REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the application and implementation of Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and amending Regulation (EU) 1024/2012 on administrative co-operation through the Internal Market Information System ('the IMI Regulation')
Date: 2019-09-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, European Commission
Subjects: equal treatment, expatriate worker, free movement of workers, freedom to provide services, labour law, posted worker, provision of services, remuneration of work, single market, working conditions

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 25.9.2019  COM(2019) 426 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the application and implementation of Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and amending Regulation (EU) 1024/2012 on administrative co-operation through the Internal Market Information System ('the IMI Regulation') {SWD(2019) 337 final}  
 
 
1.

INTRODUCTION 

1.1.

  The Directive 

The  free  movement  of  workers,  freedom  of  establishment  and  freedom  to  provide 
services  are  fundamental  principles  of  the  internal  market  in  the  European  Union 
enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The Posting 
of Workers Directive 96/71/EC1 (as amended by  Directive 2018/957/EU23) (hereinafter 
“the  Posting  of  Workers  Directive”)  implements  those  principles  with  the  aim  to 
guaranteeing a level playing field for businesses and respect for the rights of workers. 

The  Enforcement  Directive  2014/67/EU4  (hereinafter  “the  Directive”)  establishes  a 
common framework of a set of appropriate provisions, measures and control mechanisms 
necessary  for  better  and  more  uniform  implementation,  application  and  enforcement  in 
practice of Directive 96/71/EC. 

1.2.

  The report 

Article  24  of  the  Directive  requires  the  Commission  to  review  the  application  and 
implementation of this Directive to present a report and propose, where appropriate, the 
necessary amendments no later than 18 June 2019. It specifies certain provisions of the 
Directive  that  have  to  be  assessed  in  particular,  namely  those  mentioned  in  Article  4 
identification  of  a  genuine  posting  and  prevention  of  abuse  and 
(regarding 
circumvention),  Article  6 
(regarding 
administrative  requirements  and  control  measures),  12  (regarding  subcontracting 
liability)  and 
in  Chapter  VI  (regarding  cross-border  enforcement  of  financial 
administrative  penalties  and/or  fines)  as  well  as  the  adequacy  of  data  available  and  the 
use  of  bilateral  agreements  or  arrangements  related  to  the  Internal  Market  Information 
System.  In  addition  to  these  issues,  the  report  also  looks  at  other  provisions  of  the 
Directive.  Insofar  as  the  available  information  allows,  the  report  also  reflects  on  the 
effectiveness in practice of the measures taken by Member States. In addition, it explores 
whether any amendment to the Directive is necessary. 

(regarding  mutual  assistance),  Article  9 

The  report  is  written  based  on  information  about  the  national  measures  transposing  the 
Directive that Member States have communicated to the Commission under Article 23(2) 
of the Directive5. The Commission has also consulted the members (national experts) and 
observers  (experts  from  European  Free  Trade  Area  countries  and  European  social 

1 Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the 
posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ L 18, 21.1.1997, p. 1). 
2 Directive 2018/957/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council 28 June 2018 amending Directive 
96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ L 173, 9.7.2018, 
p.16). 
3 The amendments introduced by Directive 2018/957 only apply as of 30 July 2020. 
4 Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of 
Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and 
amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market 
Information System (‘the IMI Regulation’) (OJ L 159, 28.5.2014, p.11). 
5 References to the national laws transposing the Directive can be found on the Eur-Lex webpage: https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/NIM/?uri=CELEX:32014L0067&qid=1547558891458 

1 

 
 
 
                                                           
partners)  of  the  Expert  Committee  on  Posting  of  Workers6  by  sending  them  a 
questionnaire  (hereinafter  the  questionnaire)  and  the  preliminary  draft  report.  The 
Commission  has  also  used  information  about  transposition  measures  collected  by  the 
European Centre of Expertise in the field of labour law, employment and labour market 
policy. In addition, information brought to the attention of the Commission by members 
of the European Parliament, complaints and letters by the citizens as well as through the 
contacts with different stakeholders have been taken into account. 

The  report  is  accompanied  by  the  Staff  Working  Document  including  several  annexes: 
Annex  I  and  II  concern  Member  States’  transposition  measures  of  Articles  9  and  12, 
respectively.  Annex  III  contains  the  Internal  Market  Information  System’s  statistics  on 
the  use  of  the  posting  module  as  well  as  of  the  module  concerning  the  administrative 
cooperation  in  the  area  of  cross-border  enforcement  of  penalties  and  fines.  Annex  IV 
contains a report on collection of data from national declaration tools for the year 2017 
drafted  by  the  Network  Statistics  of  the  Free  Movement  of  Workers,  Social  Security 
Coordination and Fraud and Error. 

2.

  TRANSPOSITION PROCESS 

In accordance with Article 23(1), the Member States had to transpose the Directive by 18 
June 2016. 

To  assist  Member  States  with  the  transposition,  the  Commission  established  the  Expert 
Group  on  the  Transposition  of  the  Enforcement  Directive  of  the  Posting  of  Workers 
Directive  2014/67/EU,  which  met  nine  times  between  December  2014  and  May  2016. 
Furthermore, the implementation and the application in practice of the Directive have been 
discussed at several meetings of the Expert Committee on Posting of Workers. 

All Member States have by now transposed the Directive. 

To that effect, all Member States, but Germany, which considered its legislation to be in 
line with the Directive, passed new laws or administrative acts or amended existing acts. 
By  the  deadline  of  18  June  2016,  in  ten  Member  States  (Denmark,  Finland,  France, 
Hungary, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and the UK) laws transposing 
the Directive entered into force. Later in 2016, after the deadline, in another six Member 
States  (Belgium,  Estonia,  Greece,  Ireland,  Italy,  Latvia)  relevant  legislation  entered  into 
force.  In  2017,  new  legislation  came  into  force  in  Austria,  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  the  Czech 
Republic, Cyprus, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden.  

3.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DIRECTIVE 

3.1.

Subject matter and Definitions (Articles 1 and 2) 

Article 1 sets out the scope and objectives of the Directive and its relation to the Posting of 
Workers  Directive.  Although  it  is  not  necessary  to  expressly  transpose  this  provision, 
national  law  needs  to  ensure  that  the  scope  of  implementing  provisions  covers  cases  of 
posting as defined in that Directive, in particular, Articles 1-3. 

6 Established by the Commission Decision of 19.12.2008 setting up the Committee of Experts on Posting of 
Workers (OJ L 8 13.1.2009 p. 26). 

2 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Hence,  many  Member  States  have  not  expressly  defined  the  scope  of  implementing 
legislation, but clarify it through the context and references to other provisions of national 
law.  Member  States  which  define  the  scope  explicitly  in  reference  to  the  Posting  of 
Workers  Directive  are  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Estonia,  Finland,  Greece,  Italy,  Latvia,  Malta, 
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and Spain.  

All  Member  States  apply  the  national  provisions  resulting  from  the  transposition  of  the 
Directive to the posted workers. Some Member States, however, apply these provisions in 
a  broader  manner,  namely  to  persons  who  are  not  posted  workers  in  the  sense  of  the 
Posting  of  Workers  Directive  or  to  activities  that  do  not  involve  a  provision  of  service. 
This  is  the  case  for  Austria,  where  the  law  covers  all  cases  of  workers  sent  to  work  to 
Austria  by  their  employer.  Though  not  stated  explicitly,  such  a  broad  application  is  also 
implied  by  the  provisions  of  the  Hungarian  Labour  Code.  The  Dutch  and  Slovenian 
regulations  apply  this  legislation  partly  also  to  the  self-employed  cross-borders  service 
providers. 

The employers’ organisations in two Member States (Austria and France) have pointed out 
that measures transposing the Directive should be applied only to the situations that can be 
considered  posting  according  to  the  Posting  of  Workers  Directive.  Trade  unions,  in 
general, considered that it is possible and fully in line with the competences of the Member 
States to apply the provisions provided in the Directive also to other categories of workers 
who are not considered as posted according to the Posting of Workers Directive. 

3.2.

  Competent authorities and liaison offices (Article 3) 

Article 3 of the Directive deals  with  the designation by the Member States of competent 
authorities and liaison offices for the purposes of the Directive.  

The  obligation  to  nominate  competent  authorities  and  liaison  offices  through  which  the 
administrative  cooperation  and/or  exchange  of  information  regarding  the  posting  of 
workers takes place dates back to the transposition of Article 4 of the Posting of Workers 
Directive.  Hence,  all  Member  States  have  designated  the  authorities  and  liaison  officers 
responsible for issues related to the posting of workers.  

The majority of the Member States have opted for a direct transposition of Article 3 of the 
Directive. The authorities have been either directly designated by law or appointed by the 
Government or by another authority.  

The  list  of  competent  authorities  and  liaison  offices  can  be  found  on  Your  Europe 
webpage7. 

3.3.

