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.

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.

scholarly journals European but not European enough: An explanation for Brexit

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 282-304 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noah Carl ◽  
James Dennison ◽  
Geoffrey Evans
Keyword(s):  
National Identity ◽  
Member State ◽  
Positive Association ◽  
Weak Sense ◽  
European Identity ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Countries ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Measures Of Inequality ◽  
The Eu

To date, most accounts of the UK’s vote to leave the EU have focussed on explaining variation across individuals and constituencies within the UK. In this article, we attempt to answer a different question, namely ‘Why was it the UK that voted to leave, rather than any other member state?’. We show that the UK has long been one of the most Eurosceptic countries in the EU, which we argue can be partly explained by Britons’ comparatively weak sense of European identity. We also show that existing explanations of the UK’s vote to leave cannot account for Britons’ long-standing Euroscepticism: the UK scores lower than many other member states on measures of inequality/austerity, the ‘losers of globalisation’ and authoritarian values, and some of these measures are not even correlated with Euroscepticism across member states. In addition, we show that the positive association between national identity and Euroscepticism is stronger in the UK than in most other EU countries. Overall, we conclude that Britons’ weak sense of European identity was a key contributor to the Brexit vote.

Part V Legal and Conduct Risk in Interconnected Financial Markets, 19 ‘Brexit’

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mccormick Roger ◽  
Stears Chris
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Financial Markets ◽  
Financial Institutions ◽  
Member States ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Legal Risks ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

This chapter considers the legal risks raised by Brexit. These include change of law risk for financial markets and especially for institutions that wish to do cross-border business in the EU. For example, while the UK remains in the EU, financial institutions carrying on certain ‘regulated activities’ are afforded so-called ‘passporting’ rights pursuant to which, broadly, they can take advantage of the fact that they are established and appropriately authorised in one member state to do business in other member states, without the need for separate permissions or authorisations in those other states. If the UK leaves the EU, such passporting rights may be terminated unless the Brexit negotiation results in them being preserved in some way.

scholarly journals Member State nationality under EU law – To be or not to be a Union Citizen?

2021 ◽  
pp. 1023263X2098607
Author(s):  
Lorin-Johannes Wagner
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Union Citizenship ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Union Citizen ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

The question of who ought to be regarded as Union citizen is a central but not an easily answered question. Drawing on an analysis of the ECJ’s case-law and the underlying constitutional set up of Union citizenship, this article argues that the notion of nationality in EU law is based on a jurisdictional conception that builds on the idea of a genuine link and a territorial link with the EU. Relying on this understanding the article assesses the peculiar cases of Germany, the UK and Denmark, establishing not only if and how Member States can reconfigure the meaning of their nationality under EU law but also highlighting that the notion of nationality as a peremptory marker for Union citizenship is defined within the constitutional realm of EU law. The understanding that Member States are free to define their nationality within EU law, hence, is a misplaced overstatement of sovereignty. Against this backdrop the last part of the article turns to the case of Latvian non-citizens, arguing that Latvian non-citizens, who are generally not regarded as Union citizens, have been Union citizens all along.

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.

Bariery w przepływie pracowników na rynku wewnętrznym – stary problem w nowych odsłonach

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (4 (1)) ◽  
pp. 39-54
Author(s):  
Robert Grzeszczak
Keyword(s):  
Equal Treatment ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Integration Process ◽  
Labour Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Political Criticism ◽  
Eu Policies ◽  
The Will ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
The Eu

The issue of re-nationalization (disintegration and fragmentation) of integration process is manifested by the will of some of the Member States to verify their relations with the European Union. In the age of an economic crisis of the EU and in relation to the large migration of the population, there has emerged strong social and political criticism, on the European level, of the integration process, with some Member States even consideringtheir withdrawal from the EU. In those States, demands forextending the Member States’ competences in the field of some EU policies are becoming more and more popular. The legal effects of the above-mentioned processes are visible in the free movements of the internal market, mainly within the free movement of persons. Therefore, there are problems, such as increased social dumping process, the need to retain the output of the European labour law, the issue of the so-called social tourism, erosion of the meaning of the EU citizenship and the principle of equal treatment.

