Q. What is the Pay Transparency Directive?

The Pay Transparency Directive aims to strengthen the equal pay framework throughout the EU by giving workers and workers’ representatives meaningful information on pay equity within organisations and to reduce the stubborn pay gaps across Europe.

It does this in part by creating a number of individual rights to pay transparency. Those include a requirement on employers to provide candidates with the pay or pay range and CBA provisions for each job vacancy and to stop asking job applicants about their current and past pay. All workers will have a new right to request information about what others doing comparable jobs are paid, on average (broken down by gender), which essentially means that employers will need to respond to requests for information for relevant equal pay statistics.

The Pay Transparency Directive also requires employers throughout the EU to either implement gender pay gap reporting for the first time or, in countries where it already exists, broaden the scope of the requirements. Employers need to report on gender pay gaps:

• Across the company as a whole.
• Within each category of workers (those who do the same work or work of equal value).

The Pay Transparency Directive builds on the growing body of pay transparency laws already in place across Europe.

Q. Which businesses are in scope for the Pay Transparency Directive?

All businesses in both public and private sector are in scope for the Pay Transparency Directive. Some elements of the Pay Transparency Directive apply subject to headcount requirements.

The gender pay gap reporting requirements apply to all employers with at least 150 workers, dropping to 100 after four years. Those with 250 or more workers will have to report gender pay gaps annually, while others caught by the Pay Transparency Directive will have to report every three years.*

If the Pay Transparency Directive was transposed as the European Commission intended, employers with at least 150 workers would have needed to compile gender pay gap reports for the 2026 calendar year. Employers with at least 100 workers would have needed to start gender pay gap reporting in relation to the 2030 calendar year. Those with fewer than 100 workers will fall out of scope of the Pay Transparency Directive’s gender pay gap reporting requirements but may of course be caught by local pay reporting regimes (or PTD reporting where local law reduces the default headcount thresholds).

In default (unless member states say otherwise) an employer needs to look at each individual employing company when assessing headcount triggers, rather than a group of companies as a whole.

Crucially, it’s important to note that there are no size thresholds for the other pay transparency rights in the Pay Transparency Directive. All employers, irrespective of size, will need to comply with the pay history ban, obligation to provide pay ranges and CBAs and requirement to supply information on what comparable workers are paid upon request. The Pay Transparency Directive’s intention was that those rights (explained in more detail below) would take effect as soon as the Pay Transparency Directive is transposed into local legislation. This was supposed to happen by 7 June 2026. Only four member states met this deadline, and some of those delayed the implementation of these rights beyond the dates required by the Pay Transparency Directive.

The Pay Transparency Directive applies to all types of employer. This extends to employers of record, although the data they report may be less meaningful unless they have set up individual entities for each of their clients.

*Note that member states may reduce the headcount thresholds, and some will.

Q. How do we put workers into categories for comparison?

The Pay Transparency Directive requires employers to group workers into “categories of worker”, which is defined as meaning workers who do the same work or work of equal value. The intention is to tie-in with the comparison that can be used for the purposes of an equal pay claim under EU law.

Although in theory the concept of equal value should be consistent across the EU, in reality we have seen (and likely will continue to see) different approaches to putting workers into categories. How categories are defined is inevitably going to impact on the published results, and their comparability across jurisdictions. We shared guidance on what employers need to know about job evaluation, job classification and the Pay Transparency Directive, here.

Multinational employers may find this a particular challenge if they want to achieve a consistent approach to job categorisations, especially as some member states where they operate may have CBAs dealing with the equal value concept, or classification of workers, and others may not. Please see question 24 below.

Q. How do we deal with internal communications about the Pay Transparency Directive?

Employers will need a communications strategy and a training programme for those workers who will be responsible for holding these conversations.

Given the depth of data that employers will need to publish or make available, and the potential for it to be tested and analysed by workers’ representatives (and their advisers), it will be important to be upfront and honest, but also to have a positive message about any improvements that might be needed.

A proactive and successful communications approach will reduce the chances of data and approaches being subjected to hostile interrogation, either by the media or workers’ representatives. Early engagement with workers’ representative bodies may be beneficial, depending on the nature of existing relationships, even if that engagement stops short of formal consultation.

The Pay Transparency Directive is likely to mean more workers, particularly in talent acquisition and HR/People business partnering teams and people managers, are faced with specific remuneration-based questions. Providing internal training to these workers to ensure they can have these conversations confidently will be an important step in achieving compliance and consistency.

