number of staff envisaged at cruising speed on a 12-
months  basis  (upon  full  recruitment).  The  number  of  staff  has  been  assessed  taking  into 
consideration  the  future  workload  of  the  authority  per  tasks,  based  on  past  experience  for 
activities  transferred  and  benchmarks  for  new  activities  such  as  joint  inspections.  For 
horizontal  tasks  good  practices  including  internal  control  requirements  regarding  the 
necessary split between certain financial management and control tasks, have been duly taken 
into account.  

As regards other entries in the table, the following reasoning has been applied. 

Table 3 – Detailed assessment for Titles 1 and 2.  

Title 1 – Staff expenditure 

Expenditure relating to staff recruitment 

Employer's pension contributions 

Mission expenses 

Socio-medical infrastructure 

Training 

External Services (building security, 
cleaning, maintenance, etc.) 

Higher than EFCA and lower than FRONTEX and 
EUROFOUND due to seat location uncertainties and 
reimbursement of travel costs uncertain too 

Not applicable 
Higher than EFCA because EFCA is Brussels-based 
and all EU institutions are easily accessible; lower 
than FRONTEX and EUROFOUND because the 
agency is expected to host many meetings more than 
send its own staff on mission 
Higher than EFCA and lower than EUROFOUND as 
the number of staff is the determining parameter 
taken into account 
Within benchmark range; training needs assessed as 
high due to the specificities of the national legislation 
in the labour legal framework 
Building should provide for a lot of meeting facilities 
equipped with interpretations booths given the high 
number of meetings needed and the low probability 
that the staff of the national authorities speaks foreign 
language on top of their mother tongue 

Receptions, events and representation 

DG EMPL has 2,400 EUR 

Social welfare 

ZERO 

Other Staff related expenditure 

ZERO 
Title 2 - Infrastructure & operating expenditure 

Rental of buildings and associated costs 
Information, communication technology and  Access to powerful internet is key and costs vary a 

(See separate benchmarking for the buildings) 

90 

 
 
 
data processing 

lot from one country to another 

Movable property and associated costs 

Current administrative expenditure 

Postage / Telecommunications 

Meeting expenses 
Running costs in connection with  
operational activities 

Information and publishing 

Studies 
Other infrastructure and operating 
expenditure 

Within benchmarks 

Within benchmarks   

Depends on the seat location 

Covers meetings for governance issues (Board, etc.) 

ZERO 
ELA must be visible from everywhere & create its 
brand 
ZERO 
Buffer to possibly adjust to correction coefficient 
impacting Titles 1 and 2 

For building costs, the approach has been different, as the location and the role of the host 
country  impacts  severely  the  building  costs.  Therefore,  comparison  has  been  made  with 
agencies having more or less 130 Establishment Plan posts. The amount foreseen in the Draft 
Budget  2018  has  been  adjusted  as  if  they  were  Brussels-based,  applying  the  corresponding 
correction coefficient of their seat location. The returned average amounts to a bit more than 3 
MEUR per year. Details can be found below.  

Table 4 – Building benchmarks 

Benchmarks buildings (ca 130 EP posts) 
Coeff. Corr 

MEUR  MS 

Bxl 

Agency 

GSA 

ERA 
EBA 
ESMA 

3.4  CZ 

1.35  FR 
3.4  UK 
5.6  FR Paris 

eu-LISA 

1.5  EE 

Average: 

73% 

4.64 

114% 
142% 
114% 

1.19 
2.40 
4.92 

78% 

1.93 

3.20 

For Title 3, activities of DG EMPL have been screened to draw a full list of activities that 
were  relevant  for  ELA,  accompanied  by  their  costs  as  foreseen  in  the  annual  work 
programmes  and  the  corresponding  staff  needed  to  implement  them.  Have  been  taken  into 
consideration  studies,  statistical  analysis,  support  to  networks,  translations,  trainings, 
missions,  web  management,  etc.  These  transferred  activities  represent  half  of  the  total 
operational budget of the future Authority under the current MFF (see table below).  

Based on this first screening exercise, the various options have been built, extending the scope 
of  the  activities  when  needed  or  comparing  to  existing  activities  implemented  by  other 
services or agencies.  

91 

 
 
 
  
  
  
 
In the case of totally new activities, the methodology followed was based on benchmarking 
with  similar  activities  carried  out  by  other  regulatory  agencies  in  particular,  e.g.  for  the 
coordination of joint inspections, and adjusting to size or specificities as envisaged for ELA.  

92 

 
 
 
 
Table 5 – List of existing actions to be shifted to ELA 

 2,7 FTE in 2019 and 5,5 FTE in 2020 whose salary costs are borne by DG EMPL and 1 Seconded National Expert whose salary costs are entirely borne by the EFTA 

93 

 
 
 
 
Table 6 - Explanations on Title 3 final amounts per task 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 5: ELA PROBLEM TREE 

s
r
e
v
i
r
D

s

m
e
l
b
o
r
P

s
e
c
n
e
u
q
e
s
n
o
C

Weak or absent 
mechanisms for cross-
border enforcement: 
-  to access/share 
information 
- to organise joint 
enforcement activities 
- to solve disputes 

Insufficient 
capacity of 
authorities to 
organise 
cooperation 
with 
authorities 
across 
borders 

Insufficient 
cooperation 
set up at EU 
level 

Incomplete information for 
individuals and employers  

Incomplete guidance and 
assistance to address cross 
border issues 

Inadequate operational cooperation between 
competent authorities in cross-border 
situations undermining compliance and 
enforcement of EU rules 

Inadequate support 
function for individuals 
and employers 

Workers/individuals 

Businesses 

 low 

awareness/knowledge 
of EU rules 

 lower protection  
 less mobility 
 mistrust  

 risk of abuse 
 risk of committing 

fraud 

inadequate working 
conditions 
  

 low 

awareness/knowledge 
of EU rules  
 demanding 

compliance (more 
time/resources 
needed) 

 unfair competition 
 mistrust 
 impact on cross-border 

activity 

Competent 
authorities 

 less 

efficient/effective 
procedures 
 lack of mutual 

trust 

 impact on budget 
 risk of fraud/error 

Economy/society 
 poor functioning 
of labour market 
& less mobility 

 mistrust 
 poor job matching 
unrealised 
job/growth 
potential 
shortage of 
workers 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 6: EU ACQUIS RELEVANT FOR THE INITIATIVE  

This Annex presents the EU acquis in the area of labour mobility that is directly linked and 
influenced by the initiative as well as the EU acquis in other areas on which the Authority can 
have an impact.  

Labour mobility  

In the field of labour mobility an extensive body of legislation sets the framework to ensure 
that  the  fundamental  freedoms  of  the  Treaty  can  work  in  practice  and  contribute  to  a  well-
functioning internal market:.  

- Free movement of workers is a fundamental principle of the Treaty enshrined in Article 45 
of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  and  developed  by  EU  secondary 
legislation.  Based  on  these  rules  EU  citizens  are  entitled  to  look  for  a  job  in  another  EU 
country, work there without needing a work permit, reside there for that purpose, stay there 
even  after  employment  has  finished,  and  enjoy  equal  treatment  with  nationals  in  access  to 
employment,  working  conditions  and  all  other  social  and  tax  advantages.  The  following 
secondary legislation is specifically relevant: 

  Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union 
  Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to 

move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States 

  Directive 2014/54/EU on measures facilitating the exercise of rights conferred on workers 

in the context of freedom of movement for workers 

  Regulation  (EU)  2016/589  on  a  European  network  of  employment  services  (EURES), 

workers' access to mobility services and the further integration of labour markets. 

-  Coordination  of  social  security  rights  are  essential  to  free  movement  of  workers,  with 
rules  protecting  social  security  rights  when  moving  within  Europe.  These  rules  do  not 
harmonise, only coordinate social security systems which remain very diverse across Europe. 
The  EU  rules  ensure  that  the  application  of  the  different  national  legislations  respects  the 
basic principles of equality of treatment and non-discrimination, and does not adversely affect 
persons exercising their right to free movement within the European Union. Since 2010, the 
following coordination Regulations apply, which are currently ongoing revision:  

  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems as amended 

by Council Regulation (EU) No 517/2013 of 13 May 2013. 

  Regulation  (EC)  No  987/2009  laying  down  the  procedure  for  implementing  Regulation 
(EC)  No  883/2004  on  the  coordination  of  social  security  systems  as  amended  by 
Commission Regulation (EU) No 1224/2012 of 18 December 2012.  

96 

 
 
The above Regulations are extended by Regulation (EU) No 1231/2010 to nationals of non-
EU  countries  (third-country  nationals)  legally  resident  in  the  EU  and  in  a  cross-border 
situation.  Their  family  members  and  survivors  are  also  covered  by  social  security 
coordination if they are in the EU. 

- Posting of workers in the framework of service provision  

Specific rules apply to posted workers - employees who are sent by their employer to carry 
out  a  service  in  another  EU  Member  State  on  a  temporary  basis,  without  integrating  in  the 
labour market there. In order to protect their rights, EU rules ensure for them   minimum rates 
of pay; maximum work periods and minimum rest periods; minimum paid annual leave; the 
conditions of hiring out workers through temporary work agencies; health, safety and hygiene 
at work; equal treatment between men and women. These rules are defined in the Posting of 
Workers Directive which was approved in 1996 and is currently ongoing revision.  

In  2014  the  Enforcement  Directive  was  approved  with  the  aim  to  strengthen  the  practical 
application  by  addressing  issues  related  to  fraud,  circumvention  of  rules,  and  exchange  of 
information between the Member States: 

  Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision 

of services 

  Directive  2014/67/EU on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting 

of workers in the framework of the provision of services. 

In  addition  to  the  above  legislation,  Member  States  also  cooperate  to  tackle  undeclared 
work, which may have connections. The cooperation takes place within the framework of the 
European  Platform  to  enhance  cooperation  in  tackling  undeclared  work,  established  by 
Decision (EU) 2016/344.  

Undeclared work is tackled also in the broader context in relation to fight and prevention of 
trafficking  in  human  beings  (Anti-trafficking  agenda)  To  address  trafficking  in  human 
beings the EU has put in place a comprehensive, gender-specific and victim-centred legal and 
policy framework 

  Directive  2011/36/EU  on  combating  and  preventing  trafficking  in  human  beings  and 

protecting its victims  

  EU Strategy  towards the eradication of trafficking in human beings for the period 2012-

2016.  

  Communication  on  "Reporting  on  the  follow-up  to  the  EU  Strategy  towards  the 
Eradication  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  and  identifying  further  concrete  action” 
(COM(2017) 728 final) 

To support economically successful and  socially responsible company  restructuring, the EU 
can draw on a variety of instruments, ranging from 'soft' policy guidance and 'hard' company 

97 

 
 
and  labour  legislation  to  financial  instruments.  The  EU  Quality  Framework  for 
Anticipation  of  Change  and  Restructuring  (COM(2013)882  final)  proposes  a  set  of 
principles and good practices for the anticipation of change and mitigation of the employment 
and  social    effects  of  restructuring  activities,    addressed  to  all  the  stakeholders  involved.  It 
contributes  to  the  implementation  of  legislation  and  financial  instrument  by  which  the  EU 
seeks  to  facilitate  investment  in  human  capital  and  the  reallocation  of  human  resources  to 
activities with high growth potential and quality jobs. There exists  important EU legislation 
on the  approximation of Member States' laws relating to  collective redundancies (Council 
Directive  98/59/EC)  or  relating  to  the  safeguarding  of  employees’  rights  in  the  event  of 
transfers  of  undertakings,  businesses  or  parts  of  undertakings  or  businesses  (Council 
Directive 2001/23/EC), as well as requirements laid down in a framework for informing and 
consulting employees in the EU (Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of 
the Council), on takeover bids (Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council)  or on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies (Directive 2005/56/EC 
of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  ).  In  terms  of  EU  financial  instruments,  the 
European  Globalisation  Fund  (plays  its  role  of  solidarity  and  emergency  fund.  It  is  the  EU 
instrument designed specifically to support employees who lose their jobs as a result of major 
structural  changes  in  world  trade  patterns  due  to  globalisation,  such  as  when  restructuring 
involves a large company shutting down or moving production. 

Internal Market - sectoral policies    

- Transport  

A  wide  palette  of  sectorial  legislation  is  also  in  place  at  EU  level  in  order  to  ensure  that 
categories  of  workers  in  specific  sectors  have  their  rights  protected  when  it  comes  to  cross 
border mobility and social security.  Given the high exposure to cross-border situations and 
therefore its high vulnerability to lack of enforcement of social rules, the following social and 
market rules in road transport are particularly relevant: 

  Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 on the driving times, break and rest periods of drivers and 

enforcement Directive 2006/22/EC; 

  Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 on access to the occupation of road transport operator 
  Commission  proposal laying down specific  rules for posting of drivers in road transport 

sector, COM(2017) 277  

- Data protection An increasing body of legislation ensures both transparency and access to 
data  on  the  one  hand  and  the  protection  of  natural  persons  as  to  the  processing  of  personal 
data on the other hand. For the purpose of the European Labour Authority's functions, which 
may process micro data on individuals and employers, the following rules on data protection 
in the internal market and data processing by the European Institutions (under revision), are of 
relevance:    

98 

 
 
  Regulation (EC) No 2016/679 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the 

processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data;  

  Commission proposal on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of 
personal  data  by  the  Union  institutions,  bodies,  offices  and  agencies  and  on  the  free 
movement of such data, COM(2017) 8; 

  Regulation  (EC)No  45/2001  on  the  protection  of  individuals  with  regard  to  the 
processing  of  personal  data  by  the institutions  and  bodies  of  the  Community  and  on 
the free movement of such data; 

  Regulation  (EC)  No  1049/2001  regarding  public  access  to  European  Parliament, 

Council and Commission documents. 

- Third country nationals  

There is also an extensive legislative body in place providing for the rules on  cross border 
mobility of third-country nationals, depending on their status, notably:  

  Directive 2003/109/EC concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term 

residents; 

  Directive 2009/50/EC on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals 

for the purposes of highly qualified employment; 

  Directive 2014/66/EU on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals 

in the framework of an intra-corporate transfer; 

  Directive  (EU)  2016/801  on  the  conditions  of  entry  and  residence  of  third-country 
nationals for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange 
schemes  or  educational  projects  and  au  pairing  (recast  of  Directives  2004/114/EC  on 
students and 2005/71/EC on researchers).  

Coherence with other EU objectives/initiatives 

Commission’s political priorities as stated by the President in his Political Guidelines at the 
beginning of the mandate, A New Start for Europe: My Agenda for Jobs, Growth, Fairness 
and  Democratic  Change111  especially  with  the  priorities  of  ensuring  deeper  and  fairer 
internal  market;  and  of  a  deeper  and  fairer  economic  and  monetary  union.  The  first  one 
promotes labour mobility while protecting workers' social rights and ensuring a fair European 
labour  market.112  For  this  a  good  cooperation  of  national  authorities  in  the  area  of  cross-
border labour mobility and social security coordination is vital in addition to rules setting the 
rights  and  obligations.  Under  the  second  priority,  the  initiative  under  discussion  is  coherent 

111 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/publications/president-junckers-political-guidelines_en  
112 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/priorities/internal-market_en  

99 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
with  the  European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights  aiming  at  guaranteeing  more  effective  rights  of 
citizens. 

The coherence is ensured with relevant policy initiatives and instruments notably in the area 
of  single  market,  justice  and  fundamental  rights,  and  migration  and  home  affairs,  regional 
policy.  

Within  the  context  of  the  Single  Market  Strategy113  and  as  a  follow  up  to  EU  Citizenship 
report 2017114 the Commission recently adopted proposals on a Single Digital Gateway and 
SOLVIT  action  plan115  to  give  citizens  easy,  online  access  to  information,  assistance  and 
problem- solving services and the possibility to complete online administrative procedures in 
cross-border situations by linking up relevant EU and national-level content and services in a 
seamless, user-friendly and user- centric way and to ensure a culture of compliance and smart 
enforcement  to  help  deliver  a  true  Single  Market.  Both  initiatives  are  considered  in  the 
baseline of this IA and the options of this initiative are designed to contribute to them and to 
complement them while avoiding overlaps.  

Europe  on  the  move116  aims  at  ensuring  a  socially  fair  and  competitive  internal  market  for 
road  transport  services  given  the  importance  of  the  sector  for  the  Union's  economy  and 
society by providing by creating a level playing field in road haulage and enhancing the social 
framework and employment conditions. The options assessed in the IA, especially its tasks on 
risk assessment and framework for joint cross-border inspection, complement and can help to 
improve  results  of  measures  foreseen  to  address  the  problematic  practice  of  "letterbox 
companies",  complex  and  non-transparent  business  models  and  fight  against  illicit 
employment practices. 

The  initiative  is  coherent  with  the  EU  Agenda  on  migration117  and  the  EU  anti-trafficking 
legal an policy framework. In view of the future demographic challenges the EU is facing, the 
legal migration will have to be enhanced by policies that attract workers that the EU economy 
needs and good working EU labour market with labour mobility support services assessed in 
this  IA  are  contributing  to  that.  Preventing  and  fighting  trafficking  in  human  beings  for 
whatever purpose – sexual or labour exploitation is a top EU priority.  

113  In  2015,  the  Commission  presented  its Single  Market  Strategy (Upgrading  the  Single  Market:  more  opportunities  for 
people and business COM/2015/0550) - final roadmap to deliver on President Juncker's political commitment to unleash the 
full potential of the Single Market and make it the launchpad for European companies to thrive in the global economy. 
114 EU Citizenship Report 2017, Luxembourg: http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/item-detail.cfm?item_id=51132  
115  May  2017  package  included  also  a  third  element,  a  proposal  for  the  Single  Market  Information  Tool  (SMIT): 
http://ec.europa.eu/growth/content/commission-takes-new-steps-enhance-compliance-and-practical-functioning-eu-
single-market-0_en  

116 Europe on the move – An Agenda for a socially fair transition towards clean, competitive and connected mobility for all, 

COM (2017) 283 final, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=CELEX:52017DC0283  
117 COM(2015) 240 final https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration_en  

100 

 
 
                                                            
The  European  Semester  process  has  already  given  prominence  to  the  issues  addressed  with 
this initiative. Most recently, the 2018 Annual Growth Survey118  highlighted the importance 
of  promoting  the  mobility  of  workers  across  locations,  while  ensuring  the  full  respect  of 
existing  rights  as  well  as  the  importance  of  stronger  and more  efficient  public institution in 
building resilient economic structures.  

