EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Strasbourg, 15.9.2026 COM(2026) 985 final

2026/0272 (COD)

Proposal for a

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 establishing a European Labour Authority,

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

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

Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal

Market Information System, and repealing Commission Implementing Decisions (EU)

2017/1256, (EU) 2018/170, (EU) 2018/1020 and (EU) 2018/1021

{SEC(2026) 985 final} - {SWD(2026) 985 final} - {SWD(2026) 986 final} -

{SWD(2026) 987 final}

(Text with EEA relevance)

EN 1 EN

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL

• Reasons for and objectives of the proposal

The free movement of persons is one of the four fundamental freedoms at the heart of the EU

single market and a major achievement of European integration. Labour mobility constitutes

an important element of a well-functioning Union labour market, enabling employers to

address labour and skills shortages by recruiting workers where vacancies cannot be

adequately filled from the domestic workforce, while ensuring that workers can exercise their

right to access employment opportunities across the Union. By facilitating the matching of

labour supply and demand across Member States, labour mobility contributes to a more

efficient allocation of labour, thereby supporting productivity, competitiveness and the

effective functioning of the Union labour market. Beyond its benefits for Europe’s economy,

the free movement of persons expands professional and personal opportunities for individuals,

encourages cultural exchange and a shared sense of community, thereby advancing the

integration of the European Union.

Supporting people, strengthening our societies and our social model is one of the European

Commission’s priorities for the 2024-2029 mandate. Furthermore, the political guidelines for

this mandate highlight that free movement of people and services within the Single Market is

key to the EU’s competitiveness. This orientation is reinforced in the mission letter to

Executive Vice-President Roxana Mînzatu, which prioritises facilitating labour mobility while

ensuring the enforcement of the applicable rules. Against this background, President von der

Leyen announced the Fair Labour Mobility Package in the Commission Work Programme

2026, including a legislative proposal to strengthen the European Labour Authority (ELA).

This package also forms part of the “One Europe, One Market Roadmap”1 of the European

Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission.

This proposal builds on calls from Enrico Letta’s report on the Future of the Single Market2,

which stresses the need to reinforce ELA’s ability to protect working conditions and to strike

a balance between economic development and social rights. Mario Draghi’s report on EU

competitiveness3 also identifies effective labour mobility as a key enabler to address skills

shortages and thus sustain long-term productivity and growth.

Cross-border labour mobility in the EU benefits individuals, workers, employers, economies

and societies. EU citizens highly value the right to move freely within the EU, and a majority

think that people moving within the EU is positive for the labour market.4 Moreover, intra-EU

mobility plays a significant role in the functioning of the Single Market. Approximately 14

million EU citizens live and/or work in another Member State long term (3.9 % of the EU

labour force), alongside 1.9 million cross-border workers and 3.64 million posted workers.

Cross-border employment, often involving longer-term arrangements, has grown steadily over

the years. Posting also remains a major and widely used form of mobility for the short term.5

1 One Europe, One Market Roadmap of the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and

the European Commission, 2026. 2 Enrico Letta (2024), Much more than a market, pp. 83, 104. 3 Mario Draghi (2024), The future of European competitiveness - Part B: In-depth analysis and

recommendations, p. 265. 4 Special Eurobarometer 528: Intra-EU labour mobility after the pandemic, 2022, p 89. 5 Annual Report on Intra-EU Labour Mobility: 2025 Edition, 2026, pp. 13, 16.

EN 2 EN

Third-country national workers alleviate labour shortages and contribute to economic growth

in the euro area, particularly in the context of tight labour markets.6 However, the increased

number of third-country nationals working in the EU gives rise to specific enforcement

challenges. Third-country nationals are overrepresented in cases of underpayment, excessive

working hours, illegal deductions, bogus self-employment and some abusive practices in the

area of subcontracting.7 The particular vulnerability of some third-country nationals risks

undermining fair labour mobility in the EU, as their exploitation undermines the level playing

field. Failures in the effective enforcement of applicable Union and national rules may result

in divergent levels of compliance between economic operators and Member States, thereby

creating distortions of competition and undermining the proper functioning of the Single

Market. As the number of third-country national workers in the EU is expected to continue to

grow, so is the need to ensure their protection and enforcement of their rights.

ELA was established in 2019 by Regulation (EU) 2019/11498, with the objective of

supporting Member States and the Commission in effectively applying and enforcing EU

rules on labour mobility and social security coordination. The context in which ELA operates

has continued to evolve since then. Demographic ageing, declining working-age populations,

and skills shortages and mismatches intensify the need for labour mobility as a central policy

to boost competitiveness and support the green and digital transitions.9

The 2025 evaluation of ELA confirms that the Authority addresses a need for operational

support in the implementation of EU policies related to labour mobility. It particularly does so

by centralising cross-border cooperation, supporting concerted and joint inspections, and

facilitating access to information through large-scale campaigns.10 Academic analysis also

notes ELA’s unique role in filling a coordination gap that national inspectorates could not

bridge by themselves.11 However, the evaluation also identified room for improvement within

the framework of the current mandate as well as certain constraints in this mandate that limit

ELA’s ability to carry out its tasks and cannot be resolved without legislative change (see

Section 3).12

In addition, the European Parliament has called in a January 2024 resolution13 for ELA’s

mandate to be strengthened and for ELA to be provided with sufficient resources. The

Parliament envisages an empowered ELA that has a more proactive enforcement role, carries

out operational analyses based on enhanced data processing capacities and can adequately

protect the rights of third-country nationals.

Today, ELA’s enforcement role remains largely reactive. This is compounded by the fact that

the Authority is not in a position to access and process relevant operational information,

6 Oscar Arce et al. (2025), Foreign workers: a lever for economic growth. 7 See for example European Labour Authority (2025), Posting of third-country nationals: contracting

chains, recruitment patterns, and enforcement issues. Insights from case studies; European Labour

Authority (2023), Report on the cooperation practices, possibilities and challenges between Member

States – specifically in relation to the posting of third-country nationals. 8 Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 establishing

a European Labour Authority, amending Regulations (EC) No 883/2004, (EU) No 492/2011, and (EU)

2016/589 and repealing Decision (EU) 2016/344, OJ L 186, 11.7.2019, p. 21. 9 Labour Market and Wage Developments in Europe: Annual review 2024, 2024, p 33-34. 10 Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the Report form the Commission to the European

Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee: Evaluation of the European

Labour Authority (ELA), SWD(2025) 128 final, p. 63. 11 Jan Cremers (2024), The first term of the European Labour Authority. 12 SWD(2025) 128 final, pp. 64-66. 13 European Parliament resolution of 18 January 2024 on the revision of the European Labour Authority

mandate, P9_TA(2024)0052

EN 3 EN

including personal data, and that its mandate vis-à-vis different categories of third-country

nationals remains uncertain. Moreover, the information provided by ELA about relevant

rights and obligations of individuals and employers in cross-border situations is considered

insufficient and too generic by stakeholders and often fails to reach vulnerable groups,

including third-country nationals working in the EU Member States.

The European network of employment services (EURES) is underperforming. Job placements

through EURES and Member State commitment are both declining. The challenges affecting

the effectiveness of EURES reflect a combination of factors, including competition from

commercial employment platforms, the resources available to the network and changing

labour market conditions. Another important driver of those shortcomings is the

fragmentation of EURES governance between the Commission and ELA.

Finally, ELA’s mediation function remains underexploited, due to its complexity and the

possibility for Member States to opt out at any time.

This proposal therefore aims to provide ELA with the adequate tools to enhance its strategic

and operational capacity to contribute to the enforcement of EU law and improving the

functioning of the internal market. The initiative provides for targeted legal adjustments. It

leaves the Authority’s core objectives and main tasks unchanged. Its specific objectives are as

follows:

• Improving access to, and the quality of, information and support in cross-border

labour mobility situations, ensuring that individuals, intra-EU mobile workers

(including cross-border workers), certain third-country national workers and Union

employers are better able to exercise their rights and fulfil their obligations. Both the

reach of targeted advice and the outcomes for users are to be enhanced.

• Increasing the number of individuals and businesses benefiting from cross-border

mobility support and improving job-matching outcomes by enhancing the efficiency

of governance and operation of the EURES network and portal. A higher number and

share of job placements facilitated by EURES, better CV and job vacancy coverage,

as well as higher user satisfaction with both the EURES portal and governance of the

EURES network are to be achieved.

• Improving the targeting and effectiveness of enforcement actions in cross-border

situations - including in cases involving third-country national workers - by

strengthening ELA’s analytical and operational support for concerted and joint

inspections. EU-level enforcement support is to become more risk-based and

evidence-informed, increasing the number and coverage of concerted and joint

inspections, their targeting through ELA’s analytical work, and satisfaction with the

operational support provided.

• Reducing the number of cross-border disputes by improving the effectiveness and

practical usefulness of ELA’s mediation function, while preserving its cooperative

nature. Uptake, resolution rates and satisfaction with the procedure are to be

enhanced.

In addition, this initiative encompasses targeted adjustments to simplify the EURES

regulatory framework, which currently consists of Regulation (EU) 2016/58914 as well as six

14 Regulation (EU) 2016/589 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2016 on a

European network of employment services (EURES), workers' access to mobility services and the

further integration of labour markets, and amending Regulations (EU) No 492/2011 and (EU) No

1296/2013, OJ L 107, 22.4.2016, p. 1.

EN 4 EN

Commission implementing decisions. These amendments aim to reduce the administrative

burden, notably on national administrations.

• Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area

Over the past decade, the Commission has delivered on improving the regulatory framework

in the field of labour mobility. Building on the extensive body of legislation regarding the free

movement of workers, the posting of workers and social security coordination, the

Commission’s Fair Labour Mobility Package aims to further facilitate the exercise of the

freedom of movement, by removing obstacles to its effectiveness and by simplifying

legislation and procedures (including through digitalisation) while also maintaining a high

level of protection for people that move across borders.

This proposal for a revision of ELA’s mandate complements the other legislative proposals

included in the Fair Labour Mobility Package, i.e. the proposal for a European Social Security

Pass (ESSPASS) and the proposals under the Skills Portability Initiative. These are similarly

intended to reduce obstacles to mobility, while ensuring compliance with the relevant

applicable rules.

The EURES strategy 2030 adopted in May 2026 addresses the challenges identified in the

operation of EURES to the extent that these do not require legislative adjustments. The

strategy is governance-neutral and addresses operational measures. This proposal reinforces

the strategy through targeted legislative measures, notably as regards the governance of the

network and the clarification of roles between ELA and the Commission. Reassigning system

ownership of the EURES portal to the Commission will make it possible to make the most of

synergies with other Commission-managed IT tools and networks, including Europass, the

European Skills, Competences, Qualifications and Occupations classification (ESCO), the

Public Employment Services Network and the EU Talent Pool. The EURES strategy and this

proposal have a combined aim of creating the conditions for reinstating EURES as a useful

tool for labour mobility within the EU.

The forthcoming Regulation on a public interface connected to the Internal Market

Information System (IMI) for the declaration of posting of workers, provisionally agreed

between co-legislators on 23 June 2026, will facilitate the submission of those declarations in

accordance with the Posting of Workers Directive. Since ELA assists Member States and the

Commission in the application and enforcement of this Directive, the Regulation will also be

included in the scope of its activities.

The forthcoming revision modernising the legal framework for the coordination of social

security systems (Regulations (EC) No 883/200415 and (EC) No 987/200916) will facilitate the

exercise of citizens’ rights, improve legal clarity and make short-term cross-border activities

and business trips easier for businesses and workers. The scope of ELA’s activities already

covers these Regulations, and the same will apply to their amendments. The goal of

continuing to facilitate cross-border mobility is further reinforced by this proposal.

The EU Talent Pool Regulation, which was adopted in April 202617 will facilitate

international recruitment to address labour and skills shortages in the EU. It will also include

specific safeguards to ensure that this recruitment is fair. Clarifying ELA’s role as regards

15 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. 16 Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009

laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of

social security systems, OJ L 284, 30.10.2009, p.1. 17 Regulation (EU) 2026/1047 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2026

establishing an EU Talent Pool, OJ L, 2026/1047, 12.5.2026.

EN 5 EN

certain third-country national workers through this initiative will complement these efforts to

ensure protection of those workers on the EU labour market and maintain a level playing

field.

Ensuring fair labour mobility, including through ELA’s support for proper implementation

and enforcement of the related rules, is also a key component of the European Pillar of Social

Rights Action Plan18. It highlights ELA’s role in supporting national authorities through

capacity building and the provision of information on rights and obligations when working

abroad. This initiative aims to strengthen that role.

In addition, ELA works closely with the other EU decentralised agencies in the area of

employment and social affairs: the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and

Working Conditions (Eurofound), the European Centre for the Development of Vocational

Training (Cedefop), the European Training Foundation (ETF), and the European Agency for

Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA). ELA has established cooperation agreements,

including action plans with concrete activities, with all of these agencies with the aim of

exploiting synergies and avoiding duplications. While ELA’s mandate does not primarily

concern criminal matters, its enforcement support may relate to areas falling under the remit

of criminal law at national level, for instance when it comes to trafficking in human beings for

the purpose of labour exploitation. ELA therefore also cooperates with the European Union

Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and the European Union Agency for

Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust). This proposal would result in ELA complementing

rather than duplicating the work of other EU decentralised agencies or institutions.

• Consistency with other Union policies

This proposal is consistent with the Single Market strategy19 which aims to create a simple,

seamless and strong European market, working to its full potential. It also explicitly states that

strengthening ELA is one of the actions to achieve this objective. As detailed in Section 3,

this initiative will facilitate cross-border labour mobility and reduce the compliance and

recruitment costs of cross-border operations for companies, particularly SMEs. As part of the

“One Europe, One Market Roadmap”, it is therefore expected to have a marginally positive

impact on the competitiveness of EU businesses, by helping to address labour and skills

shortages by improving access to information and lowering cross-border recruitment costs.

In the area of information provision, the initiative complements existing EU advisory

networks and platforms, such as SOLVIT, Your Europe Advice (YEA) and the Europe Direct

Contact Centre (EDCC). SOLVIT assists individuals and businesses when public authorities

breach their Single Market rights. YEA provides free, personalised legal advice on rights

under EU law. EDCC is the EU’s general helpline. While there may be certain overlaps with

the subject matters under ELA’s remit, none of those initiatives provide individuals and

businesses with the tailored guidance on their rights and obligations, in-person counselling

and outreach to vulnerable groups through local actors experienced in the specific local

context, which ELA would ensure under its renewed mandate. Furthermore, reforming ELA’s

mediation function could complement problem-solving services like SOLVIT, as it could

increase the potential for some cases that remain unresolved through SOLVIT to be sent to

ELA for mediation.

18 https://op.europa.eu/webpub/empl/european-pillar-of-social-rights/en/ 19 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European

Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. The Single Market: our European

home market in an uncertain world. A Strategy for making the Single Market simple, seamless and

strong. COM(2025) 500 final.

EN 6 EN

As regards ELA’s role where its activities involve third-country national workers, the

proposal is complementary to the EU’s migration agenda and policies, notably the European

Asylum and Migration Management strategy20 to the extent it aims at improving labour and

talent mobility to boost competitiveness. The strategy explicitly mentions improving ELA’s

ability to address challenges related to violations of the rights of third-country national

workers and improving enforcement work in this area. The proposal clarifies ELA’s mandate

in view of supporting Member States in the enforcement of specific provisions of Directives

2009/52/EC, 2014/36/EU, (EU) 2024/1233 and Council Directive 2001/55/EC to the extent

that they concern employment and social security rights of third-country national workers,

where this is necessary for achieving the Authority’s objectives. Covering the specific

provisions from the mentioned migration directives will ensure a consistent application of

fundamental rights across different categories of workers. ELA’s activities in relation to those

Directives will therefore be ancillary to those already conducted within the current mandate.

With regard to ELA’s increased capacity to access and process operational information,

including personal data, the proposal remains fully aligned with the EU’s data protection

framework, in particular the Regulation on the protection of personal data by EU institutions,

bodies, offices and agencies21.

The initiative also takes into account the ‘Common Approach’ of the European Parliament,

the Council of the EU and the European Commission on decentralised agencies regarding

aspects such as the voting rules of the Management Board.22

2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY

• Legal basis

The proposal concerns the amendment of Regulations (EU) 2019/1149 and (EU) 2016/589. It

is therefore based on the same legal bases as those Regulations: Articles 46 and 48 of the

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). These provide for the free

movement of workers and the coordination of social security systems within the Union, which

is the centre of gravity of this proposal.

• Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)

The subsidiarity principle applies because the proposal does not fall under the EU’s exclusive

competence. The objectives of the proposal cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member

States at national, regional or local level. They can be better achieved at Union level for the

following reasons:

Member States acting individually cannot sufficiently address issues with a cross-border

dimension, such as those within ELA’s mandate. Specifically:

• the provision of high-quality and up-to-date information and services to the public

regarding their rights and obligations in cross-border situations needs to be

coordinated at Union level to ensure consistent, clear, and efficient messaging;

20 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. European Asylum

and Migration Management Strategy. COM(2026) 45 final. 21 Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the

protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions,

bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No

45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC, OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p.39. 22 Joint Statement of the European Parliament, the Council of the EU and the European Commission on

decentralised agencies, 2012.

EN 7 EN

• the application of Union law in the fields of cross-border labour mobility and social

security coordination requires cooperation between Member States, meaning that no

Member State can act alone;

• to increase synergies and consistency between Member States in the application and

enforcement of Union law and to ensure legal certainty for administrations and

individuals alike, it is necessary to develop a coordinated and joint approach at

Union level instead of relying on a network of bilateral or multilateral agreements.

Moreover, the identified weaknesses in ELA’s mandate are rooted in regulatory issues at the

EU level. As they stem from structural deficiencies in Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 itself, they

cannot be remedied by Member States alone and require targeted legislative intervention at

the EU level.

The amendments to Regulation (EU) 2016/589, other than those concerning the repartition of

tasks between ELA and the Commission, are intended to simplify the EU-level regulatory

framework concerning the functioning of EURES and cannot be implemented by Member

States individually for that reason.

• Proportionality

The proposal is a proportional targeted response to the need to overcome certain shortcomings

in ELA’s mandate that are currently constraining its ability to support cross-border

enforcement of EU law. It does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve this goal. It does

not impose new legal obligations on individuals or employers, does not transfer enforcement

competence to the Union level or interfere with national decision-making, legislation, or

enforcement activities. Moreover, it leaves wide discretion to Member States in how they

make use of the reinforced support offered by ELA in the application and enforcement of

Union law. It does not confer autonomous inspection or sanctioning powers on the Authority,

as inspections, including those requested by ELA, remain subject to Member States’ consent.

Similarly, participation in mediation is voluntary for Member States.

The initiative draws on the lessons learned from the 2025 evaluation of ELA. It remains

limited to resolving those shortcomings which require targeted legislative changes and cannot

be remedied by ELA within the context of its current legal framework. All the other lessons

learned through the evaluation are being addressed in an action plan endorsed by ELA’s

Management Board in May 2026. The Impact Assessment Report accompanying this proposal

outlines how the proposal achieves an appropriate balance in meeting its various objectives.

This revision is limited to making the necessary mandate adjustments while leaving ELA’s

core objectives and tasks unchanged.

Amendments to Regulation (EU) 2016/589, other than those concerning the repartition of

tasks between ELA and the Commission, do not change any essential elements of the EURES

regulatory framework. They merely remove reporting obligations and administrative burden,

where these are not required for the efficient functioning of the EURES network.

• Choice of the instrument

The proposed instrument is a regulation, amending Regulations (EU) 2019/1149 and (EU)

2016/589. The choice of this instrument is justified by the principle of parallelism of forms

whereby the amending act must be of the same type of act as the act to be amended. This

legislative instrument is considered most suitable because the drivers of the identified

problems are rooted in the current legislation and cannot be resolved through non-legislative

measures alone. An amending regulation provides the legal certainty required to achieve the

objectives of this initiative.

EN 8 EN

3. RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER

CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS

• Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation

This proposal follows up on the 2025 evaluation of ELA, which found that by the end of the

first semester 2023, ELA had started working towards its objectives, addressing a previously

unmet need for operational support in the implementation of EU labour mobility policies.

However, a definitive overall assessment of its performance was made difficult by the

absence of result indicators.23

This initiative seeks to implement the lessons learned in the evaluation which cannot be

addressed through the Authority’s action plan alone but require targeted legislative changes.

In particular, the evaluation highlights certain limitations in the Authority’s mandate that may

be affecting ELA’s potential. These limitations concern, for instance, data handling

competencies, cooperation with Member States around concerted and joint inspections,

increased information provision, the role of ELA in situations involving certain third-country

national workers and its responsibilities regarding EURES.24

This proposal draws on the underlying study25 that supported the evaluation, which provides

an in-depth analysis of the Authority’s efficiency, effectiveness, coherence, EU added value

and relevance.

This proposal also builds on the evidence collected in the context of other relevant

implementation and activity reports, notably the latest EURES biennial report from 202526

and the 2024 implementation report regarding the Posting of Workers Directive27.

Furthermore, where relevant, it takes note of the 2024 joint evaluation of the previously

mentioned four other EU decentralised agencies in the field of employment and social

affairs28.

• Stakeholder consultations

The views of stakeholders have been collected in various formats. As mentioned above, this

proposal for a revision builds on the data collected and analysis carried out in the context of

the 2025 evaluation of ELA and the study supporting that evaluation. In this context,

extensive consultations were carried out through a mix of activities. These included a public

EU survey, a public call for evidence, a survey targeting ELA stakeholders, and a survey

targeting ELA staff and Management Board members, in-depth interviews with key

stakeholders and a workshop with social partners.

To avoid duplication of work, additional consultation activities in the context of the impact

assessment followed a targeted approach that aimed to supplement the findings from the

evaluation and focused on the key issues raised by it. To this end, further feedback from the

members of ELA’s Management Board was collected after the publication of the evaluation.

In addition, a targeted implementation dialogue on fair labour mobility29 with 29 external

23 SWD(2025) 128 final, pp. 60, 63. 24 SWD(2025) 128 final, p. 66. 25 Study supporting the evaluation of the European Labour Authority, 2025. 26 COM(2025) 538 final 27

Monica Andriescu et al. (2024), Study supporting the Monitoring of the Posting of Workers Directive

2018/957/EU and of the Enforcement Directive 2014/67/EU: The situation of temporary cross-border mobile

workers and workers in subcontracting chains. 28 Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the Report form the Commission to the European

Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee: Evaluation of EU

Agencies: Eurofound, Cedefop, ETF and EU-OSHA, SWD(2024) 222 final. 29 Implementation Dialogue on fair labour mobility, 16 September 2025

EN 9 EN

stakeholders was held in September 2025. All the participants in the dialogue welcomed the

announcement of the Fair Labour Mobility Package. They highlighted the need for measures

that build on existing tools to make mobility more equitable, safeguard workers’ rights and

support businesses. The participants particularly called for increased powers for ELA to

organise joint inspections, finalise the remuneration calculator for posting of workers,

continue raising awareness about workers’ rights, help harmonise the single national websites

and support quality control on the accuracy of information and process data to effectively

identify cases of labour exploitation.

Following the implementation dialogue, a dedicated hearing with social partners on the Fair

Labour Mobility Package was held in November 2025. 51 different employer and business

membership organisations and trade unions were represented. 10 written contributions were

sent to the Commission following the hearing. While there were different views on the

opportunity and scope of the revision, all social partner organisations identified areas in which

they supported strengthening ELA’s operations.

A public call for evidence on strengthening ELA by reviewing its mandate took place from 5

December 2025 to 2 January 2026. A total of 56 written submissions were received. All the

contributions are publicly available on the official Commission website.30

The details concerning consultation methods and stakeholders’ views can be found in Annex

2 to the Impact Assessment Report. The input that was received was taken into due account in

the preparation of this proposal.

• Collection and use of expertise

The Commission relied on internal as well as external expertise when preparing this proposal

and the accompanying Impact Assessment Report. Several reports and studies commissioned

by the Commission have fed into this initiative. These include the study supporting the

evaluation of ELA, complemented by expert advice from the MoveS network of legal experts

in the field of intra-EU mobility and data collected by the Network Statistics FMSSFE led by

the KU Leuven Research Institute for Work and Society (HIVA). The proposal also takes into

account the resolution of the European Parliament31 of 18 January 2024 on the revision of

ELA’s mandate.

In addition, relevant academic research as well as a wide range of publications by other EU

institutions and agencies (the European Parliament. ELA, Eurofound, Eurojust), dedicated

Commission services (Your Europe Advice, SOLVIT) and international organisations (ILO,

OECD) have informed this proposal. The Impact Assessment Report contains a detailed

overview of the relevant literature that was considered.

• Impact assessment

In line with its Better Regulation policy, the Commission carried out an impact assessment of

policy options in preparation of this initiative. The Impact Assessment Report32 and its

Executive Summary33 are publicly available. This work was supported by structured

consultation within the Commission via an inter-service steering group.

The various policy options that were analysed and evaluated address the problems identified

in relation to four key policy areas: 1) information provision, 2) EURES, 3) cooperation and

enforcement, and 4) mediation. In accordance with the Better Regulation Guidelines, the

30 Call for evidence – Strengthening the European Labour Authority by reviewing its mandate 31 P9_TA(2024)0052 32 SWD(2026) 986 33 SWD(2026) 987

EN 10 EN

policy options’ impacts were assessed against the criteria of effectiveness, efficiency,

coherence and proportionality, relative to the baseline scenario, under which ELA’s mandate

would not be adjusted and challenges would be addressed only through non-legislative

measures, including the above-mentioned action plan. As a result of this analysis, a package

of targeted measures is now being put forward, which addresses the shortcomings identified

in specific areas. The aim is to enhance ELA’s operational capacity, while maintaining its

core objectives and tasks.

In relation to information provision, options included either (i) ELA managing grants to

support personalised information provision and counselling through external organisations, or

(ii) ELA providing this support directly. Managing grants is the most efficient and

proportional choice, given that it leverages existing local and sectoral expertise while

avoiding the high fixed costs associated with ELA building direct advisory capacities.

As regards EURES, the policy alternatives ranged from (i) reassigning the European

Coordination Group chair and IT system ownership of the EURES portal to the Commission

to (ii) transferring all EURES-related tasks entirely to the Commission or (iii) moving all

tasks completely to ELA. The first of these options leverages the strengths of both institutions

and allows for the maximisation of synergies with other IT tools managed by the Commission

as well as other networks managed by ELA. Under this option, the Authority remains in

charge of all other tasks of the European Coordination Office of the EURES network.

In the area of cooperation and enforcement, all considered options involved empowering ELA

to access and process operational information, including personal data and clarify its mandate

to support the protection of employment and social security rights of certain third-country

nationals. However, the options differed with regard to the initiation of inspections, either (i)

maintaining their voluntary nature for Member States combined with a stronger duty to

cooperate or (ii) empowering ELA to impose mandatory inspections. Staffing sub-options

included local contact points, a seconded pool of National Inspection Liaison Officers or

permanent ELA inspectors. Voluntary inspections and a stronger duty to cooperate are

favoured as this option balances effectiveness with national competences. A dedicated pool of

seconded inspectors is the chosen staffing option, because seconded inspectors have the

essential local knowledge and networks needed to provide an operational bridge at a

reasonable cost.

Concerning mediation, options included (i) simplifying the complex procedure to incentivise

its voluntary use or (ii) introducing stricter conditions which require Member States to

provide formal, substantiated justifications for opting out of mediation. The first option of

simplifying the procedure is preferred, because it is expected to reduce administrative friction

without threatening to damage the mutual trust required for voluntary dispute resolution.

This package of targeted measures will improve protection for workers, including third-

country nationals, given that more targeted and effective inspections will aid the enforcement

of compliance with labour standards. Workers and jobseekers will also derive advantages

from smoother cross-border mobility owing to improved information provision, counselling

and job-matching through EURES. Employers will benefit from a reduction in unfair

competition as well as from improved job-matching through EURES, better access to

information and counselling, which will reduce the compliance and recruitment costs

associated with cross-border operations. The 3.6 million SMEs in the EU that are looking to

recruit internationally will be particularly positively impacted, since they are

disproportionately affected by regulatory complexity and uncertainty by comparison with

larger companies, and are more likely to rely on EURES services. National authorities will

benefit from enhanced support for enforcement activities and streamlined mediation

EN 11 EN

procedures that will reduce the administrative costs resulting from unresolved disputes,

notwithstanding national competences.

The initiative does not impose new legal obligations or related compliance costs on citizens or

businesses. National authorities will face opportunity costs due to seconding one additional

staff member per Member State to ELA. However, this cost is expected to be offset by the

benefits gained through better-targeted inspections and enhanced analytical support.

The proposal involves a justifiable budgetary increase, which is quantified in Section 4 below

and in the accompanying Legislative Financial and Digital Statement.

The Impact Assessment Report was presented to and discussed with the Regulatory Scrutiny

Board (RSB). The RSB’s recommendations in its negative opinion of 4 May 2026 have been

addressed. In particular: (i) the findings of the 2025 evaluation of ELA have been accurately

reflected, (ii) the intervention logic has been improved with additional observational data as

regards the problem definition, (iii) the scope of the mandate revision as regards certain third-

country national workers has been clarified, (iv) the rationale for the continuation of certain

ELA activities has been set out, and (v) a performance monitoring system including tentative

key performance indicators has been introduced. Following those adjustments, the RSB issued

a positive opinion with reservations on 3 July 2026. To address the remaining reservations,

the problems identified in the Impact Assessment Report and the analysis of the impacts of

the various options have been further substantiated. Both of the RSB’s opinions34 are publicly

available.

• Regulatory fitness and simplification

The 2025 evaluation of ELA confirmed that Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 does not currently

impose direct obligations on businesses or citizens35. This limits the scope for a reduction of

compliance costs for the private sector. The proposal targets ELA’s operational framework

and its cooperation with Member States. It does not impose any new administrative burden or

reporting obligations on businesses or citizens, which would result in additional compliance

costs.

Conversely, as set out in the preceding subsection, the proposal will generate indirect cost

savings for businesses, particularly SMEs, by reducing the administrative costs of cross-

border operations as well as decreasing economic distortions that result from non-compliance

with labour standards. The initiative will therefore have a positive net impact on the

administrative burden for businesses and citizens. The proposal is also expected to have a

minor net positive impact on the competitiveness of EU businesses, especially SMEs, as it

will contribute to the functioning of the labour dimension of the EU Single Market, helping to

address the risk of labour and skills shortages, improving cross-border recruitment and

potentially encouraging cross-border operations through better information.

Some of the envisaged targeted adjustments will also contribute to simplification for national

authorities as well as the EU institutions and ELA, enhancing administrative efficiency. Key

measures include resolving the fragmented governance of EURES between the Commission

and ELA, and simplifying the complex, multi-stage mediation procedure to reduce procedural

barriers for Member States.

Additionally, the proposed targeted adjustments to Regulation (EU) 2016/589 will simplify

the EURES regulatory framework, reducing the administrative burden on national

administrations as well as on private EURES members and partners. This includes a reduction

34 SEC(2026) 985 35 SWD(2025) 128 final, p. 112.

EN 12 EN

in the frequency of reporting on EURES activity to ensure that this requirement remains

proportionate to the objective to be achieved, as well as the repeal of several implementing

acts.

Specifically, templates and procedures for the exchange of information on the EURES

network national work programmes (EURES programming cycle) are currently provided for

in Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1256. Similarly, specifications for data

collection and analysis to monitor and evaluate the functioning of the EURES network

(EURES Performance Measurement System) are laid down in Commission Implementing

Decision (EU) 2018/170. In order to reduce the administrative burden on national

administrations as well as private EURES members and partners, while allowing for more

flexibility, it is sufficient to integrate the essential elements of these two implementing acts

directly into Regulation (EU) 2016/589, leaving the details to be defined by the European

Coordination Office of the EURES network.

Furthermore, the Commission has adopted the version of ESCO used in EURES via

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1020, which refers to the version of the

European classification published on 28 July 2017. In view of the rapid evolution of the

labour market, Regulation (EU) 2016/589 will be modified to introduce the principle of

automatic implementation by the Commission of the latest version of ESCO, without a need

for the adoption of an implementing act every time a new version is available.

Finally, if Member States decide not to adopt ESCO at the national level, they are currently

obliged to produce and maintain correspondence tables between national classification

systems used to record information on occupations and skills in job vacancies and CVs

transferred to EURES and the applicable version of ESCO. These correspondence tables must

be produced according to technical standards and formats laid down in Commission

Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1021. With a view to reducing the associated

administrative burden on national authorities, facilitating implementation and enhancing data

quality, the Commission will take over the preparation, maintenance, and implementation of

those correspondence tables from Member States. For this reason, there is no longer any need

to provide for the adoption of technical standards for uniform implementation via an

implementing act.

These amendments will make the Commission Implementing Decisions in question

redundant.

• Fundamental rights

This initiative will strengthen ELA’s capacity to contribute to the enforcement of Union rules

in the area of cross-border labour mobility and social security coordination, and therefore to

the protection of related fundamental rights. These fundamental rights include freedom of

movement and the freedom to choose an occupation and the right to engage in work (Articles

15 and 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, hereafter referred to

as 'the Charter'), the right of access to placement services (Article 29 of the Charter), and the

freedom to conduct a business (Article 16 of the Charter). Through enhanced access to

information and counselling as well as its enforcement role, ELA will also continue

supporting the effective exercise of rights in the field of fair and just working conditions,

social security and health care (Articles 31, 34 and 35 of the Charter) and non-discrimination

(Article 21 of the Charter) as well as workers’ right to information and consultation (Article

27) and the right to an effective remedy (Article 47 of the Charter) in cross-border contexts.

Increased access to and processing of data by ELA would be strictly framed by and

implemented in full compliance with the protection of personal data (Article 8 of the Charter).

EN 13 EN

Appropriate safeguards will ensure that enhanced enforcement capacity does not undermine

the rights of individuals. Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 applies to any processing of personal

data by the Authority.

4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS

This proposal has budgetary implications at the Union level. Reinforcing the Authority’s

operational capacity requires additional human and financial resources. This cost notably

relates to improvements concerning information provision and counselling for individuals and

employers through the provision of grants, increased inspection capacity, the development of

internal data-analysis capacity and the Authority’s complementary responsibilities concerning

third-country nationals. The adjustments in the area of mediation do not have budgetary

implications.

At the same time, the revision should be accompanied by a systematic effort within ELA to

identify possibilities for redeployment of financial and human resources, efficiency gains and

a sharper prioritisation of activities across its existing mandate. This should include a review

of areas where tasks may be streamlined, scaled back or deprioritised, and the identification of

negative priorities in order to ensure that resources are concentrated on activities with the

highest Union added value. In this context, particular attention should be given to EURES-

related expenditure, with a view to identifying savings and efficiency gains that can contribute

to a more effective delivery of the EURES 2030 strategy and the EURES portal strategy. Such

an approach would help contain the overall budgetary impact of the proposal while ensuring

that ELA is able to focus resources on the most relevant and impactful operational objectives.

The detailed financial implications of the proposal are set out in the Legislative Financial and

Digital Statement accompanying the proposal. The estimated financial and staffing

implications for 2028 and beyond are provided for illustrative purposes only and do not pre-

empt decisions on the next multiannual EU budget (2028-2034 multiannual financial

framework). The funding sources and the extent of the EU’s financial commitment beyond

2027 will depend on the outcome of the interinstitutional negotiations on the 2028-2034

multiannual financial framework. Thereafter they must be determined through the annual

budgetary procedure. All appropriations and staffing allocations from 2028 onwards are

therefore indicative.

5. OTHER ELEMENTS

• Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements

The monitoring of the new tasks attributed to ELA through this proposal will be part of

ELA’s performance measurement systems, as reformed in line with the above-mentioned

action plan. This covers the setting out of detailed objectives and expected results in the

annual and multi-annual programming, including through redefined SMART objectives and

meaningful key performance indicators.

In particular, the Commission will, in close cooperation with relevant national authorities and

decentralised agencies, monitor the achievement of the specific objectives of this proposal.

Details, including tentative indicators for this purpose, are set out in the Impact Assessment

Report accompanying this proposal, which indicates that the evaluation of the ELA

Regulation will be based on specific indicators measuring the number of individuals and

employers reached and their satisfaction with the information provided; the level of

satisfaction of the EURES Network with its governance, the number and share of job

placements, satisfaction with the EURES portal, and the coverage of CVs and job vacancies

EN 14 EN

on the portal; the number, ratio and coverage of targeted concerted and joint inspections,

satisfaction with ELA’s operational support, and the share of concerted and joint inspections

supported by risk-based analysis; and, for mediation, the number of cases brought to

mediation and resolved, the duration of the procedure and satisfaction with it.

Furthermore, the Commission will continue to evaluate the Authority’s performance in

relation to its objectives, mandate and tasks every five years in accordance with Article 40 of

Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 and in line with the requirements of the Financial Regulation and

Better Regulation Guidelines. The next evaluation will be conducted in 2029 and cover the

period from 2024 to 2028. As part of this evaluation, it will be assessed whether there is a

need to modify the scope of the Authority’s activities, including through a potential

discontinuation of individual tasks such as the coordination of EURES (including the tasks

transferred to the Commission).

• Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal

Article 1 of the proposal introduces several amendments to Regulation (EU) 2019/1149.

(1) Article 1(2) is amended, and Article 1(4a) is inserted to clarify ELA’s mandate

where its activities involve certain third-country national workers within the Union.

