EUROPEAN COMMISSIONEMPL/00354/15 - EN
AdvC 02/14Minutes of the 45thmeeting of the Advisory Committee
SECRETARIAT – 24.10.2014
Orig. EN
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FOR THE COORDINATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEMS
Minutes of the 45thmeeting of the Advisory Committee
24 October 2014
A.Agenda
B.Approval of Minutes
C.Communications and Questions
I. Key challenges for the social security coordination Regulations in the perspective of 2020
II.Report on the activities of the Administrative Commission
III.New developments in the rules applying to posting of workers...... 6
IV.Rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the coordination of social security systems (mid-2013 to mid-2014)
V.External dimensions of social security coordination...... 8
VI.Cross-border planned healthcare - Report on S2 Questionnaire 2014...... 9
VII.Export of unemployment benefits - replies to PD U2 Questionnaire 2014...... 9
VIII. Communication activities by the Commission...... 10
IX. Other business...... 11
A.Agenda
The Chair, Mr Jörg TAGGER, acting Head of Unit of Unit B4 Free Movement of Workers, Coordination of Social Security Schemes,in the Commission's Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (DG EMPL), presented the draft agenda (note AdvC 01/14).
The Chair informed participants about a request of the OGBL/Confédération Syndical Indépendante du Luxembourg (OGBL) to add a point of discussion on "The cooperation between social security institutions in the context of coordination of social security systems". This point would be discussed under item IX,other business.
The OGBL raised the issue of the language regime. Even if the number of the EU official languages increased, the languages used for interpretation were reduced. Regarding the agenda, he underlined that the cooperation between social security institutions was of great importance for citizens. Therefore, he expressed the hope that, in the future,such sensitive issues would not have to be discussed under other business, but as a separate item.
BUSINESSEUROPE agreed with the OGBL that the cooperation between national institutions was a key issue and should not be discussed under other business. If it was not possible to discuss it in more detail during this meeting, BUSINESSEUROPE expressed the hope that it would be tackled in the next meeting of the Administrative Commission on Social Security Coordination (Administrative Commission) or, at least, in the next meeting of the Advisory Committee. It is important to see how we can improve the current situation. BUSINESSEUROPE also asked the Secretariat if it was possible to discuss in the afternoon an interesting study done by the Commission or at their request on migration welfare. This topic would be discussed in the Advisory Committee on Free Movement of Workers the next month, but it would be also important to have some information in this forum.
The Austrian representative of employersasked to discuss an issue on the European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) under item IX, other business.
On the linguistic regime, the Chair drew the attention both to limited human resources and to budgetary cuts for interpretation expenses. In those circumstances, no new languages could be added. The linguistic regime of the Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Social Security Systems is the same as the regime of any other social security committee.
Regarding the issue of adding items on the agenda, the Chairstatedthat according to the Rules of procedure of the Advisory Committee, any new point should be proposed at least ten days before the meeting, with a substantial note. The Chair also expressed his support to discuss any topic considered important. However, in order to allow all delegations to prepare the subject, it is important to receive the proposal in time and accompanied with a note.The agenda was also sent for comments to the representatives of social partners at European level. The procedure can be modified if needed.
The Chair explained that "The welfare magnet hypothesis and the welfaretake-up of migrants"was an article written by an external expert, Mr Corrado Giulietti[1]. Therefore, the Commission could not present saidmaterial during the meeting of the Advisory Committee. However, the participants would be informed about the article after the meeting.
The Chair concluded that the agenda as set out in note AdvC 01/14 was adopted with the addition of the issuesproposed bythe OGBL and the Austrian representative of employers.
B.Approval of Minutes
There were no comments from the Members of the Advisory Committee on the minutes of the 44thmeeting.
The Chair concluded that the minutes of the 44thmeeting of the Advisory Committee on 24October 2013 contained in note AdvC 02/13 (BG, CS, DA, DE, EL, EN, ES, ET, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, SV) were approved.
C.Communications and Questions
The Chairgave a brief overview on the new European Commission (the Commission). Two days before the meeting, the European Parliament voted in favour of the new Commission. The European Council had to approve the new Commission and it should take office on 1 November. The new Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs, Skills and Labour Mobility would be Marianne Thyssen, from Belgium. She had been a member of the European Parliament since 1999. Both the President-elect, Mr Junker, and Ms Thyssen stated that they sustain mobility, as a fundamental right of EU citizens. At the same time, they underlined the importance of fighting against fraud and error in this field.
