On Friday 26 January, the European Parliament, through the chairman of its Employment and Social Affairs Committee, Romanian Dragoș Pîslaru (Renew Europe), and the European Parliament rapporteur responsible, Gabriele Bischoff (S&D, German), sent the Belgian Presidency of the EU Council the official position of the coordinators and shadow rapporteurs on Regulation 883/2004 on the coordination of social security schemes, EUROPE learnt on the same day.
In this letter, the two leaders confirmed the European Parliament’s refusal to accept a solution aimed at splitting this regulation, validating the chapters that had reached consensus with the EU Council in 2021 and leaving aside the most problematic elements, namely the rules on compensation for the cross-border unemployed and the rules on the legislation applicable in cases of pluriactivity.
The Belgian Presidency had received the support of the Member States for this approach on 18 January, at a meeting of a working group of the EU Council (see EUROPE 13331/24), but the letter sent by the two heads of the European Parliament on 26 January very clearly reiterates the rejection of this option by the second legislator.
The European Parliament still hopes that the Belgian Presidency will try to find an overall solution to the whole regulation, without leaving out the most problematic elements for an indefinite period.
The European Parliament had already accepted two provisional agreements with the former Presidencies, which were subsequently rejected by the EU Council, in 2019 and 2021. If the Belgian Presidency were to maintain its position of splitting the dossier, the European Parliament could then decide to secure its position at first reading, even if certain sources have in recent days suggested differences of opinion between the groups on whether to secure the 2019 or 2021 mandate, the latter being considered weaker.
In any case, the EPP group had argued in favour of resuming discussions with the Presidency on the basis of this split proposal.
The Presidency should now turn once again to the Member States to determine how to proceed, as several countries, primarily France, are also opposed to splitting the texts. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)