ROADMAP
TITLE OF THE INITIATIVE PARTIAL REVISION OF REGULATIONS (EC)NOS 883/2004 and 987/2009
LEAD DG– RESPONSIBLE UNIT EMPL/B4 DATE OF ROADMAP 12/03/2013
This indicative roadmap is provided for information purposes only and is subject to change. It does not prejudge the final decision of the Commission on whether this initiative will be pursued or on its final content and structure.
A. Context and problem definition (1) What is the political context of the initiative?
(2) How does it relate to past and possible future initiatives, and to other EU policies?
(3) What ex-post analysis of existing policy has been carried out? What results are relevant for this initiative?
One of the important principles and objectives of the EU is the freedom of movement of persons between Member States. Only by ensuring that persons moving within the EU do not suffer disadvantages in their social security rights will this freedom be of any value. Primary EU law (Article 48 TFEU) and secondary legal acts, set out in Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and the Implementing Regulation (EC) No 987/2009, coordinate the Member States’ social security schemes. The EU legislation does not replace the different national social security systems, but coordinates them in situations with an intra-EU cross-border element. EU Regulations coordinate cross-border aspects of 31 different social security systems of the EU Member States, plus Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Switzerland. With the upcoming enlargement of the EU (Croatia), the number will increase to 32 national systems.
The present initiative is a partial revision of the Regulations (EC) Nos 883/2004 and 987/2009 on coordination of social security schemes, focusing in particular on an in-depth revision of two areas of social security coordination (see further below).
Removing the obstacles to mobility of European citizens is a priority of the Barroso Commission. It has been highlighted on several occasions in the recent years (European Year Workers Mobility 2006, the EP report on citizenship 2009, the Monti report on the Single Market, President's Barroso political guidelines, Commission Work Programme 2013) that despite the important legal acquis in the area of free movement of workers, European citizens still face problems and obstacles, when moving across borders within the EU. In line with this priority, the Commission issued a policy communication in April 2012 ('Employment package'), in which the Commission identified the EU's biggest job potential areas and the most effective ways for Member States to create more jobs. Among other objectives, the employment package also aims to contribute to a genuine EU labour market.
The EU regulatory instruments in the area of social security coordination, which are necessary for the smooth operation of the intra-EU mobility and the functioning of the EU labour market, date back to 1950's and have been amended on numerous occasions in order to take into account developments at EU level, changes at national level and rulings of the Court of Justice.
Modernised social security coordination rules started to apply in May 2010, when Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 replaced previous Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71. The legislative process for the modernised rules lasted over 10 years. During this period, the Court of Justice delivered a number of important rulings, two EU enlargements took place and the socio-economic situation both in the EU as a whole and in individual Member States changed considerably. Both the Member States and the Commission have the obligation to make sure the Regulations are still fit to meet today’s needs and reflect the developments in national and EU legislation, the case-law of the Court of Justice and the socio-economic context. Possibilities for simplification should also be considered.
Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 strengthened the principles of coordination and brought improvements in many social security branches, but despite of efforts made during the negotiations aimed at simplifying and modernising Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, in two areas of social security coordination the modernisation process did not lead to the expected results – namely in the area of coordination of unemployment benefits and long-term care benefits. The present initiative covers the substantial revision of these two social security areas in order to complete the modernisation process, which was initiated more than two decades ago.
This initiative is also linked to the objectives of "Europe 2020 – A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth" (COM(2010)2020), which calls for the EU to: - encourage mobility and for European citizens to make more use of their freedom of movement. - ensure that a vulnerable part of the EU population is enabled to live in dignity and is not exposed to the risk of poverty when exercising the right of free movement.
(a) Coordination of long-term care benefits
Long-term care benefits were not explicitly mentioned in Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71. In Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, this has remained unchanged with the exception of one overlapping provision. Long-term care benefits however do fall within the material scope of the coordination Regulation. It was the Court of Justice that ruled that, in the absence of a specific legal regime for their coordination; long-term care benefits must be regarded as 'sickness benefits' within the meaning of the Regulation and coordinated as such.
