A success on the regulation on the coordination of social security systems seems to be increasingly compromised at the moment, after a new and lengthy interinstitutional meeting between the European Parliament and the EU Council, which was not very successful on Tuesday,12 March.
However, a final negotiating session was added for Tuesday, 19 March, pushing back the "regulatory time" limits to the maximum to finalise the file before the end of the European Parliament legislature.
For some, major progress has already been made compared to the current situation and they are only waiting for a small "political” effort from the other side to reach an agreement. For others, on the contrary, the account is not there, particularly on pluriactivity and frontier workers.
Following the previous negotiating session (see EUROPE 12208/15), the Romanian Presidency of the EU Council proposed that the activity period from the State of residence to the State of activity should be set at 4 months (the Council wanted 3 months, Parliament proposed 9 months), adding a recital specifying more precisely the situation of frontier workers.
On Tuesday evening, the Parliament made the following proposal. If, within 30 days after the sending of a worker, the competent authority of the sending country has not sent the authority of the host Member State the Form A1 proving the worker's affiliation to national social security, the competent authority of the host country may consider that the document “has never been issued”.
However, in the event of an error or delay, the Parliament provides for a capacity for "retroactive affiliation", explained a parliamentary source.
Opinions on this new proposal differ. Some consider that there is a possible "opening", particularly on the part of the Commission, others, on the contrary, say that the proposal arrives too late and, above all, that it would potentially affect workers.
On frontier workers, the Parliament accepts the EU Council's approach, but maintains a proposal for 9 months of activity to shift responsibility from the State of residence to the State of activity, in return for: - exporting rights until they are exhausted (duration varies according to national law in force); - enhanced cooperation between the competent authorities to support frontier workers seeking employment.
During the trilogue, the Commission reportedly proposed an exportation of unemployment benefits of 12 months for frontier workers, one source said. An agreement on Parliament's proposal could be possible, according to our information.
Finally, the Parliament wants the article on pluriactivity to include as a criterion the place where the employee's (or self-employed person's) main weekly working time is carried out. EP's fear is to "institutionalise” unlimited social dumping by poorly regulating the pluriactivity.
According to a parliamentary source, the particular situation of “highly mobile” workers, such as lorry drivers, will have to be taken into account. Pluriactivity would be the "big problem", according to this source, which hopes for a "rapid" evolution of the Commission and the EU Council. “Not agreeing on that, honestly, I think it unravels everything”, the source said.
Many advances. According to several sources close to the case, the negotiations made significant progress on other issues such as the export of unemployment, equal treatment, the framework for Form A1, family benefits and long-term care.
As a result, many fear that failure at the next negotiation meeting will lastingly undermine the legislative review and progress made during the seven interinstitutional meetings.
If this fails, the Parliament would adopt its position at first reading. But the next Parliament could very well change its position by reintroducing the principle of family indexation.
EPSCO Council. The Romanian Presidency will report to ministers at the Employment and Social Policy Council on Friday, 15 March.
On this occasion, the ministers of the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium, Denmark, Austria and Germany will meet in the margins of the Council to discuss a legislative text they do not like, fearing the introduction of "social tourism” (see EUROPE 12197/25). (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)