REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the implementation of Directive 2014/54/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on measures facilitating the exercise of rights conferred on workers in the context of freedom of movement for workers
Date: 2018-12-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, application of EU law, equal treatment, free movement of workers, labour law, labour market, migrant worker, single market, worker (EU), working conditions

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 4.12.2018  COM(2018) 789 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the implementation of Directive 2014/54/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on measures facilitating the exercise of rights conferred on workers in the context of freedom of movement for workers  
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION 
1.1. The Directive 

The free movement of workers is a fundamental freedom of citizens of the European Union 
and one of the pillars of the internal market. It is enshrined in Article 45 of the Treaty on the 
Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU).  This  right  has  been  further  developed  through 
secondary law, in particular Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of 
the  Council  of  5 April  2011  on  freedom  of  movement  for  workers  within  the  Union.  It  has 
also been developed further by the case-law of the European Court of Justice. 

Despite a relatively  stable and complete set  of rules, as  confirmed by a number of reports1, 
Union  citizens  may  continue  to  face  practical  problems  in  exercising  their  rights  as  EU 
workers. To try to close the gap between the law and its application in practice, on 16 April 
2014  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  adopted  Directive  2014/54/EU  on  measures 
facilitating exercise of rights conferred on workers in the context of freedom of movement for 
workers2 (hereinafter 'the Directive'). 

The Directive does not create new substantive rights for workers and/or their family members 
in addition to those provided under Article 45 TFEU and Regulation 492/2011. It only seeks 
to achieve more effective and uniform application and enforcement of existing rights. 

1.2. The report 

In  accordance  with  Article 9  of  the  Directive,  this  report  discusses  the  Directive's 
implementation.  Insofar  as  the  available  information  allows,  the  report  also  reflects  on  the 
effectiveness of the Directive in practice. In addition, it explores whether any amendment to 
the Directive is necessary to guarantee better enforcement of Union law on free movement of 
workers. 

The report is mainly based on information about the measures to transpose the Directive that 
Member  States  have  communicated  to  the  Commission  under  Article 8  of  the  Directive. 
References  to  the  national  laws  transposing  the  Directive  can  be  found  on  the  Eur-Lex 
webpage3. The Commission has  also  consulted the members of the Advisory Committee on 
the  Free  Movement  of  Workers4  by  sending  them  a  detailed  questionnaire5  (hereinafter  'the 
questionnaire')  and,  afterwards,  the  draft  report.  Where  necessary,  the  Commission  also 
requested  clarifications  on  implementation  measures  from  the  members  of  the  Technical 
Committee  on  the  Free  Movement  of  Workers6.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  information 
received  varied  considerably  in  terms  of  content  and  detail.  The  Commission  has  also  used 
information  collected  by  its  network  of  legal  experts  on  the  free  movement  of  workers  and 
social security coordination7. 

1 See in particular pages 3-4 of the explanatory memorandum of the proposal for a directive https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52013PC0236 
2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32014L0054 
3 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/NIM/?uri=CELEX:32014L0054&qid=1525688983864 
4 Committee established under Article 21 of Regulation 492/2011. 
5 The questionnaire focused on the practical implementation of the Directive and its effectiveness. Fourteen 
Member State governments and four national trade union organisations provided replies (by June 2018). 
6 Committee established under Article 29 of Regulation 492/2011. 
7 http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=1098. 

1 

 
 
                                                           
2.  TRANSPOSITION PROCESS 

In accordance with Article 8 of the Directive, Member States had to transpose the Directive 
by 21 May 2016. 

To help Member States with the transposition, in November 2015 the Commission presented 
a non-paper explaining the Directive's key provisions in more detail. The implementation of 
the Directive was discussed at several meetings of the committees mentioned above between 
2015 and 2018. 

However,  by  the  transposition  deadline,  only  seven  Member  States8  had  notified  measures 
that completely transposed the Directive. 