Long-term care benefits are constantly increasing their importance. Member States continue to develop special schemes for persons in need of care. To fulfil their purpose for cross-border situations, the EU social security coordination rules have to take into account these developments.
As a reaction to the number of rulings delivered by the Court of Justice in this area, there are signals from the Member States to reopen the debate with a view to establish a more transparent and effective coordination of long-term care benefits.
The demographic changes in the EU (ageing population) and national legislative developments (new types of benefits) should also be considered. Since last decade, European Union has been promoting access, high- quality and sustainable healthcare and long-term care in Member States.1 On 9 September 2010, the European Parliament adopted a Resolution on "Long-term care for older people" calling for a development of the Social OMC. To take account of this development, in 2013, the Commission adopted the Social Investment Package2, describing the national orientations in this field. The EU legislator should, at the same time, take account of those developments in the acquis dealing with the coordination of the long-term care benefits when insured persons exercise their right of free movement in the EU.
(b) Coordination of unemployment benefits
Also unemployment benefits fall within the material scope of the EU social security regulatory framework. Unlike in the case of long-term care benefits however, specific rules on the coordination of unemployment benefits are set out in Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, which replaced Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71. The current rules have only slightly changed in comparison to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71. Limited amendments were made to provisions on the calculation of unemployment benefits (in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice), to provisions on export of unemployment benefits by including a possibility to extend the export period from 3 to 6 months (upon a decision by the competent services or institutions), and by introducing a limited reimbursement mechanism between Member States for unemployment benefits provided to unemployed frontier or cross-border workers by the country of residence).
Already in 2001 the Council agreed on Parameters for the modernisation of the coordination Regulations3 with a view to simplify the coordination rules on unemployment benefits to enhance their readability and transparency.
However, apart from the minor adaptations (see above), the rules remained similar as in former Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71. The attempt to modernise and simplify the unemployment chapter was not achieved (also due to required unanimity under the previous Treaty). The search for consensus lead to a compromise which added to the complexity of the rules by adding the new reimbursement mechanism between Member States. In addition, to address a legislative gap, Regulation (EC) 465/2012, amending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, introduced a new provision (Article 65a) in order to ensure the protection of rights of self-employed workers, in line with Article 48 TFEU.
Discussions in the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems4 and in the Council5 on the unemployment chapter have demonstrated the extent to which this compromise is complex and
1 COM(2005)706 "Working together, working better- A new framework for the open coordination of social and protection and inclusion policies in the European Union".
2 SWD(2013) 44 final, adopted on 20.02.2013.
3 Document 15045/01 of 6 December 2001. Parameter 10 stated: “The unemployment chapter must be simplified with due respect for the current coordination rules. However, it must be extended to cover the self-employed schemes existing in a number of Member States. In addition, the unemployed person must be guaranteed the right to search actively for work in the Union, with payment of unemployment benefit in cash being maintained for a period of at least three months under simplified conditions”.
4 The Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems is composed of a government representative of each of the Member States, assisted, where necessary, by expert advisers. Representatives of the European Commission attend the meetings in an advisory capacity. The Secretariat is provided by the European Commission. The Administrative Commission deals with administrative questions and questions of interpretation arising from the coordination regulation. In addition, it facilitates the uniform application of the European legislation, in particular by promoting exchange of experience and best administrative practices.
subject to different interpretations and misunderstandings. In this situation, the Commission made a declaration for launching a broader revision of the unemployment Chapter at the EPSCO Council in December 2011.
Other elements to be included in the revision package:
Specific technical updates
In order to reflects changes at national level and to take stock of recent developments in cross-border mobility that affect the coordination rules, the revision will also include a number of specific technical updates to the coordination Regulations (so-called ‘miscellaneous amendments’). These amendments are made periodically made to ensure that the Regulations are up-to-date with the developments in national legislation that have an effect the coordination of social security systems in the EU. The aim is to ensure legal certainty for institutions and citizens by making technical corrections to the wording of EU provisions or by amending certain annexes.
