Why this reform matters

The current posting framework, in place since 2010, has come under sustained criticism. National authorities argue that the rules are too easily circumvented through artificial structures, leading to social dumping and undermining fair competition. Employers, on the other hand, point to the administrative complexity of the current A1 process and the legal uncertainty surrounding short-term and multi-state assignments.

The reform attempts to address both concerns simultaneously: tightening the substantive thresholds to qualify for posting, while expanding administrative coordination and enforcement tools. Whether it succeeds in striking the right balance remains to be seen, but the direction of travel is clear: posting becomes harder to qualify for, easier to verify, and more burdensome to administer.

The three substantive changes employers should focus on

1. Prior affiliation period extended from one to three months

Under the current rules, a worker must have been affiliated with the social security system of the sending Member State for at least one month before a posting can start. The reform is expected to extend this period to three months.

The practical consequence is significant. Employers who recruit talent and immediately deploy them to another Member State — a common scenario in consulting, IT services, construction and engineering — will no longer be able to do so under the posting regime. Instead, the employee will fall under the social security system of the host State from day one of the assignment.

This calls for a fundamental rethink of recruitment and onboarding sequencing. For some structures, it may mean a deliberate “ramp-up” period in the home country before deployment. For others, it will require accepting that certain assignments simply cannot be structured as postings going forward.

2. A generalised cooling-off period between assignments

Today, the requirement that two months elapse between two 24-month postings only applies in narrowly defined circumstances: the same employee, returning to the same Member State, for the same employer. In practice, this restriction is easily circumvented — for example, by rotating employees through different group entities or different host countries.

The reform is expected to generalise the cooling-off requirement, applying it more broadly across consecutive postings. Group structures that rely on rotational deployments — including those that route assignments via different establishments — will need to be reviewed against the new framework.

For multinational groups with intra-group mobility programmes, this is potentially the most disruptive change. The two-month interruption sounds modest on paper, but in operational terms it can fundamentally alter the economics and feasibility of long-term cross-border deployments.

3. A new pre-notification obligation

Perhaps the most administratively significant change is the introduction of a prior notification obligation for postings for social security purposes. This will sit alongside the existing A1 process, adding a separate compliance step before the assignment can begin.

The details of how this notification will work in practice — the data fields, the timing requirements, the sanctions for non-compliance, the interaction with the A1 procedure — will only become clear once the final text is published and Member States issue their implementing rules. What is clear, however, is that this layer of compliance runs counter to the EU’s broader stated goal of reducing administrative burden on businesses.

In our experience with comparable notification regimes (such as the posting of workers notifications under the Posting of Workers Directive), these systems tend to come with short deadlines, strict formal requirements, and meaningful financial penalties for missed or incomplete filings. Employers should anticipate an additional administrative workflow — and integrate it into existing mobility processes from the outset.

Stronger enforcement and tighter scrutiny

Beyond the substantive changes, the reform also significantly strengthens the enforcement architecture:

• Expanded use of the Electronic Exchange of Social Security Information (EESSI) for cross-border data sharing between national authorities.
• Enhanced verification mechanisms specifically targeting so-called letterbox companies — entities established in low-cost Member States with limited substance, used primarily to benefit from a more favourable social security regime.
• Closer cooperation between social security authorities, labour inspectorates and the European Labour Authority.

The combined effect is that substance at the level of the posting employer becomes critical. Authorities will increasingly look beyond the formal A1 certificate to assess whether the sending entity genuinely employs the worker, conducts substantial activities in the home Member State, and meets the criteria for posting in fact rather than merely on paper.

For groups with cross-border employment structures, this means that compliance documentation — payroll records, employment contracts, evidence of home-country activity, board and management decisions — will need to withstand a much more rigorous level of scrutiny than in the past.

What about other elements of the reform?

While posting is the headline change, the reform also addresses other areas relevant to mobile workers and their employers:

• Unemployment benefits: clearer rules on the export of benefits when a jobseeker moves to another Member State, and on the aggregation of insurance and employment periods.
• Family benefits: more predictable allocation of competence in cross-border family situations, reducing the risk of gaps or duplication.
• Long-term care benefits: clarified entitlement rules in cross-border situations — an area that has generated significant litigation before the Court of Justice.
• Administrative cooperation: structural improvements to information exchange between Member States.

These elements are less likely to require operational changes from employers, but they are relevant for HR and reward teams managing benefits eligibility for internationally mobile populations.

Timing: what happens next?

The provisional agreement is a political deal — not yet binding law. Several procedural steps still need to be completed:

1. Legal-linguistic finalisation of the text, including translation into all official EU languages.
2. Formal adoption by the Council and a plenary vote in the European Parliament.
3. Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
4. Entry into force on the date specified in the regulation.
5. A transition period — typically between 6 and 24 months — to allow Member States, social security institutions and employers to adapt their systems and procedures.

Realistically, this means that the new rules will not become applicable before 2028. The current framework remains fully in force in the meantime.

For Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland — which apply the EU coordination rules through separate agreements rather than as Member States — separate procedures will determine if and when they implement the revised framework.

What employers should do now

The 2028 horizon may sound comfortable, but the lead time is precisely what makes proactive preparation valuable. By the time the final text is published, organisations that have already mapped their exposure will be in a materially better position than those starting from scratch.

We recommend the following preparatory work:

1. Map your current posting population. Identify which assignments would no longer qualify under the new thresholds — particularly the extended prior affiliation period — and assess the alternatives (host-country social security, restructuring of the assignment, adjustment of timing).

2. Review onboarding and recruitment processes. Where international deployment is part of the standard career path, the three-month affiliation requirement will need to be built into HR planning from the recruitment stage onwards.

3. Stress-test group mobility structures. Rotational deployments, intra-group transfers, and assignments via different group entities all warrant a fresh look against the generalised cooling-off requirement.

4. Audit substance at the posting employer level. With enforcement intensifying, the documentation supporting each posting — and the underlying activities of the sending entity — should be capable of withstanding rigorous scrutiny.

5. Prepare for pre-notification. While the exact requirements are not yet known, organisations with significant posting volumes should anticipate the operational and IT implications of an additional notification workflow integrated with existing A1 procedures.

6. Build internal awareness. HR, mobility, payroll and legal teams will need to be aligned on the new framework well before it enters into force. A coordinated internal briefing — followed by updated playbooks — is the most efficient way to ensure consistent application across the organisation.

How we can help

The PKF BOFIDI Legal team advises Belgian and international groups on the full lifecycle of cross-border employment: assignment structuring, A1 management, audit defence, remediation of legacy posting arrangements and compliance design for international mobility programmes.

We are tracking this reform closely and will publish a detailed follow-up once the final text is available. In the meantime, we are happy to assist with impact assessments, structural reviews, and the design of practical action plans tailored to your organisation.

For a conversation on what this reform means for your business, do not hesitate to reach out.

This article reflects the state of the legislative process as of late April 2026 and is based on the provisional agreement reached between the European Parliament and the Council. The final text remains subject to formal adoption. Nothing in this article constitutes legal advice; please consult your legal advisor for guidance tailored to your specific circumstances.