In  September  2016  the  Commission  started  infringement  procedures  against  12  Member 
States9  that  had  still  failed  to  notify  complete  transposition  of  the  Directive.  In  November 
2017  the  last  two  countries10  notified  complete  transposition.  The  infringement  proceedings 
were therefore closed. 

The  Commission  is  now  finalising  its  analysis  of  the  conformity  of  national  measures  to 
ensure that the Directive is correctly implemented. As part of the ongoing conformity check it 
is in contact with the Member States on the issues identified in this report. 

3.  IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DIRECTIVE 

The Directive was transposed in a variety of ways. Most Member States made amendments to 
their national  legislation. However, the volume of amendments  varied substantially  —  from 
one  specific  act  (Malta,  Cyprus,  Greece,  Portugal)  to  amendments  of  dozens  of  legal  acts 
(Lithuania,  Romania).  Denmark,  France,  Spain,  Italy,  the  Netherlands  and  the  United 
Kingdom  considered  that  their  national  legislation  already  complies  with  the  Directive  and 
that  no  further  legislative  measures  are  necessary.  In  Austria  and  Belgium,  the  Directive  is 
transposed  through  acts  at  both  federal  and  regional  levels.  No  Member  State  mentioned 
implementing any of the Directive's provisions through collective agreements. 

In  general,  Member  States  envisaged  non-legislative  measures  to  implement  provisions 
related  to,  in  particular,  functioning  of  the  bodies  (see  3.3)  and/or  improving  access  to 
(quality) information (see 3.5). 

3.1. Personal and material scope (Articles 1 and 2) 

Even before adoption of the Directive, Member States had to ensure that their legislation on 
free movement applied to all categories of people and encompassed all the matters covered by 
Article 45 TFEU on a non-discriminatory basis. Given that Articles 1 and 2 of the Directive 
retain the scope of Article 45 TFEU and of Regulation 492/2011, both of which are directly 
applicable, they did not generate new obligations for Member States in terms of transposition. 

8 FI, DE, IE, IT, MT, NL, SE. 
9 AT, CY, CZ, DK, EE, FR, EL, HU, LT, LU, PT, RO. 
10 CZ and LU. 

2 

 
 
                                                           
Nevertheless, both Articles did encourage some Member States11 to verify that their existing 
national rules indeed complied with the personal and material scope of the above provisions. 

3.2. Defence of rights (Article 3) 

All Member States ensure access to judicial procedures enabling Union workers and members 
of their families to defend their rights conferred by Article 45 TFEU and Regulation 492/2011 
when they consider that these have been violated. Mostly, this is ensured through procedural 
rules  on  non-discrimination  in  general  that  existed  even  before  the  Directive  entered  into 
force. In some countries12 there is specific legislation on access to courts by foreign workers. 
As  required  under  the  Directive,  there  are  no  limitations  on  defending  violated  rights  even 
after the relationship in which the alleged restriction and obstacle or discrimination occurred 
has ended. 

Associations, organisations (including social partners) or other entities that have a legitimate 
interest  under  national  law  in  ensuring  that  the  Directive  is  complied  with  have  a  right  to 
engage  in  judicial  and/or  administrative  proceedings  on  behalf  of  or  in  support  of  Union 
workers. This is the case in all Member States except  Italy where trade unions appear to be 
able to engage in proceedings only in case of collective discriminations.  

Regarding  protection  against  victimisation,  in  most  countries  measures  to  protect  Union 
workers  from  adverse  treatment  or  adverse  consequences  are  stipulated  in  national  anti- 
discrimination  laws  or  employment  laws.  Only  Malta  and  Cyprus  have  adopted  special 
provisions  on  victimisation  after  transposing  the  Directive.  It  appears  that  in  Lithuania  and 
Portugal  protection  is  limited  to  labour  relations  only,  so  it  does  not  protect,  for  example, 
jobseekers who potentially may be victimised by public authorities. 