This is, for instance, the case where a benefit ceases to exist in a Member State and has to be deleted from a specific annex to the EU Regulation, or where a wording of a specific article has to be corrected or clarified.
The purpose of these amendments is to facilitate the efficient coordination of the social security systems of the Member States and not to substantially revise the coordination rules. Therefore, unlike in the case of substantial revisions or new legislative acts, the miscellaneous amendments are regularly not accompanied by an impact assessment, but by explanatory notes. The proposals for these amendments are based either on the proposal of a Member State, or a group of Member States, or of the Commission services. Subsequently, they are discussed in the Administrative Commission on the Coordination of Social Security Systems and, depending on the outcome of the discussion and their compatibility with EU law, included in the Commission's proposal.
Changes in the procedure for amending the annexes to the Regulation
The revision package will also include a proposal for a governance change concerning a procedure for amendments of certain annexes to the coordination Regulations. Under the current rules, specifically Article 92 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009, the Parliament and the Council have delegated the power to the Commission to adopt changes to certain country-specific annexes of the EU coordination Regulations. These amendments are based on the request of the Administrative Commission on the Coordination of Social Security Systems and the annexes are amended by a Commission regulation.6
The remaining set of annexes is amended by the Parliament and the Council regulation. This has proven to be a significantly longer process. In order to make it simpler and faster in the future to adapt all the annexes, the Commission will propose to include a reference to all annexes to Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and (EC) No 987/2009 in Article 92 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 with a view to amend all annexes to the Regulations by a Commission Regulation. As this proposal is of a governance nature, without expected social, economic or environment impacts, it is not accompanied by an assessment of impacts, but by an explanatory note.
The present roadmap continues with a description relating to the two areas of EU social security coordination which are subject to the in-depth revision – coordination of long-term care benefits and of unemployment benefits.
In the end of 2011, trESS network presented a report 'Coordination of long-term care benefits, current situation and prospects' on the current challenges and the identification of possible solutions for a more efficient coordination system. In 2012, the network presented a report on 'Coordination of unemployment benefits – features and challenges'.
The two studies highlighted problems of coordination of long-term care and unemployment benefits under the current rules (see below).
What are the main problems which this initiative will address?
Coordination of long-term care benefits:
Currently, rules, which have been designed for the sickness benefits, have to be applied also to long-term care benefits. The national systems for long-term care are different and much more diverse than the classical sickness schemes. So, Member States tend to coordinate them under different schemes (sickness, family
5The Council discussed several provisions of the Unemployment Chapter (namely Article 65 and new Article 65a) in the framework of adoption of Regulation (EC) 465/2012, which introduced miscellaneous amendments to the Regulation (EC) No 883/2004.
6 See, for example, Commission Regulation (EU) No 1224/2012 of 18 December 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009.
allowance, old-age benefits, invalidity benefits, etc.) or consider them as social assistance. This may affect also the rights of migrant workers, other insured citizens and their family members who are mobile in the EU and can lead to the overprotection, or on the other hand, to the loss of entitlements for persons who are dependent on care and who exercised their right of free movement.
The current coordination rules may leave the person reliant on care without any or with much lower social security protection after the person has moved in the EU. For example, a Member State of insurance (the competent Member State) knows principally long-term care benefits in kind (which are non-exportable) and the insured moves to another Member State, which recognises principally long-term care benefits in cash. The person will not be entitled neither to receive the benefits in kind from the competent Member State, because these are non-exportable, nor she will be able to receive the benefits in cash in the country of residence, because these are provided only to the persons who are insured in that country. A bigger or smaller gap in the protection of social security rights can therefore be created due to the diversity of the national systems and the application of the rules under the Sickness Chapter.
In certain situations on the other hand, a person might receive two or more benefits for the same risk in different Member States. For example, a pensioner receiving pensions from two or more Member States may receive a supplement to a pension covering the need for care from Member State A (coordinated as an old-age benefit) and a long-term care benefit from Member State B (coordinated as sickness benefit in cash).
