Suchergebnisse

De detachering van werknemers en zelfstandigen binnen de Europese Unie heeft de afgelopen jaren herhaaldelijk de aandacht gekregen van juristen en beleidsmakers. In het bijzonder het arbeidsrechtelijk en sociaalzekerheidsrechtelijk statuut van de gedetacheerden is onderwerp van discussie.00De toepassing van de detacheringsregels (of het misbruik ervan) zou leiden tot oneerlijke concurrentie of sociale dumping en sociale misstanden. Deze discussies hebben aanleiding gegeven tot opvallende rechtspraak van het Hof van Justitie en de nationale rechterlijke instanties.00Recent werden een aantal toepasselijke Europese regels gewijzigd en heeft de Europese Commissie voorstellen tot wijziging van andere regels ingediend

"Where do I belong? This is a question all mobile persons are bound to ask themselves at one time or another. When crossing borders, individuals establish links with states, which can be the basis for legal claims against these States. This book discusses the issue of these links and, more specifically, the question of how EU law defines the link needed to obtain the right to reside in a member state and the right to social and employment protection in that state. When it comes to claiming rights from states, traditionally 'nationality' is the answer to the question where a person belongs. However, in the context of European integration and the development of an EU legal framework of internal market rules, citizenship rights and immigration rules, different answers to these questions have been developed. From this perspective the various chapters of this book examine instruments such as the Citizens Directive 2004/38, the Family Reunification Directive 2003/86, the Long-term Residence Directive 2003/109, the Social Security Coordination Regulation 883/2004, the Rome I Regulation 593/2008 and the Posting of Workers Directive 96/71. The case-law of the Court of Justice on these issues is of course a central element therein. The analyses of scholars from different legal disciplines in the fourteen chapters of this book show that EU law gives a multitude of answers to the question which link is necessary and sufficient to create an individual's right vis-a-vis a state. The definition of this link, the criteria used and the legal consequences differ according to the legal framework the individual finds himself/herself in and the legal instrument he/she invokes. Moreover, the criteria used in legislation and case-law continue to be the subject of problems of interpretation and application, which in turn leads to legal uncertainty or even confusion."--

There is a growing tendency for the EU Member States to introduce conditions relating to the right to social benefits that are mostly disadvantageous to third-country nationals. These conditions are at risk of conflicting with provisions on the right to equal treatment with the nationals of the host country, as set down in a number of EU migration directives. This is all the more the case now that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has recently given a broad interpretation of these provisions. Consequently, the Member States are to take these provisions as well as the CJEU's case law into account when seeking to limit access to social benefits for third-country nationals. This article examines the content and meaning of these provisions and the relevant case law of the CJEU. It concludes that it is apparent from this case law that the main objective of the right to equal treatment in these directives is to promote the integration of said third-country nationals into the host country and, therefore, the Member States may not make this right dependent on a prior sufficient level of integration in that host country.

In a new case on the right to social assistance for inactive migrating Union citizens, the CJEU delivered a judgment in which it confirmed its restrictive interpretation of the relevant primary and secondary Union law. At the same time, however, it invoked the EU Charter to appease the consequences of that. This case note critically analyses the Court's restrictive application of the principle of non-discrimination of Article 18 TFEU and Article 24 Directive 2004/38/EC. It also comments on the Court's implicit refusal to apply the principle of non-discrimination of Article 18 TFEU to a migrating Union citizen who has acquired a right of residence in the host country solely on the basis of the national law of that Member State. Further, it examines the role ascribed by the Court in this case to the Charter. The conclusion is that this judgment risks jeopardizing a number of fundamental basic principles of Union law while leaving a number of questions open.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the normal use of European conflict rules determining the applicable social security legislation was temporarily suspended to avoid changes in the applicable legislation as a result of telework, which was being obliged or recommended. The purpose was to avoid the consequences of such a change. However, these forms of remote work are expected to remain in existence after the pandemic, even when the suspension of the conflict rules is no longer in place. So, the question arises whether the suspension of the strict application of the conflict rules should be prolonged after the pandemic, or whether these conflict rules should be applied differently or even amended. First, this article discusses the measures that were taken during the pandemic. Next, it will highlight the consequences if the temporary measures are not prolonged after the pandemic for the determination of the applicable social security legislation. It will explore the possible re-interpretation of or even amendments to these rules in order to adapt them to the continuation of telework.

This article analyses the provisions in the withdrawal agreement regarding the coordination of the social security schemes of the United Kingdom and the Member States after Brexit. The UK's withdrawal from the EU raises numerous questions about the consequences for the social security rights, including access to health care, of persons who find themselves in a cross-border situation between the UK and the EU27. The detailed provisions in the agreement concern, in the first place, the arrangements during the transition period, which ends on 31 December 2020. They also establish the rights of persons who are in a cross-border situation between the UK and a Member State at the end of this transition period. Furthermore, the agreement includes rules for persons who have been in such a situation in the past. These provisions are formulated in a complicated manner and will undoubtedly give rise to problems of interpretation and implementation for many decades to come. This article tries to clarify the basic content of this part of the withdrawal agreement, including the arrangements on administrative cooperation, monitoring and enforcement.