Information about the implementation in practice of the provisions of Article 3 is very limited. 
In  reply  to  the  questionnaire,  only  the  reply  from  Lithuanian  trade  unions  mentioned  four 
cases  that  have  been  brought  recently  before  national  courts  concerning  matters  covered  by 
the  Directive.  Estonia  referred  to  two  complaints  that  were  dealt  with  by  non-judicial 
authorities in 2017. They related to certain practices of public institutions on the recognition 
of professional  qualifications  and the granting of  a right  to  reside for a family member of a 
Union  national.  Germany  and  Lithuania  indicated  that  there  have  been  cases  where 
organisations have engaged in judicial/administrative procedures to support workers. 

The lack of information is explained by the fact that the Directive has been put in place only 
recently, that free movement bodies (Article 4) have not collected such information yet or that 
such cases are not grouped on the basis of discrimination against Union workers according to 
nationality.  

11 For example, AT, BG, CY, LT, MT, RO. 
12 BG and ES. 

3 

 
 
 
                                                           
3.3. Body (or bodies) to promote equal treatment (Article 4) 

The  Directive  is  innovative  in  the  way  that  it  obliges  Member  States  to  designate  a 
structure/body to promote equal treatment of Union workers and members of their family on 
the  grounds  of  nationality,  as  well  as  to  tackle  unjustified  restrictions  and  obstacles  to  their 
right to free movement. 

Designation of a body and performance of the tasks 

Since  November  2017,  free  movement  bodies  have  been  designated  in  all  Member  States, 
although in France, Italy and the United Kingdom this appointment has not been publicised in 
line with the requirements of Article 6(1). These Member States have not adopted any legal 
act implementing the Directive. There is also no mention on the bodies' websites that they are 
the bodies for the purposes of the Directive or that they carry out the tasks mentioned in the 
Directive. The list of bodies is made available online by the European Commission13. 

In the vast majority of Member States existing structures have been attributed the role of free 
movement body, the only exceptions being Germany and Slovenia where a new structure has 
been established. Regarding the type of body, the remit of equality institutions in 20 Member 
States  has  been  extended  to  address  issues  of  discrimination  against  Union  workers  and 
members of their family on grounds of nationality. Labour market authorities (such as public 
employment  or  EURES  services,  and  labour  inspectorates)  and  labour  ministries  are  the 
second most common type of bodies. Atypically, in Austria the federal and regional chambers 
of  labour  are  among  the  bodies,  while  in  Sweden  it  is  the  National  Board  of  Trade,  the 
country's internal market authority. 

Regarding the bodies' tasks, some Member States claim that the body performs all the tasks 
listed under the Directive even though certain tasks are not explicitly mentioned in the body's 
statute and there are no concrete examples of the body performing them. Tasks not mentioned 
include conducting surveys and analysis concerning obstacles to free movement, and making 
recommendations  on  any  issue  relating  to  unjustified  restrictions  and  obstacles  or  to 
discrimination.  It  appears that in  Italy, Latvia, Slovakia and the United Kingdom not all the 
tasks are included in the responsibilities of the bodies. 

Moreover,  besides  discrimination  on  grounds  of  nationality,  EU  rules  on  free  movement  of 
workers also prohibit unjustified restrictions on or obstacles to free movement. It remains to 
be seen whether the bodies appointed in implementation of the Directive cover this issue in 
practice.  

13 http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1277&langId=en 

4 

 
 
                                                           
As  the  replies  to  the  questionnaire  suggest,  the  main  activities  that  the  bodies  carry  out  in 
practice coincide with the tasks set out under the 
Directive. Most countries focus on: (1) providing 
assistance, mainly consisting of information and 
legal  advice;  (2)  raising  awareness  about  free 
movement rights and the activities of the bodies 
using  various  information  channels;  and/or  (3) 
other 
cooperation 
strengthening 
stakeholders.  Some  countries14  use  social  media 
applications (or plan to do so) to reach people in 
need of information. 

