For the EU Agencies Corner of REALaw, we sit down with Cosmin Boiangiu to reflect on the past, present, and future of the European Labour Authority (ELA), drawing on his insights as its Executive Director.
Negotiated alongside the Revised Posted Workers Directive, the ELA was established in 2019 with the aim of ensuring fair and effective labour mobility across the EU. The Authority has an operational role supporting EU Member States (plus Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein) in addressing labour mobility issues for individuals and companies. Cosmin Boiangiu was appointed ELA’s Executive Director in 2020. His mandate was renewed in 2025 for five more years.
The conversation took place in early July 2026, some weeks before the publication of the proposal for ELA’s mandate revision. It was the perfect occasion to reflect with Boiangiu about ELA’s past challenges, the current challenges, and the way forward.
From a diplomat career to Executive Director of an EU agency
Boiangiu had a long career as a diplomat before joining the ELA as its Executive Director:
“Just before joining ELA, I served as Deputy Permanent Representative of Romania to the European Union and Representative to the Committee of Permanent Representatives I (COREPER I) where many of the regulations and directives that now sit at the basis of ELA were negotiated. That experience has been very useful to steer ELA in its first years.”
We asked him what he took from his experience as a diplomat, his two main take-aways were:
“First, I knew that Member States and their administration wanted concrete actions. My focus when joining ELA was to make the Authority a very practical and operational agency concentrating on concrete results and delivering for stakeholders. Since the beginning, at ELA, we wanted to do more and talk less”.
“Second, trust between stakeholders is essential. The mandate of ELA is particular. It is called an ‘Authority’, but it does not have much authority. It is based on the voluntary participation and contribution of Member States and their administration. The creation of ELA was not an easy task. It was created at a moment when there was a lot of tension related to a huge wave of mobility following the different enlargements from East to West, and from South to North. There was a lot of mistrust between administrations. We had to build trust, not only between Member States’ administrations but also towards ELA. We managed to convince everybody that cooperation is key. Even if their views differ, Member States’ administrations need to sit at the same table and look at the practical aspects of the implementation.”
This, in Boiangiu’s view, was one of the biggest accomplishments in his mandate: that the voluntary participation in ELA’s operational activities initially was seen as a weakness, but now Member States and stakeholders that were sceptical see the benefits, especially as a trust-fostering endeavour.
ELA as an operational agency: challenges and dynamics
The bulk of the interview concerned ELA’s current mandate, actions, and legal framework.
Mediation as an element of cooperation procedures
Reacting to our question on the small numbers of mediation case emerging from the Commission’s 2024 evaluation report, Boiangiu nuanced:
“It is good news that mediation is underused. This means that there are no conflicts.”
Jokes aside, Boiangiu explained that, first, the current state of ELA is different from the picture emerging from the 2024 Report because ELA has significantly changed in the past two years. Moreover, the underuse of mediation can be explained in how the latter is seen and set up within ELA. Functionally and structurally, mediation is an extra step in a process of cooperation. ELA’s mediation team is in the same unit as the cooperation one, which is composed of National Liaison Officers (NLOs) who work within ELA – a unique feature in the agencies landscape – and acts as a bridge with national institutions. They have helped solving over 300 cases at the cooperation stage, as mediation only occurs when cases cannot be settled through cooperation and the majority of cases does not escalate to mediation. Yet, Boiangiu recognised that there are aspects of the mediation mechanism that could be adjusted. ELA is working on strengthening Member States’ trust, and Boiangiu also hopes that mediation will be improved through the proposal for the revision of ELA’s mandate, to be published in September 2026.
Joint and concerted inspections
We then asked him about the success of joint and concerted inspections, which are also voluntary in nature.
“The first step is there. We have managed to show the added value of ELA and to show to labour inspectorates and inspectors what they can do when they participate in the labour inspection in the territory of another Member State, in a cross-border situation. But now we have to be more concrete and do target inspections.”
To the question of whether ELA has an adequate mandate and powers to truly make an impact on joint and concerted inspections, he replied:
“At the moment, the participation by Member States is voluntary but it is also largely at their discretion when to initiate an inspection. What ELA is lacking is an investigative mandate.”
However, Boiangiu explained that ELA is not seeking for an investigative mandate to conduct the inspection itself but rather to collect and process personal data in order to suggest when inspections might be required based on the assessment of those data:
“[…] it is our main expectation from the revision of the Regulation: that this issue will be addressed and that we will be able to carry out a preliminary assessment of cases. We would then be able to collect and analyse data, conduct what we call ‘operational analysis’, and subsequently propose or request that Member States carry out inspections. We would also like Member States to explain more the reasons for rejecting an inspection request.”
