scholarly journals Public Services and European Law: Looking for Boundaries

2003 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 271-291
Author(s):  
Eleanor Spaventa
Keyword(s):  
Social Security ◽  
The State ◽  
Hospital Treatment ◽  
Social Security Systems ◽  
Security Systems ◽  
Member States ◽  
Prior Authorisation ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Receive Treatment ◽  
The Individual

All member states must, as a matter of Community law, provide for a qualified right to go to another Member State to receive treatment at the expense of the competent social security system. According to Article 22 of Regulation 1408/71 such a right is conditional upon prior authorisation by the competent institution. Authorisation cannot be refused when the treatment is amongst the benefits provided for by the State where the individual resides and the treatment cannot be provided within the time ‘normally necessary’ for obtaining the treatment in the State of residence. The Court however has found that Article 49 EC imposes upon Member States obligations that go beyond those contained in the Regulation: thus a prior authorisation requirement constitutes a justified barrier (subject to important qualifications) in the case of hospital treatment and a non-justified barrier in the case of nonhospital treatment. The effects of this interpretation are far-reaching: not only do Member States see their obligations under Community law redefined in a way which might have a significant financial impact on their social security systems; but also the reasoning of the Court could be applied to other branches of the public sector, such as education.

scholarly journals Public Services and European Law: Looking for Boundaries

2003 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 271-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleanor Spaventa
Keyword(s):  
Social Security ◽  
The State ◽  
Hospital Treatment ◽  
Social Security Systems ◽  
Security Systems ◽  
Member States ◽  
Prior Authorisation ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Receive Treatment ◽  
The Individual

All member states must, as a matter of Community law, provide for a qualified right to go to another Member State to receive treatment at the expense of the competent social security system. According to Article 22 of Regulation 1408/71 such a right is conditional upon prior authorisation by the competent institution. Authorisation cannot be refused when the treatment is amongst the benefits provided for by the State where the individual resides and the treatment cannot be provided within the time ‘normally necessary’ for obtaining the treatment in the State of residence. The Court however has found that Article 49 EC imposes upon Member States obligations that go beyond those contained in the Regulation: thus a prior authorisation requirement constitutes a justified barrier (subject to important qualifications) in the case of hospital treatment and a non-justified barrier in the case of nonhospital treatment. The effects of this interpretation are far-reaching: not only do Member States see their obligations under Community law redefined in a way which might have a significant financial impact on their social security systems; but also the reasoning of the Court could be applied to other branches of the public sector, such as education.

Income Tax in Relation to Social Security

1946 ◽  
Vol 72 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. T. Haynes ◽  
R. J. Kirton
Keyword(s):  
Social Security ◽  
Income Tax ◽  
Combined Effect ◽  
Social Security Systems ◽  
Security Systems ◽  
Tax System ◽  
The Social ◽  
System Part ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Financial Relationship

This paper falls into three parts which form a progressive study involvingI. proposals for the reform of the Income Tax system as related to personal assessments,II. consideration of the interrelation of Income Tax and Social Security,III. proposals for the co-ordination of the Income Tax and Social Security systems.Part I of this progressive study is a plea for a business-like administration of the Income Tax system. Part II examines the combined effect upon the individual of the Income Tax system and the Social Security plan proposed by Sir William Beveridge. Part III sets out to co-ordinate Income Tax and Social Security and to simplify the financial relationship between the individual and the community.

scholarly journals Sincere Cooperation, Mutual Trust, and Mutual Recognition in Social Security Coordination

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 89-108
Author(s):  
Henrik Wenander
Keyword(s):  
Social Security ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
Social Security Systems ◽  
Security Systems ◽  
Member States ◽  
Legislative Choice

This article looks into the meaning of the concepts of sincere cooperation, mutual trust, and mutual recognition in EU social security coordination. It analyses the legislative choice of coordination as the main regulatory mechanism in the field, and examines the role of administrative cooperation. Furthermore, the article highlights the challenges that arise in situations where mutual recognition is required under the Regulations, as in connection with portable documents relating to the posting of workers. It also considers the limits to mutual trust via the principle of prohibition of fraud and abuse of rights established in the case law of the CJEU on free movement. In the last few years, this principle has been extended into the field of social security law, notably in Altun. In this way, the coordination regime does not require totally blind trust: rather, it balances the Member States' interests of maintaining the integrity of their social security systems with the Union interest of simplifying free movement. As in other fields of EU law relating to free movement, the mutual trust between the Member States in social security coordination may therefore be set aside in extraordinary cases.