Identification  of  a  genuine  posting  and  prevention  of  abuse  and 
circumvention (Article 4) 

Article 4 of the Directive provides for two non-exhaustive lists of elements which Member 
States may in particular use when making the overall assessment to determine whether an 

7 https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/national-contact-points/index_en.htm 

3 

 
 
 
                                                           
undertaking genuinely performs substantial activities in the Member State of establishment 
(Art 4(2)) and whether a posted worker carries out his work temporarily in a Member State 
other than the one in  which he or she normally  works (Art 4(3)). These elements  should 
assist competent authorities when carrying out checks and controls and where they have a 
reason to  believe that  a  worker may not  qualify  as  a posted  worker.  It  should  be kept  in 
mind  that  failure  to  satisfy  one  or  more  of  these  elements  does  not  preclude  a  situation 
from  being  characterised  as  posting  (Art  4(4)),  meaning  that  there  should  be  no 
requirement that each element is satisfied in every posting case.  

3.3.1.  Elements  to  determine  whether  an  undertaking  genuinely  performs 

substantial activities 

Most of the Member States have provided for a list  of elements identical  to  those in  the 
Directive.  Austria,  Germany,  Ireland,  the  Netherlands,  Sweden  and  the  UK  have  not 
explicitly transposed this part of the Article. Eight Member States (Bulgaria, Croatia, Italy, 
Romania,  Slovenia,  Austria,  Spain  and  Greece)  have  introduced  or  maintained  other 
existing elements, such as:  

–  the duration of the actual posting (Bulgaria),  

–  the duration and frequency of an employer’s activity in the national territory, 

and whether it is performed occasionally or continuously (Croatia);  

–  any other element useful for the overall assessment (Italy);  

–  the main activity of the undertaking where it is authorized to operate and the 
object  of  the  service  contract;  the  employment  contracts/other  forms  of 
employment  concluded  by 
its  own  employees 
(Romania); 

the  undertaking  with 

–  whether  the  employer  has  suitable  premises  where  the  service  is  provided; 
employment of administrative staff which performs work at the head office or 
premises of the employer; whether the employer advertises the activity and if 
there  have  been  changes  related  to  the  employer’s  activity  in  the  last  six 
months (Slovenia); 

–  true  economic  nature  of  the  activity  rather  than  the  appearance  of  the  facts 
shall be relevant for assessing whether an employment relationship, the cross-
border posting or hiring out of workers exists (Austria) and a posting shall not 
require  the  conclusion  of  a  service  contract  between  an  employer  not 
established in Austria and a service recipient operating in Austria; 

–  identification of the undertaking posting the workers (Spain);  

–  the time of the undertaking’s establishment and the undertaking which really 

pays wages to the posted workers (Greece). 

4 

 
 
3.3.2.  Elements  to  assess whether a posted worker temporarily carries out  his 
or  her  work  in  a  Member  State  other  than  the  one  in  which  he  or  she 
normally works 

Most of the Member States have transposed the list of elements in Article 4(3), except for 
Austria,  Denmark,  Germany,  Ireland,  Sweden  and  the  UK,  mainly  by  providing  a  list  of 
elements identical to those in the Directive. In Croatia, Latvia, Italy, Luxembourg, Greece 
and Slovenia additional elements have been provided: 

–  the  date  of  employment,  the  possession  of  the  Portable  Document  A1-
certificate  (or  application  for  that  certificate),  whether  the  employer  sent 
workers to the Member State in previous 12 months and what tasks and where 
the worker performed them a month before being posted to the Member State 
(Croatia); 

–  any  other  element  useful  for  the  overall  assessment  and  a  certification 

concerning the applicable social security legislation (Italy); 

–  in order to assess if a posted worker performs the work in other MS than the 
one where she/he normally works, the State Labour Inspectorate should check 
in advance if there is genuine employment relationship (Latvia); 

–  the intention of the worker to return to the home country (Luxembourg, as a 

result of case law); 

–  prior  periods  of  insurance  of  posted  worker  on  the  basis  of  employment  or 

self-employment (Slovenia); 

–  the end date of posting and whether the employment contract or relationship 
between  the  posted  worker  and  the  service  provider  shall  continue  after  the 
end of posting (Greece). 

The  majority  of  the  Member  States  have  explicitly  transposed  Article  4(4),  and  have  also 
clarified that the above-mentioned criteria are non-exhaustive. 

3.4.

Improved access to information (Article 5) 

Article 5 establishes obligations for the Member States regarding access to information and 
the setting up of single official national websites (hereinafter the website(s)).  

Regarding  the  transposition  of  Article  5(2),  in  the  majority  of  the  Member  States  (Austria, 
Belgium,  the  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland,  Germany,  Greece,  Hungary, 
Ireland,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  the  Netherlands,  Spain  and  the  UK)  the  national 
legislation  does  not  specify  the  criteria  to  be  applied  to  the  information  provided  on  the 
website.  

Nevertheless,  all  Member  States  have  set  up  the  websites  and  these  largely  fulfil  the 
conditions provided in the Directive, including the language requirements, i.e. most websites 
are  available  not  only  in  the  host  Member  State’s  national  language(s),  but  also  in  English 
and many also have it in other relevant languages.  

5 

 
 
 
When  it  comes  to  the  presentation  of  information  regarding  the  terms  and  conditions  of 
employment stemming  from legislation, Member States have taken different  avenues.  They 
either  reproduce  national  legislative  or  administrative  texts,  or  provide  summaries  or 
overviews in plain language and/or questions and answers.  

Information regarding the terms and conditions of employment that apply to posted workers 
stemming  from  collective  agreements  applicable  in  accordance  with  Article  3(8)  of  the 
Posting  of  Workers  Directive  (Article  5(4))  is  presented  by  Member  States,  where  such 
agreements exist, on the website in different forms. These can be in the form of: (1) the full 
text  of  the  collective  agreement  (Austria,  Croatia,  Luxembourg,  Latvia  and  Sweden);  (2)  a 
summary of the collective agreement presented on the website (Austria, Belgium, Germany, 
Luxembourg  and  Estonia);  (3)  a  link  to  the  collective  agreement  on  the  website  (Belgium, 
Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Finland,  Ireland,  Estonia  and  the  Netherlands);  and  (4)  a  link  to  the 
database  on  collective  agreements  is  presented  on  the  national  websites  of  Belgium,  Spain, 
Finland, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia and the Netherlands.  

The  Expert  Committee  on  Posting  of  Workers  has  undertaken  an  exercise  where  the 
Commission,  Member  States  and  European  level  social  partners  review  the  websites  and 
present  their  views  and  findings,  including  best  practices  and  make  suggestions  for 
improvement. This exercise is still ongoing. The preliminary results show that while most of 
the  websites  have  been  set  up  as  provided  in  Article  5  of  the  Directive,  many  websites  go 
further as regards the scope of information presented and languages covered. 

European  level  social  partners  have  highlighted  access  to  information  as  one  of  the  most 
crucial elements in guaranteeing the rights of the posted workers and ensuring legal certainty 
for businesses. Employers have pointed out that a template for a uniform website would be a 
significant improvement when it comes to the clarity and accessibility of information. Trade 
unions have pointed out the importance for the websites to include also information about the 
contacts of the relevant social partners. 

The  single  national  official  websites  of  all  Member  States  are  accessible  from  the  Your 
Europe website8. 

3.5.

  Administrative cooperation (Articles 6 and 7) 

Articles 6 and 7 of the Directive concern administrative cooperation between Member States, 
which  should  be  carried  out  without  undue  delay  in  order  to  facilitate  the  implementation, 
application  and  enforcement  in  practice  of  the  Directive  and  the  Posting  of  Workers 
Directive.  Article  6  also  sets  out  deadlines  for  replying  to  the  requests:  2  working  days  in 
urgent cases and 25 working days for other requests. Article 7 specifies further the roles of 
the host and home Member State in administrative cooperation. 

Most  Member  States  have  explicitly  transposed  Articles  6  and  7  or  have  pre-existing 
legislation applicable. UK, Belgium, France, Luxembourg and Netherlands comply with the 
entirety or some aspects of Articles 6 and 7 by way of administrative practice and there is no 
respective legislation in place.  

Article 6(3) allows Member States also to send and service documents. This provision is not 
mandatory,  however  most  Member  States  use  it in  practice  by  host  Member  States’  liaison 

8 https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/work/work-abroad/posted-workers/index_en.htm#national-websites 

6 

 
 
                                                           
offices to deliver documents to service providers in home Member States and it works well, 
in general, even in Member States which have not transposed it. 

As administrative cooperation in relation to the posting of workers takes mainly the form 
of sending and replying to the reasoned requests of information from competent authorities 
through  the  Internal  Market  Information  System,  the  statistics  of  its  usage  give  a 
quantitative overview of how it is applied in practice. 

In  relation  to  requesting  information  through  administrative  cooperation,  Member  States 
have  pointed  out  some  difficulties.  In  some  cases  authorities  of  the  requested  Member 
States  claim  not  to  be  competent  to  answer  certain  questions  and/or  do  not  provide  an 
answer or provide an incomplete answer. In some cases due to short deadlines, authorities 
are  unable  to  carry  out  an  inspection.  This  results  in  unanswered  or  partially  answered 
requests.  