In the Netherlands, the Public 
Information Service replies to 
questions posed via Twitter, Facebook 
and WhatsApp. 

Best practice in the Netherlands: use 
of social media applications 

with 

However,  to  date  information  on  how  often  bodies  provide  legal  and/or  other  assistance  is 
scarce. In reply to the questionnaire, only a few countries15 provided some indication of how 
frequently they provide such assistance. 

Best practice in Denmark: Survey on 
obstacles 

Surveys, analyses or reports on free movement of workers issues have been carried out (or are 
planned)  in  only  seven  Member  States16.  It  is 
important 
information  on  obstacles, 
restrictions  and  discrimination  is  collected, 
assessed  and  disseminated  publicly.  This  can 
not  only  improve  general  awareness  of  rights 
and  the  procedures  to  defend  them  but  also 
deter other employers and administrations from 
engaging in such practices. 

In Denmark, the body is conducting a 
survey of the relevant authorities 
regarding obstacles/discrimination cases 
in their field of competence. 

that 

The ability to ensure that the tasks stipulated in points a), c) and d) of paragraph 2 of Article 4 
are performed independently is a crucial element of the protection of mobile Union workers. 

As mentioned above, in more than half the Member States equality bodies are designated as 
free movement bodies. There are still significant differences between them in terms of their 
mandate, competences, structures and resources17. 

The bodies' independence is particularly relevant in countries where they are not stand-alone 
structures that per se would ensure at least some degree of independence. Particular attention 
has  to  be  paid  to  the  independence  of  legal  assistance  provided  to  persons  covered  by  the 
Directive.  It  appears  that  in  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Hungary,  Latvia,  Poland,  Slovakia, 
Spain and the United Kingdom the independence of the bodies can be questioned. 

The  replies  to  the  questionnaire  only  point  to  two  bodies18  that  so  far  have  dealt  with 
complaints on free movement. 

14 DE, MT, NL. 
15 DE, DK, EE, HR, MT, SI. 
16 AT, DE, DK, EL, FI, SE, SI. 
17  For  more  information,  see  Joint  report  on  the  application  of  Council  Directive  2000/43/EC  and  of  Council 
Directive  2000/78/EC  (COM(2014) 2  final,  17.1.2014)  and  Report  on  the  application  of  Council  Directive 
2004/113/EC (COM)2015)190 final, 5.5.2015. 

5 

 
 
                                                           
 
The Directive requires Member States to ensure free assistance in legal proceedings, on a non-
discriminatory basis, to people who lack sufficient resources. In Croatia foreign nationals who 
temporarily  reside  there  are  eligible  to  free  legal  aid  subject  to  the  principle  of  reciprocity. 
France  has  not  provided  the  clarification  requested  about  how  it  implements  this  provision. 
Only  Austria,  Estonia,  Greece  and  a  trade  union  in  Lithuania  pointed  to  independent 
assistance in legal proceedings actually being provided. 

Proper functioning of the bodies 

For the bodies to perform their tasks properly it is important that they are allocated sufficient 
resources.  This  is  particularly  important  where  the  Directive  has  been  implemented  by 
assigning additional tasks to existing bodies (paragraph 1 of Article 4 read in conjunction with 
recital 18). This issue has been raised with most of the countries. Many  countries are facing 
financial  constraints  and  are  trying  to  ‘do  more  with  less’.  The  bodies'  additional  workload 
varies  substantially  depending  on  the  number  of  incoming  and  outgoing  mobile  workers. 
Moreover,  in  some  Member  States  the  bodies 
had  been  carrying  out  tasks  similar  to  those 
their 
under 
designation. 

Best  practice 
Project 

in  Slovenia:  ESF 

the  Directive 

even  before 

Only  a  few  Member  States19  unequivocally 
mentioned  that  they  had  allocated  additional 
resources for the performance of the new tasks. 

