Much Ado About Nothing? : How the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights Could Challenge Prevailing Notions of Territorial Rights and Solidarity as Regards National Social Security Systems

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 277-314
Author(s):  
E. De Becker

The outbreak of the financial and economic crisis in 2008 had a severe impact on the member states of the European Union. Countries like Greece had to ask the Troika (the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund) for financial aid. In return, they were obliged to reduce public spending and, as a result, national social security systems were drastically reformed. Furthermore, the EU has exercised its competences to supervise national budgets more extensively, even for countries not applying for financial aid through the Country Specific Recommendations under the European Semester. Like the decisions providing financial support, these recommendations also touch upon member states' social security systems. Moreover, the actions of the EU seem to generate a tension between the social rights provisions in (inter)national human rights instruments and the EU economic monitoring process, hence creating a possible deficit at the level of the EU. The five collective complaints against Greece under the framework of the European Social Charter (Council of Europe) illustrate this tension. This Article investigates this tension further and provides insights in possible ways to close the gap between (inter)national social rights provisions and the EU economic monitoring process by looking at the right to social security in the EU legal order. In doing so, this Article scrutinizes the judicial safeguards available at EU level, namely the right to social security in the Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFEU) and the role of general principles of Union's law for the protection of fundamental rights. It will become clear that a lot of uncertainty still remains regarding the content and scope of the right to social security in the CFEU, as well as the enforceability of this provision in the EU economic monitoring process.


2005 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 333-342 ◽  
Author(s):  
Otto Jacobi ◽  
Judith Kirton-Darling

In this introduction to the eight reports on different sectoral dialogues, the coordinators of this issue provide an inventory of the different forms of social dialogue in the EU. It is argued that trade unions have hitherto made insufficient use of the opportunities offered by social dialogue but that the sectoral social dialogue offers a forum for unions to cooperate with employers to develop policies to safeguard Europeanised industries. Two fields of action are identified as being particularly suitable for Europe-wide campaigning: common rules for the European labour market, including a European minimum wage system, and a ‘citizens insurance’ to sustain social security systems.


2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 60-76
Author(s):  
Thais Guerrero Padrón

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


2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 110-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oxana Golynker

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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 434-451
Author(s):  
Paul Schoukens

Platform workers face problems in accessing effective social protection schemes. Furthermore, these workers are not always in a position to build up robust social protection rights even in case they can participate in the schemes. Compared to standard workers, they work in a precarious situation. The small tasks they perform, their geographical mobility and their low earnings are issues that create problems for social security systems’ ability to accommodate these workers. In this contribution, attention to the specific working conditions of platform workers is given; starting from the concept of standard work and a discussion of the way platform work deviates from that performed by standard workers (the original basis used to design traditional social protection schemes). In a second part of this paper, the various challenges that platform work create for social protection schemes are enunciated. In the third part of the contribution, the recent EU Recommendation on access to social protection is used as a yardstick to discuss what kind of answers should be given to accommodate platform workers in social protection schemes. In the final part, conclusions around three elements that are characteristic of platform work, yet not sufficiently addressed in national social protection schemes, nor in the EU Recommendation, are developed. These observations help to establish findings on the future outlook of social protection schemes, which should be inclusive and accommodative for all (new) types of work.


2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-153
Author(s):  
Tania Bazzani

The article analyses the latest reforms in active and passive labour market policies (LMPs) in Germany, Italy and Denmark, within a European perspective. These Member States employ three of the various kinds of social security systems found in the EU - Continental, Mediterranean and Nordic - and provide an interesting example for comparison of differences/common trends in LMPs. This contribution focuses particularly on the principal characteristics of each protection system in the event of unemployment and on the relationships between unemployment benefits and activation policies and highlights the links between the European Employment Guidelines and the regulation under analysis.


2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 219-241 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Schoukens ◽  
Alberto Barrio ◽  
Saskia Montebovi

With atypical work gaining popularity, platform work seems to combine all the elements which, by deviating significantly from the standard employment relationship, challenge social security systems. After an overview of the features of the standard employment relationship and the different ways in which non-standard forms of work diverge from them, the article focuses on the nature of platform work. It then analyses how platform work is regulated in five European social security systems (i.e. Germany, France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Belgium), and how this regulation may fare when analysed under the lens of the recent European Commission’s proposal for a Council Recommendation on access to social protection for workers and the self-employed. The article concludes by highlighting the need for further adaptation of social security systems to the specific features of platform work, and by noting the risks of a regulatory approach towards this new form of work being dominated by the exclusion of low-paid work from the scope of labour-related social insurance schemes.


2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-109
Author(s):  
Oxana Golynker

The aim of this Special Issue is to present a critical analysis of the reform of the coordination of social security in the light of the 2016-2019 revision of the EU Regulations on the coordination of social security. The articles scrutinise all areas 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, which lays down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004. The introduction provides an overview of the negotiation of the Commission’s proposal and outlines the aims and the structure of the Special Issue.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document