scholarly journals National approaches of EU Member States in concluding bilateral social security agreements with third countries

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 148-161
Author(s):  
Bernard Spiegel

For EU Member States like Austria, the EU Regulations on the coordination of social security schemes are the focus of academic and political attention. They deal with many cases and are usually very complex. They are supervised by the European Commission and the CJEU. Compared to these EU rules, bilateral agreements with third countries are treated as step-children. They do not get the academic and political attention they deserve, taking into account their importance in practice. They have common features compared to the EU rules, but there are also remarkable differences in the texts and their interpretation. The differences sometimes lead to practical problems of application and interpretation in the EU Member States. Based on Austrian experiences, all these aspects are elaborated in this article. Enhanced cooperation and exchange of information between the EU Member States in the future could help to improve the negotiating position of these countries and also guarantee greater esteem for the bilateral agreements.

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-187
Author(s):  
Pauline Melin

In a 2012 Communication, the European Commission described the current approach to social security coordination with third countries as ‘patchy’. The European Commission proposed to address that patchiness by developing a common EU approach to social security coordination with third countries whereby the Member States would cooperate more with each other when concluding bilateral agreements with third countries. This article aims to explore the policy agenda of the European Commission in that field by conducting a comparative legal analysis of the Member States’ bilateral agreements with India. The idea behind the comparative legal analysis is to determine whether (1) there are common grounds between the Member States’ approaches, and (2) based on these common grounds, it is possible to suggest a common EU approach. India is taken as a third-country case study due to its labour migration and investment potential for the European Union. In addition, there are currently 12 Member State bilateral agreements with India and no instrument at the EU level on social security coordination with India. Therefore, there is a potential need for a common EU approach to social security coordination with India. Based on the comparative legal analysis of the Member States’ bilateral agreements with India, this article ends by outlining the content of a potential future common EU approach.


2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 162-172
Author(s):  
Frans Pennings

This article describes the history of policies for making bilateral agreements by the Netherlands, a country with considerable migration to and from over time and one of the founding states of the EEC. For this reason, the characteristics of the agreements made and the main developments over time can provide a mirror for discussion of the bilateral agreements of other Member States. The development of the reasons of making bilateral agreements are described and this makes it possible to distinguish several generations of agreements. It is contended that this is useful in describing the agreements made by other countries.


2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 146-154
Author(s):  
Ines Kersan-Škabić

The heterogeneity of economic performances in the EU member states is one of the main reasons for the existence of a “core-periphery” relationship. The goal of this research is to examine various economic indicators to reveal possible divisions between the EU members. This issue emphasized the contribution of rich “core” countries to the imbalances in poorer “peripheral” EU members. By applying cluster methodology and considering the most recent data, two groups of countries were identified, the first comprising 11 countries that form the “centre” or the “core”, and the rest of the EU forming the “periphery”. Considering differences between these countries is necessary and justified for discussions about the future development of the EU that will involve differences between member states.


2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 204-216
Author(s):  
Gijsbert Vonk

The purpose of this final contribution is to offer a broad schematic overview of ‘mechanisms’ that can be used to strengthen the social security protection of persons moving in and out of the EU. Seven mechanisms have been selected for discussion: national unilateral standards, EU unilateral standards, bilateral agreements, EU coordination of bilateral agreements, EU third country agreements, multilateral co-operation and global standards. The existence of this plethora of mechanisms, each with its own merits and shortcomings, casts a shadow over the possibility of a uniform EU regime for external social security relations. Any attempt to introduce such an approach can immediately be contradicted by alternative approaches and mechanisms which can be used both by the EU and by the individual Member States. It is suggested that more coherence in external EU social security coordination can perhaps be found in a conceptual way, by layering the seven mechanisms in a logical manner.