In Slovenia, the European Social Fund 
project  ‘Development  of  services  to 
facilitate  the  transnational  mobility  of 
workers’  is  helping  to  strengthen  the 
bodies' capacities. 

The  Commission  will  follow  up  on  the  cases 
where the lack of additional resources implies that a body is not in a position to perform the 
tasks envisaged under the Directive properly. 

In  11  Member  States  several  bodies  have  been  designated.  It  is  therefore  essential  that,  as 
required under paragraph 5 of Article 4, their tasks are adequately coordinated. 

Most  Member  States  either  have  formal  rules  obliging  national  authorities  to  cooperate  or 
provide  relevant  information  to  each  other,  or  else  nominate  one  of  the  authorities  as 
‘coordinating body’. However, in some Member States20 no such measures seem to have been 
taken. 

18 DE and LT. 
19 Such as CZ, DE, EL, SE, SI. 
20 For example, AT, LT, PL, SK, UK. 

6 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
 
level.  These 

Best practice Germany: Regional cooperation 

The  Directive  obliges  Member  States  to  ensure  that  their  bodies  not  only  cooperate  with 
bodies  in  other  Member  States  but 
also  make  use  of 
the  existing 
information and assistance services at 
Union 
include  Your 
Europe, SOLVIT, EURES, Enterprise 
Europe  Network  and  the  Point  of 
Single  Contact.  Most  replies  to  the 
questionnaire 
such 
confirm 
contacts  do  take  place21.  However, 
they  seem  to  be  limited  and/or  to 
happen ad hoc as there seem to be no concrete procedures or developed practices yet on how 
cooperation is carried out. 

In Germany, a specific project aiming to improve 
the procedures in the public employment agencies 
when  dealing  with  EU  citizens  and  to  promote 
regional  cooperation  between  migration  and 
employment  services  in  the  area  of  access  to 
employment services has been carried out. 

that 

Many Member States are working on improving the way the bodies function, trying to address 
difficulties  they  face  in  performing  their  tasks  and  building  their  capacities.  This  includes 
drawing  up  work  programmes/strategic  plans;  setting  up  partnerships  with  national 
stakeholders and bodies in other countries; improving access to information and services; and 
organising seminars and training for officials to strengthen their expertise in free movement of 
workers.  

3.4. The promotion of dialogue with social partners and NGOs (Article 5) 

Member  States’  legislative  frameworks  provide  for  the  possibility  of  dialogue  with 
stakeholders. In many countries, however, such dialogue rarely relates specifically to the free 
movement of workers (except, for example, in Bulgaria), is not regular or does not explicitly 
involve non-governmental organisations22. 

3.5. Better provision of information at national level to Union workers and members 

of their family (Article 6) 

Information  on  free  movement  rights  is  available  in  all  countries.  However,  given  the 
relatively high quality standards established by the Directive (paragraph 2), ensuring that such 
information is comprehensive, up to date, clear and available in several languages remains a 
challenge  in  most  cases.  In  some  instances,  information  is  scattered  across  many  national 
websites, making it difficult to  access  and fragmented23.  In many countries the provision of 
information is still an ongoing process, with new websites being established or existing ones 
revamped, information leaflets being prepared or information campaigns being conducted. 

21 AT, FI, LV and NL underlined the importance of contacts in particular within EURES, SOLVIT and Undeclared 
Work  Platform  activities.  Equinet,  European Network  of  Equality  Bodies  (http://www.equineteurope.org/),  in 
which 18 bodies participate, was also mentioned as a proper platform to build on contacts in particular  with 
bodies in other Member States. 
22 For example in HR, HU, IT, MT, PL, SK, UK. 
23 For example in HR, LT. 

7 

 
 
                                                           
 
 
Member States should continue making sure that persons concerned are aware of the bodies 
and  the  support  they  provide.  This  source  of  information  should  complement  existing 
platforms, such as EURES advisers24, SOLVIT25 and Your Europe Advice26, which can assist 
the  more  than  11.8  million  mobile  Union  citizens  of  working  age  who  live  outside  their 
country  of  citizenship27,28.  This  information  may  also  encourage  mobile  citizens  to 
report cases of discrimination and defend their rights. 

