WP 89 - Coordination of national social security in the EU

*Abstract* The coordination of the national social security is one of the crucial fields of cooperation between EU Member States. The coordination is based on the principle of application of one legislation at a time in cases of employment being executed in one or more than one Member State. Persons moving within the EU are thus subject to the social security scheme of only one Member State. The rules aim to guarantee equal treatment and non discrimination by the application of the “lex loci laboris” principle. In 2004 the European legislator concluded modernised social security coordination rules (Regulation EC 883/2004) in order to simplify the current rules. The idea was also to limit the number of specific rules for different categories of professional activities. An Implementing Regulation was concluded in April 2009. In this paper the author explores the (possible) complications related to the new rules. The paper consists of an overview of the rules, of the basic changes and of pending questions. At the end a set of recommendations is formulated meant to contribute to the necessary tailor-made solutions. *Samenvatting* De coördinatie van de nationale sociale zekerheidstelsels vormt een cruciaal terrein van samenwerking tussen de lidstaten van de Europese Unie. Die coördinatie is gebaseerd op het uitgangspunt dat slechts één wetgeving van toepassing kan zijn in situaties waarbij in een of meerdere lidstaten gewerkt wordt. EU onderdanen die gebruik maken van het vrij verkeer kunnen zodoende slechts onderworpen zijn aan het sociale zekerheidsstelsel van een lidstaat. De regels dienen de gelijke behandeling te garanderen en discriminatie tegen te gaan door de toepassing van het “lex loci laboris” principe (het werklandbeginsel). De Europese wetgever besloot in 2004 tot een modernisering en vereenvoudiging van de coördinatieregels voor de sociale zekerheid (Verordening EC 883/2004). Achterliggende gedachte was tevens het terugbrengen van het aantal specifieke regels voor verschillende beroepscategorieën. De implementatiewetgeving werd afgerond in april 2009. In dit werkdocument behandelt de auteur enkele (mogelijke) complicaties die kunnen voortvloeien uit de nieuwe regels. De studie geeft een overzicht van de regelgeving, van de belangrijkste veranderingen en van open kwesties. Aan het eind worden aanbevelingen geformuleerd die een bijdrage beogen te zijn voor de noodzakelijke op maat gesneden oplossingen.

The European Labour Authority and rights-based labour mobility

In his State of the Union Address 2017, expressed at the European Parliament in September 2017, European Commission’s President Juncker announced plans to establish a new European agency, a European Labour Authority (hereafter ELA), in order to foster fair mobility in Europe. The negotiations between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament on the proposal, launched by the Commission in March 2018, ended in the first half of 2019. This article addresses the following items after providing some background information: • Existing problems with labour mobility: analysis of reasons for insufficient enforcement and other problems (EU and Member States); • The core business and added value of ELA (e.g. coverage of all relevant topics, existing structures and tools, new structures and services, pooling, more comprehensive services and synergies); • Challenges and risks (e.g. gaps, new interfaces, overlaps, complexity, feasibility, resources); • Short summary and outlook

The Netherlands:Report on the social security rights of short-term third-country national migrant workers

This report provides an overview of the ways in which EU and EEA Member States have regulated their social security frameworks in relation to short-term third-country national (TCN) migrant workers. It presents the result of an extensive mapping exercise carried out in 24 EU Member States, as well as Iceland and Norway, focussing on the relationship between migration and the social security coverage of different categories of short-term third-country national workers (for example, posted workers, intra-corporate transfers, seasonal workers, temporary agency workers, high-level professionals and self-employed). Jan Cremers contributed with a section on the Netherlands

Description of the Dutch system

This contribution is part of a report that provides an overview of the ways in which EU and EEA Member States have regulated the immigration of third-country nationals who enter their territory for the purpose of work. Its focus is on short-term migrant workers and it presents the results of an extensive mapping exercise carried out by national experts from 23 EU and two EEA countries in collaboration with the ETUI

EU company law, artificial corporate entities and social policy

The subject of this report spans a broad field of intertwined disciplines. The emphasis is on the phenomenon of (artificial) corporate entities operating in a cross-border context of free provision of services. The starting point is an analysis of the EU-parts of the regulatory frame for the internal market, followed by a general review of adjacent EU-social policies. Company law, in the strict sense, seems hardly to be affected by the developments related to fraud and regulatory arbitrage. The terms ‘genuine’ or ‘non-genuine’ undertaking do not figure in the EU acquis and are only sparsely used in the legislation of Member States. The information, necessary to determine whether a company is a genuine undertaking, of national registries is incomplete and superficial, and commercial databases are inconsistent and easy to manipulate. As far as national instruments are used to tackle fraudulent practices with corporate legal entities in the context of cross-border services, these instruments stem neither from regulations enshrined in company law nor from the (implemented) safety-of-services related legislation. Limited efforts are made to tackle these practices based on secondary legislation in adjacent policy areas (i.e. labour inspectorate, social security offices). These compliance offices lack the competence to act effectively and thoroughly against non-genuine entities