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.

scholarly journals Worlds of welfare collide

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-44
Author(s):  
Gráinne McKeever ◽  
Mark Simpson
Keyword(s):  
Social Insurance ◽  
Social Protection ◽  
Conservative System ◽  
Unemployment Benefit ◽  
Unemployment Benefits ◽  
Social Democratic ◽  
Asymmetric Shocks ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Operational Issues ◽  
The Eu

The post-2007 financial crisis has brought renewed interest in a European Unemployment Benefit Scheme (EUBS) as a manifestation of solidarity between citizens of different Member States and an economic stabiliser in the event of future asymmetric shocks. The EU-wide benefit would operate in tandem with existing national unemployment benefits. This creates challenges of compatibility given the diversity of approaches to social security within the Union, based on at least four philosophies of welfare: liberal, conservative, social democratic and southern European. This article examines potential legal, operational and political difficulties associated with marrying a EUBS that is at heart a conservative system of social insurance to the UK’s liberal welfare state. Few legal obstacles exist and although the addition of a new, earnings-related benefit to an already complex mix of social protection would raise significant operational issues, these need not be insurmountable. However, fundamental ideological differences would have rendered the EUBS as proposed politically ill-matched with the UK even absent the June 2016 vote to leave the EU. A contributory income maintenance benefit is a poor fit with a residual, largely means-tested national system whose role is limited to offering protection against severe poverty while maintaining work incentives and minimising costs.

scholarly journals Durable Relationship and Family Members “by Analogy” in the European Union

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 175
Author(s):  
Tanel Feldman ◽  
Marco Mazzeschi
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Family Member ◽  
Family Members ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Registered Partnership ◽  
The Family ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Union Citizen ◽  
The Eu

Rights of residence derived from a durable relationship with an EU citizen, are left to a relatively wide discretion of the Member States. Pursuant to Article 2.2 (b) Directive 2004/38/EC (“Directive”), “the partner with whom the Union citizen has contracted a registered partnership, on the basis of the legislation of a Member State, if the legislation of the host Member State treats registered partnerships as equivalent to marriage and in accordance with the conditions laid down in the relevant legislation of the host Member State” qualifies as family member. Provided that they have a durable relationship (duly attested) with an EU citizen, pursuant to Article 3.2(b), unregistered partners are as well beneficiaries of the Directive. The durable relationship was expressly excluded from the scope of Article 2(2)(b): “Unlike the amended proposal, it does not cover de facto durable relationships” (EU Commission, Document 52003SC1293). Article 3 (2)(a) covers “other family members” (no restrictions as to the degree of relatedness) if material support is provided by the EU citizen or by his partner or where serious health grounds strictly require the personal care of the family member by the Union citizen. Pursuant to Article 3.2, “other family members” and unregistered partners can attest a durable relationship, must be facilitated entry and residence, in accordance to the host Member State’s national legislation. In the light of Preamble 6 Directive, the situation of the persons who are not included in the definition of family members, must be considered “in order to maintain the unity of the family in a broader sense”. The questions discussed in this paper are the following: (i) are Member States genuinely considering the concept of durable relationship in view of maintaining the unity of the family in a broader sense? and (ii) how to overcome legal uncertainty and which criteria, both at EU and at international level, can be taken into account in order to assess whether a durable relationship is genuine and should be granted the rights set forth by the Directive?

scholarly journals Implementation of National Approaches to Circular Migration: Entry and Re-entry Conditions for Migrant Workers in Bulgaria and Poland

2020 ◽  
pp. 127-176
Author(s):  
Zvezda Vankova
Keyword(s):  
Focus Groups ◽  
Member State ◽  
Migrant Workers ◽  
Second Step ◽  
Circular Migration ◽  
Eastern Partnership ◽  
Seasonal Workers ◽  
Significant Period ◽  
Eastern Partnership Countries ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis chapter brings together the EU and national instruments conducive to circular migration developed in Bulgaria and Poland and assesses their implementation against the backdrop of the study’s benchmarks concerning entry and re-entry conditions for migrant workers. In order to do that, the chapter first presents the national general admission frameworks and the specific instruments identified as favourable to circular migration; as a second step, it focuses on the implementation of EU instruments in the national laws of Bulgaria and Poland. This analysis is complemented by insights into the implementation dynamics of the EU and national instruments on the basis of data collected through focus groups with migrants from Ukraine and Russia as well as interviews conducted with stakeholders and data on permits retrieved from the national administrations of both countries. The chapter ends with an assessment of whether the instruments developed provide options for facilitated entry for migrants from the Eastern partnership countries and Russia, as well as for circulation-friendly policies – for instance, the possibility to grant priority to seasonal workers who have been employed in the territory of a Member State for a significant period over other workers who seek admission to that State.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document