3.6. Other provisions (Article 7, recitals 15 and 28) 

Article 7, paragraph 2 expressly states that Member States have the discretion to  extend the 
competence  of  the  bodies  to  include  non-discrimination  on  grounds  of  nationality  for  all 
Union citizens and their family members exercising their right of free movement as enshrined 
in Article 21 TFEU. As mentioned above, in more than half of the countries equality bodies 
that  already  covered  all  Union  citizens  have  been  designated  as  the  free  movement  bodies 
under  the  Directive.  Some  countries29  have  broadened  the  bodies'  competence  so  that  they 
cover  all  Union  nationals  following  the  implementation  of  the  Directive.  Overall,  in  most 
Member States the competence of the bodies covers all Union citizens30. 

Recital 15 of the Directive invites Member States to examine the implementation of common 
principles for injunctive and compensatory collective redress mechanisms, as provided for in 
the  Commission's  Recommendation  of  11 June  201331.  Only 
the 
questionnaire32  confirmed  that  such  redress  mechanisms  exist,  though  it  is  not  always  clear 
whether they cover matters falling under the scope of the Directive. A Commission report of 
26 January  201833  provides  more  details  about  the  progress  made  by  Member  States  in 
implementing collective redress measures. 

three  replies 

to 

In accordance with  recital  28, the Commission  has also  looked into the possible difficulties 
faced  by  young  graduates  looking  for  employment  across  the  Union  and  by  third-country 
spouses of Union workers. 

24 EURES advisers who are available in all Member States provided assistance to Union workers and employers 
on more than 45 000 occasions in 2016 
(http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/scoreboard/performance_by_governance_tool/eures/index_en.htm). 
25 SOLVIT dealt with 34 cases related to the free movement of workers in 2016 
http://ec.europa.eu/solvit/ 
26 Your Europe Advice provided advice on matters related to work, family rights and welfare benefits in 2016 in 
more than 2 500 cases  
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/scoreboard/performance_by_governance_tool/youreurope_advice/inde
x_en.htm 
27 https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/system/files/ged/2017_report_on_intra-eu_labour_mobility.pdf 
28 The number of Union citizens living or working in a Member State other than that of their nationality 
amounts to around 17 million (Eurostat Migration statistics [migr_pop1ctz] 2017). 
29 For example, BG and SI. 
30 Except in DE, DK, HR, LV, SE. 
31 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:JOL_2013_201_R_NS0013 
32 DK, LT and SI. 
33 http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/document.cfm?action=display&doc_id=49502 

8 

 
 
                                                           
In their replies to the questionnaire, respondents  mentioned the recognition of qualifications 
as the main difficulty faced by young graduates. Other issues raised are not directly related to 
free  movement  rules,  such  as  low  wages  for  those  who  lack  experience  and  a  need  to  have 
practical  skills  in  order  to  find  a  job.  Regarding  third-country  spouses,  long  processes  or 
excessive  administrative  requirements  (such  as  an  obligation  to  ‘legalise’  marriage 
certificates,  and  language  requirements)  in  order  to  obtain  visas,  residence  permits  and/or 
social  security numbers, or to  obtain access  to  public services in  general,  were identified as 
common  difficulties.  So  were  the  spouses’  lack  of  knowledge  of  the  local  language. 
Additionally, the complexity of national rules was singled out as an overarching issue. 

Some of these difficulties that Union workers face result from the misapplication of EU law 
by  national  authorities  and/or  private  entities.  This  is  exactly  one  of  the  problems  that  the 
Directive  aims  to  address  by  improving  the  possibilities  for  people  to  defend  their  rights, 
making available assistance by the bodies and improving access to information. 

