The European Parliament’s rapporteurs on the revision of the regulation on the coordination of social security systems (883/2004) were due to meet again on the evening of Monday 11 December in Strasbourg to review the next steps on this matter following the failure of the Spanish Presidency of the EU Council, on the evening of 8 December, to secure a qualified majority of Member States in favour of its new compromises (see EUROPE 13310/28).
This failure led the Presidency to ask the European Parliament’s rapporteur, Gabriele Bischoff (S&D, German), to postpone the trilogue she had planned for Monday 11 December.
For its part, the Spanish Presidency will now have to hold further bilateral discussions with the Member States to assess whether it can still reach an agreement. Some at the European Parliament expressed their disappointment at the end of Coreper. This is despite the rapporteurs saying they were determined to reach an agreement on this reform, which has been on the table since 2016.
In any case, the Coreper result was indisputable, with 15 Member States rejecting the compromise package and Austria abstaining. According to other sources, 14 Member States were against and 2 -Austria and Poland - abstained.
The 14 countries that clearly rejected the latest package were Lithuania, Latvia, Greece, Malta, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Finland, Denmark, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Ireland and Belgium.
France, Germany and Italy, along with Cyprus, Romania, Estonia, Portugal, Croatia, Sweden and Slovenia, supported the new approach, even though Berlin has reportedly indicated that it no longer had any room for manoeuvre.
The German government has reportedly said that it can no longer accept any changes to the proposed package, particularly on the issue of the 25 weeks of uninterrupted work triggering the shift in responsibility for unemployment benefits for cross-border workers.
For countries such as the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Hungary and Lithuania, this required period of 25 weeks was deemed too long, with Lithuania even arguing for a maximum period of 4 months, according to some sources.
The Czech Republic, for its part, has reportedly shown some flexibility on excluding the construction sector from exemptions to the prior notification requirement for missions of less than 3 days or business trips, but the 25 weeks apparently remains a sticking point.
The Benelux countries, including Belgium, which had been silent until now, have criticised the package as a whole. For Luxembourg, the fact that the Spanish Presidency has reintroduced sectoral derogations would run counter to the very principle of the regulation, which is to make the internal market more fluid, not fragment it, and the country also has a number of other issues with the package.
For the countries who support the package, such as France, the aim was to finally conclude this matter, which has been on the table since 2016. On this occasion, Paris said it was prepared to drop its demand for the introduction of an exemption (from the time derogations for prior notification) for the agriculture sector as well, thus accepting that it would only apply to construction, several sources reported.
The European Parliament rapporteur also wanted to request an extension to the agricultural sector, although, according to sources, she would not have made this an absolute red line during the trilogue, had it taken place.
On Friday, according to several sources, Italy would also have been able to support the mandate requested by Madrid, but would have liked a longer post-notification period than the three days proposed. Rome also argued in favour of broader time derogations than just for trips of less than three days or business travel, citing the need to reduce the administrative burden.
Italy may also have been able to accept the exclusion of the construction sector, but only if the deadlines for late notifications had been extended. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)