Common  Approach  on  EU  decentralised  agencies119  aims  at  improving  coherence, 
effectiveness, accountability and transparency in the performance of these agencies. It sets out 
guidelines in terms of the creation, structure and operation of agencies, together with funding, 
budgetary,  supervision  and  management  issues.  It  requires  an  impact  assessment  to  guide  a 
decision  to  create  a  new  agency,  and  encourages  using  common  and  objective  criteria  in 
assessing both the opportunity to disband agencies or to merge them. In that respect, merging 
agencies  should  be  considered  in  cases  where  respective  tasks  are  overlapping,  where 
synergies  can  be  contemplated  or  when  agencies  would  be  more  efficient  if  inserted  in  a 
bigger  structure.  In  the  joint  statement  to  the  Common  approach  the  three  institutions  urge 
decentralised  agencies  to  pursue  their  efforts  to  streamline  their  activities  and  increase  their 
performance.  

The  Commission  decided  to  curb  the  financial  and  human  resources  committed  to  the  EU 
agencies.120 This should be achieved by a yearly 1% reduction of staff over a period of five 
years for all decentralised agencies taken together (equivalent to a net reduction is a reduction 
of 276 posts on the 6 050 posts authorised in 2013). To meet the needs for additional human 
resources in certain agencies, the Commission also proposed to create a ‘redeployment pool’ 
by  applying  an  annual 1%  levy  on  the  posts  of  all  agencies  that  would  then  be  allocated to 
‘start-up  phase’  agencies  and  ‘new  tasks’  agencies.  In  total,  the  EU  decentralised  agencies 
should thus progressively reduce the staffing levels by 10% from 2013 to the end of 2018. 

118 Annual Growth Survey 2018, COM(2017) 690 final, https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/2017-comm-690_en_0.pdf  
119  Joint  Statement  of  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council  of  the  EU  and  the  European  Commission  on  decentralised 
agencies, 
https://europa.eu/european-
union/sites/europaeu/files/docs/body/joint_statement_and_common_approach_2012_en.pdf  
120  Communication  COM(2013)  519  final  on  ‘Programming  of  human  and  financial  resources  for  decentralised  agencies 

2012, 

2014-2020’, 10 July 2013.  

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
ANNEX 7: EU LEVEL COMMITTEES AND STRUCTURES IN THE FIELD OF LABOUR MOBILITY 

The Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems (AC), 
established  by  Regulations  883/2004  and  987/2009  on  the  coordination  of  social  security 
systems , has both a strategic role in the policy and legislative landscape (e.g. interpretation 
questions,  the  revision  of  social  security  coordination  rules,  statistical  data  collection, 
analytical  work,  a  quasi-legislative  function  adopting 
interpretative  Decisions  and 
Recommendations);  and  an  operational  role  (e.g.  solving  individual  cases,  the  creation  of 
tools such as the EHIC or EESSI). It also provides a conciliation mechanism through one of 
its subgroups - the Conciliation Board. The AC meets 4 times a year.  

The Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Social Security Systems, established by 
Regulations 883/2004 has consultative role to the AC as regards to principles and problems 
arising  from  the  implementation  of  the  Regulation,  with  particular  regard  to  the  impact  of 
certain  categories  of  persons.  It  constitutes  an  important  forum  for  exchange  between  the 
Commission  (chairing the Committee), government representatives from all Member States, 
and the social partners.  

The  Technical  Committee  and  the  Advisory  Committee  on  the  Free  Movement  of 
Workers ensures cooperation between Member States and a forum for the exchange of ideas 
and  information.  The  Technical  Committee  composed  of  representatives  of  Member  States 
assists  the  Commission  in  the  technical  work  and  measures  on  Regulation  492/2011  on 
freedom  of  movement  for  workers  within  the  Union.  The  Advisory  Committee  extends 
participation  to  social  partners  and  discusses  questions  related  to  the  freedom  of  movement 
and employment, having the possibility to submit proposals for the revision of the Regulation.  
Both Committees meet twice a year.   

The Committee of Experts on Posting of Workers (ECPW) plays an advisory role to the 
Commission and Member States. It facilitates exchange of information and good practice, and 
examines  difficulties  of  implementation  of  Directive  96/71/EC  concerning  the  posting  of 
workers. The ECPW meets twice per year. 

The  European  Platform  tackling  Undeclared  Work  (UDW  Platform)  operates  at  two 
levels.  At  the  national  level,  it  supports  Member  States  in  promoting  better  working 
conditions  and  formal  employment.  At  EU-level,  it  provides  a  forum  for  the  exchange  of 
information  and  best  practices  and  for  engaging  in  cross-border  cooperation  and  joint 
activities. The activities of the Platform are conducted on a voluntary basis. Members include 
one Senior Representative per Member State, and four representatives of cross-industry social 
partners at Union level. The Platform meets twice a year.  

The  EURES  network  provides  information  and  recruitment  services  to  workers  and 
employers. It comprises Public Employment Services and the Commission. It formulates the 
framework  for  horizontal  support  (including  the  EURES  Job  mobility  portal);  analysis  of 
mobility;  and  cooperation  for  apprenticeships and  traineeships.  The  network  is  governed  by 

102 

 
 
the EURES Coordination Group, composed of the European Coordination Office (within DG 
EMPL) and the National Coordination Offices of the Member States, with representatives of 
the social partners also invited. The EURES Coordination Group meets 4 times a year.  

103 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  8:  PRACTICAL  TOOLS  FOR  THE  SHARING  OF  ADMINISTRATIVE  DOCUMENTS  AND 
INFORMATION  BETWEEN  NATIONAL  AUTHORITIES  IN  THE  FIELD  OF  LABOUR 
MOBILITY 

This Annex provides an overview of the main IT tools set up at European Union level in order 
to  facilitate  the  exchange  of  administrative  documents  and  information  between  national 
authorities on different aspects of labour mobility.  

The  Internal  Market  Information  System  (IMI-system)121  is  the  corporate  IT-based 
information exchange and information sharing tool, managed by DG GROW, which connects 
national,  regional  and  local  authorities  across  borders.  It  facilitates  the  exchange  of 
information  related  to  the  Internal  Market  field  between  public  administrations  across  the 
EEA that are involved in the practical implementation of EU law. It has a multilingual search 
function that helps authorities to identify their counterparts in another country. The system is 
based  on  pre-translated  forms,  designed  to  cover  the  different  cases  where  authorities  are 
likely to need information from abroad. The IMI-system supports to date 11 different policy 
areas/administrative procedures, including the posting of workers, SOLVIT and the European 
Professional Card (EPC). Support for the Posting of Workers Directive and the Enforcement 
of the Posting of Workers Directive have been implemented through a number of modules for 
different  types  of  exchange.  IMI  can  be  used  as  a  common  case  management  tool  among 
national institutions. 

European  Register  of  Road  Transport  Undertakings  (ERRU)  is  a  system  of  electronic 
communication  between  designated  national  authorities  to  exchange  information  about  road 
transport  undertakings  and  infringements  committed  by  them  against  the  EU  social  and 
market rules as well as relevant national rules. 

Electronic Exchange of Social Security Information (EESSI)122 – operating in the area of 
social  security  coordination  -  is  an  IT  system  which  will  introduce  electronic  message 
exchange  between  approximately  15.000  national  social  security  institutions,  facilitating 
communication  and  cooperation  on  cross  border  cases.  Currently  under  national 
implementation,  Member  States  are  expected  to  connect  their  systems  to  it  until  mid-2019.   
EESSI (Electronic Exchange  of Social Security Information) currently provides the national 
institution directory. It contains national institutions (public and private contracted under the 
public  schemes)  in  all  social  security  sectors.  The  EESSI  architecture  is  planned  to  enable 
national  institutions  to  exchange  information  within  social  security  through  a  number  of 
agreed-upon business messages: Structured Electronic Documents (SED). 

121 http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/imi-net/index_en.htm  
122 http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=869  

104 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Under preparation/implementation/pilots 

  European  Professional  Card  (EPC)123  EPC  is  not  a  plastic  card,  but  an  electronic 
certificate  issued  via  the  first  EU-wide  fully  online  procedure  for  the  recognition  of 
qualifications. It is an example of a citizen’s usage of electronic certificates for interacting 
with national institutions. This digital procedure uses IMI. The functionalities covered are: 
i) information requests – to check the validity of qualifications for professionals wanting 
to practice in a country; ii) register directory – to find a national register of professionals 
(architects, accountants, engineers etc.) and iii) notifications – to notify of new diplomas 
for  architects  and  health  professions.  EPC  is  a  pilot  in  operation  for  five  professions: 
general care nurses, physiotherapists, pharmacists, real estate agents and mountain guides. 

  e-Sens124  -  The  objective  of  e-SENS  in  the  e-Health  domain  is  to  facilitate  cross-border 
access to health services within the EU countries. The cross-border health services domain 
is now largely regulated by Directive 2011/24 EU on the application of patients’ rights in 
cross-border  healthcare,  which  provides  the  overall  legal  framework  for  the  Patient 
Summary  and  e-Prescription  pilot  within  the  e-SENS  project.  Furthermore,  the  e-
Confirmation  pilot,  which  addresses  administrative  issues  when  accessing  healthcare 
abroad,  builds  on  Regulations  883/2004  and  987/2009  on  the  coordination  of  social 
security  systems.  The  pilots  aim  to  improve  the  efficiency  of  the  process  for  healthcare 
providers,  health  professionals  and  patients  by  enabling  the  electronic  exchange  of 
medical  data  and  insurance  information  in  cross-border  settings.  The  pilots  build  on  the 
experiences of the epSOS, NETC@RDS and ENED projects, extending their workflows 
into new areas Piloting cross-border data exchange supports the feasibility of cross-border 
services. 

  European  Tracking  Service  (ETS)125  ETS  would  establish  a  European  service  giving 
mobile citizens an overview of their supplementary pensions-portfolio across multiple EU 
Member  States.  It  would  consolidate  data  from  existing  national-level  solutions  and 
provide  a  reference  implementation  for  Member  States  that have  no  national  solution  in 
place. ETS would be the first EU-level initiative within social protection at this level of 
digital  maturity  (requiring  electronic  identification)  and  was  studied  to  inform  planned 
services at the EU level and the EMPSS digital options. 

123 http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/services/free-movement-professionals/european-professional-card_da  
124 https://www.esens.eu/  
125 http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=16387&langId=en  

105 

 
 
 
                                                            
ANNEX  9:  INFORMATION  TOOLS  AND  PROBLEM-SOLVING  SERVICES  FOR  CITIZENS  AND 

BUSINESSES IN THE FIELD OF LABOUR MOBILITY 

This Annex provides an overview of the main information tools and problem-solving services 
for  citizens,  including  job-seekers,  students,  workers,  inactive  and  persons,  and  businesses 
with the purpose of facilitating and supporting their mobility choices.  

The EURES job mobility portal126 for the exchange of job vacancy and CV data across the 
EU  also  provides  information  and  guidance  to  mobile  workers  and  support  for  employers 
interested  in  recruitment.  It  currently  presents  almost  1.5  million  vacancies.  As  the  digital 
front-end of the EURES network, it provides the online tools necessary to help fulfil the job 
search assistance, matching and information activities of around 1,000 EURES advisers who 
are  in  daily  contact  with  jobseekers  and  employers.  EURES  is  also  the  vehicle  for 
implementing  and  testing  projects  in  the  area  of  labour  mobility,  such  as  the  'Your  First 
EURES  job'  or  the  'European  Solidarity  Corps'.  The  pages  are  available  in  all  official  EU 
languages. 

Single  Digital  Gateway  (SDG)127  Part  of  the  compliance  package  under  the  Commission's 
Single  Market  Strategy,  it  aims  at  offering  EU  citizens  and  businesses  easy  and  non-
discriminatory  online  access  to:  information  about  EU  and  national  rules  in  the  area  of  the 
Single  Market,  procedures  for  compliance  with  these  rules,  and  EU  and  national  assistance 
services, including  EURES. It should address a lack of (a) availability of information  about 
national  rules,  (b)  quality  of  information  and  assistance  services,  (c)  findability  of 
information,  assistance  services  and  procedures,  (d)  accessibility  for  cross-border  users  of 
information and procedures, and (e) knowledge of real single market obstacles.  The gateway 
will  consist  of  a  single  EU-level  portal,  which  will  be  based  on  the  already  existing  Your 
Europe  portal,  with  a  common  user  interface,  to  be  established  and  managed  by  the 
Commission giving access to relevant national and EU webpages.    

SOLVIT128  is  an  informal  problem-solving  service  offered  by  national  authorities  dealing 
with  cross-border  problems  related  to  the  possible  misapplication  of  EU  law  by  public 
authorities. There is a SOLVIT centre in each Member State, as well as in Norway, Iceland 
and  Liechtenstein.  A  SOLVIT  centre  will  cooperate  with  the  SOLVIT  centre  in  the  other 
Member State concerned to solve the problem. Using SOLVIT takes normally much less time 
(in average 90 days) than submitting a formal complaint to the Commission or bringing a case 
before  a  national  court  and  can  solve  an  individual  problem  in  cross-border  situations.  The 
service  is  free  of  charge  and  in  average  90%  of  the  cases  get  solved.  Several  national 
institutions  have  referred  to  this  service  as  extremely  useful.  From  a  mobile  citizen’s 

126https://ec.europa.eu/eures/public/en/news-
articles?p_p_id=101_INSTANCE_L2ZVYxNxK11W&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=
column-
2&p_p_col_pos=2&p_p_col_count=3&_101_INSTANCE_L2ZVYxNxK11W_cur=1&p_r_p_564233524_categoryId=10537  
127 http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/22761  
128 http://ec.europa.eu/solvit/index_en.htm  

106 

 
 
                                                            
perspective,  it  allows  resolution  of  cases  in  a  short  period  of  time.  The  pages  are  available 
throughout  the  Your  Europe  portal  in  all  official  EU  languages.  With  the  adoption  of  the 
SOLVIT Action Plan in 2017, SOLVIT provides regular feedback to the relevant policy units 
of the Commission. 

Your Europe(129) – Information portal containing practical and user friendly information, in 
23 languages, for citizens and businesses, on their EU rights  and opportunities in the Single 
Market,  involving  Member  States  as  information  providers.  This  information  is  targeted  at 
people who want to study, work, travel, do business, get healthcare or live abroad, as well as 
for people staying at home, with information on work and retirement, health, etc. It is written 
in  jargon-free  language  from  a  user-perspective.  The  pages  on  social  security  (130)  explain 
cross-border  coverage  in  a  clear  and  practical  manner.  The  service  provides  detailed 
information  for  types  of  cases  –  with  concrete  examples.  There  are  links  to  national 
institutions  by  type  of  benefit  (131).  The  National  Contact  Points  (NCP),  under  Directive 
2011/24, have an obligation to provide information on rights to cross-border healthcare. This 
includes explaining differences between rights under the social security regulations and under 
the Directive. Your Europe is providing information on all these NCPs. The number of visits 
of the Your Europe portal has steadily and significantly increased over the past years and this 
upward trend continues, having reached 20 M visitors in 2017. 

Your  Europe  Advice132  is  an  EU-run  personal  advisory  service  answering  citizens'  and 
businesses'  queries  (by  phone  or  online)  about  their  EU  rights  in  the  Single  Market, 
clarification on EU law in the citizen’s and business's particular situation, explanations of how 
to exercise these rights, and directions to a national institution or other body if needed.  ‘Your 
Europe  Advice’  relies  on  a  network  of  more  than  63  independent  legal  experts  who  handle 
enquiries in all official EU languages. 

Europe Direct Contact Centre133 - enables citizens to ask a question about the EU, either by 
phone or by email. The service is referred to by several national institutions’ websites, but it 
could  be  emphasised  that  social  security  coordination  issues  may  be  clarified  using  this 
facility. 

Your Europe Business - EU portal designed to help Small and Medium-sized Enterprises do 
business cross-border. 

129 http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/index_en.htm  
130 E.g. Family benefits: http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/family/children/benefits/index_en.htm, 
Unemployment 
security/index_en.htm. 
131  E.g.  Pensions:  http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/national-contact-points/index_en.htm?topic=work&contacts=id-
611493. 
132 http://europa.eu/youreurope/advice/  
133 http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm  

http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/work/unemployment-and-benefits/social-

benefits: 

107 

 
 
                                                            
DG  EMPL  website  -  Pages  on  ‘your  rights  country  by  country’(134)  provide  a  very 
comprehensive set of information on social security for each Member State, as well as links to 
the national websites. The pages are available generally in English, French, German, and the 
national language of the country concerned. Availability of this content in all EU languages 
would provide mobile citizens with directly understandable information. 

The  Bodies  on  the  Free  Movement  of  Workers  comprise  different  types  of  institutions 
across Member States, including Equality Bodies, Ombudsmen, EURES offices, Chambers of 
Labour,  Ministries  of  Labour.  These  bodies  are  tasked  to  promote  equal  treatment  of  EU 
workers  and  provide  them  with  assistance  (including  provision  of  information  and  legal 
advice). The bodies cooperate with assistance and problem-solving services at EU level (e.g., 
SOLVIT, EURES, Enterprise Europe Network, the Points of Single Contact). A first meeting 
between national bodies took place in April 2017. 

134 http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=858&langId=en  

108 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
ANNEX 10: OVERVIEW OF POLICY AND DELIVERY OPTIONS 

The table below presents three policy options for ELA. The policy options build on each other, i.e. each option broadly incorporates the features of the 
previous ones.   

Baseline 

Policy Option 1 – Support Option   Policy Option 2 – Operational Option 

Policy  Option  3  –  Supervisory 
Option 

1.  Labour mobility 
information and 
services for 
individuals and 
businesses 

2.Cooperation and 
exchange of 
information  
between national 
authorities 

sources  and 

tools 
Several 
managed  by  EMPL  and  other 
services  in  the  areas  under 
ELA's scope.  
Different  contact  points  at 
national  level  in  a  number  of 
areas.  
Several 
to 
citizens  and  businesses  more 
broadly  in  the  context  of  EU 
rights  and  obligations  (e,g, 
the  Your  Europe  portal  on 
rights and opportunities in the 
Single  Market,  which  will  be 
the  backbone  of  the  single 
digital gateway - SDG). 

tools  available 

Systems in place: 
-  EESSI  on  social  security 
(under 
implementation, 
mandatory  for  all  cross 
border case handling) 
-  IMI modules on posting 
-  Collaborative 

for 
sharing meeting documents 

tools 

 ELA  takes  over  the  definition  of 
the  user  needs  and  business 
the  EURES 
requirements  of 
ensures 
and 
mobility  portal 
the  Your 
to 
links 
appropriate 
Europe  portal  and  for  information 
relating to labour mobility. 

 Cooperation  with  other  Union 
initiatives  and  networks,  e.g. 
European  Network  of  Public 
Employment  Services  and 
the 
Border Focal Point. 

