![\"Recruitment](\"https:\/\/europeanobsndfr.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/Vignette-publication-analytical-note.png\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n\nPurpose and scope<\/h3>\n
This note stems from work carried out in February 2025 in connection with the contribution of the Migration Committee of the Conference of INGOs of the Council of Europe to the consultation of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, devoted to migrant domestic workers. It develops one issue identified in that context: the role of private recruitment and placement agencies in risks of exploitation, forced labour, domestic servitude and trafficking in human beings.<\/p>\n
The sector combines several risk factors: isolation in a private household, dependence on the employer or recruiter, recruitment fees and indebtedness, contract substitution, retention of identity documents, restrictions on mobility, and difficulties in accessing complaint mechanisms. The ILO notes that, depending on their combination and severity, such practices may contribute to situations of forced labour or trafficking.<\/p>\n
This note distinguishes three normative levels: (i) States’ positive obligations under Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights; (ii) treaty obligations relating to prevention, protection and remedy under the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings; and (iii) standards of conduct and due diligence arising from CM\/Rec(2016)3, the United Nations Guiding Principles and ILO guidance. The recommendations below are OENDDF public-policy proposals; they are not presented as obligations already imposed, as such, by the Court’s case-law.<\/p>\n
Origin of the work<\/h4>\n
As Chair of the Committee on Migration Issues of the Conference of INGOs of the Council of Europe, Christine Monty coordinated and drafted, in February 2025, the Committee’s contribution to this consultation, drawing in particular on field observations submitted by RENATE (Religious in Europe Networking Against Trafficking and Exploitation), a member of the Committee.<\/p>\n
It examines more specifically how States’ positive obligations to prevent exploitation and trafficking can be articulated with business and human rights standards, particularly human rights due diligence, in order to better regulate economic intermediaries involved in the recruitment of migrant domestic workers.<\/p>\n
The normative framework<\/h3>\nArticle 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights<\/h4>\n
The case-law of the European Court of Human Rights requires States, within the scope of Article 4, to put in place an adequate legislative and administrative framework, to take operational protective measures in certain circumstances, and to conduct an effective investigation where there are credible suspicions of trafficking, servitude or forced labour.<\/p>\n
In Siliadin v. France (2005), the Court found that the criminal-law framework applicable at the time had failed to provide practical and effective protection against domestic servitude. In Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia (2010), it confirmed that trafficking in human beings falls within the scope of Article 4: it found, in particular, failures by Cyprus in relation to the protective framework and the investigation, and by Russia in relation to the procedural obligation to investigate certain aspects of recruitment that had occurred on its territory. In Chowdury and Others v. Greece (2017), concerning migrant workers exploited in agriculture by private employers, the Court found that the State had failed to comply with its positive obligations of prevention, protection and investigation. These judgments shed light on States’ responsibility in the face of risks of exploitation created or aggravated by private actors; they do not, in themselves, establish direct corporate liability under the Convention.<\/p>\n
Warsaw Convention, GRETA and human rights due diligence<\/h4>\n
The Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (CETS No. 197) establishes a specific framework for prevention, identification, victim protection, investigation and remedy, the implementation of which is monitored by GRETA. GRETA’s work regularly documents risks linked to recruitment agencies, visas or permits tying workers to a particular employer, and passport retention.<\/p>\n
CM\/Rec(2016)3, for its part, seeks to promote the European implementation of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Under those Principles, human rights due diligence should cover not only impacts that an enterprise causes or contributes to, but also those directly linked to its operations, products or services through its business relationships. Depending on the specific relationship concerned, a recruitment agency or other intermediary may therefore fall within the due-diligence analysis of an end employer, platform or other contracting entity. This is an analytical application of the Guiding Principles framework, not an automatic characterisation of every recruitment relationship.<\/p>\n