Q. How should we tackle the requirement to tell workers about their right to request pay information?

Employers should have a strategy in place before the right to request pay information goes live, and that strategy should aim to meet the requirements in all member states where it operates.

The Pay Transparency Directive requires employers to inform all workers annually of their right to receive information on their individual pay level and average pay level broken down by sex of workers in their category. However, it is silent on the method or format for delivering this annual notification.

The spirit and intention of the Pay Transparency Directive is that the reminder be practically useful.  We are seeing that reflected in transposing legislation which tends to suggest this reminder could be included in emails, on intranet pages or provided to workers in a way that is in line with how they would be notified of other information.

Employers should check the terms of any transposing legislation in the member states where they operate because some legislation is likely to provide a specific date by which this reminder must be given each year. We do not expect this to become a particularly onerous obligation, although it is another date employers need to keep track of. 

Q. Could an employer provide an annual reminder about the right to request pay information in an obscure way at bottom of annual compensation statement or another document?

Obscuring a reminder about workers’ rights to request pay information is unlikely to comply with the spirit of the Pay Transparency Directive or local transposing legislation.

As above, the Pay Transparency Directive requires employers to inform all workers annually of their right to receive information on their individual pay level and average pay level broken down by sex of workers in their category. However, it is silent on the method or format for delivering this annual notification.

The spirit and intention of the Pay Transparency Directive is that the reminder be practically useful.  Including a reminder in a place where a worker is unlikely to see it is unlikely to align with its spirit or intent. We are seeing that reflected in transposing legislation which tends to suggest this reminder could be included in emails, on intranet pages or provided to workers in a way that is in line with how they would be notified of other information.

For example, the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the Czech Republic’s draft law suggests an employer should discharge the requirement “in a manner customary and accessible to all employees” and then gives the example of publishing it on the intranet, “a mass e-mail to all employees” or posting it on the notice board, for example. Similarly, the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the Netherlands’ draft law says an employer could publish this information “on a website or intranet… provided that this information is clearly and findably accessible” (sic).

Any attempt to hide a reminder is likely to be non-compliant. That intent would also probably increase the severity of any sanction issued.

Q. What is the difference between pay information disclosed under workers’ right to pay information requests and gender pay gap reporting?

Separate from the pre-employment pay transparency requirements, the Pay Transparency Directive contains two key rights to specific pay information. The first is an individual right that can be exercised by a worker on request. The second is a general obligation on an employer to report its gender pay gap information.

The Pay Transparency Directive requires employers to provide individual workers with information on their individual “pay level” and the “average pay levels, broken down by sex, for categories of workers performing the same work as them or work of equal value to theirs”. The obligation is triggered when a worker makes the request, either themselves or through a representative.

When providing a worker with information regarding their “pay level”, this is defined as gross annual pay and the corresponding gross hourly pay.

When providing a worker with the “average pay levels, broken down by sex…” etc, an employer’s obligation is to provide the mean – which is widely understood to mean the arithmetic average of a set of numbers. The median is the middle-value.

Employers must provide the mean (meaning the same as average) pay and may choose to share the median too. 
This distinction causes confusion because the median is relevant to the pay gap reporting elements of the Pay Transparency Directive at Article 9.

Q. What information must employers include in response to a worker right to pay information request?

The Pay Transparency Directive itself includes relatively clear instructions regarding what detail a response would include. Three core data points are:

1. Their own individual gross annual pay and corresponding gross hourly pay.
2. The average gross annual pay and corresponding gross hourly pay for women in the requester's category of workers (performing the same work or work of equal value).
3. The average gross annual pay and corresponding gross hourly pay for men in the requester's category.

“Pay level” is defined as gross annual pay and corresponding gross hourly pay.  However, "pay" itself has a broad definition, "the ordinary basic or minimum wage or salary and any other consideration, whether in cash or in kind, which a worker receives directly or indirectly". This means a compliant response is likely to need to capture base salary, bonuses, commission, allowances, benefits in kind, and similar elements.

We recommend that employers consider providing more than the bare minimum required. This is to reduce the risk of follow-up queries and to provide meaningful context.

Employers have considerable flexibility regarding the structure any response would take. For example, some have implemented a self-service platform with automated responses, whereas others are opting for an individual response provided by HR.