He concluded: “However, we cannot reasonably ask them to justify a rejection if we ourselves are unable to provide more substantial evidence. So it is somewhat of a circular issue. We need the possibility to conduct more operational analysis. That is the main factor that could help improve the inspection process.”
More clarity needed on ELA’s mandate regarding third-country nationals
Concerning the role of ELA in respect to third-country nationals’ labour mobility, Boiangiu explained:
“When ELA was created, it was primarily aimed at facilitating labour mobility of EU citizens. While there are still some issues that occur, EU citizens are now better integrated in the host labour market and more familiar with the rules. Now, we are witnessing a big influx of third-country nationals.”
He pointed out several potential reasons for that, such as demographic concerns with an EU ageing population coupled with labour shortages in key occupation sectors (construction, agriculture, care, etc. ). Those reasons have been exacerbated by the Covid pandemic and third-country nationals filled in the gaps in those sectors, which also correspond to the areas of activities of ELA.
Boiangiu highlighted: “Third-country nationals are particularly vulnerable workers since they often do not speak the language and are less acquainted with our legal and governance systems. It is complex since many different laws, such as labour law, social security law, or immigration law, interact.”
We then asked whether the ELA has the necessary mandate to tackle those issues, and Boiangiu replied that more clarity is needed:
“ELA has a mandate in relation to the posting of third-country nationals since they fall under the Posted Workers Directive. We need to know exactly what we can do and the extent of our cooperation with enforcement actors such as national polices or Europol. […] We are not asking for a new mandate […] on immigration laws […]. Instead, we are asking for a clarification of our mandate when dealing with posting of third-country nationals and issues related to labour exploitation and criminal organisations facilitating exploitation of those workers.”
He continued: “ELA’s approach to informing workers about their rights is to inform them before they come to their place of employment: ‘know before you go’. But it cannot be applied to third-country nationals and third countries if ELA has not a clearer mandate in that regard.” He suggested that this prevention and informational role towards third-country workers could be done by focusing on specific countries with significant migration inflows to the EU.
A policy neutral actor that provides practice-based inputs for
the implementation of EU law
Boiangiu emphasised that ELA does not contribute directly to the legislative process, as the Authority wants to remain policy neutral, to enhance Member States’ trust.
“ELA is supporting the implementation processes of legislations. For example, we have been involved in supporting the implementation of the Mobility Package, particularly the social legislation elements related to transport. We have also contributed to the implementation of systems such as IMI, the Internal Market Information System.”
The ELA also provides feedback to legislators, the European Commission, and the Member States regarding shortcomings and practical challenges arising during implementation.
“In some cases, this has even led to the adoption of new legislation. A good example is the e-declaration for posting of workers that has been now agreed upon. It started with ELA’s support for the implementation of a voluntary declaration system. Initially, participation was limited to countries that chose to apply it. We then brought together an increasing number of countries, facilitating exchanges of good practices and demonstrating the benefits of such declarations.” Building on this practice, the Commission considered “extending the system to all Member States and turning it into a formal regulatory framework. In that sense, it became a concrete contribution from our side, based on implementation experience, […] and the voluntary application of certain practices and rules. What began as support for a group of countries wishing to implement the idea eventually evolved into a regulatory initiative applicable more broadly.”
ELA’s input and expectations on the revision of Regulation 883/2004
Another example of ELA’s involvement in legislative design – evidence and practice-based and policy neutral – is the reform of social security coordination.
“Many elements of the reform have been piloted by ELA and are now in the revised Regulation.”
Boiangiu mentioned as an example an agreement that ELA facilitated between France and Italy, to exchange data and cross-referencing large datasets to detect social security fraud, like receiving benefits in one country while being employed in another.
“We were thinking to extend this to all countries, on a voluntary basis. But now in the revision, it seems that this will be possible directly through the implementation of the Regulation.”
We also asked Boiangiu what are the areas where he sees room for further improvement. His response focused on ELA’s efforts in accelerating the digitalisation of social security coordination. Thanks to the reform, the ELA will have a stronger legislative framework to implement these measures more effectively, with measures such as the Mobility Package, the EESSI system, or new tools in course of implementation, like the Digital Wallet.
Then he held: “We are also interested in developing AI-based assistance […]. For example, many citizens do not claim their pensions because the procedures become too complicated when they have worked abroad […] so they simply do not apply for them. We thought: why not use AI agents to help people do this? Not only to provide information, but also to help them navigate the bureaucracy and the rules related to social security. So we are developing this kind of system.”
A dense network of cooperation with agencies, administrations and stakeholders
The theme of cooperation with stakeholders and administrations operating in fields contiguous to ELA’s mandate surfaced several times throughout the interview.
“We work with all agencies operating in our field – our so-called ‘sister agencies’: Eurofound Cedefop, EU-OSHA, ETF, as there are many areas where our mandates go in the same direction.”