 ELA  monitors  and 

suggests 
improvements to current systems 
for  the  exchange  of  information  in 
the  areas  of 
labour  mobility 
(EESSI,  Fraud  and  Error  Platform, 
the use of IMI, ESSN). ELA would 
ensure  consistency  in  the  use  of 
different 
avoid 
duplications.  

tools 

and 

109 

  Coordination  of  the  EURES  network 
with strengthened support (e.g. building 
on  synergies  with  the  risk  assessment 
and capacity building tasks) to increase 
its  outreach  to  citizens  and  impact  on 
the labour market. 

 Technical  support  to  MS  for  the 
provision of services at national level, 
including  to  facilitate  compliance  with 
relevant  obligations  (e.g.  obligations 
laid  down 
in  Regulation  [SDG  – 
COM(2017)256]  and  the  enforcement 
directive on posting 2014/67/EU) and to 
map  and  streamline  the  provision  of 
such  services  in  full  respect  of  MS 
competences.  

 Promoting  and  advancing  cooperation 

between national authorities. 

 Supporting  MS'  compliance  with  the 
information  exchange  and  reporting 
requirements established by current and 
future EU rules.  

 Templates and technical guidance for 

the submission of information.  

 Setting  of  standards  for  the 
provision of services at national 
level based on EU rules and of the 
creation  of 
single  physical 
national contact points.  
a 

single 
physical  national  contact  point 
on labour mobility. 

 Establishment 

of 

 ELA 

establishes 
additional 
for 
mandatory  requirements 
the  collection  and  exchange  of 
information in the areas of social 
security  coordination,  posting  of 
workers,  and  undeclared  work 
and  can  request  information  to 
MS  on 
initiative  as 
necessary to carry out its tasks.   

its  own 

 
 
 
 
Baseline 

Policy Option 1 – Support Option   Policy Option 2 – Operational Option 

and 
communications. 

unstructured 

  

The  exchange  of  information 
mostly 
takes  place  on  a 
voluntary basis. 

3. Support to joint  
inspections 

No  dedicated  joint  inspection 
mechanism.  
Joint 
inspections  are  very 
rare  and  mainly  based  on 
bilateral arrangements. 

4. Cross-border 
labour mobility 
analyses and risk 
assessment  

No dedicated function. 
Analyses  and  studies  carried 
out  (or  outsourced)  by  the 
Commission when relevant. 
Some specific monitoring and 
activities 
data 
carried 
existing 
committees. 

collection 
out 

in 

 At  the  request  of  Member  States, 
ELA 
national 
supports 
authorities in the coordination of 
joint inspections by (1) organising 
joint 
coordination 
meetings  and  (2)  developing  a 
model  agreement  establishing  a 
Joint Inspection Team. 

inspections 

 ELA  could  suggest  that  Member 
States jointly investigate a problem, 
including  by  encouraging  them  to 
inspections 
organise 
bilaterally  or  concerted  checks  in 
the field of road transport.  

joint 

 ELA creates a library of resources 
and  shares  relevant  findings  and 
reports  by  EU  agencies  (e.g. 
Eurofound,  Cedefop,  EU-OSHA) 
and other relevant sources with the 
Commission  and 
the  Member 
States. 

 ELA  follows-up  on  reports  by  EU 

110 

 Input  for  the  future  evolution  of 
information  exchange  tools  and  further 
digitisation of procedures, including for 
the development of an alert system with 
automatic  red  flags  detecting  possible 
problems 
schemes, 
fraudulent temporary work agencies)..  

bogus 

(e.g. 

 Launch  of  joint  inspections,  either  at 
the  request  of  the  Member  States  or 
based  on  their  agreement  upon  ELA's 
proposal.  

 Coordination  and  logistical  support 
and  streamlined  procedures  for  joint 
inspections.  

 Facilitation  of  the  organisation  and 
coordination  of  the  concerted  checks 
of compliance with the social rules in 
road  transport,  in  cooperation  with 
Euro Controle Route (ECR) 

 Reporting  and  monitoring  of  follow 

up-measures 

  

 ELA  acts  as  a 

labour  market 
observatory  on  cross-border  mobility, 
carrying  out  analyses  and  forward-
looking  risk  assessments  in  the  areas 
under ELA's remit.  

 ELA  takes  over  some  monitoring  and 
data 
(e.g. 
statistical  data  collection  about  social 

collection 

activities 

Policy  Option  3  –  Supervisory 
Option 

 Development  and  inventory  of 
user-friendly templates in aid of 
national 
comparability 
procedures.     

of 

 Joint  inspections  requested  by 

ELA. 

 Management 

'European 
Inspector  Corps'  (drawing  on 
MS' 
for 
inspectorates) 
independent action on the ground. 

 ELA 

out 

carries 

in-depth 
assessments  on  consistency  in 
enforcement  outcomes  and  issues 
recommendations  to  MS  on  this 
basis. 

 
 
 
 
 
Baseline 

Policy Option 1 – Support Option   Policy Option 2 – Operational Option 

Policy  Option  3  –  Supervisory 
Option 

level  citizen-facing  services  (e.g. 
SOLVIT)  with  further  analysis. 
Short  country  summaries  on 
problems 
by 
citizens/businesses are shared with 
the  concerned  Member  State  and 
the Commission. 

encountered 

5. Capacity Building   Mutual  learning  activities  in 
the  field  of  labour  mobility 
(in the context of the EURES 
network) 
undeclared 
and 
work.   

 Current 

learning 
mutual 
activities  increased  and  extended 
to  all  policy  areas  under  ELA's 
remit.  Service,  to  be  agreed  in  the 
relevant  bodies  and  committees 
benchlearning, 
include: 
expert 
technical 
training  and 
reviews, 
guidelines.  

 Thematic  Priorities  for  mutual 
learning  activities  are  set  by 
relevant Committees. 

 Technical 
States 
campaigns 

for 

support 

to  Member 
awareness-raising 
through 

(+visibility 

111 

security  coordination  currently  carried 
out  by  the  Technical  Committee  on 
Free Movement of Workers).  

 ELA 

streamlines  data  collection 
processes,  ensuring  consistency  and 
complementarity across all areas. 
 ELA  carries  out  peer  reviews 

to 
strengthen 
the 
consistency 
application  and  enforcement  of  Union 
law 
follow-up 
and 
recommendations.   

makes 

in 

 Relevant findings under this task feed 
into  the  other  tasks,  e.g.  capacity 
building.  

 Regular reporting to the Commission 

and the Member States. 

 Mutual 

a 

and 

learning 

aid  of  building 

technical 
assistance  programme  are  set  by  ELA 
common 
in 
enforcement  culture  on  the  basis  of  (1) 
common  technical  standards  developed 
by  ELA  in  cooperation  with  Member 
States,  (2)  needs  identified  as  part  of 
ELA 'risk assessment' task. 
of  mutual 

assistance 

 Promotion 
projects. 

 Promotion of good practices. 
for 

Support 
building 
activities  at  national  level  (e.g.  'train 
the  trainer'  programme  in  the  field  of 

capacity 

 Code 

for 

labour  and  road 
transport  inspections  to  be  used 
on a pilot /experimental basis  by 
labour 
and 
inspectors across the EU  

road 

transport                                                      

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Baseline 

Policy Option 1 – Support Option   Policy Option 2 – Operational Option 

Policy  Option  3  –  Supervisory 
Option 

ELA communications channels). 

labour  inspection,  support  to  national 
awareness raising campaigns).  

6. Mediation 
between Member 
States   

Conciliation  procedure  on 
social  security  matters  in  the 
the 
framework 
Administrative  Commission 
(AC). 

of 

 Provision  of  expert  opinions  on 
all  areas  under  ELA's  remit  upon 
request  by  at  least  one  of  the 
interested  parties  or  by  the  AC 
Conciliation Board. 

 Conciliation  function  absorbed 

in 
ELA and extended to all areas under 
through  a  dedicated 
ELA's  remit 
function for mediation.  

 ELA  may  issue  recommendations  to 

 Follow-up monitored by the AC. 

solve the disagreement.  

 Development of  pilot on out-of-

court  dispute settlement 

7. Facilitating 
cooperation in 
cross-border labour 
disruptions 

Guidance  by  the  EU  through 
the  Quality  Framework  for 
Restructuring  (QFR).  Upon 
certain  conditions,  financial 
support  is  offered  via  the 
European 
Globalisation 
Adjustment  fund.  Eurofound 
monitors 
constantly 
restructuring  cases 
through 
the  European  Restructuring 
Monitoring facility. 

  ELA  raises  awareness  among 
stakeholders  about  the  EU  Quality 
Framework  for  Anticipation  of 
Change  and  Restructuring  (QFR) 
and  about  relevant  EU  legislation 
and available financial instruments.  
 Cooperation  with  Eurofound  to 
draw  lessons  from  the  European 
Restructuring Monitor.   

 Recommend specific solution  
 Follow-up monitored by ELA. 

 Set-up  of  ad-hoc  support  to  national 
authorities 
stakeholders 
and 
requiring it, to facilitate administrative 
cooperation,  share 
information  and 
provide  guidance  on  applicable  EU 
legislation  and  financial  resources,  and 
coordinate  in  the  event  of  company 
restructuring  events  with  cross-border 
implications.  

 Cooperation  with  Eurofound  and 
EURES  to  increase  risk  assessment 
capacity on restructuring and to explore 
potential  support  in  support  re-training 
and re-employment. 

112 

 Issuing  of  recommendations  as 
regards  to  the  management  of 
cross-border restructuring, in light 
of  the  Quality  Framework  for 
Restructuring, 
the 
implementation  of  relevant  EU 
legislation. 

and 

to 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 11: LEGAL CHANGES TO IMPLEMENT THE OPTIONS  

Amendments  

Free movement of workers (Directive 2014/54/EU; Regulations 492/2011 and 589/2016) 

Option 1 

Option 2 

Option 3 

Task 1 

Task 2 

Task 3 

Directive 2014/54 

Recital 21 

Article 4 

To  promote  the  inclusion  of 
the  'bodies  to  promote  equal 
to  support 
treatment  and 
Union  workers  and  member 
of  their  family'  in  a  single 
national  point  of  contact  on 
the 
labour  mobility  and 
application  of  standards  set 
by the Authority. 

Regulation 589/2016  

Regulation 589/2016 

Regulation 589/2016 

Recital 15 

Recitals 5, 11, 15, 24, 47, 49. 

Recitals 5, 11, 15, 24, 47, 49. 

Article 8.1(a)   

Articles 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 14.  

Articles 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 14.  

The  operation  of 
EURES 
portal 
transferred to ELA  

the 
is 

All  the  responsibilities  of  the 
European 
Coordination 
Office are transferred to ELA 

All  the  responsibilities  of  the 
European 
Coordination 
Office are transferred to ELA 

Regulation 492/2011 

Regulation 492/2011 

Article 30 

Article 30 

The  Authority  takes  over  the 
tasks  of  the  TCFMW  with 
regard  to  cooperation  and 
exchange of information. 

The  Authority  takes  over  the 
tasks  of  the  TCFMW  with 
regard  to  cooperation  and 
exchange of information. 

Regulation 492/2011 

Regulation 492/2011 

Article 30 

Article 30 

The  Authority  takes  over  the 
tasks  of  the  TCFMW  with 
to  analyses,  data 
regard 
risk 
collection 

and 

The  Authority  takes  over  the 
tasks  of  the  TCFMW  with 
to  analyses,  data 
regard 
risk 
collection 

and 

113 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Task 6 

Delivery 
options  

assessment.. 

assessment.. 

Regulation 589/2016  

Regulation 589/2016  

Article 30 

Article 30 

The  Authority  takes  over  the 
monitoring  and  analyses  of 
flows  and 
labour  market 
patterns. 

The  Authority  takes  over  the 
monitoring  and  analyses  of 
flows  and 
labour  market 
patterns. 

Regulation 492/2011 

Regulation 492/2011 

Article 30 

Article 30 

The  Authority  takes  over  the 
tasks  of  the  TCFMW  with 
regard  to  the  exchange  of 
the 
experiences 
formulation 
of 
guidelines/procedures. 

and 

The  Authority  takes  over  the 
tasks  of  the  TCFMW  with 
regard  to  the  exchange  of 
the 
experiences 
formulation 
of 
guidelines/procedures. 

and 

Regulation 492/2011 

Regulation 492/2011 

Regulation 492/2011 

Targeted  amendments  to 
articles  22  and  30 
to 
adjust the mandate of the 
ACFMW and TCFMW and 
allow  for  participation  in 
the 'network of networks'.  

Articles 26, 29-35, and 39. 

Articles 26, 29-35, and 39.  

The tasks of the TCFMW are 
to  ELA.  The 
transferred 
TCFMW  ceases 
to  exist. 
(changes  to  Article  30  are 
already  mentioned  under 
tasks  2,  3  and  6).  ELA 
participates  in  the  meetings 
the  ACFMW  as  a 
of 
observer, 
permanent 
providing  technical  input  and 
expertise. 

The tasks of the TCFMW are 
to  ELA.  The 
transferred 
TCFMW  ceases 
to  exist. 
(changes  to  Article  30  are 
already  mentioned  under 
tasks  2,  3  and  6).  ELA 
participates  in  the  meetings 
the  ACFMW  as  a 
of 
observer, 
permanent 
providing  technical  input  and 
expertise. 

Regulation 589/2016 

Regulation 589/2016 

Recitals 5, 11, 15, 24, 47, 49. 

Recitals 5, 11, 15, 24, 47, 49. 

Articles  1,  3,  4,  7,  8,  9,  14, 
29.  

Articles  1,  3,  4,  7,  8,  9,  14, 
29.  

All  the  responsibilities  of  the 
Coordination 
European 
Office are transferred to ELA 
(these  changes  are  already 
mentioned under tasks 1 and 

All  the  responsibilities  of  the 
Coordination 
European 
Office are transferred to ELA 
(these  changes  are  already 
mentioned under tasks 1 and 

114 

 
 
 
 
 
 
3). 

3). 

Social Security Coordination (Regulation 883/2004 and Regulation 987/2009) 

Option 1 

Option 2 

Option 3 

– 

2 

Task 
cooperation 
and 
exchange  of 
information  

3 

- 
Task 
cross-border 
labour 
mobility 
analyses  and 
risk 
assessment 

4 

Task 
mediation  

– 

Article 1, 72(g), 73, 74 and 76(6) 
of Regulation 883/2004 

Article 1, 72(g), 73, 74 and 76(6) 
of Regulation 883/2004 

Article 1, 65 and 69 of Regulation 
987/2009 

Article 1, 65 and 69 of Regulation 
987/2009 

Cooperation between Member 
States, in particular on settling 
financial matters related to the 
application of Regulation 
883/2004 and Regulation 
987/2009, and on matters related 
to electronic data exchange and 
data processing move from the 
Audit Board and the Technical 
Commission to ELA. 

Cooperation between Member 
States, in particular on settling 
financial matters related to the 
application of Regulation 
883/2004 and Regulation 
987/2009, and on matters related 
to electronic data exchange and 
data processing move from the 
Audit Board and Technical 
Commission to ELA. 

Article 72(g), 73, 74 of Regulation 
883/2004 

Article 72(g), 73, 74 of Regulation 
883/2004 

Article 65 and 69 of Regulation 
987/2009 

Article 65 and 69 of Regulation 
987/2009 

Support on analytical task on 
financial and technical matters. 

Support on analytical task on 
financial and technical matters. 

Article 1, 5(4), 6(3), 67(7), 76(6). 
Of Regulation 987/2009 –  

Article 5(4), 6(3), 67(7), 76(6). Of 
Regulation 987/2009 –  

Conciliation work moving to ELA 
from AC and from Audit Board. 

Conciliation work moving to ELA 
from AC and from Audit Board. 

Delivery 
options  

Article 1, 72(g), 73, 74, and 76(6) of 
Regulation 883/2004. 

Article 1, 72(g), 73, 74, and 76(6) of 
Regulation 883/2004. 

Article 1, 5(4), 6(3), 65, 67(7), and 
69 of Regulation 987/2009. 

Article 1, 5(4), 6(3), 65, 67(7), and 
69 of Regulation 987/2009. 

115 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Repeals 

Committee of Experts on Posting of Workers (Decision 2009/17/EC) 

European Platform to enhance cooperation in tackling undeclared work (Decision 2016/344/EU) 

116 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 12: ANALYTICAL SUPPLEMENT 

1. Labour mobility in the European Union: key figures 

Labour mobility figures provide an idea of the target population which the Labour Authority 
would potentially serve.  

In 2017, about 17 million EU citizens resided or worked in another Member State other than 
that of citizenship, according to the latest Eurostat data. The core of this group is constituted 
by the slightly less than 12 million Europeans of working age who were living in a Member 
State other than their country of citizenship. As their period of residence in the other Member 
State  exceeded  one  year,  they  are  identified  as  'long-term  movers'.  Amongst  them,  about  9 
million were 'active movers', i.e. those employed or looking for work.  

Long-term  movers  make  up  around  4%  of  the  total  EU  labour  force.  Since  2006,  labour 
mobility has almost doubled from about 2% of total EU workforce, as EU citizens residing in 
another Member State were about 9 million. This is in grand part due to the high flows from 
EU-13  countries  to  the  EU-15  countries  and  to  a  much  lesser  extent  from  Southern  to 
Northern Member States during the economic crisis.  

Table 1. Mobile citizens workers in the EU, year 2016 

Type of mobility 

‘Long-term’ EU-28 movers of working age (20-64 years) living in 
EU-28 (Eurostat demography figures) 

Extent 

11.8 million 

(as share of the total working-age population in the EU-28) 

3.9% 

EU-28 movers of working age living in EU-28 (EU-LFS figures) 

11 million 

…of which active EU-28 movers (employed or looking for work) 

9.1 million 

(as share of the total labour force in the EU-28) 

Cross-border workers (20-64 years) 

(as share of the total employed in the EU-28) 

Number of postings (of employed and self-employed), (no. of PDs 
A1, 2016)  

4% 

1.4 million 

0.6% 

2.3 million 

Annual return mobility (20-64 years) (2015) 

614,453 

117 

 
 
Type of mobility 

Extent 

(as share of EU-28 nationals leaving their country of origin in 2014) 

55% 

Source: "2017 Annual Report on intra-EU Labour Mobility"  

Beyond long-term movers, cross-border workers add up a further 1.4 million to the counting 
of  labour  mobility.  These  workers  reside  in  one  country  but  regularly  move  to  another  for 
work purposes, either because they are employed or self-employed in the other Member State. 
This phenomenon is clearly concentrated in border regions and constitutes 0.6% of the total 
EU employment.  