On the basis of the current legal framework, the Commission has initiated infringement proceedings against different Member States (Slovakia, Ireland, the Netherlands) for refusing to export long-term care benefits in cash, which fulfil the criteria of long-term care benefits as defined in the case-law of the Court of Justice. At the same time, it must be acknowledged that the classification of long-term care benefits as sickness benefits does not fully fit to a new type of long-term care benefits (mixed benefits). The Court has acknowledged that long-term care benefits relating to the risk of reliance on care are at most supplementary to the "classic" sickness benefits that fall within that provision stricto sensu and are not necessarily an integral part of them. The Court acknowledges that benefits for persons who are reliant on care in practice resemble of other social security branches, especially of the invalidity and old-age branches.
Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 does not take the specific character of long-term care benefits into account. The recent judgments of the Court of Justice show that this is an area where the future conflicts of law could be prevented by better designed coordination rules.
Further evidence and data collection on the frequency of these problems in the targeted population will be carried out in the fieldwork of the Impact Assessment work (2013).
Coordination of unemployment benefits
The coordination of unemployment benefits faces different challenges. As stated above, the unemployment chapter of modernised Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 largely remained, apart from some minor adaptations, similar as in former Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71.
The initiative should address two main issues: a) reduce a risk that migrant workers remain without unemployment benefits and to have less favourable conditions for reintegrating into the labour market due to the fact that they have exercised their right of free movement in the EU; b) secondly, the initiative should achieve the simplification and rationalisation of the whole chapter.
The problems' sources are the following.
Complexity of EU rules on coordination or unemployment benefits: Different rules apply for migrant workers, cross-border workers and frontier workers7, and also to wholly and partially unemployed8 cross- border and frontier workers. Due to this complexity, both the national institutions and migrant workers are facing challenges in acquiring knowledge about the rights under EU law.
7Cross-border workers are a sub-category of migrant workers. Cross-border workers are persons who work in one Member State and reside in another where they return less than once a week. Those workers, when becoming unemployed may choose to register with the employment services and claim benefits either in the country where they worked or where they reside. This is typically the situation of seasonal workers.
Frontier workers are a sub-category of cross-border workers. Frontier workers are persons who work in one Member State and reside in another where they return daily, or at least once a week. These workers, when becoming unemployed, must register with the employment services and claim benefits in the country of their residence. They may also in addition register with the employment services of the country where you worked and look for a job there, but the benefits will still only be paid by the country of residence.
8 Partially unemployed workers (for example with a reduced contract) must claim unemployment benefits only in the country where they are still partially working.
Rules applying to frontier workers: In accordance with the general rules on legislation applicable, migrant workers are subject to the legislation of the State of activity and pay social security contributions there.
Frontier workers, when becoming wholly unemployed, shall however apply for unemployment benefits in their country of residence. The reason for this rule was an assumption that frontier workers enjoy the most favourable conditions for seeking new employment in the State of residence.
It is not considered that the worker paid contributions in another Member State than the State of residence and might actually have better prospects on the labour market of that country. It may become problematic when a frontier worker upon becoming unemployed, suddenly falls under another social security scheme (country of residence).
In addition, the financial burden of the country of residence in the case of wholly unemployed frontier workers has been subject to discussion both in Council and the Administrative Commission. The State of residence has to bear the cost of unemployment benefits, and also other social security benefits (sickness or family benefits), for unemployed frontier workers without having received any contributions in respect of these workers during their last employment. A reimbursement mechanism has been set up by Regulation (EC) No 883/2004. However, this mechanism only partially addresses the issue of fair sharing of costs (as it is limited in the amount and in time to max. 5 months). The reimbursement rules add to a further complexity to the rules and raise the administrative burden for the national institutions.
