Coordination Of Social Security Systems Research Articles

Basic Principles of European Social Security Coordination based on Regulation (EC) 883/2004

This article discusses the importance of free movement and the coordinating social law of the European Union (EU) inensuring that people who move between EU Member States are not left without social security coverage. The articleexplains that the EU does not have a uniform or common social law and that the responsibility for social policy primar-ily lies with the Member States. The coordinating social law of the EU is limited to the coordination of the various socialsecurity systems of the Member States. The article further explains that the coordination of social security systems isessential for the success of European integration and emphasises that the EU Member States are bound by both thebasic Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and the implementing Regulation (EC) No 987/2009. After a primary law derivationof the social law coordination, the article explains the scope of application and the key principles of Regulation (EC)883/2004. This is followed by a discussion of the Regulation’s conflict-of-law rules, which take precedence over nationalprovisions.

Klassvillkorad rörlighet inom EU

In this article, we are addressing the issue of European labour mobility and show that the concept of class is embedded in the EU social policy framework. If EU provides common rules to protect mobile citizens’ social security rights when moving within Europe in order to promote social cohesion and equality, they resulted in new legal boundaries within Europe between the ones who are protected by law and the ones who are excluded. Thus, the legal framework led to a situation in which law does not apply anymore on the basis of national sovereignty but on the basis of enclaves attached to individuals. Citizens become somehow extraterritorial (embodied boundaries). The analysis of EU policy documents related to the coordination of social security systems and the investigation of the Swedish national regulations for implementation of free mobility, enable us to show that European free mobility is not a space facilitating free movement for everyone and that citizens might be bordered out depending on their class belonging. We argue that the legal framework has led to a policy of illegalization: the EU social framework far from protecting Europeans workers, has favoured market predation and the emergence of a new social class of citizens dispossessed of their social rights.

Health care services in the European Union – and Hungarian practice

The functioning of the single market is guaranteed by four principles. Under one of them, the free movement of people, EU citizens and their family members can settle down, work and study in the territory of another EU Member State. As the design and operation of social security systems fall within the exclusive competence of the Member States, the enforcement of the coordination between the various social security systems in the Member States is the task of the European Union in order to enforce the rights of EU citizens, thus providing the smooth operation of the free movement of people. Due to the coordination regulation, EU citizens have the right to use the healthcare service of another Member State at the expense of the social security system of the country where the contributions are paid. The study presents the EU and Hungarian rules for accessing healthcare abroad in light of the EU regulations on the coordination of social security systems.

ON ESTABLISHING APPLICABLE LEGISLATION IN THE CASE OF THE SIMULTANEOUS EXECUTION OF WORK IN MORE THAN ONE MEMBER STATE IN THE COORDINATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEMS

The subject of the study is determining legislation applicable in case of pursuing activity as an employed person simultaneously in the territory of more than one Member State under the coordination of social security systems in the EU. This issue in question is of interest of case law, especially one of the Supreme Court and the one of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It is of fundamental practical importance. Since conditions for determining the applicable legislation are different, more liberal in the case of simultaneous work in the territory of at least two Member States than in the case of the posting of workers, a conclusion that in the case of performing work under the same employment contract with one employer in successive periods of time, it possible to determine that legislation according to the rule applicable in the case of simultaneous pursuing activity in the territory of more than one Member State, means that employers gain an opportunity to apply social security legislation in force at their seat without any time limits. This, in turn, directly affects legal conditions under which freedom to provide services and freedom of movement of workers related thereto may be exercised.

APPLICATION IN SWITZERLAND OF THE REGULATION (EC) NO. 883/2004 OF EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND COUNCIL OF 29 APRIL 2004 ON THE COORDINATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEMS

The aim of this article is to show that Switzerland applies European laws concerning coordination of social security systems in order to solve cross-border problems connected in particular with the increasing fenomenon of multiskilling, for the benefit of isured people, Switzerland and EU member countries.