Finally,  the  third  group  of  so-called  posted  workers  needs  to  be  considered.  Posting 
operations comprise employees or self-employed who are regularly working in one Member 
State  but  are  sent  (or  move)  to  another  on a  temporary  basis  in  order to  carry  out a  service 
there. In 2016, there were 2.3 million postings in the EU, up from about 1 million in 2010135.  

Over  the  last  decade,  the  number  of  mobile  workers  has  doubled,  also  as  an  effect  of  the 
economic  crisis.  In  2008,  EU  mobile  workers  were  around  8  million.  According  to  Labour 
Force  Survey  data,  between  2006  and  2015  the  stock  of  EU-28  movers  (i.e.  EU  citizens 
residing in another Member State) has increased from 7.5 million by 51%, while a further 5% 
increase  was  registered  between  2015  and  2016136.  For  example,  Germany  has  seen  an 
increase  in  the  inflow  of  EU  mobile  workers  from  100,000  to  over  350,000  individuals 
between 2009 and 2015, while strong outflows were registered during the same time in Spain 
and Italy, as well as in Eastern Member States such as Romania, Lithuania and Estonia.  

Beside the stock of EU mobile workers, there are some indications that the nature of mobility 
has been undergoing some important changes. Notably, short-term moves could have bigger 
role  in  intra-EU  labour  mobility  in  the  future,  as  a  consequence  of  company  organizational 
arrangements  (with  multinational  companies  transferring  workers  on  a  project  basis),  of  the 
availability of cheap travel making short-term moves, for example to provide services across 
borders, more accessible than in the past, and of the "mobility mind-set" developed by current 
students, in conjunction with the possibilities offered by IT facilities to work from a remote 
location.137  

135  The number of postings does not strictly equalise the number of posted workers, as the same worker can be posted abroad 
more than once during one year. Indeed, whereas postings make up 1% of total EU employment, registered individual 
workers 
of individual posted workers in a few Member States, the number of postings is conventionally taken as a reference. 

it.  However, 

constitute 

because 

some 

0.6% 

gaps 

data 

the 

on 

of 

of 

136  European Commission, "2017 Annual Report on intra-EU Labour Mobility".  
137 Bertelsmann, “Harnessing labour mobility”, https://www.labourmobility.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/HELM.pdf  

number                                                                                                                                          

118 

 
 
                                                            
 
Labour mobility is also accompanied by beneficiaries of social security benefits drawn from 
or in another Member States. While there are clear overlaps between the two groups (a newly 
established mobile worker can apply for family benefits or receive healthcare treatment in the 
new  Member  State  of  residence),  not  all  cross-border  social  security  claimants  are  in  the 
labour force, most notably pensioners.  

Table 2 provides an overview of the number of EU citizens who have drawn social security 
benefits  on  the  basis  of  EU  social  security  coordination  rules,  including  pensions, 
unemployment benefits, family benefits and health care benefits. It also shows the diversity of 
information that is exchanged between Member States competent authorities.  

Table  2:  Social  security  related  portable  documents  in  cross-border  situations,  the 
number and their relative importance (2015, 2016)138 

Type of document 
Statement of 
applicable 
legislation 
(PD A1) 
Aggregation of 
unemployment 
periods 
(PD U1) 

Export of 
unemployment 
benefits 
(PD U2) 

Export/import of 
family benefits 

Summary of pension 
decisions 
(PD P1) 

2015a 
2,05 million 
(+6,5%) 

2016 
2,3 million 
(+11%) 

28 127b 

38 831d 
(-0.2%)e 

27 514c 
(+5-10%) 

27 705c 
(+0.7%) 

445 000 
households (or 
722 000 family 
members) 

539 000 
households (or 
909 000 family 
members)f 

119 183h 

86 215h  

Relative size/expenditures  
<1% of national employment 
strong  concentration  in  the  construction 
sector 

0,2%  of  total  unemployment  in  reporting 
MS (2015, 2016)  
2%  of 
intra-EU 
the  annual  flow  of 
migrants  of  working  age  in  2015  (4%  in 
2016) 
0,1%  of  unemployed  persons  in  2015 
(0.2% in 2016) 
10%  unemployed  persons  with  a  PD  U2 
found work abroad (2015, 2016) 

Exports  represented  1,4%  of  the  family 
benefits paid  by  all reporting  MS in 2015 
(1.6 % in 2016) excluding LUg 
Strong  concentration  among  a  limited 
number of (neighbouring) Member States. 
2.8% of the total number of pensioners 
reside abroad 
0.6% of the total amount of paid pensions 

2/3 old-age pension 

1/3 survivors’and invalidity pensions 

138  There  are  additional  portable  documents  that  are  not  presented  in  the  table  because  the  statistical  data  for  them  is  not 
collected. This is Portable document U3 (PD U3) about circumstances likely to affect the entitlement to unemployment 
benefits. It informs the employment services of the country paying benefits of changes in person's situation which may 
lead to a revision of benefit payments.  Portable document  
DA1  (PD  DA1)  entitles  a  person  to  receive  medical 
treatment under special conditions reserved for accidents at work and occupational diseases in another EU country. PD 
S3  certificates  entitlement  to  healthcare  in  the  former  country  of  employment.  Useful  for  retired  cross-border  workers 
who are no longer insured in their former country of employment. 

119 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
0,3% of insured persons 
0,2% of the total spending of reporting MS  

Entitlement to 
healthcare if living 
abroad 
(PD S1) 

1,4 million  
(60% issued to 
working age + 
30% to 
pensioners +10 
% family 
members) 

1,4 million (70 
% issued to 
working age and 
family members 
+ 30 % to 
pensioners and 
their family 
members) 
28 386 (issued)j 
50 686 
(received) 

34 433 (issued)i 
34 433 
(received) 

0,01 % of insured persons (2015, 2016) 
80%  issued  to  receive  treatment  in  a 
neighbouring MS 

Planned health 
treatment abroad 
(PD S2) 
Notes: a If available, this column present increase compared to the previous year in brackets. b Reported by 24 
MS. No data available for CZ, DE, IE, EL, FR, IT, IS, LI. c Reported by 29 countries, no data available for FR, 
EL and LI.. d Reported by 26 member States. No data available for DE, IE, EL, CY, SI, LI e Comparison is based 
on 21 countries which reported figures for both years. Missing are some countries with high number of 
certificates, like FR, IT, SI and CZ. f No data available for BG, FR, IT, CY, HU, PT, SI, IS, LI and CH. g LU is an 
‘outlier’ with regard to the export of family benefits. Including LU doubles the share to approximately 3%.h17 
reporting MS in 2015 and 18 in 2016 only. Missing data for a high number of (large) Member States results in 
an incomplete and distorted overview. Missing in both years: CZ, DE, IE, EL, FR, HR, CY,  AT, PT, UK, LI, CH. 
Missing in 2015: DK, IT, HU Missing in 2016:  BE, SI, i No data available for issued PD S2: FR, DE, IS, and no 
data for received PD S2: DE, ES, FR, CY, PT, SE. j No data available for  issued PD S2: DE, IT, LV, NL, LI. 
Because of that, the total number is underestimated as reporting for previous years shows that NL and IT issue 
on average some 4,500 PDs S2 a year. No data for received PD S2: DE, IT, LV, PT. 

Source: Statistical reports on social security coordination139 

These  figures  give  an  indication  of  the  caseload  for  social  security  institutions  tasked  with 
coordinating cross-border transfers. Within this stock, moreover, possible fraud and errors can 
occur, as reported in section 2 below. 

In  light  of  these  changes,  administrating  labour  mobility  and  enforcing  existing  EU  and 
national  rules  could  generate  further  challenges  requiring  a  solid  governance  structure  and 
appropriate tools. 

2. Estimating the extent of cross-border undeclared work and the number of fraudulent 
cases in intra-EU mobility 

The number of EU-28 movers in 2016140 amounts to around 11 million which is 3,9% of the 
EU  working  age  population;  adding  the  1,4  million  cross-border  workers  and  2,3  million 
posted workers, the total of mobile EU workers is well above 14 million. How many of these 
workers  are  involved  in  undeclared  work  or  fraudulent  working  relations  are  largely 
unknown. Reliable and harmonised aggregate data is not available, neither on national level 
nor on EU level. A rough estimate is carried out on the basis of the available information. 

139  Data  are  collected  via  administrative  questionnaires  within  the  framework  of  the  Administrative  Commission.  Not  all 
Member States are always able to provide data,. In addition to the EU28 MS, the EFTA countries are included: Iceland 
(IS),  Liechtenstein  (LT),  Norway  (NO)  and  Switzerland  (CH).  Reports  are  available  on  Commission  webpage.   
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1154&langId=en .  

140 European  Commission, 2017 Annual Report on intra-EU Labour Mobility 

120 

 
 
 
                                                            
Undeclared  work  and  fraudulent  practices  are  by  their  very  nature  undeclared  to  public 
authorities.  Different  methods  exist  to  estimate  the  size  of  undeclared  work.  A  variety  of 
studies is available estimating the undeclared work on national and EU level, often applying 
different methods and criteria, inevitably producing equally varied results141. There have been 
very few measurements of the extent of cross-border undeclared labour as a proportion of the 
overall  undeclared  economy;  official  statistics  about  fraudulent  cases  within  intra-EU 
mobility are not available.  

However,  on  the  basis  of  available  information  it  can  be concluded  that  nationality  is  not  a 
determining factor for participation in undeclared work. The Eurobarometer 284 from 2007142 
states  that  "People’s  nationality  did  not  have  any  significant  influence  on  participation  in 
undeclared work: The share of non-nationals working undeclared was about the same as the 
share of the resident population". Analysing the answers to the Eurobarometer 79.2143144 from 
2013  reveals  that  on  the  EU-level,  3.8%  of  those  in  the  Member  State  of  their  nationality 
engage in UDW compared with 2.6% of those not in the Member State of their nationality. It 
is  worth  considering  that  direct  methods  such  as  this  survey-based  Eurobarometer  tend  to 
underestimate undeclared work as interviewed individuals often underreport their undeclared 
activities  and  many  undeclared  activities  performed  by  companies,  like  subcontracting,  are 
not captured.  

In  conclusion  it  can  be  said  that  intra-EU  mobile  workers  are  significantly  less  involved  in 
UDW  - 2,6  %  versus  3,8%    -  than those working  in  their own Member States.  In absolute 
figures, 2,6% of 14 million mobile EU workers would still result in a significant number 
of almost 400.000 cross-border workers involved in UDW per year. Putting this in relation 
to latest estimates of undeclared work in the EU - on average, 11.6% of total labour input in 
the private sector in the EU is undeclared, and undeclared work constitutes on average 16.4% 
of  gross  value  added  (GVA)  –  points  to  a  possible  underreporting  but  still  confirms  the 
magnitude of the problem.145 

For  undeclared  work  as  a  proportion  of  total  labour  input there  are  big  differences  between 
EU  countries,  with  figures  ranging  from  2,7%  to  more  than  20%  in  Poland.  Similar  to  the 
mobility flows, these figures are not stable over time; they depend on a variety of structural 

141 European Semester thematic factsheet 'undeclared work' 2017   
142 Special Eurobarometer 284, Undeclared Work in the European Union, 2007  
143 Special Eurobarometer 402, Undeclared work in the European Union, 2013  
144 Williams, C.C. and I Horodnic, (2018) Participation in undeclared work in the EU28: by nationality of participants, 2013 
Special 
from: 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322835042_Participation_in_undeclared_work_in_the_EU28_by_nationality_of_p
articipants_2013_Special_Eurobarometer_402_survey, DOI 10.13140/RG.2.2.33068.97929  
145 Williams, C.C., Horodnic, I.A., Bejakovic,P., Mikulic. D.,Franic, J., Kedir, A. (2017) An evaluation of the scale of  
     undeclared work in the European Union and its structural determinants: estimates using the Labour Input Method  
     (LIM). 

Eurobarometer 

Available 

survey, 

402 

121 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
determinants.146 The few available national estimates are not comparable due to differences in 
the methodologies of collecting data and survey dates but they confirm as well the significant 
cross-border dimension of undeclared work in the EU.  One estimate provided by the French 
government identifies that 10 % of all undeclared work in France in 2004 was conducted by 
foreign workers without official employment authorisation papers.147 Another by the Ministry 
of  Labour  and  Social  Insurance  in  Cyprus  identifies that  in  2016  based  on  results of  labour 
inspections, around 19% of work conducted by other EU nationals was undeclared and around 
31% of work conducted by non-EU nationals148 was undeclared.   

As stated above no harmonised reliable statistics on fraudulent cases, for example in the area 
of posting of workers, exist. Some partially available data can, however, be used as proxies to 
estimate the number of suspicious cases that require further information and can subsequently 
lead to an investigation and legal action. 

The  report  on  fraud  and  error  in  the  field  of  EU  social  security  coordination  reveals  that 

fraud  and  error  are  still generally recognised  by  Member  States  as  problematic  phenomena; 
the provided data confirm this finding. Among others, the report provides for the number of 
withdrawn  PDs  A1  by  some  Member  States.  As  the  number  of  issued  PDs  A1  is  generally 
used  as  indicator  for  the  measuring  the  extent  of  posting  of  workers  in  the  EU,  it  is  put  in 
relation to the number of issued PDs A1. 

Table 1           Number of PDs A1 withdrawn, 2016 

Number of PDs A1 withdrawn  

Total number of PDs A1 
issued in 2016 

% of withdrawn PDs A1 
in 2016 

(as competent MS) 

HU 

PL 

PT 

IS 

529 

2,050 

300 

1 

65,725 

513,972 

64,459 

239 

0.8% 

0.4% 

0.5% 

0.4% 

Source Administrative data PD A1 Questionnaire 2017 

These partially available official figures are used as a proxy for the total number of withdrawn 
PDs A1 on EU level. Withdrawn PDs A1 are not necessarily the proof for fraud but it requires 

146 Idem  
147 DILTI (2004) Commission Nationale de Lutte contre le Travai Illégal. Paris: Ministere de l’Emploi, du Travail et de la 

Cohesion Sociale.   

148 Nicos Trimikliniotis (2017) Peer country comments paper: Cyprus, Peer Review on “Joint operation groups  
     between public agencies – an effective tool to prevent and tackle undeclared work” Oslo (Norway), 25-26  
     September 2017. 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
an  action  normally  based  on  an  initial  suspicion  to  start  the  withdrawal  process.  Often  this 
action  is  initiated  by  one  Member  State  requesting  information  and/or  action  from  another 
Member State after an inspection or control measure. 

The total of PDs A1 covered in this sample amounts to almost 30% of all issued PDs A1 on 
EU  level.  Two  options  are  proposed  to  come  a  realistic  figure  on  EU  level:  a  conservative 
option with 0,1% withdrawn and a more advanced option with 0,4% withdrawn PDs A1. This 
results in 2300 withdrawn PDs A1 on EU level for the conservative option and 9200 for the 
advanced option. Both figures point to a significant number of suspicious cases and hence to a 
strong need for Member State to interact and exchange information.      

Another  proxy  to  estimate  the  total  of  suspicious  cases  is  the  number  of  requests  between 
Member  States  in  the  posting  of  workers  module  in  Internal  Market  Information  System149  
(IMI-system). The number of requests is likely to underestimate the dimension of the problem 
as  one  request  can  cover  several  posted  workers,  posted  by  one  employer,  or  active  on  a 
construction site or company site.   The total number of requests is continuously increasing, 
up to 3100 requests in 2017.  In relation to overall number of issued PDs A1 this would mean 
a minimum of around 0,13% of suspicious cases within posting of workers.   

Always  in  the  report  on  fraud  and  error  in  the  field  of  EU  social  security  coordination  the 
following figures resulting from Belgian investigations carried out by the ‘cross-border’ units 
from 1 January to 31 December 2016 in the area of applicable legislation are available.  

Irregularities 

N° of 
rectifications 

Total amount 
of rectification 
(in €) 

N° of 
work
ers 
rectif
ied 

Foreign MS requested to withdraw E101-E102-A1 

131 

38,722,164.87 

1 588 

LACK of E101-E102-A1 — Belgian SS rectified 

106 

17,734,324.45 

1 272 

Total — request for application of Belgian social security 
legislation 

237 

56,456,489.32  2 860 

Salaries employees-Declaration 

12 

2,563,012.03 

56 

Salaries labourers-Declaration 

146 

44,853,109.20 

2 513 

Total — rectified declarations sent to the ONSS 

158 

47,416,121.23  2 569 

Putting this 2569 involved workers in relation to the number of individual persons with a PD 
A1 - 164,253 - that Belgium reported150 for 2016 results in around 1,5% of fraudulent cases in 
the field of applicable legislation.  

149 http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/imi-net/index_en.htm  
150 European Commission (2017), Posting of Workers. Report on PD A1 portable documents issued in 2016  

123 

 
 
 
                                                            
 
Data estimating the extent of social fraud in the EU is insufficient to have a comprehensive 
picture of the size of the phenomenon. 

In the following, however, available data sources are compounded with a view to having an 
indicative  picture  of  the  possible  caseload  which  the  new  Agency  may  be  set  to  work  on. 
Figures  are  mainly  taken  from  the  EC  Fraud  and  Error  Report  2017151  if  not  otherwise 
indicated. 

Table 4. Cases of fraud and error in different social security coordination domains, 2016 

Number of PDs A1 withdrawn, 2016 

Number of PDs A1 
withdrawn 
(as a competent MS) 
6 
529 
2,050 
300 
1 

Total number of PD A1 issued in 
2016 

% of withdrawn PDs A1 
in 2016 

29,595 
65,725 
513,972 
64,459 
239 

0.02% 
0.8% 
0.4% 
0.5% 
0.4% 

Cases of inappropriate use of the European Health Insurance Card (2016) 
Number of cases identified  % share in number of claims paid  % share in total amount 

193 
284 
< 100 
791 
315 

2.8% 
3.5% 
0.1% 
0.8% 
1.0% 

reimbursed 
3.0% 
2.0% 
0.02% 
0.8% 
0.6% 

Cases of fraud and error in the context of aggregation of periods for unemployment benefits (2016) 

Number of cases identified 

Amount involved 

41 
88 
< 10 

3,925 
6,077 
n.a. 

Cases of fraud and error in case of export of family benefits (2016) 

% of total PD U1 
received 
7.9% 
4.5% 
0.3% 

DK 
HU 
PL 
PT 
IS 

EE 
LT 
NL 
AT 
RO 

CZ 
HU 
ES 

CZ 
PL 
RO 
Source:  Jorens,  Y.,  Gillis,  D.  and  De  Potter,  T.  (2017),  Fraud  and  error  in  the  field  of  EU  social  security 
coordination, Network Statistics FMSSFE, European Commission (p. 78), 

% exported amount 
12% 
4% 
n.a. 