Generally, unemployment benefits are not provided outside the country of residence (except in the case of cross-border workers other than frontier workers). The EU rules however provide migrant workers with a possibility of a limited period of export for three months when a person goes look for work in another EU country. The coordination Regulation stipulates that the competent institution may extent this period for up to six months. The follow-up workshops9 organised with the Member States in March 2011 showed that the rule on extending the period of export of unemployment benefits from three to six months is applied very differently in the various Member States. It should be assessed if the minimum period of 3 months is appropriate in the view of the current economic and labour situation in the EU and the aim for fostering intra-EU labour mobility.
To prevent that workers are negatively affected when working abroad, the EU rules provide that institutions must take into account periods of insurance completed in other EU countries, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway or Switzerland, if this is necessary for creating the entitlement to the benefits (so- called principle of aggregation of periods). Practical problems and legal questions exist with regard to the application of this principle10, which may lead to the negative consequences for the migrant workers and refusal for granting unemployment benefits. It should be assessed to which extend the legal provisions should be clarified for the application by the national administrations – either by amendment of the rules, or issuance of guidelines.
Who will be affected by it?
Migrant workers, insured persons who are subject to the social security legislation of one or more EU Member States, as well as the members of their families.
The implementing public authorities.
Is EU action justified on grounds of subsidiarity? Why can Member States not achieve the objectives of the proposed action sufficiently by themselves? Can the EU achieve the objectives better?
(i) The initiative is based on Article 48 TFEU which requires of the European Parliament and the Council to adopt such measures in the field of social security as are necessary to provide freedom of workers; to this end they shall make arrangements to secure that employed and self-employed migrant workers and their dependants do not loose social security protection, as a consequence of the exercise of their right to freedom of movement. A solution to this cross-border issue cannot be done on a national, regional or local level.
(ii) For realizing the free movement of persons within the EU, it is necessary that all Member States agree on the common principles and procedures to be followed when applying their national systems in the situations with a cross-border element. Equality of treatment under the different national legislations must be guaranteed regardless of nationality.
(iii) Being it clearly a transnational issue, the coordination rules on the social security go beyond an action on a national level and create a common ground that should be equally applicable to all Member States. The action should also ensure that the EU rules lead to results that are compatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.
9http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=866&eventsId=333&furtherEvents=yes
10 In 2011, a questionnaire was launched in the Administrative Commission. The results showed a significant divergence of opinions on the proper interpretation of Article 61 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004.
B. Objectives of the initiative What are the main policy objectives?
The initiative should contribute to promoting and facilitation the free movement of persons within the EU by updating the rules on the coordination of social security schemes within the European Union, and thus make citizens' rights effective.
The purpose of the initiative is to increase the changes of jobseekers to reintegrate in the labour market and ensure that mobility does not have a negative impact on their social security rights, namely long-term care and unemployment guarantee.
- Specific objectives for coordination of unemployment benefits:
(1) Facilitating reintegration of unemployed persons in the labour market and improved protection of rights of unemployed persons who wish to seek job abroad (contribution intra-EU labour market)
(2) Simplification of the legal framework and reduction of administrative burden (3) Unemployed migrant workers receiving returns on their contributions.
(4) EU rules better corresponding to the current socio-economic environment (fairer financial burden distribution between Member States)
- Specific objectives for coordination of long-term care benefits:
(1) Ensuring that the EU rules do not leave citizens without any protection, or do not lead to unjustified double-payments
(2) Preventing the conflicts of law (negative or positive conflicts).
Do the objectives imply developing EU policy in new areas?
Developing EU policy in new areas is not implied. The coordination of unemployment and long-term care benefits already fall within the material scope of the EU Regulations on social security coordination. The initiative concerns update of the existing legislation in the area of free movement of persons.
C. Options
(1) What are the policy options (including exemptions/adapted regimes e.g. for SMEs) being considered?
(2) What legislative or 'soft law' instruments could be considered?
(3) How do the options respect the proportionality principle?
