Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee – Access to social protection for the self-employed – analysis, limitations and scope for improvement (exploratory opinion requested by the Polish Presidency)
Date: 2025-03-27
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU Member State, European social policy, labour force, labour market, self-employed person, social rights, social security, working conditions








C_202502964EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2964


16.6.2025






Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee

Access to social protection for the self-employed – analysis, limitations and scope for improvement


(exploratory opinion requested by the Polish Presidency)

(C/2025/2964)


Rapporteur: 
Marcin Antoni ZIELENIECKI






Advisor


Marta OTTO (for the rapporteur)
Jukka AHTELA (for Group I)




Request from the Polish Presidency of the Council


Letter, 6.9.2024




Legal basis


Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union




Section responsible


Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship




Adopted in section


11.3.2025




Adopted at plenary session


27.3.2025




Plenary session No


595




Outcome of vote
(for/against/abstentions)


122/0/3




1.   Conclusions and recommendations









1.1.


The EESC refers to Article 151 TFEU, according to which – taking into account the fundamental social rights set out in the European Social Charter and the Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers – the European Union and the Member States seek to ensure, among other things, adequate social protection, and measures taken to this end should take the diversity of national practices into account, particularly in the field of contractual relations, as well as the need to maintain the competitiveness of the EU’s economy. Principle 12 of the European Pillar of Social Rights, proclaimed in 2017, stipulates that, regardless of the type and duration of their employment relationship, workers, and, under comparable conditions, the self-employed have the right to adequate social protection.












1.2.


The Committee points out that an EU recommendation on access to social protection (2019/C 387/01) (1) was issued on 8 November 2019. It recommended that Member States ensure formal and effective access to social protection for all workers providing labour in both standard and non-standard forms of employment, as well as for all self-employed workers, without prejudice to Member States’ right to organise their own social protection systems. It also recommended that social protection systems provide an adequate level of protection in a timely manner, in order to maintain a decent standard of living and ensure appropriate income replacement while at the same time preventing people from falling into poverty.












1.3.


The Committee agrees with the European Commission’s assessment set out in its report for the Council of 31 January 2023 on the implementation of the Council Recommendation on access to social protection for workers and the self-employed (2019/C 387/01). The report found that in some Member States where non-standard and self-employed workers still do not enjoy sufficient protection, reform plans had not been submitted or the submitted plans were not ambitious enough (European Commission, 2023, p. 27). The majority of the plans presented do not aim to address all protection gaps identified during monitoring or in the context of the European Semester (ibid. p. 26).












1.4.


The Committee points out that, according to Article 153(4) TFEU, defining the fundamental principles of social security systems falls within the remit of the Member States. The EU’s role, on the other hand, is to support and complement the work of the Member States in the field of social security and social protection of workers and the modernisation of social protection systems (Article 153(1)(c) and (k) TFEU). To this end, the European Parliament and the Council can take steps to encourage cooperation among Member States and, when it comes to social security and social protection of workers, may adopt a directive setting out minimum requirements for gradual implementation, taking into account the conditions and technical rules in each Member State (Article 153(2)(b) TFEU). Such a directive requires unanimity in the Council. It must not introduce administrative, financial and legal constraints that prevent small and medium-sized enterprises from being set up and developed. It must not affect Member States’ right to define the fundamental principles of their own social security systems, nor prevent Member States from maintaining or putting in place more stringent protective measures compatible with the Treaties.












1.5.


The EESC appreciates the efforts of previous presidencies to ensure access to adequate social protection for self-employed people through the social insurance systems of the EU Member States. The Committee also points out that the limited progress made on carrying out measures in this area justifies continuing such measures in future.












1.6.


The Committee maintains the position it took in opinion INT/628 from 2013 on the Abuse of the status of self-employed (2), which stated that developing a good social security system for self-employed people in all Member States, taking account of the specific features of self-employed status, should help to combat possible abuses.












1.7.


The COVID-19 pandemic showed how important it is to have access to employment retention schemes that are easy to activate and resilient, which should also cover self-employed people. The Committee maintains the position it expressed in opinion SOC/802 from 2024 that according to the ILO’s model, suitable and sustainable social protection systems are essential prerequisites for ensuring a good quality of life for all (3). The EESC therefore believes that Member States, acting in accordance with national practices, should make progress towards creating social protection systems that would focus not only on workers – employed in non-standard or standard form – but also on all citizens, and would grant minimum income for those unable to work and that would also combine incentives for those able to work with help in returning to work, in accordance with principle 14 of the European Pillar of Social Rights. The financial stability of these social protections should also be guaranteed at all times.












1.8.