Regarding the deadlines set in Article 6(6), most Member States consider these adequate, 
albeit  in  some cases too short, for example if documents need to  be  gathered from other 
authorities  or  inspections  are  needed  to  retrieve  the  necessary  information.  The  Internal 
Market  Information  System's  statistics  (see  Annex  III  of  the  Staff  Working  Document) 
show that there are about 1/3 of the requests that are not replied within the deadlines. 

In  their  replies  to  the  Expert  Committee  on  Posting  of  Workers  questionnaire,  the  trade 
unions stressed the importance to ensure compliance with the deadlines provided in Article 6 
(6).  They  highlighted  that  in  order  to  be  able  to  tackle  abuses,  it  is  important  to  receive 
reliable  and  comprehensive  information  quickly.  They  furthermore  stressed  the  need  for 
Member States to ensure adequate resources for administrative cooperation. 

Internal  Market  Information  System's  statistics  regarding  sending  and  receiving  of 
requests 

In  2018,  a  total  of  4789  posting  of  workers  information  exchanges  were  sent  in  Internal 
Market  Information  System.  The  majority  of  these  requests  were  requests  for  information 
(2785  exchanges),  and  requests  to  send  documents  (1089).  Other  types  of  exchanges  were 
less frequent: requests to notify a decision imposing an administrative penalty or fine (568), 
requests  to  recover  a  penalty  or  fine  (201),  urgent  requests  (130),  and  communications  of 
irregularities (16). 

The level of cooperation represents a steady increase since 2017, where the total number of 
information  exchanges  grew  from  873  exchanges  in  the  fourth  quarter  of  2017  to  1214 
exchanges  in  the  fourth  quarter  of  2018.  Most  notably,  the  number  of  urgent  requests  rose 
from 22 requests in the fourth quarter of 2017 to 50 requests in the fourth quarter of 2018. 

In  2018,  Belgium  was  the  most  active  sender  of  information  requests,  followed  by  Austria 
and France. Belgium also sent the most of the urgent requests while Austria sent the highest 
number of requests to send documents, to notify a decision and recover a penalty or fine. The 
highest number of communications of irregularities was sent by Slovakia. 

In  total,  Slovenia  received  the  most  requests  in  2018,  though  the  highest  number  of 
information  requests  were  sent  to  Poland  followed  by  Portugal  and  Slovenia.  Romania 
received  the  highest  number  of  urgent  requests  followed  by  Poland  and  Portugal.  Slovenia 

7 

 
 
received  the  highest  number  of  requests  to  send  documents,  notifications  of  a  decision  and 
requests  to  cover  a  penalty  or  fine,  while  Germany  received  the  highest  number  of 
communications of irregularities. 

The average time taken to respond to urgent requests, where the required information should 
be available in a register, was ten calendar days in 2018, while the Directive sets a deadline 
of just two working days. 

The average time taken  to  respond to  (non-urgent) requests for information was  43 days in 
2018, while the legal deadline for answering these requests is 35 days (25 working days). In 
some cases, Member States receiving high numbers of requests provide answers quicker than 
Member States receiving fewer requests.  

See Annex III of the Staff Working Document for an overview of statistics.  

3.6.

  Administrative requirements and control measures (Article 9) 

The Directive allows Member States to put in place administrative requirements and control 
measures in order to ensure the effective monitoring of compliance with the Directive and the 
Posting  of  Workers  Directive,  provided  that  these  are  justified  and  proportionate  in 
accordance  with  Union  law.  There  is  no  obligation  on  Member  States  to  introduce  these 
measures.  The  list  of  possible  measures  provided  is  non-exhaustive.  However,  other 
administrative requirements and control measures may be imposed only if they are justified 
and proportionate. 

An overview of the measures taken by Member States under Article 9 can be found in Annex 
I of the Staff Working Document. 

3.6.1.  Article 9(1)(a) simple declaration 

This  provision  allows  Member  States  to  require  a  service  provider  established  in  another 
Member State to make a ‘simple declaration’ containing the relevant information necessary in 
order  to  allow  factual  controls  at  the  workplace,  including:  (i)  the  identity  of  the  service 
provider;  (ii) the anticipated number of  clearly identifiable posted  workers; (iii) the contact 
persons  referred  to  under  Article  9(1)  (e)  -  (f);  (iv)  the  anticipated  duration,  envisaged 
beginning  and  end  date  of  the  posting;  (v)  the  address(es)  of  the  workplace;  and  (vi)  the 
nature of the services justifying the posting. 

All Member States, but the UK (with the exception of Gibraltar), require such a declaration to 
be made by the service provider before the commencement of activities on their territory. In 
most Member States the declaration needs to be done any time before the start of the service 
provision,  including  on  the  same  day  (Austria,  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Czech 
Republic,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Latvia, 
Luxembourg,  Malta,  Netherlands,  Poland,  Portugal,  Slovakia  Slovenia,  Spain,  Sweden). 
However, in some Member States (Italy, Lithuania, Romania) the notification has to be done 
on  the  previous  day  (this  means  on  the  day  preceding  the  day  when  the  service  provision 
starts).  Since  the  declaration  may  be  required  “at  the  latest  at  the  commencement  of  the 
service provision”, any requirement for the declaration to be made within a certain deadline 
(for example, a few hours or a few days) before the posting goes beyond what is expressly 
authorised under the Directive. 

8 

 
 
In  case  of  changes  to  the  information  submitted  in  the  declaration,  Austrian,  Finnish  and 
German  laws  require  such  changes  to  be  notified  immediately,  and  other  Member  States 
indicate  a  precise  time  frame  for  this  notification:  on  the  first  weekday  after  the  change  in 
Denmark, three days in Croatia and Sweden, five days in  Italy and Romania, seven days in 
Poland,  ten  days  in  the  Czech  Republic  and  fifteen  days  in  Cyprus  and  Greece,  since  the 
changes were made. In Italy, changes in “essential information” (identification code and state 
of the establishment of the service provider, the identification codes of posted workers etc.) 
are  not  allowed,  in  such  cases  declaration  have  to  be  resubmitted  by  the  time  the  service 
provision  starts.  In  Greece,  in  case  of  changes  in  working  time,  the  information  has  to  be 
submitted at the latest on the day of the change. 

3.6.1.1.Information regarding the service provider/employer 

Member  States  require  at  least  information  on  the  service  provider’s  name  and  address, 
usually  also  some  further  contact  data  such  as  phone  number  and/or  e-mail  address.  Apart 
from these requirements, twelve Member States (Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, 
Finland,  Greece,  Hungary,  Italy,  Latvia,  Poland,  Slovakia  and  Spain)  require  the  posting 
employer  to  notify  its  VAT  number,  business  registration  number  or  similar,  and  Cyprus 
demands  the  undertaking  to  indicate  its  legal  form.  Nine  Member  States  (Austria,  Croatia, 
Cyprus,  Estonia,  Finland,  Germany,  Greece,  Hungary  and  Lithuania)  prescribe  information 
on the type of business, i.e. the business sector in which the undertaking is active.   

3.6.1.2.Information regarding posted workers 

Basic  information  on  the  workers  usually  entails  the  workers’  names  and  addresses,  in  the 
Czech Republic and Germany also  their birth date, and in  thirteen Member States (Austria, 
Croatia,  Denmark,  Finland,  France,  Greece,  Italy,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  Poland, 
Slovakia  and  Slovenia)  both  birth  date  and  nationality.  In  Spain  personal  and  professional 
details  are  required.  Finland  and  Hungary  ask  for  an  indication  of  the  number  of  posted 
workers and Hungary also asks for the names of posted workers. 

Additional  requirements  have  been  put  in  place  in  thirteen  Member  States:  eight  Member 
States  (Croatia,  the  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Finland,  Greece,  Italy,  Lithuania  and 
Portugal)  require  the  passport  or  identification  number;  the  Czech  Republic,  Denmark  and 
Greece workers’ gender; Austria, Finland and Sweden their social security number; Slovenia 
the  address  of  temporary  residence  in  Slovenia;  France  the  social  security  status,  Denmark 
information on social security and the Netherlands requests the submission of documents on 
the payment of social security contribution in the home country. Austria, Croatia, Finland and 
Latvia  require  the  work  and/or  resident  permits  of  third  country  nationals  posted  to  their 
territory. Luxembourg and Lithuania also require the worker’s occupation.  

3.6.1.3.Information regarding the contact persons 

Article  9(1)  mentions  that  Member  States  may  require  the  service  provider  to  indicate  a 
person to liaise with the authorities in the host state. Whereas Member States may require this 
contact person to be present in the host Member State, no disproportionate requirements may 
be imposed. In addition, Member States may also require to designate another contact person 
to act as a representative through whom the social partners may ask the service provider to 
engage  in  collective  bargaining.  That  contact  person,  unlikely  to  the  one  liaising  with  the 
authorities,  cannot  be  required  to  be  present  in  the  host  Member  State,  but  needs  to  be 
available on a reasonable and justified request.  

