The keynote speech “Freedom to provide services and labour mobility: some legal issues” by Herwig Verschueren opened one of the most thought-provoking discussions of the European Labour Mobility Congress, focusing on the grey zones of EU law — where regulation ends and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union begins.
Session III of ELMC 2026, moderated by Marek Benio, explored the legal uncertainty surrounding posting, migration and access to labour markets, particularly in relation to third-country nationals.
The discussion highlighted how blurred distinctions — between posting and migration, temporariness and establishment, or single-state and multi-state employment — can themselves become barriers to the freedom to provide services within the EU Single Market.
Sabina Kubiciel-Lodzińska presented the example of Ukrainian citizens in Poland, showing a visible shift from war-driven displacement towards long-term labour migration. Despite high employment rates among Ukrainians, significant skills mismatch remains a challenge, with language barriers continuing to play a central role. The discussion also pointed to the fact that employers are often slower than workers themselves to adapt to this changing reality.
Attention was also drawn to sectors that remain largely overlooked in policymaking. Kamil Matuszczyk pointed out that domestic care continues to function as a “taboo” sector without effective representation, unlike agriculture, which benefits from stronger organisation and advocacy. As a result, important social needs are frequently addressed informally and at no public cost.
Michał Kacprzyk challenged one of the most persistent public narratives — that foreigners “take jobs”. Referring to the experience of Brexit, he argued that attempts to simplify labour market access often produce the opposite effect: more complexity, more restrictions and lower accessibility. Similar tendencies, he noted, can increasingly be observed in Poland.
Marco Rocca focused on the broader legal and political trade-offs shaping this area of EU law: – clarity versus flexibility – regulation versus jurisprudence – national restrictions versus EU-wide coordination
The discussion showed that overly rigid rules may hinder service provision, while excessive discretion risks fragmenting the Single Market. Even seemingly straightforward solutions — such as fixed thresholds for defining “temporariness” — raise fundamental questions about whether they actually facilitate or restrict the free movement of services.
One key question remained at the centre of the debate: do we really want a system without grey zones — or are such grey areas, paradoxically, a necessary condition for the functioning of the Single Market?