In the Committee’s view, the EU can take action here, beginning with traditional policy monitoring (application of Articles 145-150 and 156-159 TFEU), and followed by further suitable measures to promote the interplay between labour market and social protection policies. In accordance with the Treaties, there is greater scope for action for labour market policy than social protection. The EU’s aim should be to encourage Member States to seek to ensure that the self-employed have access to the same or equivalent protection as is already available to workers, should they become temporarily unemployed (4).












1.9.


The Committee recommends that social protection issues continue to be monitored as part of the European Semester, particularly those concerning non-standard work and self-employed people. Monitoring access to social protection of people in atypical forms of employment, and of the self-employed, is essential to further identify gaps in formal and effective access to social protection.












1.10.


The EESC believes that exchanges of experience between Member States are an important way to develop best practices when it comes to adapting national social protection systems to non-standard work and rectifying any imbalances that may exist. The Committee stresses the importance of mutual learning opportunities, with representatives of the social partners and the EESC taking part in addition to representatives of Member State governments.




2.   Background, purpose and gist of the opinion









2.1.


For decades, interest in self-employment as a legal form of work in the Member States of the European Union has been gradually increasing. In 2022, there were 27,7 million self-employed people in the European Union, making up 13,7 % of the total workforce (5). In 2021, the highest levels of self-employment in the European Union were recorded in Greece (31,82 %) and Italy (21,83 %) and the lowest in countries such as: Latvia (12,98 %), France (12,61 %), Hungary (12,51 %), Austria (11,91 %), Lithuania (11,63 %), Sweden (10,60 %), Luxembourg (10,23 %), Denmark (8,84 %) and Germany (8,75 %) (6).












2.2.


The development of modern technologies, computerisation and digitalisation have undoubtedly contributed to the spread of self-employment. This has resulted, among other things, in the expansion of platform work which is very often carried out in self-employment conditions. At present, over 28 million people in the EU work through digital labour platforms. This number is expected to reach 43 million in 2025 (7). With an eye to the forthcoming implementation of the Directive ((EU) 2024/2831) (8) on improving working conditions in platform work, the Committee would like to draw Member States’ attention to the need to ensure formal and effective access to social protection systems for those carrying out such work, in accordance with the scope and definitions laid down in the directive (Article 5(3)). Article 5(2) of that directive requires Member States to establish an effective rebuttable legal presumption of an employment relationship that constitutes a procedural facilitation for the benefit of persons performing platform work. Article 4(1) of the directive requires Member States to have appropriate and effective procedures in place to verify and ensure the determination of the correct employment status of persons performing platform work, with a view to ascertaining the existence of an employment relationship as defined by the law, collective agreements or practice in force in the Member States, with consideration of the case law of the Court of Justice, including through the application of the legal presumption of an employment relationship. Although the presumption of an employment relationship does not apply to social security matters (Article 5(3) of the directive), the Committee hopes that these measures can encourage Member States to address the challenges of ensuring social protection for the self-employed.












2.3.


Individuals carrying out economic activity are covered by some form of social protection in almost all EU Member States. In the vast majority, self-employed people are entitled to a narrower range of protection than workers. The biggest differences occur in the areas of sickness and maternity benefits, and accident and unemployment benefits. More than 15 million self-employed people in the EU do not, for example, have access to unemployment benefits should they stop working (9). Defining the structure and financing of social security systems is a competence of the Member States and the EU must fully respect this competence. Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (10) is also based on the premise that there are significant differences between national legislations in terms of the personal scope of social security coverage and therefore requires that the specific features of national legislation in this area must be respected.












2.4.


The activity carried out by self-employed people may be a sole source of income, or an additional source alongside work on another basis, e.g. as an employee. Each of these sources of income from work has its own legal framework and socio-economic objectives. Legal arrangements that exclude or limit the social security obligation for conducting economic activity in conjunction with other types of insurance, e.g. that one would have as an employee, may limit the scope of social protection to which the self-employed are subject, and lead to the development of bogus self-employment.












2.5.


In some Member States, rules on the determination of entitlements and contributions are detrimental to self-employed people as they prevent them from having effective and adequate access to social protection. Eurostat data shows that the self-employed are at a higher risk of poverty than workers in standard forms of employment. This is especially the case for the solo self-employed (11). EU Member States can be divided into two main groups, reflecting the wide range of approaches across the Member States. The first being the 16 countries that link self-employed people’s contributions to their actual income. This does not mean that the contribution is always paid on the whole of the income. It is often part of it, and in some cases thresholds are applied. This group consists of: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, France, the Netherlands, Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden. In the other countries, the contribution is calculated independently of self-employed people’s income. Some countries use the average or minimum wage in their economy as a reference, i.e. Croatia, Spain, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Italy and Germany. Another group – Cyprus and Finland – uses categories of occupations as a basis. Finally, Greece uses flat rates (12).