% exported cases 
21% 
12% 
7% 

Cases 
199 
4,033 
998 

Overall, the share of detected frauds and errors seems to be a minority share of the total. In 
the case of the posting of workers, the highest number of withdrawn PD's A1 documents in 
2016–  Poland's  2,050  –  still  represents  0.4%  of  the  total  documents  issued..  In  the  case  of 
family benefits, on the contrary, problematic cases can be relatively high, sometimes also due 
to the non-communication by beneficiaries about changes affecting the right to these benefits. 

151   Jorens, Y., Gillis, D. and De Potter, T. (2017), Fraud and error in the field of E1U social security coordination, Network 

Statistics FMSSFE, European Commission,  

124 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
 
The  cases  of  inappropriate  use  of  the  EHIC  tend  to  remain  limited  and  the  overall  share  of 
rejected  invoices  between  Member  States  (around  2%  of  the  total  number  of  claims  of 
reimbursement  received).  However,  an  increase  in  the  number  of  rejections  is  observed, 
which  could  lead  to  an  increase  in  the  administrative  burden  for  Member  States  of  stay  if 
additional information has to be provided/asked in order to receive the reimbursement. It will 
also result in a delay of payment or even in a budgetary cost for the Member State of stay if 
claims are not accepted by the competent Member States.152 

However, data limitations should prevent from drawing too optimistic conclusions. First, only 
a  tight  minority  of  Member  States  communicate  their  national  data,  therefore  the  sample  is 
too  limited  to  allow  for  generalisations.  Second,  the  number  of  detected  frauds  or  errors 
should  weighted  against  the  number  of  inspections  carried out.  A  small  number  of  detected 
frauds could simply be the result of few inspections or of limitations of the available tools to 
share key information  and proves between Member States. From section 3 above, we know 
that the number of controls or inspections per year can range between a few hundreds and the 
over  3,000  performed  by  Belgium.  Moreover,  the  resource-intensiveness  of  cross-border 
controls, also due to lack of adequate cooperation tools and procedures, may lead to selective 
controls in the context of limited staff.   

3. The use of the Internal Market Information system (IMI) 

Enforcement Directive 2014/67/UE has extended the use of the Internal Market Information 
system to exchanges of information in the context of the posting of workers. Exchanges are 
structured on four modules, namely: 

 

information  requests  (including  information  on  posting  conditions,  occupational  health 
and safety, working conditions; urgent requests concerning companies' establishment and 
requests to send documents to a service provider); 

  Request for Recovery of a penalty and/or fine; 
  Request for Notification of a decision vis-à-vis a worker or a company 
  Communication of possible irregularities 

The instrument has increasingly been used over these last years. Overall, information requests 
have increased from some 180 in Q1 2012 to over 600 in Q1 2017. 

152  F.  De  Wispelaere,  J.  Pacolet  (2017),  Cross-border  healthcare,  Reference  year  2016,  Network  Statistics  FMSSFE, 

European Commission. 

125 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Figure 1. IMI Requests on the Posting of Workers (2012-2017) 

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Market 

Internal 

European 

Information 

Commission, 

Source: 
(http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/imi-net/statistics/index_en.htm#t_1_2) 
Despite  this  positive  development,  the  use  of  IMI  remains  concentrated  amongst  a  few 
Member  States.  In  2016  and  first  semester  of  2017  (latest  available  data),  three  Member 
States (AT, BE and FR – with DK joining in 2017) submitted about 80% of the requests. PT, 
PL, RO and DE were the Member States receiving most of the queries. While these figures 
partly  reflect  the  ranking  in  the  receipt  (and  sending)  of  posted  workers  in  the  EU,  some 
Member States seem to making low use of the system, such as Germany or the Netherlands. 

statistics 

system, 

Answering speed also varies across the Member States, although there are signs that time is 
reducing.  While  in  2016  some  Member  States  had  an  average  response  delay  of  over  100 
days,  this  is  no  longer  the  case.  In  the  first  semester  of  2017,  the  average  answering  speed 
ranged  between  6  and  58  days  (figure  2),  including  in  cases  of  Member  States  with  above-
average  number  of  requests  received.  Over  half  of  the  Member  States  remain  below  the 
agreed limit of 25 working days to reply to information requests set in Enforcement Directive 
2014/67/EU.  

126 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  2. 

Information 

request  answering 

speed 

(January  –  June  2017)

Source: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/imi-net/statistics/index_en.htm#t_0_4  

4. National capacities for cross-border cooperation between inspectorates 

Information  on  the  administrative  capacities  and  processes  of  cross-border  cooperation  is 
scant.  To  date,  there  is  no  comprehensive  report  providing  an  overview  of  the  control 
activities of national administrations on companies and workers in cross-border situations, on 
the  required  administrative  effort  (e.g.  dedicated  staff,  working  days  to  process  a  case),  the 
difficulties encountered, and the needed capacities153.  

In  order  to  partially  fill  this  information  gap,  in  November  2017,    the  FreSsco  network  of 
experts  on  labour  mobility  carried  out  a  survey  across  the  Member  States,  on  behalf  of  the 
Commission,  entitled  "On  the  capacities  of  labour  inspectorates  to  deal  with  cross-border 
cases in the Member States".  

The results of the survey are presented below, following the six questions asked. The Study is 
based  on  25  replies  (including  those  of  Switzerland,  Iceland  and  Norway)  which  vary 
substantially in the amount of information provided. 

153      A  further  survey  is  being  carried  out  in  the  context  of  the  UDW  Platform,  under  the  module  "Obstacles  faced  by 
enforcement  authorities  in  tackling  undeclared  work".  The  survey  will  cover  three  topics:  obstacles  faced  by 
enforcement  authorities  in  cross-border  cases;  National  and  Bilateral  Agreements;  and  tools  for  reporting  complaints. 
The results of the survey will be available in the first semester of 2018. 

127 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Table  3.  Synthesis  of  the  results  of  the  FreSsco  study  on  the  capacities  of  labour 
inspectorates in cross-border cases 

Member  
State  

Number of 
controls/year 

Number 
of staff 

AT 

- 

- 

Work days 
standard 
request 
- 

Work days 
legal 
investigation 
- 

BE 

BG 

HR 

3.846 
+ controls by 5 
regional 
offices 

73 

2-3 days 
278 days  
1-3 months 

15-20 days 

- 

up to 1 year 

(depending  
domain) 

(depending  
domain) 

25 days 

up to 5-6 
months 

up to 2 days 

3-4 weeks 

435 
(10 months) 
no cross-
border controls   

not 
dedicated  
not 
dedicated 

CY 

100 

not 
dedicated  

(depending 
case) 

(depending 
case) 

CZ 

DA 

DE 

EE 

FI 

no cross-
border controls 

not 
dedicated 

25 days  
2-3 months 

Months 

(depending 
case) 
- 

(depending 
case) 
- 

30-40 

24 
(first half of 
2017) 

- 

not 
dedicated  

no cross- 
border controls 

not 
dedicated  

no cross-
border 
controls 

(working 
conditions 
foreign 
workers) 

20-30 
+ 119 
administr 
staff 
internat. 
soc. secu. 
benefits 

- 

- 

5-35 days 
3_12 month 
8-14 days  
(depending 
domain) 
2-30 days 

6 minutes to 
2 days  

(depending 
domain)  

30 days 
6-12 months 

(depending 
case) 
54 minutes to 
3-5 days  

(depending 
domain) 

(depending 
domain) 

128 

Analytical 
capacity 

- 

risk assessment 
through data 
mining & data 
matching  

- 

- 

- 

- 

data base; 
cooperation with 
tax 1 police 
authorities   
Data 
base;:cooperation 
with customs 
authorities  

- 

cooperation with 
police, 
immigration, 
border control & 
tax authorities  

Difficulties 

Linguistics; 
identification 
employer; 
identification 
MS' admin; 
prosecution 
admin penalties 
access info; ≠ 
interpretation; 
linguistics; 
regulatory  
complexity; 
no uniformity;  
MS’ admin. 
capacity  
unwillingness 
employers 
lack of docs; 
linguistics; 
unavailability 
employers; lack 
of info 
employees 
Linguistics; 
identification of 
workers; IT tools 
with real-time 
into 
≠ interpretation; 
linguistics; 
lack of info 
employees 

linguistics; 
cultural 
differences  

MS’ admin. 
capacity; ≠ 
interpretation; 
linguistics;  

no uniformity;  

unavailability 
employers, 
linguistics, 
incompatibility 
IT; MS' admin 
capacity; no 
uniformity 
regulations  & 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FR 

set target of 
1.500/month 

(depending  
case) 

5 months 

dedicated 
national 
body + 
dedicated 
local units 
in regions 

HU 

EL 
HU 

IS 
(Iceland) 

IRL 

IT 
LV 

- 

N.a. 
- 

- 

- 

N.a. 
- 

not 
dedicated 

1-2 days to 2 
months  

(depending 
case) 

N.a. 
not 
dedicated 

N.a. 
1-2 days to 
2 months 

N.a. 
(depending 
case) 

2 

- 

- 

not 
dedicated  

matter of 
days 

months to 
years  

N.a. 
not 
dedicated 

N.a. 
1-2 days 

N.a. 
- 

LI 
(Liechtenstein) 

- 

- 

- 

- 

LT 

SI 

ES 

SE 

CH 
(Switzerland) 

57 
(working 
conditions 
foreign 
workers) 
- 

not 
dedicated 

not 
dedicated 

18,7 hours 

20 days  

- 

- 

778 

not 
dedicated 

24 hours to 2 
days 

(depending 
case) 

- 

- 

no 'labour 
inspectorate' 
(social 
partners 
control 
conditions 
posted 
workers)  
'labour 
inspectorate' 

- 

- 

coupling data 
illegal work with 
data on posted 
work; 
identification 
target sectors  

IT and filing 
system for risk 
assessment 

N.a 

IT and filing 
system for risk 
assessment 

cooperation with 
tax authorities & 
social partners 
Predictive 
analysis and 
modelling; data 
matching   

N.a..  
cooperation with 
state revenue 
office, state 
social insurance 
agency 

- 

- 

- 

Database and 
records to detect 
fraud or non-
compliance 

- 

procedures  
SIPSI system not 
user- friendly; 
complexity 
check work- 
residency 
permits and  
wages; need for 
frequency of 
controls; 
linguistics in  
MS'  
employers not 
available-
unwilling; MS' 
admin capacity 
N.a. 

employers not 
available-
unwilling; MS' 
admin capacity 
employers not 
available; 
linguistics 
- 

N.a. 

linguistics; no 
uniformity 
standards  
processes; 
unwillingness 
employers; MS' 
admin capacity 
lack of info 
employees; 
respect wage 
standards   
unavailability 
employer; no 
uniform 
procedures; MS' 
admin capacity 
Low readiness to 
cooperate; MS' 
admin capacity 
Collection of 
fines & admin 
penalties – MS' 
admin capacity 
Privacy rules 
between tax 
authority, social 
insurance agency  
& social partners  

- 

- 

lack of info 
employees; 

cooperation with 
migration office  

129 

 
 
UK 
LU 
MT 

NL 

NO 
(Norway) 

PL 

PT 
RO 

respect wage 
standards 

N.a. 
N.a. 
1 

N.a. 
N.a. 
1-2 days  

N.a. 
N.a.  
4-5 days 

N.a. 
N.a. 
no uniformity 

not 
dedicated  

- 

- 

- 

not dealing  
with soc. 
security; social 
partners 
controlling 
working 
conditions)  

N.a.. 
N.a. 
no cross-
border controls 

- 

- 

not 
dedicated 

less than one 
hour  

1-2 weeks  

271 
(10 months) 

N.a. 
144 

183 

2.8-3.8 days 

months 

N.a. 
not 
dedicated 

N.a. 
- 

N.a. 
- 

N.a. 
N.a. 
cooperation with 
PES, social. 
security & inland 
revenue 
own analytical 
capacity; 
cooperation with 
social insur. 
board 
own department 
providing 
analytical 
capacity 

- 

N.a. 
- 

N.a. 

access info; 
inter-agency 
exchange of info 
(personal data 
issues) 
Access info; 
unavailability 
employer 

N.a. 
linguistics; 
unavailability 
employer; 
impossibility 
check wages & 
payment social 
security 

N.a. 

N.a. 
SK 
No information:, EL IT, LU, PT, SK, UK. 
Source: Ad-hoc FreSsco survey, November 2017   

N.a. 

N.a. 

N.a. 

5. Examples of bilateral agreements on inspections 

Bilateral and multilateral agreements or understanding of cooperation on cross-border labour 
rules have an established tradition, notably in the area of posting but also on undeclared work. 
Enforcement Directive 201/67/EU (Article 21(2)) recognises the function of such agreements 
or arrangements to integrating institutional cooperation, envisages their publicity and commits 
the Member States to inform the Commission. 

This notwithstanding, also owing to the recent implementation of said Directive, there is no 
repository  of  bi-  and  multilateral  agreements.  Therefore,  information  is  fragmented  and  not 

130 

 
 
 
 
necessarily up-to-date. Those presented below are examples of bilateral cooperation collected 
in the framework of the Eurodetachement project154. 

Belgium-Poland (October 2007)155 

The agreement signed between the Polish and the Belgian Labour Inspectorates envisages the 
exchange  of  information  on  the  working  conditions  of  posted  workers  within  a  delay  of 
maximum  4  weeks  (and  within  the  limits  set  by  data  protection  legislation)  and  the 
organization of annual meetings of coordination.  

France-Italy (September 2011) 156 

The agreement signed by the Italian and the French Labour Ministries envisages "particularly 
active"  cooperation  between  the  respective  labour  inspectorates  on  controls  on  labour 
mobility, including the posting of workers, and fight against illegal work. 

The  agreement  establishes  that  the  competent  authorities  may  provide  mutual  assistance  on 
the  study  and  carrying  out  concerted  actions  of  prevention;  communicating  to  each  other 
changes  in  the  legislative,  regulative  and  administrative  framework  in  the  above  areas  and 
carrying  out  coordinated  control  actions;  and  exchanging  information  on  the  respective 
methods of controls and inspectorate work.  

Finland- Estonia (December 2014)157 

The  agreement  concluded  by  the  Labour  Inspectorate  of  Estonia  and  the  Division  of 
Occupational  Health  and  Safety  of  the  Regional  State  Administrative  Agency  for  Southern 
Finland envisages cooperation in information sharing, including on matters where IMI cannot 
be used, exchange of inspectors on concrete cases including the organisation of training and 
joint visits in Finland, and efforts to raising awareness of Estonian workers posted to Finland 
concerning  their  rights  and  obligations  while  working  in  Finland  and  the  sharing  of  related 
information.  Bi-annual  meetings  are  envisaged  in  order  to  take  stock  of  results  and  further 
needs for common action. 

Spain-Romania (May 2009)158 

The Memorandum of understanding signed by the national labour inspectorates of Spain and 
Romania  establishes  a  will  to  cooperate  on  matters  of  posting  of  workers  (including  the 
verification of genuine activities of posting companies, also during processes of investigation, 
and of the status of third-country workers, and the possibility for one of the parties to foster 

154 Eurodetachement is a project coordinated by the French National Institute for Labour, Employment and Vocational 
Training (INTFEP) which was financed by a grant of the European Commission under the Call for Proposal (VP/2015/007). 
155 http://www.eurodetachement-travail.eu/datas/files/EUR/Belgique%20Pologne%2011%20oct%202007%20fr.pdf. 
156 http://www.eurodetachement-travail.eu/datas/files/EUR/Dichiarazione_cooperazione_italofrancese__27.09.2011.pdf.  
157 http://www.eurodetachement-travail.eu/datas/files/EUR/Agreement_on_Cooperation.pdf  
158 http://www.eurodetachement-travail.eu/datas/files/EUR/Memorandum_Espana_Rumania.pdf  

131 

 
 
                                                            
special  campaign  of  inspections  and  exchange  of  information);  on  the  health  and  safety  of 
workers and on work accidents.  

6. Conciliation procedure in the field of social security coordination 

In  the  field  of  social  security  coordination  the  Administrative  Commission  (AC)  is 
designated by a number of provisions of EU rules as the body to resolve such disagreements. 
When defining the procedure, two mechanisms are in place: Decision No A1 and the setting 
up of the Conciliation Board.  

The  Decision  No  A1  of  12  June  2009  concerning  the  establishment  of  a  dialogue  and 
conciliation procedure provides for a settlement of disputes between institutions of different 
Member  States  in  situations  referred  to  in  Articles  5  (Legal  value  of  documents  and 
supporting  evidence  issued  in  another  Member  State)159,  6  (Provisional  application  of 
legislation  and  provisional  granting  of  benefits)160,  16  (provision  of  information  if  person 
pursuit  activities  in  two  or  more  Member  States  and  60  (procedure  regarding  payment  of 
family benefits) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009. It was adopted with the aim to establish a 
standard  procedure  to  be  followed  before  a  matter  may  be  referred  to  the  Administrative 
Commission.  

This  consists  of  two  stages  of  a  dialogue  procedure  and,  as  a  last  stage,  the  conciliation 
procedure  done  through  the  Conciliation  Board  according  to  its  mandate  provided  by  the 
AC.  

Dialogue  procedure:  The  first  stage  of  the  dialogue  procedure  is  conducted  at  the 
institutional  level,  i.e.  it  consists  of  direct  contacts  between  the  institutions  concerned.  The 
second stage of the dialogue procedure involves the competent authorities, i.e. it is conducted 
at a ministerial level. 

159 As a principle, documents must be accepted by the institutions of the other Member States for as long as they have not 
been  withdrawn  or  declared  to be  invalid  by the  Member  State  in  which  they were  issued.  When  there  is  doubt  about  the 
validity of a document or the accuracy of the facts on which the particulars contained therein are based, the institution of the 
Member  State  that  receives  the  document  must  ask  the  issuing  institution  for  the  necessary  clarification  and,  where 
appropriate, the withdrawal of that document. Ultimately, where no agreement is reached 
between the institutions concerned, the matter may be brought before the Administrative Commission to reconcile the points 
of view. 
160  If  there  is  a  difference  of  views  between  the  institutions  or  authorities  of  two  or  more  Member  States  concerning  the 
determination of the applicable legislation, the person concerned shall be made provisionally subject to the legislation of one 
of those Member States. Thereby the person is still protected and receives benefits. 

132 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Conciliation Procedure and Conciliation Board:  
in  the  conciliation  procedure  disputed  issue  may  be  referred  by  the  Administrative 
Commission  to  the  Conciliation  Board.  The  Conciliation  Board  is  expected  to  submit  its 
opinion on the case within six months. 