(i) Policy options:
Coordination of unemployment benefits:
Option 1) No policy change (baseline scenario)
Option 2) New system of coordination of unemployment benefits for frontier workers (right of a choice to apply for unemployment benefits in the country of last activity or in the country of residence)
Option 3) Unemployment benefits for all workers to be provided by the country of the last activity regardless of the person's residence.
Option 4) The prolongation of the period of export of unemployment benefits for persons who look for work in another than the competent Member State to min. 6 months (this option could be combined with the previous options).
Option 5) Clarification of the provisions on the aggregation of periods of insurance, employment and self-employment (this option could be combined with the previous options).
Coordination of long-term care benefits:
Option 1) No policy change (baseline scenario)
Option 2) A safeguarding provision ensuring that a mobile person does not lose his/her entitlement to long-term care due to his/her mobility in the EU (e.g. the person would receive existing benefits in cash in the Member State of residence if the application of the rules under the Sickness Chapter would mean that a person does not receive any long-term care benefits (see Problem definition)). Member State of residence would be reimbursed by the competent Member State where the person is insured.
Option 3) One Member State competent for providing long-term care benefits without a distinction
between benefits in kind, in cash or mixed. Two sub-option should be considered:
a) Sub-option 3.1) Member State of residence will provide long-term care benefits on the basis of its legislation (reimbursement from the competent Member State; with/without a supplement from the competent Member State if benefits in Member State of residence are at lower level than benefits the person could receive in the competent Member State)
b) Sub-option 3.2) The competent Member State will provide long-term care benefits to insured persons residing abroad (export).
In addition to the above options 1, 2 and 3, specific clarifications should be considered:
a. Inserting the risk 'long-term care' in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 b. Inserting of a definition of long-term care benefits
c. Drawing up of a list long-term care benefits per Member State (ii) Legislative or 'soft law' instruments considered
Amending the existing regulatory framework (where changes of the current rules are needed).
Non-legislative initiatives to clarify the existing rules and case-law (by, for example, Decision of the Administrative Commission; Guidelines for institutions; Information campaign for migrant workers) could be considered where the initiative would not lead to the changes in the legislation.
(iii) The proportionality of the options and measures envisaged will be verified in the impact assessment. They are appropriate to the aim to better protect and enforce rights conferred to EU citizens by a provision of fundamental primary law such as Article 48 TFEU.
D. Initial assessment of impacts What are the benefits and costs of each of the policy options?
Coordination of unemployment benefits:
Option 1) Non-action means that some important issues might not be tackled and might impede on the protection of social security rights of migrant workers. It can be expected that non-action would most likely lead to an increased number of complaints and cases in front of the Court of Justice.
Option 2) Improved social security protection of the frontier workers. Member States employing a high number of frontier workers (e.g. Luxembourg) might face an increase of financial burden compared to the current rules.
However, it was in these Member States that the workers paid their social security contributions.
Option 3) Simplification of the legal framework and a reduction of administrative costs. For example, reducing the need to inform the country of residence about insurance periods completed and level of salary gained in the competent State; speeding up the treatment of claims for unemployment benefits; reducing the need for country of residence to request reimbursement of unemployment benefits from the competent country. Fairer share of financial burden between Member States due to a stronger link between the collected contributions/taxes and benefits provided. A person receiving return on their contributions (neutralisation of the effect of moving within the EU). Member States employing a high number of frontier workers (e.g. Luxembourg) would face an increase of financial burden (under the current rules, unemployment benefits are provided by the country of residence).
Option 4) Improved protection of rights to unemployment benefits for workers who decide to look for work in another Member State. A person receiving return on their contributions (neutralisation of the effect of moving within the EU). Facilitation of job-seeking abroad (contribution to the intra-EU labour mobility).
Option 5) Correct application of the EU rules by Member States. Better protection of the migrant workers.
Coordination of long-term care benefits:
Option 1) Non-action means that some important issues might not be tackled and might impede on the protection of social security rights of migrant citizens. In addition, due to the growing interest for creating the new types of long-term care benefits at national level and due to the increased number of beneficiaries (due to the aging population) who work or have worked in another EU Member State, the non-action would most likely lead to an increased number of complaints received by the EC and to the new complex cases to be decided upon by the Court of Justice, which will continue to play the role of the legislator.
