As Member States resume discussions on the reform of the coordination of social security systems on 30 January (see EUROPE 13560/16), some of them have sought to provide food for thought at the same time, such as the Netherlands, which in a non-paper has reiterated calls to modernise the text on the table since 2016.
For the Netherlands, Regulation 883/2004 needs to be reviewed in the light of new developments in the labour market and the EU’s competitiveness agenda.
In late 2023, the Netherlands had already asked the European Commission to revise its proposal, criticising an impact study dating back to 2012 (see EUROPE 13267/4), and pushed in 2024 for the solution proposed by Belgium aimed at splitting the reform to validate the chapters on which there was consensus.
The Hague points out that since “the start of negotiations on the proposed revision in 2016, the labour market has evolved significantly”, with the flexibilisation of jobs, digitalisation, but also labour shortages and ageing.
It identifies five priorities (simplifying the rules for institutions, businesses and citizens; giving prioritising legal certainty for citizens by making the rules easier to understand; aligning with today’s and tomorrow’s cross-border labour market; facilitating the reintegration for recipients of benefits; providing adequate tools for institutions to effectively combat fraud and abuse) and 19 specific measures. It invites the Commission to draw inspiration from these for a possible revision of its 2016 proposals.
On the applicable legislation (prior notification, multi-activity, etc.), for example, “the current rules (...) are based on traditional work patterns, such as full-time jobs with one employer at one location. A comprehensive rule for new forms of work, such as teleworking, could be developed with provisions for specific groups, such as self-employed individuals and highly mobile workers, who frequently operate across several Member States”.
With regard to preventing frequent switches or intermittent social security cover linked to short-term assignments or cross-border part-time work, “the feasibility (...) of implementing a threshold to prevent frequent switches in social security and/or extending coverage duration in specific cases” could be examined.
To combat social dumping and fraud with A1 certificates, “the requirement of a three-month insurance period prior to posting” could be examined.
“We support a system of prior notification (PN) if it enhances enforcement without unnecessarily increasing the administrative burden”, says The Hague, which therefore calls for “a thorough assessment of [the] added value” of these notifications.
As far as unemployment benefits for cross-border commuters are concerned, the emphasis should be on return to work. But it is “preferable to keep responsibilities on benefit payments as they currently exist”.
The note calls for the introduction of a minimum six-month affiliation period for people who have resided in a Member State other than the competent Member State, and the total duration of unemployment benefits in the event of export should be capped.
“In the event of the export (...) significant challenges arise for monitoring and control. The Member State paying the benefit must be informed by means of automatic data exchange on, for example, work resumption and income”. The calculation of benefits also needs to be reviewed.
“In case the reference period used to calculate the unemployment benefit encompasses periods of work in different Member States, the actual salaries accrued within that reference period should be taken into account”. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)