Income supplementation benefits aim to provide additional financial support to low-income municipal residents for expenses insufficiently covered by their primary income sources. In the Netherlands, the non-take-up of these benefits is particularly high and relatively underexamined. This study investigates factors influencing the decision not to claim income supplementation benefits, by surveying approximately 3500 low-income residents of a Dutch municipality. Using hypothetical scenarios where all participants are considered potentially eligible for certain local welfare benefits, the research explores the impact of shared scheme characteristics, trust in government, and the fear of reclaims and fines. The findings reveal that stringent requirements, such as extensive proof of financial need and restrictions on spending autonomy, are likely barriers to participation. Additionally, a lack of trust in the government and concerns about potential reclaims or penalties further discourage participation. These insights underscore the need for policies to improve the accessibility of income supplementation schemes.

The Union recognises and respects the right to lead a life in dignity (Article 25 Charter of Fundamental rights). This right, it is argued, not only requires an adequate income protection, but also addresses the conditions under which this is provided. In view of the conditions that are often linked to minimum income schemes for the elderly—waiting periods, entitlement to other pensions, calculation rules, means tests, restrictions on the possibilities to move abroad—we studied the minimum income schemes for the elderly of nine EU Member States in order to examine how they work out for persons who have been insured in more than one Member State and those who move to another country after retirement. It appears that minimum income protection sometimes has to be claimed from more than one scheme, that the conditions and calculation rules are extremely complicated, and that frequently the relationship with coordination rules for social security is unclear or even ignored. It is also hard to understand the need for the distinction between the schemes. It is argued, on the basis of these findings, that minimum income schemes for the elderly need particular attention from EU institutions and Member States, because of their present lack of transparency, the problematic coordination of national schemes, the impact on the possibilities of free movement and the (probable) problems with take-up. The article thus wants to contribute to the further development of the concept of living in dignity and provides materials for elaborating the Council recommendations on minimum income and on access to social protection.

Modern cases of global mobility cause legal ambiguities as to which conflict rules to apply to govern the applicable social security legislation. Relevant to this end is the question of whether the situation is governed by the lex loci laboris principle, the posting provision, or the rules on normal work in two or more Member States under EC Regulation 883/2004. Each of these three legal mechanisms must be distinguished from each other. First, this article proposes a structure for handling such distinctions. Secondly, it discusses how these distinctions are made. It is concluded that the posting provision has a wide scope of applicability whereas the scope of applicability of the rules on normal work in two or more Member States has been narrowed. On the basis of the legal description, this article analyses a catalogue of standard cases of modern mobility for which it is not clear whether the posting rules or the rules on normal work in two or more Member States apply. As the tendency drives towards temporary global mobility setups, a starting point is that the posting rule applies. The article concludes that the current EU rules on the applicable social security legislation have substantial flexibility for managing new cases of global mobility.

This article aims to investigate the persuasive power of immigration on people's attitudes towards a universal basic income (UBI). We use a survey experiment in which respondents, after being asked about their immediate reaction to the idea of introducing an unconditional basic income, are confronted with a counterargument referring to immigration. The experiment was undertaken in November 2021 as part of the Norwegian Citizen Panel, a representative research-purpose internet panel, and replicates a similar survey experiment carried out among Norwegian voters in 2003. In the previous study, a large share of the respondents abandoned their initial position when exposed to counterarguments referring to immigration. The results of the present experiment confirm that immigration has substantial persuasive power as a counterargument among initial supporters of a UBI, also in the contemporary Norwegian context. Contrary to the previous study, we find a strong negative relationship between scepticism about immigration and the propensity to initially support a UBI proposal, but – as in the previous study – we find that having negative attitudes towards immigration is strongly associated with a tendency to abandon an initially supportive stance. Our findings give support to the core of the so-called ‘progressive's dilemma’: that immigration may erode support for ambitious welfare policies, particularly among traditionally pro-welfare state segments of the electorate.

This case law report (January-June 2024) discusses six cases before the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: ECtHR) and one case before the European Committee of Social Rights (hereinafter: ECSR). 1 The first case ( O.R. v. Greece) concerned the lack of protection of an unaccompanied minor seeking international protection by the Greek government, in violation of the prohibition of torture in Article 3 ECHR. The second and fourth cases concerned possible violations of the right to a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR ( Bernotas v. Lithuania and Đurić v. Serbia), the applicant complained about the unfairness of the administrative and judicial review procedures. The third case, Shylina v. Ukraine, concerned the question of whether the obligation for a payment of social security benefits to a specific bank account at the Ukrainian State Bank violated the right to property under Article 1 Additional Protocol ECHR (hereinafter: AP ECHR). The case of Diaconeasa v. Romania concerned the withdrawal of support for a physically disabled person. The last case before the ECtHR that will be discussed in this case law report is B.T. v. Russia. In this case, the Court had to review the difference in treatment between men and women with regard to parental leave for police officers in the light of the prohibition of discrimination under Article 14 ECHR. This case law report only discusses one case before the ECSR. In collective complaint 187/2019, the ECSR had to review the reduction of survivor's benefits in Italy in the event of cumulation with other income with several provisions of the European Social Charter.

The rights to social security and social assistance are protected by the European Social Charter and its quasi-judicial body, the European Committee of Social Rights. Less is known about the precise content of these rights. Following a decision, published on 15 February 2023, on a collective complaint lodged by the Finnish Society of Social Rights, an NGO, this paper proposes to critically question the positive content given by the Committee to these rights, when it attaches – and even assimilates – certain legal requirements to one specific social indicator, the poverty threshold, defined restrictively.