Current reflection on
the review of
Regulation 883/2004
in the unemployment
area
trESS seminar
Nottingham,
26 June 2013
Monica Alfaro
Structure of presentation
I. Recent legislative changes – new Article 65a BR
II. Revision of Unemployment Chapter
III. Recent case-law on unemployment
I. Recent legislative changes – new Article
65a BR
 Solution for formerly self-employed frontier workers who were
covered in the Member State of last activity, but whose MS of
residence does not have an unemployment benefits scheme
•
•
MS of last activity will pay the unemployment benefits if the person
registers with the employment services in that Member State and is
available for work there;
If the person does not wish to become or remain available to the
employment services of the MS of last activity and wishes to seek
work in the MS of residence, the MS of last activity will pay the
unemployment benefits for minimum 3 months, with a possibility of
extension until end of entitlement.
II. Revision of Unemployment Chapter
Aim:
• Improve social security protection of the
migrant persons
• Enhance effectiveness of the coordination
regime
• Legal certainty for all stakeholders
• Simplification
Scope & planning
• Scope of the Impact Assessment:
•
•
coordination of long-term care benefits (LTC)
coordination of unemployment benefits (UB)
• Planning
•
•
2012-2013 Impact assessment
2014 Proposal from the Commission
Impact Assessment timeline
Evaluation
IA
preparatory
work
Start-up phase
Year n-2 – Year n-1
IA Analysis &
Consultations of
stakeholders
Core phase
Month x-17 – Month x-3
Where
we are
IA
finalisation
Submission
to the IAB
Hot phase
Month x-3 – Day x
Policy Options
• Option 1) No policy change (baseline scenario)
• Option 2) New system of coordination of
•
unemployment benefits for frontier workers
Option 3) Unemployment benefits for all workers
to be provided by the country of the last activity
regardless of the person's residence
Policy Options
• 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)
Public Consultation
• Mandatory part of the Impact Assessment
fieldwork
• Opened 12 weeks for all relevant stakeholders
(incl. general public)
• Not a representative survey of the EU population
• Summary of the consultation will be available
online
Results of the Public Consultation
N° of replies: 299
• 199 replies by individuals
• 179 replied to questions on unemployment benefits
• 109 replied to questions on long-term care benefits
• 100 replies on behalf of organisations or
specialists
• 81 replied to questions on unemployment benefits
• 45 replied to questions on long-term care benefits
Provision of UB - replies of individuals
Provision of UB - replies of organisations
• Where should an unemployed worker claim unemployment
benefits?
• 47 % - right of choice for frontier workers
• 38 % - the Member State of last activity
• 12 % - the Member State of residence
Export of UB - Replies of individuals
• How long should unemployment benefits be provided to a
person who goes looking for job in another Member State?
• 59 % - export until the end of entitlement (according
to the legislation of the competent Member State)
• 24 % - supported the current EU rules
• 16 % - export for at least 6 months
Export of UB - Replies of
organisations
• How long should unemployment benefits be provided to a
person who goes looking for job in another Member State?
• 47 % supported the current EU rules
• 33 % export until the end of entitlement
(according to the legislation of the competent Member
State)
• 17 % export for at least 6 months
Experience with EU rules -
individuals
• Out of 179 individuals who replied on the
unemployment part, 20 had at some point applied for
UB after having worked in another EU/EEA Member
State
•
•
•
•
•
11 of them reported problems, mainly:
- delay in the decision on entitlement to UB (8)
- lack of communication by national authorities (4)
- delay in payments of benefits (4)
- feeling of being discriminated due to nationality (3)
Perception of the EU rules -
organisations
Based on your organisation’s experience, you conclude that EU
rules on coordination of unemployment benefits
• Option A: do not need to be neither changed, nor better
explained and are correctly applied in practice.
• Option B: do not need to be changed, but should be better
applied in practice.
• Option C: do not need to be changed, but should be better
explained.
• Option D: difficult to say.
• Option E: need to be changed.
III. Recent case-law on unemployment
The Jeltes Case (C-443/11) of 11 April 2013:
 the provisions of Article 65 of Regulation No 883/2004 are
not to be interpreted in the light of the judgment of the
Court of Justice of 12 June 1986 in Case 1/85 Miethe.
• Online summary of the Public Consultation will be available
online:
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=333&langId=en&consultId
=12&visib=0&furtherConsult=yes
• To go further: Roadmap of the initiative
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/planned_ia/docs/2013_empl
_003_coordination_social_security_systems_en.pdf
Thank you for your attention!