Priority findings<\/h3>\n\n- Contract substitution or substantial changes to conditions agreed before departure;<\/li>\n
- Recruitment fees or related costs borne by the worker, which may lead to indebtedness and increase dependency;<\/li>\n
- Insufficient licensing, oversight or traceability of certain recruitment intermediaries;<\/li>\n
- Retention or confiscation of passports and other identity documents;<\/li>\n
- Residence permits or sponsorship arrangements that make changing employer difficult and may increase vulnerability;<\/li>\n
- Limited access to labour inspection, information, complaint mechanisms and effective remedy, particularly where work is performed in a private household.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Eight priorities for closing the gap<\/h3>\n\n- Explicitly include recruitment intermediaries in human rights due diligence analysis<\/strong> \u2014 Encourage States and businesses to treat recruitment agencies, sub-agents and other intermediaries as business relationships to be examined where they are directly linked to the operations or services concerned. The aim is to identify risks upstream, prevent abuse and monitor corrective measures, in line with the approach of the United Nations Guiding Principles and CM\/Rec(2016)3.<\/li>\n
- Strengthen agency licensing, oversight and transparency<\/strong> \u2014 Establish or strengthen effective licensing systems, periodic oversight and proportionate sanctions. A public and easily accessible register of authorised agencies \u2014 and, where national law permits, of licence suspensions or withdrawals \u2014 would facilitate verification by workers, employers and contracting entities.<\/li>\n
- Make the principle \u201cthe recruiter does not charge the worker\u201d the benchmark<\/strong> \u2014 Align national frameworks and contractual practices with the ILO principle that recruitment fees and related costs should not be borne directly or indirectly by workers. Provide restitution or remedy mechanisms where prohibited or abusive fees have been charged, without presenting as universal a retroactive reimbursement obligation that depends on applicable law.<\/li>\n
- Ensure the integrity and traceability of the employment contract<\/strong> \u2014 Require essential terms and conditions to be provided before departure, in a language understood by the worker and in a verifiable form, and establish measures to detect and sanction contract substitution. The end employer should be able to trace the intermediaries used and verify the conditions actually offered to the worker.<\/li>\n
- Reduce structural dependence on a single employer<\/strong> \u2014 Review visa, permit or sponsorship arrangements that prevent or make it excessively difficult to change employer. ILO guidance recommends that migrant workers should not be required to obtain the employer’s or recruiter’s permission to change employer; GRETA has also highlighted the risks that certain dependency arrangements may create.<\/li>\n
- Create a periodic, personal and confidential contact point<\/strong> \u2014 For categories of particularly isolated workers, provide a periodic mechanism to verify that the person freely retains his or her identity documents and can speak outside the presence of the employer or recruiter. Depending on the national context, this check could be carried out by a consular authority, labour administration or authorised independent body. The French model applicable to certain domestic employees of diplomatic staff \u2014 in-person issuance and renewal of the permit following an individual interview, together with a reminder that the worker must retain free possession of his or her passport \u2014 is an interesting practice to consider. Such a measure should never, however, require contact with the authorities of the country of origin where this could expose the person to risk, particularly refugees or asylum seekers.<\/li>\n
- Strengthen effective access to complaints, inspection and remedy<\/strong> \u2014 Develop complaint mechanisms that are accessible, confidential and understandable, and independent of migration status where the law permits, and ensure effective avenues of remedy. For domestic work performed in private households, inspection arrangements must reconcile protection against exploitation with safeguards applicable to the home and with national legislation.<\/li>\n
- Develop a European sector-specific human rights due diligence tool<\/strong> \u2014 Develop, as a follow-up to CM\/Rec(2016)3 and in coordination with the work of GRETA and the ILO, a practical tool for States, employers, platforms and agencies: risk mapping, intermediary verification, fee controls, contract integrity, retention of identity documents, warning indicators, complaint mechanisms and monitoring of corrective measures.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Conclusion<\/h3>\n