9 

 
 
All Member States that made use of the provision(s) in Article 9(1)(e) and/or (f) also require 
these  persons  to  be  indicated  in  the  simple  declaration.  Accordingly,  all  Member  States 
except  the  Czech  Republic,  Lithuania  and  the  UK  require  the  declaration  to  contain 
information about a contact person to liaise with the competent authorities. Information about 
a person to be contacted regarding collective bargaining has to be indicated in the declaration 
in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Portugal and Spain.  

In  addition,  eleven  Member  States  (Austria,  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Estonia,  Finland,  Greece, 
Hungary,  Italy,  Luxembourg,  Slovenia  and  Sweden)  ask  information  on  a  contact  person 
generally  entitled  to  represent  the  employer;  the  Dutch  regulation  indicates  the  person 
responsible for wage payment. All these three types of contact persons typically need to be 
identified by their name and address, sometimes by additional contact information. 

3.6.1.4.Information regarding work performed 

Information  regarding  Article  9(1)(a)  points  (iv)  to  (v):  the  anticipated  duration,  envisaged 
beginning  and  end  date  of  posting  and  the  address(es)  of  the  work  place;  is  required  by 
almost all Member States that require declaration.  Similarly, the duty to indicate the type or 
nature of work as indicated, corresponds to Article 9(1)(a)(vi), that is the nature of services, 
of the Directive. Also this information is required by all countries that require a declaration, 
with  the  exception  of  Greece  and  Ireland.  As  for  Spain,  the  duty  to  indicate  the  type  of 
work/services may be implied by the law’s reference to ‘professional data’. 

In  addition  to  these  requirements  Member  States  ask  for  additional  information  to  be 
mentioned in the declaration, which does not relate to Article 9(1)(a), but to other provisions 
in that Article. Such requirements are allowed provided they are justified and proportionate. 
Indication of the location of the documents that need to be kept and provided to authorities 
upon  request  is  prescribed  in  the  legislation  of  seven  Member  States  (Austria,  Croatia, 
Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland and Slovenia). Five Member States (Austria, Bulgaria, 
Croatia,  France  and  Greece)  require  information  relating  to  matters  of  working  time  and 
wages; Belgium at least the inclusion of a work schedule and an indication whether contracts 
are temporary; and Italy requires wage details in case of posting in the transport sector. Under 
Lithuanian law the provision of ‘guarantees’ for workers in a number of areas including, for 
example, health and safety issues, is prescribed.  

3.6.1.5.Information on service recipient 

Several Member States ask also information relating to the service recipient to be contained 
in  the  simple  declaration,  which  is  not  listed  in  Article  9(1)(a).  In  most  cases  they  require 
basic  information  (name,  address,  contact  information)  about  the  posting  employer’s 
contractual  partner  to  be  included  in  the  declaration.  In  Germany  and  Poland,  this  is  only 
mandatory where posting takes place under a contract for temporary agency work, in which 
case the user undertaking needs to be indicated. As opposed to this, a total of fifteen Member 
States  (Austria,  Belgium,  Croatia,  Denmark  (not  in  case  of  a  private  person),  Estonia, 
Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Slovenia and Spain) 
require the indication of the service recipient in all cases of posting. Eight of these countries 
(Cyprus,  Estonia,  Finland,  Italy,  France,  Greece,  Lithuania  and  Slovenia)  require  also 
information  on  the  service  recipient’s  type  of  business,  in  Austria  the  applicable  collective 
agreement needs to be indicated. Austria, Greece and Italy also prescribe the notification of 

10 

 
 
the service recipient’s VAT number and Austria also the trade licence, Estonia its registration 
code. Italy also asks information on the legal representative of the service recipient. 

In some Member States,  obligations related to  the declaration of posted workers are put  on 
the service recipient. This is the case in the Czech Republic, where the declaration has to be 
done by the service recipient. In Denmark, the service recipient  has an obligation to inform 
the Danish  competent  authority in  case he has not  received documentation proving that  the 
service  provider  has  notified  information  to  the  Danish  competent  authority  or  if  the 
information is incomplete or wrong. 

3.6.2.  Article 9(1)(b) to (d) – documentation requirements 

Article  9(1)(b)  allows  the  Member  States  to  demand  that  certain  documents  related  to  the 
employment  contract  are  kept  or  made  available  in  paper  or  electronic  form.  This  does  not 
mean  that  such  documents  may  be  required  to  be  notified  together  with  the  simple 
declaration.  

All  Member States (with the exception of the United Kingdom) ask for documentation that 
largely  corresponds  to  the  items  explicitly  mentioned  in  Article  9(1)(b)  (‘the  employment 
contract or an equivalent document […], payslips, time-sheets indicating the beginning, end 
and duration of the daily working time and proof of payment of wages’).  

Additionally, six Member States require copies of documents on the identity and/or status of 
workers to be available in the workplace: such documents are typically passports or identity 
cards  (Austria,  Croatia,  Latvia,  Luxembourg),  Portable  Document  A1  certificates  (Austria, 
Italy,  Luxembourg,  Slovenia),  work  and/or  resident  permits  of  third  country  nationals 
(Austria, Croatia, Latvia, Luxembourg and Spain). 

Luxembourg asks  for  copies of medical  certificates of fitness  for  work  and in  case of part-
time  work  or  fixed-term  employment  contract,  a  certificate  of  conformity  issued  by  the 
competent  control  authority.  Croatia  and  Lithuania  ask  for  other  evidence  necessary  for 
control and supervision. 

Most  Member  States  have  transposed  Article  9(1)(b)  into  national  law  by  stating  that  the 
documents have to be available – in paper or electronic form – at the workplace to which the 
workers are posted.  

The obligation to retain documents formally ends with the end of the period of posting in nine 
countries (Austria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, 
the Netherlands and Slovakia).  

In Luxembourg all documents need to be submitted electronically in advance of the posting, 
rather  than  being  kept  or  made  available  in  an  accessible  and  clearly  identified  place  in  its 
territory. 

The Directive allows asking for the documents to be delivered after the period of posting at 
the  request  of  the  authorities  of  the  host  Member  State  within  a  reasonable  period  of  time 

11 

 
 
(Article  9(1)(c)).  Most  Member  States  require  the  availability  of  documents  over  a  specific 
timeframe  after  the  end  of  the  posting  period,  except  Malta  where  the  duration  is  not 
specified and Lithuania where documents need to be available, but can be kept in the sending 
Member State. This timeframe amounts to one year in Belgium, Bulgaria and Portugal; two 
years in  eight  Member States (Finland, France,  Germany, Greece,  Italy,  Latvia, Poland and 
Slovenia); three years Hungary, Ireland and Romania, five years in Croatia and seven years in 
Estonia.  

3.6.3.  Language and translation requirements 

The wording of Article  9(1)(a) and (d) allows  Member States to  prescribe the language  for 
both  the declaration and the documentation duties  – both of which can be demanded in the 
host country’s official language or any ‘language(s) accepted by the host Member State. 

Most Member States require the declaration to be done in (one of) their official language(s). 
In  addition  to  the  official  language,  declaration  in  English  is  an  option  in  Austria,  Croatia, 
Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Poland and Sweden. In Austria, the declaration can be made in 
Czech,  English,  Spanish,  Croatian,  Italian,  Hungarian,  Polish,  Romanian,  Slovakian  and 
Slovenian  languages.  In  Sweden,  the  languages  available  are  English,  German,  Polish, 
Romanian and French. In Denmark, posted workers can be registered using English, German 
and Polish languages The possibility to  make the declaration in  other languages is  given in 
many Member States with electronic systems for declaration. 

Keeping the documents without translation is accepted in twelve Member States, in nine of 
which  (Belgium,  Croatia,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Hungary,  Lithuania,  Poland,  Slovakia  and 
Slovenia) the authorities can request a translation into their official language (or into English, 
in case of Belgium and Finland) in individual cases. English is an option for the employment 
contract  in  Austria,  and  documents  can  be  kept  in  the  official  language  or  in  English  in 
Cyprus  and  Sweden.  The  Netherlands  have  no  regulation  requiring  for  the  translation  of 
documents. 

3.6.4.  Other administrative requirements and control measures 

Some Member States have put in place measures for the identification of the posted workers, 
like  the  construction  card  (“Carte  d’identification  professionnelle  du  BTP”)  in  France,  the 
ConstruBadge in Belgium and the social identification badge in Luxembourg. 

General assessment 

Most Member States impose most or all of the administrative measures listed in Article 9(1). 
While  this  may  suggest  that  very  similar  duties  apply  for  service  providers  across  the 
Member States, the concrete requirements put in place in Member States, in particular with 
respect  to  the  process  of  notification,  the  documentation  and  translation  requirements  are 
rather diverse. 

All  Member  States  consider  the  administrative  requirements  and  control  measures  put  in 
place useful for facilitating the monitoring of compliance with  the obligations set out in the 
Directive and the Posting of Workers Directive. 