The dialogue and conciliation procedure established by Decision No A1 presents a number of 
challenges: 

  The Conciliation Board only deals with disputes where both parties agree to bring the case 
in  front  of  it,  following  the  two  states  of  dialogue  procedure  which  already  took  place 
between authorities. 

  The  Conciliation  Board  is  not  equipped  to  solve  disputes  regarding  the  factual 

circumstances of a case.  

  The Conciliation Board, by its very nature, is not in a position to deliver legally binding 
decisions, as the only possibility to get a binding decision on EU level in case of a dispute 
between  Member  States  is  to  start  infringement  proceedings  pursuant  to  Article  259 
TFEU.  

  There  is  a  limited  ability  to  monitor  and  follow-up  on  the  implementation  of  its 
recommendations and decisions. The follow-up relies on Member States reporting back to 
the AC at the regularly scheduled meetings of this committee (four times a year), without 
a  capacity  of  directly  discussing  on  ground  with  the  institutions  concerned  and  support 
them  with  any  difficulties  they  encounter  with  the  practical  implementation  of  the 
recommendation and decisions. 

  The procedure of dialogue and conciliation can be very lengthy. The big majority of cases 
are  resolved  on  a  bilateral  manner  between  Member  States  during  the  two  phases  of 
dialogue  procedure.  Few  cases  reach  the  third  stage  of  conciliation:  between  2010  and 
2017  only  nine  (9)  cases  were  submitted  to  the  Conciliation  Board  of  the  AC.  The  full 
"life-cycle" of a case can therefore be as long as over 3 years. 

  Conciliation  procedure  is  limited  on  posting  related  issues,  while  such  interpretation 
discussions  and  disagreements  are  also  very  relevant  in  other  areas  of  social  security 
coordination  as  an  example  in  the  area  of  family  benefits  or  the  determination  of 
applicable  legislation  for  areas  other  than  in  posting  situations.  On  family  benefits, 
wherever family members live in different Member States and may draw rights to family 
benefits from different countries there are many areas in determining which institution is 
competent for what type of family benefit which can lead to disputes, with the potential 
consequence  of  delaying  the  granting  of  family  benefits  necessary  for  the  financial 
stability of the family. In order to facilitate and formalise exchanges in this field, the AC 
adopted Decision F2 in 2016 concerning the exchange of data between institutions for the 
purpose  of  granting  family  benefits  with  the  aim  of  speeding  up  these  procedures, 
however  in  cases  of  doubt  a  further  formalised  procedure  would  be  beneficial,  in 
particular when it comes to disputes.  

133 

 
 
 
The  revision  of  the  Decision  A1  is  currently  ongoing  in  order  to  further  streamline  the 
procedure to address as far as possible the above outlined challenges. 

Since its creation in October 2010, the Conciliation Board submitted a legal opinion in 2013 
and another one 2014 on specific questions referred to it by the Administrative Commission. 
Five further cases regarding he validity of A1 posting certificates were referred to the Board 
in  2015,  and  in  three  of  these  cases,  a  legal  opinion  was  submitted  by  the  Board  and  later 
approved by the Administrative Commission. In one of the cases it led to the withdrawal of 
A1  posting  certificates.  A  further  case  of  referral  has  been  requested  for  the  December 
meeting  of  the  Administrative  Commission  in  2016.  Two  new  cases  were  submitted  at  the 
June 2017 Meeting of the Administrative Commission in which the Conciliation Board also 
submitted a legal opinion in a dispute between two Member States  which was unanimously 
adopted. 

Conciliation is also in use within the framework of the Audit Board (and its Conciliation 
Panel).   
The tasks of the Audit Board are: 

  To  verify  the  method  of  determining  and  calculating  the  annual  average  costs 

 

 

 

presented by Member States 
to  collect  the  necessary  data  and  carry  out  the  calculations  required  for  establishing 
the annual statement of claims of each Member State 
to  gives  the  Administrative  Commission  periodic  accounts  of  the  results  of  the 
implementation of this Regulation and of the Implementing Regulation, in particular 
as regards the financial aspect 
to  provide  the  data  and  reports  necessary  for  decisions  to  be  taken  by  the 
Administrative Commission 

The  Audit  Board  meets  two  times  a  year,  and  is  composed  by  expert  representatives  from 
each of the Member States and observers from EEA countries and Switzerland as determined 
by the Administrative Commission. 
The  Audit  Board  mandated  a  Conciliation  Panel  to  facilitate  closing  of  accounts  where  a 
settlement cannot be reached between Member States within 36 months following the month 
in  which  the  claim  was  introduced,  dealing  with  the  area  of  implementing  the  financial 
provisions of social security coordination rules, specifically Article 67(6) of the Regulation 
(EC)  No  987/2009  and  Article  2(3)  of  the  AC  Decision  No  H4.  This  became  particularly 
relevant  since  the  entry  into  force  of  the  current  social  security  coordination  rules,  which 
introduced  clear  deadlines  on  the  settlement  of  claims  between  Member  States  for  benefits 
provided across borders. To handle the closing of old claims (dating before 2010, under the 
rules  of  the  previous  social  security  coordination  legislation  where  no  deadlines  were 

134 

 
 
 
stipulated), the Conciliation Panel dealt with a high number of cases, issuing opinions on over 
100 disputes in the course of 2017. 

7. Your Europe Advice 

7.1. Introduction 
Your Europe Advice161 (YEA) is an EU-run personal advisory service answering citizens' and 
businesses'  queries  (by  phone  or  online)  about  their  EU  rights  in  the  Single  Market, 
clarification on EU law in the citizen’s and business's particular situation, explanations of how 
to exercise these rights, and directions to a national institution or other body if needed. ‘Your 
Europe Advice’ relies on a network more than 63 independent multilingual legal experts from 
all EU Member States who handle enquiries in all official EU languages. Replies are provided 
within less than one week and in any official EU language.  

The number of enquires has been increasing over the time.162 Between 2009 and 2016 the 
number of enquiries more than doubled (from 11540 to 24445 cases per year). Between 2015 
and 2016 the use of Your Europe Advice slightly decreased which can be attributed to more 
relevant and more user-friendly information on the Your Europe website.  

The timeliness  and quality  of replies is  being maintained even though  the questions put to 
Your Europe Advice are increasingly specific and complex. 163 

The demand for advice is continuously the highest among employed and in the 25-44 age 
bracket. In 2016, 38 % of the enquiries were submitted by employed, 11 % by jobseekers and 
unemployed, 10 % by self-employed and 8 % by retired and same pattern can be observed in 
the past.164 In terms of age, the second place in number of requests goes to the age group 45-
64, while there is a big increase in the number of requests of people under 18 years.  

The top enquires relate to the areas of social security, entry procedures, residence, work, 
motor-vehicles  and  taxes  (Table).165  The  area  of  social  security  has  been  continuously  the 

Single 

Single 

Market 

161 http://europa.eu/youreurope/advice/  
162 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/scoreboard/performance_by_governance_tool/youreurope_advice/index_en.htm 
163 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/scoreboard/performance_by_governance_tool/youreurope_advice/index_en.htm 
164 For one fifth of the enquires the information about their status was not available. 
165  Topics  covered  under  YEA  are:  access  to  document,  entry  procedures,  family  rights  and  issues  (other  than  rights  of 
residence), financial  services,  goods  (other than motor  vehicles),  judicial  rights  in  the EU,  motor-vehicles,  other consumer 
issues, other fundamental rights in the EU (incl. Charter),  political rights of EU citizens, residence, social security, studies 
and training, taxes, welfare benefits (non contributory), work. 

Scoreboard, 

Scoreboard, 

07/2017. 

Edition 

Edition 

Market 

07/2017.  

135 

 
 
 
                                                            
top  one.  Around  20%  of  the  enquiries  related  to  social  security  issues  concern  forms  (i.e. 
PDs), notably in the sectors of health and unemployment.166  

Table:  Your  Europe  Advice  -  Top  subject  areas  where  advice  is  soughta  (%  of  total 
enquires) 

TOPIC 

Social security 

Entry procedures 

Residence 

Work 

Motor-vehicles 

Taxes 

2013 

24.86 

13.13 

18.07 

10.16 

8.97 

5.06 

2014 

26.04 

13.68 

16.97 

9.13 

10.93 

6.16 

2015 

25.95 

17.85 

16.35 

8.57 

9.72 

5.4 

2016 

23.52 

19.29 

17.35 

8.07 

7.25 

6.85 

Note: a Share of enquiries higher than 6 %. For other topics the share if . 
Source: Single Market Scoreboard, Edition 07/2017. 

7.2. Users' satisfaction with advice 

Users  are  overall  satisfied  with  the  quality  of  the  replies.  In  total  80%  are  satisfied  or  very 
satisfied with the service received. Satisfaction was somewhat lower for enquiries related 
to  tax  and  social  security  issues,  mostly  for  lack  of  practical  guidance,  insufficient 
explanations of the relevant legislation and incomplete answers provided.167 On average 
one sixth of all YEA users feel that the service did not fully meet their needs, mostly due to 
incomplete  answers,  unhelpful  answers  and  replies  that  do  not  contain  enough  practical 
guidance.  The  data  gathered  suggest  that  the  citizens  who  submitted  enquiries  that  were 
ineligible  for  the  service  could  be  better  informed  about  the  reasons  why  their  case  was 
rejected.  

The YEA service is not easy to find, but this is intentional. Due to the budgetary limits to 
the total number of queries that can be handled in a year, the service is not actively promoted. 
The  costs  of  providing  a  personalised,  individual  assistance  via  Your  Europe  Advice  are 
estimated  at  €  74  per  enquiry,  which  is  75  times  more  compared  to  the  costs  of  providing 
information online (e.g. Your Europe, € 0,92 per enquiry). Therefore the reach of the service 
is limited considering the number of EU citizens who may require personalised legal advice 
and assistance on their EU rights.168  

166 Feasibility study on a European Mobility Portal on Social Security (EMPSS), 2017, prepared for DG EMPL by COWI 
A/S (not published) 
167IA SDG 2017, p. 42  
168  The  costs  of  information  provided  online  via  Your  Europe  are  significantly  lower  (information  online,  EUR  0,92  per 
enquiry) compared to the personalised advise via Your Europe Advice (individual assistance, EUR 74 per enquiry).IA SDG 
2017, p. 42 

136 

 
 
 
                                                            
7.3. Overview of main difficulties in receiving necessary and correct information in the 
area of social security and work 
Since 2012, YEA Quarterly Feedback Reports169 provides an overview of the main problem 
issues and 'problem countries'.  

Social  security  touches  upon  health  and  financial  concerns  that  are  perceived  as  crucial  by 
citizens.  A  lot  of  questions  evidence  the  difficulties  that  citizens  experience  in  receiving 
information.  The  social  security  rules  are  still  not  well  known  by  the  national  authorities, 
particularly  those  rules  concerning  determination  of  the  applicable  legislation  or  the 
competent  Member  State.  There  is  a  persistent  lack  of  co-operation  between  national 
authorities  despite  the  obligation  of co-operation  imposed  by  Article  76 of  Regulation  (EC) 
No. 883/2004 and number of cases featuring incorrect interpretation or implementation of the 
rules  by  national  authorities.  Due  to  their  failure  to  communicate  and  co-operate  with  each 
other  as  they  should  (Article  76,  Regulation  (EC)  No.  883/2004),  national  authorities  are 
unable  to  correctly  determine  the  competent  state.  Consequently,  citizens  face  problems  in 
claiming  social benefits. This  leads to  serious problems in  all branches of social  security as 
citizens do not know where to pay social contributions when they work in two countries, or 
when they live in one country and work in another, or when they retire to another country. 

Under  topic  'work'  many  cases  general  information  requests  on  the  rights,  conditions  and 
formalities  of  working  in  another  Member  State  (e.g.  access  to  employment).  Similarly  the 
majority  of  enquiries  received  from  cross-border  workers  and  posted  workers  were  general 
information requests.  

The recurrent issues identified in the area of social security and work are the following: 

1) Social security 

  difficulties in obtaining information, especially concerning the necessary documents 

and forms,  

 

imperfect  understanding  of  the  social  security  rules  by  national  authorities,  in 
particular, how to determine the applicable legislation or the competent Member 
State.  Some  Member  States  deny  their  responsibility  and  declare  themselves  as  not 
competent when they are competent. More and more countries refuse to deliver the 
appropriate  forms,  mostly  Form  S1  and  refuse  to  recognise  those  coming  from 
another EU country (especially Romania, Bulgaria, Sweden, Germany and France). 

  There is  a  persistent  lack  of  cooperation  between  national  authorities  despite  the 
obligation of cooperation imposed by Article 76 of Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004. 

169 Only available internally for the Commission. 

137 

 
 
                                                            
  Excessive  delays  in  processing  family  benefit  claims  and  the  payments  of  these 

benefits (Germany, Austria). 

  Difficulties  in  providing  evidence  on  health  insurance  in  relation  to  the  right  of 
residence  and  implementation  of  Directive  2004/38/EC.170  While  this  can  be 
demonstrated  by  several  means,  some  Member  States  refuse  to  recognise  any 
form other than the Form S1. They refuse to accept an insurance policy or any other 
statement or form proving that a citizen is covered by health insurance. YEA received 
enquiries  showing  that  an  increasing  number  of  Member  States  refuse  to  issue 
Form S1. This is a recurring issue in Sweden, but it is also appearing in other Member 
States such as Romania. The French Family Allocations Office (Caisse d’Allocations 
Familiales  -  CAF)  requires  that  EU  citizens  have  a  residence  card  to  continue 
receiving benefits. 

  The  Romanian  authorities  do  not  recognize  proof  of  health 

insurance 
contributions  in  another  Member  State  (such  as  the  Form  S1).  Citizens  are  not 
even asked to prove that they were subject to another Member State’s social security 
system.  The  Romanian  authorities  do  not  accept  portable  documents  issued  in  other 
Member States. In practice, this means that some Romanian citizens are obliged to pay 
their health insurance contributions twice. The Romanian authorities do not accept and 
often refuse to issue the necessary forms to EU citizens. 

  The  difficulties  that  students  experience  in  accessing  correct  information 
concerning their health care coverage. Some Member states will only issue an EHIC 
to them while others issue a Form S1. As the Member States have some discretion to 
decide the conditions under which they issue a Form S1, this can create difficulties. 

  Restricted  use  of  Form  A1  in  some  Member  States.  For  example,  citizens  have 
reported  that  the  authorities  in  their  respective  countries  have  refused  to  issue  Form 
A1 to anyone other than an employed posted worker. 

  Difficulties  experienced  by  EU  citizens  caused  by  the  uncertainty  of  Brexit. 
Citizens are now afraid that they will miss out on their pensions even though they have 
made  contributions.  Some  local  administrations  are  making  registration  more 
complicated for British citizens and EU citizens living in the United Kingdom are also 
experiencing difficulties. 

170 The right of residence under the Directive is subject to evidence of health insurance to ensure that citizens do not become 
a burden on the social security of the host Member State during their stay. 

138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
2) Work  

  EU citizens and their family members continue to experience difficulties in accessing 
work. A residence card or a national insurance number was required (especially in 
Sweden and the United Kingdom).  

  EU  citizens  continue  to  experience  difficulties  in  having  their  professional 
qualifications  recognised  by  other  Member  States.  Surprisingly,  very  few  cases 
concerned automatic recognition in the “sectoral” professions.  

  Difficulties experienced in relation to application of the Posted Workers Directive 

2014/67/EU as well as the Social Security Regulation (EC) No 883/2004.  

  A number of enquiries related to obstacles to establish a company or to start a 

business  

7.4. Cases demonstrating lack of cooperation among national authorities and insufficient 
awareness and/or incorrect interpretation of the law in the area of social security 

7.4.1 Lack of cooperation between national authorities 

Healthcare 
Croatia/Germany:  A  Croatian  citizen  required  unplanned  medical  treatment  in  Germany 
when  temporarily  staying  there  to  visit  a  family  member.  He  had  to  be  hospitalized  and 
treated  in  a  German  hospital.  The  German  health  insurer  requested  Form  E112  (now  Form 
S2),  which  is  the  authorisation  to  obtain  planned  health  treatment  from  the  Croatian  health 
insurer.  The  latter  refused  to  issue  this  document,  stating  that  the  citizen  was  covered  by 
Croatian health insurance, which will cover all costs approved by the German insurer through 
the European health insurance card. The German insurer refused to consider this case as being 
one of a citizen seeking unplanned treatment abroad and continues to insist on presentation of 
Form E112. This lack of coordination and understanding between the two health insurances 
bodies  has  created  a  problem  for  the  citizen  to  receive  the  treatment  he  requires  in  the 
knowledge that the cost will correctly be met by the Croatian authorities (228125). 

Family benefits 
Slovakia/Slovenia:  A  Slovak  national  who  lives  with  her  family  in  Slovenia  experienced 
difficulties in obtaining parental allowance from Slovakia, where she is economically active. 
The two administrations cannot agree on the comparability of benefits (228313). 

Unemployment benefits 

139 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Italy/France: An Italian job-seeker who used Form U2171 to have his unemployment benefit 
transferred to France was not advised why the first monthly payment and the third were much 
lower than the second. As a consequence, he is unsure whether he can extend his job-search in 
France.  He  was  advised  that  he  would  be  granted  an  extension  of  payment  of  his 
unemployment  benefit  to  France,  but  he  risks  losing  his  right  to  benefit  if  he  does  not  now 
return to Italy. The Italian Social Welfare Institution (Instituto Nazionale Providenza Sociale 
“INPS”) has failed to respond to the French Job centre (Pôle Emploi) to confirm extension of 
the transfer of his unemployment benefit (223898). 

Italy/Hungary:  A  Hungarian  citizen  worked  in  Italy.  After  becoming  unemployed,  she 
registered as a jobseeker with the Italian employment service. She informed the service about 
her  intention  to  look  for  work  in  Hungary.  She  stayed  for  four  weeks  in  Italy  as  required 
under  Regulation  (EC)  No.  883/2004  then  asked  the  Italian  Agency  to  issue  Form  U2.  The 
Italian  Agency  delayed  registration  of  the  citizen  as  a  jobseeker  in  Italy  and  did  not  issue 
Form  U2.  The  Italian  Agency  suggested  that  the  citizen  should  first  return  to  Hungary  and 
register  as  a  jobseeker  there.  The  Hungarian  Agency  should  then  apply  for  Form  U2  in  the 
name  of  the  citizen.  After  the  citizen  had  registered  in  Hungary,  the  Hungarian  Agency 
notified  the  Italian  service,  but  the  Italian  service  refused  to  issue  any  cash  benefits  to  the 
citizen because the Hungarian authorities had not sent a request for Form U2. The Hungarian 
Agency  correctly  asserts  that  the  Italian  service  should  have  issued  Form  U2  to  the  citizen 
before she left Italy, when she applied for issue of Form U2 in person. As a result, the citizen 
was left without unemployment benefits for the period she stayed in Hungary as a jobseeker 
(227408). 