Option 2) Improved protection of social security rights of insured persons. On the other hand, there could be an impact in the administrative process (a need for several exchanges of information between the competent Member State and Member State of residence).
Option 3) Clarification of the rules and a better legal certainty, since primarily a legislation of one Member State would apply. No distinction would be necessary between benefits in kind and benefits in cash.
Sub-option 3.1) Improved protection of social security rights of insured persons, if a supplement would be provided where benefits in the Member States are lower. Otherwise, the person residing in another Member States could also receive less than under the current system. Such a system could be put into the question by the Court of Justice. At the same time, the need to compare the level of the benefits and providing the supplement could increase an administrative burden for the national administrations. A reimbursement mechanism would be necessary (otherwise the countries mainly receiving persons reliant on care might not sustain their long-term care systems).
Sub-option 3.2) Improved protection of social security rights of insured persons and a simplification of the legal framework. A person would receive what he/she would normally receive if he/she had not moved. Services received in the country of residence would be reimbursed by the competent country (otherwise the countries mainly receiving persons reliant on care might not sustain their long-term care systems).
Could any or all of the options have significant impacts on (i) simplification, (ii) administrative burden and (iii) on relations with other countries, (iv) implementation arrangements? And (v) could any be difficult to transpose for certain Member States?
Coordination of unemployment benefits:
(i) Options 2 and 3 could lead to the simplification of the coordination rules (see Point above)
(ii) Specific training of national administrations would be needed following the adoption of the new rules / non- binding implementing guidelines for options 2-5. However, it should be noted that even under option 1 (no policy change) a general training should take place on regular basis. Amendments of the implementing rules and procedures will be necessary for the implementation of the revised regulatory framework (e.g. monitoring of fulfilment of job-seeking obligations abroad – see above).
Neither option would have any direct or significant indirect impact on SMEs or the employers. The proposed options have neither impact on the systems of collection of social security contributions.
As regards the provision of the unemployment benefits, contrary to the today's situation (specific rules for frontier and cross-border workers), the proposed option 3 would lead to the competency for providing the unemployment benefits to the Member State which collected the social security contributions during the last activity of a person.
Member States would therefore be in charge of administering request for unemployment benefits for workers who were lastly (self-)employed in their country. As stated above, this could simplify and speed up the treatment of claims for unemployment benefits.
(iii) Adaptation of EEA and EU-Swiss Agreements (options 2-5).11
(iv) Implementing rules would have to be agreed especially for options 2-3.
(v) The amendments should provide for clarification and simplification of the current rules, and thus should contribute to a better transposition for Member States.
Coordination of long-term care benefits:
(i) See above. In addition, a common definition of long-term care benefits and/or annex would facilitate the identification and thus also the coordination of those benefits.
(ii) Specific training of national administrations would be needed following the adoption of the new rules / non- binding implementing guidelines for options 2 and 3. However, it should be noted that even under option 1 (non- action) the general training needs to take place on regular basis. Amendments of the implementing rules and procedures for reimbursement will be necessary for the implementation of the revised regulatory framework.
Neither option would have any direct or significant indirect impact on SMEs or the employers, nor on how social security contributions are collected.
As regards the provision of long-term care benefits, it will have to be assessed how options 2 and 3 impact the administrative processes of Member States.
(iii) Adaptation of EEA and EU-Swiss Agreements.
(iv) Implementing rules would have to be agreed especially for options 2 and 3.
(v) Not more complex than the current practice. The current lack of a definition of long-term care benefits makes the identification of these benefits difficult in the national systems of the Member States. Therefore, clarification and further development of EU rules should contribute to a better transposition for Member States.
(1) Will an IA be carried out for this initiative and/or possible follow-up initiatives?
11The EU coordination rules apply also with regard to Switzerland on the basis of EU-Switzerland agreement on the free movement of persons and with regard to Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA Agreement).