3.   General comments









3.1.


Insufficient social protection for self-employed people may in some cases be a consequence of taking up work in the form of ‘bogus self-employment’. The EESC refers to the broad understanding of the concept of ‘employment relationship’ adopted in the 2006 ILO Recommendation to allow action to be taken against bogus self-employment. In determining whether or not there is an employment relationship, the primary focus should be on the circumstances laid down in law, collective labour agreements and practices in force in each Member State. These may include circumstances concerning the activities and the remuneration of the employee, irrespective of how the relationship is characterised in, for example, contractual terms. Similarly, according to the CJEU, the classification of a ‘self-employed person’ under national law does not prevent that person being classified as an employee within the meaning of EU law if their independence is merely notional, thereby disguising an employment relationship (13). Criteria for distinguishing between dependent employment and self-employment have been developed in the case law of the CJEU. These include time, place of work and the manner in which it is carried out (14) and the absence of any relationship of subordination between the contractor and the person receiving remuneration from them.












3.2.


There is no uniform definition of self-employment in EU law as such a definition is a matter for the Member States. This makes it difficult to make a clear distinction between genuinely self-employed people working on their own account and bogus self-employment. Each competent authority and each individual body uses its own legal or regulatory framework, which can differ according to their jurisdiction and policy field (e.g. tax legislation, social security, business law, labour market, insurance). If these circumstances are used to circumvent the rules, the abuse of ‘self-employed’ status could lead to a serious distortion of competition for the genuinely self-employed, micro-enterprises, SMEs and the people they employ.












3.3.


Self-employed people are not one homogeneous group. Distinctions must be made between: 1) people carrying out economic activity who employ other people and who tend to work in cooperation with an unlimited number of contractors, 2) people who do not employ other people and tend to work in cooperation with an unlimited number of contractors, and 3) self-employed people economically dependent on one principal client. This distinction is important for establishing potential sources of financing for social security (identifying who pays the contributions). In the case of the first two categories, the economic operator is undoubtedly liable for paying the contributions. In the case of self-employed people who are economically dependent, under individual Member State legislation the party who pays the contributions may be the self-employed person or the contracting entity (15).












3.4.


Provisions in most social security schemes mean that the insurance contributions made by self-employed people are lower than those of employees. The lower contribution base translates to a lower base for benefits available to self-employed people. It should be emphasised that the need to ensure a certain minimum standard of living limits the optimisation of the contribution base, hence national schemes also generally provide for a minimum contribution base that can be declared (16).












3.5.


In the social security schemes of Member States in which the amount of benefits depends on the amount of income from economic activity, at least some self-employed people are at risk of not having enough income to live on in the event of incapacity for work, unemployment or upon reaching retirement age due to not having fully paid contributions on income for such work. Only some self-employed people are able to earn enough when carrying out independent economic activity to allow them (alongside their own resourcefulness) to live in dignity in periods when they are unable to work. Low-skilled or economically dependent self-employed people are at greater risk of poverty, and in countries with a gender pay gap, women are also at risk, especially if they retire earlier than men. In the EESC’s view, Member States should take active steps to ensure access to adequate social protection for those belonging to the above-mentioned groups.




4.   Specific comments









4.1.


The growth in self-employment has led to the formation of a specific professional category – economically dependent self-employed people. In general terms, economically dependent self-employment can be defined as a contractual relationship in which one party, who is formally self-employed, performs duties under conditions similar to those applied to employees. Some Member States have decided to regulate the economic dependence of self-employed people.












4.2.


Following the 2006 Green Paper Modernising labour law to meet the challenges of the 21st century, the EESC notes that there is no EU-wide definition of employment or self-employment. It is therefore for the Member States to define these concepts. Differences between Member States in this respect may, however, contribute to problems regarding the appropriate classification of the form of employment, especially in cases of cross-border work (and cross-border provision of services). In order to facilitate the genuine transition from employment to self-employment and vice versa, it is necessary to correctly apply the legal definitions of employment and self-employment that exist in the Member States.












4.3.


The EESC notes that almost all EU Member States have ratified the European Social Charter of 1961, or the revised version from 1996, meaning that they have agreed ‘to maintain the social security system at a satisfactory level at least equal to that required for ratification of [the ILO convention No 102 concerning minimum social security standards or] the European Code of Social Security’ and ‘to endeavour to raise progressively the system of social security to a higher level’, as stipulated in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 12. The Committee therefore calls on the Member States, within their respective competences, with the appropriate support of the EU institutions and after carrying out social dialogue at the appropriate levels, to ensure that self-employed people have access to adequate social protection as well as decent work and a decent life.