12 

 
 
Member  States  consider  the  simple  declaration  especially  useful,  as  it  makes  the  posted 
worker  “visible”  to  the  inspection  services  and  thus  facilitates  the  monitoring  of  their 
working  conditions  and  detection  of  fraud.  In  addition,  the  notification  gives  the  necessary 
information for targeting controls to the most affected sectors/regions/companies, based on a 
risk  assessment.  The  same  aim  is  served  by  the  documents  that  can  be  required  by  the 
inspection  services.  The  designation  of  the  liaison  person  has  had  a  positive  effect  on 
receiving the documents referred to above and on making contact with the representative of 
the employer. 

Many Member States have also taken measures to limit administrative burden that could be 
caused by the above-mentioned measures. Usually these measures concern postings that are 
of short duration or in  certain sectors or professions. Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, 
Italy,  Luxembourg,  Hungary,  Malta,  Austria,  Poland,  Slovenia,  Slovakia,  Finland  and 
Sweden have implemented an online/electronic posting declaration tool. 

In Belgium, urgent repair and maintenance works of machines or equipment, delivered by the 
same employer to the business where the repair/maintenance takes place, are exempted from 
the  notification  requirement  in  “Limosa”  (mandatory  declaration  for  workers  and  self-
employed  who  are  sent  to  work/work  in  Belgium),  in  case  such  a  work  does  not  exceed  5 
days per month. 

In  Germany,  a  notification  is  obligatory  only  in  the  construction  and  construction-related 
industries, building cleaning services and in care provision. 

Trade  unions  find  that  adequate  and  effective  administrative  requirements  and  control 
measures are extremely important to monitor compliance with the obligations established in 
the Posting of Workers Directive. They also find that it would be important to define at EU 
level  certain  mandatory  administrative  requirements  and  control  measures,  including  the 
obligation to declare the posting before its start and introduction of an electronic register of 
posted workers, which could improve monitoring of the compliance with the applicable rules. 
Regarding  concrete  measures  taken,  trade  unions  have  pointed  out  that  in  case  a  contact 
person  in  view  of  collective  bargaining  needs  to  be  designated  according  to  national  law 
transposing the Directive, this information should be communicated also to the trade unions. 

Employers,  on  the  other  hand,  have  voiced  a  concern  that  the  introduction  of  measures 
according to Article 9 has led to practical problems when posting workers, especially due to 
increased administrative burden. 

According  to  Article  9(2)  of  the  Directive  Member  States  are  allowed  to  take  other 
administrative requirements and control measures provided that these measures are justified 
and proportionate. From the transposition measures as described above, it is clear that most 
Member States have taken a number of measures that fall under this Article.  

3.7.

Inspections (Article 10) 

Article 10 deals with inspections in posting situations, prescribing that they should be based 
on risk assessment and not be discriminatory and/or disproportionate. 

13 

 
 
 
The  majority  of  the  Member  States  have  opted  for  an  explicit  transposition  of  Article  10. 
However,  a  number  of  Member  States  (Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Czech  Republic,  Estonia, 
Luxembourg,  the  Netherlands  and  Sweden)  consider  that  existing  legislation  is  compliant 
with Article 10 through general provisions setting out the competences of labour inspection 
authorities. The UK has indicated that compliance is based on the practice of the authorities.  

When it comes to the reference to the risk assessment in the sense of Article 10(1), a number 
of  Member  States  (Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Denmark,  Greece,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Latvia,  Malta, 
Portugal,  Romania  and  Slovenia)  have  regulations  in  place  which  require  such  a  risk 
assessment  to  be  conducted  when  selecting  the  entities  subject  to  inspection.  With  the 
exception  of  Cyprus,  Denmark  and  Ireland,  such  regulations  also  set  out  the  criteria  to  be 
used  in  the  risk  assessment,  many  of  which  closely  follow  the  criteria  suggested  in  Article 
10(1).  

Some other countries  have indicated that such risk assessment is  not a legal  requirement in 
their national system but a general practice of the authorities in charge of the inspection. This 
is the case for the Czech Republic, Germany, Spain and Sweden. 

Trade  unions  consider  that  while  the  situation  varies  from  Member  State  to  Member  State, 
the controls and inspections are still insufficient. They stress that it is important for Member 
States  to  put  in  place  adequate  mechanisms,  controls  and  inspections  to  ensure  compliance 
with the rules and to avoid cross-border abuses. 

While effective monitoring procedures are essential for the enforcement of the Directive and 
the  Posting  of  Workers  Directive,  the  Commission  considers  that  inspections  need  to  be 
based primarily on risk assessment by competent authorities. In addition, Member States need 
to  ensure  that  inspections  and  controls  of  compliance  are  not  discriminatory  and/or 
disproportionate.  This  means  that  they  have  to  be  suitable  for  achieving  the  objectives 
pursued without restricting the cross-border provision of services any more than necessary9. 

3.8.

  Defence of rights – facilitation of complaints – back payments (Article 11) 

Article 11 requires Member States to have mechanisms in place for posted workers to lodge 
complaints  against  their  employers  directly,  institute  judicial  or  administrative  proceedings 
and  establishes  standards  for  enforcement,  particularly  requiring  procedures  for  employees, 
but  also  trade  unions  and  third  parties  to  engage  in  the  defence  of  posted  workers’  rights 
before judicial and administrative bodies in the host state. 

All Member States10 provide for posted workers’ possibility to turn with a complaint to the 
competent labour inspection authority in case of a violation of their rights by the employer.  

All  Member  States  give  posted  workers  access  to  their  judicial  system  in  respect  of  claims 
arising in relation to the period of posting and neither the end of the posting period nor the 
return to the home state precludes claims by posted workers in the host Member State in any 
country.  

9 See the Rush Portuguesa judgement  of 27.3.1990, case C-113/89, paragraph 17, as well as the judgements of 
21.10.2004, Commission v Luxembourg, case C-445/03, paragraph 40, and of 19.1.2006, Commission v 
Germany, C-244/04, paragraph 36 
10 Except UK where there is no labour inspection or similar authority. 

14 

 
 
                                                           
The  possibility  for  trade  unions  and  third  parties  to  engage  in  judicial  proceedings  is  in 
principle  provided  for  in  most,  but  not  all,  Member  States.  Notably,  Slovenia  does  not 
provide  for  any  direct  involvement  of  these  parties  in  court  proceedings,  and  five  Member 
States  (Bulgaria,  Finland,  Hungary,  Lithuania  and  Luxembourg)  envisage  this  possibility 
only  for  trade  unions  but  not  for  other  organisations.  While  Maltese  law  does  not  refer  to 
trade unions explicitly, there is a possibility to bring claims by an organization or other legal 
entity, having a legitimate interest in ensuring that these regulations are complied with in the 
law. In Italy, trade unions, although not having the right to act directly in court on behalf of 
an individual worker, can act in support of the posted workers. 

Moreover,  for  the  trade  unions  and  third  parties  to  be  involved,  in  many  Member  States, 
except in Austria, Estonia, Greece, Slovakia, Spain and the UK, additional conditions have to 
be fulfilled, such as the employee has to be a member of the organisation in question or the 
violation concerned needs to relate to a collective agreement of which the union is a party.  

For  third  parties  to  be  involved  in  proceedings,  Member  States  commonly  require  the 
demonstration  of  a  legitimate  interest  in  the  case  at  issue,  e.g.  by  reference  to  an 
organisation’s purpose according to its statutes. This is prescribed by the law in Croatia, the 
Czech Republic, Latvia, Malta, Poland, Portugal and Romania.  

In practice, the initiation of court proceedings by trade unions on behalf of posted workers is 
used often in Finland, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden. 

Eleven  Member  States  (Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Denmark,  Greece,  Malta, 
Poland,  Portugal,  Romania  and  Sweden)  have  expressly  transposed  Article  11(5)  by 
introducing  an  explicit  protection  of  posted  workers  against  retaliation  by  the  employer  in 
their national  law.  In twelve Member States (Austria, the Czech Republic, Estonia,  France, 
Germany,  Hungary,  Italy,  Latvia,  Luxembourg,  Slovenia,  Spain  and  the  UK)  there  was  no 
necessity  of  doing  this,  as  the  application  of  general  principles  of  protection  against 
victimisation extends also to posted workers.  

In  Finland,  Ireland  and  Slovakia  such  principle  applies  only  in  those  areas  where  it  is 
expressly made applicable. In the Netherlands there are no provisions prescribing a protection 
against retaliation, apart from those areas where protection against victimisation is mandated 
by EU law and has been incorporated in  provisions transposing it.  In  Lithuania, employees 
are explicitly protected against ‘retaliation’ in the sense of compensation claims for violating 
the employer’s economic interests. 

3.9.