This article examines whether the EU social security coordination Regulations 883/2004 and 987/2009 contribute or fail to contribute to the EU policy objective of guaranteeing adequate social protection and fighting against poverty as set by Article 9 TFEU. Even if this coordination system does not directly interfere with the social protection systems of the Member States, it plays an important role in preventing persons who use the right to free movement within the EU from ending up in a situation in which they would lose entitlement to social benefits because of their migration. In analysing this issue I will concentrate on the role of the underlying general principles of this coordination, more specifically, on the rules for the determination of the applicable legislation, the principle of equal treatment, the export of benefits and the aggregation of periods. I will also elaborate on a number of examples where this coordination system fails to prevent the loss of entitlement to social benefits, such as the position of workers in non-standard forms of work, the limited rights of economically inactive migrants, the recent introduction of waiting periods for newcomers, and situations in which the migrants risk falling between two stools. I will conclude with the notion of fairness.

The posting of workers between Member States of the EU has increased dramatically over the past decade. It has led to political and legal discussions on the employment and social rights of these workers during their temporary employment in the host Member State. As far as social security is concerned, these workers remain subject to the social security system of the sending Member State, provided that a number of conditions are fulfilled. Still, the application of these conditions and control of their observance did not turn out to be efficient and was even rendered problematic by the case law of the CJEU on the meaning of the so-called posting certificates. This article takes a closer look at the role of these certificates. It the analyses and discusses the case law on this and formulates some critical comments on it.

This article examines the extent to which EU law impacts on the relationship between the sub-national entities of a Member State where these sub-national entities have regulatory powers in the field of social protection. More specifically, it explores whether the criteria relied on in EU law for determining the scope of the circles of solidarity in the relationship between the Member States can also be applied in the context of the relations between the sub-national entities of regionalised Member States. It appears that EU law on the free movement of persons influences these matters, more specifically the European social security coordination system that determines to which national circle of solidarity a person migrating between Member States belongs. Indeed, in its judgment in the Flemish care insurance case, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) also applied these rules to some categories of persons in a cross-border situation between different regions of a single Member State. This article critically analyses this case law specifically in terms of respect for the regionalised identity of socially devolved Member States. It concludes that this kind of respect requires that in the context of the relations between sub-national entities of a regionalised Member State, the domestic constitutional rules determining the boundaries of circles of solidarity between these entities should, in all circumstances, have preference over the EU rules applicable between Member States.

This article explores the employment and social security rights of third-country nationals guaranteed by a number of EU Directives which are specifically meant to promote and regulate labour migration to the EU. Some were agreed with a view to making the EU more attractive for labour migration from outside the EU. Others were meant to (partially) harmonise rights and/or procedures in order to create a level playing field between the Member States. More specifically, it examines the relevant provisions in the Blue Card Directive 2009/50, the Employers' Sanctions Directive 2009/52, the Single Permit Directive 2011/98, the Seasonal Workers Directive 2014/36, the Intra-corporate Transferees Directive 2014/66 and the Students and Researchers Directive 2016/801. The article emphasises that this set of EU labour migration Directives are the result of a sector-by-sector approach. The EU failed to adopt an overall and common EU labour migration policy and corresponding legal instruments. Even with regard to entitlement to equal treatment in terms of employment and social security rights, these EU instruments lack a common approach and give the Member States room to provide for exceptions. In addition, these Directives do not contain any provisions regarding the aggregation of periods of insurance, employment or residence. As a result, they offer additional protection for the social security rights of migrant persons, but they need to be complemented by other instruments such as multilateral or bilateral agreements with third countries, or even human rights instruments.

This article examines the questions raised by the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union (EU) about the consequences for the social security rights of persons who find themselves in a cross-border situation between the UK and the EU27. First, this article will briefly look at the current social security coordination applying in the relations between the EU Member States, including the UK. Subsequently, it will examine the issue of the rights of those people who already find themselves in a cross-border situation between the UK and the EU27 or used to be in that situation. Next, it will deal with the issue of the rights of those who will find themselves in this kind of cross-border situation in the future. Each time this article will give a short example of the situations for which agreements should be concluded and describe which legal form these agreements could take. Finally, it will examine the issue of what kind of legal framework could exist in a possible transitional period and finish with a short conclusion.

This article contributes to the debate on the boundaries of national solidarity systems in the context of the free movement of persons in the EU. It analyses the impact of the ECJ's judgment in Dano on the entitlement to social benefits of economically inactive Union citizens. First, it summarizes the legal discussion so far held on this issue and highlights the questions that remained open after earlier case law of the Court. Next, it explains why a narrow interpretation of the limitation of the principle of equal treatment allowed by the Court is the only acceptable one if legal coherence is to be preserved. It also analyses the consequences of a broad interpretation, arguing that this would undermine the very principle of free movement as a fundamental right, the principle of proportionality as well as the Union's policy objectives of combating poverty and social exclusion.