Recruitment is not merely an administrative step preceding the employment relationship. In sectors where workers are isolated and dependent on intermediaries, it is a decisive link in preventing trafficking, servitude and forced labour. A business and human rights approach makes it possible to shift part of the focus towards the commercial practices that shape risk: selection of intermediaries, fees, contracts, identity documents, mobility and access to remedy.<\/p>\n
The aim is not to transfer to businesses the treaty obligations incumbent on States, but to articulate more effectively the State duty to protect with the corporate responsibility to respect human rights and to exercise human rights due diligence appropriate to the risks. Migrant domestic work is, in this respect, a relevant sector in which to develop more operational European guidance.<\/p>\n
Legal and documentary references<\/h3>\n\n- Council of Europe<\/strong> \u2014 Recommendation CM\/Rec(2016)3 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on human rights and business<\/a>, 2 March 2016.<\/li>\n
- European Court of Human Rights<\/strong> \u2014 Guide on Article 4 of the Convention \u2014 Prohibition of slavery and forced labour<\/a>; key theme \u201cDomestic servitude\u201d (updated 28 February 2026).<\/li>\n
- ECtHR<\/strong> \u2014 Siliadin v. France, no. 73316\/01<\/a>, 26 July 2005; Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia<\/a>, no. 25965\/04, 7 January 2010; Chowdury and Others v. Greece, no. 21884\/15,<\/a> 30 March 2017.<\/li>\n
- Council of Europe<\/strong> \u2014 Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (CETS No. 197)<\/a> and GRETA’s work.<\/li>\n
- GRETA<\/strong> \u2014 Report concerning France: practice of individual interviews and in-person renewal for certain domestic employees of diplomatic staff, with a requirement that the worker retain free possession of his or her passport.<\/a><\/li>\n
- GRETA<\/strong> \u2014 Evaluation report on Romania (2025)<\/a>: passport retention and the need to better regulate and monitor agencies recruiting migrant workers.<\/li>\n
- United Nations \u2014 OHCHR<\/strong> \u2014 Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights<\/a>, in particular Principles 13 and 17 on business relationships and human rights due diligence.<\/li>\n
- ILO<\/strong> \u2014 General principles and operational guidelines for fair recruitment and Definition of recruitment fees and related costs<\/a>, 2019.<\/li>\n
- ILO<\/strong> \u2014 Ensuring fair recruitment for migrant care workers, Thematic Note, 2024<\/a>.<\/li>\n
- ILO<\/strong> \u2014 Helpdesk: Questions and answers on business and labour migration<\/a>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Methodological note<\/h3>\n
The legal and documentary references have been checked. The proposals in the section \u201cEight priorities\u201d are OENDDF recommendations based on a cross-reading of the sources cited. Where a proposal goes beyond a legal obligation expressly set out in those sources \u2014 in particular the periodic confidential check mechanism \u2014 it is presented as a public-policy option rather than as a statement of positive law.<\/p>\n
📄 Download the full analysis note (PDF)<\/a><\/h3>\nAnalysis note prepared by Christine Monty for the European Observatory for Non-Discrimination and Fundamental Rights (OENDDF) \u2014 September 2026.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n
Eight priorities for closing the gap<\/h3>\n\n- Explicitly include recruitment intermediaries in human rights due diligence analysis<\/strong> \u2014 Encourage States and businesses to treat recruitment agencies, sub-agents and other intermediaries as business relationships to be examined where they are directly linked to the operations or services concerned. The aim is to identify risks upstream, prevent abuse and monitor corrective measures, in line with the approach of the United Nations Guiding Principles and CM\/Rec(2016)3.<\/li>\n
- Strengthen agency licensing, oversight and transparency<\/strong> \u2014 Establish or strengthen effective licensing systems, periodic oversight and proportionate sanctions. A public and easily accessible register of authorised agencies \u2014 and, where national law permits, of licence suspensions or withdrawals \u2014 would facilitate verification by workers, employers and contracting entities.<\/li>\n
- Make the principle \u201cthe recruiter does not charge the worker\u201d the benchmark<\/strong> \u2014 Align national frameworks and contractual practices with the ILO principle that recruitment fees and related costs should not be borne directly or indirectly by workers. Provide restitution or remedy mechanisms where prohibited or abusive fees have been charged, without presenting as universal a retroactive reimbursement obligation that depends on applicable law.<\/li>\n