THE COMPETENCES OF THE EUROPEAN LABOUR AUTHORITY IN THE FIELD OF APPLICATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF LABOUR LAW

The article is dedicated to the status of the European Labour Authority and its competences in the field of application and enforcement of labour law. Established in 2019, the Authority shall contribute to ensuring fair labour mobility across the Union and assisting Member States and the Commission in the coordination of social security systems within the Union. Author outlines the problems connected to the freedom of movement of workers and posting of workers within the freedom to provide services. He introduces competences of the European Labour Authority on facilitating access to information on rights and obligations regarding labour mobility across the Union, facilitating and enhancing cooperation between Member States in the enforcement of relevant Union law, mediating and facilitating solution in cases of cross-border disputes between Member States, as well as supporting cooperation between Member States in tackling undeclared work.

MINIMUM LIVING INCOME BENEFIT AND BRITISH NATIONALS IN SPAIN IN TIMES OF BREXIT

As from 1 January 2021, after the end of the transitional period imposed by the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement, the UK will be for all purposes a third State and its nationals considered as “foreigners”. The change of status of the UK raises interesting questions regarding the social security rights of EU citizens and UK nationals. This paper deals with the possibility of access to the Minimum Living Income benefit for British nationals residing in Spain, either under the Spanish immigration laws or within the framework of the EU Regulations on the Coordination of Social Security systems. As a core issue, the identification of the Minimum Life Income benefit with the special non-contributory benefits of Article 70 of Regulation 883/2004 is argued. To this respect, the lack of inclusion of the Spanish benefit in Annex X can be considered as a serious oversight, possibly rectifiable by regulation and very necessary to avoid the conflict that this lack of clarification could generate

The Internal, Systemic and Constitutional Integrity of EU Regulation 883/2004 on the Coordination of Social Security Systems: Lessons from a Scandal

The Norwegian ‘social security’ scandal concerns the right to export sickness benefits pursuant to EU Regulation 883/2004. Norway is party to the EEA Agreement and the Regulation is binding in Norway. Norway’s Social Security Act requires continued presence in Norway to retain payable benefits. Thousands of claims have been rejected by disregarding Regulation 883/2004 or reading it down. Some hundred citizens have been sentenced to prison for welfare fraud because they stayed in another EU/EEA State and exported cash benefits in the absence of prior authorization. Legal uncertainty seems to remain, and the exact scope of the scandal is still not clear. The paper discusses the reach and depth of the rights afforded by Regulation 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems. It argues that the main rules on equal treatment (Articles 4 and 5) and the main rule on free movement (Article 7) provide an unconditional right to export sickness benefits in cash. It provides an account of the internal, systemic, and constitutional integrity of the Regulation, and the equilibrium between coordination and harmonization.

Guest Editor’s overview of the Special Issue

The aim of this Special Issue is to present a critical analysis of the reform of the coordination of social security in the light of the 2016-2019 revision of the EU Regulations on the coordination of social security. The articles scrutinise all areas of the Commission’s proposal for amending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009, which lays down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004. The introduction provides an overview of the negotiation of the Commission’s proposal and outlines the aims and the structure of the Special Issue.

EU coordination of social security from the point of view of EU integration theory

This article comprises a study of the negotiation of the Commission’s proposal for amending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 in the context of EU integration theories. This analysis is used to argue that the current integration stage in the coordination of social security is a complex phenomenon which displays elements of intergovernmentalism, neo-functionalism and post-functionalism. The negotiation process highlights the disagreements between the key players which may have important consequences for the future of EU regulation in the area of coordination of social security. The article concludes that the signs of intergovernmentalism are prevalent, as evident in the attention the Commission has given to the concerns of the Member States, the negotiating position of the Council, and the vote of the European Parliament which failed to approve the proposal at the first reading. This prevalence has led to a pause in the reform of the coordination regulations and may eventually lead to compromises that will weaken the progress of integration in the future. At the same time, the article argues that the theory of post-functionalism is important in explaining the phenomenon of Brexit with regard to the UK’s position in the negotiation of the Commission’s proposal and its future relevance for UK and EU citizens affected by the UK’s departure from the EU. The article concludes that disintegration along the lines of post-functionalism should not prevent the reintegration of the UK into the EU coordination of social security schemes, but may reinforce the prevalence of intergovernmentalism.