Italy/France:  An  Italian  citizen  sought  to  transfer  unemployment  benefit  from  France  to 
Italy.  The  French  Employment  Centre  issued  Form  U2.  The  citizen  registered  with  the 
commune  employment  centre  where  he  resided.  However,  the  employment  centre  (city  of 
Benevento)  was  unaware  of  how  confirm  the  registration  to  the  French  Job  centre  (Pôle 
Emploi)  and  did  not  accept  the  Form  U2  form  issued  in  France.  Consequently,  the  Italian 
citizen  has  been  unable  to  transfer  and  benefit  from  his  French  unemployment  benefit.  Art. 
76(4)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No.  883/2004  and  Art.2(2)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No.  987/2009  lay 
down the principle of mutual information and cooperation between the competent authorities 
of the Member  States to ensure correct implementation of the EU social  security rules. The 
institutions  are  obliged  to  provide  or  exchange,  without  delay,  all  data  necessary  for 
establishing  and  determining  the  rights  and  obligations  of  persons  (to  whom  the  basic 
Regulation  (EC) No. 883/2004  applies). The fact that  the Italian social security Agency did 

171  

140 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
not communicate with its French counterpart and did not accept the Form U2 form issued in 
France,  represents  misapplication  of  the  principle  of  cooperation,  as  laid  down  in  EU 
legislation and was solved via Solvit (22308311). 

Ireland/Lithuania:  No  response  was  received  from  the  competent  Irish  social  security 
institution to an enquiry regarding a Lithuanian citizen's unemployment insurance periods in 
Ireland (228117). 

Romania/Germany: A Romanian citizen made  voluntary contributions in Romania for two 
and a half years. She is now pregnant. She paid sickness insurance cover on a quarterly basis 
in Romania. Such contributions are accepted from non-active citizens. She and her husband 
wish  to  settle  in  Germany.  To  register  residence  there,  she  is  required  to  participate  in  the 
German public health insurance system. She was advised in Germany to obtain Form E104. 
She was refused the Form because she had paid her social insurance contributions quarterly 
rather  than  monthly.  The  citizen  was  unable  to  discuss  her  situation  as  the  phoneline  for 
enquiries  repeatedly  rang  out.  The  citizen  is  in  a  very  difficult  situation  because  despite 
having  paid  social  insurance  contributions  for  the  past  two  and  a  half  years,  she  is  being 
denied  benefits  in  Germany  because  she  cannot  obtain  Form  E104  from  the  Romanian 
authorities. She cannot obtain the Form E104 because she paid social insurance contributions 
there quarterly rather than monthly. (222944, 222944 and 222676). 

Old age and invalidity pension 
Bulgaria/Greece:  A  Bulgarian  citizen  worked  in  Greece.  On  her  return  to  Bulgaria,  she 
required  an  urgent  operation  and  was  asked  to  pay  three  years  of  health  insurance 
contributions  in  Bulgaria  by  the  National  Social  Security  Institute  (NSSI).  After  receiving 
invalidity pension in Bulgaria, she requested confirmation of her pension rights in Greece in 
2016. By 2017, the Bulgarian citizen still had not received a reply about her pension rights in 
Greece. Citizens should not be required to pay double insurance contributions when resident 
in  another  Member  State.  Responses  to  enquiries  about  EU  social  security  coordination 
should be received within a reasonable period of time (223252). 

France/Romania:  A  Romanian  citizen  living  in  France  experienced  excessive  delays  in 
obtaining details of his pension rights for the years he had worked in Romania. According to 
EU rules, as he has worked in both France and Romania, the competent institution in France 
may require its Romanian counterpart to provide information on insurance periods completed 
there. Delays in providing such information can deprive citizens of their pension income for 
the period of the delay (226810). 

141 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
France/Spain:  A  French  pensioner  residing  in  France  worked  there  until  2006.  He  then 
worked in Spain from 2006 to 2016. He sought Form E205 from his French insurer to give to 
his  Spanish  insurer.  However,  the  French  insurer  has  failed  to  send  the  form  to  its  Spanish 
counterpart. This is an infringement of Article 76 (4) of Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004 which 
requires national authorities/bodies to cooperate. (227187). 

Sweden/Spain: A Spanish citizen lives in Sweden. He has worked both in Sweden and Spain. 
He is retired and has applied for old age benefits. The Spanish authorities have not provided 
him  with  information  and  his  application  is  being  delayed.  This  suggests  that  there  may  be 
problems in communication between the national competent authorities (223998). 

United  Kingdom/Spain:  The  British  social  security  authorities  failed  to  respond  for  more 
than seven months to  an  old-age  pension application  from  a  Spanish resident made  through 
the  Spanish  authorities  for  aggregation  of  periods  and  calculation  of  contribution  records 
(226188). 

7.4.2  Insufficient  awareness  and/or  incorrect  interpretation  or  implementation  of  the  law 
by national Agency 

Germany: a German citizen resides in Belgium. Between 2014 and 2016, while residing in 
Belgium,  she  maintained  a  part-time  job  there  and  also  commenced  working  as  an 
independent  consultant  in  Germany.  She  paid  social  insurance  contributions  to  the  Belgian 
national  social  security  Office  (Office  National  de  Sécurité  Sociale  -  ONSS)  and  social 
insurance  contributions  in  respect  of  her  work  in  Germany  to  a  German  social  security 
agency.  The  Belgian  National  Institute  for  Social  Security  of  the  Self-employed  (L'Institut 
national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants - INASTI) is now requesting that 
she pays them the social contributions for the work she did in Germany. In fact, INASTI is 
correct to claim that the social contributions as an independent consultant should have been 
paid  in  Belgium.  Indeed,  under  Article  13(3)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No.  883/2004,  when  a 
person  receives  a  salary  from  a  Member  State  and  works  as  an  independent  in  another 
Member  State,  she  should  pay  her  social  contributions  in  the  Member  State  where  she 
receives  her  salary.  But  INASTI  should  have  first  sought  reimbursement  from  the  German 
social  security  authorities  based  on  Article  76(4)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No.  883/2004  which 
provides  for  cooperation  between  Member  States'  bodies.  This  case  demonstrates 
unawareness of EU law by INASTI (227659).  

France:  an  Irish  posted  worker  living  and  working  in  France  with  his  family  experienced 

142 

 
 
 
 
 
 
difficulties in having his Form A1172 registered by the French competent authorities (Caisse 
Primaire  d’Assurance  Maladie-  CPAM).  This  has  resulted  in  his  medical  bills  mounting  to 
almost €3,000 over the last 2.5 years which he was required to pay up-front and for which he 
has not been compensated (224607, similar case 224599)  

Cyprus:  An  EU  national  worked  and  paid  social  security  contributions  in  Cyprus  for  nine 
consecutive years. She then left for Bulgaria and applied for unemployment benefit there but 
did  not  receive  any.  Four  months  later,  she  returned  to  Cyprus  where  she  also  applied  for 
unemployment benefit. She later applied for sickness benefit, maternity and a birth allowance 
in  Cyprus.  The  Cypriot  authorities  have  refused  all  her  claims,  insisting  that  the  Bulgarian 
authorities are competent. Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 987/2009, where there is a dispute 
as to which institution is competent, the person should be provisionally covered in her country 
of  residence  and  paid  benefits  under  that  legislation  until  the  matter  is  resolved.  The  two 
institutions must communicate to resolve this issue and decide what is her country of 'habitual 
residence (227446).   

Spain:  There  is  a  recurring  problem  in  the  failure  by  the  Spanish  authorities  to  aggregate 
contributions173  in  the  calculation  of  pension  and  invalidity  pensions.  A  Spanish  citizen 
worked for more than twenty years in Germany and nine and a half years in Spain. He applied 
for German and Spanish old-age pensions, but his Spanish pension has been refused because 
the citizen does not have a minimum of ten years of contributions required for payment even 
though he had also worked in Germany for twenty years (224917).  

France:  A  French  citizen  living  in  France  applied  for  his  pension  in  France.  The  French 
competent authorities have refused to consider his Luxembourg contributions (223491).  

Austria: Recurring complaints that the Austrian tax authorities fail to pay a family allowance 

supplement.  A  Slovak  citizen  experienced  problems  claiming  family  benefits  from  Austria. 

Despite  providing  all  documentation  more  than  six  months  ago,  she  is  still  waiting  for  a 

decision and payment of the benefit. Such long delays breach the citizen’s mobility rights in 

the EU (223141). 

172 Form A1 confirms that an employee or self-employed person pays social insurance contributions in his or her country and 
that  they  are  insured.  Consequently,  it  is  not  necessary  to  pay  insurance  contributions  in  the  country,  where  he  or  she  is 
posted.  In  some  sectors,  it  is  difficult  to  use  this  form  and  some  countries  limit  thescope  of  form  A1  to  employed  posted 
workers when, in fact, it has wider use. 
173 Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 recognises the principle of aggregation of periods, which means that 
acquisition of the right to receive benefits in one Member State must take into account periods of insurance, employment, 
self-employment and residence in another Member State. Some enquiries demonstrate the difficulties that citizens experience 
in receiving clear and correct information about aggregation of periods of insurance in different Member States.  

143 

 
 
 
                                                            
7.5.  Cases  demonstrating  lack  of  general  information  for  citizens  and/or  incorrect 

interpretation of the law by the national authorities in the area of work 

Certain Member States refused EU jobseekers the right to take up employment because they 
lacked  resident  status  or  a  personal  tax  number  (“personnummer”)  (for  example(Spain 
227971 and Sweden 223362, 225422). However, the authorities would not issue the personal 
tax number unless the citizen could demonstrate that they were in employment.  

Similar cases are reported in establishing a business. E.g. in Finland, to establish a business, a 
person should have a personal number and there is also an obligation to register residence as 
an EU citizen. Although these are two separate administrative proceedings and should be able 
to be carried out independently of each other, the citizen can easily become confused and feel 
in a Catch-22 situation, as it is not possible to carry out one process without having already 
completed the other (224012).  

Sweden:  The  Swedish  authorities  refused  to  recognise  the  right  of  a  worker  to  retain  his 
status  as  such.  He  had  worked  for  approximately  three  years  before  becoming  unemployed. 
Then,  he  resumed  work  for  approximately  a  year  before  becoming  unemployed  due  to 
hospitalisation (224523).174   

The  Netherlands/Portugal:  A  Portuguese  citizen  posted  in  the  Netherlands  was  defrauded 
by the temporary work agency which employed him. He was not granted paid annual leave or 
an end of year bonus. Moreover, his salary was taxed twice (225153). 

Ireland/France: A posted worker could not obtain an extension of his Form A1 because the 

French competent body failed to approve it (224599). 

Portugal: A posted worker misunderstood his social security contribution obligations while 

posted abroad (223395). 

7.6.  Cases  showing  a  worrying  lack  of  training  and  preparation  among  national 
authorities  

This section present some cases that show a worrying lack of training and preparation among 
local authorities in providing correct and clear information about their social security rights to 
mobile  EU  citizens.  The  cases  demonstrate  that  information  from  the  national  authorities 

174 Article 7(3) of Directive 2004/38/EC states that EU nationals who have worked in the host Member State for longer than 
one year  but  who  have lost  their  employment involuntarily  are allowed  to  retain  their  EU  worker  status  and  all connected 
rights. 

144 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
often contradict each other, individuals are sent from an administration to another and have to 
face real difficulties just to have access to basic information. Such cases could be avoided by 
national interlocutors being correctly trained on the coordination of the social security system. 

Lack of general information  

[225092]A  Portuguese  citizen  has  residence  in  Portugal  and  has  the  European  Health 
Insurance  Card.  She  wonders  if  she  can  use  the  EHIC  from  Portugal  in  Germany  or  has  to 
request an S1 form. She is very confused regarding what covers what. She made researches, it 
is impossible to find clear and correct information. 

[224497] Interns: The type of social security scheme a Finnish person doing an internship in 
Italy  should  subscribe  to  is  unclear.  The  citizen  does  not  currently  have  any  social  security 
coverage because the Finnish authorities insist that an internship constitutes employment, but 
the Italian authorities refuse to acknowledge that they are responsible for her social security. 
In Italy, special provision is made for certain internships, but this citizen is facing difficulties 
in being accepted under this provision. She does not know whether she should fall under the 
special provisions for interns in Italy or be treated as a normal employee  

Implementation of rules 

[227504] Italy: An Italian citizen could not provide the U2 form with the 7 days term to the 
Italian employment service because of the conduct held by some officials. YEA assessment 
confirmed that the officials did not apply properly the Regulation 883/2004 and advised the 
case to be assessed by Solvit office. 

Exchange of information and lack of cooperation 

[223941]  France/Bulgaria:  The  Bulgarian  citizen  lives  in  France  and  is  applying  for  a 
French pension. She has worked in France since 2008 and before that 25 years in Bulgaria. 
The French authorities want her to produce the document establishing her insurance periods 
in  Bulgaria in trimesters otherwise her Bulgarian insurance periods would not  be taken into 
account  and  she  would  be  granted  a  pension  of  93  euro.  However,  given  that  she  lives  in 
France,  the  French  authorities  are  responsible  for  processing  her  pension  application  and 
collecting  information  about  her  pension  contributions  in  Bulgaria  using  standard  E-forms, 
and the insurance periods do not have to be in trimesters.  

[224136] Italy/Lithuania: A resident of Lithuania has been working in Italy since 2016. She 
filed a petition for the "Deprivation of Sanctions for Temporary Compulsory Health Insurance 
Contributions"  from  the  Sodra  Panevėžys  Division,  as  she  has  not  yet  been  able  to  receive 
certificates  regarding  the  payment  of  a  PSD  abroad  in  Italy.  She  contacted  the  Italian 
department of the Palermo INPS and submitted to them an E104 form which has to confirm 
that  she  pays  social  insurance  contributions  in  Italy.  The  Italian  INPS  has  not  provided  her 

145 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
with  a  certificate,  and  the  Lithuanian  SODRA  is  penalizing  her  for  not  paying  my 
contributions in Lithuania. However, as she is legally employed in Italy, she is not obliged to 
pay compulsory health insurance contributions in Lithuania but has to provide upon request to 
tax  administrator  a  document,  which  confirms  that  she  insured  in  another  country.  This 
document  can  be  obtained  also  directly  by  the  competent  Lithuanian  institution  –  Social 
Insurance Fund Board – from the competent Italian institution – Istituto Nazionale Previdenza 
Sociale (INPS). 

[227518]  Bulgaria/United  Kingdom/Portugal:  Two  years  ago  the  citizen  applied  for  a 
pension  in  Bulgaria.  As  he  had  worked  in  the  UK  and  in  Portugal,  the  Bulgarian  pension 
institution  requested  information  from  the  Portuguese  and  the  British  pension  authorities. 
Neither has responded yet. As a result, the citizen is without a pension. Delaying the exchange 
of  information  and  the decision  on  his  pension for  some  2  years  is  not  compatible  with  the 
principle of good administration laid down in Article 76 of Regulation 883/2004.  

8. SOLVIT 

The  cases  submitted  to  SOLVIT  in  the  area  of  social  security  in  the  last  three  years  are  as 
follows: 

Row Labels 

2015 

2016 

2017 

SOCIAL SECURITY cases in SOLVIT 

Family benefits 

Old-age benefits 

Unemployment benefits 

Other 

Sickness benefits 

Necessary healthcare abroad and the European Health Insurance Card 
(EHIC) 

Invalidity benefits 

Survivors' benefits 

Maternity and equivalent paternity benefits 

Benefits in respect of work accidents and occupational diseases 

146 

534 

189 

229 

64 

76 

84 

54 

25 

22 

7 

764 

373 

211 

237 

205 

190 

87 

65 

64 

40 

34 

20 

6 

80 

74 

50 

46 

36 

33 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Death grants 

Pre-retirement benefits 

Planned treatment 

Grand Total 

5 

1 

9 

4 

3 

4 

3 

3 

2 

1299 

1507  1132 

Furthermore  SOLVIT  has  handled  in  the  same  period  the  following  number  of  cases  in  the 
area of free movement of workers: 

3. FREE MOVEMENT OF WORKERS 

Other 

Total 

13 

10 

10 

33 

Access to employment (access to labour market, access to posts, e.g. 
recruitment procedures) 

9 

12 

8 

29 

Employment related rights (working conditions, such as salary and grade; 
recognition of professional experience and seniority) 

Posting of workers 

Grand Total 

13 

6 

9 

3 

7 

3 

29 

12 

41 

34 

28 

103 

Another  valuable  source  of  information  is  the  problem  cause  of  SOLVIT  cases.  Looking  at 
the more than 4000 cases of the last three years, the picture is as follows: 

Row Labels 

Real 
numbers 

% 

1. Structural problems due to lack of/inappropriate transposition of EU law 

0.5% 

20 

2. Structural problem due to a national rule conflicting with EU law (mostly legislation 
and written instructions) 

1.0% 

42 

3. Recurrent misapplications of EU law (is the same as administrative practice) and/or 
national law  (without national written rule) 

19.4
% 

782 

4. Individual (a one-off) misapplication of EU law and/or national law (national law 
that has implemented EU law) 

5. Clarification case (no misapplication or absence of EU law) 

42.3
% 

36.8

1709 

1488 

147 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Grand Total 

% 

100.
0% 

4041 

1.5% of the cases were marked as being of structural nature, whereas most cases were either 
individual  misapplications  (42%)  of  an  Agency  or  cases  which  turned  out  to  be  no 
misapplication (37%).  

9. SME feedback database 

10.1 Introduction 

The  "SME  feedback  database"  is  a  register  of  practical  problems  with  EU  legislation 
experienced by SMEs.  Enterprise Europe Network (EEN) partners - during their interaction 
with a client SME - identify problems encountered by the company in the Single Market.  The 
EEN partners' role is on one hand to propose a solution to the SME and on the other hand to 
make the problem known to the European Commission.   

Around 6% of all cases in the period 2006-2015 were related to employment and social affairs 
(including  free  movement  of  workers)  (502  out  of  8182),  with  the  number  of  requests 
declining  over  the  time.  The  highest  number  of  cases  is  related  to  the  mobility  issues  (see 
table). 

Table: Cases related to employment and social affair, per sub-area, 2006-2015 

Sub-areas 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

93 

77 

27 

36 

46 

15 

18 

14 

8 

2015
* 
3 

Mobility (free movement of workers, 
co-ordination and transferability of 
social rights, professional recognition, 
posting of workers) 
Social security schemes 

Health & Safety at work 

Other 

Corporate Social Responsibility aspects 

No reference (blanks) 

Total 
Note: *only cases until mid-2015.  