The Authority is enabled to assist Member States in addressing those workers’

employment and social security rights, as laid down in specific provisions of

Directives 2009/52/EC, 2014/36/EU, (EU) 2024/1233 and Council Directive

2001/55/EC in an ancillary way, i.e. where this is necessary to effectively accomplish

ELA’s tasks. Article 1(4)(j) and (k) is added to include the Regulation on a public

interface connected to IMI for the declaration of posting of workers as well as the

Directive laying down specific rules for posting drivers in the road transport sector in

the scope of the ELA’s activities due to their connection with the application of

Directive 2014/67/EU. Article 1(5) is amended to provide the Authority with an

explicit mandate to address the issue of labour exploitation.

(2) In Article 2, point (a) is amended to reflect the amendment to Article 1 as regards

support in enforcement of rights of certain third-country national workers. Point (b)

is amended to clarify which of ELA’s tasks relate to its objective of facilitating and

enhancing cooperation between Member States. A reference to the application of

Union law is added for consistency with Article 1(2). Point (d) is amended to reflect

ELA’s mandate to address labour exploitation.

(3) Article 3(3) is added to comply with the requirement that the seat of a decentralised

agency is to be provided for in an act adopted by ordinary legislative procedure. This

amendment is also reflected in the article’s heading.

(4) The introductory wording of Article 5 is amended for consistency with the

amendment to Article 1 as regards third-country national workers and to allow for

the provision of more personalised information. Article 5(g) is added, laying down

ELA’s responsibility for promoting awareness-raising campaigns. This is an existing

provision that is moved from Article 11(e), given that it relates to the task of

providing information to individuals and employers rather than to capacity building

for Member States. A new paragraph is added to reflect ELA’s power to provide

grants to beneficiaries as laid down in Article 29, second paragraph, specifically as

regards advice and support to individuals and employers, so as to assist the Authority

in fulfilling its task provided for in Article 5, first paragraph in a more personalised

manner.

EN 15 EN

(5) Article 6 is amended to transfer the system ownership of the EURES portal as well as

the helpdesk function for the staff of the EURES members and partners and national

coordination offices from ELA to the Commission. The heading is amended to better

reflect ELA’s role with respect to EURES.

(6) Article 7(1)(b) and (d) is amended to allow ELA to facilitate cooperation between

Member States on its own initiative. Article 7(2) is amended to clarify that it relates

to all areas within the scope set out in Article 1. Article 7(3) and (4) is amended to

provide ELA with a concrete supportive role as regards the use of electronic tools,

and to explicitly highlight other tools besides IMI that are relevant in this context and

that the Authority already works with.

(7) Article 8(1) is amended to reflect the amendment to Article 1 as regards third-

country nationals and to provide ELA with a more proactive role in initiating

concerted and joint inspections. Article 8(2)(a) is amended to ensure that the

requirement that concerted inspections are simultaneous in nature is not understood

too restrictively. Article 8(3) is amended to require Member States to provide a due

justification when not participating in concerted or joint inspections and to ensure

that the Authority and the National Inspection Liaison Officers from the Member

States concerned are informed at the same time when a Member State consents to an

inspection. Article 8(4) is amended to provide for a deadline within which Member

States are to provide justifications where they do not participate in concerted or joint

inspections. This does not imply a conferral of autonomous inspection powers on the

Authority as such inspections, including those requested by ELA, remain subject to

the consent of the Member States concerned.

(8) Article 9(1) is amended to simplify the administrative requirements leading up to a

concerted or joint inspection. No formal written agreement should need to be

concluded prior to each inspection. Article 9(3) is amended to ensure that inspectors

from other Member States that participate in concerted and joint inspections are

granted certain minimum competences in the Member State where the inspection

takes place as regards access to the premises, documents and records subject to

inspection as well as the gathering of evidence. Article 9(4) is amended to provide

for a link between ELA’s analyses and risk assessments and inspections. Article 9(5)

is amended to provide the National Inspection Liaison Officers from the Member

State where the inspection takes place with the same competences as inspectors from

other participating Member States. Article 9(5a) is inserted to provide for the

necessary exchange of information between Member States and ELA in the context

of inspections. Article 9(6) is amended to ensure that ELA receives preliminary

reports on inspection results earlier than at present, while Member States are given

more time to conclude final reports, and to lay down minimum requirements for the

content of reports. Article 9(6a) is inserted to provide for the case management

system, in which ELA is to store information related to concerted and joint

inspections.

(9) Article 10(1) is amended to reflect the amendment to Article 1 as regards activities

involving third-country national workers, broaden the list of actors with which ELA

is to cooperate, as well as to clarify how information used for analytical work is to be

accessed and processed. Article 10(1a) is inserted to provide for risk analyses of a

more operational nature and their link with concerted and joint inspections. Article

10(3) is amended to ensure that operational risk analyses inform operational

planning. Article 10(4) is amended to clarify that it relates to all areas within the

scope set out in Article 1.

EN 16 EN

(10) The introductory wording of Article 11 is amended to add a reference to the

application of Union law for consistency with Article 1(2) and to clarify that it

relates to all areas within the scope set out in Article 1. Article 11(d) is amended to

clarify the nature of the training programmes developed by ELA or by Member

States with ELA’s support and the different stakeholders that may benefit from them.

Article 11(e) is deleted as its content is moved to Article 5(g).

(11) Article 12(1)(b) is amended to clarify that it relates to all areas within the scope set

out in Article 1 and that ELA is not limited to addressing the cross-border aspects of

undeclared work.

(12) Article 13 is amended to simplify the complex mediation procedure, reducing it to a

single stage and leaving the binding or non-binding nature of the agreement reached

up to the parties involved.

(13) Article 14 is amended to include a reference to the European Union Agency for

Fundamental Rights as well as the European Maritime Safety Agency and to

highlight the possibility for data sharing between agencies.

(14) Articles 19(2), 21(1), 31(4), (5) and (7), and 33(2) are amended and Article 21(1a) is

inserted in order to ensure alignment with the ‘common approach’ on decentralised

agencies and the Framework Financial Regulation for decentralised agencies.

(15) Chapter IIIa is inserted to provide ELA with a clear mandate to process operational

information, including personal data, and to grant the Authority access to such

information. Article 23a lays down the general information processing mandate,

rules concerning special categories of personal data and the storage duration, as well

as the possibility of bilateral data sharing arrangements. Article 23b concerns ELA’s

access to IMI, including to exchanges between Member States which concern

concerted and joint inspections. Article 23c concerns ELA’s user access to the

European Register of Road Transport Undertakings (ERRU). Article 23d concerns

ELA’s access to data on the use of IMI, ERRU and the Electronic Exchange of

Social Security Information (EESSI), as well as access to the information submitted

to Member States in the posting declarations pursuant to the Regulation on a public

interface connected to IMI for the declaration of posting of workers and pursuant to

the Directive laying down specific rules for posting drivers in the road transport

sector. In addition, it references the possibility for Member States to make specific

exchanges via those information exchange systems, in addition to those concerning

concerted and joint inspections, available to ELA, where all Member States

concerned agree.

(16) In Article 29, a new paragraph is added to empower ELA to award grants in

fulfilment of any of its tasks.

(17) Article 32(2a) is inserted to provide for the secondment of a National Inspection

Liaison Officer, i.e. an inspector from a national enforcement authority, from each

Member State to ELA, in addition to the existing National Liaison Officer.

Consequential amendments are made to Article 32(1) and (2), including to provide

for the respective responsibilities of the two groups of National Liaison Officers. It is

also specified that all National Liaison Officers are to be nominated by Member

States only after their approval and recruitment by ELA.

(18) The Annex to Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 is amended at points (1), (2) and (5) to

add references to undeclared work among third-country nationals in the context of

EN 17 EN

the activities of the European Platform to enhance cooperation in tackling undeclared

work.

Article 2 of the proposal introduces several amendments to Regulation (EU) 2016/589.

(1) Article 3 is amended in order to include in the main text certain definitions that were

previously included in Commission Implementing Decisions 2018/1020 and

2018/1021, and to introduce a definition for the EURES Targeted Mobility Scheme

initiative.

(2) Article 8 is amended to specify the supporting tasks that fall within the remit of the

European Coordination Office (ECO) of EURES. These include programming, data

collection and analysis activities. ECO’s tasks no longer include the system

ownership of the EURES portal or the helpdesk function, which are transferred to the

Commission. ECO is no longer required to develop a cooperation and clearance

structure for apprenticeships and traineeships due to the lack of practical relevance of

this structure.

(3) Article 9 is amended to provide a role to the Commission, as system owner of the

EURES portal, with regard to complaints and job vacancies considered not to comply

with certain standards connected to the EURES portal.

(4) Article 14 is amended to give to the EURES Coordination Group the task of

identifying relevant information from the EURES programming cycle to be fed into

the EURES activity reports.

(5) Article 16 is amended to include a reference to the EURES Targeted Mobility

Scheme initiative in the cooperation measures.

(6) Article 17 is amended to include a reference to workers as direct providers of CVs

and job applications that are made available to the EURES portal.

(7) Article 19 is amended in order to streamline and simplify the procedure for the

implementation of ESCO as the common language for interoperability and

automated matching. The Commission is empowered to regularly update the version

of ESCO implemented in EURES in line with labour market trends. The Commission

becomes responsible for producing and maintaining correspondence tables between

national classification systems used in job vacancies and CVs and ESCO. The

provisions referring to the Commission’s implementing powers for the adoption of

the version of ESCO used in EURES and the technical standards for producing

correspondence tables are consequently deleted.

(8) Article 23 is amended to include a reference to the EURES Targeted Mobility

Scheme initiative among the support services for job seekers.

(9) Article 24 is amended to include a reference to the EURES Targeted Mobility

Scheme initiative among the support services for employers.

(10) Article 25 is amended to include a reference to the EURES Targeted Mobility

Scheme initiative among the post recruitment assistance services.

(11) Article 26 is amended to include disability assessment among the matters regarding

which EURES Members and, where relevant, EURES Partners are to refer requests

for information to the national competent authorities or other appropriate bodies.

(12) Article 27 is amended to further specify certain aspects of the support services in

cross-border regions.

EN 18 EN

(13) Article 30 is amended to further specify the role of EURES NCOs in the review of

the draft annual national work programmes. The article also gives the responsibility

for producing templates for exchange of information between Member States to

ECO.

(14) Article 31 is amended to introduce the obligation for EURES NCOs to report yearly

on the implementation of the national work programmes according to a template

provided by ECO and approved by the European Coordination Group. The

Commission’s empowerment to adopt implementing acts to define such templates is

removed accordingly.

(15) Article 32 is amended to further specify the procedure and content of data collection

activities by Member States and the responsibilities of ECO.

(16) Article 33 is amended to extend the reporting period of EURES activities to five

years.

Article 3 of the proposal introduces a consequential amendment to Regulation (EU)

No 1024/2012. Given that Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 is amended to provide for the

exchange of information via IMI, Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 should be listed in the Annex to

Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012.

Article 4 of the proposal repeals several Commission Implementing Decisions that become

redundant as a result of the amendments to Regulation (EU) 2016/589.

EN 19 EN

2026/0272 (COD)

Proposal for a

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 establishing a European Labour Authority,

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

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

Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal

Market Information System, and repealing Commission Implementing Decisions (EU)

2017/1256, (EU) 2018/170, (EU) 2018/1020 and (EU) 2018/1021

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular

Articles 46 and 48 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national Parliaments,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee36,

Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions37,

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure,

Whereas:

(1) The European Labour Authority (‘the Authority’) was established by Regulation (EU)

2019/1149 of the European Parliament and of the Council38. The Authority’s objective

is to contribute to ensuring fair labour mobility across the Union and to assist Member

States and the Commission in the coordination of social security systems within the

Union. The effective application and enforcement of Union law in those areas is

essential to protect mobile workers, ensure fair competition between undertakings and

maintain trust in the internal market. To achieve its objective, the Authority facilitates

access to information, enhances cooperation between Member States in the

enforcement of relevant Union law, mediates a solution in cases of cross-border

disputes and supports cooperation in tackling undeclared work.

(2) Since the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2019/1149, the context in which the Authority

operates has evolved. Global volatility linked to ongoing geopolitical conflicts as well

as structural changes, such as demographic developments, declining working-age

populations, skills shortages, the accelerating digital transition and the deployment of

36 OJ C [...], [...], p. [...] 37 OJ C [...], [...], p. [...] 38 Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 establishing

a European Labour Authority, amending Regulations (EC) No 883/2004, (EU) No 492/2011, and (EU)

2016/589 and repealing Decision (EU) 2016/344 (OJ L 186, 11.7.2019, p. 21,

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/1149/oj).

EN 20 EN

artificial intelligence intensify the need for labour mobility as a central policy to

safeguard the competitiveness of the internal market.

(3) In accordance with Article 40 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1149, the Commission carried

out a first evaluation of the Authority’s performance, which was published in 2025.

The evaluation confirmed that the Authority has addressed a previously unmet need

for support in the effective implementation of Union labour mobility policies. At the

same time, it identified certain limitations in the Authority’s current mandate.

(4) Targeted modifications to Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 are necessary to enable the

Authority to fully realise its potential. Relevant adjustments identified by the

evaluation include enhanced data handling competencies, improved cooperation with

Member States, including in terms of information provision, the Authority’s role vis-à-

vis in situations involving certain third-country national workers and its

responsibilities in the development of the European network of employment services

(‘EURES’).

(5) Regulation (EU) 2026/XXX of the European Parliament and of the Council39 aims to

reduce administrative obstacles to the freedom to provide services and to simplify

administrative requirements, while improving the effective monitoring of compliance

with and enforcement of Union law aimed at ensuring the protection of posted

workers’ rights, and strengthening the administrative cooperation between competent

authorities of the Member States. Directive (EU) 2020/1057 of the European

Parliament and of the Council40 establishes specific rules as regards the posting of

drivers in the road transport sector. Given that Regulation (EU) 2026/XXX and

Directive (EU) 2020/1057 relate to the application of Directive 2014/67/EU of the

European Parliament and of the Council41, Regulation (EU) 2026/XXX and Directive

(EU) 2020/1057 should be added to the list of Union acts covered by the Authority’s

scope of activities.

(6) Labour mobility across the Union often takes place in complex labour-market settings,

including in high-risk sectors such as construction, transport, agriculture, hospitality

and care. These sectors are particularly exposed to different risks, including trafficking

in human beings for the purpose of labour exploitation. In those settings, Union

mobile workers and posted workers increasingly work side by side with third-country

nationals whose number is growing due to labour and skills shortages in the Union.

(7) Not covering certain categories of third-country nationals by the scope of Authority’s

activities, such as information activities, facilitation of concerted and joint inspections

or risk assessment, could create enforcement gaps, facilitate circumvention and unfair

competition, and contribute to downward pressure on employment and social

standards.

39 Regulation (EU) .../... of the European Parliament and of the Council of ... on ... (OJ ...). 40 Directive (EU) 2020/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 laying down

specific rules with respect to Directive 96/71/EC and Directive 2014/67/EU for posting drivers in the

road transport sector and amending Directive 2006/22/EC as regards enforcement requirements and

Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 (OJ L 249, 31.7.2020, p. 49, ELI:

http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2020/1057/oj). 41 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, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/67/oj).

EN 21 EN

(8) Fair labour mobility requires the effective protection of the employment and social

security rights of all persons working within the Union, regardless of their nationality.

It is therefore appropriate to clarify that the Authority may support Member States in

cases involving third-country nationals, insofar as the effective application and

enforcement of third-country nationals' employment and social security rights

contribute to the Authority’s mandate to ensure fair labour mobility and to create a

level playing field across the Union.

(9) The effective enforcement of the employment and social security rights of legally

staying third-country nationals, in particular the equal treatment rights conferred by

Directives 2014/36/EU42 and (EU) 2024/123343 and Regulation (EU) 2024/134744 of

the European Parliament and of the Council, and Council Directive 2001/55/EC45, is

essential to ensuring fair labour mobility. Where those rights are not effectively

enforced, compliant undertakings are placed at a disadvantage, while the workers

concerned risk losing their legal status and being placed in an irregular situation.

Supporting Member States in enforcing those rights therefore helps address labour and

skills shortages in the Union, while it also contributes to the proper functioning of

legal migration pathways.

(10) The employment of illegally staying third-country nationals distorts competition

between undertakings, puts downward pressure on employment and social standards,

and exposes the workers concerned to an increased risk of labour exploitation and

trafficking in human beings. Within its objectives and to the extent necessary for the

performance of its tasks, the Authority should support Member States in applying the

labour-related provisions of Directive 2009/52/EC of the European Parliament and of

the Council46. More effective enforcement in this area is expected to ensure that the

workers concerned are protected against exploitation, while it would also contribute to

reducing the incentives for illegal entry and stay, since the prospect of employment in

the Union has been identified as one of the drivers of illegal migration.

(11) The Authority should not be granted a general mandate in the field of legal migration,

notably conditions for admission, residence, removal or work authorisation of third-

country nationals, and the applicable Union rules or the competences of the Member

States in those areas should not be affected.

42 Directive 2014/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the

conditions of entry and stay of third-country nationals for the purpose of employment as seasonal

workers (OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 375, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/36/oj). 43 Directive (EU) 2024/1233 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 April 2024 on a single

application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory

of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a

Member State (OJ L, 2024/1233, 30.4.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1233/oj). 44 Regulation (EU) 2024/1347 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 on

standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of

international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary

protection and for the content of the protection granted, amending Council Directive 2003/109/EC and

repealing Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L, 2024/1347,

22.5.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1347/oj). 45 Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection

in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts

between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof (OJ L 212,

7.8.2001, p. 12, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2001/55/oj). 46 Directive 2009/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 providing for

minimum standards on sanctions and measures against employers of illegally staying third-country

nationals (OJ L 168, 30.6.2009, p. 24, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2009/52/oj).

EN 22 EN

(12) As the Authority should support Member States’ enforcement efforts to address the

risk of labour exploitation, especially in connection with cross-border labour mobility,

the Authority should address this issue within the framework of concerted and joint

inspections as well as through its analytical work and operational risk analyses. It

should, where appropriate, cooperate with other Union bodies, offices or agencies to

ensure a coordinated and effective response.

(13) In accordance with the judgement of the Court of Justice in case C-743/1947, the

decision on the seat of the Authority is to be adopted in accordance with the ordinary

legislative procedure. This should be without prejudice to the possibility for the

Authority to complement its operational activities within its liaison office in Brussels

or to establish other local offices in Member States, as appropriate.

(14) The provision of information on labour mobility by the Authority should be further

improved by better tailoring it to reflect the specific situations and needs of the

individuals and employers concerned, especially small and medium-sized enterprises

(SMEs), so as to enable them to effectively exercise their rights and comply with their

obligations. To this end, the Authority should be empowered to award grants to

beneficiaries at national, regional or cross-border regional level which provide

targeted advice on cross-border labour mobility to individuals and employers.

(15) Lack of knowledge of their rights exposes some third-country nationals to a

heightened risk of labour exploitation, infringements of their employment and social

security rights, and trafficking in human beings for the purpose of labour exploitation.

Where third-country nationals work alongside Union mobile or posted workers, the

Authority should contribute to making available clear and accessible information on

their rights and obligations to those individuals and employers. It is important that

such information is accessible at an early stage to the extent possible, including prior

to entering the Union, which could require cooperation with third countries’ relevant

authorities and Union delegations in third countries. Considering the particular

vulnerabilty of victims of trafficking in human beings, the Authority should take their

situation into account in training programmes or materials it develops for labour

inspectors likely to come into contact with such persons and in the risk analyses it

carries out.

(16) The governance of EURES is divided between the Commission and the Authority,

constraining the efficiency and effectiveness of EURES governance and operation.

Their respective responsibilities should be reallocated with a view to improving

coherence with other activities, thus increasing the efficiency of the management and

operation of EURES. The Commission should assume system ownership of the

European Job Mobility Portal (EURES portal) to maximise synergies with other

Commission-managed IT tools and networks, such as Europass, the European Skills,

Competences, Qualifications and Occupations classification (ESCO), the Public

Employment Services Network and the EU Talent Pool. The Commission should also

take over the provision of the helpdesk function supporting the staff of the EURES

members and partners and national coordination offices. This revised allocation of

responsibilities should be reflected in Regulation (EU) 2016/589 of the European

Parliament and of the Council48.

47 Case C-743/19 European Parliament v Council of the European Union ECLI:EU:C:2022:569. 48 Regulation (EU) 2016/589 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2016 on a

European network of employment services (EURES), workers' access to mobility services and the

EN 23 EN

(17) The amendment of Regulation (EU) 2016/589 provides an opportunity to further

streamline the EURES regulatory framework, with a view to reducing the

administrative burden on national administrations as well as private EURES members

and partners and to improve efficiency and effectiveness. Provisions concerning the

programming of activities, data collection and analysis of performance should be

integrated into Regulation (EU) 2016/589. The implementation of ESCO should be

simplified and the Commission should be allowed to implement correspondence tables

between national classification systems and relevant versions of ESCO, in line with

labour market trends. Following the incorporation of relevant provisions in Regulation

(EU) 2016/589, Commission Implementing Decisions (EU) 2017/125649, (EU)

2018/17050, (EU) 2018/102051 and (EU) 2018/102152 should be repealed.

(18) To ensure that reporting requirements remain proportionate and contribute to

simplification and the reduction of administrative burden on national authorities, the

frequency of reporting on EURES activities in accordance with Regulation (EU)

2016/589 should be reduced from every two years to every five years, without

compromising the objectives of the reporting. Regulation (EU) 2016/589 should

therefore be amended accordingly.

(19) To fully realise the potential of concerted and joint inspections, the Authority should

be assigned a more proactive role, including the possibility of more systematic

initiation of targeted inspections on its own initiative. Member States should in

principle participate in concerted and joint inspections proposed by the Authority.

While the organisation of such inspections should remain subject to the consent of the

Member States concerned, their conduct should not be delayed by undue

administrative requirements. To improve the targeting and effectiveness of concerted

and joint inspections, the Authority should further develop its capacity to carry out

operational risk analyses, which should inform data-driven operational planning.

(20) Without prejudice to obligations arising in the context of criminal investigations,

Member States that have carried out a concerted or joint inspection facilitated by the

Authority, should submit timely information on its conduct and outcomes, including

where the investigations at national level cannot yet be completed. While preliminary

reports should be provided to the Authority in a timely manner, the time limit for

submitting final reports should be extended to allow Member States to complete

relevant investigations. Such reports should include the undertakings inspected, the

number of individuals involved and their status under Union law, the number and type

further integration of labour markets, and amending Regulations (EU) No 492/2011 and (EU)

No 1296/2013 (OJ L 107, 22.4.2016, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/589/oj). 49 Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1256 of 11 July 2017 on templates and procedures for

the exchange of information on the EURES network national work programmes at Union level (OJ L

179, 12.7.2017, p. 24, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_impl/2017/1256/oj). 50 Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/170 of 2 February 2018 on uniform detailed

specifications for data collection and analysis to monitor and evaluate the functioning of the EURES

network (OJ L 31, 3.2.2018, p. 104, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_impl/2018/170/oj). 51 Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1020 of 18 July 2018 on the adoption and updating of

the list of skills, competences and occupations of the European classification for the purpose of

automated matching through the EURES common IT platform (OJ L 183, 19.7.2018, p. 17, ELI:

http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_impl/2018/1020/oj). 52 Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1021 of 18 July 2018 on the adoption of technical

standards and formats necessary for the operation of the automated matching through the common IT

platform using the European classification and the interoperability between national systems and the

European classification (OJ L 183, 19.7.2018, p. 20, ELI:

http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_impl/2018/1021/oj).

EN 24 EN

of violations identified per undertaking and the fines or other sanctions imposed. The

Authority should operate an electronic case management system to store and organise

systematically information related to concerted and joint inspections. This system

should be used for exchanges of information between the Authority and Member

States only where such exchanges cannot be carried out through the Internal Market

Information System (IMI).

(21) With a view to ensuring fair labour mobility and maintaining a level playing field, the

Authority should support Member States in identifying and addressing cross-border

enforcement challenges, where national workers, intra-EU mobile workers and third-

country national workers coincide in the same worksite, sector, sub-contracting chain

or company, through the coordination and support of concerted and joint inspections,

operational risk analyses and capacity-building measures. The Authority should

cooperate closely with migration services, civil society organisations, social partners

and entities in third countries, as well as other relevant Union and international bodies,

to facilitate access to support for the third-country nationals concerned.

(22) With a view to strengthening the Authority’s capacity to perform its reinforced role

regarding concerted and joint inspections, each Member State should second an expert

from a relevant national enforcement authority as a national inspection liaison officer

to the Authority. When participating in a concerted or joint inspection, such national

inspection liaison officers as well as staff of enforcement authorities from other

participating Member States should be granted certain minimum competences to

enable them to effectively support the inspection.

(23) Within the scope of its mandate, in particular in its analytical work, the Authority

should pay particular attention to the effective application and enforcement of Union

law concerning workers engaged in sectors of a highly cross-border nature, including

maritime transport and seafaring professions, in close cooperation with the relevant

Union agencies, where applicable. This analytical work should take account of

relevant factors such as the place of establishment of the employer and the social

security affiliation of the workers concerned.

(24) Inspections, checks and investigations are essential to ensure compliance with Union

law and to protect the public interest. Their frequency, coordination, timing and

intensity should be proportionate to the risk at stake and to the capacity of the operator

concerned, so as to avoid unnecessary costs and administrative burden, in particular

for micro enterprises and SMEs.

(25) The Authority’s mediation function should be simplified and made more flexible to

increase its efficiency, encourage its use and diminish the number of disputes between

Member States which remain unresolved. Participation in mediation should remain

voluntary.

(26) In order to tackle the abuse of different categories of workers, the European Platform

to enhance cooperation in tackling undeclared work should strengthen its activities in

relation to undeclared work among third-country nationals.

(27) It should be clarified that, except where otherwise expressly provided for in

Regulation (EU) 2019/1149, decisions of the Management Board are to be taken by an

absolute majority of votes, which presupposes the presence or representation at the

meeting of more than half of the members of the Management Board with voting right

for decisions to be validly adopted.

EN 25 EN

(28) The Authority should be able to access the operational information necessary to carry

out its tasks effectively, notably via relevant Union information exchange systems and

databases and the conclusion of data sharing arrangements with Union institution,

bodies, offices and agencies, as well as with public authorities in Member States. Such

operational information may include data relating to both administrative and criminal

investigations. The Authority should be expressly empowered to process personal

data, in full compliance with Union legislation on the protection of such data, notably

Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council53.

(29) The use of IMI is mandatory for administrative cooperation between Member States

under several of the Union acts covered by the Authority’s scope of activities.

Similarly, the European Register of Road Transport Undertakings (ERRU) is used in

the implementation of certain Union acts covered by the Authority’s scope of

activities. For the purpose of, and to the extent necessary for, exercising its mandate of

assisting Member States and the Commission in the effective application and

enforcement of Union acts within its scope of activities, the Authority should thus be

granted access rights as an IMI actor to administrative cooperation procedures in IMI

– including to exchanges between Member States which concern concerted and joint

inspections – and user access to the relevant functions of ERRU, which concern the

application and enforcement of such Union acts, as well as receive aggregated

statistical data on the use of such administrative cooperation procedures and functions.

(30) Data sharing arrangements between the Authority and public authorities in Member

States may relate to information such as data concerning the declaration referred to in

Article 9(1)(a) of Directive 2014/67/EU, data collected pursuant to Article 91 of

Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council54, data

concerning the attestation referred to in Article 19(2) of that Regulation and

aggregated data on infringements of Union acts listed in Article 1(4) of Regulation

(EU) 2019/1149. It should be possible to also grant the Authority access to specific

exchanges between Member States via relevant Union information exchange systems

in addition to those concerning concerted and joint inspections, where such exchanges

fall within the Authority’s mandate and subject to the agreement of all Member States

concerned.

(31) Given that Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 is amended to provide for the exchange of

information via IMI, Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 should be listed in the Annex to

Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council55.

(32) In line with recommendations by the International Labour Organization56 and the

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights57, it is important to put in place

53 Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the

protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions,

bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No

45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 39,

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1725/oj). 54 Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009

laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of

social security systems (OJ L 284, 30.10.2009, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/987/oj). 55 Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on

administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System and repealing Commission

Decision 2008/49/EC (‘the IMI Regulation’)(OJ L 316, 14.11.2012, p. 1,

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2012/1024/oj).

EN 26 EN

mechanisms that separate the enforcement of labour standards from immigration law

enforcement, to ensure all third-country nationals can safely access remedies for

violations of their rights. In its role as data controller, the Authority should only share

personal data, including data of third-country nationals, where such exchange is

necessary for the performance of its tasks, in particular for the protection of the

employment and social security rights. It is important that the Authority also

encourages Member States to establish reporting policies that ensure that all third-

country nationals can engage with enforcement authorities safely.

(33) The European Data Protection Supervisor was consulted in accordance with Article

42(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 and delivered an opinion on [date].

(34) Regulations (EU) 2019/1149, (EU) 2016/589 and (EU) No 1024/2012 should therefore

be amended accordingly,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Amendments to Regulation (EU) 2019/1149

Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 is amended as follows:

(1) Article 1 is amended as follows:

(a) paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

‘2. The Authority shall assist Member States and the Commission in their

effective application and enforcement of Union law related to labour mobility

across the Union and the coordination of social security systems within the

Union. The Authority shall act within the scope of the Union acts listed in

paragraph 4, including all directives, regulations, and decisions based on those

acts, and of any further legally binding Union act which confers tasks on the

Authority. When appropriate to contribute to the effective accomplishment of

its tasks, the Authority may also be required to address the employment and

social security rights of certain third-country national workers. To this end, it

shall act within the scope of the Union acts listed in paragraph 4a.’;

(b) in paragraph 4, the following points (j) and (k) are added:

‘(j) Regulation (EU) 2026/XXX of the European Parliament and of the

Council*;

(k) Directive (EU) 2020/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council**.

* Regulation (EU) .../... of the European Parliament and of the Council of ... on ... (OJ ...).

** Directive (EU) 2020/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020

laying down specific rules with respect to Directive 96/71/EC and Directive 2014/67/EU for

posting drivers in the road transport sector and amending Directive 2006/22/EC as regards

enforcement requirements and Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 (OJ L 249, 31.7.2020, p. 49,

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2020/1057/oj).’;

56 See for example International Labour Organization (2021) ‘Protecting the rights of migrant workers in

irregular situations and addressing irregular labour migration: A compendium’. Available at:

wcms_832915.pdf 57 European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2021) ‘Protecting migrants in an irregular situation

from labour exploitation – Role of the Employers Sanctions Directive’. Available at:

https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2021-employers-sanctions-directive-

report_en.pdf

EN 27 EN

(c) the following paragraph 4a is inserted:

‘4a. When appropriate to contribute to the effective accomplishment of the

Authority’s tasks, the scope of activities of the Authority shall also cover the

following provisions of Union acts:

(a) Articles 5, 6, 8, 9, 13 and 14 of Directive 2009/52/EC of the European

Parliament and of the Council*;

(b) Article 11(2), Articles 17 and 20, Article 23(1), points (a), (c), (d), and

(f), and the second subparagraph, and Article 23(2), point (i), and

Articles 24 and 25 of Directive 2014/36/EU of the European Parliament

and of the Council**;

(c) Article 12(1), points (a), (e) and (h), Article 12(2), point (b), and Article

12(4), and Articles 13 and 14 of Directive (EU) 2024/1233 of the

European Parliament and of the Council***;

(d) Article 12 of Council Directive 2001/55/EC****.

* Directive 2009/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009

providing for minimum standards on sanctions and measures against employers of illegally

staying third-country nationals (OJ L 168, 30.6.2009, p. 24,

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2009/52/oj).

** Directive 2014/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014

on the conditions of entry and stay of third-country nationals for the purpose of employment as

seasonal workers (OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 375, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/36/oj).

*** Directive (EU) 2024/1233 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 April 2024

on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and

work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country

workers legally residing in a Member State (OJ L, 2024/1233, 30.4.2024,

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1233/oj).

**** Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving

temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures

promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing

the consequences thereof (OJ L 212, 7.8.2001, p. 12, ELI:

http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2001/55/oj).’;

(d) paragraph 5 is replaced by the following:

‘5. The scope of activities of the Authority shall cover the provisions of this

Regulation related to the cooperation between Member States in order to tackle

undeclared work, as well as support to Member States to prevent and address

labour exploitation, especially in connection with cross-border labour mobility.

Where needed, the Authority shall cooperate with other Union agencies or

services when providing support to the Member States in accordance with this

paragraph.’;

(2) Article 2 is amended as follows:

(a) points (a) and (b) are replaced by the following:

‘(a) facilitate access to information on rights, obligations and opportunities regarding

labour mobility across the Union, including where necessary for the effective

accomplishment of this task, on employment and social security rights of third-

country nationals working within Union Member States, as well as to relevant

services;

EN 28 EN

(b) facilitate and enhance cooperation between Member States in the application and

enforcement of relevant Union law across the Union, including facilitating concerted

and joint inspections, information and data exchange, carrying out analyses and risk

assessment and supporting capacity building;’;

(b) point (d) is replaced by the following:

‘(d) support cooperation between Member States in tackling undeclared work and

labour exploitation.’;

(3) Article 3 is amended as follows:

(a) the heading is replaced by the following:

‘Legal status and seat’;

(b) the following paragraph 3 is added:

‘3. The Authority shall have its seat in Bratislava, Slovakia.’;

(4) Article 5 is amended as follows:

(a) the introductory wording is replaced by the following:

‘The Authority shall improve the availability, quality and accessibility of information

offered to individuals, including to third-country nationals regardless of their legal or

mobility status within the Union, employers and social partner organisations

regarding rights and obligations deriving from the Union acts listed in Article 1(4)

and (4a) to facilitate labour mobility across the Union. To that end, the Authority

shall:’;

(b) the following point (g) is added:

‘(g) promote awareness-raising campaigns, including campaigns to inform

individuals and employers, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs),

of their rights and obligations and the opportunities available to them.’;

(c) the following paragraph is added:

‘To assist with the fulfilment of its tasks referred to in the first paragraph and in

accordance with Article 29, second paragraph, the Authority may award grants to

beneficiaries advising and offering dedicated support to individuals, including to

third-country nationals regardless of their legal or mobility status within the Union,

and employers on cross-border labour mobility at national, regional or cross-border

regional level.’;

(5) Article 6 is amended as follows:

(a) the heading is replaced by the following:

‘European Coordination Office of EURES’;

(b) the second paragraph is replaced by the following:

‘The European Coordination Office shall, under the management of the Authority,

fulfil its responsibilities in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2016/589,

while the system ownership of the EURES portal, as well as its technical operation

and development and related IT services, shall be managed by the Commission. The

Commission shall provide a helpdesk function supporting the staff of the EURES

Members and Partners and national coordination offices, in particular staff in direct

contact with workers and employers.’;

EN 29 EN

(6) Article 7 is amended as follows:

(a) in paragraph 1, the second subparagraph is amended as follows:

(i) point (b) is replaced by the following:

‘(b) facilitate the follow-up to requests and information exchanges between national

authorities by providing logistical and technical support, including translation and

interpretation services, and through exchanges on the status of cases;’;

(ii) point (d) is replaced by the following:

‘(d) facilitate and support cross-border enforcement procedures relating to penalties

and fines, within the scope of this Regulation in accordance with Article 1;’;

(b) paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

‘2. Upon request of one or more Member States and in fulfilling its tasks within the

scope set out in Article 1, the Authority shall provide information to support the

Member State concerned in the effective application of the Union acts that fall within

the Authority’s competence.’;

(c) paragraphs 3 and 4 are replaced by the following:

‘3. The Authority shall promote and support the use of electronic tools and

procedures for message exchange between national authorities, including the Internal

Market Information (IMI), Electronic Exchange of Social Security Information

(EESSI) and European Register of Road Transport Undertakings (ERRU) systems.

4. The Authority shall encourage the use of innovative approaches to effective and

efficient cross-border cooperation, and shall promote and support the potential use of

electronic exchange mechanisms and databases between the Member States to

facilitate the access to data in real time and detection of fraud, and may suggest

possible improvements in the use of those mechanisms and databases. The Authority

shall provide reports to the Commission with a view to the further development of

electronic exchange mechanisms and databases.’;

(7) Article 8 is amended as follows:

(a) in paragraph 1, the first and second subparagraphs are replaced by the

following:

‘At the request of one or more Member States, the Authority shall coordinate and

support concerted or joint inspections in the areas within the scope set out in Article

1, including where necessary employment and social security rights of third-country

nationals. The Authority may also, on its own initiative, request that the authorities

of the Member States concerned carry out a concerted or joint inspection.

Concerted and joint inspections shall be subject to the consent of the Member States

concerned.’;

(b) in paragraph 2, point (a) is replaced by the following:

‘(a) concerted inspections are inspections carried out in two or more Member States,

often simultaneously, regarding related cases, with each national authority operating

in its own territory, and supported, where appropriate, by the staff of the Authority;’;

(c) in paragraph 3, the first and the second subparagraphs are replaced by the

following:

EN 30 EN

‘In accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation, Member States shall

participate in concerted or joint inspections which the Authority facilitates at the

request of one or more other Member States or on its own initiative. Member States

may only decide not to participate in such concerted or joint inspections on duly

justified grounds.

