COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT 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) 80 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Labour Authority {COM(2018) 131 final}   
 
 
SYNOPSIS REPORT ON THE STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ON THE 
EUROPEAN LABOUR AUTHORITY 

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. 

1 

 
 
 
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.  

2 

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 matters1. 

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

1 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?" 

3 

 
 
 
                                                            
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. 

4 

 
 
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. 

5 

 
 
 
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  comments2  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 
(HR  and  IT  MISSOC  members),  lack  of  awareness  to  seek  the  right  information  (Swedish 

2 “Please explain” question after Question 4 

6 

 
 
                                                            
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  commented3,  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 

3 Please explain” question after Question 5 

7 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
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 mobility4.  

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 
enforcement  activities  (AC:  AT,  BE,  RO  members;  ECPW:  FR  member;  MISSOC:  PT 

4 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?" 

8 

 
 
                                                            
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. 

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. 

9 

 
 
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.  

10 

 
 
 
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 reply5 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 mobility6.  

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 
Finnish and Swedish governments, EPSCO and EMCO members, the latter highlighting that 

5 “Please explain” question after Question 7. 
6 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? 

11 

 
 
 
                                                            
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.  

12 

 
 
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  consultation7  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 

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

13 

 
 
                                                            
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.  

14 

 
 
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. 

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.  

15