Subcontracting liability (Article 12) 

In  order  to  tackle  fraud  and  abuse,  Article  12  allows  Member  States  to  take  measures  to 
ensure  that  in  subcontracting  chains  the  contractor  to  which  the  employer  is  a  direct 
subcontractor  can,  in  addition  to  or  in  place  of  the  employer,  be  held  liable  by  the  posted 
worker. While Member States are required to introduce such sub-contracting liability in the 
construction sector and cover at least unpaid net remuneration corresponding to the minimum 
rates  of  pay  (Article  12(1)),  they  may  provide  for  it  in  any  sector,  also  for  more  tiers  than 
only  towards  the  direct  contractor  and  with  a  broader  scope  than  minimum  rates  of  pay 
(Article 12(2) and (4)).  Instead of such a system  of subcontracting liability, Member States 
may take other appropriate enforcement measures (Article 12(6)). All these measures have to 
be taken on a non-discriminatory and proportionate basis.  

15 

 
 
 
Overview of the measures taken by Member States under Article 12 can be found in Annex II 
of  the  Staff  Working  Document.  According  to  the  replies  to  the  questionnaire  sent  to  the 
Expert Committee on Posting of Workers, in many Member States the liability rules have not 
yet been frequently applied practice as there are no relevant cases. However, several Member 
States  (Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Denmark,  Germany,  Finland,  Italy,  Lithuania, 
Luxembourg,  Malta,  the  Netherlands  and  France)  indicated  that  the  introduction  of  these 
rules  has  increased  the  effective  protection  of  the  workers’  rights  in  subcontracting  chains. 
Employers, in general, consider that the introduction of subcontracting liability or alternative 
measures  have  not  increased  the  effective  protection  of  workers’  rights  in  subcontracting 
chains.  Trade  unions  find  that  where  Member  States  maintained  or  introduced  full 
subcontracting liability and limitation to the possible length of the subcontracting chain, this 
has had a positive impact on the protection of posted workers’ rights in the chain. 

3.9.1.  Minimum requirement covering the construction sector 

All  Member  States  (except  Denmark  and  Finland,  which  have  taken  ‘other  appropriate 
enforcement  measures’  according  to  Article  12(6)),  have  implemented  the  minimum 
requirement  of  making  direct  (‘first  tier’)  contractors  in  the  construction  sector  generally 
responsible  in  case  of  the  employer’s  (subcontractor’s)  failure  to  pay  wages  at  least 
corresponding to the applicable minimum wage and contributions to social security.  

Nine Member States (Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Sweden 
and the UK) limit this liability to the construction sector. All other Member States extend the 
scheme of subcontracting liability to other sectors. Eleven Member States (France, Germany, 
Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia and Spain) have 
decided to extend the scheme to all sectors of the economy. 

3.9.2.  Broader application in terms of scope and range 

While  most  Member  States  limit  the  liability  to  the  direct  contractor,  ten  Member  States 
(Austria, Germany, Greece,  Italy,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg, the Netherlands,  Slovenia, Spain 
and Sweden) provide for the possibility to  claim  unmet payments also from parties that are 
not  in  a direct  contractual  relationship  with  the posting employer.  In Austria, however, this 
applies only where the use of several tiers had the purpose of circumventing legal obligations, 
and Lithuania and Sweden have restricted liability to the main contractor of the construction 
project.  

Most  commonly,  workers  are  entitled  to  claim  their  total  wages  (i.e.  also  contractually 
stipulated  wages  that  are  higher  than  the  minimum  wage)  or  at  least  compensation  for 
overtime  work  from  the  contractor.  The  former  applies  to  thirteen  Member  States  (Austria, 
Belgium,  Estonia,  France,  Ireland,  Italy,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  the  Netherlands,  Poland, 
Slovenia,  Spain  and  Sweden),  the  latter  to  three  (Croatia,  Czech  Republic  and  Slovakia). 
France  also  includes  the  provision  of  housing  by  the  employer,  and  Luxembourg  has 
extended liability to all monetary claims arising from the employment relationship as far as 
they concern work in the framework of their employer’s service provision to the contractor. 

At  the  same  time,  all  countries  except  Austria  limit  the  contractor’s  liability  to  the  amount 
stipulated in the contract with the subcontractor.  

16 

 
 
3.9.3.  Due diligence 

The  Directive  allows  for  introducing  an  exception  by  which  contractors  meeting  specific 
standards  of  ‘due  diligence’  in  respect  of  their  subcontractor  are  exempt  from  liability 
(Article 12(5)). 

Sixteen Member States have introduced the option of a due diligence defence. In the majority 
of  cases,  this  takes  the  form  of  an  overall  assessment  of  the  contractor’s  diligence  in  the 
individual  case  (Cyprus,  the  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Greece,  Ireland,  the  Netherlands, 
Poland and the UK).  

Twelve  Member  States  (Austria,  Belgium,  Croatia,  the  Czech  Republic,  France,  Hungary, 
Luxembourg,  the  Netherlands,  Poland,  Romania,  Slovakia  and  Spain)  have  explicit  criteria 
for  the  contractor’s  obligations  to  control  and/or  promote  compliance  by  the  subcontractor 
stipulated  by  law,  whereby  the  degree  of  detail  ranges  from  a  very  general  indication  in 
Poland to an extensive enumeration of criteria in Croatia. The Italian law provides for a due 
diligence only for the road transport sector. 

3.9.4.  Other appropriate enforcement measures according to Article 12(6) 

As  mentioned  above,  Denmark  and  Finland  are  the  only  countries  that  did  not  introduce 
schemes of subcontracting liability. In Denmark, the alternative scheme to transpose Article 
12(6) is based on the establishment of a Labour Market Fund for Posted Workers whereby if 
workers  posted  to  Denmark  and  covered  by  a  Danish  collective  agreement  have  problems 
receiving their wage from the employer the worker can get the missing wage paid from the 
abovementioned fund. If the fund has paid wages to posted workers as mentioned above, the 
employer  as  well  as  the  Danish  service  recipient  are  imposed  to  pay  an  extraordinary 
contribution to the fund. The fund will seek to recover the wage the fund paid to the workers 
from  their  employer  in  his  home  country.  The  fund  is  financed  by  contributions  from  all 
employers (Danish as well as foreign employers) providing services in Denmark. 

In  Finland,  if  a  posted  worker  has  not  been  paid  the  minimum  rate  of  pay,  he  or  she  may 
notify the construction site builder or the general contractor of the matter. After receiving the 
notification,  the  builder  or  the  general  contractor  shall  immediately  request  the  posting 
undertaking to  provide a report on the wages  paid to  the posted worker.  The builder or the 
general  contractor  shall  immediately  send  the  request  for  information  and  the  report 
submitted  by  the  posting  undertaking  to  the  worker.  At  the  request  of  the  worker,  the 
information request and the report shall immediately be submitted to the occupational safety 
and health authority. The builder or the general contractor shall keep the information request 
and  report  for  two  years  following  the  end  of  the  work.  Non-compliance  with  these 
obligations  may lead to  a sanction but  not to  the contractor’s liability  for outstanding wage 
claims. 

3.9.5.  Application of liability provisions only to cross-border service providers 

Member  States  may  not  set  up  a  system  of  subcontracting  liability  which  applies  only  to 
cross-border  service  providers,  as  this  would  directly  discriminate  against  those  service 
providers.  Such  system  could  might  discourage  customers’  final  clients  and  contractors  to 
contract or subcontract with undertakings established in other Member States. 

17 

 
 
Sixteen  Member  States  (Austria,  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Hungary, 
Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and the UK) 
seem to apply provisions of subcontracting liability only to foreign service providers, while 
other Member States apply them or comparable ones equally to domestic as well as foreign 
service providers. 

In  addition,  national  law  on  liability  rules  in  Austria,  Estonia,  Hungary  and  Italy  seem  to 
apply  to  any  situation  (not  only  subcontracting)  when  an  employer  engages  into  a  contract 
with a service provider established in another Member State. 

3.10.

  Cross-border enforcement of financial administrative penalties and/or fines 

(Chapter VI) 

Articles  13  to  19  of  the  Directive  deal  with  the  cross-border  enforcement  of  financial 
administrative penalties and (or) fines. Notably, these provisions provide that the decision by 
the competent  authority  of one Member State to  impose a penalty on a service provider be 
notified  to  the  addressee  and  recovered  by  the  competent  authority  of  the  Member  State 
where the provider is currently located. 

Most countries have explicitly transposed Articles 13-19. By means of exception, Germany, 
Denmark,  Ireland  and  the  UK  report  compliance  through  the  practice  of  authorities  rather 
than  through  new  legal  provisions.  A  partial  transposition  has  been  realised  in  the 
Netherlands  (no  transposition  of  Articles  13,  14,  and  18)  and  Slovenia  (no  transposition  of 
Article 18). 

Internal Market Information System's statistics on the use of Chapter VI 

Only  a  few  Member  States  (Austria,  Belgium,  Finland,  Italy,  Romania,  Sweden,  Slovakia, 
Slovenia  and  Netherlands)  have  made  use  of  the  administrative  cooperation  under  cross-
border  enforcement  of  financial  administrative  penalties  and/or  fines  as  a  requesting 
authority, that means sending a request to another Member State in order to notify or recover 
a penalty or fine. 

