Changes from report parliamentary committee draft to plenary report

The Commission’s proposed revision aims to facilitate mobility by ensuring that individuals do not lose their rights when moving within Europe (EU, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland) and to ensure the continuity of social security when moving from one national legislation to another.

The Commission is seeking to change three aspects of the coordination of unemployment benefits:

(1) Extending the period for exporting unemployment benefits from three to six months, with the option for Member States to extend the period until the rights are extinguished. The rapporteur supports this proposal and proposes extending the exporting period until the entitlement to unemployment benefit expires. According to a study carried out for the Commission, a longer unemployment benefit export period increases the chances of an unemployed person finding a job.

(2) The job seeker’s Member State of last activity will have to take account of insurance periods completed elsewhere if the job seeker worked in that country for at least three months. Otherwise, it is the Member State where the job seeker previously pursued his or her activity which will have to pay those benefits. The current situation is quite confusing for the Member States’ competent institutions. The rapporteur would point out that one of the basic principles of this legislation is aggregation, which is why he proposes reducing to one month the minimum activity period before aggregation in the Member State of last activity.

(3) Finally, in the case of cross-border workers the Member State of last employment will be required to pay unemployment benefits if the cross-border worker worked there for at least 12 months. Under the current rules, the Member State of residence is competent, even though cross-border workers pay social security contributions in the country of activity.

It seems legitimate for the country receiving the social security contributions also to be responsible for paying unemployment benefits. However, the rapporteur would like to see clarifications regarding these provisions so that the changes proposed by the Commission do not create practical, administrative, linguistic or training difficulties, as well as clarifications regarding the competence of the public employment service.

The Commission proposes creating a specific chapter on long-term care based on the approach taken for sickness benefits. While the rapporteur is in principle in favour of this initiative, he would like the Administrative Commission to work more closely with representatives of the social partners, professional organisations and beneficiaries concerned, particularly on drawing up the list of benefits covered under this new chapter.

The proposal aims to incorporate recent Court of Justice case-law on the conditions of access to social security benefits of economically inactive mobile citizens. The rapporteur notes the case-law but considers that it is not the task of EU legislators to codify decisions taken by the Court.

The rapporteur also supports the Commission in its intention to standardise the issuance procedures, format and content of portable documents certifying membership of a social security scheme and to specify the situations in which such a document is issued and the procedures for its withdrawal when its accuracy and validity is contested by the institution of the Member State of employment. He proposes enhancing cooperation between the competent authorities and considers that the principle of sincere cooperation should be strengthened by laying down shorter response times, and also that the lack of a response should entail responsibility shifting between the competent authorities.

In order to optimise exchanges between administrations and to protect those covered by the regulations, he supports the setting up of new arrangements (e.g. the Crossroads Bank for Social Security) and an operational electronic network linking social security institutions (European social security e-card and number), and wold like to see the digitisation of the documents covered by the regulations.

The rapporteur also considers it essential to clarify the regulatory framework applicable to posted workers (obligatory minimum period of membership of the social security scheme of the posting state, issuance of the portable document before the start of the posting, etc.), self-employed workers and people engaged in multiple activities.

Finally, the rapporteur opposes the indexation of family benefits in the place of residence of the children: even if the data are incomplete and do not cover all the countries affected by the coordination regulation, less than 1% of total family allowances are paid to children residing in a Member State other than that in which their parent or parents work. In that context, an indexation system which localised and updated the amount of benefits depending on the place of residence of the children would involve setting up a complex and costly system having implications for public finances.

The rapporteur hopes that the discussions on the revision of the coordination regulations moves away from posturing and accusations of ‘benefit tourism’, ‘widespread fraud’ and ‘disguised protectionism’. This revision must ensure the continuity of citizens’ social rights, while promoting efficient mobility in Europe.