The Chair also explained the way the new Commission would work. Five vice-presidentswere going to coordinate the activity in different fields. For social affairs, two of them willbe responsible, Mr Valdis Dombrovskis for social dialogue and Mr Jyrki Katainen for growth, jobs, investments and competitiveness. Mr Frans Timmermans, first vice-president will be responsible for better regulation, inter-institutional relations, the rule of law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. He has already underlined the importance of a comprehensive impact assessment for each Commission’s proposal. Mr Timmermansalso announced his intention to re-negotiate the inter-institutional agreements with the European Parliament and the Council regarding the impact assessments of their amendments to the Commission's proposal.
Regarding the proposal of revision of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004on social security coordination[2], the Commission Barroso decided not to adopt it at the end of its mandate. So, it is up to the next Commission to take course on this issue.
The Chair also informed participants that Ms Antonella SCHULTE-BRAUCKS is the new head of unit in Unit B4.
I.Key challenges for the social security coordination Regulations in the perspective of 2020
The Secretariat explained that the context of social security coordination is in a continuous evolution due to changes of migration patterns, aging society, economic issues and globalisation. It stated that in 2009, a Conference in Prague took place celebrating 50 years of social security coordination and a first exchange of views on the future was held. The Secretariat underlined the need to think ahead about the system of social security coordination, taking into consideration the current and future challenges. The Commission thereforeasked the trESS network[3] to analyse the main challenges in social security coordination in 2020 and beyond. The analysis resulted in a Think Tank report on Key challenges for the social security coordination Regulations in the perspective of 2020[4].
Prof. Yves Jorens, FreSsco[5] project director, presented the report. He explained that therules on social security coordinationwould be confronted both with endogenous developmentsat national and EU level and with exogenous elements at global level.After having described the general challenges and their impact on the Regulation, the report focussedon some possible remedies(see the presentation made available on CIRCABC).
The Chair thanked trESS for the report andFreSsco for the presentation. The report is a very good basis for a brainstorming on the future of social security coordination. The Chair opened the floor to delegations to present their views.
The European Trade Union Confederation(ETUC) welcomed the report as a good starting point for a debate on the future. ETUC underlined the need to actively involve social partners in the process including the work of the Reflection Forum established in the framework of the AC. As for future challenges, ETUC underlined the need to analyse at EU level the issues on precarious employment. Due to a change inlabour market patterns, more recourse is being made to short term contracts or partial employment contracts which do not entitle the worker to social security benefits.
The OGBLexpressed doubts on the externalisation of certain services by the Commission. It mentioned that the report and the solutions proposed therein were vague and did not respond to concrete issues that the workers are facing every day. The OGBL also drew the attention to the fact that the report was available only in English. The OGBLunderlined the need to move forward, to have concrete proposals and to launch the reform in order to solve current problems in social security coordination.
BUSINESSEUROPEgave their thanks for the report and agreed with the ETUC on the need to actively involve social partners in the process of reflection. This could be done not necessarily by increasing the number of meetings of the Advisory Committee, but by ad-hoc cooperation between the meetings. BUSINESSEUROPE expressed its support for free movement of workers, as one of the fundamental principles in the EU and underlined that mobility could be the solution for the issue of an ageing society. However, at a national level, there are intense discussions on welfare migration. Even if the figures do not lead to the conclusion that migration is a real issue, these debates have a strong political impact. Therefore, there is a danger of limiting mobility in some Member States due to a general perception that abuses have to be avoided in this way. So, in order to defend mobility, a solution would be to fight this perception. The fight against fraud and error supposes rather better coordination and cooperation between Member States. There is also a clear need for the simplification of the system.
Regarding unemployment benefits, BUSINESSEUROPE considered that the extension of the export period from 3 to 6 months was a sensitive issue in a period of economic crisis. It is very difficult for Member States to verify if the persons receiving unemployment benefit are actively searching for a job in another Member State. So, the current systems which allows national administrations to evaluate if there is a need to extent the period with 3 additional months after the first 3 months is fit for its purpose.
BUSINESSEUROPE also mentioned that the perception of the public regarding mobility can be influenced by the situations in which migrant workers are treated in a more favourable way than national workers. In this context, it expressed its concerns regarding Articles 21, 61, 62 and 65 of the Regulation as in some cases there can be discrimination between migrant and national workers, the situation becoming more advantageous for migrant workers.
The Federation of Belgium Employers raised an issue related to Portable Document (PD) A1. It is not always clear if there is a procedure to guarantee that the information contained in a form is authentic. Therefore, it would be useful if the Commission analysed the different national procedures to see if there are guarantees that PDs A1 are authentic.
Fédération Générale du Travail de Belgique (FGTB) asked the Secretariat what the follow up of the report would be. The intention of the Commission to revise the Regulations is well known; however, in the report, relevant issues are analysed more in depth and in a wider perspective.
