Current reflection on the review of Regulation 883/2004 in the unemployment area trESS seminar Nottingham, 26 June 2013 Monica Alfaro Structure of presentation I. Recent legislative changes – new Article 65a BR II. Revision of Unemployment Chapter III. Recent case-law on unemployment I. Recent legislative changes – new Article 65a BR Solution for formerly self-employed frontier workers who were covered in the Member State of last activity, but whose MS of residence does not have an unemployment benefits scheme • • MS of last activity will pay the unemployment benefits if the person registers with the employment services in that Member State and is available for work there; If the person does not wish to become or remain available to the employment services of the MS of last activity and wishes to seek work in the MS of residence, the MS of last activity will pay the unemployment benefits for minimum 3 months, with a possibility of extension until end of entitlement. II. Revision of Unemployment Chapter Aim: • Improve social security protection of the migrant persons • Enhance effectiveness of the coordination regime • Legal certainty for all stakeholders • Simplification Scope & planning • Scope of the Impact Assessment: • • coordination of long-term care benefits (LTC) coordination of unemployment benefits (UB) • Planning • • 2012-2013 Impact assessment 2014 Proposal from the Commission Impact Assessment timeline Evaluation IA preparatory work Start-up phase Year n-2 – Year n-1 IA Analysis & Consultations of stakeholders Core phase Month x-17 – Month x-3 Where we are IA finalisation Submission to the IAB Hot phase Month x-3 – Day x Policy Options • Option 1) No policy change (baseline scenario) • Option 2) New system of coordination of • unemployment benefits for frontier workers Option 3) Unemployment benefits for all workers to be provided by the country of the last activity regardless of the person's residence Policy Options • Option 4) The prolongation of the period of export of unemployment benefits for persons who look for work in another than the competent Member State to min. 6 months (this option could be combined with the previous options) • Option 5) Clarification of the provisions on the aggregation of periods of insurance, employment and self-employment (this option could be combined with the previous options) Public Consultation • Mandatory part of the Impact Assessment fieldwork • Opened 12 weeks for all relevant stakeholders (incl. general public) • Not a representative survey of the EU population • Summary of the consultation will be available online Results of the Public Consultation N° of replies: 299 • 199 replies by individuals • 179 replied to questions on unemployment benefits • 109 replied to questions on long-term care benefits • 100 replies on behalf of organisations or specialists • 81 replied to questions on unemployment benefits • 45 replied to questions on long-term care benefits Provision of UB - replies of individuals Provision of UB - replies of organisations • Where should an unemployed worker claim unemployment benefits? • 47 % - right of choice for frontier workers • 38 % - the Member State of last activity • 12 % - the Member State of residence Export of UB - Replies of individuals • How long should unemployment benefits be provided to a person who goes looking for job in another Member State? • 59 % - export until the end of entitlement (according to the legislation of the competent Member State) • 24 % - supported the current EU rules • 16 % - export for at least 6 months Export of UB - Replies of organisations • How long should unemployment benefits be provided to a person who goes looking for job in another Member State? • 47 % supported the current EU rules • 33 % export until the end of entitlement (according to the legislation of the competent Member State) • 17 % export for at least 6 months Experience with EU rules - individuals • Out of 179 individuals who replied on the unemployment part, 20 had at some point applied for UB after having worked in another EU/EEA Member State • • • • • 11 of them reported problems, mainly: - delay in the decision on entitlement to UB (8) - lack of communication by national authorities (4) - delay in payments of benefits (4) - feeling of being discriminated due to nationality (3) Perception of the EU rules - organisations Based on your organisation’s experience, you conclude that EU rules on coordination of unemployment benefits • Option A: do not need to be neither changed, nor better explained and are correctly applied in practice. • Option B: do not need to be changed, but should be better applied in practice. • Option C: do not need to be changed, but should be better explained. • Option D: difficult to say. • Option E: need to be changed. III. Recent case-law on unemployment The Jeltes Case (C-443/11) of 11 April 2013: the provisions of Article 65 of Regulation No 883/2004 are not to be interpreted in the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 June 1986 in Case 1/85 Miethe. • Online summary of the Public Consultation will be available online: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=333&langId=en&consultId =12&visib=0&furtherConsult=yes • To go further: Roadmap of the initiative http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/planned_ia/docs/2013_empl _003_coordination_social_security_systems_en.pdf Thank you for your attention!