A concerted or joint inspection shall be subject to the prior consent of all

participating Member States, and such consent shall be notified to the Authority, at

the same time informing the National Inspection Liaison Officers from the Member

States concerned designated pursuant to Article 32(2a).’;

(d) in paragraph 4, the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:

‘In such cases, the Member State concerned shall inform the Authority and the other

Member States concerned in writing, including by electronic means, within 10

working days of the request sent by the Authority of the reasons for its decision,

which shall be duly justified, and possibly about the measures it plans to take to

resolve the case, as well as, once known, about the outcomes of such measures. The

Authority may suggest that the Member State which did not participate in a

concerted or joint inspection carry out its own inspection on a voluntary basis.’;

(8) Article 9 is amended as follows:

(a) paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

‘1. The participating Member States and the Authority shall set out the terms and the

conditions for carrying out a concerted inspection or a joint inspection, including the

scope and purpose of the inspection and, if relevant, any arrangements with regard to

the participation of the staff of the Authority.’;

(b) paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 are replaced by the following:

‘3. Concerted and joint inspections shall take place in an operationally effective

manner. To that end, the participating Member States shall grant staff of enforcement

authorities from another Member State participating in such inspections an

appropriate role and status, in accordance with the law or practice of the Member

State where the inspection is carried out. This shall include at least the following

competences, under conditions equivalent to those applying to staff of enforcement

authorities from the Member State where the inspection takes place:

(a) access to the premises, documents and records subject to inspection;

(b) gathering of evidence.

4. The Authority shall provide conceptual, analytical and risk-assessment, logistical

and technical support, and, where appropriate, legal expertise, if requested by the

Member States concerned, including translation and interpretation services, to

Member States carrying out concerted or joint inspections.

5. Staff of the Authority may attend the inspection as observers, may provide

logistical support, and may participate in a concerted or joint inspection with the

prior consent of the Member State on whose territory they will be providing their

assistance to the inspection in accordance with the Member State’s law or practice.

The National Inspection Liaison Officer from the Member State where the inspection

takes place designated pursuant to Article 32(2a) shall be granted the same

competences as participating staff of enforcement authorities from another Member

State, as referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article.’;

EN 31 EN

(c) the following paragraph 5a is inserted:

‘5a. Upon request from the Authority, and where in line with the terms and

conditions set out in accordance with paragraph 1, the competent authorities of the

Member States shall exchange with the Authority all information necessary for

the initiation, coordination and support of as well as follow-up to the concerted and

joint inspections in accordance with Chapter IIIa.’;

(d) paragraph 6 is replaced by the following:

‘6. The authority of a Member State that carries out a concerted or joint inspection

shall provide a preliminary report to the Authority on the outcome of the inspection

within that Member State and on the overall operational running of the concerted or

joint inspection within 20 working days following the inspection. At the latest nine

months following the inspection, the Member State concerned shall submit a final

report on the outcome of the inspection, which shall contain at least the following

elements: the undertakings inspected, the number of individuals involved and their

status under Union law, the number and type of violations identified per undertaking,

and the fines or other sanctions imposed.’;

(e) the following paragraph 6a is inserted:

‘6a. The Authority shall establish and operate an electronic case management system.

The case management system shall have the following functions:

(a) support the management of concerted and joint inspections supported by the

Authority, in particular by managing information workflows and by supporting

investigative work in cross-border cases;

(b) ensure secure access to information on concerted and joint inspections;

(c) allow for the cross-border referencing of information and the extraction of data

for operational analysis and statistical purposes;

(d) facilitate monitoring to ensure that the processing of personal data complies with

the relevant provisions of Chapter IIIa of this Regulation and of Regulation (EU)

2018/1725.’;

(f) paragraph 7 is replaced by the following:

‘7. It shall be possible to use the information collected during concerted or joint

inspections as evidence in legal proceedings in all Member States concerned, in

accordance with the law or practice of those Member States.’;

(9) Article 10 is amended as follows:

(a) paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

‘1. The Authority shall, in cooperation with Member States and, where appropriate,

the social partners, assess risks and carry out analyses regarding labour mobility and

social security coordination across the Union, including where necessary

employment and social security rights of third-country nationals, within the scope set

out in Article 1. The analytical work shall address topics such as labour market

imbalances, sector-specific challenges and recurring problems, and the Authority

may also carry out focused in-depth analyses and studies to investigate specific

issues. In carrying out its analytical work, the Authority shall access and process

information, including personal data, in accordance with Chapter IIIa. It shall, to the

extent possible, use relevant and current statistical data available from existing

EN 32 EN

surveys, and ensure complementarity with, and draw on the expertise of Union

agencies or services and of national authorities, agencies or services, civil society

organisations, social partners and entities in third countries, including in the areas of

fraud, labour exploitation, discrimination, skills forecasting, trafficking in human

beings for the purpose of labour exploitation, migration and health and safety at

work.’;

(b) the following paragraph 1a is inserted:

‘1a. To inform the operational planning, including the targeting, preparation, conduct

and follow-up of concerted and joint inspections in accordance with Articles 8 and 9,

upon request of one or more Member States or on its own initiative, the Authority

shall carry out operational risk analyses within the scope set out in Article 1. To this

end, the Authority shall access and process information, including personal data, in

accordance with Chapter IIIa. It can request information from Member States in

accordance with Article 9(5a). The Authority shall share the outcomes of operational

risk analyses with the concerned competent national authorities without undue

delay.’;

(c) paragraphs 3 and 4 are replaced by the following:

‘3. Where an operational risk analysis or any other type of analytical work has been

completed, the Authority shall report its findings to the Commission, as well as to the

Member States concerned directly, outlining possible measures to address identified

weaknesses and the ways in which the analysis informs the Authority’s operational

planning.

The Authority shall also include a summary of its findings in its annual reports to the

European Parliament and to the Commission.

4. The Authority shall, where appropriate, collect statistical data compiled and

provided by Member States in the areas within the scope set out in Article 1. In doing

so, the Authority shall seek to streamline current data collection activities in those

areas to avoid duplication of data collection. Where relevant, Article 15 shall apply.

The Authority shall liaise with the Commission (Eurostat) and share the results of its

data collection activities, where appropriate.’;

(10) Article 11 is amended as follows:

(a) the introductory wording is replaced by the following:

‘The Authority shall support Member States with capacity building aimed at

promoting the consistent application and enforcement of the Union law within the

scope set out in Article 1. The Authority shall, in particular, carry out the following

activities:’;

(b) point (d) is replaced by the following:

‘(d) develop or assist Member States in developing sectoral and cross-sectoral

training programmes, which are predominantly operationally oriented, including for

national administrations, such as labour inspectorates, social security institutions or

other relevant authorities and social partners, and dedicated training material,

including through online learning methods;’;

(c) point (e) is deleted;

(11) in Article 12(1), point (b) is replaced by the following:

EN 33 EN

‘(b) improving the capacity of Member States’ different relevant authorities and

actors to tackle undeclared work within the scope set out in Article 1, including with

regard to its cross-border aspects; and in this way contributing to a level playing

field;’;

(12) Article 13 is amended as follows:

(a) paragraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:

‘1. In the case of a dispute between two or more Member States regarding the

application of Union law in areas covered by this Regulation, the Authority may

perform a mediation role, without prejudice to the powers of the Court of Justice.

The purpose of such mediation shall be to reconcile divergent points of view between

the Member States that are party to the dispute to reach a mutually acceptable

agreement. Such agreements shall reflect the common understanding of the Member

States concerned, without prejudice to their rights and obligations under Union law.

2. Upon request of one or more of the Member States concerned by a dispute, the

Authority shall launch a mediation procedure before its Mediation Board set up for

this purpose in accordance with Article 16(2). The Authority may also launch a

mediation procedure on its own initiative before the Mediation Board. Mediation

shall be conducted only with the agreement of all Member States that are party to the

dispute and in accordance with the principles of neutrality, impartiality and sincere

cooperation.’;

(b) paragraphs 3,4 and 5 are deleted;

(c) paragraphs 6,7 and 8 are replaced by the following:

‘6. The Management Board shall adopt the rules of procedure for mediation,

including working arrangements and the composition of the Mediation Board, the

applicable deadlines, the involvement of experts from the Member States, the

Commission and the Authority, and the possibility of the Mediation Board to sit in

panels composed of several members.

7. Where a Member State decides not to participate in mediation or to withdraw

therefrom, it shall inform the Authority and the other Member States that are party to

the dispute in writing, including by electronic means, of the reasons for its decision

in accordance with and within the period set in the rules of procedure referred to in

paragraph 6.

8. When presenting a case for mediation, Member States shall ensure that all

personal data related to that case is anonymised in such a manner that the data

subject is not or no longer identifiable in accordance with the rules of procedure

referred to in paragraph 6.’;

(d) paragraph 12 is replaced by the following:

‘12. Within three months of the conclusion of the mediation by the Authority, the

Member States that are party to the dispute shall report to the Authority with regard

to the measures that they have taken for the purpose of following up on the mediation

or, where they have not taken measures, with regard to the reasons why they have not

done so.’;

(13) in Article 14, the sole paragraph is replaced by the following:

‘The Authority shall aim in all its activities at ensuring cooperation, avoiding

overlaps, promoting synergies and complementarity with other decentralised Union

EN 34 EN

agencies and specialised bodies, such as the Administrative Commission. To that

end, the Authority may conclude cooperation agreements with relevant Union

agencies, such as Cedefop, Eurofound, EU-OSHA, ETF, the European Maritime

Safety Agency (EMSA), Europol and Eurojust and the European Union Agency for

Fundamental Rights. The cooperation agreements may also provide for the sharing of

data in accordance with Article 23a(2).’;

(14) in Article 19, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

‘2. The term of office of the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson shall be four

years. Their term of office may be renewed once. Where, however, their membership

of the Management Board ends at any time during their term of office, their term of

office shall automatically expire on that date.’;

(15) Article 21 is amended as follows:

(a) paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

‘1. Without prejudice to Article 18(1), points (b) and (t), Article 19(1) and Article

31(8), the Management Board shall take decisions by absolute majority of its

members with the right to vote.’;

(b) the following paragraph 1a is inserted:

‘1a. In the event that the Commission raises serious concerns on a draft decision

presented to the Management Board on matters related to Commission Delegated

Regulation (EU) 2019/715* or the Staff, the Management Board shall postpone the

adoption of the decision. Within 15 days, the Management Board shall re-examine

and adopt that decision in second reading either with a two-thirds majority, including

the Commission representatives, or by a four fifths majority of Member States.’;

* Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/715 of 18 December 2018 on the framework financial

regulation for the bodies set up under the TFEU and Euratom Treaty and referred to in Article 70 of

Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 122,

10.5.2019, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2019/715/oj).

(16) after Article 23, the following Chapter heading is inserted:

‘CHAPTER IIIa

PROCESSING OF OPERATIONAL INFORMATION’;

(17) in Chapter IIIa, the following Articles 23a to 23d are inserted:

‘Article 23a

Access to operational information

1. To carry out the tasks referred to in Articles 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 the

Authority may collect, store, process, analyse and exchange operational information,

including personal data. The Authority shall process personal data only for the

specific purposes of its activities within the scope specified in Article 1(2),

1(4), 1(4a) and 1(5).

2. Processing of special categories of personal data as referred to in Article 10 of

Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 shall be allowed only where strictly necessary for

the investigations in concerted and joint inspections supported by the Authority,

subject to appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of the data subject and

only if they supplement other personal data already processed by the Authority. The

Data Protection Officer shall be informed immediately of recourse to this paragraph.

EN 35 EN

3. The Authority shall periodically review the need for the storage of the personal data

processed. Such a review shall be carried out no later than 3 years after the personal

data were first processed and then every 3 years. The reasons for continued storage of

the personal data, where and as long this is necessary to perform the tasks of the

Authority referred to in Articles 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, shall be justified and

recorded. If no decision is taken on the continued storage of personal data, those data

shall be deleted automatically.

4. The Authority may conclude dedicated data sharing arrangements with Union

institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, as well as with public authorities in

Member States for the purpose of exchanging information, including personal data,

in the exercise of its tasks referred to in Articles 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13.

5. The Authority shall exchange operational information through and access data on the

use of relevant Union information exchange systems and databases in accordance

with Articles 23b, 23c and 23d.

Article 23b

Exchange of operational information through the Internal Market Information System

The exchange of information between the Authority and the competent authorities of the

Member States for the purposes of the Authority’s tasks of coordinating and supporting

concerted and joint inspections as well as carrying out analyses and risk assessment pursuant

to Articles 8, 9, and 10, shall also be carried out through the Internal Market Information

System (IMI) established by Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 of the European Parliament and

of the Council*. To this end, the Authority shall be granted access rights as an IMI actor to the

relevant administrative cooperation procedures in IMI, linked to the Union acts referred to in

Article 1. Where information exchanged between competent authorities of the Member States

via IMI concerns concerted and joint inspections as referred to in Articles 8 and 9, the

Authority shall be granted access to such exchanges in the IMI system.

Article 23c

Access to the European Register of Road Transport Undertakings

The Authority shall be granted user access to the relevant functions of the European Register

of Road Transport Undertakings (ERRU) established by Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009, for

the purposes of the Authority’s tasks of coordinating and supporting concerted and joint

inspections as well as carrying out analyses and risk assessment, as provided for in Articles 8,

9, and 10.

Article 23d

Access to data on the use of information exchange systems

1. Where necessary for the purposes of supporting Member States’ effective compliance with

information and cooperation obligations in accordance with Articles 5 and 7, coordinating and

supporting concerted and joint inspections in accordance with Articles 8 and 9, carrying out

analytical work and operational risk analyses in accordance with Article 10, and identifying

cases in which to launch a mediation procedure in accordance with Article 13, the Authority

shall have access to the following information:

(a) data on the use of administrative cooperation procedures in IMI which cover the exchange

of information concerning the application and enforcement of Union acts referred to in Article

1;

EN 36 EN

(b) the information submitted to Member States in the posting declarations in the public

interface connected to IMI pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2026/XXX and pursuant to Directive

(EU) 2020/1057;

(c) data on the use of the EESSI and ERRU systems.

2. Subject to the agreement of all Member States concerned and where necessary for the

purposes of supporting Member States’ effective compliance with information and

cooperation obligations in accordance with Articles 5 and 7, coordinating and supporting

concerted and joint inspections in accordance with Articles 8 and 9, carrying out analytical

work and operational risk analyses in accordance with Article 10, or identifying cases in

which to launch a mediation procedure in accordance with Article 13, the Authority may be

granted access to specific exchanges between Member States via the information exchange

systems referred to in paragraph 1, points (a) to (c).

3. The access referred to in paragraph 1 shall be granted only to staff authorised by the

Authority, who will be able to act on behalf of the Authority, who hold a personal user

identification for the respective information exchange systems.4. All users shall be bound by

the confidentiality rules applicable to the respective information exchange system.

* Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on

administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System and repealing Commission Decision

2008/49/EC (‘the IMI Regulation’) (OJ L 316, 14.11.2012, p. 1,

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2012/1024/oj).’;

(18) in Article 29, the following second paragraph is added:

‘The Authority may award grants related to the fulfilment of its tasks as laid

down in Article 4. Article 91 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU)

2019/715 shall apply to the award of grants by the Authority.’;

(19) Article 31 is amended as follows:

(a) paragraphs 4 and 5 are replaced by the following:

‘4. The term of office of the Executive Director shall be five years. In due time,

before the end of that period, the Commission shall carry out an assessment

that takes into account an evaluation of the Executive Director’s performance

and the Authority’s future tasks and challenges.

5. The Management Board, acting on a proposal from the Commission which

takes into account the assessment referred to in paragraph 4, may extend the

Executive Director’s term of office once by no more than five years.’;

(b) paragraph 7 is replaced by the following:

‘7. The Executive Director may be removed from office only upon a decision

of the Management Board acting on a proposal from the Commission.’;

(20) Article 32 is amended as follows:

(a) paragraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:

‘1. Each Member State shall designate two National Liaison Officers as

seconded national experts to the Authority and to work at its seat, pursuant to

Article 33.

2. The first National Liaison Officer nominated by each Member State

following the approval and recruitment by the Authority, shall contribute to

executing the tasks of the Authority, including by facilitating the cooperation

EN 37 EN

and exchange of information set out in Article 7. They shall also act as national

contact points for questions from their Member States and relating to their

Member States, either by answering those questions directly or by liaising with

their national administrations.’;

(b) the following paragraph 2a is inserted:

‘2a. The second National Liaison Officer nominated by each Member State

following the approval and recruitment by the Authority, shall be a National

Inspection Liaison Officer, seconded from a relevant national enforcement

authority, and shall contribute to executing the Authority’s task of coordinating

and supporting concerted and joint inspections in accordance with Articles 8

and 9, including by participating in such inspections in accordance with Article

9(5).’;

(21) in Article 33, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

‘2. The Management Board shall adopt a decision laying down rules on the

secondment of national experts to the Authority, including National Liaison

Officers.’;

(22) in Article 36, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

‘2. The Management Board shall adopt internal rules implementing the obligations

laid down in Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, in particular those concerning the

appointment of a Data Protection Officer of the Authority and those relating to the

lawfulness of the processing of data, the security of the processing activities, the

provision of information and the rights of data subjects.’;

(23) the Annex to Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 is amended as follows:

(a) points (1) and (2) are replaced by the following:

‘(1) improve the knowledge of undeclared work, including causes, regional

differences and cross-border aspects thereof as well as its prevalence among

and impact on third-country nationals, by means of shared definitions and

common concepts, evidence-based measurement tools and promotion of

comparative analysis; develop mutual understanding of different systems and

practices to tackle undeclared work and analysing the effectiveness of policy

measures, including preventive measures and penalties;

(2) facilitate and evaluate different forms of cooperation between Member

States, and where relevant third countries with a view to tackling undeclared

work among third-country nationals in the Union, such as the exchange of

staff, use of databases, joint activities and joint trainings, and set up a system of

information exchange for administrative cooperation using a specific module

on undeclared work under the IMI system;’;

(b) point (5) is replaced by the following:

‘(5) exchange national authorities’ experiences in applying Union law relevant

to tackling undeclared work, including as regards third-country nationals.’.

Article 2

Amendments to Regulation (EU) 2016/589

Regulation (EU) 2016/589 is amended as follows:

EN 38 EN

(1) in Article 3, the following points (9) to (13) are added:

‘(9) ‘European classification’ means the latest version of the European Skills,

Competences, Qualifications and Occupations published by the Commission.58 The

list consists of an enumeration of unique identifiers that are representing occupations

or skills and competences, accompanied by metadata;

(10) ‘mapping tables’ means machine-readable correspondence tables that express

how concepts in one classification relate to one or more concepts in another

classification. Mapping tables are used for automatic transcoding of information for

the purpose of automated matching through the common IT platform;

(11) ‘machine-readable’ means that information is presented in a format that can be

easily processed by a computer;

(12) ‘transcoding’ means the process of converting information from one form of

coded representation to another;

(13) ‘EURES Targeted Mobility Scheme’ means a Commission initiative to

effectively address labour shortages, to implement transnational job mobility and

tackle the needs of specific target groups, economic sectors, occupations or

countries.’;

(2) Article 8(1) is amended as follows:

(a) in point (a), point (i) is deleted;

(b) in point (a), point (ii) is replaced by the following:

‘(ii) information activities regarding the EURES network;’;

(c) in point (a), the following point (iia) is inserted:

‘(iia) programming, annual data collection and analysis activities regarding the

EURES network;’;

(d) in point (a), point (iii) is replaced by the following:

‘(iii) a common training programme and continuing professional development

for the staff of the EURES Members and Partners and of the NCOs, as well as

– where a duly justified need is identified – of other entities temporarily

implementing EURES services on a cross-border basis, ensuring the necessary

expertise;’;

(e) in point (a), point (iv) is deleted;

(f) point (c) is deleted;

(3) Article 9 is amended as follows:

(a) paragraph 5 is replaced by the following:

‘5. NCOs shall exchange information on the mechanisms and standards

referred to in Article 17(5) as well as on standards regarding data security and

data protection of relevance for the common IT platform. They shall cooperate

with each other, with the European Coordination Office and with the

Commission, as system owner, in particular with regard to complaints and job

vacancies that are considered not to comply with those standards under

national law.’;

58 https://esco.ec.europa.eu/en

EN 39 EN

(b) paragraph 7 is replaced by the following:

‘7. The NCO shall promote collaboration with stakeholders such as the social

partners, career guidance services, vocational training and higher education

institutions, chambers of commerce, social services and organisations

representing groups in situations of vulnerability on the labour market and

organisations involved in apprenticeships and traineeships schemes.’;

(4) in Article 14, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

‘2. The Coordination Group shall support the implementation of this Regulation by

exchanging information and developing guidance. In particular, it shall advise the

Commission and the European Coordination Office on the templates referred to in

Article 11(8) and Article 31(3a), the draft technical standards and formats referred to

in Article 17(8), and the uniform detailed specifications for data collection and

analysis referred to in Article 32(3). The Coordination Group shall decide which

information stemming from the EURES programming cycle is of relevance for and

can be used in the drafting of the reports on EURES activity in application of Article

33.’;

(5) in Article 16, paragraph 6 is replaced by the following:

‘6. Member States shall, together with the Commission and the European

Coordination Office, examine every possibility of giving priority to citizens of the

Union when filling job vacancies, in order to achieve a balance between labour

supply and demand within the Union. Member States may adopt measures necessary

for that purpose, including taking an active role in the EURES Targeted Mobility

Scheme and promoting its services.’;

(6) in Article 17(1), point (b) is replaced by the following:

‘(b) all job applications and CVs available through PES as well as those provided by

the other EURES Members and workers and, where relevant, the EURES Partners, in

accordance with Article 12(3), provided that the workers concerned have consented

to making the information available to the EURES portal under the terms set out in

paragraph 3 of this Article.’;

(7) Article 19 is amended as follows:

(a) paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

‘2. The Commission shall regularly update the list of skills, competences and

occupations of the European classification to ensure that it is aligned with the

evolution of the labour market. The Commission shall inform Member States

about future updates through the Coordination Group for EURES and the

Member States Working Group on ESCO.’;

(b) paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:

‘3. For the purpose of automated matching through the common IT platform,

the Commission shall in cooperation with Member States, map national,

regional and sectoral classifications to and from the European classification

and, following the update of the list of skills, competences and occupations,

regularly update the mapping tables in line with the evolution of recruitment

services.’;

(c) the following paragraph 3a is inserted:

EN 40 EN

‘3a. The mapping tables referred to in paragraph 3 shall be used for automatic

transcoding of information on job vacancies or job seeker profiles for the

purpose of automated matching through the common IT platform. The

Commission shall support Member States in order to ensure that any codes of

their national, regional and sectoral classifications in job vacancies and job

seeker profiles under Article 17(1) are replaced or complemented by the

corresponding codes of the European classification before making job

vacancies and job seekers profiles available to the EURES portal.’;

(d) paragraph 5 is replaced by the following:

‘5. The Commission shall provide technical support to Member States when

they implement the correspondence tables referred to in paragraph 3 for

automatic transcoding of information on job vacancies or job seeker profiles

and to the Member States which choose to replace national classifications with

the European classification.’;

(e) paragraph 6 is deleted;

(8) Article 23(2) is amended as follows:

(a) point (c) is replaced by the following:

‘(c) where appropriate, providing assistance with the drawing up of job

applications and CVs to ensure conformity with the European technical

standards and formats referred to in Article 17(8), and with the uploading of

such job applications and CVs on the EURES portal;’;

(b) point (e) is replaced by the following:

‘(e) where appropriate, referring the worker to another EURES Member or

Partner or to services offered by the EURES Targeted Mobility Scheme.’;

(9) Article 24(2) is amended as follows:

(a) point (a) is replaced by the following:

‘(a) providing information on specific rules relating to recruitment from

another Member State and on factors which can facilitate such recruitment,

including services provided by the EURES Targeted Mobility Scheme;’;

(b) point (b) is replaced by the following:

‘(b) where appropriate, providing information on and assistance with the

formulation of individual job requirements in a job vacancy and with ensuring

its conformity with the European technical standards and formats referred to in

Article 17(8).’;

(10) in Article 25(1), point (b) is replaced by the following:

‘(b) where possible, the contact details of organisations which offer post-recruitment

assistance, including entities implementing projects under the EURES Targeted

Mobility Scheme.’;

(11) In Article 26, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

‘1. Upon the request of a worker or of an employer, the EURES Members and, where

relevant, the EURES Partners shall refer requests for specific information on the

rights relating to social security, active labour market measures, taxation, issues

relating to work contracts, disability assessment, pension entitlement and health

EN 41 EN

insurance to the national competent authorities and, if applicable, other appropriate

bodies at national level supporting workers exercising their rights in the framework

of the freedom of movement, including those referred to in Article 4 of Directive

2014/54/EU.’;

(12) Article 27 is amended as follows:

(a) paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

‘2. The tasks of the cross-border partnerships shall respond to and follow

trends in the respective cross-border labour markets and may include, but are

not limited to, placement and recruitment services, the coordination of

cooperation between the participating organisations and the carrying out of

activities relevant for cross-border mobility, including information and

guidance to frontier workers, with a specific focus on multilingual services.’;

(b) paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:

‘3. Organisations other than the EURES Members and Partners participating in

structures referred to in paragraph 1 shall not be considered to be part of the

EURES network. Their staff may – for duly justified reasons – access training

activities funded by the European Coordination Office.’;

(13) Article 30 is amended as follows:

(a) in paragraph 1, point (a) is replaced by the following:

‘(a) labour shortages and labour surpluses on national and sectoral labour

markets, paying particular attention to groups in situations of vulnerability in

the labour market and the regions most affected by unemployment;’;

(b) paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

‘2. The NCOs shall be responsible for sharing the available information within

the EURES network and shall contribute to the joint review of the draft annual

national work programmes referred to in Article 31 (3).’;

(c) paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:

‘3. Member States shall carry out the programming referred to in Article 31,

taking into account the exchange of information and the analysis referred to in

paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article.’;

(d) paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:

‘4. The European Coordination Office shall make practical arrangements to

facilitate the exchange of information between the NCOs and the development

of commonly used templates for exchanges.’;

(14) Article 31 is amended as follows:

(a) paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:

‘3. The NCOs and the European Coordination Office shall be given the

opportunity to review together all draft national work programmes. Upon

finalisation of that joint review, the national work programmes shall be adopted

by the respective NCOs. The NCOs shall report yearly on the implementation

of the national work programmes, identifying results of the planned activities

based on data collection in accordance with Article 32 and in compliance with

the detailed timeline set out in Annex IA.’;

EN 42 EN

(b) the following paragraph 3a is inserted:

‘3a. The template to be used by the National Coordination Offices for

programming shall be developed by the European Coordination Office and

approved by the Coordination Group.’;

(c) paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:

‘4. The representatives of the social partners at Union level participating in the

Coordination Group shall be given the opportunity to review the draft national

work programmes.’;

(d) paragraph 5 is deleted;

(15) Article 32 is amended as follows:

(a) paragraph 1 is amended as follows:

(i) the introductory wording is replaced by the following:

‘Member States shall ensure that procedures are in place to collect data

relevant for each calendar year on the following areas of EURES activity

carried out at national level:’;

(ii) point (a) is replaced by the following:

‘(a) information and guidance by the EURES network, on the basis of the

number of contacts and number of events that the case handlers of the EURES

Members and Partners have with workers and employers;’;

(iii) point (c) is replaced by the following:

‘(c) customer satisfaction and usage of social media channels with the EURES

network, obtained, inter alia, through the use of surveys;’;

(iv) the following point (d) is added:

‘(d) user statistics and feedback on the services of the single digital gateway in

accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 of the European Parliament and

of the Council*.

* Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 October 2018

establishing a single digital gateway to provide access to information, to procedures and to

assistance and problem-solving services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 (OJ L

295, 21.11.2018, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1724/oj).’;

(b) paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

‘2. The European Coordination Office shall be responsible for:

(a) collecting data about the EURES portal and the development of the

cooperation on the clearance under this Regulation;

(b) collecting and transmitting Union level aggregate data in accordance with

Regulation (EU) 2018/1724;

(c) the contribution from EURES to the Commission reports on the functioning

of the Single market.’;

(c) paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:

‘3. On the basis of the information referred to in paragraph 1 and within the

areas of EURES activity specified in that paragraph, the European

EN 43 EN

Coordination Office shall adopt the uniform detailed specifications for annual

data collection and analysis to monitor and evaluate the functioning of the

EURES network in consultation with the Coordination Group.’;

(d) the following paragraphs 3a and 3b are inserted:

‘3a. The collected data and the analysis of it shall be made available to the

National Coordination Offices in a dedicated section on the EURES Portal

Extranet.

3b. Any further dissemination shall be governed by the dissemination approach

agreed by the Coordination Group.’;

(16) in Article 33, the first paragraph is replaced by the following:

‘Taking into account the information gathered as referred to in this Chapter, the

Commission shall, every five years, submit a report on EURES activity to the

European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee

and the Committee of the Regions.’;

(17) the following Annex IA is inserted:

‘ANNEX IA

Timeline for the preparation of the annual national work programme

(1) PREPARATION PHASE

National Coordination Offices shall gather, analyse and share information on labour shortages

and surpluses on national and sectorial labour markets ,paying particular attention to groups in

situations of vulnerability in the labour market and the regions most affected by

unemployment and taking into account data on mobility flows and patterns.

(2) DRAFTING PHASE

By 30 November of the year prior to the entry-into-force year of the work programme, the

National Coordination Offices to draft a first version of national work programme using the

information collected during the preparation phase. The drafts shall be made available in a

dedicated section of the EURES portal Extranet.

(3) JOINT REVIEW PHASE

By 15 January of the entry-into-force year of the work programme, the National Coordination

Offices to jointly review the draft annual national work programmes.

(4) ADOPTION PHASE

By 31 January of year of the entry into force of the work programme, the National

Coordination Offices shall finalise the national work programmes taking into account the

feedback received during the review phase.

(5) IMPLEMENTATION PHASE

From January to December the annual national work programmes shall be implemented.

(6) REPORTING PHASE

By 31 March of year following the implementation of the work programme, the National

Coordination Offices shall collect information on results and report to the European

Coordination Office on the implementation of the national work programme with key

performance indicators. The report shall outline the outcomes of the planned activities,

showcase best practice and draw attention to valuable lessons learned in service delivery.’.

EN 44 EN

Article 3

Amendment to Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012

In the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012, the following point is added:

‘16. Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June

2019 establishing a European Labour Authority, amending Regulations (EC) No 883/2004,

(EU) No 492/2011, and (EU) 2016/589 and repealing Decision (EU) 2016/344*: Articles 8, 9,

10, 23a, 23b and 23d.

* OJ L 186, 11.7.2019, p. 21, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/1149/oj.’.

Article 4

Repeal

Commission Implementing Decisions (EU) 2017/1256, (EU) 2018/170, (EU) 2018/1020 and

(EU) 2018/1021 are repealed.

Article 5

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in

the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Strasbourg,

For the European Parliament For the Council

The President The President

[...] [...]

EN 45 EN

LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL AND DIGITAL STATEMENT- AGENCIES1.

FRAMEWORK OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE

1.1. Title of the proposal/initiative

Draft Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU)

2019/1149 establishing a European Labour Authority, Regulation (EU) 2016/589 on a

European network of employment services (EURES), workers' access to mobility services and

the further integration of labour markets and Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on

administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System, and repealing

Commission Implementing Decisions (EU) 2017/1256, (EU) 2018/170, (EU) 2018/1020 and

(EU) 2018/1021

1.2. Policy area(s) concerned

Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion

European Labour Authority

1.3. Objective(s)

1.3.1. General objective(s)

This initiative aims to enhance ELA’s strategic and operational capacity to assist the Member

States and the Commission in the effective application and enforcement of Union law related

to labour mobility across the Union and the coordination of social security systems within the

Union.

The revision is targeted to necessary legal adjustments identified in the evaluation of ELA

published in 2025.

1.3.2. Specific objective(s)

Specific objective No 1

To improve access to, and quality of, information and support in cross border labour mobility

situations, so that individuals, intra EU mobile workers (including cross border workers),

third country nationals, and employers are better able to exercise their rights and comply with

their obligations.

Specific objective No 2

To increase the number of individuals benefiting from cross-border mobility support and

improve job-matching outcomes by increasing the efficiency of governance and operation of

the EURES network and portal.

Specific objective No 3

To improve the targeting and effectiveness of enforcement actions in cross-border situations,

including cases involving third-country nationals by strengthening ELA’s analytical and

operational support for concerted and joint inspections.

Specific objective No 4

To reduce the number of cross-border disputes by improving the effectiveness of the

mediation function.

1.3.3. Expected result(s) and impact

Specify the effects which the proposal/initiative should have on the beneficiaries/groups targeted.

EN 46 EN

- Improved information provision to individuals and employers supporting fair labour

mobility, preventing labour exploitation and enhancing legal certainty resulting in smoother

labour market functioning

- Strengthening the EU-level oversight of EURES governance and IT operations resulting in

improved strategic coherence and accountability across the EURES network

- Enhanced analytical capacity, collecting and processing (personal) data and access to

relevant databases resulting in improved risk analyses and enhancing the effectiveness of

inspections

- Strengthened ability to trigger CJIs and reinforced cooperation on TCNs helping to prevent

exploitation and reduce gaps in enforcement

- Enhanced legal certainty and simplification of the mediation procedure, reducing procedural

complexity and lowering administrative barriers for Member States making the mechanism

more accessible and practical.

1.3.4. Indicators of performance

Specify the indicators for monitoring progress and achievements.

Detailed objectives and expected results including performance indicators will be established

by the annual work programme, while the multi-annual work programme will set out overall

strategic objectives, specific objectives, expected results and performance indicators.

For the specific tasks and actions presented in the current proposal, the following indicators

are put forward:

– Number of individuals and employers reached

– Number of job placements through EURES

– Number, ratio and coverage of targeted and concerted inspections

– Number of cases brought to, and resolved by, mediation

1.4. The proposal/initiative relates to:

a new action

a new action following a pilot project / preparatory action59

the extension of an existing action

a merger or redirection of one or more actions towards another/a new action

1.5. Grounds for the proposal/initiative

1.5.1. Requirement(s) to be met in the short or long term including a detailed timeline for

roll-out of the implementation of the initiative

The proposed initiative is based on Articles 46 and 48 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the

European Union (TFEU), which provides the legal basis for adopting measures to facilitate

the free movement of workers and to ensure coordination of social security systems within the

Union. Pursuant to Article 46 TFEU, the European Parliament and the Council are mandated

to adopt the necessary measures to effectuate the freedom of movement for workers. This

includes, inter alia, the establishment of mechanisms for cooperation between national

employment services and the systematic removal of administrative and legislative obstacles

hindering the search, matching, and take-up of employment across Member States.

59 As referred to in Article 58(2), point (a) or (b) of the Financial Regulation.

EN 47 EN

Complementing this, Article 48 TFEU establishes a specific legal basis for the adoption of

social security coordination measures essential for the practical exercise of such mobility. The

current legal framework for ELA is established by Regulation (EU) 2019/1149, which defines

the Authority’s objectives, tasks, and structure.

In the short term the immediate result is an Authority with an enhanced operational capacity.

In the long run this strengthened capacity and tools to support Member States and the

Commission should lead to more effective enforcement of labour mobility legislation,

resulting in a reduced risk of abuse for individuals and reduced unfair competition for

employers.

In the “One Europe, One Market Roadmap”, adoption of the mandate revision is foreseen for

Q3 2027. It can be implemented immediately from the moment of adoption. Start-up phase

for the implementation is foreseen from 2028-2030

1.5.2. Added value of EU involvement (it may result from different factors, e.g. coordination

gains, legal certainty, greater effectiveness or complementarities). For the purposes of this

section 'added value of EU involvement' is the value resulting from EU action, that is

additional to the value that would have been otherwise created by Member States alone.

Reasons for action at EU level (ex-ante) [The objectives of the proposal cannot be sufficiently

achieved by the Member States at national, regional or local level, and can be better achieved

at Union level for the following reasons:

a) providing high quality and up-to-date information and services to the public about

their rights and obligations in cross-border situations needs to be coordinated at Union level in

order to ensure consistent, clear, and efficient messaging;

b) the application of Union law in the fields of cross border labour mobility and social

security coordination relies on cooperation between Member States, meaning that no Member

State can act alone;

c) in order to increase synergies and support cooperation between Member States in the

application of Union law and to ensure legal certainty for administrations and individuals

alike, it is necessary to develop a coordinated and joint approach at Union level instead of

relying on what can be a complex network of bilateral or multilateral agreements.]

Expected generated EU added value (ex-post) [The enhanced operational capacity of ELA

will further facilitate the fair and effective application of Union law in the field of labour

mobility. It will improve the more targeted information provision to employers and

individuals, including third-country nationals, it will improve the data collection and handling

capacities of ELA to enable evidence-based and risk-based inspections, and finally, it will

simplify the ELA mediation procedure to resolve disputes on EU labour mobility between

Member States.]

1.5.3. Lessons learned from similar experiences in the past

The proposal builds on the recent ELA evaluation which found that ELA has addressed a

previously unmet need for support in the implementation of EU labour mobility policies and

also identified weaknesses in the current Regulation that can only be addressed with a

revision of the mandate.

The proposal also takes account of the lessons learned from the Posting implementation report

of 2024, as well as from the most recent EURES biennial report published in 2025.

EN 48 EN

Recommendations and lessons learned from the 2024 joint evaluation report of the other four

decentralised agencies in the field of employment and social affairs have also been taken into

account.