ELA also works with agencies in the field of law enforcement: “CEPOL, with which we organised successful trainings bringing together police and labour inspectors. We also have had very good results from our cooperation with Europol and we are currently working towards formalising that cooperation through a structured agreement.”
Importantly, ELA also developed sector-specific cooperations, e.g., in road transport and aviation. But the work of ELA does not stop within the EU: as to the ILO “this year, we started a more structured form of cooperation. Previously, we had more ad hoc collaborations on various actions” such as displaced persons from Ukraine, refugees, and support to third countries and accession countries. A similar process is taking place to establish a more systematic framework with the OECD.
When it comes to the relationship with the Administrative Commission under Regulation 883/2004, Boiangiu stressed that the two have excellent working relations and agreements in place:
“We see ourselves as a sort of operational arm of the Administrative Commission […]. They are more part of the governance system and have a deliberative role, including the interpretation of legislation. We, on the other hand, can facilitate and implement practical actions. […] We also have practical arrangements whereby they participate in our meetings, and a representative of the Administrative Commission is invited to attend meetings of our Management Board.”
For mediation, Boiangiu underlined that the legislative framework prescribes specific procedures for consultation between the ELA and the Administrative Commission in the respective fields of action.
And how does the European Commission, in particular DG Employment, fit this picture? As a particularly successful example of their polyhedric cooperation, the programme ‘Posting 360’, “provides a forum for discussion and a programme of actions related to the posting of workers. […] We bring together Member States and social partners and provide a space where they can discuss legislation with the Commission, including possible interpretations and practical application of the rules. In these cases, we simply provide the platform, while the Commission takes the lead.”
A similar collaborative approach is visible in the relationship with social partners, which is deeper and closer than the minimum prescribed by ELA’s founding Regulation:
“Our cooperation with social partners goes beyond the formal arrangements. Formally, […] they have a Stakeholders Group, a consultative body, and they are also represented as observers on the Management Board. […] But we have working and informal relations with them, and we invite them to provide input into the design of our activities […] from the start of the process to the end”. An example of such intense cooperation are ELA’s sector-specific campaigns that were designed with significant involvement of social partners in road transport, construction, HoReCa, and other fields.
Boiangiu continues, “we have a very close relationship with the social partners because they are closest to our ultimate beneficiaries: citizens, individual workers, and companies.” And this concerns social partners both at national and European level.
Looking ahead
Reflecting on ELA’s role within the European social model, we noted that recent years have seemingly witnessed a shift away from social objectives and towards competitiveness. To this, Boiangiu replied stressing that those objectives are compatible, and that ELA works towards both:
“People talk about competitiveness, but you have to factor in all the things that are embedded in the social model of the economy, and it might be seen for many as an extra cost […] but I think it’s a strength of the model.”
In Boiangiu’s opinion, the EU “should continue to build on this model because it’s working”. Social protection and removing obstacles to mobility work synergically to tackle labour shortages occurring in several sectors and avoid that people end up in poor jobs.
“Labour mobility is an asset for competitiveness and the economy.” This is why “[the ELA’s] mandate and objective is to eliminate as many [unnecessary] obstacles as possible, including red tape for companies and bureaucracy. The same applies to workers: to help them find the best opportunities, eliminating abuses and bad practises. This will also help people find […] the best jobs for them. […] We need to find a better way to match supply and demand of work.”
To do that, ELA adopts a holistic approach to labour market mismatches: people “have aspirations and particular circumstances in their lives” and labour market administrations should treat “individuals as individuals, not as a set of skills.” This links to the consideration that the ELA sees its role “also as a mandate towards companies, [that] should be able to find the right workforce. That mandate, more broadly, relates to the mobility of the economy in general.”
We concluded our interview by inviting Boiangiu to reflect on the work of ELA in 10 years from now. He made two key points.
First, he returned on the digitalisation efforts: “I want AI to work for the people” and he mentioned, as example, the development of a “Mobility Companion, an AI-based assistant that will provide information and assist companies, workers, and administrations in all aspects of labour mobility.”
Second, a crucial practical question: “there is strong support for [ELA’s revision] from the Commission, the Parliament, and Member States, […] but there is one important point I would like to make: we need resources.”
He noted the discrepancy between ELA’s current capacity and the magnitude of the issues it deals with. Between EU mobile workers, jobseekers, and TCN workers, “we are talking about around 40 million people. […] We are overstretched in terms of staff and resources. […] For example, we are working on a remuneration calculator, a tool that will help authorities, workers, and companies understand, particularly in relation to posting of workers, what remuneration should be applied. […] It is very complex, but we believe it is very useful […]. We are working on this with extremely limited resources, and it is difficult.”
Boiangiu concluded: “We are confident that additional resources would be put to good use, but we need more staff and, of course, more financial resources.”