Cross-border health services – selected issues

One of the superior principles in integrated Europe is free flow of persons, services and capital. An expression of this freedom are regulations about coordination of social security systems binding both in EU and EFTA member states. The principles of granting health services and their scope are determined by the provisions about coordination of social security systems. In the article I will try to discuss the most important regulations regarding the issues related to cross-border health care, both EU regulations and the related provisions of the domestic law.

Digital Single Market and coordination of social security systems – interoperability solutions at the service of social protection

One of the fundamental pillars to the full achievement of the Digital Single Market is the development of eGovernment/e-administration. As a key priority of the current moment of the European integration process, the implementation of the Digital Single Market has the potential to lay down the foundations for a public administration capable of providing crossborder mobility in the Single Market of the Union by means of high quality, interoperable and digital public services. To exemplify the characteristics outlined for the configuration of a public administration of the Digital Single Market, we will seek to give concrete form to the model that is emerging in a specific area of EU law which has critical importance for the European integration process – the coordination of social security systems. Its consideration allows us to test the implementation of the Digital Single Market in the public sector through digital, interoperable, and high-quality cross-border public administration.

Regulation 1231/2010 on the inclusion of third-country nationals in EU social security coordination

The EU regulations on the coordination of social security systems provide a high standard of protection for people moving within the EU. For a long time, third-country national workers have been excluded from this protection. This article shows that the explanation for this exclusion is to be found in the legal basis of the EU regulations. This article also demonstrates how developments in primary law in the last two decades have paved the way for the extension of the EU regulations to third-country nationals. Regulation 1231/2010 offers third-country nationals, in the field of social security, the same protection as EU citizens moving within the EU. However, this extension is subject to two conditions. For this reason, a considerable number of third-country nationals working in a Member State do not benefit from equal treatment as nationals of the host State. The article clarifies why Regulation 1231/2010 does not apply in Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Denmark. Attention is paid to a number of challenges and open questions, such as the special position of the UK and the relationship between Regulation 1231/2010 and bilateral agreements concluded between a Member State and a third country.

PERSPECTIVA CRÍTICA DE ALGUNOS ASPECTOS DE LA PROPUESTA DE LA COMISIÓN DE LA UNIÓN EUROPEA DE REGLAMENTO DEL PARLAMENTO EUROPEO Y DEL CONSEJO POR EL QUE SE MODIFICA EL REGLAMENTO (CE) 883/2004 SOBRE LA COORDINACIÓN DE LOS SISTEMAS DE SEGURIDAD SOCIAL Y EL REGLAMENTO (CE) 987/2009 POR EL QUE SE ESTABLECE LA PROCEDIMIENTO DE EJECUCIÓN DEL REGLAMENTO (CE) 883/2004

The Commission presented on 13 December 2016 new proposals for amending the coordination of social security systems. For frontier workers there should be a shift of competence for unemployment benefits: according to the current regulation the country of residence is competent. The Commission wants to make the country of former employment competent after one year of employment in that country. The Commission proposes also the extension of the period an unemployment benefit has to be exported. The Commission intends with the proposal to render the coordination rules of LTC more transparent and visible for the citizen. In terms of LTC the Commission therefore proposes mainly the following modifications: definition of LTC; establishing a detailed list of LTC benefits and creation of a new chapter on coordination of LTC.