1.5.4. Compatibility with the multiannual financial framework and possible synergies with

other appropriate instruments

ELA will be strengthened to improve access to, and quality of, information and support in

cross border labour mobility situations, so that individuals, intra EU mobile workers

(including cross border workers), third country nationals, and employers are better able to

exercise their rights and comply with their obligations. While doing so, the Authority will also

cooperate and promote synergies with other Union services such as the Your Europe portal,

the European Network of Public Employment Services (PES) and Solvit, as well as with

relevant national services such as the bodies to promote equal treatment and to support Union

workers and members of their family, designated by Member States under Directive

2014/54/EU.

With the simplification of its mediation procedure, ELA will aim to reduce the number of

cross-border disputes by improving the effectiveness of the mediation function. ELA will

maintain a strong operational cooperation with the Administrative Commission for the

coordination of social security systems.

ELA will support and where needed seek synergies with other ongoing initiatives in the field

of labour mobility such as the EU Talent Pool for TCNs, and the upcoming ESSPASS

initiative.

Finally, the Authority will, where possible, further intensify the cooperation with other EU

Decentralised Agencies working in related fields, in particular the European Agency for

Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA), the European Centre for the Development of

Vocational Training (Cedefop), the European Training Foundation (ETF), the European

Agency for the improvement of living and working conditions (EUROFOUND), European

Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol), and the European Union Agency

for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust).

1.5.5. Assessment of the different available financing options, including scope for

redeployment

For the additional tasks, additional resources are necessary for the European Labour

Authority, i.e. increasing its subsidy (Title 1 for staff and Title 3 for operational tasks).

EN 49 EN

1.6. Duration of the proposal/initiative and of its financial impact

limited duration

 in effect from [DD/MM]YYYY to [DD/MM]YYYY

 financial impact from YYYY to YYYY for commitment appropriations and from

YYYY to YYYY for payment appropriations.

 unlimited duration

Implementation with a start-up period from 2028 to 2030,

followed by full-scale operation.

1.7. Method(s) of budget implementation planned60

 Direct management by the Commission

by its departments, including by its staff in the Union delegations;

 by the executive agencies

Shared management with the Member States

 Indirect management by entrusting budget implementation tasks to:

 third countries or the bodies they have designated

 international organisations and their agencies (to be specified)

 the European Investment Bank and the European Investment Fund

bodies referred to in Articles 70 and 71 of the Financial Regulation

 public law bodies

 bodies governed by private law with a public service mission to the extent that they are

provided with adequate financial guarantees

 bodies governed by the private law of a Member State that are entrusted with the

implementation of a public-private partnership and that are provided with adequate financial

guarantees

 bodies or persons entrusted with the implementation of specific actions in the common

foreign and security policy pursuant to Title V of the Treaty on European Union, and

identified in the relevant basic act

bodies established in a Member State, governed by the private law of a Member State or

Union law and eligible to be entrusted, in accordance with sector-specific rules, with the

implementation of Union funds or budgetary guarantees, to the extent that such bodies are

controlled by public law bodies or by bodies governed by private law with a public service

mission, and are provided with adequate financial guarantees in the form of joint and several

liability by the controlling bodies or equivalent financial guarantees and which may be, for

each action, limited to the maximum amount of the Union support.

Comments

Direct Management by the Commission is applicable to the tasks related to the

implementation of the EURES portal system ownership including its further development and

60 Details of budget implementation methods and references to the Financial Regulation may be found on

the BUDGpedia site: https://myintracomm.ec.europa.eu/corp/budget/financial-rules/budget-

implementation/Pages/implementation-methods.aspx.

EN 50 EN

management. Indirect management is applicable to all the other tasks and will be

implemented by ELA.

EN 51 EN

2. MANAGEMENT MEASURES

2.1. Monitoring and reporting rules

All Union agencies work under a strict monitoring system involving an internal control

coordinator, the Internal Audit Service of the Commission, the Management Board, the

Commission, the Court of Auditors and the Budgetary Authority. This system is reflected and

laid down in the ELA’s founding Regulation.

In accordance with the Joint Statement on the EU decentralised agencies (the ‘common

approach’) and the framework financial regulation (2019/715), the annual work programme of

the Authority shall comprise detailed objectives and expected results including set up

performance indicators. The Authority will accompany its activities included in its working

programme by key performance indicators. The activities of the Authority will then be

measured against these indicators in the Consolidated Annual Activity Report. The annual

work programme shall be coherent with the multi-annual work programme, and both shall be

included in an annual single programming document (SPD) which shall be submitted to the

European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.

The Management Board of the Authority is responsible for the supervision of the

administrative, operational and budgetary efficient management of the Authority.

Every five years (next evaluation to cover 2024-2028) the Commission shall assess the

Agency's performance in relation to its objectives, mandate and tasks. The evaluation shall, in

particular, address the possible need to modify the mandate of the Agency, and the financial

implications of any such modification. The Commission shall report to the European

Parliament, the Council and the Management Board on the evaluation findings. The findings

of the evaluation shall be made public.

2.2. Management and control system(s)

2.2.1. Justification of the budget implementation method(s), the funding implementation

mechanism(s), the payment modalities and the control strategy proposed

The annual EU subsidy is transferred to the Authority in accordance with its payment needs

and upon its request.

The Authority is subject to administrative controls including budgetary control, internal audit,

annual reports by the European Court of Auditors, the annual discharge for the execution of

the EU budget and possible investigations conducted by OLAF to ensure, in particular, that

the resources allocated to agencies are put to proper use. The activities of the Authority are

also subject to the supervision of the Ombudsman in accordance with Article 228 of the

Treaty. These administrative controls provide a number of procedural safeguards to ensure

that account is taken of the interests of the stakeholders.

2.2.2. Information concerning the risks identified and the internal control system(s) set up to

mitigate them

The main risks relate to under- or non-implementation of the additional tasks foreseen for the

Authority in this proposal. In order to mitigate this, enough resources should be made

available in both financial and staffing terms.

EN 52 EN

2.2.3. Estimation and justification of the cost-effectiveness of the controls (ratio between the

control costs and the value of the related funds managed), and assessment of the expected

levels of risk of error (at payment & at closure)

[…]

[…]

2.3. Measures to prevent fraud and irregularities

Anti-fraud measures are foreseen in Article 37 of the founding Regulation of the European

Labour Authority and the Executive Director and the Management Board will take the

appropriate measures in accordance with the Internal Control Principles applied across all EU

institutions. In line with the Common Approach the anti-fraud strategy has been developed

and is applied by the Authority.

In accordance with Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, the European Public Prosecutor's Office

(EPPO) may investigate and prosecute fraud and other illegal activities affecting the financial

interests of the Union as provided for in Directive (EU) 2017/1371.

The ELA’s decisions concerning funding and the implementing agreements and instruments

resulting therefrom shall explicitly stipulate that the Court of Auditors and OLAF may carry

out, if necessary, on-the-spot checks of the recipients of the Authority’s funding and the

agents responsible for allocating it.

If ELA concludes working arrangements with third countries and with international

organisations, grant agreements, grant decisions and contracts, these shall contain provisions

expressly empowering the Court of Auditors, OLAF and EPPO to conduct such audits and

investigations, in accordance with their respective competences.

EN 53 EN

3. ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE

The estimated impact on expenditure and staffing for 2028 and beyond is added for

illustrative purposes only and does not pre-judge the next Multiannual Financial Framework.

The source of financing and scope of Union financial commitment in the post-2027 period

remain subject to the outcome of interinstitutional negotiations on the MFF 2028-2034 and

thereafter shall be determined through the annual budgetary procedure. All appropriations and

staffing allocations as of 2028 are indicative.

3.1. Heading(s) of the multiannual financial framework and expenditure budget

line(s) affected

Existing budget lines

In order of multiannual financial framework headings and budget lines.

Heading of

multiannual

financial

framework

2028-2034

Budget line Type of

expenditure

Contribution – to be determined at a later stage, upon

adoption of the next MFF 2028-2034

Number

Diff./Non-

diff. 61

from

EFTA

countries 62

from

candidate

countries

and

potential

candidates 63

From

other

third

countries

other assigned

revenue

1

European Labour Authority (successor of

[07 10 09)]

Diff./Non

-diff. YES/NO YES/NO YES/NO YES/NO

1 EU Facility (successor of [07 02 04)]

Diff./Non

-diff. YES/NO YES/NO YES/NO YES/NO

61 Diff. = Differentiated appropriations / Non-diff. = Non-differentiated appropriations. 62 EFTA: European Free Trade Association. 63 Candidate countries and, where applicable, potential candidates from the Western Balkans.

EN 54 EN

3.2. Estimated financial impact of the proposal on appropriations

3.2.1. Summary of estimated impact on operational appropriations

 The proposal/initiative does not require the use of operational appropriations

 The proposal/initiative requires the use of operational appropriations, as explained below

3.2.1.1. Appropriations from voted budget

EUR million (to three decimal places)

Heading of multiannual financial framework Number 1 – Economic, social and territorial cohesion, agriculture, rural and maritime

prosperity and security

DG: EMPL Year Year Year Year Year Year Year TOTAL

MFF

2028-2034 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034

Operational appropriations

Budget line: EU Facility (successor of 07 02 04) Commitments (1a)

p.m. p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m. p.m.

Payments (2a) p.m. p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m. p.m.

Administrative appropriations64

Budget line (3) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0

TOTAL appropriations Commitments =1a+1b+3

p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m.

for DG EMPLPayments =2a+2b+3 p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m.

EUR million (to three decimal places)

64 Technical and/or administrative assistance and expenditure in support of the implementation of EU programmes and/or actions (former ‘BA’ lines), indirect research, direct research.

EN 55 EN

[Agency]: European Labour Authority Year

2028

Year

2029

Year

2030

Year

2031

Year

2032

Year

2033

Year

2034

TOTAL

MFF 2028-

2034

Budget line: 07 10 09 / EU Budget contribution to the

agency 1.677 3.354 5.920 8.512 8.512 8.512 8.512 44.999

The amount of appropriations to be allocated to the agency in the next MFF is indicative and subject to the agreement on the MFF. It should be

integrated into the Agency’s subsidy due to the permanent nature of the tasks allocated by this proposal and will be compensated, if relevant, by an

equivalent reduction of a relevant programme envelope under the same MFF heading. If a compensatory reduction is needed, the resources allocated to

the Agency may also need to be revised through the annual budgetary procedure.

Year Year Year Year Year Year Year TOTAL

MFF 2028-

2034 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034

TOTAL operational

appropriations

(including contribution

to decentralised agency)

Commitments (4)

p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m.

Payments (5) p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m.

TOTAL appropriations of an administrative

nature financed from the envelope for

specific programmes

(6) 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

TOTAL

appropriations under

HEADING 1

Commitments =4+6

p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m.

of the multiannual

financial framework Payments =5+6

p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m.

EN 56 EN

Heading of multiannual financial framework 4 ‘Administrative expenditure’65

DG: EMPL Year Year Year Year Year Year Year TOTAL

MFF

2028-2034 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034

 Human resources p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m.

 Other administrative expenditure 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

TOTAL DG

EMPL Appropriations p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.

TOTAL appropriations under HEADING 4 of

the multiannual financial framework

(Total

commitments

= Total

payments)

p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.

65 The necessary appropriations should be determined using the annual average cost figures available on the appropriate BUDGpedia webpage.

EN 57 EN

EUR million (to three decimal places)

Year Year Year Year Year Year Year TOTAL MFF

2028-2034 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034

TOTAL appropriations

under HEADINGS 1 to

4

Commitments

p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m.

of the multiannual

financial framework Payments

p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m.

EN 58 EN

3.2.3. Summary of estimated impact on administrative appropriations

 The proposal/initiative does not require the use of appropriations of an administrative

nature

The proposal/initiative requires the use of appropriations of an administrative nature, as

explained below

3.2.3.1. Appropriations from voted budget

VOTED

APPROPRIATIONS

Year Year Year Year Year Year Year TOTAL

2028 -

2034 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034

HEADING 4

Human resources p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.

Other administrative

expenditure 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0000.0000.000 0.000

Subtotal HEADING 4 p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.

Outside HEADING 4

Human resources 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0000.0000.000 0.000

Other expenditure of an administrative nature

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0000.0000.000 0.000

Subtotal outside

HEADING 4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

TOTAL p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.

EN 59 EN

3.2.3.3. Total appropriations

TOTAL

VOTED

APPROPRIATIONS

+ EXTERNAL

ASSIGNED

REVENUES

Year Year Year Year Year Year Year TOTAL

2028 -

2034 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034

HEADING 4

Human resources p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.

Other administrative

expenditure 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0000.0000.000 0.000

Subtotal HEADING 4 p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.

Outside HEADING 4

Human resources 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0000.0000.000 0.000

Other expenditure of an administrative nature

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0000.0000.000 0.000

Subtotal outside

HEADING 4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

TOTAL p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.

3.2.4. Estimated requirements of human resources

 The proposal/initiative does not require the use of human resources

 The proposal/initiative requires the use of human resources, as explained below

3.2.4.1. Financed from voted budget

Estimate to be expressed in full-time equivalent units (FTEs) 66

VOTED APPROPRIATIONS Year Year Year Year Year Year Year

2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034

 Establishment plan posts (officials and temporary staff)

20 01 02 01 (Headquarters and

Commission’s Representation Offices)

p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m.

20 01 02 03 (EU Delegations) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(Indirect research) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(Direct research) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other budget lines (specify) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

• External staff (in FTEs)

20 02 01 (AC, END from the ‘global envelope’)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20 02 03 (AC, AL, END and JPD in the EU Delegations)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Admin. Support line

- at Headquarters

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

[XX.01.YY.YY] - in EU

Delegations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(AC, END - Indirect research) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

66 Please specify below the table how many FTEs within the number indicated are already assigned to the

management of the action and/or can be redeployed within your DG and what are your net needs.

EN 60 EN

(AC, END - Direct research) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other budget lines (specify) - Heading 4

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other budget lines (specify) -

Outside Heading 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.

3.2.4.3. Total requirements of human resources

TOTAL VOTED

APPROPRIATIONS +

EXTERNAL ASSIGNED

REVENUES

Year Year Year Year Year Year Year

2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034

 Establishment plan posts (officials and temporary staff)

20 01 02 01 (Headquarters and Commission’s Representation

Offices)

p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m.

20 01 02 03 (EU Delegations) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(Indirect research) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(Direct research) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other budget lines (specify) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

• External staff (in full time equivalent units)

20 02 01 (AC, END from the

‘global envelope’) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20 02 03 (AC, AL, END and JPD

in the EU Delegations) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Admin. Support

line

- at

Headquarters 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

[XX.01.YY.YY] - in EU

Delegations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(AC, END - Indirect research) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(AC, END - Direct research) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other budget lines (specify) - Heading 4

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other budget lines (specify) -

Outside Heading 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.

The staff required to implement the proposal (in FTEs):

To be covered by

current staff

available in the

Commission

services

Exceptional additional staff*

To be financed

under Heading 4

To be financed

from BA line

To be financed

from fees

EN 61 EN

Establishment

plan posts

0 p.m. N/A N/A

External staff

(CA, SNEs, INT)

0 N/A N/A N/A

3.2.7. Third-party contributions

The proposal/initiative:

–  does not provide for co-financing by third parties

–  provides for the co-financing by third parties estimated below:

This proposal is EEA relevant and might be open to candidate countries and

potential candidate countries.

Appropriations in EUR million (to three decimal places)

Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Total

2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034

Specify the co-

financing body

(EEA EFTA

countries,

(potential)

candidate

countries)

p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m.

TOTAL

appropriations

co-financed

p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m.

3.2.8. Estimated human resources and the use of appropriations required in a decentralised

agency

Staff requirements (full-time equivalent units)

Agency: ELA Year

2028

Year

2029

Year

2030

Year

2031

Year

2032

Year

2033

Year

2034

Temporary agents

(AD Grades) 1 2 4 8 8 8 8

Temporary agents

(AST grades) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Temporary agents

(AD+AST) subtotal 1 2488 8 8

Contract agents 1 2 3 4 4 4 4

Seconded national experts 10 20 27 27 27 27 27

EN 62 EN

Contract agents and

seconded national experts

subtotal

11 22303131 31 31

TOTAL staff 12 24 34 39 39 39 39

Three FTEs (2 AD and 1 AST) are redeployed internally, corresponding to the tasks for which ELA is

no longer reponsible, i.e. the business ownership of EURES (1 AD and 1 AST) and the EURES

helpdesk (1 AD). This is already reflected in the table above.

EN 63 EN

Appropriations covered by the EU budget contribution in EUR million (to three decimal places)

Agency: <…….> Year

2028

Year

2029

Year

2030

Year

2031

Year

2032

Year

2033

Year

2034

TOTAL

2028 -

2034

Title 1: Staff expenditure 1.177 2.354 3.420 4.172 4.172 4.172 4.172 23.639

Title 2: Infrastructure and

operating expenditure 0.000

Title 3: Operational

expenditure 0.500 1.000 2.500 4.340 4.340 4.340 4.340 21.360

TOTAL of appropriations

covered by the EU budget

1.677 3.354 5.920 8.512 8.512 8.512 8.512 44.999

Overview/summary of human resources and appropriations (in EUR million) required by the

proposal/initiative in a decentralised agency

Agency: ELA Year

2028

Year

2029

Year

2030

Year

2031

Year

2032

Year

2033

Year

2034

TOTAL

2028 -

2034

Temporary agents (AD+AST) 1 2 4 8 8 8 8 -

Contract agents 1 2 3 4 4 4 4 -

Seconded national experts 10 20 27 27 27 27 27 -

Total staff 12 24343939 39 39

-

Appropriations covered by the

EU budget

1.677 3.354 5.920 8.512 8.512 8.512 8.512 44.999

Appropriations covered by fees

(if applicable) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Appropriations co-financed

(if applicable) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

TOTAL appropriations 1.677 3.354 5.920 8.512 8.512 8.512 8.512 44.999

EN 64 EN

4. DIGITAL DIMENSIONS

4.1. Requirements of digital relevance

If the policy initiative is assessed as having no requirement of digital relevance:

Justification of why digital means cannot be used to enhance policy implementation and why

the ‘digital by default’ principle is not applicable

Otherwise:

High-level description of the requirements of digital relevance and related categories (data,

process digitalisation & automation, digital solutions and/or digital public services)

In the table below, section “Reference to the requirement”:

• “ELA” refers to Regulation (EU) 2019/1149

• “EURES” refers to Regulation (EU) 2016/589

Reference to the

requirement

Requirement

description

Actors affected or

concerned by the

requirement

High-level

Processes Categories

ELA-Art. 9 (6a)

The European Labour

Authority shall establish

and operate a F system

with the following

functions:

(a) support the

management of concerted

and joint inspections

supported by the

Authority, in particular by

managing information

workflows and by

supporting investigative

work in cross-border

cases;

(b) ensure secure access

to information on

concerted and joint

inspections;

(c) allow for the cross-

border referencing of

information and the

extraction of data for

operational analysis and

statistical purposes;

(d) facilitate monitoring

to ensure that the

processing of personal

data complies with the

relevant provisions of

Chapter IIIa of this

Regulation and of

European Labour

Authority;

participating

Member States;

Case workflow

management;

investigative

support; secure

access;

analytics/statistics;

data-protection

monitoring

Data; Digital

solution; Process

digitalisation;

Digital public

service

EN 65 EN

Reference to the

requirement

Requirement

description

Actors affected or

concerned by the

requirement

High-level

Processes Categories

Regulation (EU)

2018/1725.

ELA-Art. 10 (4)

The Authority shall,

where appropriate, collect

statistical data compiled

and provided by Member

States in the areas within

the scope set out in

Article 1. In doing so, the

Authority shall seek to

streamline current data

collection activities in

those areas to avoid

duplication of data

collection. Where

relevant, Article 15 shall

apply.

Authority; Member

States; Commission

(Eurostat)

Statistical &

operational data

collection;

analytics;

operational risk

analysis; peer

reviews

Data; Process

digitalisation

ELA-Art. 23a

The European Labour

Authority shall be able to

collect, store, process,

analyse and exchange

operational information

(including personal data)

for the tasks defined in

Articles 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,

12 and 13. To this end,

the Authority might

conclude dedicated data-

sharing arrangements, and

connect to relevant Union

information exchange

systems and databases

under the conditions of

Articles 23b, 23c and 23d

European Labour

Authority; Union

institutions/bodies;

Member States

Collection, storage,

processing, analysis

and exchange of

operational

information

Data; Digital

public service

ELA-Art. 23b

The exchange of

information between the

Authority and the

competent authorities of

the Member States for the

purposes of the

Authority’s tasks of

coordinating and

supporting concerted and

joint inspections as well

as carrying out analyses

and risk assessment, shall

also be carried out

through the Internal

Market Information

System (IMI) established

by Regulation (EU) No

1024/2012.

European Labour

Authority; Member

States; European

Commission

Operational

information

exchange via IMI

Digital public

service; Data

EN 66 EN

Reference to the

requirement

Requirement

description

Actors affected or

concerned by the

requirement

High-level

Processes Categories

ELA-Art.23c

The Authority shall be

granted user access to the

relevant functions of the

European Register of

Road Transport

Undertakings (ERRU)

established by Regulation

(EC) No 1071/2009, for

the purposes of the

Authority’s tasks of

coordinating and

supporting concerted and

joint inspections as well

as carrying out analyses

and risk assessment

European Labour

Authority; Member

States; European

Commission

Operational

information

exchange via

ERRU

Digital public

service; Data

ELA-Art. 23d

Where necessary for the

purposes of specific tasks,

the Authority shall have

access to the following

information:

- data on the use of

administrative

cooperation procedures in

IMI which cover the

exchange of information

concerning the

application and

enforcement of Union

acts referred to in Article

1;

- the information

submitted to Member

States in the posting

declarations in the public

interface connected to

IMI pursuant to

Regulation (EU)

2026/XXX and Directive

(EU) 2020/1057;

- data on the use of the

EESSI and ERRU

systems.

European Labour

Authority

(authorised staff);

Member States;

Commission

services

Controlled access

to usage data with

safeguards

Data; Digital

Solution; Process

digitalisation

EURES – Art.

19 (3, 3a)

3. For the purpose of

automated matching

through the common IT

platform, the Commission

shall in cooperation with

Member States, map

national, regional and

sectoral classifications to

and from the European

classification and,

EN 67 EN

Reference to the

requirement

Requirement

description

Actors affected or

concerned by the

requirement

High-level

Processes Categories

following the update of

the list of skills,

competences and

occupations, regularly

update the mapping tables

tin line with the evolution

of recruitment services.

3a. The mapping tables

referred to in paragraph 3

shall be used for

automatic transcoding of

information on job

vacancies or job seeker

profiles for the purpose of

automated matching

through the common IT

platform. The

Commission shall support

Member States in order to

ensure that any codes of

their national, regional

and sectoral

classifications in job

vacancies and job seeker

profiles under Article

17(1) are replaced or

complemented by the

corresponding codes of

the European

classification before

making job vacancies and

job seekers profiles

available to the EURES

portal.

EURES – Art.

19 (2)

The Commission

regularly updates the

European classification

(ESCO) and ensures the

automatic implementation

of its latest version;

ownership of the

correspondence/mapping

tables shifts from the

Member States to the

Commission.

European

Commission;

Member States.

Automatic

implementation of

the latest ESCO

version; centralised

maintenance of

correspondence

tables

Data; Digital

solution; Process

digitalisation;

Digital public

service

EURES – Art.

32

The amended EURES

Article 32 introduces data

collection and reporting

linked to the Single

Digital Gateway

(Regulation (EU)

2018/1724).

European

Commission;

Member States.

Data collection and

reporting linked to

the Single Digital

Gateway

Data; Digital

public service

EN 68 EN

4.2. Data

High-level description of the data in scope

Type of data Reference to the requirement(s) Standard and/or

specification (if

applicable)

Information on

concerted and

joint

inspections

ELA-Art. 9 (6a), ELA-Art. 23b,

ELA-Art. 23c

Case-management data

model; CJI templates

and guidelines; EUDPR

(Reg. (EU) 2018/1725)

Statistical data

within the

scope set out in

Art. 1

ELA-Art. 10

Common statistical

indicators and formats;

coordination with

Eurostat

Operational

information

(including

personal data)

needed for

tasks defined

in Articles 5, 7,

8, 9, 10, 11, 12

and 13.

ELA-Art. 23a

EUDPR (Reg. (EU)

2018/1725); dedicated

data-sharing

arrangements (Art. 23a)

Data for

analysis and

risk assessment

ELA-Art. 23b, ELA-Art. 23cStructured data

exchanged via IMI (Reg.

(EU) 1024/2012) and

ERRU (Reg. (EC) No

1071/2009)

Data on the use

of

administrative

cooperation

procedures in

IMI which

cover the

exchange of

information

concerning the

application and

enforcement of

Union acts

referred to in

Article 1 and

data on the use

of the EESSI

and ERRU

ELA-Art. 23d IMI, EESSI, ERRU

usage data (Reg. (EU)

1024/2012, Reg. (EC)

No 987/2009, Reg. (EC)

No 1071/2009); access

safeguards under Art.

23d

EN 69 EN

systems

Mapping

tables,

mapping

national,

regional and

sectoral

classifications

to and from the

European

classification

(ESCO)

EURES-Art 19(3 and 3a) ESCO; common

technical standards and

formats for mapping

tables

European

classification

(ESCO) latest

version and

correspondence

tables

EURES-Art. 19(2) ESCO; common

technical standards and

formats

EURES data

collection and

reporting

linked to the

Single Digital

Gateway

EURES-Art. 32 Single Digital Gateway

(Reg. (EU) 2018/1724)

reporting

Alignment with the European Data Strategy

Explanation of how the requirement(s) are aligned with the European Data Strategy

The processing of personal data by the Authority must comply with Regulation (EU)

2018/1725 (EUDPR). Article 36(2) establishes the organisational framework for the

compliance with the obligations laid down in that Regulation, in particular the appointment of

a Data Protection Officer for the Authority.

Alignment with the once-only principle

Explanation of how the once-only principle has been considered and how the possibility to

reuse existing data has been explored

Once-only principle is not strictly applicable in this context as most data flows involve

exchanges between public administrations rather than direct citizen/business-to-administration

exchanges. Two flows do involve businesses/individuals - the posting declarations submitted

by undertakings via the public interface connected to IMI (Art. 23d(1)(b)) and the CVs

submitted by EURES workers (EURES Art. 17); as these data flows already exist, they do not

need to be re-assessed against the once-only principle. However, the related reuse principle is

applied: the Authority reuses existing Union systems and data (IMI, ERRU, EESSI) and

existing statistical surveys rather than creating new collections, thereby avoiding duplication

(Art. 10, 23a-23d).

EN 70 EN

Explanation of how newly created data is findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable,

and meets high-quality standards

Some newly created data is foreseen: the case management system (Art. 9(6a)) generates new

workflow, case and inspection-report data, and the EURES correspondence/mapping tables

(Art. 19) are newly created and maintained.

This data is kept findable and accessible to authorised users, interoperable (common data

models; ESCO and common technical standards/formats for the mapping tables) and reusable

within the limits of the applicable data-protection safeguards (EUDPR). Other operational

data is collected and aggregated from existing sources. Data quality, semantic interoperability

(ESCO for the EURES component) and EUDPR/GDPR safeguards apply; personal data are

not made openly findable or reusable beyond the defined purposes.

Data flows

High-level description of the data flows

Type of

data

Reference(s)

to the

requirement

(s)

Actors who

provide the data

Actors who

receive the

data

Trigger for

the data

exchange

Frequen

cy (if

applicabl

e)

Information

on concerted

and joint

inspections

• ELA-Art.

9 (6a),

• ELA-Art.

23b,

• ELA-Art.

23c

Member States ELA Where

relevant in

connection

with the

execution of

inspections

As

inspectio

ns occur

Statistical

data within

the scope set

out in Art. 1

• ELA-Art.

10

Member States ELA Collection of

statistical

data by ELA

Periodic

Operational

information

(including

personal

data) needed

for tasks

defined in

Articles 5, 7,

8, 9, 10, 11,

12 and 13.

• ELA-Art.

23a

Member States ELA Where

relevant and

needed,

during

execution of

tasks defined

in

Articles 5, 7,

8, 9, 10, 11,

12 and 13.

As

needed

Data for

analysis and

risk

assessment

• ELA-Art.

23b,

ELA-Art.

23c

Member States ELA Collection of

data by ELA

for analysis

and risk

Periodic

EN 71 EN

assessment

Data on the

use of IMI,

ERRU,

EESSI

concerning

the

application

and

enforcement

of Union

acts referred

to in Article

1

• ELA-Art.

23d IMI, ERRU,

EESSI

ELA Where

requested by

ELA

On

request

Statistical

data shared

with

Eurostat

• ELA-Art.

10(4) ELA European

Commission

(Eurostat)

Sharing of

data-

collection

results

Periodic

Anonymised

data in the

mediation

procedure

• ELA-Art.

13(8) Member States ELA Presentation

of a

mediation

case

Per case

Data shared

under inter-

agency

cooperation

agreements

• ELA-Art.

14;

23a(2)

Union

agencies/bodies;

ELA

ELA; Union

agencies/bod

ies

Cooperation

agreements

As agreed

Posting

declarations

submitted by

undertakings

(via the

public

interface

connected to

IMI)

• EA-

Art.23d(1

)(b)

Undertakings/Me

mber States

(public interface to

IMI)

ELA Submission

of posting

declaration

Continuo

us

European

classification

(ESCO) and

corresponde

nce tables

• EURES-

Art.19(2) European

Commission

Member

States /

EURES

Portal

Update of

ESCO /

corresponde

nce tables

On

update

4.3. Digital solutions

EN 72 EN

High-level description of digital solutions

Digital

solution

Reference(s)

to the

requirement

(s)

Main

mandated

functionaliti

es

Responsib

le body

How is

accessibility

catered for?

How is

reusability

considered?

Use of AI

technologi

es (if

applicable

)

ELA Case

manageme

nt system

ELA-Art. 9

(6a)

(a) Support

the

management

of concerted

and joint

inspections

supported by

the

Authority, in

particular by

managing

information

workflows

and by

supporting

investigative

work in

cross-border

cases;

(b) Ensure

secure access

to

information

on concerted

and joint

inspections;

(c) Allow for

the cross-

border

referencing

of

information

and the

extraction of

data for

operational

analysis and

statistical

purposes;

(d) Facilitate

monitoring to

ensure that

the

processing of

personal data

complies

with the

ELA Staff-facing

system; web

accessibility

per the

Europa

Web Guide

/ Directive

(EU)

2016/2102

(WCAG),

as far as

applicable;

authenticati

on via EU

Login.

EU Login

will be

reused for

authenticatio

n.

System to

be used for

exchanges

of

information

between

ELA and

Member

States only

where

exchanges

cannot be

carried out

through the

IMI system

No AI

functionalit

y is

foreseen at

this stage;

should AI

be

introduced

(e.g. for

case

analytics),

it would be

assessed

under the

AI Act

with

human

oversight

retained.

EN 73 EN

relevant

provisions of

Chapter IIIa

of this

Regulation

and of

Regulation

(EU)

2018/1725.

EURES EURES-Art

19(3 and 3a)New

functionality

to be added

to existing

EURES

system:

creation,

update and

maintenance

of mapping

tables from

national

classification

systems to

ESCO.

European

Commissi

on

Already

catered in

current

version of

EURES

No changes

from an

accessibility

perspective.

None from

this

change;

any AI

enhanceme

nt of

matching

would fall

under the

AI Act.

EURES

common

IT

platform

(EURES

portal) -

system

ownership

transferred

to the

Commissi

on

ELA-Art. 6 Operation of

the EURES

portal and

automated

matching;

automatic

implementati

on of the

latest ESCO

version;

centralised

maintenance

of

corresponden

ce tables

European

Commissi

on

Existing

accessible

EU platform

Reuses the

existing

EURES

portal and

ESCO

Automated

matching

(rule-

based);

Any AI

enhanceme

nt would

fall under

the AI Act

For each digital solution, explanation of how the digital solution complies with applicable

digital policies and legislative enactments

ELA Case management system

Digital and/or sectorial policy

(when these are applicable)

Explanation on how it aligns

AI Act No use of AI foreseen.

EU Cybersecurity framework The system must comply with Commission IT-

EN 74 EN

security standards and ELA security rules (Art. 38);

authentication via EU Login. The case management

system processes personal data, including data on

administrative/criminal investigations and third-

country nationals; it must therefore align with the EU

cybersecurity framework - the NIS2 Directive (EU)

2022/2555 and the Cybersecurity Act (Reg. (EU)

2019/881) as applicable - and with the Commission's

IT-security rules, in coordination with DG CNECT.

Security-by-design, encryption, access control,

logging and vulnerability management apply.

eIDAS Alignment with eIDAS regulation will be relevant in

the context of digital signatures to be applied to CJI

agreements.

Single Digital Gateway and IMI ELA could use IMI, as indicated in Art. 23b, to

exchange data relevant to concerted and joint

inspections with Member States.

Others EUDPR (Reg. (EU) 2018/1725) with Data Protection

Officer oversight (Art. 36(2)); Interoperable Europe /

EIF & EIRA (Art. 15); Web Accessibility Directive

(EU) 2016/2102; EU Login for authentication.

EURES

Digital and/or sectorial policy

(when these are applicable)

Explanation on how it aligns

AI Act Use of AI not foreseen.

EU Cybersecurity framework The changes to EURES will not have an impact from

a cybersecurity perspective.

eIDAS No changes are foreseen in this regard.

Single Digital Gateway and IMI Not applicable to the EURES change (mapping

tables). The amended EURES Art. 32 introduces data

collection and reporting linked to the Single Digital

Gateway (Reg. (EU) 2018/1724); EURES relies on its

own common IT platform and single coordinated

channel.

Others GDPR (Reg. (EU) 2016/679) for EURES personal

data; ESCO and technical standards/formats (Art.

17(8)); Web Accessibility Directive (EU) 2016/2102

EN 75 EN

4.4. Interoperability assessment

High-level description of the digital public service(s) affected by the requirements

Digital public

service or

category of

digital public

services

Description Reference(s)

to the

requirement(s)

Interoperable

Europe

Solution(s)

Other

interoperability

solution(s)

Case

management

for concerted

and joint

inspection

service

Service to

support the

management and

follow-up of

cross-border

concerted and

joint inspections.

It will be

implemented

through the case

management

solution.

• ELA-Art. 9

(6a) EU Login;

eSignature /

eIDAS

building block;

(potential)

European

Interoperability

Architecture

Reference

(EIRA).

• EU login for

authentication

Data collection

and processing

service

Service to collect

data from

existing

information

systems and/or

databases in the

Member States to

support the tasks

of ELA

• ELA-Art.

10

• ELA-Art.

23a

• ELA-Art.

23b

• ELA-

Art.23c

• ELA-Art.

23d

IMI; EESSI;

ERRU;

Interoperable

Europe / EIRA

(Decision (EU)

2015/2240)

• IMI and ERRU

might be used

to exchange

information

with Member

States in this

context

Automated job

matching

service

Service to match

jobseekers’

profiles with job

vacancies.

• EURES –

Art. 19 (3

and 3a)

ESCO;

EURES portal;

EU Login

• The service is

offered by the

EURES

system.

EURES cross-

border

matching/portal

service

Service

providing the

EURES portal

and single

coordinated

channel, with

automated

matching using

ESCO; System

ownership

transferred to the

Commission

• ELA-Art.

6; EURES-

Art. 19

ESCO;

EURES portal

• EU Login;

Single

Coordinated

Channel

EN 76 EN

Impact of the requirement(s) as per digital public service on cross-border interoperability

Case management for concerted and joint inspection service

Assessment Measure(s) Potential remaining barriers (if

applicable)

Alignment with

existing digital and

sectorial policies

Please list the

applicable digital and

sectorial policies

identified

• The system will support

the digital signature of

CJI agreements.

Alignment with eIDAS

regulation will need to

be analysed in this

context.

Organisational

measures for a smooth

cross-border digital

public services

delivery

Please list the

governance measures

foreseen

• ELA is the owner of the

system. ELA will be

responsible for its

development (using

contractors). ELA is and

will continue consulting

MSs via WG Inspections

on the development of

the system.

• MSs will decide which

authorities/persons will

have access to the

system; ELA will have

to always approve it.

Measures taken to

ensure a shared

understanding of the

data

Please list such

measures

• The service will be

based on the CJI process

(and templates) as

stipulated in the CJI

Guidelines. It is destined

to ensure sharing

information/documents

between ELA and

specific MSs that are

involved in a specific

case (CJI).

Use of commonly

agreed open technical

specifications and

standards

Please list such

measures

• As mentioned in ELA-

Art.23b, IMI can be used

to exchange data

between ELA and

competent authorities in

the MSs, for tasks

related to joint

inspections, data

analysis and risk

assessment. Case

management system to

EN 77 EN

be used for exchanges

only where they cannot

be carried out through

the IMI system. EU

Login is reused for user

authentication.

Data collection and processing service

Assessment Measure(s) Potential remaining barriers (if

applicable)

Alignment with

existing digital and

sectorial policies

Please list the

applicable digital and

sectorial policies

identified

• As personal data is

concerned, the data

shared by Member

States with ELA will fall

into the scope of

Regulation (EU)

2018/1725 (EUDPR)

-

Organisational

measures for a smooth

cross-border digital

public services

delivery

Please list the

governance measures

foreseen

• As mentioned in

different articles, the

regulation sets the legal

base to ensure that ELA

has access to the

information needed to

fulfil its tasks (e.g. in

relevant Union

information exchange

systems, in IMI, etc.).

