Legal Alert | Single Authorisation for third-country workers: notes on Directive (EU) 2024/1233

Background

Directive (EU) 2024/1233 of 24 April (Directive (EU) 2024/1233) has recast and replaced Directive 2011/98/EU of 13 December (Directive 2011/98/EU), establishing a single procedure for issuing a permit that simultaneously allows for residence and the pursuit of employment within the territory of a Member State, as well as the common set of rights applicable to third-country nationals lawfully residing there.

In accordance with Article 11(1), the single permit allows the holder to reside and work in the Member State that issued it, but does not confer a general right of access to the labour market of other Member States.

Key dates

• Adopted on 24 April 2024.
• Published on 30 April 2024.
• Deadline for transposition: 21 May 2026.
• Repeal of Directive 2011/98/EU and date of application: 22 May 2026.

Scope

Under Article 3, the Directive does not apply, amongst others, to family members of Union citizens exercising their rights to free movement, posted workers, intra-corporate transferees, seasonal workers, beneficiaries of temporary or international protection, long-term residents, self-employed persons and seafarers.

Ireland and Denmark did not take part in the adoption of the Directive and are not bound by it, as set out in recitals 51 and 52.

Main changes compared with Directive 2011/98/EU

1. Reduction in the time limit for a decision

Under the previous directive, the authority generally had four months; the new directive sets out, in Article 5(2), a maximum time limit of 90 days, which must include any assessment of the labour market situation. In exceptional and duly justified cases relating to the complexity of the application, the time limit may be extended by an additional 30 days, in accordance with Article 8(3).

2. Possibility of submitting the application within the territory of the Member State

Pursuant to Article 4(1), the application may be submitted by the third-country national themselves or by the employer; it is for each Member State to determine which of these approaches it adopts, and it may also allow for both options.

A significant change stems from Article 4(2): Member States must allow the application to be submitted within their territory where the person concerned already holds a valid residence permit. They may also allow the application to be submitted by other persons lawfully present in the territory, even if they do not hold a residence permit.

Thus, the mandatory right to submit the application from within the national territory applies, at the very least, to those holding a valid residence permit; as regards other foreign nationals lawfully present, the Directive leaves the decision to the national legislature.

3. Right to change employer

One of the most significant changes is the express recognition of the right to change employer during the period of validity of the permit, in accordance with Article 11(2).

This means that the single permit is no longer strictly tied to a single employer; Member States may make such a change subject only to specific conditions, and no longer to a completely new procedure. This measure seeks to reduce the worker’s dependence and the risk of labour exploitation.

4. Protection in the event of unemployment

The loss of a job will no longer automatically lead to the withdrawal of the permit. In accordance with Article 11(4), a worker may remain unemployed for at least three months, or for six months if they have held the permit for more than two years, provided that the permit remains valid. For periods of unemployment exceeding three months, Member States may require proof of sufficient resources.

5. Strengthening of monitoring and protection against labour abuses

Articles 13 and 14 introduce stricter monitoring mechanisms and sanctions for abuses by employers, including inspections and an explicit right for workers to lodge a complaint, either directly or through third parties.

Under Article 13, Member States must prevent abuses and sanction violations committed by employers, in particular through:

• Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.
• Labour inspections, particularly in sectors where there is a higher risk of violations.
• Effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions.
• Access for the competent authorities and organisations representing workers to the workplace and, with the worker’s consent, to accommodation provided by the employer.

Article 14 requires effective mechanisms enabling workers to lodge a complaint directly, through third parties with a legitimate interest or, where provided for under national law, with a competent authority. Trade unions, associations and other organisations may, with the worker’s consent, intervene on their behalf or in their support in administrative and judicial proceedings.

6. Information, transparency and procedural safeguards

Article 8 requires that decisions to refuse, amend or withdraw a permit must be duly reasoned and notified in writing, specifying the available means of appeal, the competent authority or court and the relevant time limits.

Articles 9 and 16 require Member States to provide up-to-date, clear and accessible information on the necessary documents, the conditions for entry and residence, the applicable fees, the rights and obligations of workers and employers, procedural safeguards and the organisations that can provide assistance to workers.

7. Equal treatment

Although the principle of equal treatment already exists in Directive 2011/98/EU, particularly with regard to wages, working hours, health and safety, education and training, recognition of qualifications, social security and tax benefits, the new directive, under Article 12, seeks to consolidate this principle and make it more effective through information, monitoring, sanctions and access to justice.

The situation in Portugal

In accordance with Article 18(1) of Directive 2024/1233, Member States were required to have adopted and published transposition measures by 21 May 2026. Portugal did not complete the transposition within that deadline.

The Government tabled Draft Law No. 75/XVII/1, which aims, amongst other objectives, to transpose Directive (EU) 2024/1233; the bill was tabled in the Assembly of the Republic on 12 May 2026, just nine days before the expiry of the transposition deadline set out in Article 18(1) of the Directive. The bill was approved in principle on 12 June 2026 and was referred, on that same date, to the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, Rights, Freedoms and Guarantees for detailed consideration.

In its initial text, the Bill provided that an application for a residence permit could be submitted by the applicant, their legal representative or their employer, in accordance with the proposed amendment to Article 81(1) of Law No 23/2007 of 4 July; it established a 90-day deadline for a decision, extendable exceptionally by a further 30 days, in accordance with Article 82(5); it stipulated that the notification of rejection must state the grounds for the decision, the right to judicial review and the time limit for exercising that right, in accordance with Article 82(8); and allowed the holder of a residence permit for the purpose of professional activity to change employer by notifying AIMA, without the need for a new permit to be issued, in accordance with Article 88(8).

These provisions are set out only in the text of the legislative proposal and may be amended during parliamentary scrutiny.

Legal consequences of failing to meet the deadline

• The European Commission may bring infringement proceedings against Portugal under Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and the proceedings may, as a last resort, result in the imposition of financial penalties by the TFEU.
• Direct effect: provisions of the directive that are sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional may be relied upon by individuals directly against the Portuguese State. This possibility stems, in particular, from the judgments in Ratti, Case 148/78, paragraphs 22 to 24 (available at: EUR-Lex) and Marshall, Case 152/84, paragraphs 46 to 49 (available at: EUR-Lex). Furthermore, in accordance with the Costanzo judgment, Case 103/88, paragraph 31 (available at: EUR-Lex), the administrative authorities themselves must apply the directly effective provisions of a directive and set aside, in proceedings falling within their jurisdiction, any incompatible national rules.

NOTE: Conversely, a directive does not, as a rule, have direct horizontal effect and cannot, on its own, impose a new obligation on a purely private employer, as established by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the Marshall judgment, Case 152/84, paragraph 48. In a dispute between private individuals, an interpretation in accordance with national law must first be sought. Where such an interpretation is not possible and the failure to transpose the directive has caused damage, the State may be held liable, provided that the conditions set out in the Francovich and Bonifaci judgment, joined cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 (available at: EUR-Lex), are met, namely that the directive confers rights, that the content of those rights can be determined, and that there is a causal link between the State’s failure to fulfil its obligations and the damage suffered.