4.4.


Statistics show that more than 40 % of the EU workforce is currently engaged in non-standard forms of employment (Eurostat 2022). Therefore, solutions that are still designed with the traditional worker at their core will most likely be unsuitable for the future of the labour market, particularly as atypical and flexible forms of work become even more common. In light of the changes taking place, it is proposed that social protection systems be adapted to meet the challenges ahead and enable EU societies and economies to make the most of the potential of the future world of work (17). All workers, regardless of the type of gainful activity they engage in, should have access to adequate protection against the same risks. Under Article 3(2) of the 2019 Council Recommendation (2019/C 387/01), the self-employed should be able to access benefits such as sickness benefit, healthcare, maternity and paternity benefits, pensions, survivors’ benefits, benefits in respect of accidents at work and occupational diseases, and unemployment benefits. The inability to earn enough to live on should you fall ill, have a baby, have a disability, suffer an accident at work, have an occupational illness, become unemployed or in old age, this is a fundamental issue that concerns the entire population. It therefore makes sense to protect all workers (18).






Brussels, 27 March 2025.


The President


of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE
               





(1)  Council Recommendation of 8 November 2019 on access to social protection for workers and the self-employed (OJ C 387, 15.11.2019, p. 1).

(2)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Abuse of the status of self-employed’ (own-initiative opinion) (
OJ C 161, 6.6.2013, p. 14).

(3)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee – Imbalances in social protection in general and specifically for the new forms of work and atypical workers (own-initiative opinion) (
OJ C, C/2025/106, 10.1.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/106/oj).

(4)  De Becker, E., Schoukens, P., Spasova, S., Haapanala, H., Marenco, M., Improving Access to Social Protection in the European Union: a proposal for further action: Paper providing expertise to the future Belgian Presidency of the Council of the European Union (January-June 2024), p. 48-49, Ose paper series, 2024.

(5)  EU-Labour force survey 2022, Eurostat.

(6)  Self-employment rate, OECD, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/self-employment-rate.html#indicator-chart.

(7)  PPMI, Study to support the impact assessment of an EU Initiative on improving working conditions in platform work, 2021 – available online.

(8)  Directive (EU) 2024/2831 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on improving working conditions in platform work (OJ L, 2024/2831, 11.11.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/2831/oj).

(9)  European Commission, COM(2023) 43.

(10)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ L 166, 30.4.2004, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2004/883/oj).

(11)  European Commission, COM(2023) 43, p. 19-20.

(12)  Petelczyc, J., Lasocki, T., Dobrowolne ubóstwo. O konsekwencjach dobrowolnego ZUS dla samozatrudnionych [Voluntary Poverty: The Consequences of Voluntary Social Security Payments for Self-Employed Individuals], Polish Economic Network, Warsaw, October 2024, p. 56.

(13)  Judgment C-413/13, FNV Kunsten Informatie en Media, paragraphs 35-36 and judgment C-256/01 Allonby, ECLI:EU:C:2004:18, paragraph 71. See also judgments in cases: Agegate (C-3/87, ECLI:EU:C:1989:650, paragraph 36) and Becu et al. (C-22/98, ECLI:EU:C:1999:419, paragraph 26).

(14)  CJEU judgment C-107/94 Asscher, paragraphs 24-25.

(15)  Krajewski M. Prawny model samozatrudnienia w Polsce – perspektywa ubezpieczeń społecznych [The Legal Model of Self-Employment in Poland – the Social Security Perspective], in W poszukiwaniu prawnego modelu samozatrudnienia w Polsce. Analiza prawnoporówwnawcza [In Search of a Legal Model of Self-Employment in Poland, a Comparative Legal Analysis] edited by T. Duraj, Łódź University Press, Łódź 2024, p. 444-445.

(16)  Krajewski M., op. cit. p. 24.

(17)  Aranguiz, A. (2024), The demise of standard work and the importance of labour neutrality in P. Schoukens, E. De Becker, & T. Keersmaekers (Eds.), Living and working tomorrow (2035): Challenges for social security (administrations) pp. 31-45.

(18)  Aranguiz, A. (2024), The demise of standard work and the importance of labour neutrality in P. Schoukens, E. De Becker, & T. Keersmaekers (Eds.), Living and working tomorrow (2035): Challenges for social security (administrations) pp. 31-45.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2964/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)