-

Measures taken to

ensure a shared

understanding of the

data

Please list such

measures

Common data models

for operational data;

EESSI structured

electronic documents;

ESCO for classification

where relevant.

-

Use of commonly

agreed open technical

specifications and

standards

Please list such

measures

• As mentioned in ELA-

Art.23b, IMI can be used

to exchange data

between ELA and

competent authorities in

the MSs, for tasks

related to joint

inspections, data

analysis and risk

assessment.

-

Automated job matching service

EN 78 EN

Assessment Measure(s) Potential remaining barriers (if

applicable)

Alignment with

existing digital and

sectorial policies

Please list the

applicable digital and

sectorial policies

identified

ESCO and EURES

technical standards and

formats (Art. 17(8),);

Interoperable Europe /

EIF; automatic

implementation of the

latest ESCO version

(Art. 19(2)).

-

Organisational

measures for a smooth

cross-border digital

public services

delivery

Please list the

governance measures

foreseen

• As mentioned in Article

19, the Commission

should work in

cooperation with

Member States in

defining the mapping

tables from national,

regional and sectoral

classification to ESCO.

• As mentioned in Art. 19,

“the Commission shall

support Member States

in order to ensure that

any codes of their

national, regional and

sectoral classifications

in job vacancies and job

seeker profiles under

Article17(1) are

replaced or

complemented by the

corresponding codes of

the European

classification before

making job vacancies

and job seekers profiles

available to the EURES

portal”.

-

Measures taken to

ensure a shared

understanding of the

data

Please list such

measures

• Creation of mapping

tables in accordance

with common technical

standards and formats.

These standards and

formats will cover the

information to be

included in the mapping

tables and a syntax to

express this set of

information.

-

EN 79 EN

Use of commonly

agreed open technical

specifications and

standards

Please list such

measures

• As mentioned above,

standards and technical

specifications will be

created for the mapping

tables.

-

EN 80 EN

4.5. Measures to support digital implementation

High-level description of measures supporting digital implementation

Description of the

measure

Reference(s) to

the

requirement(s)

Commission

role

(if

applicable)

Actors to be

involved

(if applicable)

Expected

timeline

(if applicable)

Data-sharing

arrangements under

Chapter IIIa

ELA-Art. 23a ELA;

Member

States; Union

bodies

As needed

Designation of the ELA

Data Protection Officer

and EUDPR-

compliance measures

ELA-Art. 36(2) Management

Board; ELA

DPO

Upon entry

into

application

ICT procurement for

the case management

system and EURES

portal adaptations

ELA-Art. 6, 9(6a);

EURES-Art. 19

Procurement/

supervisory

Commission;

ELA;

contractors

Stakeholder

engagement and

capacity building (WG

Inspections; EURES

Coordination Group;

Member States

Working Group on

ESCO)

ELA-Art.8, 9;

EURES-Art.14, 19

Facilitation Commission;

ELA;

Member

States

Ongoing

Policy-implementation

pilots, sandboxing and

feedback mechanisms

for the digital tools

ELA-Art. 9(6a);

EURES-Art. 19

Support Commission;

ELA;

Member

States

During

delivery

phases

Awareness-raising

campaigns and work-

programme integration

(ELA multiannual work

programme; EURES

strategy 2030)

ELA-Art. 24;

EURES

Support Commission;

ELA;

Member

States;

Annual/multi-

annual

EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Strasbourg, 15.9.2026 SWD(2026) 985 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Subsidiarity Grid

Accompanying the document

Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE

COUNCIL

amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 establishing a European Labour Authority,

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

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

Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal

Market Information System, and repealing Commission Implementing Decisions (EU)

2017/1256, (EU) 2018/170, (EU) 2018/1020 and (EU) 2018/1021

{COM(2026) 985 final} - {SEC(2026) 985 final} - {SWD(2026) 986 final} -

{SWD(2026) 987 final}

1

1. Can the Union act? What is the legal basis and competence of the Unions’ intended

action?

1.1 Which article(s) of the Treaty are used to support the legislative proposal or policy

initiative?

The proposal is based on Articles 46 and 48 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European

Union (TFEU).

Article 46 TFEU provides the legal basis for measures necessary to bring about freedom of

movement for workers, including through cooperation between Member States. Article 48

TFEU provides the legal basis for measures in the field of social security coordination

necessary to facilitate the free movement of persons.

These provisions support Union action to ensure effective coordination, cooperation and

enforcement in cross-border labour mobility and social security coordination.

1.2 Is the Union competence represented by this Treaty article exclusive, shared or

supporting in nature?

In the case of freedom of movement for workers and social security, the Union’s competence

is shared.

The Union and Member States share competence in this area, with Union action and Member

State action being complementary. The revision does not seek to replace national

responsibilities for labour market regulation, labour inspections or social security systems,

which remain primarily under national competence. Instead, it aims to strengthen the capacity

of the European Labour Authority (ELA) to support Member States and the Commission in

addressing challenges arising from the cross-border nature of labour mobility and social

security coordination. It does not fundamentally alter ELA’s objectives and tasks, including

its supporting role in the context of concerted and joint inspections.

Subsidiarity does not apply for policy areas where the Union has exclusive competence as

defined in Article 3 TFEU1. It is the specific legal basis which determines whether the

proposal falls under the subsidiarity control mechanism. Article 4 TFEU2 sets out the areas

where competence is shared between the Union and the Member States. Article 6 TFEU3 sets

out the areas for which the Unions has competence only to support the actions of the Member

States.

2. Subsidiarity Principle: Why should the EU act?

2.1 Does the proposal fulfil the procedural requirements of Protocol No. 24:

- Has there been a wide consultation before proposing the act?

- Is there a detailed statement with qualitative and, where possible, quantitative

indicators allowing an appraisal of whether the action can best be achieved at Union

level?

1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12008E003&from=EN 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12008E004&from=EN 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12008E006:EN:HTML 4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12016E/PRO/02&from=EN

2

The proposal has been subject to appropriate consultation activities, including targeted

consultations with relevant stakeholders, a call for evidence, and exchanges with Member

States and other relevant actors involved in cross-border labour mobility and social security

coordination. This includes the extensive consultation activities already carried out in the

context of the 2025 ELA evaluation. These consultations provided input on the functioning

of the current framework and on possible improvements to strengthen the effectiveness of

ELA and are summarised in Annex 2 of the Impact Assessment.

The proposal is accompanied by an impact assessment and an explanatory memorandum,

each containing a detailed section on subsidiarity, supported by qualitative elements

demonstrating why the objectives pursued cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States

acting individually and why action at Union level provides added value.

Further details are provided under question 2.2 below.

2.2 Does the explanatory memorandum (and any impact assessment) accompanying the

Commission’s proposal contain an adequate justification regarding the conformity

with the principle of subsidiarity?

The explanatory memorandum explains that the subsidiarity principle applies because the

proposal does not fall under the EU’s exclusive competence. The objectives of the proposal

cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States at national, regional or local level.

They can be better achieved at Union level for the following reasons:

Member States acting individually cannot sufficiently address issues with a cross-border

dimension, such as those within ELA’s mandate. Specifically:

• the provision of high-quality and up-to-date information and services to the public

regarding their rights and obligations in cross-border situations needs to be

coordinated at Union level to ensure consistent, clear, and efficient messaging;

• the application of Union law in the fields of cross-border labour mobility and social

security coordination requires cooperation between Member States, meaning that no

Member State can act alone;

• to increase synergies and consistency between Member States in the application and

enforcement of Union law and to ensure legal certainty for administrations and

individuals alike, it is necessary to develop a coordinated and joint approach at Union

level instead of relying on a network of bilateral or multilateral agreements.

Moreover, the identified weaknesses in ELA’s mandate are rooted in regulatory issues at the

EU level. As they stem from structural deficiencies in Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 itself, they

cannot be remedied by Member States alone and require targeted legislative intervention at

the EU level.

The additional amendments to Regulation (EU) 2016/589, other than those concerning the

repartition of tasks between ELA and the Commission, are intended to simplify the EU-level

regulatory framework concerning the functioning of EURES and cannot be implemented by

Member States individually for that reason.

The application and enforcement of Union rules in these areas require effective cooperation

between national authorities and a coordinated approach at Union level.

As indicated in section 3 of the Impact Assessment, the revision builds on the experience

gained since the establishment of ELA and addresses shortcomings identified through its

evaluation. While ELA has demonstrated its added value in supporting Member States and

the Commission in implementing EU labour mobility policies, the evaluation identified areas

3

where the existing framework could be strengthened, including in relation to cooperation on

inspections, provision of information, mediation, EURES governance and clarity of ELA’s

role in relation to third-country nationals.

The proposal therefore aims to equip ELA with the necessary legal and operational means to

better support Member States and the Commission, while preserving Member States’

responsibilities for national labour markets, labour inspections and social security systems.

The added value of further Union action lies in ensuring a consistent and coordinated

approach to challenges that are inherently cross-border and cannot be effectively addressed

through isolated national action or bilateral arrangements.

2.3 Based on the answers to the questions below, can the objectives of the proposed

action be achieved sufficiently by the Member States acting alone (necessity for EU

action)?

No. The objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States

acting alone due to the inherently cross-border nature of labour mobility and social security

coordination. Challenges related to the application and enforcement of Union rules, access to

reliable information on rights and obligations, and cooperation between national authorities

require coordinated action at Union level. While Member States remain responsible for their

national labour markets, labour inspections and social security systems, no single Member

State can effectively address issues involving several jurisdictions or ensure consistent

implementation of EU rules across borders.

The evaluation of ELA confirmed the added value of an EU-level body in supporting Member

States and the Commission, while also identifying limitations in the current regulatory

framework. These limitations cannot be addressed through national action, as they result from

the design of the existing Regulation. Strengthening ELA’s mandate and tools at Union level

is therefore necessary to improve cooperation, reduce fragmentation, ensure legal certainty

and support the effective functioning of cross-border labour mobility.

(a) Are there significant/appreciable transnational/cross-border aspects to the problems

being tackled? Have these been quantified?

Yes. The issues addressed by the proposal are inherently cross-border, as they concern the

application of Union rules on labour mobility and social security coordination, which require

cooperation between authorities from different Member States. The 2025 evaluation of ELA

identified challenges linked to coordination, information provision and enforcement in cross-

border situations.

(b) Would national action or the absence of the EU level action conflict with core

objectives of the Treaty5 or significantly damage the interests of other Member

States?

Yes. Without effective EU-level coordination, differences in the implementation and

enforcement of Union rules may undermine fair labour mobility, create legal uncertainty for

workers and employers, and affect the functioning of the internal market. National action

alone cannot ensure a consistent approach across Member States.

5 https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-in-brief_en

4

(c) To what extent do Member States have the ability or possibility to enact appropriate

measures?

Member States remain responsible for national labour market policies, labour inspections and

social security systems. However, they cannot individually address challenges arising from

cross-border situations or establish a coherent EU-wide approach to cooperation, information

exchange and enforcement of Union rules.

(d) How does the problem and its causes (e.g. negative externalities, spill-over effects)

vary across the national, regional and local levels of the EU?

The scale and nature of challenges vary depending on national systems, levels of cross-border

mobility and administrative structures. However, the underlying issues are linked to the

interaction and coordination between different national systems and therefore require

coordination beyond the national level.

(e) Is the problem widespread across the EU or limited to a few Member States?

The challenges addressed by the proposal affect Member States to different degrees,

depending on their exposure to cross-border mobility and the organisation of their national

systems. However, they are Union-wide in nature as they relate to the functioning of the

internal market and the implementation of common EU rules.

(f) Are Member States overstretched in achieving the objectives of the planned measure?

Member States have the primary responsibility for implementing and enforcing relevant

rules. However, the cross-border dimension of labour mobility and social security

coordination creates a need for additional support and coordination at Union level, which

cannot be effectively provided through national action alone.

(g) How do the views/preferred courses of action of national, regional and local

authorities differ across the EU?

The approaches and priorities of national authorities may differ due to variations in

administrative structures, enforcement practices and labour market conditions. EU-level

coordination provides a framework to reconcile these differences, facilitate cooperation and

promote a consistent implementation of Union rules while respecting national

responsibilities. Overall, Member States and national authorities support the existence of

ELA and the strengthening of its mandate, as reflected in Annex 2 of the Impact Assessment.

2.4 Based on the answer to the questions below, can the objectives of the proposed action

be better achieved at Union level by reason of scale or effects of that action (EU

added value)?

Yes. The proposal provides clear EU added value by strengthening the capacity of ELA to

support Member States and the Commission in addressing challenges that arise from the

cross-border nature of labour mobility and social security coordination. Action at Union level

allows for more effective coordination, consistent information provision, improved

cooperation between national authorities and a more coherent application of Union rules. By

reinforcing ELA’s role, the proposal improves the efficiency of existing cooperation

mechanisms while preserving Member States’ responsibilities.

5

(a) Are there clear benefits from EU level action?

Yes. EU-level action provides benefits by ensuring a coordinated approach to cross-border

labour mobility, supporting cooperation between national authorities and providing

consistent information and services to workers, employers and administrations across the

Union. This could not be achieved without the EU-level action.

(b) Are there economies of scale? Can the objectives be met more efficiently at EU level

(larger benefits per unit cost)? Will the functioning of the internal market be

improved?

Yes. A specialised EU body can provide support, expertise and coordination that would be

difficult to replicate through separate national approaches. A coordinated framework reduces

duplication, facilitates cooperation and contributes to the effective functioning of the internal

market by supporting fair and predictable cross-border mobility.

(c) What are the benefits in replacing different national policies and rules with a more

homogenous policy approach?

The proposal does not replace national policies or responsibilities. Instead, it provides a

common EU framework to support cooperation, improve consistency in the implementation

of Union rules and reduce fragmentation in cross-border situations. This contributes to

greater legal certainty for workers, employers and administrations.

(d) Do the benefits of EU-level action outweigh the loss of competence of the Member

States and the local and regional authorities (beyond the costs and benefits of acting

at national, regional and local levels)?

The proposal does not transfer national competences on labour markets, labour inspections

or social security systems. It strengthens support and coordination at EU level in areas where

Member States acting individually cannot achieve the same results due to the cross-border

nature of the issues concerned.

(e) Will there be improved legal clarity for those having to implement the legislation?

Yes. The proposal aims to clarify ELA’s role and responsibilities, including regarding

inspections, mediation, EURES governance and its activities in relation to third-country

nationals. This will provide greater clarity for Member States, stakeholders and individuals

involved in cross-border mobility situations. The proposal also envisages improving the

provision of information to individuals and employers regarding their rights and obligations

in cross-border situations.

3. Proportionality: How the EU should act

3.1 Does the explanatory memorandum (and any impact assessment) accompanying

the Commission’s proposal contain an adequate justification regarding the

proportionality of the proposal and a statement allowing appraisal of the

compliance of the proposal with the principle of proportionality?

The explanatory memorandum contains a justification regarding the proportionality of the

proposal. It explains that the proposal is a proportional targeted response to the need to

overcome certain shortcomings in ELA’s mandate that are currently constraining its ability

6

to support cross-border enforcement of EU law. It does not go beyond what is necessary to

achieve this goal. It does not impose new legal obligations on individuals or employers, does

not transfer enforcement competence to the Union level or interfere with national decision-

making, legislation, or enforcement activities. Moreover, it leaves wide discretion to Member

States in how they make use of the reinforced support offered by ELA in the application and

enforcement of Union law. It does not confer autonomous inspection or sanctioning powers

on the Authority, as inspections, including those requested by ELA, remain subject to

Member States’ consent. Similarly, participation in mediation is voluntary for Member

States.

The initiative draws on the lessons learned from the 2025 evaluation of ELA. It remains

limited to resolving those shortcomings which require targeted legislative changes and cannot

be remedied by ELA within the context of its current legal framework. All the other lessons

learned through the evaluation are being addressed in an action plan endorsed by ELA’s

Management Board in May 2026. The Impact Assessment Report accompanying the

proposal outlines how the proposal achieves an appropriate balance in meeting its various

objectives. This revision is limited to making the necessary mandate adjustments while

leaving ELA’s core objectives and tasks unchanged.

Amendments to Regulation (EU) 2016/589, other than those concerning the repartition of

tasks between ELA and the Commission, do not change any essential elements of the EURES

regulatory framework. They merely remove reporting obligations and administrative burden,

where these are not required for the efficient functioning of the EURES network.

As indicated in section 7 of the Impact Assessment, the proposal respects the principle of

proportionality by limiting EU intervention to what is necessary to achieve the identified

objectives, while preserving Member States’ responsibilities and existing cooperation

mechanisms. The preferred options introduce targeted improvements rather than fundamental

changes, addressing specific shortcomings identified in the current framework.

The proposed changes focus on improving information provision, clarifying governance

arrangements, strengthening ELA’s support and coordination role in inspections, and

simplifying mediation procedures. These measures enhance the effectiveness of ELA while

maintaining the voluntary nature of Member State cooperation and ensuring that intervention

remains proportionate to the challenges identified.

3.2 Based on the answers to the questions below and information available from any

impact assessment, the explanatory memorandum or other sources, is the proposed

action an appropriate way to achieve the intended objectives?

Yes. The proposed action is an appropriate and proportionate means to achieve the objectives

of strengthening fair labour mobility, improving cooperation between Member States and

enhancing ELA’s capacity to support the Commission and national authorities. It focuses on

addressing identified shortcomings in the current framework while preserving Member

States’ responsibilities and limiting intervention to areas where EU-level action provides

clear added value.

(a) Is the initiative limited to those aspects that Member States cannot achieve

satisfactorily on their own, and where the Union can do better?

7

Yes. The initiative focuses on challenges with a clear cross-border dimension, such as

cooperation between authorities, information provision, inspections and mediation in the

context of labour mobility and social security coordination. These issues cannot be

effectively addressed by Member States acting individually, while ELA is well placed to

provide coordination and support at Union level.

(b) Is the form of Union action (choice of instrument) justified, as simple as possible, and

coherent with the satisfactory achievement of, and ensuring compliance with the

objectives pursued (e.g. choice between regulation, (framework) directive,

recommendation, or alternative regulatory methods such as co-legislation, etc.)?

Yes. A revision of the existing Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 is the most appropriate

instrument, as the identified shortcomings relate to the legal framework establishing ELA

itself. The proposed changes are targeted and limited to what is necessary to improve ELA’s

effectiveness, ensuring a proportionate and coherent intervention while avoiding unnecessary

regulatory complexity.

(c) Does the Union action leave as much scope for national decision as possible while

achieving satisfactorily the objectives set? (e.g. is it possible to limit the European

action to minimum standards or use a less stringent policy instrument og approach?)

Yes. The proposal does not harmonise national labour market policies, labour inspection

systems or social security schemes. It preserves Member States’ responsibilities and

decision-making powers, while providing a common framework for cooperation and support

in areas where cross-border coordination is required.

(d) Does the initiative create financial or administrative cost for the Union, national

governments, regional or local authorities, economic operators or citizens? Are these

costs commensurate with the objective to be achieved?

The proposal entails limited additional administrative and operational efforts notably for

ELA, linked to strengthened coordination, information provision and support activities.

These costs are proportionate to the expected benefits for the different stakeholders, mostly

non quantifiable, of improving the functioning of cross-border labour mobility, reducing

administrative fragmentation and ensuring more effective implementation of Union rules.

(e) While respecting the Union law, have special circumstances applying in individual

Member States been taken into account?

Yes. The proposal takes into account the diversity of national labour market systems,

administrative structures and enforcement arrangements. It provides a flexible framework for

cooperation and support, allowing ELA to assist Member States while respecting their

different national contexts and responsibilities.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

03.07.2026

SEC(2026) 985

REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD OPINION

{COM(2026) 985}

{SWD(2026) 985-987}

Impact assessment / Strengthening the European Labour Authority by reviewing its mandate (ELA)

________________________________ Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111 [email protected]

EUROPEAN COMMISSION REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD

Brussels, RSB

Opinion

Title: Impact assessment / Strengthening the European Labour Authority by reviewing its mandate (ELA)

Overall 2nd opinion: POSITIVE WITH RESERVATIONS

(A) Policy context

The European Labour Authority (ELA), set up in 2019, aims to assist Member States and the Commission in their effective application and enforcement of EU law related to labour mobility and the coordination of social security systems, in order to enhance fair labour mobility. The 2025 evaluation of ELA showed a number of weaknesses related to activities like information provision, EURES portal management and mediation services and, in the absence of sufficient quantitative evidence based on observational data, could not conclude on the value added of the agency. This initiative aims to strengthen ELA by better clarifying the scope of its activities.

(B) Summary of findings

The Board notes the improvements to the quality of the report. However, the report still contains significant shortcomings. The Board gives a positive opinion with reservations because it expects the DG to rectify the following aspects:

(1) The report does not sufficiently substantiate the identified problems, their magnitude and drivers.

(2) The report does not sufficiently analyse the full range of options and their impacts, in particular as regards their effectiveness.

2

(C) What to improve

(1) The report should demonstrate the magnitude of the problems addressed based on more robust evidence, including where available observational data. The analysis of problem drivers related to EURES should be more specific with regard to the portal’s ‘subpar usability’ and low quality of data. The analysis of the provision of information and the conduct of joint investigations should be based on data reflecting the needs for information and investigations. Based on an improved analysis of problems the report should consider a full range of options including the discontinuation of activities.

(2) The effectiveness analysis should be improved, in particular through better use of evidence to substantiate the description of impacts. When looking, for example, at the role played by in-person human interaction in terms of the effectiveness of the provision of information, the analysis should substantiate the conclusion in the report and indicate the magnitude of this effect. Similarly, when looking at the policy options related to EURES, the report should explain in more detail how it has reached the conclusion that, despite the different set-ups, some of the policy options analysed would be equally effective. The report should make better use of observational data to substantiate the description of impacts. For EURES, it should explain how the proposed changes would create a more efficient platform, which could facilitate a higher volume of job placements. Regarding increased data analysis and joint investigations the report needs to demonstrate how, and to what extent, such activities would inhibit unfair employment practices and enhance labour mobility. This should include quantitative data analysis, to the extent possible, to estimate the magnitude of this change. To the extent that opinion data is utilised, the report needs to collect a broader and more representative evidence base.

(3) The conclusions on coherence that the intervention is aligned with other relevant EU actions, such as those related to migration, asylum and security, and the work of EUROPOL and FRONTEX should be corroborated with a more thorough analysis.

(4) The monitoring framework should include more specific references to the expected changes arising from the intervention, allowing an understanding of what success would look like for this initiative.

(D) Conclusion

The DG must revise the report in accordance with the Board’s findings before launching the interservice consultation.

Full title Impact Assessment on Strengthening the European Labour Authority by reviewing its mandate (ELA)

Reference number PLAN/2025/2389

Submitted to RSB on 5 June 2026

Date of RSB meeting Written procedure

3

EUROPEAN COMMISSION REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD

Brussels, RSB

Opinion

Title: Impact assessment / Strengthening the European Labour Authority by reviewing its mandate (ELA)

Overall opinion: NEGATIVE

(A) Policy context

The European Labour Authority (ELA), set up in 2019, aims to assist Member States and the Commission in their effective application and enforcement of EU law related to labour mobility and the coordination of social security systems, in order to enhance fair labour mobility. The 2025 evaluation of ELA showed a number of weaknesses related to activities like information provision, EURES portal management and mediation services and, in the absence of sufficient quantitative evidence based on observational data, could not conclude on the value added of the agency. This initiative aims to strengthen ELA by better clarifying the scope of its activities and by providing further means to perform its tasks. The revision of ELA’s mandate is part of the Fair labour mobility package in the Commission’s 2026 Work Programme (CWP) and announced as a simplification action in Annex I.

(B) Key issues

The Board notes the additional information provided and commitments to make changes to the report.

However, the Board gives a negative opinion because the report contains the following serious shortcomings that the lead Service must address:

(1) The report does not adequately reflect the findings of the 2025 evaluation as well as the recommendations of the related RSB opinions.

(2) The intervention logic, including the assessment of the problems and their magnitude as well as related problem drivers, lacks an evidence base beyond opinion data.

(3) The report lacks clarity on the extent of the proposed Third-Country Nationals’ (TCN) coverage. It does not adequately assess the coherence of this action with other EU policies and objectives.

(4) The effectiveness of the proposed options is not sufficiently analysed. The assessment of ELA’s activities, such as information provision, EURES and mediation, which the evaluation showed to be underperforming, is insufficient.

4

(5) The report lacks appropriate key performance indicators (KPIs) for effective monitoring and future evaluation.

(C) What to improve

(1) The report should correctly reflect the findings of the agency’s 2025 evaluation. It should explain to what extent the proposed targeted initiative will to enable ELA’s to fulfil its mandate to effectively apply and enforce EU labour mobility and social security coordination rules.

(2) The report should substantiate how ELA’s activities contribute to fair labour mobility, to better substantiate why the EU should act by performing all current tasks. It should provide information on the precise content, means and expected time horizon of ELA’s internal action plan and assess the extent of its expected impact in reaching the agency’s objectives. It should better explain the value added of the initiative compared to the ELA action plan.

(3) The report should strengthen the analysis of problems and problem drivers and assess their magnitude, based to the extent possible on observational data. Specific objectives should be SMART and the baseline description better substantiated regarding the implementation of ELA’s internal action plan and related uncertainties. Regarding information provision, the corresponding analysis should be improved as the report does not provide sufficient detail, to whom and through which channels information should be provided. It should clarify why existing EU advisory services or publicly available tools are not adequate to tackle the issue. Similarly, the analysis of problem drivers related to EURES should consider the portal’s ‘subpar usability’ and low quality of data. Regarding mediation, the analysis should build on comprehensive (including recent) evidence, ensure that all drivers have been considered and include the concrete changes to the mediation procedure, based on the internal action plan’s deliverable for Q2 2026.

(4) The report should clarify the extent of the proposed extension of ELA’s mandate also to TCN workers regardless of their legal status or mobility. In this respect it should assess the coherence of ELA’s activities with other relevant EU policies on migration with some potentially diverging objectives. The report should substantiate the cross-border dimension of TCN workers without legal status for ELA’s remit, justifying related action at EU level. It should explain how the exchange of information on inspection results and a closer cooperation with third country entities on facilitating access to support for TCNs in an exploitative situation is to be concretised to make this option operational. In addition, the report should describe more precisely how the cooperation with other entities for exchanging data and information will take place and assess its related impacts.

(5) The analysis of effectiveness and efficiency should be improved. The report does not demonstrate what results will be attained and what impacts the proposed measures would have in terms of contributing to fair labour mobility. The report should in particular assess the expected impacts of the proposed measures on information provision, EURES and mediation activities, in order to justify their continuation, considering their effectiveness so far.

(6) The report should include an adequate performance monitoring system based on sound key performance indicators for monitoring and future evaluation, taking into account the internal action plan’s deliverable for Q2 2026.

5

Some more technical comments have been sent directly to the author Service.

(D) Conclusion

The DG must revise the report and its executive summary in accordance with the Board’s findings and resubmit it for a final RSB opinion.

Full title Impact Assessment on Strengthening the European Labour Authority by reviewing its mandate (ELA)

Reference number PLAN/2025/2389

Submitted to RSB on 30 March 2026

Date of RSB meeting 29 April 2026

EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Strasbourg, 15.9.2026 SWD(2026) 986 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT

Accompanying the document

Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE

COUNCIL

amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 establishing a European Labour Authority,

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

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

Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal

Market Information System, and repealing Commission Implementing Decisions (EU)

2017/1256, (EU) 2018/170, (EU) 2018/1020 and (EU) 2018/1021

{COM(2026) 985 final} - {SEC(2026) 985 final} - {SWD(2026) 985 final} -

{SWD(2026) 987 final}

i

Table of contents

1. INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT ............................................................... 1

2. PROBLEM DEFINITION ..................................................................................................................... 2

3. WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? ......................................................................................................... 14

4. OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED?................................................................................ 15

5. WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? ..................................................................... 16

6. WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? ........................................................... 29

7. HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? ............................................................................................ 41

8. PREFERRED OPTION ....................................................................................................................... 46

9. HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? .................................. 48

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 50

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION (SYNOPSIS REPORT) ................................................ 55

ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? ........................................................................................... 78

ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS ...................................................................................................... 84

ANNEX 5: COMPETITIVENESS CHECK ................................................................................................. 93

ANNEX 6: SME CHECK ............................................................................................................................. 96

ANNEX 7: ANALYTICAL CONTEXT TCNS ......................................................................................... 100

ANNEX 8: ANALYTICAL CONTEXT LABOUR MOBILITY ............................................................... 106

ANNEX 9: TABLES - COMPARISON OF OPTIONS ............................................................................. 125

ANNEX 10: ELA’S ACTION PLAN ......................................................................................................... 128

ANNEX 11: MONITORING TABLE ........................................................................................................ 151

ii

Glossary

Term or acronym Meaning or definition

ELA European Labour Authority

TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

NLO National Liaison Officer: seconded national experts

employed with ELA to ensure good cooperation between

national authorities and ELA

DG EMPL Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs &

Inclusion

CJIs Concerted and Joint Inspections

EC European Commission

ECG EURES Coordination Group

ECO EURES European Coordination Office

EURES European network of employment services

ILO International Labour Organization

IMI Internal Market Information System

KPI Key Performance Indicators

NCO National Coordination Office (EURES)

PES Public Employment Service

SNE Seconded National Expert

TA Temporary Agent

1

1. INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT

The Political Guidelines of the Commission (2024–2029) underline that the free movement of

people and services is key to our competitiveness. This orientation is reinforced in the mission

letter to Executive-Vice President Roxana Mînzatu, which assigns priority to strengthening fair

mobility and tackling abuses. Furthermore, the Commission Work Programme 2026, announces

the strengthening of the European Labour Authority (ELA) as part of the Fair Labour Mobility

Package, in line also with the European Parliament’s January 2024 resolution1 calling for a

stronger ELA mandate and capacity.

This builds on already existing calls from Enrico Letta’s report on the Future of the Single

Market2, which stresses the need to reinforce the European Labour Authority to protect working

conditions and strike a balance between economic development and social rights, and from

Mario Draghi’s report on EU competitiveness,3 which identifies effective labour mobility and

robust enforcement as key enablers to address labour shortages and sustain long-term

productivity and growth. The implementation dialogue4 led by Executive Vice-President

Roxana Mînzatu in September 2025 further emphasises these priorities, calling for a

strengthened European Labour Authority.

Intra-EU mobility plays a significant role in the functioning of the Single Market, with

approximately 14 million EU citizens living and/or working in another Member State long term

(3.9 % of the EU labour force), 1.9 million cross-border workers and 3.64 million posted

workers.5

Third-country national (TCN) workers alleviate labour shortages and contribute to economic

growth in the euro area, particularly in the context of tight labour markets.6 At the same time,

EU labour markets are becoming more complex due to the growing involvement of third-

country nationals (TCNs), including through posting, which raises specific enforcement

challenges. Field research and enforcement data indicate that TCNs (including posted workers)

are over-represented in cases of underpayment, excessive working hours, illegal deductions,

bogus self-employment and abusive subcontracting, particularly in construction, agriculture

and some parts of the transport sector,7 demonstrating that some TCNs are a particularly

vulnerable group of workers (Annex 7, section 2). This applies a fortiori for TCN workers

without a valid residence status in the EU, as they are more exposed to exploitation risks as

more willing to accept lower pay and sub-standard working conditions (Annex 7, section 1).

ELA’s objective of supporting fair labour mobility is at risk where vulnerable TCN workers in

the same high-risk sectors are more easily exploited, allowing non-compliant employers to

lower labour costs, distort competition, weaken the level playing field. This race to the bottom

can indirectly undermine the freedom of movement of mobile Union workers and their rights.

As the number of TCN workers in the EU is expected to continue to grow, so is the need to

ensure their protection and rights. As labour mobility and migration become central to

addressing shortages and supporting competitiveness, this initiative reviews the current legal

framework governing ELA, with the aim of ensuring it is adequately and appropriately

1 European Parliament resolution on the revision of the European Labour Authority mandate. 2 Enrico Letta, Much more than a market, April 2024. Pp. 83, 104 3 Mario Draghi, A competitiveness strategy for Europe. 4 Implementation dialogue on fair labour mobility with Executive Vice-President Roxana Mînzatu 5 Intra-EU Labour Mobility Report 2025 6 Arce, O. et al (2025), ‘Foreign workers : A lever for economic growth’ 7See for example ELA (2025). Posting of third-country nationals: contracting chains, recruitment patterns, and enforcement issues. Insights from case studies; ELA (2022). Report on the cooperation practices, possibilities and challenges between Member States – specifically in

relation to the posting of third-country nationals

2

equipped to support Member States and the Commission in ensuring that mobility remains fair,

enforceable and politically sustainable.

2. PROBLEM DEFINITION

2.1. What is/are the problems?

The European Labour Authority (ELA) was established in 2019 to support Member States and

the Commission in effectively applying and enforcing EU labour mobility and social security

coordination rules. The 2025 Commission evaluation8 of ELA shows that ELA started working

towards the objectives and stakeholder feedback suggests that the delivered outputs were used

by relevant stakeholders. Cremers (2024) notes ELA’s role in filling a coordination gap that

national inspectorates could not bridge alone.9 Concretely, ELA has supported and coordinated

over 300 cross-border inspections that identified thousands of irregularities, while

simultaneously empowering national authorities through 60+ joint cooperation events and

large-scale awareness campaigns that reached more than 500 000 mobile workers and

employers across the EU.

In terms of governance, the Common Approach on EU decentralised agencies refers to the

introduction of an executive board,10 which can be seen as a technical adaptation to enhance

the effectiveness and efficiency of the Authority's governance. The evaluation also points to the

high share of SNE’s at ELA as being detrimental to ELA’s performance,11 as it contributes to

high staff turnover.12 Excessive staff turnover often entails losing built-up expertise, specialized

knowledge and contact networks, which in turn impacts business continuity and operational

capabilities.13 A conversion of some SNE positions to TA positions could increase staff

retention and institutional memory, which would have a positive impact on the effectiveness

and efficiency of the Authority.

The evaluation of ELA put forward a number of lessons learned. The elements raised which do

not require legislative changes are tackled in the ELA Action Plan (Annex 10). The

Commission has been closely involved in the establishment of the Action Plan and provided

input along the process ahead of its adoption by the ELA Management Board in May 2026 and

its submission to the Commission for review and approval. Several actions have already

commenced and full implementation of most actions is foreseen by 2027, while some actions

have a running time until 2028.

Some shortcomings cannot be resolved through an Action Plan, as the necessary changes

would require adapting ELA’s mandate: In addition to the 11th lesson learned, this relates to

lessons 3, 4, 7 and 8 of the ELA evaluation.14 This covers specific provisions of ELA’s tasks

related to information provision, EURES, enhancing cooperation between national authorities,

data analysis, inspections and mediation. Furthermore, the evaluation of the Authority

concluded that the current mandate of ELA is not fully clear as to the extent to which it can

cover TCNs. While the current activities of ELA already to certain extent require encompassing

TCNs (see baseline option), the lack of precision of the preamble (Recital 13), combined with

8 Due to the absence of result indicators, the evaluation is unable to make definite overall assessments of ELA’s performance and progress towards ELA’s specific objectives. 9 Cremers, J. (2024). “The first term of the European Labour Authority”. 10 Joint statement of the European Parliament, the Council of the EU and the European Commission on decentralised Agencies. 11 ELA has the highest proportion of SNE posts in its staff structure among all EU decentralised agencies (in 2026: 53 SNEs out of 147 staff),

as well as the highest proportion of SNEs compared with other EU authorities (e.g. CEDEFOP: 4 SNEs out of 125 staff; EBA: 19 SNEs out of

231 staff; EIOPA: 29 SNEs out of 209 staff). ELA also has the lowest number of statutory staff relative to its total budget when compared with other EMPL agencies or agencies with similar resources (Eurofound – 91 staff/budget of EUR 24.5 million; EU-OSHA – 40/16.6 million;

Cedefop – 91/19.8 million; FRA – 72/25.5 million; ETF – 86/23.5 million; Eurojust – 246/68 million). 12 ELA evaluation Annex VI. Stakeholder consultation report, sections 4.3.2, 4.3.6 and 4.3.7. 13 EP resolution on ELA mandate and Annual report on EU Agencies for the financial year 2022, p 169 14 ELA evaluation Staff Working Document, section 5.2.

3

the absence of any other indication in the operative part of the Regulation, has made it difficult

to clearly understand the mandate entrusted to ELA and the type of activities that would remain

ancillary to ELA’s core mandate under Articles 46 and 48 TFEU. The limitation to address

employment-related and social matters involving all TCNs - whether or not they are in regular

administrative situation or engage in cross-border mobility - due to the current legal framework

is a cross-cutting issue which will be assessed for several different policy areas rather than being

seen in isolation. In this regard, the revision of ELA’s mandate will clarify the Authority’s role as regards information provision, and inspections involving third country nationals, keeping the enforcement of labour standards separated from immigration enforcement.

2.1.1. Information

Facilitating access to information of a general nature on rights and obligations regarding labour

mobility is a core pillar of ELA’s mandate.The Authority supports Member States in complying

with their obligations regarding access to information and facilitates cooperation. Concretely,

ELA organises information and awareness raising campaigns, reviews national and EU

websites, translates relevant documents and more. However, all the information provided is of

a general nature. ELA does not provide direct and personalised information to individuals and

employers, while there is a demand for more personalised information and counselling. ELA’s

campaigns and other activities that target high-risk sectors are useful, but at the same time the

number of queries in SOLVIT and Your Europe Advice (YEA) show that there is a need for

more personalised and tailored information provision.