Q. Is there a prescribed structure for responding to a worker right to pay information request?

There is no prescribed structure for responding to a request.

Employers have considerable flexibility regarding the structure any response would take. For example, some have implemented a self-service platform with automated responses, whereas others are opting for an individual response provided by HR.

Q. How should employers handle worker right to pay information requests where disclosing data could identify individual workers?

Employers must consider their obligations under the local transposing legislation and also their obligations under applicable privacy law, data protection law, including but not necessarily limited to the EU GDPR, and their confidentiality obligations.

When navigating right to information requests in countries with few workers or from a worker within a small job category, employers will need to pay close attention to local transposing legislation and frameworks. Several member states suggest diverting the information requests through workers’ representatives, labour inspectorates or equality bodies in these situations. It often then becomes their responsibility to advise the worker on their ability to bring an equal pay claim without disclosing actual pay levels of other workers.

The Netherlands has taken its own approach, suggesting its view is that the individual right to information under the Pay Transparency Directive should outweigh other workers’ rights regarding their pay information under the EU GDPR. If Dutch law is transposed in its current form, this would mean the data should go directly to the worker. It is possible that we will see more member states adopt this approach.

Q. When have we got to do a joint pay assessment under the Pay Transparency Directive?

Employers need to do a joint pay assessment under the Pay Transparency Directive if all three of the following conditions are met:

1. There’s a pay gap of 5% or more in any category of workers.
2. Such a difference cannot be objectively justified – by reference to gender neutral reasons.
3. The employer has not put right the unjustified difference within 6 months of reporting it.

The pay assessment is essentially a detailed equal pay audit which is done in co-operation with the workers’ representatives. This is one area where the Directive bares its teeth: triggering a joint pay assessment is likely to be time-consuming and risky. It requires additional data and analysis including, for example, an analysis of the proportion of male and female workers in each category, an investigation into the underlying drivers of pay differentials and a specific look at pay rises following family leave. The joint pay assessment has to be published to workers and made available to equality bodies and labour inspectorates.

Q. Does the Pay Transparency Directive mean that we have got to report pay equity breaches?

Employers must publish the average gap between people doing jobs that are legally comparable and, if they end up in a joint pay assessment (see question 11 above) they will have to share more detailed data. But employers are disclosing averages not specifics. There may also be good explanations for differentials. Nonetheless, this clearly comes closer to reporting actionable breaches than has been the case in many member states before and leaves employers open to further interrogation and potential litigation.

Bulgaria’s first draft law transposing the Pay Transparency Directive proposes a proactive duty on employers to write to the Commission for Protection against Discrimination as soon as a 5% gender pay gap is identified, explaining any justifications for that gap. We may see more member states take a similar approach as more local drafts are released or updated.

Q. What is the suggested approach for addressing large salary gaps within functions that are historical hangovers, particularly when it is impossible to ensure parity due to unjustified inflated salaries for certain workers?

The Pay Transparency Directive does not accept that it is impossible to address any unjustified pay gaps. A common concern is whether an employer will be required to reduce a worker’s pay to address a pay gap. That would be a disruptive and difficult conversation and workers will almost always refuse to agree. In practice, this will rarely and probably never be the solution.

Where a large salary gap is identified, an initial gap analysis to identify workers who are paid very low or very high compared to the average will be necessary.

Employers should then investigate those outliers in detail, as they can have a significant impact on gaps, particularly within small data sets.

For those who are correctly paid at the higher level, document the justification (such as acquisition terms, experience or time in level, performance or niche skills, for e.g.) noting that the Pay Transparency Directive specifically mentions the possibility of paying differently for competence and performance.

Where no justification exists, it will be essential to check individual employment contracts and applicable local laws, but employers will need to act. The options to address the pay gap include:

1. Applying a pay freeze to the overpaid individual and withholding future increases until the correct rate catches up, while simultaneously raising underpaid individuals towards the appropriate level.
2. Modulating annual increases so that overpaid roles receive below-average increases and underpaid roles receive above-average increases.
3. Tighten pay ranges and review pay/bonus discretion going forward to prevent new anomalies from arising which could frustrate an employer’s other efforts to address known pay gaps.

Q. What is the definition of pay in the Pay Transparency Directive?

 “Pay” is defined very broadly.

