Regulation 1231/2010 on the inclusion of third-country nationals in EU social security coordination

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 86-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rob Cornelissen
Keyword(s):  
Social Security ◽  
Member State ◽  
High Standard ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Social Security Systems ◽  
Open Questions ◽  
Long Time ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Third Country Nationals

The EU regulations on the coordination of social security systems provide a high standard of protection for people moving within the EU. For a long time, third-country national workers have been excluded from this protection. This article shows that the explanation for this exclusion is to be found in the legal basis of the EU regulations. This article also demonstrates how developments in primary law in the last two decades have paved the way for the extension of the EU regulations to third-country nationals. Regulation 1231/2010 offers third-country nationals, in the field of social security, the same protection as EU citizens moving within the EU. However, this extension is subject to two conditions. For this reason, a considerable number of third-country nationals working in a Member State do not benefit from equal treatment as nationals of the host State. The article clarifies why Regulation 1231/2010 does not apply in Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Denmark. Attention is paid to a number of challenges and open questions, such as the special position of the UK and the relationship between Regulation 1231/2010 and bilateral agreements concluded between a Member State and a third country.

scholarly journals INGRESO MÍNIMO VITAL Y NACIONALES BRITÁNICOS EN ESPAÑA EN TIEMPOS DEL BREXIT.

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 60-76
Author(s):  
Thais Guerrero Padrón
Keyword(s):  
Social Security ◽  
Transitional Period ◽  
Social Security Systems ◽  
Security Systems ◽  
Immigration Laws ◽  
The Social ◽  
Core Issue ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

As from 1 January 2021, after the end of the transitional period imposed by the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement, the UK will be for all purposes a third State and its nationals considered as “foreigners”. The change of status of the UK raises interesting questions regarding the social security rights of EU citizens and UK nationals. This paper deals with the possibility of access to the Minimum Living Income benefit for British nationals residing in Spain, either under the Spanish immigration laws or within the framework of the EU Regulations on the Coordination of Social Security systems. As a core issue, the identification of the Minimum Life Income benefit with the special non-contributory benefits of Article 70 of Regulation 883/2004 is argued. To this respect, the lack of inclusion of the Spanish benefit in Annex X can be considered as a serious oversight, possibly rectifiable by regulation and very necessary to avoid the conflict that this lack of clarification could generate

scholarly journals EU coordination of social security from the point of view of EU integration theory

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 110-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oxana Golynker
Keyword(s):  
Social Security ◽  
Negotiation Process ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Integration Theory ◽  
Social Security Systems ◽  
Security Systems ◽  
Eu Integration ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

This article comprises a study of the negotiation of the Commission’s proposal for amending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 in the context of EU integration theories. This analysis is used to argue that the current integration stage in the coordination of social security is a complex phenomenon which displays elements of intergovernmentalism, neo-functionalism and post-functionalism. The negotiation process highlights the disagreements between the key players which may have important consequences for the future of EU regulation in the area of coordination of social security. The article concludes that the signs of intergovernmentalism are prevalent, as evident in the attention the Commission has given to the concerns of the Member States, the negotiating position of the Council, and the vote of the European Parliament which failed to approve the proposal at the first reading. This prevalence has led to a pause in the reform of the coordination regulations and may eventually lead to compromises that will weaken the progress of integration in the future. At the same time, the article argues that the theory of post-functionalism is important in explaining the phenomenon of Brexit with regard to the UK’s position in the negotiation of the Commission’s proposal and its future relevance for UK and EU citizens affected by the UK’s departure from the EU. The article concludes that disintegration along the lines of post-functionalism should not prevent the reintegration of the UK into the EU coordination of social security schemes, but may reinforce the prevalence of intergovernmentalism.

Employment and social security rights of third-country nationals under the EU labour migration directives*

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 100-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herwig Verschueren
Keyword(s):  
Social Security ◽  
Migration Policy ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Labour Migration ◽  
Member States ◽  
Seasonal Workers ◽  
Playing Field ◽  
Additional Protection ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Third Country Nationals

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.

The Seasonal Workers Directive

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-44
Author(s):  
Margarite Helena Zoeteweij-Turhan
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Vocational Training ◽  
Family Reunification ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Labour Migration ◽  
Unemployment Benefits ◽  
Member States ◽  
Seasonal Workers ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