The scale of the information deficit can be seen in the high volume of queries handled by EU

advisory services; in 2025, out of 3 600 cases handled by SOLVIT (up from 2 300 in 2022),

86.8% concerned social security and free movement15, while Your Europe Advice16 handled 20

900 questions in 2025, out of which one third concerned social security or work (compared to

one third of 20 100 questions in 2022).17 The latest numbers from Europe Direct Contact Centre

(EDCC)18 shows that EDCC answered 159 300 questions in total, about 5% of which were

about employment and social affairs in 2022.19

There is consensus among social partners20 that existing national and EU resources on social

security and free movement are insufficient, forcing users to navigate multiple websites, which

makes finding critical administrative information time-consuming and difficult. Additionally,

the ELA evaluation concluded that ELA’s added value did not fully materialise yet in the

facilitation of access to information21. Current guidance on essential issues, such as posting

requirements and social security eligibility, is criticized for being incomplete, outdated, or too

theoretical.22 These deficiencies particularly impact vulnerable groups such as some third

country workers,23 who often lack the necessary knowledge to enforce their rights and face

difficulties contacting the correct national authorities.24 Lack of knowledge of their rights

exposes in particular some third-country nationals to a heightened risk of labour exploitation25

and trafficking in human beings. In addition, they might not report abuse or violations of the

15 SOLVIT is an informal problem-solving network provided by national administrations to help EU citizens and businesses resolve cross-

border disputes. See the SOLVIT Scoreboard. 16 Your Europe Advice provide tailored explanations of how EU law applies to your specific situation, 17 Your Europe Advice. Annual trends. [2022] [2025] 18 EDCC is the European Union's helpline when you want to know something about the EU, answering general questions about the EU. 19 Last published Annual activity report from the EDCC. 20 This view is expressed by both large EU-level employer and business membership organizations, as well as EU-level trade unions. 21 ELA evaluation SWD(2025) 128 final, p. 139 22 Lack of accessible and easily understandable information on rights and obligations is mentioned by major employer and business membership

organizations as well as trade unions. See annex 2 for more details. 23 More details in annex 7. 24 ELA (2025). “Posting of third-country nationals” 25 European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. “Protecting Migrant Workers from Exploitation – FRA Opinions”

4

law due to dependence on their employers and the fear of losing their only income. In the case

of TCNs in an irregular situation, this is compounded by their fear of being returned. This in

turn also impacts the enforcement capacities of ELA, as access to sufficient information for

TCN workers and their employers, is a pre-condition to ensure that labour rights are

appropriately applied.

The lack of personalised information creates a dual burden. For individuals, including workers:

a lack of clear, multilingual guidance relevant for their situation leads to increased vulnerability

to exploitation, fraudulent recruitment, and substandard working conditions, as well as

preventing some from moving. For businesses: it increases the administrative costs of cross-

border operations – especially for SMEs. It could also lead to businesses abstaining from

international recruitment and operating in other countries, thereby not fully making use of the

benefits the Single Market offers. According to the Draghi report, more than half of SMEs

consider regulatory burden and administrative challenges as their greatest obstacles.26

Providing tailored information to SMEs could reduce the amount of resources required to

acquire the necessary information. This also leads to a higher burden of information provision

for national authorities. Furthermore, because the lack of accessible and tailored information

leads to some employers involuntarily breaching EU law, national authorities are forced to

spend time investigating and rectifying administrative errors, diverting focus away from

tackling deliberate fraud and more severe cases of labour exploitation.

2.1.2. EURES

EURES contributes to labour mobility through its network for job matching, information

sharing and recruitment services. In addition to its network, the most important tool for EURES

is the EURES portal, where job seekers can search for jobs and find information on living and

working conditions in different countries, while employers can search for employees based on

a CV database.

While intra-EU labour mobility has remained stable in the last few years, the contribution of

EURES to cross-border mobility has decreased. According to the 2022–2024 EURES activity

report, the network has seen a decline in placements from over 83 000 in 2019 to just over

48 000 in 2023 (figure 1), whilst the number of newly registered jobseekers decreased from 63

000 in 2021 to 14 700 in 202227. In addition, EURES suffers from poor visibility, with public

awareness levels ranging from only 9%28 to 36%29, depending on the source. Furthermore, a

number of national authorities and EURES NCOs report that the usability of the EURES portal

should be improved (Annex 2, section 2.1.2.3), as users are currently left underserved. In 2025,

the budget allocated by ELA to EURES amounted to EUR 15.65 million, representing almost

one third of the Authority’s total budget. This concentration of resources raises concerns

regarding the direction of cost-effectiveness of EURES activities after most responsibilities was

moved from the Commission to ELA.

Figure 1: Placements facilitated by EURES. Total number and share of all EU movers active

in the labour market.

26 Draghi, M. (2024). The future of European competitiveness – Part A: A competitiveness strategy for Europe. European Commission, p. 8. 27 ELA evaluation SWD(2025) p. 20. 28 Special Eurobarometer report 528, Intra-EU labour mobility after the pandemic, p 97. 29 ELA: EURES visibility study. Not published.

5

Source: Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social

Committee and the Committee of the Regions on EURES activity 2022-2024.

2.1.3. Cooperation and Enforcement

There remains a high incidence of non-compliance30 with Union law regarding workers’ rights

in cross-border situations.31 The ELA evaluation suggests that ELA’s support for Member

States and the Commission in effectively applying and enforcing EU labour mobility and social

security coordination rules is constrained by its current operational limits.32 National labour

inspectorates largely operate within "siloed" territorial jurisdictions. As some sectors such as

transport, construction, HORECA and agriculture are highly international, with a high share of

mobile/posted workers, or complex international subcontracting chains,33 national labour

inspectorates acting alone face structural obstacles such as fragmented information,34 territorial

limits on powers, and complex subcontracting chains across borders.

While ELA coordinates a growing number of CJIs, its role remains largely reactive. The

Authority currently has limited capacity to access, integrate and analyse relevant cross-border

information that could support strategic risk assessment and the early identification of sectors,

operators or mobility patterns presenting an increased risk of non-compliance. As a result, ELA

is not yet able to fully exploit its unique EU-wide perspective to identify cross-border risks that

may not be visible to individual national authorities.

Improved access to and analysis of relevant data would enable ELA to better identify emerging

trends, detect recurring patterns of fraud or labour exploitation across Member States, and

support the targeting of CJIs where the likelihood of detecting infringements is highest. This

would allow national authorities to make more efficient use of limited inspection resources,

reduce duplication of effort, and strengthen the intelligence-led planning of enforcement

activities. By providing a common analytical basis for cross-border cooperation, ELA could

also help ensure a more consistent application of Union law, facilitate earlier intervention in

cases of systemic non-compliance, and enhance the deterrent effect of coordinated enforcement

actions. Without such analytical capacity, Member States cannot fully benefit from the

economies of scale and the transnational perspective that an EU-level enforcement support body

is uniquely placed to provide, resulting in fragmented enforcement and missed opportunities to

tackle cross-border fraud effectively.The EU is experiencing an increased need for TCNs to

address widespread labour and skills shortages. Violations of labour law can affect workers

regardless of their nationality or legal status. Some high risk sectors (such as construction,

30 Non-compliance in this context refers to employers intentionally or unintentionally breaching the regulations regulating the rights of workers

in a cross-border context, as falling within the remit of ELA. 31 Houwerzijl, M. (2022). "Enforcement of EU Labour Law in a transnational context." 32 ELA evaluation SWD, p 64 33 Andriescu, M, et al. (2024). Study supporting the Monitoring of the Posting of Workers Directive 2018/957/EU and of the Enforcement

Directive 2014/67/EU 34 Due to limited data sharing between Member States, previous infringements and other relevant information from another Member State is

often not available.

0,0% 2,0% 4,0% 6,0% 8,0% 10,0% 12,0%

0

20

40

60

80

100

2018 2019 2021 2022 2023

Th ou

sa nd

s

Placements Share of movers active in the labour market

6

HORECA, agriculture, transport or personal and household services and care) are characterized

by reliance on mobile EU workers and TCN workers, including TCN workers employed locally

without engaging in intra-EU mobility. Evidence shows that TCNs with certain immigration

statuses35 are at higher risk of substandard working conditions (see Annex 7, section 2). In

addition to wage-related abuses and excessive working hours, research shows that third-country

workers face disproportionate occupational safety and health risks, due to their

overrepresentation in these high-risk sectors and limited language skills.36 TCN workers in an

irregular situation are overrepresented in the high-risk sectors and their vulnerability is

compounded by their fear of being returned, which prevents them from exercising their rights

vis-a-vis their employers.37 Where such risks are insufficiently addressed, the impact is not

limited to the TCN workers concerned. Non-compliant employers may exploit the weaker

enforceability of TCN workers’ rights to reduce labour costs below lawful standards. This can

distort competition, lower the working conditions for mobile Union workers, and reduce the

attractiveness of intra-EU mobility opportunities in affected sectors.

2.1.4. Mediation

Cross-border litigation cases are often complicated and take a long time to resolve. This

translates into costs for companies and national administrations, as well as non-compliance with

rights for workers. Mediation is a procedure which aims to cut the time it takes to resolve these

cases. As an illustrative example, researchers show that in Belgium, litigation takes on average

505 days, compared to 45 days for mediation, while in Italy the respective figures are 1210 days

for litigation and 47 days for mediation. This is reflected in lower costs overall for mediation

compared to litigation (see Annex VIII for more details). At the European level, before the

creation of ELA, there was no cross-border mediation mechanism between Member States

across all domains of labour mobility and social security coordination. In case of administrative

disputes between two or more Member States, recourse may be made to national courts and

ultimately to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). However, judicial recourse and infringement

proceedings are costly in terms of time and resources. The creation of mediation within ELA

was thus aimed at facilitating solutions in cases of disputes between national authorities and

cross-border labour market disruptions.

The ELA evaluation shows that the mediation function was little used in the first years of ELA’s

operation up to 2024 (four mediation procedures were opened, of which one led to a non-

binding opinion). More up-to-date figures show that subsequent uptake remains low, but has

increased slightly, with eight new cases suggested in 2024-2025. In contrast, the high number

of SOLVIT cases in the area of social security in cross-border situations and free movement of

persons and right to reside (Figure 2), point to persistent conflicts in the application of EU law

in the area. While SOLVIT resolves around 77% of cases, there are systemic issues which lead

to cases being closed unresolved. This suggests that more substantial follow-up is needed.

Figure 2: Number of SOLVIT cases in ELA’s areas of competence.

35 This can include posted workers, workers without regular residence status, workers with a regular residence status but without the authorisation to work, seasonal workers, or workers whose residence status depends on a specific employer, such as third-country nationals

holding single-employer visas that tie their legal stay to one employer. 36 Trivellato, M. and Weatherburg, A. (2025) ‘Realising Fair and Just Working Conditions for Migrant Workers in Europe’ 37 Ibid.

7

According to input gathered for the ELA evaluation, there is a potential for 10-20 unresolved

SOLVIT cases to be sent to ELA mediation per year.38 This indicates that there is a demand for

a mediation function. The limited use of the procedure, despite potential cases could lead to

disputes between Member States being left unresolved. Unresolved disputes leads to continued

administrative frictions, and costs for businesses and citizens affected by the disagreement.

2.2. What are the problem drivers?

Across all policy areas, two types of problem drivers can be distinguished. First,

implementation related drivers linked to internal organisation, prioritisation, coordination or

operational practices within ELA. These can be addressed through the ELA Action Plan

adopted in May 2026. Second, structural drivers rooted in the current legal framework of

Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 which constrain the ability of ELA to act and cannot be remedied

through non-legislative measures alone. The analysis of problem drivers below therefore

focuses on explaining these drivers while clearly distinguishing them from drivers addressed

through the Action Plan.

2.2.1. Information

The primary driver underlying the difficulties in facilitating information is the mismatch

between the demand for personalised support and the current mandate for providing such

support. individuals, including workers, and businesses frequently require more than general

information; they seek personalised advice and counselling relevant for their situation to

navigate the complexities of cross-border mobility. While digital portals provide general

information, there is limited easily accessible tailored guidance or advice to individuals and

businesses to understand specific rights and obligations in a foreign jurisdiction.

Furthermore, ELA has limited outreach and visibility at national, regional and cross-border

level. ELA has not yet succeeded in making itself sufficiently known towards individuals and

employers. According to a Eurobarometer survey from 2022, only 13% of respondents have

heard about ELA. Stakeholder input indicates that ELA’s activities in this area do not

sufficiently meet the needs and reach individual workers and employers on the ground.39 This

lack of awareness limits the effectiveness of ELA’s information initiatives, as the intended

beneficiaries are often unaware of the resources available to them.

Most established information structures at EU level are designed for specific stages of the

mobility process, primarily recruitment and the initial search for work. For instance, EURES is

38 ELA Evaluation Annex VII Case studies, page 80. 39 Major trade unions as well as employer and business membership organizations want more active information provision . Employers want a

helpline, while trade unions prefer a network of physical centres providing information (see annex 2)

8

not equipped to provide post-placement counselling or legal support. There are local or regional

initiatives aimed at providing multilingual, sector specific advice for mobile and migrant

workers40 but they are project based, do not have stable funding and do not provide continuous

long-term support opportunities for workers and employers. This leaves a void for workers and

employers who require ongoing support once they are active in a host Member State,

particularly when facing issues related to the enforcement of rights or even risk of labour

exploitation.

The 2023 ELA report on Social partners’ and EURES staff awareness of EU-level labour

mobility information and services presents a picture of the existing services and of the persistent

gaps and existing needs on information provision. It explores the existing EU advisory networks

and platforms, which the new information and counselling network would complement, notably

Your Europe Advice, SOLVIT, Enterprise Europe Network, the bodies to promote equal

treatment and to support Union workers and members of their family, and the national liaison

offices for the posting of workers.

SOLVIT and Your Europe Advice (YEA) can provide some support. However, SOLVIT is

limited to cross-border cases involving alleged misapplication of EU internal market law by

public authorities.41 While it promotes compliance by public authorities,42 it does not cater to

situations where workers or self-employed experience infringements of their employment and

social rights by private actors and where employers would need advice on how to comply with

the EU legal framework on labour mobility. YEA is an EU-funded service providing free,

personalised and non-binding legal advice on EU internal market and EU citizenship rights. It

is addressed to EU nationals and to TCNs insofar as they already benefit from EU rights. While

it covers areas relevant to ELA’s mandate, notably free movement of workers and social

security coordination, it is delivered remotely via an online platform, and does not offer in-

person counselling. The service is available only in official EU languages and requires a level

of digital literacy, which may limit accessibility for vulnerable groups.

Finally, The Europe Direct Contact Centre (EDCC) operates as an administrative helpline of

the European Commission, but does not offer tailored guidance or personalised advice to

individuals or businesses on their rights and obligations in cross-border or national contexts.

In the context of return migration, Commission guidance emphasises that counselling is a

trust-based and individualised process, which cannot be replicated through digital helplines,

particularly in enforcement-sensitive situations. Such counselling needs to be tailored to the

specific circumstances of the individual, including their migration trajectory, vulnerabilities and

identified needs43, and should provide guidance and support throughout the process, including

follow-up and access to established referral networks where necessary.44 Similarly, in relation

to the integration of vulnerable jobseekers, analysis by the European Network of Public

Employment Services finds that, for vulnerable groups, most outreach activities are more

effective when delivered face-to-face and that online counselling has clear limitations,

especially in complex or challenging situations.45 More generally, digital interactions tend to

require a relatively high degree of autonomy and self-management, which evidence suggests

40 Faire Mobilitat, GrensInfoPunten and also the European Commisison – Pilot Projects and Preparatory Actions (PPPA) 41 Commission recommendation of 17 September 2013 2013/461/EU 42 Commission recommendation of 17 September 2013 2013/461/EU 43 In relation to return and reintegration counselling, the building of trust has been identified as an essential element in information and

knowledge management (SWD(2021) 121 final, p. 8, 10, 17) 44 SWD(2021) 121 final, p. 22. 45European Network of Public Employment Services. “PES digital services to successfully integrate vulnerable jobseekers”, p. 6, 13 and 25.

9

may be more limited among vulnerable individuals, thereby constraining the effectiveness of

digital-only support models.46

TCNs have a higher risk of violations of their employment and social rights.47 Research shows

that lack of information and awareness of their labour rights is one of the drivers of this

risk (see Annex 7, section 2). Current efforts to disseminate information about labour rights

generally rely on passive channels of communication. In addition, the information provided is

typically broad and general, available only in a few languages, which often fail to reach the

most marginalised workers. Cultural barriers48 and limited access to traditional information

channels contribute to this issue. In this regard, the Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 lacks clarity

on whether ELA’s activities in the field of availability, quality and accessibility of

information can also be extended to TCNs, regardless of their legal status or whether they

engage in cross-border mobility.

The current Article 5 of the Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 limits ELA to providing largely general

information. This legal constraint prevents ELA from facilitating sustained personalised

guidance to individuals and employers, which in turn explains why information remains

fragmented and fails to reach vulnerable groups, including TCNs, and those needing

compliance support, such as SMEs. While EU initiatives such as YEA and others partly cater

to some of the information needs, they have a limited reach or access. While the ELA Action

Plan (Annex 10, LL4) commits to explore new methods of involving social partners to improve

targeting and impact of information activities and to develop and implement methodology to

measure campaign use and impact and as such it can improve the quality of information

campaigns within the existing mandate, it is not sufficient to address the need for personalised

and individual information and advice.

2.2.2. EURES

This section examines the structural and operational problem drivers constraining the

effectiveness of the EURES network, focusing on its fragmented governance model, underlying

data quality issues and subpar usability of the EURES portal, and the institutional hurdles

affecting Member State commitment. Together, these elements limit the consistency,

efficiency, and overall performance of the network.

An important driver of the shortcomings of EURES, and in particular the EURES portal, is the

current division of responsibilites and atypical governance structure between the

European Commission and ELA. In most EU initiatives, the Commission acts as the system

owner while the agency acts as the solution provider.49 By contrast, the current framework for

the EURES portal follows a reversed logic, with ELA responsible for defining business needs

while the Commission acts as the technical solution provider. This misalignment weakens

strategic steering as no single actor has end-to-end responsibility for aligning policy objectives,

operational priorities and technical delivery.50 It creates a structural disconnect between the

formulation of business requirements and their implementation, thereby not reaping the full

benefits of utilizing the Commission IT ecosystem, which limits the system’s ability to swiftly

respond to evolving needs of the users. The current division of governance responsibilities,

46 idem, p. 29. 47 FRA(2019): Protecting migrant workers from exploitation in the EU: workers’ perspectives 48 European Labour Authority (2025) ‘Posting of third-country nationals: contracting chains, recruitment patterns and enforcement issues. Insights from case studies’

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (2024), How workplace inspectors can protect third-country workers’ rights - Training

manual 49 For example EU-LISA 50 The European Parliament Research Service warned about this before the establishment of ELA.

10

described by the European Parliament as a ‘complex organisational arrangement’,51 contributes

to the declining effectiveness of the EURES portal. The evaluation identified that the transfer

to ELA brought no significant added value to EURES.

The success of the EURES network depends critically on sustained commitment from Member

States, for example in transmitting relevant data to the EURES portal. Institutional and

regulatory hurdles may weaken this commitment. According to the evaluation, the current

division of governance between the Commission and ELA leads to unclear divisions of

responsibility regarding the EURES portal and legal interpretations, which stakeholders found

to reduce the effectiveness of EURES.52 Stakeholders also criticized ELA for spreading its

efforts too thin, weakening its ability to provide appropriate support for key EURES functions.

The ELA Action Plan (Annex 10, LL7) commits to further integrate EURES in ELA activities

and to facilitate closer relationship between ELA and EURES network as well as to improve

cooperation between DG EMPL and ELA on technical cooperation and development. Some

elements of EURES performance, such as network cooperation and monitoring, can be

improved through the Action Plan, whilst the fragmented governance structure between the

Commission and ELA is rooted in the current legal framework.

2.2.3. Cooperation and Enforcement

Under the current legal framework (Regulation (EU) 2019/1149), ELA lacks an explicit

competence to gather, store and process personal data and other sensitive operational

information, including ownership, commercial practices and company structures, which

would aid data analysis and risk assessments.53 As a result, ELA cannot systematically analyse

operational data including personal data or produce efficient risk-based intelligence to support

national enforcement authorities in investigations in cases. This limitation significantly

constrains ELA’s capacity to conduct operational analysis and also exchange of data before,

during and after CJIs. This hampers ELA’s ability to proactively suggest to the authorities of

the Member States concerned to carry out targeted inspections of high-risk cases.

Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 allows ELA to coordinate and support Concerted and Joint

Inspections (CJIs) either at the request of one or more Member States or on its own initiative,

provided that Member States agree. However, in practice, the absence of a clear mandate to

access and process such data prevents ELA from identifying high-risk patterns or emerging

cross-border non-compliance trends and consequently, ELA is unable to proactively suggest to

the competent authorities of the Member States concerned that targeted inspections be carried

out on the basis of own risk assessment. While the CJI tool is intended precisely for

cross-border situations where national inspectorates acting alone face structural obstacles, ELA

cannot oblige Member States to participate in CJIs, even in cases where cross-border fraud or

labour law violations appear evident.54 The combination of (1) the absence of a mandate to

process operational data and (2) the voluntary nature of Member State participation results in

inspections being predominantly triggered by ad-hoc national requests rather than by

data-driven intelligence generated at EU level.

51 Ibid, p 7 52 ELA Evaluation Staff Working Document, p 65. 53 Some examples of databases which would aid ELA’s work includes ORBIS, Creditreform, personal data from national authorities, IMI,

EESSI. More details in Section 5.2.4. 54 There have been few instances of CJIs proposed by ELA due to the lack of mandate to obtain and process operational information, including

personal data, on own initative. Based on information received form ELA, in two instances where CJIs were proposed by ELA, in one case

ELA received no reaction from one Member State and refusal from another. In another instance, where CJI was proposed to 17 Member States, in response inspections took place in 5 Member States. More detailed information cannot be shared due to sensitivity and on-going status of

one of the cases.

11

These limitations are further compounded during the execution of CJIs. The role of visiting

inspectors55 remains entirely dependent on national law in the host Member State, and is

formally restricted to an observational function. Even in cases where visiting inspectors

possess the necessary language skills to communicate with workers from their home country,

they are legally prevented from conducting interviews or taking an active role in the inspection

process.

Finally, the responsibility on reporting on the outcomes and follow-up of CJIs lies solely with

the Member States. This leads to fragmented and incomplete information on inspection results.

As highlighted in the ELA evaluation, this prevents ELA from building a comprehensive

database of non-compliance patterns.56 This, in turn, reinforces the cycle of reactive

enforcement and limits the Authority’s capacity to support Member States with strategic, risk-

based inspection planning.

The uncertainty about the TCNs and the Union instruments dealing with TCNs that fall

under the scope of ELA (see section 2.1) limits ELA’s contribution in supporting the

Member States and the Commission in enforcing employment and social rights of TCNs

effectively, and maylead to uneven practice, legal uncertainty and fragmented operational

follow-up. As outlined in the problem definition, there is an increased need for protection of

the employment and social rights of TCN workers. Vulnerability to exploitation increases

where workplace conditions are insufficiently monitored. Furthermore, ineffective inspections

that fail to identify exploitation, sanction abusive employers or support exploited workers’

access to justice are perceived as legitimising exploitative practices56. Low institutional

capacity is an obstacle to effective monitoring of labour conditions in sectors related to seasonal

work 57. Evidence from CJIs coordinated and supported by ELA shows that TCNs that are not

in a posting situation already represent a substantial share of workers encountered during

enforcement activities57 (see Annex 7, section 1). Thus, the current mandatecreates uncertainty

preventing ELA from enforcing employment and social rights of TCNs effectively, for instance:

whether ELA can systematically request Member States to include findings, identified

infringements and follow-up measures concerning such TCNs in the reporting and follow-up

mechanisms to CJIs; whether ELA support can be extended to cover subsequent coordinated

enforcement actions involving them; or contribute to capacity building activities in this area. If

TCN workers are excluded from ELA-supported analysis, inspection preparation or information

exchange in mobility contexts, Member States may lack the evidence needed to identify

systemic non-compliance. An additional challenge stems from the vulnerability of TCN

workers vis-à-vis employers, which may in some cases impact the ability of labour inspectorates

to detect cases of inadequate working conditions and other type of violations. TCN workers’

vulnerability may arise from language barriers, limited knowledge of rights, weak access to

advice or trade-union support, dependence on employers for employment, accommodation or

work authorisation, restricted possibilities to change employer58 and fear of losing residence or

work status and subsequent return if they report abuses (Annex 7, section 2). These factors can

reduce reporting and make infringements such as underpayment, excessive working time,

unlawful deductions, unsafe accommodation or non-payment of social-security contributions

harder to detect.

55 By visiting inspector we mean an inspector participating in a joint inspection in another Member State. 56 SWD(2025) 128 final, p. 31-33 and Study supporting the evaluation of the European Labour Authority, p. 55-58. 57 ELA own analysis based on the preliminary reporting data from CJIs and post inspection reports submitted by the Member States in line

with Article 9(6) of ELA Regulation 58 The recast Single Permit Directive introduces for third-country workers holding a single permit a right to change employer under certain conditions (this right can be limited by MSs, e.g. allowing the change of employer only after 6 months of employment) and the possibility to

stay in the territory of the Member State concerned during a limited period of unemployment.

12

2.2.4. Mediation

The evaluation could not draw conclusions on the effectiveness of the mediation due to the low

number of cases. However, the case study pointed to several possible reasons for the limited

use of the mediation procedure.59 First, the procedure is relatively recently established, which

may lead it to be little known among potential users. Second, participation in mediation is

entirely voluntary. Both requesting party, and party being requested to participate, are required

to agree to mediation before the procedure can begin, and either party may decide to

withdraw from mediation at any stage. This creates an asymmetry of risk: the party

requesting mediation must invest significant resources in preparing a case without any

assurance that the other party will agree to participate or remain engaged. In practice, the

possibility that this investment may be rendered redundant if the requested party refuses or

withdraws may discourage parties from initiating mediation in the first place to avoid

wasting resources.60 Stakeholders interviewed as part of the ELA evaluation saw the

mediation procedure as complex.61 The current procedure involves a detailed and rigid multi-

stage process.

The combination of limited awareness, voluntary participation with asymmetric risk,

institutional overlap and procedural complexity creates structural disincentives to use

mediation. As a result, the procedure remains underutilised, despite its potential to offer a

structured alternative to bilateral dispute resolution.

Table 1: Intervention logic

Policy

area Problem drivers Problems Consequences Objective

Information Mismatch between

demand for

personalised advice and

ELA’s general and

limited information

mandate, including for

TCNs

Limited reach: ELA

has low visibility (13%

awareness)

Information is criticised for being

incomplete, outdated, fragmented, or

too theoretical. The generic nature of

the information provided makes it more

difficult to be informed about

rights/obligations.

Information often fails to reach those

who need it most, including vulnerable

groups like TCNs.

Higher administrative costs and

risk of unintended non-

compliance for businesses;

Increased risk of worker

exploitation and lower

willingness to move due to lack

of awareness, especially for

TCNs;

Higher burden of information

provision on national authorities,

and more cases of non-

compliance to handle.

To improve access to, and

quality of, information and

support in cross border labour

mobility situations, so that

individuals, intra EU mobile

workers (including cross

border workers), third country

nationals, and employers are

better able to exercise their

rights and comply with their

obligations.

EURES Split ownership

between the

Commission and ELA

EURES is underperforming; placements

and Member-state commitment are

declining; Subpar portal usability

Inefficient job matching; potential

for alleviating skills shortages not

achieved

To increase the number of

individuals benefiting from

cross-border mobility support

and improve job-matching

outcomes by increasing the

efficiency of governance and

operation of the EURES

network and portal.

Cooperation

and

Enforcement

ELA lacks competence

to process personal

data, to impose conduct

or lead inspections;

legal ambiguities

concerning ELA’s

ability to tackle

different categories of

TCNs and employment

related elements of the

ELA’s contribution to the enforcement

of Union law is below needs;

ELA is forced into a reactive role rather

than providing proactive, data-driven

intelligence.

Higher rate of non-compliance

and social fraud;

ELA may not act to improve the

working conditions of TCNs due

to legal ambiguities.

To improve the targeting and

effectiveness of enforcement

actions in cross-border

situations, including cases

involving third-country

nationals by strengthening

ELA’s analytical and

operational support for

concerted and joint

inspections.

59 ELA evaluation SWD, pp 79-81 60 An example of this is found in the Mediation Case MED (2023)-2-MS between Belgium and Romania, where Belgium provided very detailed

information at the preliminary stage, after which Romania refused to participate. Study supporting the evaluation of the European Labour Authority. Annex VII, Case studies, p 80 61 Study supporting the evaluation of the European Labour Authority. Annex VII, Case studies, p 80

13

Union instruments

dealing with TCNs.

Mediation Mediation function is

complex;

Members States can opt

out at any time

The mediation function is little used

despite a number of unresolved

SOLVIT cases within ELAs remit

Unresolved conflicts lead to

continued administrative friction

and costs for businesses and

individuals

To reduce the number of cross-

border disputes by improving

the effectiveness of the

mediation function.

2.3. How likely is the problem to persist?

Intra-EU mobility is an economic adjustment mechanism; free movement triggered a 2.7%

Gross Value Added per capita increase in border regions.62 While important for productivity

and market stability, persistent obstacles related to intra-EU mobility remain and, if

unaddressed, will further hinder development. Although ELA will implement an action plan,

the primary drivers of the problems are rooted in the existing legal framework. Therefore they

cannot be fully resolved through non-legislative measures without changes to the ELA

Regulation.

Without legal amendment, ELA’s mandate’s scope ambiguity in relation to TCN workers is

likely to persist because operational guidance, work programs or risk analysis cannot provide

the same level of legal certainty, consistency and accountability across Member States. For

legally employed non-mobile TCN workers in high-risk sectors or mixed workforces, where

inclusion would go beyond mere operational clarification and may require an express task

clarification or ancillary targeted extension to protect fair labour mobility, a level playing field

and Article 45 TFEU objectives, the problem would persist without such legal amendment.

Similarly, without a legal amendment the inclusion of illegally employed TCN workers present

in previously referred higher risk sectors in ELA’s mandate would remain uncertain at best, and

the protection of their labour-related rights would remain outside ELA’s remit.

With respect to information provision, AI tools could potentially reduce demand for ELA’s

services, as the capabilities of LLMs increase. However, the effectiveness of AI relies on high-

quality, updated data sources – such as what ELA provides currently. AI also lacks the quality

control necessary to prevent misinformation. The legal certainty depends on the reliability of

the source – which AI cannot provide. Furthermore, while AI services may benefit most

workers and businesses, they are less likely to be sufficient for the most vulnerable workers

who might benefit more from traditional forms of information acquisition.

For EURES, the fragmented governance model, where the Commission acts as the technical

solution provider while ELA defines business needs, is likely to continue to impede the

improvement and optimisation of EURES.

In the area of enforcement, the problem of a reactive rather than proactive approach will very

likely persist. Without the explicit legal competence to process personal data and to request and

process sensitive commercial and operational data, ELA will remain unable to provide the data-

driven intelligence needed to proactively identify targets for inspection. While better synergies

between analytical efforts and CJIs could be achieved within the current mandate, they would

remain generic and ineffective without competence to handle personal data, and access to the

relevant data. The challenges linked to third-country workers are also likely to persist as EU

62 Basboga, K (2020): «The role of open borders and cross-border cooperation in regional growth across Europe»

14

labour markets are increasingly relying on third-country nationals due to the demographic

situation and persistent skills and labour shortages.

The mediation function might see increased use in the coming years, as it becomes more known

to the Member States, and builds trust with Member States through proving positive results.

However, it is likely that the procedural complexities will continue to be seen as a hindrance to

its use, and that the low barriers to refusing to participate in the procedure will continue to lead

to underuse.

3. WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT?

3.1. Legal basis

The proposed initiative is based on Articles 46 and 48 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the

European Union (TFEU), which provides the legal basis for adopting measures to facilitate the

free movement of workers and to ensure coordination of social security systems within the

Union. Pursuant to Article 46 TFEU, the European Parliament and the Council are mandated

to adopt the necessary measures to effectuate the freedom of movement for workers. This

includes, inter alia, the establishment of mechanisms for cooperation between national

employment services and the systematic removal of administrative and legislative obstacles

hindering the search, matching, and take-up of employment across Member States.

Complementing this, Article 48 TFEU establishes a specific legal basis for the adoption of

social security coordination measures essential for the practical exercise of such mobility. The

current legal framework for ELA is established by Regulation (EU) 2019/1149, which defines

the Authority’s objectives, tasks, and structure.

3.2. Subsidiarity: Necessity and added value of EU action

The need for EU-level coordination in cross-border labour mobility and social security

coordination by a specialized body was demonstrated and accepted with the establishment of

ELA, in light of the diversity of national systems and the emergence of enforcement gaps. The

objectives of Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 - to ensure fair labour mobility and assist Member

States and the Commission in coordinating social security systems - remain essential. A

revision of the Regulation would retain these core objectives, which cannot be sufficiently

achieved by Member States acting in isolation due to the inherent cross-border nature of these

activities. Furthermore, the clarification of ELA’s mandate in relation to the enforcement of

social and employment rights of TCNs would remain ancillary to ELA's core mandate under

Articles 46 and 48 TFEU (as detailed in section 2.1), by ensuring that the rights of EU mobile

workers are not undermined by sub-standard conditions applied to TCNs.

These objectives are better achieved at Union level for the following reasons:

a) providing high quality and up-to-date information and services to the public about their

rights and obligations in cross-border situations needs to be coordinated at Union level

in order to ensure consistent, clear, and efficient messaging;

b) the application of Union law in the fields of cross border labour mobility and social

security coordination relies on cooperation between Member States, meaning that no

Member State can act alone;

c) in order to increase synergies and support cooperation between Member States in the

application of Union law and to ensure legal certainty for administrations and

individuals alike, it is necessary to develop a coordinated and joint approach at Union

level instead of relying on what can be a complex network of bilateral or multilateral

agreements.

15

While the recent ELA evaluation found that ELA has addressed a previously unmet need for

support in the implementation of EU labour mobility policies, it also identified weaknesses in

the current Regulation.63 Member States acting individually cannot sufficiently address issues

that span borders, nor can they remedy the structural deficiencies of an existing EU Authority.

The drivers of the identified problems are rooted in regulatory issues at the EU level. As the

identified weaknesses stem from the limitations of the establishing Regulation itself

(Regulation (EU) 2019/1149), the remedy can only be achieved through legislative intervention

at the EU level. The added value of further EU action is to equip ELA with the necessary legal

and operational means to perform its tasks more effectively.

4. OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED?

4.1. General objectives

This initiative aims to enhance ELA’s strategic and operational capacity to assist the Member

States and the Commission in the effective application and enforcement of Union law related

to labour mobility across the Union and the coordination of social security systems within the

Union.64

Building on the findings of the 2025 ELA Evaluation, and in line with principles of subsidiary

and proportionality, the Commission will review Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 to address

identified legislative shortcomings that limit ELA’s ability to support cross-border enforcement

with the final aim of strengthening the enforcement of Union law and improve the functioning

of the internal market. The revision will be limited to targeted legal adjustments, while leaving

ELA’s core objectives and tasks unchanged.

4.2. Specific objectives

The specific policy objectives addressed in this impact assessment respond to the problems

identified in section 2. They derive from the general objectives set out in section 4.1. They are

result-oriented and capable of being operationalised through a performance monitoring

framework. The indicators to be used to assess progress towards these objectives are described

in section 9.

The specific objectives of this initiative through which the general objective will be addressed

are:

• To improve access to, and quality of, information and support in cross-border labour

mobility situations, so that individuals, intra-EU mobile workers (including cross-border

workers), third-country nationals, and employers are better able to exercise their rights and

comply with their obligations. This objective focuses on improving outcomes for users of

information and support services, including their ability to clarify their situation and act in

compliance with applicable rules. Achievement of this objective could be measured by the

reach – the number of individuals and businesses receiving advice, as well as the level of

satisfaction with the advice they receive;

• To increase the number of individuals benefiting from cross-border mobility support

and improve job-matching outcomes by increasing the efficiency of governance and

operation of the EURES network and portal.This objective targets improved labour-market

outcomes facilitated by EURES, while leaving open the institutional arrangements through

which these results are achieved. Performance will be monitored through indicators related

to the number and share of job placements facilitated by EURES, the CV and job vacancy

63 ELA evaluation SWD, p. 63. 64 C.f. Art. 46 and Art. 48 TFEU and in line with ELA’s scope, as defined in Article 1 of its founding Regulation.

16

coverage of the EURES portal, the satisfaction of the users with the EURES portal, as well

as the satisfaction of the EURES Network with the governance of the Network;

• To improve the targeting and effectiveness of enforcement actions in cross-border

situations, including cases involving third-country nationals by strengthening ELA’s

analytical and operational support for concerted and joint inspections. The objective aims

at more risk-based, evidence-informed enforcement support at EU level, contributing to

more consistent enforcement of Union law. Progress will be assessed through indicators on

the number and coverage of concerted inspections, the share of CJIs made targeted by

ELA’s analytical efforts, and the level of satisfaction with ELA’s operational support for

CJIs;

• To reduce the number of cross-border disputes by improving the effectiveness of the

mediation function. This objective focuses on increasing the practical usefulness of

mediation as a dispute-resolution tool, while preserving its cooperative nature. The

performance will be assessed through indicators on uptake, resolution rates and the level of

satisfaction with the procedure.