Pay is defined as including “ordinary basic or minimum wage or salary and any other consideration, whether in cash or in kind, which a worker receives directly or indirectly (complementary or variable components) in respect of his or her employment from his or her employer”. This definition is based on the right to equal pay which is enshrined in the EU Treaty.

This definition of “pay” is broader than existing definitions used for gender pay gap reporting in the UK and Ireland since the value of benefits must also be included. Since the definition covers consideration “in kind” whether “directly or indirectly”, it is also likely to be broad enough to cover share awards such as RSUs and options.

In theory, pay should be defined consistently across the EU, but we are seeing local variation. For example:

1. Bulgaria’s 19 May 2026 draft law contains no standalone definition of “pay” but defines “level of pay” as “the gross remuneration annually and the corresponding gross hourly remuneration”.
2. Latvia’s 26 March 2026 draft law defines “remuneration” as “remuneration for work to be paid on a regular basis, which includes the salary (monthly salary) and allowances laid down in laws and regulations, collective agreements or employment contracts, as well as bonuses and any other form of remuneration related to work”. It also defines “additional or variable components of remuneration” as “the part of remuneration other than the agreed wage (monthly salary)” and “wage level” as “the annual gross wages and salaries and the corresponding hourly wages”.
3. Romania’s 17 June 2026 draft law defines “remuneration” as “any gross remuneration in the form of basic salary, allowances, bonuses, other additions, as well as any other complementary or variable constituent elements of the gross salary income, which the worker receives directly or indirectly for the work performed”. It also defines the “level of remuneration” as “the gross annual remuneration and the corresponding gross hourly value”.

There are also likely to be different approaches to calculating average pay, for example, should an employer take a snapshot in a particular month or look across the whole year. Countries with existing gender pay gap legislation are likely to evolve it, rather than throw it out, meaning that they are likely to stick closely to their current methodology. This is particularly evident in places such as Lithuania where central authorities take on the burden of calculating pay gap data and then share this data with employers which we are seeing carried into transposing legislation.

Q. What is the role of workers’ representatives?

The Pay Transparency Directive envisages workers’ representatives having a key role in achieving pay transparency.

The Pay Transparency Directive gives workers’ representatives the right to ask for additional clarifications and details regarding any of the data provided, including explanations concerning any gender pay differentials. Workers’ representatives also have a major role to play in determining methodologies for categorising workers and in joint pay assessments. Countries where representatives are not already in place may have to enact systems for putting them in place, at least where joint pay assessments are triggered.

Workers’ representatives will not be effective in their roles if they lack essential knowledge. They could end up delaying or frustrating efforts to achieve compliance if they are not upskilled. It will be in an employer’s best interests to provide workers’ representatives with training on the requirements of the Pay Transparency Directive (and local transposing legislation) and ensure they are statistically confident.

In France, workers’ representatives have a right to be assisted by experts. Where possible, an employer which trains its workers’ representatives itself and builds trust is likely to be preferable to offering access to advisers and experts.

Q. How much leniency can we expect for companies unready for the specifics of engagement with workers’ representatives (including their appointment where not currently in place) given that most major European countries are now late with local legislation?

We expect national authorities and governments to allow a considerable degree of leniency in member states where the Pay Transparency Directive has not been transposed into national law. In most places this has not been acknowledged expressly. However, in Ireland, the Department of Equality has advised that employers will not be penalised for not having implemented all the requirements of the Pay Transparency Directive by June 2026.

We expect there to be less leniency in member states where the Pay Transparency Directive has been transposed into local law. At the time of writing, that includes Italy, Lithuania, Malta and Slovakia. Although, we note there have been partial transpositions elsewhere including Belgium (public sector only) and Poland.

Practically, even if employers are not ready for the specifics of engagement with workers’ representatives it will usually be worthwhile engaging in early discussions with them – albeit that may stop short of being formal consultation.

Q. What are the individual worker rights created by the Pay Transparency Directive?

The Pay Transparency Directive creates several new individual rights to pay transparency, including:

• A right for applicants to know the initial pay or pay range (and applicable CBA provisions) for the job sufficiently early to allow a transparency negotiation around pay.
• A right not to be asked by a prospective employer about current pay or pay history.
• A right for workers to know what criteria are used to determine and progress pay.
• A right to request pay information – including the average pay of men and women in the requester’s category.
• A ban on clauses preventing the disclosure of pay information (for the purpose of enforcing equal pay rights).