Author(s):  
Danuše Nerudová

In 2007, when the pilot project of Home State Taxation System should started, but none of the EU Member States applied for, the European Commission has turned its attention to different project in the area of corporate income taxation. The paper presents the problems of consolidation under the system of Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base, which is at present the aim of the European Commission in the area of corporate tax harmonization. Firstly, the paper presents the results of comparative analysis, which have been done throughout the EU Member States. The research was aimed at the area of group taxation schemes availability. Secondly, the paper presents the draft of CCCTB directive in the field of creation of the group for taxation purposes, the rules for access and exit from the group and the rules for calculation of thresholds for voting rights. The different possibilities of group creation are presented on the schemes. The paper also discuss the rules, suggested by the draft directive, which could create legal uncertainty for the companies and could cause the situation in which the companies would not know whether they can consolidate their accounting results or not, or whether they are the member of the group or not. The paper suggests the possible solutions in that area. At the end, there are also mentioned and discussed the methods, which could be used for consolidation under CCCTB system in the EU.


2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 84-106
Author(s):  
Tomasz Kubin

Abstract Initially, before the entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty, differences in integration between members of the European Communities (EC; later the European Union) were relatively few and usually temporary in nature. The Schengen Agreement, the Maastricht Treaty and the Treaty of Amsterdam, and the possibility of establishing enhanced cooperation meant that the problem was becoming more and more important in the functioning of the EU—both in theory and in practice. The objective of the paper is to show that for several years, along with the stagnation in the deepening of integration between all the EU Member States, differentiation of integration in the EU is progressing very rapidly. The progressing differentiation in the EU is a consequence of mainly two processes: the development of enhanced cooperation and reforms in the eurozone, which are strengthened by the widening of the EU. The article covers the issue of the categorization of differentiation of European Union integration, which constitutes the theoretical framework for further considerations. Specified processes which contribute to increasing the differentiation of the EU are discussed, showing the development of enhanced cooperation in the EU and presenting the reforms of the eurozone. The article concludes with the identification and the consequences of differentiated integration, both those that have already occurred and those that may occur in the future.


Author(s):  
Dionysios Stivas

Currently, the European Union (EU) is dealing with an unprecedented refugee crisis which has been blamed for bringing the process of the EU integration to an impasse. By applying theories of European (dis)integration, this paper assesses the extent to which the current refugee crisis constitutes an impediment to the future of the European Union. This paper’s analysis is constructed around two hypotheses: (1) the refugee crisis triggered Brexit and the failure of the EU’s relocation scheme, symptoms of the EU’s disintegration; (2) the refugee crisis has a dual potential: to simultaneously promote the deeper integration and the disintegration of the EU. To test these hypotheses, this paper examines if and how the refugee crisis is related to Brexit and whether the rebellious reaction of certain EU member states to the implementation of the EU relocation scheme is a sign of reversal in the process of EU integration.


Significance The celebration came just days before the United Kingdom is set to begin the withdrawal process. Precisely what path the EU will take over the next decade remains uncertain and the European Commission has kicked off a process of dialogue on various scenarios for its future. Impacts Debates about the future of the EU will occur simultaneously with Brexit negotiations and be coloured by them. EU leaders will be keen to continue to demonstrate their commitment to press forward with European integration despite Brexit. Brexit will not lead to an unravelling of the EU and thus far has served to enhance support for the Union in other member states. Yet Brexit will not lead to any sudden deepening of integration.


2021 ◽  
Vol specjalny (XXI) ◽  
pp. 113-127
Author(s):  
Andrzej Świątkowski

The European Union is in the initial phase of managing the conditions for the growth of artificial intelligence. Assuming that the above-mentioned electronic technology of the future should be trustworthy, guarantee the safety of its users and develop under human leadership, the Union should be able to convince the Member States of the necessary need for all interested parties to apply modern electronic technologies in practice while respecting European values, principles and human rights. The above common goal, extremely important for the future of European societies, and a uniform unified strategy for achieving it, binds the EU Member States. The above statement applies to all EU Member States, including those with above-average ambitions to become European leaders in the use of artificial intelligence for economic and social development. Considering that the European Union is competing with the USA and China, it is justified to ask whether the strategy of the development and use of artificial intelligence intended by the European Union will enable the achievement of the above goal?


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document