The specific objective are further operationalised through the monitoring framework set out in

Section 9, which sets out measurable indicators to be used to assess the degree to which

different policy options would achieve those objectives.

5. WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS?

5.1. What is the baseline from which options are assessed?

Under the baseline scenario, ELA Regulation would not be revised. Identified challenges would

be addressed through non-legislative measures, notably a Commission Communication under

the Fair Labour Mobility Package and the ELA Action Plan implementing the evaluation’s

recommendations within the current legal framework.65 The Action Plan would address the

main issues identified in the evaluation and implement the lessons learned – relating to

monitoring, enhanced strategic management, concerted and joint inspections, mediation,

information and campaigns, capacity building, data and analytical capacity, and the European

Platform tackling undeclared work – through adjustments to internal monitoring system,

working methods, and coordination mechanisms. The Action Plan has been adopted by the

Management Board in May 2026 and the timeline for the implementation of the actions is

foreseen to be finished by 2028.

The baseline scenario also assumes the continuation of general economic, labour market and

demographic developments. According to the latest Intra-EU Labour Mobility report 2025,

labour mobility flows are quite stable and still sees a slight increase in the numbers of movers.

Similar trends can be seen regarding posted workers. The number of third-country nationals

living in the EU/EFTA was 20.8 million on 1 January 2024, having increased by 7% on average

every year since 2019.66 The labour market in the European Union is impacted by other general

trends, particularly technological transformation, transition to a green economy, ageing of

population as well as other societal or geopolitical factors, such as the housing crisis or the

efforts of eradicating poverty. In line with it’s mandate, ELA will continue to monitor the

societal trends and cooperate with the Commission and other EU agencies following the Action

plan on labour shortages.67

65 The baseline scenario builds on the assumption that ELA will develop an action plan which is in line with the lessons learned from the ELA

Evaluation Staff Working Document: Section III, Lessons learned and the way forward. 66 Annual report on Intra-EU Labour Mobility 2025 edition 67 Labour and skills shortages in the EU: an action plan COM(2024) 131 final

17

As part of the Action Plan, ELA will enhance the measurement of the impact and use of the

information campaigns by developing and implementing a methodology with relevant

indicators that measure impact. The work on the methodology has started, with the aim of

implementing it before the planned campaign in 2027 that allows to measure this campaign’s

impact after its run. In addition, ELA will work to further increase the effectiveness of its

campaigns. It will enhance cooperation with information providers, social partners, and

the Commission in defining campaign content and key messages and better take into

account the needs of its partners. ELA will work to optimise the life-cycle of campaigns, from

conceptualisation and inception up until implementation and follow-up. Such revised

campaigns can go hand-in-hand with improving the efficiency and usefulness of other

information activities through cooperation with stakeholders, such as the wage calculator or

webpages to inform mobile citizens.

With the Action Plan, ELA will aim to further enhance the services to the EURES network

through new training modules in the EURES Training Academy and a reorganisation of the

EURES portal’s labour market information section, addressing also the subpar usability and

low quality of data of the EURES portal. While ELA will work on improving the management

of the EURES European Coordination Group, the division of labour between ELA and the

Commission regarding IT tools would remain unchanged. Finally, the review and update of the

monitoring system in EURES will be tackled through the overall exercise of ELA renewing its

operational objectives and KPIs.

The implementation of the Action Plan should lead to enhanced synergy between ELAs

analytical efforts and the organisation of CJIs (Annex 10, LL3). With the involvement of

the Management Board, Member States will be encouraged to provide more timely feedback

on the results of CJIs. ELA will endevour to establish a closer connection between inspections

and analysis, in order to better identify potential targets for inspections. ELA will continue to

target sectors with high labour mobility and higher risk of inadequate employment

conditions. These are often the sectors with a high participation of TCNs. To this end, ELA

would also continue its on-going work on TCN workers. Recent internal data from ELA

suggests that TCNs are a structural feature of the inspections supported by ELA, with CJIs

involving TCNs accounting for around three-quarters of finalised inspections. ELA can, based

on Management Board decisions, and after approval by the Commission, continue to conclude

cooperation agreements with non-EU countries, including accession countries, and continue its

on-going activities supporting certain categories of TCN workers in cross-border situation, as

per its current mandate.

To address the limited use of the mediation function, ELA has set out in its Action Plan targeted

actions to improve the effectiveness and functionality of the mediation procedure. The

Rules of Procedure and the related templates of the mediation tool have been revised with the

aim of simplifying the procedure while ensuring compliance with the existing legal framework

as set out in the Regulation. In addition, a voluntary preliminary meeting has been added, with

the goal of the parties subject to the mediation procedure coming to a common understanding

about the procedure and expectations in an informal setting.

Following the evaluation and in line with the Action plan, ELA will improve its monitoring

system, through defining SMART objectives and by identifying meaningful KPIs that

measure the progress on all its objectives. The improved monitoring system will also enhance

the strategic management of the Authority. With this in place, ELA will be able to better identify

in which areas it can improve its performance – and thereby define more targeted where action

needs to be taken.

18

The baseline scenario anticipates operational improvements through the ELA Action Plan and

the forthcoming Commission Communication. While full implementation of the Action Plan is

expected by 2028, several measures have already been completed or are underway, providing

a solid foundation for progress. The pace of implementation may vary across actions,

particularly those requiring multilateral agreement, such as cross-border risk-based targeting

methodologies, which depend on Member State capacity and ELA's access to relevant data.

5.2. Description of the policy options

5.2.1. Structure and logic of the policy options

The policy measures are analysed at the level of policy areas, in accordance with the specific

policy objective they aim to achieve (Table 1). This section focuses on problems that cannot be

addressed by ELA’s Action Plan and/or non-legislative measures. The options in each policy

area are presented separately. The overall consistency is examined in a second step. All policy

options could be introduced in combination with accompanying non-legislative measures, such

as those suggested in ELA’s Action Plan. The matter of how ELA should address issues relating

to third-country nationals has been addressed in the individual policy areas, as this is a cross-

cutting issue (see also options discarded at early stage).

Table 1: Policy Options

5.2.2. Policy options related to the Information task of ELA (Policy area 1)

Here we look at different, mutually exclusive, options to tackle the issue of the lack of

personalised information for individuals and employers.

Both options are explicitly addressed to employers (including SMEs), individuals, including

intra EU mobile workers, cross-border workers, and TCNs, and their needs concerning the

exercise of employment and social rights as well as compliance with obligations related to

cross-border labour mobility and social security coordination. Both options will also explicitly

enable the Authority to act in the area of information and awareness raisingon the employment

and social rights and obligations of all third-country nationals, regardless of their legal status

or mobility, including those that are in irregular situation and those that are not engaging in

cross-border mobility. This would entail targeted awareness raising campaigns in the EU for

Policy area Objective Policy options

1. Information To improve access to, and quality of, information

and support in cross border labour mobility

situations, so that individuals, intra EU mobile

workers (including cross border workers), third

country nationals, and employers are better able to

exercise their rights and comply with their

obligations.

1.1. ELA to support/coordinate external networks for more

personalised information provision and guidance to workers and/or

employers by managing grants

1.2. ELA to provide directly more personalised cross-border

information to workers and/or employers through its own offices and

staff

2. EURES To increase the number of individuals benefiting

from cross-border mobility support and improve

job-matching outcomes by increasing the

efficiency of governance and operation of the

EURES network and portal.

2.1. Reassign specific EURES responsibilities to the Commission,

including the European Coordination Group chair and the EURES

portal business management

2.2. All EURES ECO-related tasks are grouped under the

Commission responsibility

2.3. All EURES ECO-related tasks are grouped under the ELA

responsibility

3. Cooperation

and Enforcement

To improve the targeting and effectiveness of

enforcement actions in cross-border situations,

including cases involving third-country nationals

by strengthening ELA’s analytical and operational

support for concerted and joint inspections.

3.1. Provide ELA with the possibility to access and process personal

data and allocate/identify more resources for ELA to support

concerted and joint inspections. Introduce explicit provisions on how

to manage cooperation and enforcement-related activities, including

CJIs where TCNs are involved. 3.2. Empower ELA to initiate,

conduct and impose inspections, in addition to the other changes

included in option 3.1. This option makes participation in CJIs

mandatory for Member States.

4. Mediation To reduce the number of cross-border disputes by

improving the effectiveness of the mediation

function.

4.1. Simplify mediation to incentivise its use

4.2. Introduce stricter mediation opt-out conditions

19

third country national workers and their employers. These may, for instance, provide

information on the right to equal treatment, adequate accommodation, recovering outstanding

remuneration from an employer or lodging complaints (outlined in Articles 6 and 13 of the

Employers Sanctions Directive and Articles 11, 20, 23 and 25 of the Seasonal Workers

Directive as well as Articles 12, 14 and 16 of the Recast Single Permit Directive) and preventing

the risk of labour exploitation and trafficking in human beings. This may also entail cooperation

with non-EU/accession countries to facilitate access to existing pre-departure information to

incoming third-country workers, for instance by contributing information to pre-departure

events on the rights and obligations in the labour mobility field before their entry into the EU

labour market.

Option 1.1. ELA to support/coordinate external networks for providing personalised

information and advice to individuals and employers by managing grants, which would

provide contributory financing of the network(s).68 Such networks could take different

forms. Trade unions call for an in-person network of advisors. Employer and business

membership organisations call primarily for a) a web tool that should constitute a single-entry

point to all mobility-relevant information sources, and b) a helpdesk for employers, providing

on-demand, practical and individualised help and guidance.69 Web tools or helpdesks for

employers could either be provided by an external organisation (or network), or directly by

ELA itself (as in the next option). A network of in-person advisors would cover the most

common corridors of labour mobility to start with, but should be scalable in case a larger

network is feasible at a later stage.

Delivery of information under this option relies on a combination of local and regional advisory

services operated by partner organisations, sector-specific outreach activities and multilingual

helplines, complemented by digital tools where appropriate. The added value compared to

existing EU-level advisory services lies in the provision of tailored, local-context-specific70 and

proactively delivered information, particularly for vulnerable and hard-to-reach groups as well

as making sure that the information provision is context-specific.

The value of personalised, in-person support is likely to be particularly significant in the context

of cross-border labour mobility, where citizens must navigate unfamiliar legal and

administrative systems, communicate in another language, and adapt to different labour market

practices and institutional settings71. The challenge for citizens is often the fragmentation of

information across multiple authorities and websites, making it difficult to identify which rules

apply to their individual circumstances; cross-border labour mobility frequently requires

navigating interactions between different national systems and administrations. While online

information provides general guidance, personalised assistance helps workers understand their

specific rights and obligations, identify the competent authorities and complete the relevant

procedures, thereby reducing the administrative burden and facilitating informed mobility

decisions. Compared with domestic jobseekers, mobile workers therefore face higher

information and transaction costs, increasing the importance of context-specific guidance

provided by trained advisers. While the precise magnitude of the additional impact cannot be

68 One example of such a network currently operating is the Faire Mobilität network. The Faire Mobilität network is a trade union- affiliated advisory network operating in Germany, currently across 12 different locations nationwide. The objective of the network is to improve working conditions for workers from central and eastern Europe by, amongst other things, providing information, advice and support to workers, at decentralized advice centres, in the workers’ own languages. 69 See annex 2 for more detail on these positions. 70 In comparison to SOLVIT and YEA, the Option foresees that support will be oferred via local actors with experience of labour mobility

issues from specific national and local perspective (see also Section 2.2.1 above). 71 The challenges and limitations of the currently available systems, notably the ones relying solely on digital tools, are also explained by De Wispelaere, F. & De Smedt, L. (2023). Access to information on the posting of workers: Are we blinded by the importance given by EU legislation to the single official national website?.

20

estimated, as a proxy, evidence from the OECD72 indicates that personalised face-to-face

guidance leads to better employment outcomes than remote or purely digital services, with

tailored guidance substantially improving individuals' ability to make informed labour market

decisions. Given the additional complexity of cross-border mobility, it is reasonable to expect

that the benefits of personalised advice in this context would be greater than those observed in

domestic settings, particularly for vulnerable and hard-to-reach groups.

Unlike generic tools, which largely provide standardised and user-initiated guidance, this

approach allows for human-mediated, personalised, updated and fact-checked advice and

counselling combined with targeted outreach. It therefore fills the gaps left by the existing

advisory instruments rather than duplicates them. This option could, in part, build on the

existing experience of the Fair European Labour Mobility 2 (FELM2) project by offering

funding for similar functions towards modified target audience for whom the current network

members might consider applying. The overall objective, however, is to replicate a support

system inspired by FELM2 for a broader set of users and within a broader geographic area. In

addition, experience can be drawn from EU-OSHA regarding their cooperation with national

authorities and employers on their online interactive risk assessment tool (OiRA) that allows

small organisations to assess OSH risks themselves. The evaluation of EU-OSHA found that

the tool is highly appreciated, and widely used especially by SMEs.73

Option 1.2. ELA to provide directly cross-border information provision support to

individuals and/or employers through its own offices and staff.

Under this option, ELA would provide a personalised advice service directly to individuals and

employers on questions falling within the scope of its mandate. However, offering an open

model with multi-channel access including live chat, phone, video and email in multiple

languages would be extremely costly, even though it would respond well to the range of

information needs.74 For this reason, this option, while addressing the needs in terms of the

scope of the information to be provided, would rely largely on automated, but tailored self-

directed solutions, including tools such as chatbots, interactive decision pathways based on

personal circumstances and multilingual question-and-answer resources. Due to the fact that

ELA staff is largely required to operate from its premises, the scope for human-mediated, case-

specific counselling would remain limited. This means that the model would depend heavily on

digital and technical infrastructure.

Stakeholder views75

Some national authorities support enabling ELA to engage directly with individuals or employers to offer

guidance or assistance in cross-border situations. Nevertheless, the majority of the ELA Management Board

members are in favour of ELA maintaining its scope to support primarily Member State institutions with the

enforcement of relevant EU legislation. The European Parliament highlight that there is a lack of sufficient

support services for mobile workers and especially TCN. It called for ELA’s mandate to be extended to cover

information provision to third-country nationals. Several employer and business membership organisations

call for the creation of an ELA helpdesk. Nordic business organisations are more cautious about the

establishing of new EU-level structures, emphasising the importance of avoiding parallel systems. Trade

unions support ELA increasing its information provision efforts by providing multilingual information tailored

to workers’ needs. Several trade unions stress that information provision is most effective when it is delivered

in cooperation with trade unions. They also caution against over-reliance on digital-only tools, as they may not

reach the most vulnerable workers.

72 OECD (2021), Career Guidance for Adults in a Changing World of Work 73 Evaluation of EU Agencies : Eurofound, Cedefop, ETF and EU-OSHA, SWD (2024)222 final (p.24) 74 See section 6. 75 Unless otherwise indicated, more details can be found in annex 2.

21

5.2.3. Policy options related to EURES (Policy Area 2)

All options presented are mutually exclusive.

All options aim to solve the issues arising from the split of responsibilities between the

Commission and ELA. Under all options, simplification measures to the EURES Regulation

will be also put forward, to reduce administrative burden and enhance efficiency, such as:

reducing the number of implementing acts (currently six) through integrating most relevant

aspects directly into the EURES Regulation76 and adjusting the frequency of reporting on

EURES activity (currently the Commission is obliged to report on EURES every two years,

with five years being a more suitable).77 Option 2.1. would consist of a targeted change in the

management of certain tasks of the European Coordination Office (ECO) of EURES, while

Options 2.2. and 2.3. involve one organisation managing all ECO EURES-related

responsibilities.78

Option 2.1. entails reassigning specific EURES portal/governance responsibilities to the

Commission, while ELA will continue to concentrate its efforts on the operational support to

the EURES network (National Coordination Offices, EURES advisors, EURES Members and

Partners). Concretely:

• The Commission chairs the EURES European Coordination Group. This implies that

the EURES Coordination Office (managed by ELA) will be further focused on the

concrete support for the Member States to deliver on the implementation of EURES.

• The Commission would regain the EURES portal system ownership and have the full

responsibility for its development and management, further integrating the portal with

other EU initiatives like Europass, ESCO, the Public Employment Services (PES)

network and the upcoming EU Talent Pool for TCNs.

Under this option, tasks for which ELA provides clear added value to EURES would remain

within the remit of ELA. These tasks include, for example: the organisation of meetings, the

training of EURES advisers, communication campaigns, the programming cycle, gathering data

for the Performance Measurement System, delivering the EURES shortages and surpluses

report. This way, ELA will maintain synergies between EURES and other networks it manages,

including the free movement of workers bodies, as well as a potential information and

counselling network, as presented in option 1.1.

Option 2.2. would return all ECO tasks to the Commission. This means that all EURES-related

tasks, including operational tasks, such as the coordination and operational maintenance of the

network of EURES advisors, will be moved to the Commission. This also involves transferring

the corresponding part of ELA’s budget to the Commission. This option corresponds to the

situation before the creation of ELA.

Option 2.3. would fully assign the management of the tasks of the European Coordination

Office of EURES to ELA. This option consists of the Commission transferring to ELA the role

of solution provider, i.e. the full IT development of the EURES portal. It also implies that ELA

will become the de facto IT solution provider for systems with strong interconnections with

EURES, such as the Talent Pool and Europass, meaning that they must fully comply with

corporate web and IT governance. Specific arrangements will be needed to allow the

Commission to further develop the IT ecosystem by reusing the EURES infrastructure for

developments related to the EU Talent Pool, Europass, ESCO and other linked tools.

76 E.g. the provisions of the Programming Cycle and Performance Measurement System implementing acts currently place a substantial burden

on national administrations and private members and partners. These obligations would be substantially reduced. 77 The biennial report brings limited added value, since there are not many substantial changes worth reporting in 2 years. 78 See Section 5.1 for actions improving the quality of EURES to address “subpar quality” under the ELA action plan.

22

Furthermore, transferring the solution provider task will imply that the according resources will

need to be allocated to ELA. Giving ELA the consolidated ownership of EURES will require

changes to the EURES Regulation, as the Commission will no longer be able to take on the

responsibilities it is foreseen to cover.

Stakeholder views79

Member States generally acknowledge the value of EURES, while flagging some shortcomings and room for

improvement. It is stressed by several Member States that insufficient attention was given to the governance of

the network, while noting the room for improvement for the EURES Portal. Stakeholders, especially EURES

National Coordination Offices, frequently criticize the lack of clarity regarding roles and responsibilities for

EURES between ELA and the Commission, and acknowledge the challenges of the current model of shared

governance between the Commission and ELA.80 The European Parliament stresses that the full potential of

EURES has not been reached, and calls for a more user-friendly EURES portal.81 While EURES is not always

mentioned in the input from social partners, certain employer and business membership organisations mention

that an improved EURES, with a better web portal and more coherence with other EU services, could play a

bigger role in tackling labour shortages. Likewise, some trade unions highlight the potential for improvements in

the EURES Portal, while also stating that EURES should do more to ensure fair recruitment practices.

5.2.4. Policy options related to the Cooperation and Enforcement tasks of ELA

(Policy area 3)

In order to provide ELA with the necessary tools to contribute more to cooperation and

enforcement of Union law, we envisage two differently packaged options.

The first one, Option 3.1, is built around the voluntary nature of ELA’s Concerted and Joint

Inspections (CJIs) task – hence requiring the agreement of the involved Member States. The

difference between the first and the second option, Option 3.2, is that option 3.2 proposes a

mandatory approach for inspections, with ELA being able to initiate, conduct and impose

inspections on its own.

Both options include measures addressing the need for ELA to access and process personal

data, as this is fundamental for the improvement of CJIs, measures tackling the protection of

employment and social rights of third-country nationals, and to include a definition of risk

assessment. Both options require changes to the ELA Regulation.

Option 3.1 is a package consisting of options in a number of different areas:

Accessing and processing personal data

In terms of accessing and processing personal data, this option involves clarifying and, where

necessary, extending ELA’s ability to process personal data in order to fulfil its analytical and

risk assessment tasks. While Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 refers to analytical functions, it does

not provide a sufficiently detailed legal basis for the processing of personal data underpinning

those activities as also repeatedly pointed out in the ELA evaluation.82 This option involves

expanding ELA’s data handling mandate, while ensuring full compliance with EU data

protection rules. Only with such an amendment will ELA be able to use company-data bases

(like Creditreform), obtain personal data from national authorities, or obtain access to tools such

as the Internal Market Information System (IMI), the Electronic Exchange of Social Security

Information (EESSI) and the European Registers of Road Transport Undertakings (ERRU).

This will also further enable ELA to have access to detailed information concerning the results

79 Unless otherwise indicated, more details can be found in annex 2. 80 Report of the Belgian Presidency of the Council: “Fair Mobility in the EU and the Role of the European Labour Authority, p. 85. 81 European Parliament resolution of 18 January 2024 on the revision of the European Labour Authority mandate. 82 For example: ELA evaluation staff working document, page 34.

23

of CJIs and the related follow-up. Providing ELA access to IMI serves a dual purpose. Firstly,

ELA could use the information provided by Member States on the platform for analytical

purposes. Secondly, ELA could play a more active role in facilitating the cooperation between

Member States, by encouraging active use and prompt replies to requests from other Member

States.

By establishing an explicit legal basis for data-sharing agreements, ELA can transition from ad-

hoc exchanges to a structured framework similar to other EU agencies. This amendment

addresses current regulatory gaps to ensure consistent, systematic information flows while

strictly safeguarding national competences and data protection requirements. Under the

founding regulations of both Eurojust and Europol, the agencies are allowed to use personalised

data.83 Evaluations of Eurojust’s joint investigation teams demonstrate clear EU added value

from early risk-based analysis, structured EU-level coordination and systematic

information-sharing, while enforcement remains at national level. Europol’s complementary

analytical support to joint investigation teams has likewise been consistently assessed as

delivering tangible EU added value.84 In addition, the evaluation of Europol in 2025 found that

Europol’s operational analysis functions provide significant added value to Member States,

while remaining dependent on the availability and quality of data supplied by national

authorities and other contributors.85

Together, this indicates that strengthening ELA’s analytical, risk-assessment and information

sharing and coordination functions is aligned with established EU agency practice and

represents a proportionate and effective approach to reinforcing cross-border inspections.

Option 3.1 envisages voluntary agreements, because inspections and enforcement remain a core

national competence and effective cross-border action depends on Member States’ cooperation

and ownership, while EU-level coordination and cooperation can be strengthened without

imposing mandatory data and information sharing. The data and information sharing

agreements could be concluded on bilateral or multilateral basis and contain necessary

safeguards to ensure processing of personal data in line with Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 and

dedicated rules in the Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 (as revised). Strengthening ELAs possibility

to trigger inspections, while maintaining their voluntary nature

This involves introducing a reinforced duty of cooperation and mandatory response timeline

for Member States in the context of concerted and joint inspections. This could require Member

States to provide strong justifications when they decide not to participate in a proposed

inspection. While participation would remain voluntary, such a provision would strengthen

transparency and accountability and help ensure that cooperation mechanisms are used more

systematically. In this context, Article 8(3) could be revised to replace the phrase “shall

endeavour to participate” with a stronger obligation that Member States “shall participate

unless duly justified.”

Strengthen ELAs role in protecting employment and social rights of third-country nationals

To maintain a level playing field, this option would entail targeted legal amendment clarifying

the scope of ELA’s activities to explicitly cover all TCN workers. This would be the case

regardless of their legal status or mobility, including those that are found in illegal employment

and those that are not engaging in cross-border mobility. This would enable the agency to

support those TCN workers that are most likely to be affected by labour exploitation and

83 See Articles 22, 23 and Chapter IV and Chapter V Section IV of Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 and Chapters IV (especially Article 18 on

purpose for processing activities), V and VI of Regulation (EU) 2016/794. 84 Fifth JITs Evaluation Report, p. 24; Fourth JITs Evaluation Report, p. 36. 85 SWD(2025) 404 final, p. 24-29.

24

inadequate working conditions (see Annex 7, section 2). This would allow to cover more clearly

the situations of mixed workforces, where mobile Union workers and TCN workers are exposed

to the same compliance risks, such as in mixed worksites, subcontracting chains, temporary

agency work or high-risk sectors. ELA should provide operational support, capacity building

and training for joint and concerted inspections to identify possible abuses of third-country

workers’ rights and also targeting illegal employment of TCNs, notably in high-risk sectors (in

relation to Article 14 of the Employers Sanctions Directive, Article 24 of the Seasonal Workers

Directive and Article 13 of the Recast Single Permit Directive). Such support and training

would also cover situations where TCN workers who are not in a cross-border situation are

encountered during CJIs. This would entail closer cooperation with migration services, civil

society organisations and social partners, to facilitate access to additional support to TCNs

found in an exploitative situation and to better address cases of abuses of TCN workers.

Furthermore, ELA will be able to conduct targeted data collection and risk analysis on

employment-related and social matters involving vulnerable TCNs with a view to monitor the

current situation, prioritize inspections and inform the Commission and other relevant

competent national authorities of potential infringements and evolving trends. Through

exchange of information on inspection results using ELA’s existing information exchange

channels between Member States, ELA would also facilitate follow-up where illegal

employment of TCN, abuses of third-country workers’ rights and possible situations of

trafficking were identified. These changes are ancillary to ELA's core mandate86 under Articles

46 and 48 TFEU, serving to prevent social dumping and ensure that the rights of EU mobile

workers are not undermined by sub-standard conditions applied to some TCNs. Lastly, and

extension of the scope would also allow ELA’s information capacities to cover TCN workers,

which would also contribute to making ELA’s cooperation and enforcement related activities

more effective and coherent (see section 5.2.2.).

In conclusion, even where TCN workers are already close to ELA’s current remit, such as

posted TCN workers, TCNs legally residing in the EU exercising intra-EU mobility, or TCNs

in cross-border undeclared work, a legal amendment would be more suitable to clarify the

personal scope, avoid uneven interpretation and ensure that ELA-supported analysis,

information exchange, inspections and support systematically include them.

Ensuring the adequate staff for the data analysis and inspection tasks

To strengthen ELA’s operational capacity and proactiveness, three sub-options are considered

for how to place labour inspectors at the Authority’s disposal.

Under Sub-option 3.1.1., Member States would nominate national inspectors as designated

contact points who, while remaining within their local inspectorates, receive specialized ELA

training and remain available to carry out Concerted and Joint Inspections (CJIs) under their

national flag upon ELA's request.

Moving toward a more integrated approach, Sub-option 3.1.2. involves doubling the existing

National Liaison Officer (NLO) framework to create a "standing pool" of seconded experts

from the Labour Inspectorates. These inspectors would function as an operational bridge –

similar to the dual-role models used by Eurojust or Europol – by combining their national

expertise with an EU mandate and gaining structured access to national databases. This option

involves moving some capacity from the national authorities to ELA, to fill critical enforcement

86 Meaning that the proposed changes are supportive or complementary measures rather than fundamental changes to the main purpose or

responsibilities of ELA.

25

gaps that national authorities, often constrained by territorial silos, cannot address alone with

the same degree of effectiveness.

Alternatively, sub-option 3.1.3 proposes that ELA hire inspectors as permanent staff, shifting

the financial and administrative responsibility to the Authority to ensure a constant, dedicated

resource for enforcement tasks. To anchor these efforts, each Member State would

establish/utilize an existing national coordination structure - a "National Labour Authority" - to

consolidate expertise and serve as a flexible central focal point for systematic cross-border

engagement.

Feature 3.1.1: Local Contact Points 3.1.2: Seconded Pool (NLO+) 3.1.3: ELA Statutory

Staff

Employment National Inspectorates Seconded to ELA Permanent ELA Employees

Data Access Local/National only Structured national database access ELA-centralized access

Funding Member-State funded Shared EU/ Member State ELA (EU) funded

Key Benefit Low cost, local expertise Strong coordination "bridge" Full ELA control & stability

Option 3.2. wouldprovide ELA with the possibility to access and process personal data and

empower ELA to initiate, conduct and impose inspections.

This option would significantly strengthen ELA’s operational/enforcement role. In this option,

ELA would be empowered to initiate concerted or joint inspections itself. This would represent

a shift from a purely reactive to a more proactive support role, while continuing to respect the

primacy of national authorities in carrying out inspections.87 By enabling ELA to take the

initiative, inspections could be launched more swiftly, particularly in areas where clear cross

border risks have been identified through data analysis and risk assessments. This option also

includes providing ELA with the possibility to access and process data, strengthening ELA’s

role in protecting employment and social rights of TCNs, and establishing a group of inspectors

at ELA’s disposal (sub-option 3.1.2. or sub-option 3.1.3.), as presented in option 3.1.. Apart

from giving ELA the competence to impose inspections, meaning that participation would be

mandatory for Member States, this option is equal to option 3.1.

Stakeholder views88

Several Member States support empowering ELA to be able to access and process personal data. Five Member

States explicitly support an extension of ELAs mandate regarding TCNs, while three Member States express

sentiment in support of doing more on TCNs. No Member State wants ELA to go beyond its current legal basis of

Art. 46 and 48 TFEU. No Member State has expressed clear support for allowing ELA to autonomously initiate

inspections (as in option 3.2.). Three Member States expressed support for ELA having a more proactive role in

initiating inspections, while leaving enforcement powers with authorities.89 Two Member States clearly express

that the power to initiate inspections should remain exclusively with the Member States. The European Parliament

supports providing ELA with the requisite legal provisions to be able to collect, process and handle relevant data.

They further call for ELAs scope to be expanded to include TCNs, within the framework of EU labour legislation.

The Parliament also supports ELA being able to conduct inquiries and inspections into cross-border cases on its

own initiative. Employer and business membership organisations are against expanding ELAs mandate in terms

of enforcement, and stress that inspections must remain voluntary for the Member States. However, several

organisations acknowledge the role for ELA in analytical support, and the value of improved follow-up after

inspections. Trade unions support expanding the number, scope and follow-up of CJIs. They call for ELA getting

access to relevant data systems and strengthening the in-house analytical capacity. Some trade unions call for an

expansion of ELAs mandate to cover migration-related EU directives.

87 ELA’s efforts would serve as an addition to efforts by national authorities. 88 Unless otherwise indicated, more details can be found in annex 2. 89 Two of them express support for expanding mandate to strengthen their role, while one wants ELA to be more proactive, while maintaining

the current mandate.

26

5.2.5. Policy options related to the Mediation task of ELA (Policy area 4)

The following options are complementary.

Option 4.1. involves simplifying the mediation procedure. This option would imply a targeted

legal simplification to lower the procedural barriers, improve efficiency and increase uptake,

while maintaining its voluntary nature. The Regulation would be simplified in such a way as to

provide a more flexible approach to mediation, with simpler steps to submit a case and get an

opinion, wherein the involved parties can find the most appropriate approach for each case. The

2018 Commission proposal for the mediation procedure90 was simpler than the one that was

eventually adopted and could be the reference for the simplification. Accordingly, the procedure

would be reduced to a single stage and more flexibility afforded to the parties as regards the

outcome of mediation.

Option 4.2. would introduce stricter conditions for opting out of mediation, by requirng the

requested party to provide reasoned and substantiated justifications when they decide not to

participate in mediation, or leave the mediation at a later stage. While participation would

remain voluntary, such a provision would re-balance the burden between the requested party

and the requester of mediation, in the sense that it heightens the barrier for opting out. The logic

of the legislation would shift from Member States opting-in, to Member States having to opt-

out. This option also includes making it obligatory to participate in a preparatory meeting.

During this introductory meeting, the mediator, experts and parties would introduce themselves,

the mediator would set out the framework and explain the mediation process. This would allow

questions to be answered, the (broad) subject matter of the request to be clarified and ensuring

that people with the appropriate mandate are represented. This would aid the Member States in

making an informed decision about whether to participate in the mediation.

Stakeholder views91

One Member State suggests simplification, more promotion of mediation and a more proactive role for ELA in

initiating mediation. Another Member State suggests reallocating resources away from mediation, while a third

emphasises that mediation should remain voluntary and only at the request of the relevant parties. Two national

authority representatives interviewed in the evaluation state that the reason they have not used the mediation

mechanisms is that they have not seen the need for it. The Belgian Presidency report on ELA suggests increasing

awareness, empowering ELA to initiate cases, simplifying procedures and restricting Member States from

withdrawing early from mediation.92 Employer and business membership organisations express opposition

against a mediation role for ELA which allows them to interfere in national competences. They generally stress

that the participation in mediation should remain voluntary. One trade union notes insufficient use of mediation,

and that a stronger role for ELA in mediation procedures is needed. Other trade unions stress the need for ELA

to focus on a more limited number of tasks to ensure cost-effective and targeted operation – and implied that the

mediation function should be deprioritized.93

5.3. Options discarded at an early stage

Consistent with the Better Regulation Toolbox (specifically Tool #14 on the "No policy

change" and "Discontinuation" options), the discontinuation of ELA was not considered as a

viable alternative for this Impact Assessment. This approach is directly linked to the findings

of the ELA evaluation, which highlighted that the agency fills a gap and addresses an otherwise

unmet need for operational support in implementing EU policies related to EU labour

mobility.94 ELA was established to strengthen the capacity of national labour inspectorates and

90 See article 13 of COM(2018) 131 final. 91 Unless otherwise indicated, more details can be found in annex 2. 92 Belgian Presidency of the Council of the EU (2024) “Fair Mobility in the EU and the role of the European Labour Authority”. 93 ELA evaluation SWD, p 62. 94 ELA evaluation SWD, p 63

27

to provide information and support to businesses and workers. Through these activities, it

makes an indirect but very important contribution to facilitating fair labour mobility within the

EU. Furthermore, stakeholder consultations revealed no support for dismantling the Authority;

consequently, an analysis focused on its termination would be inconsistent with both the evident

operational needs and the clear mandate for enhancement expressed by the European

Parliament, Member States and social partners.

Similarly, options of discontinuing ELA's core operational activities were also discarded at

an early stage of the analysis. The evaluation found that, despite differences in performance

across individual activities and the need for targeted improvements, ELA's operational tasks

remain relevant, provide clear EU added value, and continue to respond to identified needs of

Member States, stakeholders and mobile citizens. Moreover, neither the stakeholder

consultation nor the political consultations revealed support for discontinuing ELA's core

activities. Instead, stakeholders and Member States consistently called for improving their

delivery, strengthening governance arrangements and increasing their effectiveness. In most

cases, stakeholders identified specific areas of improvement related to the efficiency,

governance or implementation, but do not question their underlying rationale or objectives.

Discontinuing these activities would therefore risk reducing support for labour mobility,

weakening cooperation between national authorities and diminishing the protection of mobile

workers, while generating only limited budgetary savings. Consequently, the analysis focused

on options to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of ELA's activities rather than on their

discontinuation. The rationale for discarding discontinuation is set out below for each of the

main operational activities.

The option of discontinuing EURES was discarded at an early stage. The ELA evaluation

indicated that EURES activities were generally found to be very useful by stakeholders.95

Although job placements were declining in the first years after the business ownership of

EURES was transferred to ELA, EURES still facilitated 48 000 job placements – the successful

matching and recruitment of a worker into a job – in 2023. The platform furthermore facilitated,

between 2022-2024, 475 000 job applications and 660 000 job vacancies. In this period, EURES

also managed 3.6 million individual contacts with workers and 380 000 contacts with

employers. These numbers show that EURES contributes to facilitating mobility within the

Union. See the baseline for more details on ELA will improve the functioning of EURES going

forward, within the current legal framework, in terms i.a. of recourse to new technologies,

further involvement of private partners, and synergies with other systems. The evaluation

indicates that the network itself remains useful, and that its shortcomings should be resolved by

implementing an action plan and by addressing the governance fragmentation between the

European Commission and ELA rather than by discontinuing the service altogether. This is also

suggested by the ex post evaluation of the EURES regulation, which found that EURES

provides added value, is coherent with other EU policies and that Member States acting alone

would not be able to achieve the same results.96

Discontinuing information provision was not considered as an option because stakeholders

consistently identified it as a highly relevant task and the most frequently requested area for

further ELA involvement (annex 2, section 3.2.1). The evaluation indicated that ELA’s efforts

in this area, particularly its translation facility and information campaigns, are widely used and

considered highly useful by national authorities, social partners, and public employment

services. In 2025 the ELA translation facility for information material for Member States

95 ELA evaluation SWD, p. 133. 96Ex-post evaluation of EURES (2021), Section 3.1 Conclusions. Note that there have external changes since 2021, such as the technological

advances in AI technology, which to some degree has changed the foundation on which the conclusions were made.

28

received 74 requests to translate 92 documents resulting in 393 language versions.97 The

information campaigns have a wide reach. For example, ELA recently performed an

information and awareness-raising campaign on EU social security rules. In five months it

achieved 34.6 million video views and 1.9 million clicks to the campaign website.98 These

numbers indicate that ELA, despite the room for improvement that has been identified, reaches

a considerable audience. Although the Commission and ELA are not able to measure the

ultimate impacts of these campaigns, these millions of viewers would be less well-informed

about their rights and obligations in the absence of these information provision efforts.