Note that the definition of pay here includes discretionary and variable pay. These new rights therefore look set to expose discretionary bonuses to greater scrutiny.

Q. Can we provide very broad pay ranges?

Providing very broad pay ranges to applicants for employment is unlikely to comply with the spirit of the Pay Transparency Directive or local transposing legislation.

A couple of member states have proposed to enact specific legislation or publish guidance on this point. Cyprus’ draft law proposes to introduce a 20% cap on the pay range spread. Similarly, Lithuania’s Labour Inspectorate provided recommended ranges which vary by job level.

However, even in places where no legislation or guidance addresses this question explicitly, there is reason to think carefully before publishing overly broad ranges. For example, when New York State imposed a requirement to advertise “good faith” salary ranges, several employers came in for media criticism for publishing overly broad ranges. Generally speaking, the US may be able to teach Europe some lessons about pay transparency.

Some argue that companies put themselves at a disadvantage by publishing a very wide range, as they could be unnecessarily deterring candidates by the low number while disappointing others who are not offered the highest.

Q. When providing pay ranges, can we refer to market pay ranges (e.g. those provided by trusted third parties) rather than providing a pay range that is informed by the pay levels at our business?

Providing a market pay range would not comply with the Pay Transparency Directive which gives applicants the right to “information about… pay… to be attributed for the position concerned”. Although the market pay range would presumably bear some relation to the actual pay range for the position the applicant has applied for, it would not be “the initial pay or its range” for the job.

Q. How are businesses determining what to use for calculating the pay range in the absence of final legislation? Is it only the base pay?

There is not much guidance available to employers in this regard, absent actual or draft transposing legislation. Practically, we are seeing employers in preparatory stages take a broadly consistent approach which is to rely on the broad definition of “pay” in the Pay Transparency Directive, set pay ranges according to base pay and then provide details of applicable variable pay details, benefits and their values.

Q. What are the penalties for not complying with the Pay Transparency Directive?

Sanctions for failing to report gender pay gaps or breaching the individual pay transparency rights vary by country, though the Pay Transparency Directive suggests they could be based on percentage of payroll or turnover. The Pay Transparency Directive makes clear, however, that a breach of these requirements is intended to shift the burden of proof to the employer in any equal pay claim. This means that, if a worker brings an equal pay claim against an employer that has failed to comply with a requirement of the Pay Transparency Directive, the employer will have to prove that there was no direct or indirect discrimination. There is an exception if the breach was “manifestly unintentional and of a minor character”. The Pay Transparency Directive also requires member states to ensure that equality bodies and other representative groups can bring equal pay claims on behalf of, or in support of, workers.

Q. Will employers apply the Pay Transparency Directive beyond the EU?

The EU likes to see itself as a global leader in regulation, setting the standards to be followed elsewhere, and it has certainly achieved a degree of success on that front (especially with the EU GDPR). It is reasonably likely that other legislators across the globe will adopt EU-style legislation on gender pay gap reporting.  For example, despite not being bound by the Pay Transparency Directive, Montenegro has enacted legislation aligning itself with its requirements.

Some multinationals have also started to choose to apply the requirements globally – including, for example, the salary history ban and practice of advertising pay ranges.

Q. Some people in the UK in my organisation are keen to go early on pay transparency. What advice would you have around this?

The Government in the UK is considering proposals to introduce increased pay transparency measures that would broadly align with the transparency requirements of the Pay Transparency Directive. We expect that these proposals will be formalised eventually although the precise details cannot be guaranteed.

Our general advice is not to introduce the worker right to pay information or “category” pay gap reporting at least until greater detail about a specific UK approach is available. Beyond those rights, whether it would be advisable to introduce standards of pay transparency exceeding the standards currently required by UK law will vary between employers. Although we know that some of our clients who moved to implement these measures before they were strictly required by the Pay Transparency Directive found themselves so well prepared that they were able to turn compliance into a good-news story.

Q. We are a multinational organisation. How do we take a consistent approach to assessing equal value of work where some countries rely on a CBA and others do not?

Generally, employers subject to CBAs must abide by their rules, but they are not necessarily required to use classification methodologies under those CBAs. Practically, employers may want to map their internal job classification onto CBA levels.

Italy, for example, has placed national CBAs at the centre of its equal value framework (without mandating their use). As we explained in our Italian insight, global grading models may still be relevant, but they should be reconciled carefully – where possible – with Italian bargaining structures.