The Seasonal Workers Directive, harmonising Member States’ laws regarding the entry, residence and certain labour rights of seasonal workers, entered into force in 2014 and should be implemented by Member States (except for the UK, Ireland and Denmark) by 30 September 2016. According to Article 23 of the Directive, in principle, third-country nationals coming to a Member State as seasonal workers are entitled to equal treatment with nationals of the host Member State. However, what does ‘equal treatment’ mean when there are almost no nationals doing seasonal work for comparison? Also, the Directive allows Member States to diverge from the principle with regard to family and unemployment benefits and education and vocational training. Furthermore, the Directive does not provide for family reunification, even though seasonal workers are allowed to work for periods of up to nine months per year in the host Member State. Considering the limitations to the principle of equal treatment, and the broad measure of discretion given to the Member States in the implementation of the Directive, can the Directive really improve the precarious position of seasonal workers? What is to be expected of the effectiveness of the Directive? Could the Directive also be attractive for application by countries (inside the EU or outside) that are not bound by the Directive? This article will try to answer these questions by critically analysing the Directive, setting it in historical perspective and comparing it other EU legal instruments on labour migration, focusing particularly on the content of a select number of rights. The article furthermore discusses the issue of gender equality in the (effects of the) EU regulation of labour migration. It finally also addresses the question of the attractiveness of the Directive for adoption by States that are not bound by it, in particular Switzerland, where the seasonal worker has remained a hot topic after officially having ‘disappeared’ from the radar in 2002.

Brexit and the EU Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deirdre Curtin
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Data Retention ◽  
Free Zone ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

UK involvement in the EU Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice (AFSJ) has been patchy. It never joined the Schengen border-free zone, and when in 2014 it exercised a block exit from all AFSJ measures, it selectively rejoined a substantial number. Even if partially outside, the UK has been a leader inside. Advanced intelligence capabilities meant it provided important support to the functioning of agencies such as Europol and UK laws inspired EU laws, for example, on data retention. The need to preserve some pragmatic forms of cooperation between the UK and the EU is obvious and shared by the UK security establishment. There is a partial institutional precedent . When Denmark rejected participation in Europol in a popular referendum, the Danish government obtained a deal from the EU institutions which allows it to remain associated to Europol as a ‘third country’ (and a Member State). The bespoke Brexit reality may prove even more complex.

Article 50 TEU: The Quest for an Orderly Withdrawal and the Possibility of Alternative Denouements

2021 ◽  
pp. 21-47
Author(s):  
Michael Dougan
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Article 50 ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

This chapter sets out the basic constitutional framework, under EU law, governing the withdrawal of a Member State. Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union recognizes the sovereign right of any State to leave the EU and sets out a process for agreeing the terms of an orderly departure. But Brexit also required the EU and the UK to undertake extensive internal preparations, to ensure their own legal systems were ready for the UK’s departure. Moreover, Article 50 itself is drafted in only brief and sketchy terms, leaving many important decisions about Brexit to be worked out in practice. And EU law allows for other final outcomes to the withdrawal process—including a ‘no deal Brexit’; or the UK’s right to ‘revoke and remain’ under the Wightman ruling.

11. Free movement of goods

2020 ◽  
pp. 294-322
Author(s):  
Sylvia de Mars
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Specific Volume ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

This chapter explores the free movement of goods, which lies at the very heart of the internal market. The idea of the free movement of goods was the starting point that the EEC Treaty aimed for, and remains one of the greatest achievements of the EU to date. However, as with everything in EU law, there are a lot of legal rules underpinning a fairly straightforward concept. The Treaty contains two separate sets of provisions that address matters of taxation when it comes to trade in products. The first relates to border taxation, while the second relates to internal taxation. With regard to non-taxation issues, the primary issue is quantitative restrictions: situations where a Member State either blocks a specific volume of products from entering its market, or outlaws/bans a product altogether. The chapter then considers the exceptions to free movement of goods, and assesses how Brexit may impact on the free movement of goods between the UK and the EU.

scholarly journals Surgical training in the UK

2007 ◽  
Vol 89 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-14
Author(s):  
L Williams
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Training ◽  
High Standard ◽  
Training System ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Very High ◽  
The Eu

The surgical training system in the UK has long been considered to be of a very high standard. However, it is currently under threat from many changes. To assure the quality of the future surgical consultant workforce we have moved away from apprentice-type training towards more ordered education. Although the reduction in hours and years will mean less overall experience there is a genuine belief that improved education and assessment can compensate. It says much for our island mentality that although we belong to the EU we consider European surgical training to be distinct from our own.

‘The day after’

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 158-174
Author(s):  
Phedon Nicolaides
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Regulatory System ◽  
Partial Solution ◽  
Double Edge ◽  
Domestic Legislation ◽  
Double Edge Sword ◽  
Copy And Paste ◽  
Article 50 ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

The purpose of the two-year rule in Article 50 TEU is to prevent the remaining Member States from delaying the exit of the withdrawing Member State through stalling tactics. This article argues that the two-year period is a double-edge sword. It affords very little time to the withdrawing Member State to adjust its domestic legislation, regulatory system and administrative structure to be able to function effectively on the day after exit from the EU. The UK’s Great Repeal Bill proposes a ‘copy and paste’ approach. However, this approach is only a partial solution to the problem of the ‘exit-induced’ legal lacuna. With the use of two case studies, the article demonstrates that the UK will have to establish new regulatory procedures and redefine EU concepts inserted in national law. The UK will ‘regain control’ but will have to follow EU practice. At some point in the future it will also encounter the dilemma of diverging from EU practice and creating two sets of compliance standards for its companies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document