4.  POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 

The  questionnaire  asked  Member  States’  authorities  as  well  as  social  partners  whether  they 
consider that amendments to the Directive (or other legislation on free movement of workers) 
are  necessary.  All  those  who  replied  stated  that  no  legislative  amendments  are  necessary  at 
this  stage  and  that  efforts  should  be  concentrated  instead  on  properly  implementing  the 
current regulations. In this regard, the Commission recalls its proposal to establish a European 
Labour Authority34, presented as part of the Social Fairness Package on 13 March 2018. The 
aim of this proposal is  to  strengthen the fairness of cross-border labour  mobility in  Europe. 
Among other objectives, the Authority is intended to facilitate the choice of individuals and 
employers  to  exercise  their  right  to  free  movement  by  providing  more  comprehensive  and 
easily  accessible  information  and  services.  It  will  also  focus  on  creating  better  and  more 
efficient  conditions  to  accompany  labour  mobility  in  Europe  through  closer  cooperation 
between  national  authorities.  Likewise,  therefore,  the  Commission  does  not  consider  it 
necessary to propose amendments to the Directive at this stage. 

5.  CONCLUSIONS 

The analysis of national transposition measures reveals that a number of the provisions of the 
Directive have already been complied with through national instruments that already existed 
when the Directive entered into force. Legislative amendments in many countries have been 
limited to transposing Article 4 on the designation of the body to promote equal treatment. 

The Directive is already operational and the Commission has not detected major problems of 
non-conformity  among  the  national  transposition  measures.  However,  a  lot  remains  to  be 
done in practice to ensure the Directive's aims are attained. It remains a challenge for many 
Member  States  to  ensure  that  tools  established  under  the  Directive,  such  as  the  bodies, 
generate results on the ground. 

34 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Labour 
Authority (COM(2018) 131 final, 13.3.2018). 

9 

 
 
                                                           
Given many countries' delays in transposing the Directive and the relatively short period it has 
applied in practice, robust conclusions on its impact cannot be drawn at this stage. 

Nevertheless,  the  replies  to  the  questionnaire  suggest  that  the  Directive  has  had  a  positive 
impact  for all stakeholders. This  is  mainly because it has provided more  legal  certainty and 
clarity  for  workers,  employers  and  administrations  by  laying  down  free  movement  rights, 
together with rules for better enforcement. It has also made support by the bodies available to 
those in need and underlined that correctly implementing EU legislation on free movement of 
workers is an important task of national administrations.  

It  is  difficult,  if possible at  all, to assess to  what extent the implementation of the Directive 
has  helped  raise  Union  citizens'  awareness  of  their  rights  regarding  free  movement.  A 
Eurobarometer  survey35  shows  that  increasing  numbers  of  citizens  are  more  aware  of  their 
rights in the EU. Recent Union initiatives36 in this field as well as the proposal to establish a 
European  Labour  Authority  should  further  help  to  maximise  awareness  of  the  key  free 
movement rights. 

The  Commission  will  keep  monitoring  the  implementation  of  the  Directive.  In  doing  so,  it 
will also make use of data gathered in the annual report on intra-EU mobility, which provides 
an  overview  of  cross-border  mobility  within  the  EU  and  may  reveal  obstacles  to  it  (see 
footnote 27). The Commission will continue working with the Member States to ensure that 
the Directive is completely and correctly transposed and implemented in all of them.  

The Commission will support Member States’ efforts to implement the Directive properly. In 
particular it will promote cooperation between the bodies; ensure synergies between existing 
information  and  assistance  services  at  Union  level;  and  help  Member  States  to  improve  the 
quality of information they provide on national websites and to raise awareness among Union 
workers of their rights. 

35http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/Chart/getChart/chartType/lineChart//themeK
y/50/groupKy/268/savFile/867 
36 See also Proposal for a Regulation establishing a single digital gateway to provide information, procedures, 
assistance and problem-solving services (COM(2017) 256 2.5.2017). 

10