Mending the hole in multilevel implementation: Administrative cooperation related to worker mobility

European economic integration creates unintended consequences for national public administrations. This article offers a conceptual and empirical analysis of how these challenges are met. First, three challenges are identified: a reduced capacity to offer services to citizens who move freely, increasing administrative burdens, and negative externalities for all parts from a single states’ administrative failure. Second, a conceptual framework is developed that links each challenge to a most likely response in form of modes of administrative cooperation. Third, the framework is illustrated by an empirical analysis of the coordination of social security systems, labor inspectorates, and posted workers. The case studies show that horizontal administrative cooperation is developed stepwise over time and in line with the theoretical framework. In sum, we can sustain that horizontal administrative cooperation is a relevant additional integration dynamic that buffers unintended effects of market integration on formally independent but increasingly interdependent member state executive bodies.

Potential Benefits of Cross-Border Health Care: the Case of Poland and Germany

IntroductionIt is a remarkable feature of the last decades that our world is becoming more integrated, both with respect to economic activities and in a more general sense. While there are many other observations to corroborate this statement, one indicator is that people increasingly tend to move from one country to another, e.g., as commuters or as tourists. It is important to note that this potentially has implications for health care: First, a need for health care may arise while being in a foreign country, either suddenly due to some developing illness or because of a persistent health problem. Second, people may also wish to go abroad in order to obtain health care. Hence, cross-border health care may be a by-product of people working or temporarily staying in another country while its availability may also constitute the prime reason for crossing national boundaries.Basically, cross-border health care will enhance individual choice sets, by providing another option to obtain health care which may either exhibit a better quality or be available at a lower cost in comparison with a purely national provision. From an economic point of view, it would be desirable to have cross-border health care whenever it could reasonably be expected to generate a net benefit to society, i.e., to the countries involved. However, with individual countries relying on their own system of health insurance, a number of barriers may exist which prevent mutually beneficial transactions. In particular, this is true for social health insurance which, due to restrictions on the benefit package and specific ways of financing, naturally involves a focus on care provided within the country for which it has been designed.Turning to the European Union (EU), health policy has not been on the agenda for many years because the founding treaties contain no specific article explicitly referring to it. Moreover, as the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union acknowledges, every EU Member State is first and foremost responsible for organizing its own health care system. However, the implementation of the European Single Market, one of the EU cornerstones today, has affected the health care sector of the Member States by means of the four fundamental freedoms: These imply free movement of goods (e.g., medicinal products and medical devices), freedom of movement for workers (e.g., mobility of health care professionals), the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (e.g., social and private health insurances), and free movement of capital (e.g., investment in health infrastructure), respectively. In addition, the EU is engaged in the coordination of social security systems, and it also assumes a strong role in improving health in areas such as the environment and the workplace (Greer et al., 2014).For a long time, cross-border health care in the EU for individuals with social health insurance has been based on a Social Security Regulation which took effect in 1971. However, this Regulation has been applied in a rather restrictive manner. As a consequence, the number of patients going abroad in order to receive planned health care remained fairly small. The main reason was that prior authorization had to be obtained from domestic authorities who often refused to grant it on the grounds that the requested health care was also available at home. Over time, several EU citizens have challenged this position, either by complaining about long waiting times at home or by arguing more generally that prior authorization would interfere with their right to choose health care in other Member States.In ruling on these cases, the European Court of Justice with its judgements created case law which has, in effect, enhanced patients' rights considerably with respect to crossborder health care (Palm et al., 2011). In turn, this led to a major revision of the Social Security Regulations which took effect in 2010. While maintaining prior authorization of cross-border health care, the new Regulations contain provisions that limit its use such that a refusal will most likely involve no harm to the health of the patient. …

EUROPEAN REGULATIONS ON SOCIAL SECURITY, COORDINATION INSTRUMENTS FOR COORDINATION OF THE HEALTH CARE REIMBURSEMENT IN THE UE

Sickness benefits, namely medical care, medicines, hospitalization, certain benefits for people dependent of medical care as well as direct payments aimed to repay their cost will be in accordance with European Regulations, that is Regulation EC no. 883/2004 on coordination of social security systems and it’s implementing Regulation no. 987/2009. In order for the persons insured in the Romanian health insurance system to benefit from medical treatment within the Member State EU/EEA , they have to respect the conditions imposed by the European Regulations. As a result, they can receive medical treatment in Member States of EU/EEA using form S2, the extent of cumulatively compliance with certain conditions expressly provided in the regulations. The prior consent of the competent national authority, in the case an insured person in the Romanian national health system benefits from medical treatment in another EU Member State, is a condition for the coverage of the expenses representing medical treatment rendered to that person on the territory of that EU state either at the level of the tariffs of the host state, or at the level of the Romanian tariffs. Keywords: regulation, insured person, medical treatment, sickness benefits, prior authorisation

Patient Mobility Directive: One Step Forward or Two Steps Back for Cross-Border Health Care?