While acknowledging the challenges in the use of mediation service (see sections 2.1.4 and

2.2.4), discontinuing it was deemed premature. The mediation function only became fully

operational in September 2022, while the evaluation covered the period up to mid-2023. Rather

than abandoning the task, the evaluation proposes to explore options for delivering the service

more cost-effectively. The number of cases sent to mediation increased to eight in 2025, and,

according to the supporting study to the evaluation, 10-20 cases could be sent to mediation each

year99. This suggests that there could be a demand and a need. Furthermore, the existence of

ELA may itself reduce the number of cases being sent to formal mediation because ELA

facilitates cooperation and dialogue between Member States, potentially leading to some cases

being resolved informally100. However, the mediation service should be kept notably to address

the cases that are not solved through the mentioned cooperation and dialogue. The budget

allocated to mediation is also small, at EUR 107 000 per year, or 0.21 % of ELAs total budget.101

The appropriate course of action at this point is therefore to identify the causes of why these

cases are not sent to mediation currently, and make targeted changes to increase use.

The option of expanding ELA’s mandate to support Member States’ in the implementation

of the EU legal migration acquis in its entirety was discarded at an early stage. This option

would entail broadening ELA’s mandate to cover areas that go beyond employment and social-

related provisions of EU legal migration acquis102 and it was discarded for the detailed

assessment at an early stage for the following reasons:

• It would represent a major policy and institutional shift as it would move ELA from a

labour-mobility authority towards a broader EU body supporting enforcement of

migration management related rules. That would go beyond the current core of

Regulation (EU) 2019/1149, which is labour mobility across the Union and social-

security coordination.

• As the identified problem is that ELA cannot fully address TCN situations affecting

fair labour mobility and the level playing field, an expansion to cover all acquis-

protected TCN worker situations, even where there is no impact on mobile Union

workers, no cross-border enforcement difficulty and no internal-market labour-

mobility nexus is disproportionate and goes beyond what is needed to tackle the

problem.

• The incompatibility of the legal bases between Articles 46 and 48 TFEU and Article 79

TFEU would require the adoption of a separate ELA Regulation, given that a

combination of legal bases is not possible where there is substantial and/or procedural

incompatibility. The adoption of a separate Regulation would entail a dedicated, self-

standing impact assessment.

97 Internal ELA data, draft CAAR 2025. 98 Internal ELA data. 99 ELA Evaluation Annex VII Case studies, page 80. 100 Data from ELA shows that since 2021 on average around 68 requests to facilitate cooperation and dialogue between Member States are

send to ELA annually.These requests are mostly handled by the NLO network with a high rate (over 95%) of solution. 101 Provisional numbers for 2025 – draft CAAR. 102 Such as the entirety of the Employers Sanctions Directive, Seasonal Workers Directive, Single Permit Directive, EU Talent Pool Regulation,

and the Directive on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims

29

• This would also require an establishment of a parallel governance structure (i.e. separate

Management Board) within the existing one to execute the new tasks. This would lead

to a substantial budgetary increase and require additional administrative and human

resources. Such a specific governance structure would be required considering the opt-

out by Ireland and Denmark on some areas of the migration acquis and could ultimately

lead to complex decision-making on the future of the Authority.

• Such a change would lead to diversion of resources from the Authority’s initial mandate

and create an issue with the prioritization of competing priorities. This could lead to

reputational risk in case of non-fulfilment of the current objectives of the agency.

• Concerning the possibility for ELA to have a role in the attraction of third-country

nationals to the EU (i.e. with the implementation of the EU Talent Pool), the unresolved

governance fragmentation linked to ELA’s involvement in the EURES network (see

Section 2.2.2 on problem drivers – EURES) make ELA’s involvement in this area

premature.

The vast majority of the key stakeholders, including the co-legislators, as well as the members

of the Management Board, do not want a complete overhaul of ELA’s scope (see Annex 2 on

Stakeholders’ consultation, section 3), but rather point to specific areas for improvement. Thus,

a targeted approach is prioritised, focusing on employment-related aspects of the relevant

migration acquis. This approach preserves proportionality and avoids the legal, operational, and

resource complexities that would arise with an expansion of ELA’s mandate to support Member

States across the entire spectrum of the migration acquis. This option, which allows ELA to

play a more significant role in enforcing TCNs’ rights and ensuring they have access to

information about their rights, is thoroughly assessed under the policy options 1.1 and 3.1.

Finally, extending ELA’s mandate to perform inspections in areas where labour mobility

or labour migration aspects play no or no major role was not considered a relevant option,

as in such cases there is neither a need for a concerted nor for a joint inspection.

6. WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS?

This section presents a systematic assessment of the impacts associated with the policy options

retained for in-depth analysis, including the baseline scenario (no policy change) and the policy

options identified in Section 5. The analysis considers the likely economic, social,

administrative and environmental consequences of each option (when relevant), drawing on

evidence from stakeholder consultations, desk research103, and the evaluation of the current

ELA Regulation. The assessment focuses on the impacts that are most relevant to the purpose

of the targeted revision: enhancing the Authority’s effectiveness in facilitating cooperation

between Member States, improving enforcement of EU labour mobility rules and strengthening

operational capacity while ensuring proportional use of resources.

Consistent with the Better Regulation guidelines, the impacts are assessed relative to the

baseline scenario, which reflects the continuation of current ELA functions and resources,

including improvements to the working of ELA that are being introduced by the Action Plan

and the clarifications on the ELA activity to be provided in the Communication accompanying

the Fair Labour Mobility Package. For each policy option, the analysis identifies: the nature of

the impact (qualitative or quantitative), the affected stakeholders (e.g. national authorities,

businesses, workers, social partners, the European Commission and the Authority itself), the

timing and duration of expected effects. No distributional implications across Member States

or sectors are relevant.

103 See Annex 8.

30

Where possible, the assessment quantifies impacts and monetises costs and benefits; where

quantification is not feasible, robust qualitative evidence is provided. Uncertainties and

assumptions underpinning the analysis are explicitly described, and sensitivity analysis is

applied where relevant to test the robustness of results. Cumulative and interaction effects

across impact dimensions are also considered to inform a balanced comparison of options.

Each policy option’s impacts are presented in dedicated sub-sections, summarising the key

findings. Comparative tables to support transparent evaluation can be found in Annex 9.

6.1. Baseline scenario

Under the baseline scenario, Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 establishing ELA would not be

revised, and the existing legal framework governing its mandate, tasks and governance would

remain unchanged. Identified challenges will be addressed through non-legislative measures,

notably a Commission Communication under the Fair Labour Mobility Package and an

ELA Action Plan implementing the Evaluation’s recommendations within the current legal

framework.

Economic impacts

From an effectiveness perspective, clearer guidance on ELA’s role and better internal

prioritisation will contribute to more consistent delivery of activities, including support for joint

inspections, mediation and information provision.

The baseline would entail low additional costs for Member States, social partners and

businesses, as no new legal obligations or reporting requirements would be introduced.

Incremental efficiency gains may arise from improved coordination, better use of digital tools

and more targeted support to national authorities. For instance regarding the enhanced synergies

between the analytical work of ELA and its organisation of CJIs as foreseen in the Action Plan

that will lead to a greater emphasis on targeted CJIs that address specific irregularities and

violations. These gains are expected to be modest and uneven across Member States, depending

on levels of engagement with ELA activities. In addition, the limitations in data access and

processing for ELA remain, refraining the Authority from systhematic analyses and providing

further insights on structural problems. The baseline would preserve stability and continuity,

avoiding transitional costs or implementation risks. However, it would also maintain existing

ambiguities and reliance on voluntary cooperation.

Social impacts

The social impacts of the baseline scenario would be positive but limited. Improved guidance

and coordination as foreseen in the Action Plan should enhance access to information for mobile

workers and contribute to fairer labour mobility outcomes, including in relation to third-country

nationals. Nevertheless, without changes to the regulatory framework, ELA will not be able to

provide tailored support to TCNs who have a higher risk of violations of their employment and

social rights and the baseline would not substantially strengthen enforcement capacity or legal

certainty for workers and employers in cross-border situations.

Overall assessment

In summary, the baseline scenario would allow for gradual improvements through clarification,

guidance and better use of existing tools, resulting in limited, but positive impacts. The

implementation of an improved monitoring system is expected to enhance strategic

management. However, the absence of legislative changes would mean that structural

31

constraints identified in the evaluation – such as the limitation to provide personalised and

tailored guidance and counselling to individuals and employers and limitations linked to

mandate clarity, scope of tasks or operational flexibility – would persist. These limitations

provide the benchmark against which the impacts of the policy options are assessed. While the

improvements introduced by the Action Plan are expected to enhance the efficiency of ELA’s

work, these gains are anticipated to translate into increased delivery capacity and not into a

reduction of the needed budget.

6.2. Impacts of the policy options for the targeted revision of Regulation (EU)

2019/1149

6.2.1. Impacts of options under policy area 1: Information

Economic impacts

Benefits

The improved access to, and quality of, information could reduce unintentional non-

compliance, lower dispute and litigation costs and support smoother labour market functioning.

According to the latest data104, there are approximately 26.1 million SMEs in the EU. Available

data indicate that 14% of these SMEs have attempted to hire third-country nationals over the

past 24 months, while 12% have sought to recruit workers from other EU Member States. This

provides a reasonable estimate of the potential pool of SMEs requiring information and

counselling services: around 3.1 million SMEs when considering intra-EU labour mobility

alone, and over 3.6 million SMEs when the recruitment of third-country nationals is also taken

into account.

On the workers’ side, an estimated 10.1 million EU movers of working age, together with

approximately 20 million third-country nationals of working age residing in the EU105, provide

a useful indication of the population potentially seeking information and counselling

services.106 While information services are expected to be most effective when targeted at

Member States and sectors characterised by high volumes and intensity of labour mobility,

notably those with significant shares of workers exercising their labour mobility rights, as

evidenced by for example data from prior declaration tools concerning posted workers

(Annex 8, section 3).

Under Option 1.1. the expected benefits would be concentrated in Member States and sectors

characterised by high and recurrent labour mobility.107 Posting activity is highly concentrated

in a limited number of receiving Member States and along specific bilateral corridors. Sectoral

data further indicate that construction, manufacturing and transport account for a large share of

declarations and posted workers, with construction alone representing a substantial proportion

of posting activity and sectoral employment in several Member States.108 By focusing on

high-intensity corridors and sectors, Option 1.1. is expected to achieve higher cost effectiveness

by reducing information gaps and unintentional non-compliance where mobility-related

complexity or intensity is greatest, allowing resources to be deployed more efficiently than

under untargeted information provision.

104 Schulze Brock, P. et al. (2025). “Annual Report on European SMEs 2024/2025, SME performance review”. 105 Data from the 2025 Intra-EU labour mobility report. 106 For an indication of how insufficient information can be a barrier to free movement of workers, see ELA (2023) Social partners’ and EURES

staff awareness of EU-level labour mobility information and services. 107 See Annex 8 – section on sources related to information. 108 See section 3 of Annex 8.

32

Administrative impacts would primarily relate to ELA’s responsibility for managing grants,

including calls for proposals, selection, monitoring and reporting. While this would require

additional internal capacity and clear procedures (see below), the overall administrative burden

is expected to remain manageable, in line with the required by standard EU funding rules.

Employers and workers would face no new obligations.

Option 1.2. could enhance consistency of information and reduce fragmentation across

Member States, potentially leading to similar economic benefits to Option 1.1 in terms of

reduced non-compliance and improved labour market functioning. At the same time, the cost

effectiveness and the alignment to local realities and needs and the opportunity to build upon

already existing local counselling networks or institutions would remain untapped, thus leading

to lower overall cost-efficiency. While this option avoids the grant management procedures, it

entails higher fixed administrative demands for the Authority. This option would also provide

less flexibility to adapt to future needs. As in Option 1.1., employers and workers would face

no new legal obligations.

Costs for stakeholders

For ELA, option 1.1. would generate additional operational and administrative costs linked to

grant management, communication and coordination, estimated at approximately EUR 5

million per year, including around one additional FTE.109 The information and counselling

network for individuals and/or employers can be developed gradually, starting with up to seven

receiving countries and seven sending countries, including three candidate countries, with a

budget of EUR 5 million. The project could later be scaled up by expanding the network to

other countries (see Annex 4 for details on the estimation of costs).

Option 1.2. would entail ELA developing internal operational capacity, including recruitment,

training, and day-to-day service management. This would lead to higher and more structural

costs, related to staffing of ELA (estimated at 20 additional FTEs), operational infrastructure,

training and maintenance of information tools, with estimated recurrent annual costs of EUR 7

million (see Annex 4 for details on the sources and methodology for the estimation of costs).

This approach would be accessible to all individuals and employers seeking guidance on labour

mobility matters and would be based largely on automated, self-directed solutions, including

IT/AI tools such as chatbots, interactive decision pathways and multilingual question-and-

answer resources. While this model would allow for high scalability and relatively low

operating costs, it would provide only limited opportunities for direct human support and would

have limitations in terms of the reliability of and accountability for the information provided.

An approach based on open consultation, with the possibility to ask specific questions to the

information network, would likely increase costs by a factor of four to five, resulting in total

annual costs exceeding EUR 30 million.110

For other stakeholders, option 1.1. would involve some costs for grant beneficiaries related to

proposal preparation, implementation and reporting, partially offset by EU funding and subject

to co-financing requirements. Member States may face a small burden due to the need to share

necessary information. Member-state authorities and social partners may complement EU

109 As a basis for the estimation of the costs, the project Fair European Labour Mobility 2 (FELM 2) was set to develop and expand the

counselling network of European trade unions to support posted workers in the EU. It runs trade-union counselling centres in six countries (Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia), which cooperate closely with the trade union counselling centres in the receiving

countries Germany and Austria. FELM 2 was launched on 1 January 2024 with a budget of EUR 1.2 million for 24 months. The scope of

FELM 2 was narrower both in terms of topics (only posting), audience (only workers), and geographical coverage, which justifies the EUR 5 million per year estimated for the launching of option 1.1. 110 The estimations of costs in this paragraph are based on the conclusions of feasibility study on an ELA helpdesk done after the evaluation of

ELA. The study envisioned three models to ensure a continuous flow of accurate and up-to-date information from the Member States as well as the financial, technical, and human resources needed for the implementation of the models. The study is still to be published but were

presented to the ELA Management Board in November 2025.

33

funding with national resources, with potential synergies reducing overall costs. Under option

1.2., direct financial costs for other stakeholders would be limited, with only modest indirect

costs linked to cooperation and coordination. In both options, employers and workers would

face minimal and voluntary indirect costs.

Social impacts

Both options are expected to deliver positive social impacts by improving access to information

and counselling, supporting fair labour mobility, preventing labour exploitation and enhancing

legal certainty. Option 1.1. would benefit from proximity to users and existing expertise at

local and sectoral level, allowing flexible targeting of vulnerable groups and border regions

(e.g. through criteria in calls for proposals, or targeting of funding). Option 1.2. would

strengthen ELA’s visibility and role as a frontline actor, potentially improving consistency and

responsiveness, but its effectiveness would depend on ELA’s capacity to ensure sufficient

geographical and linguistic coverage.

Providing clearer, accessible and reliable information to workers and employers on labour

mobility would contribute positively to the protection and effective exercise of fundamental

rights as enshrined in the Charter. In particular, improved information supports Article 15

(freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work) by enabling workers to make

informed decisions about employment opportunities across borders and by reducing uncertainty

linked to mobility, such as applicable rules on access to employment, social security

coordination and recognition of qualifications. For employers, better information facilitates

lawful recruitment and fair use of cross-border labour, thereby supporting a more transparent

and efficient labour market. It also potentially contributes to Article 47 (Right to an effective

remedy and to a fair trial), notably regarding the possibility of being advised.

Enhanced information provision, including for TCN workers, also contributes to Article 27

(workers’ right to information and consultation) and Article 31 (fair and just working

conditions) by increasing awareness of applicable labour standards, rights and obligations in

cross-border situations. By improving understanding of working conditions, employment rights

and enforcement mechanisms, ELA’s information activities help prevent abuses, reduce risks

of undeclared or unfair work, and support compliance with EU and national labour law. At the

same time, the provision of information is designed and delivered in full respect of Article 8

(protection of personal data), ensuring that any processing of personal data linked to

information services complies with data protection rules and safeguards individuals’ privacy.

6.2.2. Impacts of options under policy area 2: EURES

Economic Impacts

Benefits

Under Option 2.1., the European Commission would assume the chairmanship of the

European Coordination Group (ECG) and system ownership of the EURES IT portal.

This option is expected to improve strategic coherence and accountability across the EURES

network by strengthening EU-level oversight of governance and IT operations. Economically,

clearer central responsibility could reduce inefficiencies linked to fragmented decision-making

and support more effective prioritisation of investments, particularly in IT. From an

administrative perspective, the Commission would need to reinforce internal capacity, notably

for the business analysis of the EURES portal and for stakeholder coordination. These

requirements can be considered manageable and could lead to more consistent system

performance. Member States would benefit from clearer strategic guidance and a better

34

functioning EURES portal, while employers and workers would face no new legal obligations

and could benefit from more reliable EURES services. A better functioning EURES,

maximizing synergies with other IT tools – ESCO, Europass, EU Talent Pool –, will ensure

economies of scale, avoid duplication of investments, and will contribute to more workers

taking better informed decisions on cross-border mobility.

Under Option 2.2., all EURES-related tasks are grouped under the Commission

responsibility, with the aim of reducing fragmentation and strengthening organisational

coherence. Economically, full centralisation, by avoiding duplications in developments and

reusing IT infrastructure, could generate economies of scale, especially in IT infrastructure and

operational support. However, administrative impacts would be higher, as the managing entity

would need to develop substantial internal operational capacity and absorb transition costs.

Stakeholders could benefit from simplified governance and clearer lines of responsibility in the

longer term, but they would lose the benefits of having information to and communication with

stakeholders organised by an entity that has the full know-how to it. As with Option 2.1.,

employers and workers would not face new legal obligations.

Under Option 2.3., all EURES-related tasks are grouped under the ELA responsibility,

with the same advantages of Option 2.2. As in that option, administrative impacts would be

higher. Stakeholders could benefit from simplified governance and clearer lines of

responsibility in the longer term, but they would lose the benefits from the synergies with other

EU IT tools managed by the Commission, including the future EU Talent Pool. EURES is part

of a larger ecosystem, including strong interconnections with the Talent Pool, ESCO, Europass

– themselves connected to Euraxess (DG RTD) and the Single Candidate Portal (DG HR).

Removing EURES form this ecosystem would disrupt these integrations and degrade user

experience by duplicating the platforms and services provided. The unclear repartition of tasks

between ELA and the European Commission would remain since the European Commission

would still be responsible for the compliance with the EURES Regulation. As with Options 2.1.

and 2.2., employers and workers would not face new legal obligations.

The proposed changes in governance across the policy options all aim to create a more efficient

EURES platform, which could facilitate a higher volume of job placements.111

Easing mobility by making international job vacancies more available, by providing easy access

to information on living and working conditions in different countries, by providing tailored,

personal guidance, like EURES does, makes labour mobility more accessible, and could

therefore facilitate intra-EU labour mobility. However, it is important to note that because these

policy options represent targeted, administrative adjustments to the EURES governance, the

resulting increase in placements – and consequently, the absolute scale of these socio-economic

benefits – is expected to be relatively small regardless of the option chosen. In addition, any

reliable quantification of potential impacts is very difficult. Adding to this difficulty, the

benefits of each individual case will vary depending on what the previous situation of the person

seeking advise on mobility.

Costs

Under Option 2.1., the Commission would incur operational and administrative costs related

to the additional responsibilities for coordination and IT management. The costs of ELA would

be reduced by a similar amount . With the creation of ELA in 2019, ELA received EUR 8.357

million shifted from the European Commission for EURES activities. The EURES budget in

ELA has increased to around EUR 12 million in 2025, without taking the staff costs into

111 See Section 5.3 for some details on how EURES facilitates job placements.

35

account.112 The transfer back to the Commission of responsibility for the development and

maintenance of the EURES Portal, including translations, would lead to the transfer of the

corresponding budget, and therefore to a reduction in ELA’s operational expenditure related to

EURES of approximately EUR 2.3 million.113 In addition, two FTEs would be reallocated from

ELA to the Commission, representing an estimated cost of EUR 330 000. Overall, ELA’s costs

would decrease by approximately EUR 2.63 million, while the Commission’s expenditure

would increase by a corresponding amount (see Annex 4 for details on costs).

This option could also generate internal efficiency gains for both ELA and the Commision.

While the precise outcomes are difficult to quantify there are potential savings in terms of

reduced coordination costs and staff resources. In particular, bringing these functions back to

the Commission could streamline governance arrangements and reduce the number of staff

involved in coordination activities across both ELA and the Commission. Simplifying

governance arrangements would reduce the number of reporting and coordination layers and

limit the occurrence of duplicated meetings that may currently take place across institutions.

While the exact amount of resources that could be saved is difficult to estimate, any resulting

efficiency gains could be reallocated within ELA and the Commission to support other

activities, whether related to EURES or to other areas.

Other stakeholders would face minimal direct costs, as adjustments mainly involve adapting to

clearer strategic guidance; any administrative efforts are largely offset by EU funding.

Employers and workers would not incur new obligations. With regard to resources, the change

of chairmanship in the ECG has minimal implications.

While Options 2.1. and 2.2. are expected to be largely cost-neutral, involving mainly a transfer

of responsibilities from ELA to the European Commission, for Option 2.3. additional costs

would arise, as potential synergies between EURES IT development and other Commission-

managed projects / IT tools would be reduced, leading to slightly higher operational and

coordination expenditure. Furthermore, this option would entail additional costs for the

Commission, as certain components would need to be redeveloped within the Commission’s IT

environment (e.g. the EU Talent Pool). It should be highlighted that Option 2.2. would imply

the full transfer of the ELA EURES budget of more than EUR 12 million (including the cost of

staff transferred) to the European Commission.

In addition, ELA is not subject to the Commission’s governance framework with regard to the

reuse of existing systems and compliance with common visual identity standards. This creates

a risk of reduced consistency in the services provided to EU citizens, who could be confronted

with a fragmented service landscape in terms of accessible functionalities. Such fragmentation

would likely result in a multiplication of platforms, duplication of services, and, ultimately, a

diminished overall impact of EU policies.

While the precise implications in terms of additional FTEs and budgetary requirements are

difficult to quantify at this stage, the IT-related costs for EURES under this option are expected

to increase by approximately 50% to 100%, according to an estimation from DG EMPL

services. The Commission currently allocates an annual budget of EUR 3 million for EURES

IT development, excluding hosting costs and software licences. The additional expenditure

resulting from the proposed changes in option 2.3. is estimated at between EUR 1.5 million and

EUR 3 million per year.

112 See SWD accompanying the Evaluation of the European Labour Authority (ELA) {COM(2025) 256 final} - {SEC(2025) 157 final}, page

18. 113 See full overview in the Impact Assessment of the ELA Regulation [SWD(2018) 68 final], page 93. This includes the detail of the amounts

transferred to ELA by activity.

36

Additionally, for options 2.2. and 2.3. transition efforts could marginally increase costs in the

short term. Stakeholders would face modest indirect costs linked to cooperation and adaptation

to a unified system, but employer and worker costs would remain minimal and voluntary.

Social Impacts

Option 2.1., with a more cohesive coordination and management framework for EURES,

brings more policy coherence and coordination, with a division of tasks more in line with the

practice for big EU IT projects, when compared to the baseline scenario. At the same time,

greater attention to the network could help mainstream cross-border advice into regular PES

activities, and managing networks is a key strength of ELA that would be kept under this option.

Option 2.1. respects subsidiarity by limiting EU intervention to strategic coordination, leaving

operational delivery largely with national authorities. Options 2.2. and 2.3. adopt a more

centralised approach, strengthening coherence at EU level. While they are also an improvement

compared to the baseline scenario in terms of repartition of tasks, they score lower when

compared to option 2.1.; either because there are lost synergies with other EU tools, or because

the experience and know-how of ELA in managing information, coordination and

communication would not be utilized.

Options 2.2. and 2.3., could improve consistency, but would to a lesser degree exploit the

strengths of each organisation, leading to a lower quality of service when compared to option

2.1.

6.2.3. Impacts of options under policy area 3: Cooperation and enforcement

Economic impacts

Benefits

Under Option 3.1., ELA would be granted the possibility to access and process personal data

and allocate/identify more resources to initiate and support concerted and joint

inspections. This option would also introduce explicit provisions covering TCN workers, in

particular to improve the risk analyses underpinning CJIs and on how to manage CJIs where

TCN are involved. Enhanced analytical capacity would allow ELA to better identify high-risk

sectors, patterns of non-compliance and cross-border cases requiring coordinated action. This

would increase the effectiveness and targeting of CJIs, potentially reducing economic

distortions arising from undeclared work, social dumping and unfair competition.

Option 3.1. would also strengthen ELA’s ability to trigger CJIs, by increasing ELA’s

capacity and clarifying and reinforcing its role in initiating joint or concerted inspections while

preserving Member States’ responsibility for their conduct. If we consider that Option 3.1.

would lead to a 30% increase in the number of missions performed by ELA, as a result of the

increase of resources available, and considering that ELA coordinated 137 missions in 2025,

this would result in 41 additional missions per year.

Option 3.2. would go significantly further by also empowering ELA to conduct and impose

inspections. While this could substantially increase enforcement capacity and consistency at

EU level, it would represent a qualitative shift in the nature of ELA’s powers. Administratively,

this would require ELA to develop full inspection capacity, including operational planning,

deployment of inspection teams and follow-up procedures, resulting in a more complex

organisational model.

37

Both options would ensure ELA’s access to the relevant data, generating efficiency gains by

improving the speed, reliability and traceability of information exchange between competent

authorities. In addition, both options would consolidate ELA’s role in addressing the equal

treatment of TCN workers in respect of employment and social rights/working conditions,

contributing to more consistent handling of cases involving TCN workers and closing existing

gaps. Both options would increase the effectiveness of the enforcement activities of ELA, as

it would have to, and be able to request and handle data from different countries. ELA also has

NLOs from all Member States, meaning that they are more easily able to identify the correct

national enforcement authorities and contact the inspectors responsible from the different

Member States in the investigation of cases than Member States acting bilaterally. Both options

are expected to lead to the discovery of more infringements, which would also act as a deterrent

for others.

Available evidence114 indicates that risk-based labour inspections and enhanced cooperation

between enforcement authorities improve the detection of labour law infringements and

increase compliance. OECD and ILO guidance on labour inspection emphasises the importance

of data analysis and risk-based approaches to better identify non-compliance and enable more

targeted, effective and efficient inspections. Similar principles are reflected in the work of the

EU Senior Labour Inspectors' Committee (SLIC)115.

Although there is limited evidence to quantify the direct impact of increased data analysis and

joint investigations on overall labour mobility, stronger enforcement is ultimately expected to

improve compliance, reduce unfair competition, and increase confidence in the fair functioning

of the internal market. These effects are likely to encourage lawful labour mobility by ensuring

that mobile workers benefit from effective protection of their rights and that compliant

businesses are not disadvantaged by operators engaging in fraudulent practices. By reducing

the risk of labour exploitation and other forms of non-compliance, effective enforcement,

notably through CJIs, helps ensure that decisions to work abroad are based on genuine choice

rather than on abusive or unfair working conditions.

Costs for stakeholders

For ELA, Option 3.1. would entail additional costs linked to building internal data-analysis

capacity, including recruitment of specialised staff, investment in secure IT systems and

compliance with data-protection requirements. As enhanced analytical work would need to be

increasingly internalised, this option would reduce reliance on external contractors but increase

fixed staffing and infrastructure costs. Additional resources would also be required to support

a higher number of inspections triggered at ELA’s initiative, and for staff training for IMI

access. An additional 13 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff would be required to carry out

operational analyses and follow-up activities in the Member States. This staffing would include

the necessary IT experts to establish and maintain the IT infrastructure for managing data and

databases. The associated costs would primarily relate to staffing and, to a lesser extent, to

additional enforcement activities, amounting to an estimated total of EUR 2.9 million per year.

These estimations result from exchanges with ELA on these activities and an analysis of similar

activities (more details are provided in Annex 4).

114 See, e.g., Eurofound (2019), Joint cross-border labour inspections and evidence gathered in their course,

Publications Office of the European Union, or International Labour Organization (ILO) (2013), Labour inspection

and undeclared work in the EU. 115 See, e.g., OECD (2018), OECD Regulatory Enforcement and Inspections Toolkit, OECD Publishing, Paris;

OECD (2020), Data-Driven, Information-Enabled Regulatory Delivery; and International Labour Organization

(2022), Guidelines on General Principles of Labour Inspection; International Labour Organization (2024), Data

Mining and Machine Learning: Supporting Labour Inspectorates to Address Undeclared Work.

38

Furthermore, extending the scope of the ELA to include relevant provisions of the migration

acquis related to employment and social rights – such as the Employer Sanctions Directive

(Directive 2009/52/EC), the Seasonal Workers Directive (Directive 2014/36/EU) and the

Recast Single Permit Directive (Directive (EU) 2024/1233) – would generate additional costs

due to an increase in operational activities. On the assumption of a 20% increase in ELA

outputs, the additional costs to include relevant provisions of the migration acquis are estimated

at EUR 3.6 million per year, including the recruitment of an additional 10 FTEs (more details

in Annex 4).

Strengthening ELA’s role in initiating joint or concerted inspections would require increased

inspection capacity. This capacity could be expanded through three alternative sub-options:

• 3.1.1. Reinforcing the existing network of inspectors in the Member States by

ensuring they are trained by ELA and available to participate in inspections initiated by

ELA. The costs of this sub-option would be negligible, consisting of extra training for

inspectors.

• 3.1.2. Establishing a second cohort of National Liaison Officers which would entail

the deployment of an additional 27 Seconded National Experts to ELA and would

require an estimated additional budget of EUR 3.5 million.

• 3.1.3. Establishing a dedicated team of 27 inspectors as ELA staff members with an

estimated total annual cost of EUR 5.5 million (see Annex 4 for the details of the

estimation of costs for the three sub-options).

While sub-options 3.1.1 and 3.1.3 would entail limited cost implications for national authorities,

Sub-option 3.1.2. would require each Member State to second one additional staff member.

The presence of additional SNEs is expected to generate positive effects for national authorities

by enhancing coordination with ELA and with counterparts in other Member States. As noted

in the 4th evaluation of the Joint Investigation Teams, Seconded Members were seen as highly

useful in the investigations, providing local knowledge, information as well as language

skills.116

Option 3.2. would imply substantially higher and structural costs, as ELA would need to recruit

inspection staff, establish permanent operational units and cover travel, logistics and

enforcement-related expenses. A significant increase in budget and FTEs would be

unavoidable. The establishment of an additional pool of 27 inspectors (with a similar capacity

as for sub-options 3.1.2. and 3.1.3.) would entail total annual costs of EUR 5.5 million (as for

sub-option 3.1.3., see Annex 4). This would bring the overall cost of option 3.2., compared to

the baseline, to EUR 12 million per year. These costs would cover a total of 50 additional full-

time equivalent (FTE) staff,117 encompassing all resources estimated under option 3.1. as well

as the new pool of 27 inspectors, as defined in sub-option 3.1.3..

For Member States, Option 3.1. would largely preserve existing responsibilities while

benefiting from better-targeted inspections and analytical support, potentially reducing

duplication and administrative burden. Under Option 3.2., Member States could face

adjustment costs linked to coordination with an EU-level inspection authority and possible

overlaps with national enforcement systems. Employers and workers would not incur direct

costs but could be affected indirectly by increased inspection activity; more informed and

targeted inspections – as a result of increased data intelligence – would also redistribute the

likeliness of inspections among sectors or types of employers and focus where risks are higher.

116 EUROJUST (2023). Fourth JITS Evaluation Report, p 15 117 Composed of 13 FTEs to carry out operational analyses and follow-up activities in the Member States, 10 FTEs to deal with the extension of the scope of the ELA to include relevant provisions of the migration acquis, and 27 inspectors resulting from empowering ELA to initiate,

conduct and impose inspections.

39

For both options, possibility to access and process personal data could also improve the

efficiency of cross-border enforcement activities carried out by ELA. In particular, it could

facilitate a greater use of concerted inspections compared to joint inspections. Potential cost

savings could be estimated on the basis of the average costs of concerted inspections compared

to joint inspections, as concerted inspections typically involve lower operational costs. Unlike

joint inspections, they do not require travel, accommodation or catering for visiting inspectors,

as inspections are carried out by national authorities in their own territory and may require

limited or no participation from ELA staff.

A higher infringement detection rate through more risk-based targeting of CJIs could lead to a

better use of resources. Improved access to relevant data could enable a greater share of

inspections to be targeted rather than general. Targeted inspections typically have a higher

likelihood of detecting infringements, thereby increasing the overall yield per inspection.

Potential efficiency gains could therefore be monitored through the proportion of inspections

resulting in no infringements (“clean checks”). A reduction in the share of such clean checks,

resulting from improved targeting, would indicate avoided unnecessary inspections and

controls and corresponding savings in resources for both ELA and the participating national

authorities. While the exact amount of resources that could be saved is difficult to estimate, the

resulting capacity gains in relation to CJIs would enable ELA to prioritise other CJI-related

activities.

Social impacts

Both options are expected to have strong positive social impacts by reinforcing enforcement,

improving compliance and contributing to fair labour mobility. Option 3.1. would significantly

enhance the effectiveness of inspections ensuring they are more evidence-based, more risk-

focused and better coordinated. Improved analytical capacity and clearer treatment of TCN-

related cases would strengthen protection of vulnerable workers and support equal treatment.

Improved access to IMI and reinforced cooperation on TCNs would support fair labour

mobility, help prevent exploitation and reduce gaps in enforcement. Option 3.2. could further

increase enforcement intensity and visibility, potentially acting as a strong deterrent against

non-compliance. However, the effectiveness of inspections relies heavily on cooperation with

national authorities, familiarity with national systems and acceptance by stakeholders. A fully

EU-led inspection model could face practical limitations and resistance, which may reduce its

effectiveness despite stronger formal powers.

Prior Declaration Tool (PDT) data provide an evidence base for identifying sectors and

geographical areas where information provision and enforcement support are most relevant.

Posting activity is highly concentrated in a limited number of receiving Member States and

bilateral corridors, with particularly high volumes in Germany, Belgium, France and Austria,

and dominant flows from Poland, Germany and Romania (for details, see Annex 8, section 3).

Increased access to relevant data by ELA, combined with more frequent and better targeted

CJIs, would contribute positively to the effective protection of fundamental rights under the

Charter. In particular, enhanced data access would strengthen ELA’s capacity to identify risks,

patterns of non-compliance and sectors or situations where workers are most vulnerable,

thereby supporting Article 31 (right to fair and just working conditions). More targeted CJIs

based on robust data analysis can help prevent and address abuses such as undeclared work,

social dumping or infringements of health and safety rules, ensuring that mobile and posted

workers benefit from working conditions that respect EU and national labour standards. This

also supports Article 15 (freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work) by

fostering fair competition and lawful access to employment opportunities across borders.

40

Improved data sharing and targeted enforcement activities further contribute to Article 27

(workers’ right to information and consultation) insofar as they reinforce compliance with

obligations related to workers’ representation and information rights in cross-border contexts.

At the same time, increased access to data by ELA would be strictly framed by and implemented

in full compliance with Article 8 (protection of personal data). Appropriate safeguards,

purpose limitation and secure handling of personal data would ensure that enhanced

enforcement capacity does not undermine individuals’ privacy rights, while allowing ELA to

perform its coordination and support role more effectively.

By clarifying ELA’s mandate in relation to TCN workers that are most likely to be affected by

inadequate working conditions, it would strengthen the practical implementation of Article 31

of the Charter in high-risk sectors. It would also support Article 15(3) of the Charter by making

TCN workers’ working conditions more enforceable in practice, as well as Article 21 of the EU

Charter by reducing the risk of structural enforcement gaps affecting workers on the basis of

nationality, language or migration-related vulnerability.

Environmental impacts

If we consider that Option 3.1. would lead to a 30% increase in the number of missions

performed by ELA, given the increase in available resources, and considering that ELA

coordinated 137 missions in 2025, this would result in 41 additional missions per year.

Assuming 3 inspectors travel for each mission118, the increased travel would generate

additional CO₂ emissions. According to the European Aviation Environmental Report 2025,

the average intra-EU flight distance is approximately 1,730 km, and the average CO₂ emission

intensity for commercial flights is about 83 g CO₂ per passenger per kilometre.119 This

corresponds to approximately 144 kg CO₂ per passenger per one-way flight, or 287 kg CO₂ per

passenger for a round-trip.

Based on these assumptions, the 41 additional missions with 3 inspectors each would involve

123 passenger journeys, resulting in an estimated 35 tonnes of CO₂ emissions per year. At the

current EU carbon price of EUR 85 per tonne120, the environmental cost of these emissions

would be approximately EUR 3 000 annually. While this represents a measurable

environmental impact, it remains very limited in the context of the benefits generated by the

CJIs. Option 3.2. would entail similar environmental costs to option 3.1, and would continue

to be limited even if the increase in the number of CJIs would be higher than 30%.

6.2.4. Impacts of options under policy area 4: Mediation

Economic impacts

Benefits

Under Option 4.1., simplification of the mediation procedure would reduce procedural

complexity, clarify roles and timelines, and lower administrative barriers for Member States,

making mediation easier to use in practice. Such simplification is expected to reduce

administrative friction, avoid duplication of bilateral exchanges and lower the economic costs

associated with unresolved disputes. Option 4.2. would go further by introducing stricter

conditions for Member States to opt out of mediation. This could lead to more frequent

recourse to mediation and potentially faster resolution of disputes.