Q. Is there a list of defined legally justifiable reasons for a pay gap by country?

The Pay Transparency Directive does not provide a closed list of justifiable reasons.

Recital 17 states that the principle of equal pay "does not preclude employers from paying workers performing the same work or work of equal value differently on the basis of objective, gender-neutral and bias-free criteria, such as performance and competence". Article 4(4) refers to objective gender-neutral criteria including skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions. Although these are primarily job evaluation factors, they apply equally to explaining pay determinations (although we are seeing slightly different formulations of this wording in both draft and final transposing legislation). Beyond citing performance and competence as examples, the Pay Transparency Directive itself is largely silent on specific justifications.

In short, there is no single statutory list of defined legally justifiable reasons that applies across or within countries. The position rests on a combination of the Pay Transparency Directive’s broad principle (objective, gender-neutral, bias-free criteria), ECJ case law, and emerging national transposition. We are seeing meaningful variations between jurisdictions. The most robust factors across all jurisdictions remain skills/training, responsibility, effort, working conditions, seniority (with caveats), competence and performance (if transparently and objectively measured).

Employers are being advised to document and justify each factor they rely upon, as the burden of proof will increasingly fall on them under the Pay Transparency Directive framework.

Q. What about direct effect? Does the Pay Transparency Directive apply even though it has not been transposed?

It depends.

For public sector employers or employing entities which are controlled or operated by or otherwise sufficiently connected to an “emanation of state”, a worker is likely to be able to rely on at least some parts of the Pay Transparency Directive, even in member states where transposing legislation has not been passed. The remainder of this response focuses on private sector employers.

The starting point in Article 288 of the TFEU is that the Pay Transparency Directive is only binding on a member state and is not directly applicable in the same way as regulations are. This means that private sector workers are largely unable to rely on the terms of a directive until it has been transposed into local law.

Nevertheless, over the years the ECJ has developed methods to extend some of the rights envisaged by directives to private parties, even where they have not been transposed. Although the Pay Transparency Directive does not have direct effect, there are some scenarios in which it could end up impacting private parties, including employers and workers. Those scenarios are that:

1. National courts are obliged to interpret existing laws in a way that is consistent with the Pay Transparency Directive to the greatest extent possible. This does not give direct effect to the Pay Transparency Directive, but it could indirectly lead to implementation of some of the rights or obligations envisaged by it, even where it has not been transposed. This is most relevant where a member state already has some legislation in the area being addressed by the Pay Transparency Directive.
2. If the Pay Transparency Directive crystallises rights encompassed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – and where the Charter right is sufficient in itself to confer a right (i.e. by being unconditional and not requiring further elaboration through implementing measures to be fully effective) – the clearer parts of the Pay Transparency Directive may be treated as detail on the application of an existing Charter right. Strictly, this would not give the Pay Transparency Directive direct effect because it would be the Charter right that has direct effect.
    
   The principle of equal pay including in the areas of “employment, work and pay” is codified in Article 23 of the Charter. Although we are not aware of any existing ECJ case law specifically confirming that Article 23 has direct effect, it is possible that it could. If it were, when read together with the Pay Transparency Directive, it is also possible that parts of the Pay Transparency Directive would be regarded as an articulation of Article 23 of the Charter.
3. By analogy, there may be an argument that some elements of the Pay Transparency Directive could impact private parties through Article 157 of the TFEU, instead of the Charter. Article 157 (formerly Article 119 EEC) contains the right to equal pay for male and female workers for equal work or work of equal value. The ECJ confirmed as long ago as 1976 that this has horizontal direct effect (i.e. it can be relied on between private parties including by a worker against their employer) in Defrenne No.2.
   
   Although most of the commentary in this area focuses on the Charter route (see point 2 above), we see no reason in principle why the same could not be said of an Article of the TFEU. This may in fact be the more likely route for elements of the Pay Transparency Directive to be applied against employers because unlike Article 23 of the Charter: (i) the ECJ has already confirmed Article 157 has direct effect; and (ii) the Pay Transparency Directive says in terms that it is passed “[h]aving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 157(3) thereof”.

In practice, the likelihood of this risk materialising is difficult to predict and will depend to some extent on the tradition and jurisprudence of the national courts in member states.

For more information on the Pay Transparency Directive’s requirements, visit our Pay Transparency Directive hub.