The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union have adopted, on 09 March 2011, Directive on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare. This Directive has emerged as a result of the Court of Justice jurisprudence on social security coverage of health care obtained outside the Member State of patient’ s social security protection, starting with the well known judgement in Raymond Kohll v. Union des caisses de maladie . The focus of the Court has been on developing a set of patients’ entitlements in cross-border health care, emphasising the individual needs and circumstances of patients seeking health care abroad. The aim of the paper is to investigate the Directive and determine whether it will add (once transposed into the national legal systems) to the current set of patient entitlements and make it easier for those patients to obtain socially covered health care outside the state of social protection, and to discuss the Directive’s application in Croatia, once the country joins the EU. The paper first briefly describes the most important principles that have evolved through the Court of Justice case-law, concerning both the application of freedoms guaranteed by EU primary law (namely, freedom to provide and receive cross-border health care services) and the secondary legislation on co-ordination of social security systems within the Union. This is followed by a detailed analysis of the Patient Mobility Directive, namely focusing on the issue whether the Directive actually contributes to patient mobility in the EU, as well as on its relationship with national social security legislation, especially the Croatian one (since Croatia is to become a Member State a few months before the end of the transposition period). Emphasis is placed on the interaction between the social aspects of national legal framework and the internal market as the cornerstone of the European integration. In the end, the paper submits that the Patient Mobility Directive’s impact on actual movement of patients across borders might prove to be, in some areas, counterproductive. Furthermore, the paper stresses the necessity of clarifying the EU legal framework and the need for closer co-operation and dialogue between the EU and the Member States’ relevant authorities, taking into account specificities of individual Member States, and the significance of the Patient Mobility Directive within the described context.

New rules on conflicts: regulations 883/2004 and 987/2009

Regulations 883/2004 and 987/2009 fixed new rules on coordination of social security systems. In particular, they rearranged rules on conflicts of law, even if the core principles (one set of legislation only to be applicable and priority of workplace legislation) remain the same. Nevertheless, there are significant changes. The rules on conflicts have been simplified and several specific rules which were included in Regulation 1408/71 have been removed. The new rules also take into account the extension of regulations to all citizens and clarify the status of non-active persons. They adapt rules on conflicts for posting and for simultaneous activities in two member states.

Rindal and Elchinov: An (Impending) Revolution in EU Law on Patient Mobility?

This paper critically analyses EU law on patient mobility, which has developed in the last decade. It covers the European Court of Justice case law applying internal market rules to social security coverage of foreign health treatment, its relationship with the EU rules on the co-ordination of social security systems, and the recent attempts at codifying the case law. The most recent EFTA Court judgment in the Rindal case, and its potential effects on EU law if the Court of Justice adopts the same reasoning in the pending Elchinov case, are investigated. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the implications of EU law on patient mobility on national social security systems, namely their autonomy to define the scope of their coverage of health care treatment, and the consequences, within the framework of EU law, of applying certain legal techniques to define their social packages. Special emphasis is put on the new EU Member States and Croatia. It is argued that these states are in a particularly delicate position in relation to EU law in terms of maintaining the financial stability and the social (in terms of solidarity) character of their social security systems. The paper proposes certain solutions to accomplish a twofold objective: improving legal certainty at the European level (thus facilitating the free movement of patients), while, at the same time, respecting the Member States’ freedom to organise their social systems, in order to protect the solidarity on which those systems are based.