The  situation  is  different  when  we  look  at  how  many  Member  States  (Belgium,  Bulgaria, 
Croatia,  Cyprus,  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  France,  Germany,  Spain,  Hungary,  Italy, 
Lithuania,  Latvia,  the  Netherlands,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania,  Slovakia,  Slovenia  and  the 
UK) have been addressed as a requested authority, meaning a request to notify or recover a 
penalty or fine has been sent to them. 

In  general,  administrative  cooperation  via  the  Internal  Market  Information  System  on  these 
issues  is  considered  effective  by  Member  States  who  replied  to  the  Expert  Committee  on 
Posting of Workers questionnaire. Some practical problems have been flagged in relation to 
the  recognition  of  fines  and  penalties  in  other  Member  States  and  grounds  for  refusal  to 
deliver a penalty or a fine. These issues are being discussed by the Member States’ experts in 
the Expert Committee on the Posting of Workers. Some Member States indicated increased 
workload due to the requests.  

18 

 
 
The Internal Market  Information System statistics show that the usage of the administrative 
cooperation for the cross-border enforcement of financial and administrative penalties and/or 
fines is low. 

In  2018,  568  requests  to  notify  a  decision  of  an  administrative  penalty  or  fine  and  201 
requests  to  recover  such  a  penalty  or  fine  were  sent  via  the  Internal  Market  Information 
System.  The  highest  number  of  requests  to  notify  a  decision  were  sent  by  Austria  (550)  as 
were the highest number of requests to recover a penalty or fine (192). 

Slovenia received the most requests to notify a decision (190), followed by Czech Republic 
(90), Romania (67) and Hungary (51). Slovenia also received the highest number of requests 
to  recover a penalty or fine were also  sent  to  Slovenia (69), followed by  Hungary (44) and 
Czech Republic (21). 

See Annex III of the Staff Working Document for an overview of statistics. 

3.11.

  Penalties 

According to Article 20 of the Directive Member States have to set penalties in the event of 
infringements of national provisions adopted pursuant the Directive. The penalties provided 
for shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. 

3.11.1. Penalties  for  violating  administrative  duties  relating  to  the  posting  of 

workers 

All  Member  States  have  implemented  a  system  of  sanctions  applicable  in  the  event  of 
administrative violations.  

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Finland, France, Italy, Luxembourg and Malta have defined the 
possible  range  of  the  financial  sanction  to  be  applied  per  worker.  A  comparison  of  the 
maximum fine per worker shows that this ranges from EUR 1165 in Malta to EUR 10 000 in 
Austria and Finland.  

Alternatively  or  additionally,  Belgium,  Croatia,  Cyprus,  the  Czech  Republic,  Denmark, 
Estonia,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Hungarian,  Ireland,  Latvia,  Lithuania  Luxembourg,  the 
Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and the UK define the range or 
at  least  upper  threshold  of  sanctions  that  are  applicable  per  employer,  irrespective  of  the 
number of workers concerned. The maximum amount of these fines ranges from EUR 240 in 
Lithuania to EUR 48 000 in Belgium. 

In Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and 
Spain a repeated violation will carry an additional sanction. As a result, the fine per worker 
may be raised up to EUR 20 000 in Austria, and also a suspension of activities is envisaged in 
Austria  and  (for  temporary  work  agencies)  in  Spain.  There  are  also  circumstances  defined 
under which the applicable upper threshold can be further increased – and be as high as EUR 
40 000  per  worker  in  Austria  for  repeated  violations  concerning  more  than  three  workers. 
Finally, three countries (Austria, Bulgaria and Croatia) foresee a sanction for the individual 
(manager) involved in the infringement. 

19 

 
 
3.11.2. Penalties for violating the rights of posted workers 

Most  Member  States  stipulate  penalties  applicable  in  the  event  of  non-compliance  by  an 
employer with obligations towards its workers imposed by the Posting of Workers Directive. 

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta and Spain 
take into account  the number of workers concerned in  this case. The maximum  fine ranges 
from  EUR  1165  in  Malta  to  EUR  50 000  (for  denying  premium  for  holiday  work)  in 
Luxembourg.  

Belgium,  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Greece,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Latvia, 
Lithuania, Poland, Portugal (except in some cases), Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and the UK 
have established a system where the sanction to be imposed on the employer is not depending 
of the number of workers concerned. Maximum fines envisaged in these systems range from 
EUR 300 in Lithuania to EUR 500 000 in Germany. 

Repeated  violation  and  other  qualifying  circumstances  lead  to  higher  penalties  in  Austria, 
Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania Slovakia and UK or 
have to be taken into account when determining the amount of the specific sanction as in the 
case  of  Germany.  In  such  circumstances,  the  maximum  fine  per  worker  may  be  as  high  as 
EUR 40 000 in Austria, and the highest possible total fine for an undertaking in Belgium up 
to  EUR  96  000.  Non-monetary  sanctions  in  such  serious  cases  involve  imprisonment  in 
Cyprus and Greece, the suspension of activities in France and the inclusion of the employer 
in  a ‘naming and shaming’ scheme in  the UK.  Finally, Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovakia 
and Slovenia also impose fines on individuals involved in the infringement such as managers.  

The criteria for deciding on the amount of fines are usually the same as the ones referred to in 
Chapter 3.11.1. 

3.11.3. Other measures 

In  Austria,  the  national  law  provides  for  the  possibility  to  prohibit  the  employer  from 
carrying  out  the  work.  Furthermore,  national  law  provides  for  a  “security  deposit”  and  a 
“payment freeze”, which may be imposed in case of suspicion of breach of any relevant rule 
by the employer. 

General assessment 

It has been pointed out by the employers’ representatives that sanctions and the level of fines 
for  not  complying  with  the  administrative  requirements  are  in  some  Member  States  not 
proportionate. In addition to the fines, also injunctions are used, whereby posted workers are 
denied access to their worksite and thereby the provision of service is hindered. According to 
the trade unions, too often sanctions, penalties and fines are neither effective nor dissuasive 
enough.  They  claim  that  the  advantage  for  the  company  in  not  respecting  the  rules  can  be 
very high and the risk to be identified and fined is usually low. 

When  introducing  the  declaration  system  many  Member  States  introduced  penalties  for 
breaching this  administrative requirement.  The  fines are sometimes  as high  as penalties  for 
the violation of rights of workers. In some cases the fines are calculated based on the number 
of posted workers concerned and taking into account previous violations, which may lead to 
high fines.  

20 

 
 
Although the Directive was not yet applicable ratio temporis to the case, it seems worthwhile 
to mention a ruling from 13 November 2018, in case C-33/17, Čepelnik11, where the Court of 
Justice of the European Union held that Article 56 Treaty on the Functioning of the EU must 
be  interpreted  as  precluding  legislation  of  a  Member  State  under  which  the  competent 
authorities  can  order  a  commissioning  party  established  in  that  Member  State  to  suspend 
payments  to  his  contractor  established  in  another  Member  State.  Furthermore,  it  also 
precludes an obligation to pay a security in an amount equivalent to the price still owed for 
the  works  in  order  to  guarantee  payment  of  the  fine  which  might  be  imposed  on  that 
contractor in the event of a proven infringement of the labour law of the first Member State. 

The  proportionality  of  penalties  provided  for  by  Austrian  law  is  also  at  the  core  of  Case 
C-64/18, Maksimovic12. 

4.

  DATA RELATING TO THE POSTING PROCESS 

The  availability  of  comprehensive  and  reliable  data  on  the  posting  process  retains  some 
weaknesses although the implementation of the Directive is bringing some improvements.  

The main source of comparable information on the number of postings and posted workers 
are  the  so-called  ‘Portable  Document  A1’  in  the  field  of  social  security  coordination.  This 
form is provided by the competent Member State at the request of the employer or the person 
concerned and establishes the presumption that the holder is properly affiliated to the social 
security system of the Member State that has issued the certificate. It is up to national social 
security  administrations  to  collect  national  data  as  regards  documents  issued  and  received, 
and to communicate it to the Commission who prepares an annual comparative report within 
the  framework  of  the  Administrative  Commission  for  the  Coordination  of  Social  Security 
Systems. 

The  data  collected  through  this  process  has  the  advantage  of  reliability  and  comparability 
across the Member States. However, it has some limitations. First, the fact that data are based 
on  the  definition  of  posting  according  to  social  security  coordination  rules  creates  some 
mismatches with definitions established by the Posting of Workers Directive. This is notably 
the case as regards the inclusion of the self-employed and the persons active in two or more 
Member States in the total count and on the lack of data regarding postings longer than two 
years, who are included in the Portable Document A1 data. Second, actual compliance with 
social security coordination rules may influence the adequacy of data concerning short-term, 
sudden and repetitive postings. Finally, there are some gaps in  the completeness  of data on 
received posted workers, notably concerning the country of destination of workers posted to 
two or more Member States, which does not have to be collected by the Member States in the 
data collection process in the social security coordination domain.  