(2) When will the IA work start?
(3) When will you set up the IA Steering Group and how often will it meet?
(4) What DGs will be invited?
(1) Yes. IA is on-going (2012-2013).
(2) Q2/2012
(3) Q2/2012. 3-5 meetings are foreseen.
(4) LS, SG, MARKT, JUST, ECFIN, REGIO, ENTR, HOME, ESTAT, BEPA, JRC.
(1) Is any option likely to have impacts on the EU budget above € 5m?
(2) If so, will this IA serve also as an ex-ante evaluation, as required by the Financial Regulation? If not, provide information about the timing of the ex-ante evaluation.
(1) EU may contribute to the trainings which may be necessary as a result of the adaptation of EU rules.
However, it is not estimated that there would be an impact on the EU budget higher than € 5m.
(2) N/A
E. Evidence base, planning of further work and consultation
(1) What information and data are already available? Will existing IA and evaluation work be used?
(2) What further information needs to be gathered, how will this be done (e.g. internally or by an external contractor), and by when?
(3) What is the timing for the procurement process & the contract for any external contracts that you are planning (e.g. for analytical studies, information gathering, etc.)?
(4) Is any particular communication or information activity foreseen? If so, what, and by when?
(1) Data available:
Studies on functioning of the EU rules on coordination of unemployment benefits (2012 Think Tank Report) and long-term care benefits (2011 Think Tank Report, 2012 Analytical Study) prepared by the Network of independent experts (trESS)
Information about the national legislation (MISSOC tables) and national schemes (provided by the national experts from the national administrations12 and further analysed and complemented by the trESS network of experts on social security coordination),
Mobility in Europe report -2011
EU-Labour force survey
The 2012 Ageing Report
OECD statistics on the costs of long-term care in the Member States
Statistics on the coordination of unemployment and long-term care benefits are currently not available at EU level. The EC had consulted Member States and asked for data and figures on cross-border cases concerning long-term care and unemployment (it appears that only few Member States collect data on cross-border long-term care cases; most Member States are not in a position to provide any or very limited data).
(2) The national systems will be mapped. Further collection of data will be done in cooperation with an external contractor, in particular the following data should be collected (if available):
The number of cross-border and frontier workers and their unemployment rate (i.e. a number of requests for unemployment benefits on the basis of Article 65 of Regulation 883/2004).
The number of migrant workers who export their unemployment benefits in order to look for work in another Member States (i.e. number of cases of export on the basis of Article 64 of Regulation 883/2004).
What are the national job-seeking requirements for keeping an entitlement to unemployment benefits (e.g. frequency of controls, requirement of presence).
The proportion of the countries' expenditure for long-term care benefits for mobile EU citizens (ie.
12 Ad hoc group which was established by the Administrative Commission delivered first preliminary results based on their analysis carried out between 2008 – 2010.
benefits exported, benefits provided to persons insured in other Member States, administrative costs for the national institutions when dealing with cross-border cases.
(3) External study for the collection of evidence and data to allow measurement of impact – October 2012 – June 2013
(4) Press release following the adoption of the Commission's proposal.
Which stakeholders & experts have been or will be consulted, how, and at what stage?
trESS network consisting of independent experts (academics and national experts) was consulted in 2011 and 2012
Member States (through the Administrative Commission for the coordination of social security systems) were invited to contribute on both issues.
Public consultation – online questionnaire (Public consultation: 5 December 2012 – 5 March 2013)
Consultation of organisations and social partners from cross-border regions with a high number of cross- border/frontier workers – questionnaire and/or workshop (December 2012 – March 2013)
Consultation of the national institutions / administrations (including examination of administrative burden) – December 2012 – May 2013 (Online questionnaire: 10 December 2012 – 10 February 2013, workshops in selected Member States, interviews)
The main findings of the fieldwork will be discussed with the Member States in the Administrative Commission for the coordination of social security systems and with the social partners and employers' representatives in the Advisory Committee.
