Directive guide
Penalties and enforcement: what non-compliance actually costs
By Mihai Postolache, founder of Egalis ·
In short
1. Fines — national by design
The Directive does not set amounts; it obliges every member state to set penalties that are effective, proportionate and dissuasive, including fines (Art. 23). States differ in structure — flat ranges, per-infringement fines, percentages tied to payroll or turnover, escalation for repeat offences. Some add exclusion from public procurement for serious breaches.
Where things stand on 26 September 2026, country by country. The transposition deadline of 7 June 2026 has passed. The Commission has not opened infringement proceedings on Directive (EU) 2023/970: its non-communication packages of 15 July and 25 September 2026 did not include it (the July letters concerned the equality-body directives 2024/1499 and 2024/1500).
Complete implementing laws:
- Slovakia — Act No. 76/2026 Coll. [zákon č. 76/2026 Z. z.], in force since 7 June 2026. The labour inspectorate enforces most duties (fines up to €100,000); the Ministry of Labour fines a missing pay report (€4,000–8,000) — sprievodca v slovenčine.
- Lithuania — amendments to the Labour Code (Law No. XV-969), adopted on 21 May 2026 and in force since 7 June 2026, applied in stages: pay systems by 31 December 2026, the reporting machinery and the right to information from 1 January 2027. The state social insurance fund Sodra computes and publishes the indicators — vadovas lietuviškai.
- Italy — Legislative Decree No. 96/2026 [D.Lgs. 7 maggio 2026, n. 96], in force since 7 June 2026.
- Malta — Legal Notice 173/2026, published on 5 June 2026.
- Greece — Law 5316/2026 (Government Gazette A’ 105, 6 July 2026): most obligations apply from 1 November 2026. The Ombudsman [Συνήγορος του Πολίτη] is the equality and monitoring body; the Labour Inspectorate [Επιθεώρηση Εργασίας] enforces and fines, within the labour-law range of €300–50,000 per breach, with the specific amounts left to a ministerial decision — οδηγός στα ελληνικά.
Partial transposition:
- Poland — recruitment transparency in force since 24 December 2025. The second-stage bill UC127 (fines of PLN 2,000–60,000 in the draft) is still a government draft: adoption by the Council of Ministers [Rada Ministrów] is planned for the fourth quarter of 2026 — przewodnik po polsku.
- Estonia — since 13 July 2026, only the recruitment rules and the ban on preventing workers from disclosing their own pay; reporting is not yet transposed.
- Belgium — transposed for parts of the public sector only.
Drafts — no national law yet:
- Czechia — the government bill (Chamber of Deputies print 300 [sněmovní tisk 300]) was tabled on 8 September 2026, with enforcement through the labour-inspection act; proposed effect 1 January 2027, with reporting and the right to information from 1 January 2028. One rule already applies: the ban on pay-secrecy clauses (§346a of the Labour Code [zákoník práce], since 1 June 2025) — průvodce česky.
- Romania — the draft law L445/2026 is before the Senate, the first chamber; the Senate’s deadline for tacit adoption falls on 17 October 2026, and the Chamber of Deputies decides afterwards — ghidul sancțiunilor în română.
- Bulgaria — a bill amending the Protection against Discrimination Act [Закон за защита от дискриминация] was tabled in the National Assembly [Народно събрание] on 11 September 2026; no first reading yet.
- Croatia — a draft amendment to the Labour Act [Zakon o radu] was sent to the social partners in early September 2026; it has not yet gone to public consultation.
- Hungary — no bill tabled yet; the government’s autumn legislative programme announces one.
Most other member states have drafts in preparation or in consultation. Wherever no implementing law applies yet, the compensation and burden-of-proof tracks below already operate through existing equal-pay law.
2. Compensation — the uncapped track
A worker who suffered pay discrimination is entitled to full compensation: back pay, related bonuses and payments in kind, compensation for lost opportunities and non-material damage (Art. 16). Unlike a fine, this scales with the size and duration of the gap — a difference maintained for years across a category is a liability computed per person, per year.
3. The burden of proof — where cases are decided
Once the worker establishes facts from which discrimination may be presumed, the employer must prove there was none (Art. 18). Once the transparency rules apply, the facts are easy to establish: the averages from an information request or the published report. The only reliable defence is the boring one — objective criteria, documented job evaluation, contemporaneous justifications.
Non-compliance compounds
If the employer failed its transparency obligations, member states must ensure that failure counts against it in the proceedings — an incomplete report or a missing answer becomes evidence for the other side.
4. The informal penalty: the published number
From June 2027, the monitoring bodies publish employer-level gap data in a form that allows comparison between employers. Candidates will filter by it, journalists will rank by it, and procurement teams increasingly ask for it. For most companies the market cost of a bad published number will exceed any fine — and unlike a fine, it cannot be appealed, only fixed in advance. Know your number first →
Frequently asked questions
How big are the fines?
National — each member state sets penalties that must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive, including fines (Art. 23). Some states scale them to workforce size or turnover, some fine per infringement. The amounts are set when a national law is adopted — section 1 lists where each member state stands; where your country has no implementing law yet, the amounts are not yet final.
What can a worker actually claim?
Full compensation: recovery of back pay and related bonuses or payments in kind, plus compensation for lost opportunities and non-material damage (Art. 16). There is no upper cap — the remedy must put the worker where they would have been without the discrimination.
What does the reversed burden of proof mean in practice?
Once a worker shows facts from which discrimination may be presumed — for example, the averages from an information request — it is for the employer to prove the difference is justified. If the employer ignored its transparency obligations, courts weigh that against it.
Who can bring a claim besides the worker?
Workers' representatives and equality bodies can act on behalf or in support of workers, including in collective claims (Art. 15) — one systematic gap can arrive as one collective case, not one brave plaintiff.
Next step
Create your account
Start is free under 50 employees; from 50 up, 14 free days, no card. Your data: full export, any time.