As  can  be  seen  from  Chapter  3.6.1  all  Member  States  (except  the  UK)  have  introduced  an 
obligation of a simple declaration and, therefore, it is now possible to complement the data 
based on the Portable Document A1 form with data concerning the posting declarations.  

11 Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 November 2018, in Case C‑33/17, Čepelnik d.o.o. v Michael 
Vavti, ECLI:EU:C:2018:896 
12 Judgment of the Court of 12 September 2019, in Case C-64/18 Maksimovic (Joined Cases C-64/18, C-140/18, 
C-146/18, C-148/18)  ECLI:EU:C:2019:723. 

21 

 
 
                                                           
In 2018, this data was for the first time collected through a questionnaire, which was sent to 
the  Expert  Committee  on  Posting  of  Workers.  The  report  presents  the  results  of  the  data 
collection  on  the  number  of  posted  workers  registered  in  the  declaration  systems  of  host 
Member  States  in2017.  This  report  can  be  found  in  Annex  IV  of  the  Staff  Working 
Document. 

These  two  data  collection  sources  have  potential  to  complement  each  other  and  enable  to 
have more precise information in particular on the number of posted workers and postings in 
the  host  Member  States,  the  sectors  of  activity  they  are  working  in  and  on  the  average 
duration of the posting period. 

5.

  BILATERAL AGREEMENTS 

According  to  the  replies  to  the  questionnaire  sent  to  the  Expert  Committee  on  Posting  of 
Workers,  most  Member  States  (Austria,  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Czech  Republic,  Germany, 
Spain,  Finland,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania,  Slovakia,  Estonia, 
Denmark, Croatia, France, the Netherlands) have bilateral agreements or joint statements in 
place  with  other  Member  States  covering  the  area  of  posting  of  workers  when  it  comes  to 
administrative cooperation between different authorities. A majority of these Member States 
has  reported  that  they  have  made  use  of  these  agreements  instead  of  or  in  addition  to  the 
Internal  Market  Information  System,  and  this  for  various  reasons.  According  to  Member 
States replies, in Croatia and Netherlands the first contact is made bilaterally, to collect more 
information, and after that the Internal Market Information System is used for exchanges. In 
Estonia, information exchange is considered to be faster over the phone and e-mail.  

However,  there  is  also  a  large  number  of  Member  States  (Czech  Republic,  Germany, 
Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Latvia, Malta, Portugal, Sweden, Slovakia, Cyprus and the 
Netherlands)  who  use  only  the  Internal  Market  Information  System  for  the  administrative 
cooperation  because  it  is  considered  more  convenient  or  in  the  absence  of  any  applicable 
bilateral agreements. 

6.

  POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 

Article  24(1)  of  the  Directive  states  that  the  Commission,  while  making  the  review  of  the 
application  and  implementation  of  the  Directive,  shall  also  propose,  where  appropriate, 
necessary  amendments  and  modifications.  In  addition,  Article  24(2)  of  the  Directive 
expressly indicates in two cases the possibility for amendments. Firstly, regarding the lists of 
factual  elements  in  Article  4(2)  and  (3)  concerning  the  overall  assessment  to  determine 
whether  an  undertaking  genuinely  performs  substantial  activities  in  the  Member  State  of 
establishment  and  whether  a  posted  worker  carries  out  his  work  temporarily  in  a  Member 
State  other  than  the  one  in  which  he  or  she  normally  works,  respectively.  Regarding  these 
two lists, possible new elements could be defined. Secondly, regarding the adjustment of the 
deadlines in Article 6(6) with a view to reducing them.  

With  respect  to  the  lists  of  factual  elements  in  Article  4(2)  and  (3),  some  Member  States 
generally  indicated  in  their  replies  to  the  questionnaire  that  these  lists  were  considered 
adequate,  with  some  Member  States  suggesting  to  add  in  Article  4(2),  for  example, 
information  related  to  the  turnover,  the  address  of  companies  registered  office  or  personal 
manager,  the  payment  of  social  security  contributions  and  corporate  tax,  the  law  and/or 
collective  agreement  applicable  and  the  undertaking  that  directs  and  supervises  the  worker, 
defines overtime work and sets the work schedule. However, these issues are already covered 

22 

 
 
by  Article  4  (or  questions  related  to  Article  4  in  the  Internal  Market  Information  System), 
Article 9(1) or could fall under Article 9(2), if Member States wish to make the use of them. 
In  addition,  it  has  to  be  noted,  that  the  lists  of  elements  in  Article  4  are  not  exhaustive. 
Member  States  may  define  other/additional  elements  in  their  national  law  transposing  the 
Directive, as some have done.  

Therefore, the Commission does not consider necessary to propose to amend Article 4 at this 
stage. 

With respect to the deadlines set in Article 6(6), for supplying the information requested in 
the  Internal  Market  Information  System,  no  Member  State  suggested  in  their  replies  to  the 
questionnaire  that  these  should  be  shortened.  The  Internal  Market  Information  System's 
statistics show that about 2/3 of the requests are replied within the deadlines.  

For  the  above  reasons,  the  Commission  does  not  consider  it  useful  to  have  Article  6(6) 
amended  at  this  stage.  In  view  of  further  enhancing  the  enforcement  of  the  Posting  of 
Workers  Directive,  the  Commission  will take  steps  to  promote  and  facilitate  administrative 
cooperation, in particular through the European Labour Authority.  

There are some areas that have been brought to the attention of the Commission by different 
stakeholders and where improvements could be necessary. These include the simplification of 
the administrative control systems by, for example, introducing a single EU-wide declaration 
system or a common template for websites. These issues could be solved by common work in 
the  Expert  Committee  on  Posting  of  Workers  or  in  the  framework  of  the  European  Labour 
Authority, once it becomes operational and thus do not require amending of the Directive. 

In the light of the above and taking into account the limited period of time the Directive has 
been  in  force  and  the  fact  that  no  further  problems  were  indicated  that  would  require 
amendments to the Directive the Commission does not consider it necessary to propose any 
amendments to the Directive at this stage. 

7.

  CONCLUSIONS 

Rules applicable to posting have been discussed at the EU level during the past five years.  In 
May  2014,  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  agreed  on  the  Enforcement  Directive 
2014/67/EU (“the  Directive”), which contains  a  common framework of a set  of provisions, 
measures  and  control  mechanisms  necessary  for  better  and  uniform  implementation, 
application and enforcement in practice of Directive 96/71/EC. 

Following a proposal from the Commission in March 2016, the European Parliament and the 
Council  agreed  in  July  2018  on  Directive  2018/957/EU  amending  the  Posting  of  Workers 
Directive 96/71/EC with a view to better ensuring the rights of workers and guaranteeing fair 
competition  for  service  providers.  The  amendments  introduced  by  Directive  2018/957  only 
apply from 30 July 2020. 

The Commission closely worked with all relevant actors from the Member States and social 
partners,  in  the  preparation  on  the  implementation  of  the  new  rules.  This  work  as  regards 
Directive 2018/957/EU is still ongoing.  

23 

 
 
Today, the Commission notes that the transposition by all Member States of the Directive has 
improved  the  enforcement  of  the  Posting  of  Workers  Directive  in  the  Member  States,  in 
particular  through  administrative  cooperation  through  the  Internal  Market  Information 
System.  By  introducing  administrative  requirements  and  control  measures,  Member  States 
are  in  a  better  position  to  monitor  compliance  with  the  rules  and  ensure  that  the  rights  of 
posted workers are guaranteed. 

The Commission will continue working with the Member States to ensure that the Directive 
continues  to  be  correctly  transposed  and  applied,  in  particular  as  regards  the administrative 
requirements and control measures and subcontracting liability. 

Furthermore, to ensure a greater coherence in the interpretation and application of the posting 
rules throughout the EU, the Commission has also published the Practical Guide on Posting, 
after  consulting  the  Member  States  representatives  and  the  European  level  social  partners 
organisations. The document aims at assisting employers, workers and national authorities in 
understanding  the  rules  on  posting  of  workers.  It  will  be  regularly  updated  to  take  into 
account new developments. This will be the case in particular concerning the application of 
posting rules to mobile international transport workers to integrate the case law of the Court13 
and the changes in the legal framework14. 

The  Commission  will  also  continue  to  provide  support,  together  with  the  European  Labour 
Authority,  as  soon  as  it  becomes  operational,  to  all  actors  involved.  In  particular,  it  will 
promote cooperation between the authorities in charge of the administrative cooperation and 
mutual assistance in order to ensure synergies between all information and assistance services 
and  to  facilitate  compliance  with  administrative  requirements  and  support  cross-border 
enforcement procedures relating to penalties and fines. 

13 In particular in joint cases C-370/17 and C-37/18 and in cases C-16/18 and C-815/18. 
14 See the proposal for a lex specialis for international road transport workers, document COM(2017)278 and 
the proposal for a Regulation to update EU Social Security Coordination Rules COM(2016) 815. 

24