The Secretariatexplained that the report was requested for two main reasons. First, it was consideredimportant to be able to react promptly and to amend the existing rules as a response to changes in the general context. Secondly, there were political discussions in some Member States that the current system did not respond to all the problems in practice. Therefore, the report was presented to the Administrative Commission and subsequently to the Advisory Committee, as it was important to consult social partners as well. The Secretariat invited the participantsto send written contributions on current issues and to propose solutions to improve the system of social security coordination. The Secretariat also reiterated that social partners had the possibility to coordinate at national level with the representatives in the Administrative Commission and thus bring their input. Last but not least, during the impact assessment of any proposal, all stakeholders involved would be consulted.
Regarding the PD A1, the Secretariat informed the delegations that work on posting issues is currently on-going within the framework of the Administrative Commission and that more details would be presented under item III.
II.Report on the activities of the Administrative Commission
Ms Maria Grazia CATALDI, the Chair of the Administrative Commission presented the report on the activities of the Administrative Commission (note AdvC 03/14). In addition to the matters referred to in this note, Ms Cataldi also provided an update on the Working Party meeting on 9 October 2014 on the Relationship between Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Directive 2011/24/EUof the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare[6] (discussed in more detail at item VI). She also provided an update on the meeting of National Contact Points in Rome in September 2014 as an example of enhanced cooperation under Regulation (EC) No 883/2004.
Ms Cataldi as wellinformed participants of the outcome of the most recent meeting of the Administrative Commission the previous day. At this meeting delegations had discussed the ways the working methods of the Administrative Commission might be improved. Regarding the Reflection Forum, the next meeting in December would be dedicated to the relationship between the Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States[7].
No questions were raised on this subject.
III. New developments in the rules applying to posting of workers
Mr Sindre REINHOLDT from DG EMPL B2 (Labour Law Unit)presented Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services[8].
The Secretariat provided a presentation on recent developments in the field of posted workers. This included an update on the meeting of the Working Party on Posting Issues on 23 June 2014 and the proposal to establish an Ad-hoc group on posting issues to develop consistent approaches to PD A1 and possible further amendments to the Practical Guide. It is hoped that the mandate of the Ad hoc group will be approved by the Administrative Commission in December to begin work in 2015.
Ms Carita RAMMUS from DG EMPL B2 (Labour Law Unit) provided a presentation on the proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing a European Platform to enhance cooperation in the prevention and deterrence of undeclared work[9](see the presentations made available on CIRCABC).
The Chair invited participants to present their views/ask questions on the subjects raised.
The OGBLsaid that it was unclear what the connection was between the subject matter of the presentations and the work of the Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Social Security Systems.It stated it is always necessary to maintain a distinction between measures applying to third party nationals and those applying to EU citizens.The proposed methods of enforcement were too complicated particularly in the context of arrangements for a single worker or for short term postings, for example a posting of a week.The proposals need to be more straight forward with less red tape.The OGBLalso expressed concerned about the proposal to work with 8 representatives from "Industry" on the issue of undeclared work. In its view there are a number of sectors which have a particular issue with undeclared work such as agriculture, construction, hotels and catering.There should be a stronger commitment to involving social partners in these discussions.
CGT France stated that these initiatives were intended to protect the rights of workers, which was welcomed. However, the proposals did not solve the issue of the erosion of social security rights and revenue as a result of changes in working practices including abuses of the posting rules and growth in zero-hours contracts.The CGT have been working with other stakeholders to develop proposals which they will put forward in due course. One of the proposals they are considering is to require social security contributions to be paid by the company benefitting from the labour of the posted worker.
In response, Ms Carita RAMMUSsaid that it was not always clear for inspectors on the ground whether a situation is related to the posting rules or undeclared work. The purposes of the platform are to provide practical support to inspectors to help them establish which rules to apply. The proposal is to utilise the Internal Market Information system to facilitate contact between Member States and to ensure equal representation between employers and employees (i.e. it would be four sectors that would be represented with an even divide between employers and employees). It will not be the Commission who decides which sectors are represented but rather the Commission hopes that social partners will help identify which sectors have the most pressing need.
Mr Sindre REINHOLDTagreed that there was a need to ensure the Enforcement Directive did not generate unnecessary red tape. The Directive aims to facilitate the application of two different instruments, the Service Directive and the rights of posted workers and therefore need to be a balanced and effective instrument. The Enforcement Directive is a specific measure to tackle a particular concern but this measure overlaps with the scope of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004. For example, the increased use of so called "letter box companies" to set up a company in a Member State with low social security contributions and then engaging a worker under the law of that Member State as a means of avoiding higher contributions in the territory where the worker is actually going to be posted. Mr Reinholdt went on to note that there may be situations in which third country nationals who legally reside and are employed in a Member State may be posted to another Member State under Directive 96/71/EC.