9 

6 

13 

6 

9 

10 

12 

2 

9 

127 

119 

4 

3 

2 

1 

37 

5 

4 

8 

4 

57 

11 

6 

8 

3 

74 

2 

1 

1 

1 

20 

2 

2 

3 

3 

3 

1 

3 

1 

3 

1 

3 

31 

18 

16 

3 

National  requirements  that  prevent  correct  functioning  of  the  internal  market,  severe 
difficulties  in  finding  information  and  wrong  interpretations  at  national  level  of  a  European 
text are among key problems identified by companies (table ) and the top solution for many of 
those problems if making information more accessible (table)  

148 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table: Cases reported in the area of employment and social affairs by key problems 
encountered by the companies (2006-2015) 

Problem  

National requirements in a cross border activity avoid correct functioning of 
the Internal Market 

Others 
Severe difficulties to find European information needed to carry out the 
activity. 

Wrong interpretation at national level of a European text 

Lack of detail in the text of the European legislation/programme 
The wording of the European legislation/programme or the procedure 
negatively affects in particular SMEs 

Is the case related to 
cross-border activities? 

Yes 

166 

80 

69 

34 

31 

15 

No 

11 

37 

19 

20 

12 

11 

Total 
Note: aThe problem could be attributed to several categories, but only one can be selected, i.e. the one 
considered to be the most relevant. Many cases on national requirements are closely related also to the lack of 
information. bCases are considered to be related to cross-border activities if they include activities like selling or 
buying goods, delivery of services, establishing in other country 

395 

107 

Table: Cases reported in the area of employment and social affairs by key solutions 
identified by the EEN correspondent (2006-2015) 

Making available the information through more accessible means (internet, in 
the language of the SME, etc) 
A more homogeneous interpretation of EU rule/programme across Europe 
(national responsibility) 
Modifying the national legislation implementing EU rules/programme in a 
certain countr 
Modifying and better adapting the EU programme/legislation to SMEs 
characteristics 

Others 
Providing more detailed information on implementing rules in the EU 
rule/programme (EU responsibility) 

Is the case related to 
cross-border activities? 

Yes 

98 

83 

81 

53 

50 

30 

No 

19 

18 

27 

17 

20 

6 

Total 
Note: aThe solutions could be attributed to several categories, but only one can be selected, i.e. the one 
considered to be the most relevant. bCases are considered to be related to cross-border activities if they include 
activities like selling or buying goods, delivery of services, establishing in other country 

395 

107 

The  sections  below  present  a  selection  of  cases  demonstrating  the  problems  that  companies 
are facing and where the  Authority could be helpful  in  providing support services/advice to 
businesses and by capacity building activities to ensure correct interpretation at national level 
of a European text.  

149 

 
 
 
 
 
 
10.2 Cross-border cases showing lack of accessible information 

 [2015,  083930510271007715]  France/Denmark  French  company  wanted  to  provide 
temporary  services  in  Denmark.  It  found  a  lot  of  information  on  the  Danish  point  of  single 
contact website but had the highest difficulties to know for sure the minimum wage he will 
have to respect for his posted employees. As there is no general minimum wage in Denmark 
the EEN needed to identify which collective agreement to apply and the competent Union for 
this agreement. It is estimated that up to one month was lost in order to find the information. 
As the points of single contact are developing ready to use websites, the same layout would 
be  really  helpful  to  find  the  information.  The  first  step  in  avoiding  social  dumping  is  to 
communicate clearly on the minimum wages to apply and for companies to have access to the 
information free of charge.  

(2015)  Czech  republic/Italy  The  Czech  company  wanted  to  provide  guarding  services 
(surveillance  of  the  service  centre)  during  a  cyclocross  race  in  Riva  Del  Garda  in  Italy  for 
about a week through posting of their workers.  It received only partial information from local 
administration and they wanted to be sure to come in Italy following the proper procedures. 
Not    knowing  the  Italian  legislation  on  posting  of  workers  with  the  precise  framework  of 
application  (maximum  working  time  and  minimum  rest  periods;  minimum  period  of  paid 
annual  leave;  minimum  wages,  included  the  overtime;  temporary  transfer  of  workers 
conditions, in particular the supply of temporary workers by temporary employment agencies; 
safety,  health  and  hyhygiene  at  work;  equal  treatment  between  men  and  women  and  other 
provisions against discrimination) created a problem in planning the provision of services. In 
addition  there  is  also  a national  contract  regulating  the  provision  of  security  services  which 
should be known. An easily reacheable information (e.g. in English) could have created less 
difficulties to the company. At the end the client decided not to provide this service in Italy.  

[2014,  [824615434011435000]  United  Kingdom/Germany  The  UK  company  wanted  to 
employ a German to do the marketing and sales on the German market for them. They were 
informed  that  he  had  am  employee  restraint  of  trade  so  could  not  be  hired  immediately  by 
them. The UK company did not know these regulation from their country of origin, doubted 
that this was legal and needed to get information on the legal framework on this and lost time 
in finding information on that. Though freedom of workers/ employees is a well-known thing 
to companies, there are special circumstances that are tricky for the companies. This problem 
was  solved  through  the  cooperation  of  the  EEN  partners  and  EEN  correspondents  consider 
that the EURES offices could be helpful in cases like this as well.  

 (2013)  622560015461513513  France/several  other  countries  The  main  activity  of  the 
French  company  is  to  organize  theatre  pieces  and  other  recreational  artistic  activities  at  the 
occasion of bigger events. They work with French artists as they have the special know-how 
in  street  art  theatre.  This  company  has  international  clients  from  Belgium,  Luxembourg, 
United Kingdom, Germany and even Quatar, but has difficulties in finding information about 

150 

 
 
formalities to follow, notably in the UK, like how to declare taxes, do the artists need special 
authorizations or other work permits to go to perform in other countries, how to declare their 
salaries and what contracts to sign. The company lost time spent on research for formalities 
and their legal and administrative obligations. There is a competent person on this subject in 
South West of France, but the delays for the answer were very long, so that my company has 
lost time with their clients. 

2013 [656826520541401713] Slovakia/Germany The Slovak company specialized in 
assembling/ disassembling tent structures at events like festivals or concerts wanted to 
provide services in Germany. It had heard that under certain circumstances they had to pay 
money to a German social security scheme, even though they were in Germany only for little 
time of the year. In order to act according to the rules it wanted to know a) if that was really 
the case and b) if yes, how that scheme works but couldn't find the information. The EEN 
correspondent considers that the availability of information in the respective national 
language is a general problem, especially for small companies, when providing their services 
in other countries or when trying to bid for a public tender abroad. 

2012 (223049303271835512 France/Spain 

A  French  company  wants  to  recrute  a  Spanish  national,  living  in  Spain,  as  an  employee  to 
work in Spain. The company is not established in Spain and does not want to set up a legal 
structure  there.  The  French  company  tries  to  find  out  about  the  procedure  to  follow  in  this 
specific  case  with  regard  to    paying  social  security  contributions.  The  company  finds  it 
difficult to obtain the information while in France a brochre exists that explains such specific 
recrutements  by  companies  that  are  not  established  in  France.  The  company  cannot  find  ou 
how  to  recrute  an  employeee  in  Spain  without  being  established  there  and  this  difficulty 
delays the recrutement of its Spanish employee.  

It would have been preferrable that the recrutement procedures of employees in countries 
where the recruting company is not established could have been found on the EURES 
website.   i 

2012  [728516943201135212]  Italy/France  The  Italian  enterprise  wanted  to  know  which  is 
the regulatory framework in area of health and safety at work in France it should comply with 
if  it  builds  a  private  housing  estate  (for  example  the  construction  foreman’s  duties).  The 
problem  caused  a  loss  of  time  because  the  Italian  company  had  to  make  a  research  from 
various  French  sources,  without  finding  out  the  solution.  It  contacted  the  EEN  because  it 
wasn’t able to find correct information due to language and bureaucratic problems. The EEN 
correspondent  suggests  that  these  kind  of  problems  could  have  been  avoided  by  making 
available - for instance through the European information network - some practical summary 
report or technical guidance to all operators; on the second hand these kind of problem could 
have been avoided making available an on-line platform for sharing information. 

151 

 
 
2012  710281916141234812  Italy/Portugal  The  Italian  company  could not  find  information 
related  to  labour  law  and  social  obligations  for  Portugal,  with  particular  reference  to  the 
service  and  multiservice  sector.  In  Italy,  some  collective  workers’  agreement  in  specific 
sectors (among which collective agreement for services and multiservice  – such as cleaning 
service) sets that in case a new provider of service takes over the duties of a former provider 
(signing  a  contract  between  private  parties)  he  is  obliged  to  hire  all  the  employees  of  the 
former’s provider which was providing that service. The Italian enterprise wanted to know if 
the  same  regulatory  framework  applies  in  Portugal.  The  problem  caused  a  loss  of  time 
because the Italian company had to make a research from various Portuguese sources, without 
finding out the solution. It contacted EEN because it wasn’t able to find correct information 
due  to  language  and  bureaucratic  problems.  The  EEN  correspondent  suggested  that    the 
problem could have been solved by providing basic information on EU website,  for example 
by translating into a common language (English) the relevant measures put in place by each 
EU  Member  State.  Besides  it,  by  means  of  more  resources  (e.g.  to  be  assigned  to  the 
Enterprise  Europe  Network)  an  expertise  service  for  supporting  and  assisting  companies  on 
the subject could be activated (i.e. fact sheets on labour market). 

10.3  Cross-border  cases  showing  wrong  interpretation  at  national  level  of  a  European 
text  

[2014] 180468336321621714 France/Greece Entrepreneur of Greek origin worked over his 
entire career in France and moved to Greece after retirement.  

The case concerns a businessman of Greek original having lived and worked for over 30 years 
in France. Upon taking retirement and complying with a number of administrative obligations 
in  Greece  for  having  sold  his  company,  he  was  confronted  with  a  demand  from  the  Greek 
social security office for the self-employed to pay social security contributions. This occured 
despite  the  fact  that  he  had  never  been  self-employed  in  Greece  and  all  social  security 
contributions  as  an  entrepreneur  had  been  correctly  paid  in  France.    He  tried  to  explain  the 
situation to the Greek authorities, including on the basis of French documents providing proof 
that social security contributions had been duly paid in France, but to no avail.   

A  better  coordination  between  national  authorities,  possibly  through  an  interlocutor  with 
access  to  information  on  the  systems  in  different  Member  States  and  charged  with  cross-
border cases could have prevented loss of over 6 months and insecurity.  

2014  110987524581120214  Germany/Belgium  The  owner  of  a  German  craft  business 
(installation  of  finished  building  parts)  moved  to  Belgium  for  private  reasons  in  2005.  In 
order to be able to work in Belgium he applied for the VAT-number in Belgium. The owner is 
registered  for  social  security  in  Germany.  He  sent  a  proof  of  insurance  to  the  Belgian 
authorities. Nevertheless he received a letter from the INASTI in Brussels every year in which 
the  authorities  claim  the  payment  of  social  insurance.    The  German  owner  charged  task 
advisers  and  lawyers  with    he  clarification  of  the  situation,  without  success  and  without 

152 

 
 
reaction of the INASTI. In May 2014 the INASTI sent a payment notification of 184.985,81 € 
via  bailiff.  Basis  for  the  claims  is  the  Royal  Decree  no.  38  of  July  27th  1967  regarding  the 
setup of the social status for the self-employed.  The German never registered a business in 
Belgium. He only lived in Belgium but the craft business remains in Germany.   

The request for payment threatened the existence of the company and of the 12 jobs and the 
costs/loss was estimated to be more than 50 000 euro.  INASTI gave notice to have collected 
the amount of 184.985,81 by a bailiff.  The case was transferred to SOLVIT and   the German 
Office of the Chamber of Trade in Brussels.  

(2011) French company in Belgium 

The applicant wishes to recrute a full-time employee in Belgium even though his company is 
not  established  in  that  Member  State.  The  appropriate  procedure  to  apply  in  this  case  is 
known in France  as "isolated employee". It is a procedure that is recognized by Community 
law and is applicable in all Member States. 

The procedure is poorly applied in many Member States. It is difficult to obtain information 
and  some  Member  States,  for  tax  reasons,  prefer  that  the  European  companies  concerned 
create on their national territory a secondary establishment of subsidiary or branch type. 

It  is  easy  to  imagine  a  simplified  regime  concerning  the  declaration  and  the  status  of  these 
"isolated employees" in order to facilitate and generalize this form of presence for SMEs in 
Member States where these are not established. It would avoid  negative social and / or effects 
on individual (s) or general public. 

153 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 13: EU DECENTRALISED AGENCIES IN THE AREA OF EMPLOYMENT  

This  Annex  presents  the  objectives  and  organisation  of  the  four  decentralised  agencies 
operating  under  the  remit  of  DG  Employment,  Social  Affairs  &  Inclusion  (DG  EMPL): 
Eurofound,  Cedefop,  EU-OSHA  and  ETF175.  A  full  assessment  of  four  agencies  and 
evaluation findings will be presented in the separate Commission staff working document on 
the evaluation.176 

The  evaluation  of  four  agencies  is  a  separate  process  which  is  done  in  line  with  the 
Commission's Better Regulation Guidelines and the Financial Regulation requirements for a 
periodic  evaluation  of  EU  interventions  of  over  5  million  EUR.177  It  encompasses  both  an 
individual assessment of each agency as well as a cross-cutting and comparative perspective 
for  the  period  2011-2016,  as  well  as  a  prospective  assessment  with  regard  to  the  future 
functioning of the agencies.  

The  prime  objective  of  the  agencies  is  to  generate  knowledge  and  contribute  to  the  policy 
process in their respective fields of activity:  

  Cedefop works to promote vocational and of in-service training 
  ETF mandate encompasses human capital development 
  Eurofound covers broadly living and working conditions 
  EU-OSHA focusses its activities on occupational safety and health   

The current modus operandi of the agencies is: 

 

 

to  provide  policy  advice  and  assistance  to  the  Commission  (Eurofound  and  Cedefop). 
Eurofound  is  primarily  a  research  and  research  management  institution.  Cedefop  has  a 
similar  path  to  Eurofound  although,  in  addition  to  its  EU-level  role,  it  occasionally 
engages  with policy makers within Member States to  provide evidence that has fed into 
national policy reforms 

to provide information to the Community bodies, the Member States and social partners 
(EU-OSHA),  e.g.  running  communication  campaigns  to  raise  awareness  about  OSH 
amongst workers/the general public. This sets it apart from Eurofound whose focus is on 
policy-makers. 

 

to contribute, in the context of EU external relations policies, to improving human capital 
development in a number of countries and regions outside the EU (ETF). ETF conducts 

175   Eurofound (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions) is based in Dublin, Ireland; 
Cedefop (European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training) is based in Thessaloniki, Greece:  EU-OSHA 
(European Agency for Safety and Health at Work) is based in Bilbao, Spain; and European Training Foundation (ETF) 
is based in Florence, Italy. 

176   Forthcoming in 2018. 
177    The ongoing evaluation is assessing the four agencies as regards their relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and 

EU value-added.  

154 

 
 
                                                            
research  and  provides  advice  to  the  EU  partner  countries  in  the  Balkans,  North  Africa, 
Central Asia and other regions.   

The  table  below  lists  the  specific  objectives  of  the  agencies  and  presents  examples  of 
corresponding outputs (Table 1).  

Table 1. Specific objectives, activities and outputs of the agencies 

 Specific objectives 

Activities 

Examples of outputs 

Cedefop 

Eurofound 

EU-OSHA 

 Contributing to continuous renewal 
and reform of VET to recover from 
the economic crisis and ensure long-
term growth and prosperity  

 Support to policies that help people 

pursue adult and work-based 
learning assisting their career 
transitions, and enterprises and 
sectors facing change and increased 
competition 

 Systematic consideration and 

anticipation of external drivers 
which influence knowledge, skills 
and competence needs and produce 
implications for VET 
 Providing policy-relevant 

knowledge for increasing labour 
market participation and combating 
unemployment – by creating jobs, 
improving labour market 
functioning and promoting 
integration 

 Supporting policy-makers with 
evidence in the field of working 
conditions and sustainable work 

 Monitoring trends and 

developments in industrial relations 
 Conducting research for improving 
standards of living and promoting 
social cohesion in the face of 
economic disparities and social 
inequalities 

 Promoting cooperation among MS 
and stakeholders to make the best 
use of OSH resources 

 Generating and high-quality 
knowledge on OSH new and 
emerging risks, their health effects 
and prevention 

 Raising awareness of OSH risks and 

their prevention 

 Making knowledge and good 
practices accessible for those 
involved in OSH and stimulating 
dialogue on different levels 

 Monitoring  
 Research 
 Support 
 Communication and 

dissemination 

 Monitoring 
 Research 
 Communication and 

dissemination 

 Developing 
forecasting 
information 
 Generating 
maintaining 
information 
working 
environment 

 Promoting 
networking 
coordination 

and 

on 

and 

 Communicating and 
raising awareness 

155 

  VET in Europe country 

reports, national news on 
VET, European mobility 
scoreboard for initial 
vocational education and 
training 

  Project Apprenticeships in 

work-based learning, 
European guidelines for 
validating non-formal and 
informal learning 
  Project Assisting EU 

countries in skills matching, 
Trends and skill needs in 
tourism, EU Skills Panorama 
 European Company Survey, 

follow-up reports 
 European Working 

Conditions Survey, follow-
up reports  

 Mapping key dimensions of 
industrial relations in Europe 

 European Quality of Life 
Survey; report Delivering 
public services: a greater role 
for the private sector? 

  Campaign toolkit 
  European Survey of 

Enterprises on New and 
Emerging Risks 
  OSH wiki, Napo 
  OSH e-tools, E-guide on 

vehicle safety, E–guide for 
all ages 

 
 
 
 
ETF 

 Governance, systems and policy-

making 

 VET provision and quality 

assurance 

 Qualifications and qualifications 

systems 

 Entrepreneurial learning and 

enterprise skills 

 Labour market information systems 

and skills of employability 

 Provision 

of 
information,  policy 
analysis and advice 
 Support  in  capacity 

  VET Governance partner 

country profiles 

  Torino process reports 
  Project Qualifications for the 

building 
 Knowledge 

dissemination 
networking  
 Provision of 

and 

expertise in EC 
project and 
programming cycle 

Mediterranean 
  Entrepreneurship 

competence framework 
  Country reports education, 
training and employment 
developments 

Source: Evaluation report of four agencies, forthcoming 2018  

156