organising training and setting up networks on the  European Coordination of Social Security Schemes               in the ...
Where do we stand? – Short inventory•Around 1.5.2010     –What has been achieved? What is missing?•Other developments     ...
1.5.2010 – Entry into force of Reg. 883/2004• Formalistic problems (survival of Reg. 1408/71):   – Reg. on Third Country N...
Important achievements– Implementing Reg. (Reg. 987/2009 + 1.  Amendment Reg. 988/2009)– Important Decisions of the AC   •...
What is still open?• Missing SEDs   – Disappointment because of missing communication     between Technique and Law (e.g. ...
Other related issues• Entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty  – New voting (qualified majority – Art. 48 TFEU)     • Free m...
Open questions of interpretation - 1• Value of insurance periods   • Periods for entitlement and/or calculation   • Differ...
Open questions of interpretation - 2Family benefits:• See also case study• Calculation per child or per family?   • Could ...
Open questions of interpretation - 3Reimbursement for unemployment benefitsNo problem for insured persons• But: dispute be...
ECJ always dangerousMany unresolved questions due to ECJ decisions• No transposition in Reg. 883/2004  • Case C-205/05, Ne...
Possible future steps?Amendments to Reg. 883/2004:• „Rectifications“ – getting rid of mistakes (e.g.  Art. 6 Reg. 987/2009...
Amendments to Reg. 883/2004 in the futureSpecial chapter for Long Term Care benefits?• Is it already too late?• No – ECJ a...
Future of EESSIWhen will EESSI be operational?• will MS be EESSI enabled before end of transition  period?• Individual tes...
Conclusion• Incredible achievements• But – a lot remains to be done    Thank you for your attention                    Ber...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

2010 - Where do we stand – what problems do we have?

196

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
196
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

2010 - Where do we stand – what problems do we have?

  1. 1. organising training and setting up networks on the European Coordination of Social Security Schemes in the 27 Member States National trESS Seminar European Co-ordination of social securityWhere do we stand – what problems do we have? Lund 14.10.2010 Bernhard Spiegel
  2. 2. Where do we stand? – Short inventory•Around 1.5.2010 –What has been achieved? What is missing?•Other developments –Treaty of Lisbon –Association Agreements•Preview –What are (could be) the next steps? Bernhard Spiegel
  3. 3. 1.5.2010 – Entry into force of Reg. 883/2004• Formalistic problems (survival of Reg. 1408/71): – Reg. on Third Country Nationals • Reg. 1408/71 for UK for eternity – EEA-Agreement – EU-Swiss Agreement • Reg. 1408/71 for DK and UK for eternity - see later• Other problems: – Transition • Concrete question: Procedures which began already before 1.5. – Art. 87 (8) – applicable legislation • „change of the relevant situation“ • E.g. new employer? – Information for citizens Bernhard Spiegel
  4. 4. Important achievements– Implementing Reg. (Reg. 987/2009 + 1. Amendment Reg. 988/2009)– Important Decisions of the AC • E.g. Decision No. A2 on posting– „Portable“ Documents (all languages - fill able)– Many paper SEDs– Master Directory was available on 1.5.2010 • Recommendation: Test and test again! • Strange results e.g. „Scheme for all“ (Code 23097) Bernhard Spiegel
  5. 5. What is still open?• Missing SEDs – Disappointment because of missing communication between Technique and Law (e.g. BF pensions)• National adaptations for EESSI – Reference Implementation necessary• Additional national amendments to legislation (?) – Is it allowed or necessary? • E.g. concerning competences (previous Annexes to Reg. 574/72) • E.g. concerning health care contributions from foreign pensions (AT experience)• Questions of interpretation not solved – see later Bernhard Spiegel
  6. 6. Other related issues• Entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty – New voting (qualified majority – Art. 48 TFEU) • Free movement of EU citizens (Art. 21 TFEU) – Unanimity – irrelevant? • AT and DE overruled TCN-Reg. – Problems with TCN (Art 79 (2) TFEU) • Association Agreements need for „intra community“ legal base – problems for DK/UK/IE • EEA-Agreement (Art. 48 TFEU) and EU-Swiss Agreement (Art. 79 (2) TFEU)? Bernhard Spiegel
  7. 7. Open questions of interpretation - 1• Value of insurance periods • Periods for entitlement and/or calculation • Differences due to national legislation! • E.g. MS A entitlement: 15 Years; school periods only for calculation • MS B entitlement 30 Years; all periods (also school periods) count for entitlement • Results which are not justifiable • Better solution: Assimilation of facts • Borderline in grey zone: Taboo: periods of residence disregarded under Bismarckian scheme Bernhard Spiegel
  8. 8. Open questions of interpretation - 2Family benefits:• See also case study• Calculation per child or per family? • Could lead o different results• One or two baskets? • Family allowances and/or parental benefits?• Period could be decided by beneficiary • Shorter higher amount or longer lower amount• Benefit with income replacement function • Only with foreign income? Case C-257/10, Bergström• Application of the Judgement in C-363/08, Slanina? • Do all MS grant family benefits even in cases of divorced couples where no alimony is paid? • Repercussions in MS of residence of the children! Bernhard Spiegel
  9. 9. Open questions of interpretation - 3Reimbursement for unemployment benefitsNo problem for insured persons• But: dispute between institutions • Amount to which entitlement would exist (with or without aggregation?) • 3 months of reimbursement also after very short periods of employment? Bernhard Spiegel
  10. 10. ECJ always dangerousMany unresolved questions due to ECJ decisions• No transposition in Reg. 883/2004 • Case C-205/05, Nemec – is this a common principle of calculation? • Case C-352/06, Bosmann – simultaneous competence of 2 MS? • Case C-211/08, Cion. against ES – No free movement of services in case of urgent necessary care • Case C-208/07, Chamier-Glisczinski – relief for LTC benefits? – no! Pending case C-388/09, da Silva Martins Bernhard Spiegel
  11. 11. Possible future steps?Amendments to Reg. 883/2004:• „Rectifications“ – getting rid of mistakes (e.g. Art. 6 Reg. 987/2009)• Changes concerning simultaneous activities? • Intra group mobility (Report of trESS Think Tank) • „hyper mobile“ Workers (e.g. persons engaged in sport, musicians, artists) • Transport workers • aircrews Bernhard Spiegel
  12. 12. Amendments to Reg. 883/2004 in the futureSpecial chapter for Long Term Care benefits?• Is it already too late?• No – ECJ accepted also amendments (no-export) for non-contributory benefits• But – what principles?Activating measures• Export + administrative aid?• No Export if there are no such activating measures in MS of residence?Transposition of Patient mobility in Reg. 883/2004?• Despite coming Directive?Interference between Reg. 883/2004 and Dir. 2004/38 concerning residence of EU citizens (trESS Think Tank Report) Bernhard Spiegel
  13. 13. Future of EESSIWhen will EESSI be operational?• will MS be EESSI enabled before end of transition period?• Individual testing before „EESSI-enabled“?Next steps:• On-line Functionality • eEHIC • Data repository of EHICs which lost validity? • „European Free Movement Card“ • Applicable legislation • Data repository for A1 forms • What happens now – Art. 16 procedures? • Electronic Identification• Speeding up of pension procedures Bernhard Spiegel
  14. 14. Conclusion• Incredible achievements• But – a lot remains to be done Thank you for your attention Bernhard Spiegel
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×