Member States’ approaches to bilateral social security agreements

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grega Strban
Keyword(s):  
Social Security ◽  
Coordination Mechanism ◽  
Social Security Systems ◽  
Security Systems ◽  
Member States ◽  
Migration Patterns ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Coordination System ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
Security Agreements

Bilateral social security agreements are the oldest instruments which provide social security entitlements to persons moving between the countries. EU Member States’ approaches to distinctive bilateral agreements with Non-EU States are analysed herein. Bilateral social security agreements are not only the oldest coordination instruments, but remain the most important ones linking social security systems of MS and Non-EU States. They are tailored to the social security systems of the two contracting states. Nevertheless, bilateral social security agreements might be neither comprehensive in their scope of application nor complete in covering all coordination principles. Moreover, they do not create a uniform coordination system. Under the modified migration patterns - i.e. movements for shorter period of time and between many countries - a more comprehensive social security coordination mechanism might be required.

Protection mechanisms in the old-age pension systems of the CEE countries

2012 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 581-605 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARCIN KAWIŃSKI ◽  
DARIUSZ STAŃKO ◽  
JOANNA RUTECKA
Keyword(s):  
Social Security ◽  
Pension System ◽  
The State ◽  
Market Mechanism ◽  
Social Security Systems ◽  
Security Systems ◽  
Protection Mechanism ◽  
Role Of The State ◽  
The Social ◽  
Protection Mechanisms

AbstractSince 1990s, substantial changes in the role of the state in the social security schemes can be observed in the countries of the Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). While the general framework of social benefits in the CEE countries is still defined by the state, more and more often the task of provision of social security is transferred to the private entities. Such privatization of social policy makes the need for protection mechanism and some state guarantees even stronger. It is still the state that is responsible for the final outcome of social security systems so that is why governments are directly providing or indirectly creating safety mechanisms built-in the private market mechanism used for social purposes. The paper surveys various types of the protection mechanisms in selected CEE countries that exist in the important and already most privatized element of the social security system – the pension system. While describing the safety measures and possible guarantees, special attention is paid to the new forms that have been built up recently. The paper covers both mandatory and voluntary pension markets and identifies present and possible threats in the existing frameworks that can harm the social security. The paper concludes with general assessment and policy recommendations.

scholarly journals The Social Security of Farmers in Poland and in Selected EU Member States

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 239-249
Author(s):  
Joanna Bak ◽  
Małgorzata Szałkowska
Keyword(s):  
Social Security ◽  
Rural Areas ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
Insurance Fund ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Social Security Systems ◽  
Security Systems ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Social

The subject of the present article is the social security of farmers. The main aim of this research paper is characterizing the functioning of the social security system for Polish farmers in comparison to such systems in selected member states of the European Union. The research investigated social security systems in Finland, France, Austria, Germany and Poland. The research involved a review of the literature on social security systems for farmers, provisions of law regulating the principles of such systems and the information furnished by the Agricultural Social Insurance Fund (KRUS), as well as statistical data provided by KRUS and Eurostat. The following research methods have been applied: descriptive analysis of the documents in order to verify the diversity of agricultural security systems, a critical review of the literature and online data concerning social security, and a comparative analysis. Each of the investigated countries has its own, distinct social and historical conditions, which has led to the development of independent institutions of social security for farmers. One factor which all these systems have in common is significant support from the national budget. In the future, financial inefficiency may pose the most significant risk to security systems in agriculture. Except for their social role, the social security systems presented below also participate in the management of agricultural policy, the aim of which is the development of rural areas and the welfare of the natural environment.

scholarly journals Understanding Social Security Development: Lessons From the Chinese Case

SAGE Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 215824402110326
Author(s):  
Guan Huang ◽  
Zhuang Cai
Keyword(s):  
Social Security ◽  
Political Legitimacy ◽  
Political Context ◽  
Common Mechanism ◽  
Social Security Systems ◽  
Security Systems ◽  
Security Research ◽  
Chinese Case ◽  
Thematic Approach ◽  
Convergence And Divergence

Understanding the development of social security systems constitutes the ultimate goal of social security research. This review traces and compares two schools of thought regarding social security development: the convergence and divergence schools. Using a thematic approach, this article first categorizes extant studies into one of these two schools and then identifies the broadly accepted mechanism of social security development by comparing them. After reviewing the extant research and its theoretical underpinnings, this article applies Mill’s methods of agreement and difference to show how the Chinese case contributes to and challenges our understanding of social security development. By discussing the assumptions of current research on social security development in light of the Chinese case, this article illuminates how political legitimacy serves as a common mechanism of social security development regardless of political context or structure.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document