- Ensure the integrity and traceability of the employment contract<\/strong> \u2014 Require essential terms and conditions to be provided before departure, in a language understood by the worker and in a verifiable form, and establish measures to detect and sanction contract substitution. The end employer should be able to trace the intermediaries used and verify the conditions actually offered to the worker.<\/li>\n
- Reduce structural dependence on a single employer<\/strong> \u2014 Review visa, permit or sponsorship arrangements that prevent or make it excessively difficult to change employer. ILO guidance recommends that migrant workers should not be required to obtain the employer’s or recruiter’s permission to change employer; GRETA has also highlighted the risks that certain dependency arrangements may create.<\/li>\n
- Create a periodic, personal and confidential contact point<\/strong> \u2014 For categories of particularly isolated workers, provide a periodic mechanism to verify that the person freely retains his or her identity documents and can speak outside the presence of the employer or recruiter. Depending on the national context, this check could be carried out by a consular authority, labour administration or authorised independent body. The French model applicable to certain domestic employees of diplomatic staff \u2014 in-person issuance and renewal of the permit following an individual interview, together with a reminder that the worker must retain free possession of his or her passport \u2014 is an interesting practice to consider. Such a measure should never, however, require contact with the authorities of the country of origin where this could expose the person to risk, particularly refugees or asylum seekers.<\/li>\n
- Strengthen effective access to complaints, inspection and remedy<\/strong> \u2014 Develop complaint mechanisms that are accessible, confidential and understandable, and independent of migration status where the law permits, and ensure effective avenues of remedy. For domestic work performed in private households, inspection arrangements must reconcile protection against exploitation with safeguards applicable to the home and with national legislation.<\/li>\n
- Develop a European sector-specific human rights due diligence tool<\/strong> \u2014 Develop, as a follow-up to CM\/Rec(2016)3 and in coordination with the work of GRETA and the ILO, a practical tool for States, employers, platforms and agencies: risk mapping, intermediary verification, fee controls, contract integrity, retention of identity documents, warning indicators, complaint mechanisms and monitoring of corrective measures.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Conclusion<\/h3>\n
Recruitment is not merely an administrative step preceding the employment relationship. In sectors where workers are isolated and dependent on intermediaries, it is a decisive link in preventing trafficking, servitude and forced labour. A business and human rights approach makes it possible to shift part of the focus towards the commercial practices that shape risk: selection of intermediaries, fees, contracts, identity documents, mobility and access to remedy.<\/p>\n
The aim is not to transfer to businesses the treaty obligations incumbent on States, but to articulate more effectively the State duty to protect with the corporate responsibility to respect human rights and to exercise human rights due diligence appropriate to the risks. Migrant domestic work is, in this respect, a relevant sector in which to develop more operational European guidance.<\/p>\n
Legal and documentary references<\/h3>\n\n- Council of Europe<\/strong> \u2014 Recommendation CM\/Rec(2016)3 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on human rights and business<\/a>, 2 March 2016.<\/li>\n
- European Court of Human Rights<\/strong> \u2014 Guide on Article 4 of the Convention \u2014 Prohibition of slavery and forced labour<\/a>; key theme \u201cDomestic servitude\u201d (updated 28 February 2026).<\/li>\n
- ECtHR<\/strong> \u2014 Siliadin v. France, no. 73316\/01<\/a>, 26 July 2005; Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia<\/a>, no. 25965\/04, 7 January 2010; Chowdury and Others v. Greece, no. 21884\/15,<\/a> 30 March 2017.<\/li>\n
- Council of Europe<\/strong> \u2014 Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (CETS No. 197)<\/a> and GRETA’s work.<\/li>\n
- GRETA<\/strong> \u2014 Report concerning France: practice of individual interviews and in-person renewal for certain domestic employees of diplomatic staff, with a requirement that the worker retain free possession of his or her passport.<\/a><\/li>\n
- GRETA<\/strong> \u2014 Evaluation report on Romania (2025)<\/a>: passport retention and the need to better regulate and monitor agencies recruiting migrant workers.<\/li>\n
- United Nations \u2014 OHCHR<\/strong> \u2014 Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights<\/a>, in particular Principles 13 and 17 on business relationships and human rights due diligence.<\/li>\n
