Directive 2023/970 requires pay ranges in job ads and lets workers request pay data

Directive (EU) 2023/970 sets minimum requirements on pay transparency and equal pay for women and men across the European Union. It covers what employers must tell job applicants, what current workers can ask for, and how the burden of proof shifts when transparency duties are not met. The rules apply to employers across the EU’s hiring and employment stages, and the European Commission’s explainer, dated 5 June 2026, summarises the core provisions in plain terms.

Member states had until 7 June 2026 to transpose the Directive into national law. A status review from the law firm Littler, dated 8 June 2026, describes national progress as uneven. The Commission’s explainer says the new rules are now taking effect across the EU, and the sections below set out that claim alongside the national picture.

What employers must disclose before hiring

The Commission’s explainer says employers must give job applicants the starting salary or the pay range for the post. That information can appear in the vacancy notice itself, or be provided before the interview.

Employers may no longer ask candidates about their pay history, according to the same page. The explainer does not list exceptions to either rule, so the full text of the Directive is the reference for any exemption that applies.

The duty sits at the recruitment stage, before a worker is employed. The rules that apply once someone is in the job are different, and they are covered in the next section.

Transposition deadline
EU member states had to transpose the Directive into national law by 7 June 2026, according to the European Commission.

The right to request pay data once employed

Workers can ask their employer for information on their own pay level. They can also request average pay levels, broken down by sex, for workers doing the same work or work of equal value.

According to the Commission’s description, the information is an average pay level by sex for categories of workers. The Commission’s EU action page says the comparison can be made at any point during the employment relationship. The request is individual, and it differs from the reporting duty for larger employers covered in the next section.

Neither the explainer nor the EU action page says how quickly an employer must reply. The response time is not confirmed in the pages used for this article, so the Directive’s text should be checked before any figure is stated.

Conflicting triggers for joint pay assessments

Employers with 100 or more staff must publish information on the gender pay gap between women and men, the Commission’s explainer says. The explainer also says that if those reports show a gap of at least 5% that cannot be justified, the employer must carry out a pay assessment.

The explainer does not describe how the gap is calculated, so readers should consult the Directive’s own definitions.

The EU action page describes joint pay assessments differently. It ties them to indications of pay discrimination at employer level and does not mention the 5% figure. The two pages therefore give different triggers for an assessment.

Neither page gives a time limit for completing an assessment. The EU action page also gives no first reporting date, which leaves the timetable for employers of different sizes unconfirmed in these sources.

How the burden of proof and compensation work

Taken together, the pages describe these duties. Employers disclose pay ranges to applicants, answer workers’ requests, publish gap information where they have 100 or more staff, and carry out an assessment where the pages require one.

The explainer says that employers who do not meet their transparency obligations must prove that there was no pay discrimination. This is the shift in the burden of proof, and it places the task of proof on the employer rather than the worker.

The sources read for this article do not describe how courts have applied the shift, so no case examples are given.

The EU action page says the Directive strengthens this shift and provides for full compensation, including recovery of back pay. Workers who have suffered gender pay discrimination can receive that compensation.

EU countries should set penalties for breaking the equal pay rule. Equality bodies and workers’ representatives can represent workers in legal or administrative proceedings, according to the explainer.

Member states had until 7 June 2026 to turn the Directive into national law, and the status of that work varies.

Where national transposition stands

Transposition means a member state turns the Directive into its own national law. The Commission’s EU action page states that member states must do so by 7 June 2026.

The Littler review lists Slovakia, Malta and Italy among states that adopted comprehensive legislation by the deadline. It says these laws have minimal or non-existent grace periods, and that employers in Slovakia and Italy face quick compliance deadlines.

The review also lists Malta among states whose draft legislation was published without a clear effective date, so it appears in both categories. Lithuania, Poland and the Czech Republic are described as having partly transposed the Directive.

Denmark and the Netherlands have signalled implementation in 2027. Cyprus, Estonia, France, Latvia and Sweden published drafts without a clear effective date. Germany and Austria were among states with no published implementing measures.

The review says the Irish government has confirmed it will not meet the 7 June 2026 deadline and will introduce legislation in phases. The minister did not commit to a timeline, but said employers would not be penalised for failing to meet every element of the Directive by the deadline. The review does not give dates for the later phases.

What remains open for readers

Three points remain open on the sources used here. The Commission pages describe different triggers for a joint pay assessment. Neither states a first reporting date by employer size, and neither gives a response time for workers’ requests.

The Littler review sorts states into categories: comprehensive legislation adopted, partial transposition, published draft legislation and no published implementing measures. Each category carries a different status, so a single yes-or-no answer for a country is not what the review provides.

For a reader, the practical questions are who must disclose, when, and what happens if they do not. The sources answer the first two in part, and the third through the burden-of-proof rule.

The national picture is a snapshot from 8 June 2026. Laws passed or published after that date are not covered here, so the country list should be checked against official national records before it is cited.

Photo: MDGovpics · CC BY 2.0 · via Wikimedia Commons