ON ESTABLISHING APPLICABLE LEGISLATION IN THE CASE OF THE SIMULTANEOUS EXECUTION OF WORK IN MORE THAN ONE MEMBER STATE IN THE COORDINATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEMS

2021 ◽  
Vol specjalny (XXI) ◽  
pp. 665-676
Author(s):  
Krzysztof Ślebzak
Keyword(s):  
Social Security ◽  
Member State ◽  
Practical Importance ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Social Security Systems ◽  
Security Systems ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The One

The subject of the study is determining legislation applicable in case of pursuing activity as an employed person simultaneously in the territory of more than one Member State under the coordination of social security systems in the EU. This issue in question is of interest of case law, especially one of the Supreme Court and the one of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It is of fundamental practical importance. Since conditions for determining the applicable legislation are different, more liberal in the case of simultaneous work in the territory of at least two Member States than in the case of the posting of workers, a conclusion that in the case of performing work under the same employment contract with one employer in successive periods of time, it possible to determine that legislation according to the rule applicable in the case of simultaneous pursuing activity in the territory of more than one Member State, means that employers gain an opportunity to apply social security legislation in force at their seat without any time limits. This, in turn, directly affects legal conditions under which freedom to provide services and freedom of movement of workers related thereto may be exercised.

scholarly journals Cross-border Coordination in the Field of Family Benefits

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 86-113
Author(s):  
Miloš Lacko
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Social Security ◽  
Member State ◽  
Family Member ◽  
Union Member ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Social Security Systems ◽  
Security Systems ◽  
Freedom Of Movement ◽  
Family Benefits

The exercise of freedom of movement within the European Union Member States also requires interventions in the national social security systems, the organization and exercise of which fall within the exclusive competence of the Member States. In order to fully exercise, in particular, the freedom of movement of persons, in particular persons engaged in gainful employment, it is necessary to lay down in the Union law procedures for resolving conflicts in the provision of family benefits. Collisions in the granting of family benefits generally arise when a person enjoying the free movement of persons moves to another Member State, while another family member (in particular the second parent or the dependent child) remains in the home Member State or moves to another Member State. In such situations, the Union legislation must provide the migrant with the same conditions for family benefits as a national of the Member State in which the migrant is present, so the Union legislation seeks to ensure an equal treatment of a person enjoying this freedom in the event of such a conflict with national social security systems. The subject of the paper is an analysis of the European Union coordination regulation determining the relevant social security system of an European Union Member State for the provision of family benefits so as not to disadvantage the migrant as a family member in acquiring and providing these benefits and, conversely, that this person does not get into unjustified social advantage in the provision of family benefits, i.e. that there is no unjustified overlapping of the provision of a family benefit for the same purpose to the same family member.

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.

scholarly journals Overview of recent cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union (July 2019-September 2019)

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 370-377
Author(s):  
Anne Pieter van der Mei
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Social Security ◽  
Member State ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Insurance Cover ◽  
The Status ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right

In the reporting period July-September 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered various rulings that are significant for social security. The ruling that stands out is the one in Van den Berg and others, which concerned the power of a non-competent Member State to grant residents benefits where they lack insurance cover in the competent State. The other cases included in this overview concern the application of the right to equal treatment to social security conventions concluded between a Member State and a third country ( EU), the retention of the status of self-employed person by women who cease to be active due to pregnancy ( Dakneviciute) and the right to export student financial aid ( Aubriet).

scholarly journals Social Security and robotization: Possible ways to finance human reskilling and promote employment

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 340-350
Author(s):  
Alfredo Díaz ◽  
María Amparo Grau Ruiz
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Social Security ◽  
International Institutions ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Social Security Systems ◽  
Security Systems ◽  
The Past ◽  
Near Future

AbstractThis contribution aims to open the discussion on how to balance the opportunities and the risks posed by the increased robotization of the economy. It particularly addresses the concerns related to the sustainability of the current Social Security systems. Having in mind the quick process of skill depreciation, it is urgent to incentivize workers’ training and human employment. Some ways already used in the past to finance similar goals are reviewed here in order to show possible solutions to be adapted in the near future within the European Union in line with the guidelines given by several international institutions.

scholarly journals Policy Forum: Tax, Social Security, and Employment Status—Removing the Distortions in the United Kingdom

2021 ◽  
Vol 69 (2) ◽  
pp. 545-557
Author(s):  
Judith Freedman
Keyword(s):  
Social Security ◽  
Employment Status ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Social Security Systems ◽  
Security Systems ◽  
Structural Repair ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Policy Objectives ◽  
Policy Forum

The COVID-19 pandemic has strained tax and social security systems. Cracks that have existed for some time have been opened up further and are unlikely to close without structural repair. New insights into the shifting nature of work, combined with the development of technologies that can provide modern, practical solutions to old problems, offer the opportunity to rethink the way we tax gig workers and other non-standard providers of labour. This article argues that we need to free ourselves from the employment status classifications developed in other areas of law, for other purposes, when we consider the design of tax and social security provisions. We should aim to harmonize the tax and social security treatment of all those who provide labour as far as is practically possible in order to increase equity and remove distortions. Where that cannot be achieved, despite the benefits of new technologies, dividing lines should be dictated by tax and benefits policy objectives rather than linkages to case law that has evolved in other areas.

scholarly journals The Peculiarities of the Social Security Systems (Indirect State Administration)

2021 ◽  
pp. 91-103
Author(s):  
Dieter Schimanke
Keyword(s):  
Social Security ◽  
Occupational Accidents ◽  
Late Nineteenth Century ◽  
Social Security Systems ◽  
Security Systems ◽  
State Supervision ◽  
Insurance Cover ◽  
State Administration ◽  
The Social ◽  
The One

AbstractThe welfare state comprises—besides other parts of social policy—the social security systems which provide insurance cover for the five risks of illness, long-term care, occupational accidents, old age (pension) and unemployment. The social security budgets equate to 17.7% of GDP or some 45% of public budget expenditure. The social security systems have had a unique status in the German public sector since their foundation in the late nineteenth century. On the one hand, as legally independent institutions, they enjoy a certain degree of autonomy and therefore constitute the ‘indirect state administration’. On the other hand, the steering by federal legislation (direct state administration) is quite intensive. However, in implementing this legislation, the institutions are only subject to limited state supervision, which is restricted to legal supervision (Rechtsaufsicht). Moreover, the social security institutions can appeal to the social courts against the orders of the supervising state administration.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document