- ILO<\/strong> \u2014 General principles and operational guidelines for fair recruitment and Definition of recruitment fees and related costs<\/a>, 2019.<\/li>\n
- ILO<\/strong> \u2014 Ensuring fair recruitment for migrant care workers, Thematic Note, 2024<\/a>.<\/li>\n
- ILO<\/strong> \u2014 Helpdesk: Questions and answers on business and labour migration<\/a>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Methodological note<\/h3>\n
The legal and documentary references have been checked. The proposals in the section \u201cEight priorities\u201d are OENDDF recommendations based on a cross-reading of the sources cited. Where a proposal goes beyond a legal obligation expressly set out in those sources \u2014 in particular the periodic confidential check mechanism \u2014 it is presented as a public-policy option rather than as a statement of positive law.<\/p>\n
📄 Download the full analysis note (PDF)<\/a><\/h3>\nAnalysis note prepared by Christine Monty for the European Observatory for Non-Discrimination and Fundamental Rights (OENDDF) \u2014 September 2026.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n
Conclusion<\/h3>\n
Recruitment is not merely an administrative step preceding the employment relationship. In sectors where workers are isolated and dependent on intermediaries, it is a decisive link in preventing trafficking, servitude and forced labour. A business and human rights approach makes it possible to shift part of the focus towards the commercial practices that shape risk: selection of intermediaries, fees, contracts, identity documents, mobility and access to remedy.<\/p>\n
The aim is not to transfer to businesses the treaty obligations incumbent on States, but to articulate more effectively the State duty to protect with the corporate responsibility to respect human rights and to exercise human rights due diligence appropriate to the risks. Migrant domestic work is, in this respect, a relevant sector in which to develop more operational European guidance.<\/p>\n
Legal and documentary references<\/h3>\n\n- Council of Europe<\/strong> \u2014 Recommendation CM\/Rec(2016)3 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on human rights and business<\/a>, 2 March 2016.<\/li>\n
- European Court of Human Rights<\/strong> \u2014 Guide on Article 4 of the Convention \u2014 Prohibition of slavery and forced labour<\/a>; key theme \u201cDomestic servitude\u201d (updated 28 February 2026).<\/li>\n
- ECtHR<\/strong> \u2014 Siliadin v. France, no. 73316\/01<\/a>, 26 July 2005; Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia<\/a>, no. 25965\/04, 7 January 2010; Chowdury and Others v. Greece, no. 21884\/15,<\/a> 30 March 2017.<\/li>\n
- Council of Europe<\/strong> \u2014 Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (CETS No. 197)<\/a> and GRETA’s work.<\/li>\n
- GRETA<\/strong> \u2014 Report concerning France: practice of individual interviews and in-person renewal for certain domestic employees of diplomatic staff, with a requirement that the worker retain free possession of his or her passport.<\/a><\/li>\n
- GRETA<\/strong> \u2014 Evaluation report on Romania (2025)<\/a>: passport retention and the need to better regulate and monitor agencies recruiting migrant workers.<\/li>\n
- United Nations \u2014 OHCHR<\/strong> \u2014 Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights<\/a>, in particular Principles 13 and 17 on business relationships and human rights due diligence.<\/li>\n
- ILO<\/strong> \u2014 General principles and operational guidelines for fair recruitment and Definition of recruitment fees and related costs<\/a>, 2019.<\/li>\n
- ILO<\/strong> \u2014 Ensuring fair recruitment for migrant care workers, Thematic Note, 2024<\/a>.<\/li>\n
- ILO<\/strong> \u2014 Helpdesk: Questions and answers on business and labour migration<\/a>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Methodological note<\/h3>\n
The legal and documentary references have been checked. The proposals in the section \u201cEight priorities\u201d are OENDDF recommendations based on a cross-reading of the sources cited. Where a proposal goes beyond a legal obligation expressly set out in those sources \u2014 in particular the periodic confidential check mechanism \u2014 it is presented as a public-policy option rather than as a statement of positive law.<\/p>\n
📄 Download the full analysis note (PDF)<\/a><\/h3>\nAnalysis note prepared by Christine Monty for the European Observatory for Non-Discrimination and Fundamental Rights (OENDDF) \u2014 September 2026.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n
Methodological note<\/h3>\n
The legal and documentary references have been checked. The proposals in the section \u201cEight priorities\u201d are OENDDF recommendations based on a cross-reading of the sources cited. Where a proposal goes beyond a legal obligation expressly set out in those sources \u2014 in particular the periodic confidential check mechanism \u2014 it is presented as a public-policy option rather than as a statement of positive law.<\/p>\n