scholarly journals The Labyrinth of Employment and Social Rights in the EU Intra-Corporate Transfer Directive

2020 ◽  
pp. 203195252096736
Author(s):  
Herwig Verschueren
Keyword(s):  
Social Security ◽  
Migrant Worker ◽  
Migration Policy ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Temporary Workers ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Right ◽  
Rome I ◽  
The Eu

Directive 2014/66/EU on Intra-Corporate Transfer regulates the temporary secondment of key personnel and trainees from third countries to the Member States of the EU. It is part of the EU external labour migration policy and aims at facilitating this policy by setting up harmonised conditions for admission, residence and work of these migrants, including the right to move and work in another Member State. This article analyses the role and meaning of the provisions in this Directive relating to the employment and social security rights of intra-corporate transferees. They are the result of cumbersome negotiations and the compromises that were reached are ambiguously and inconsistently formulated. First, this article will highlight the relevance of the worker’s employment position for determining the scope of this Directive. Next, it will analyse the role of employment and social security rights in the implementation of the Directive by the Member States. These rights are relevant as criteria for admission, as grounds for rejection of an application, as grounds for withdrawal or non-renewal of an ICT permit and as conditions for short-term and long-term mobility within the EU. Subsequently, this article will scrutinise, in detail, the provisions of Article 18 of the Directive which guarantee equal treatment with the nationals of the host State in respect of employment and social security rights. Special attention will be paid to the interrelationship of this Directive with other EU legal instruments such as the Posting of Workers Directive, the Rome I Regulation and social security Regulation 883/2004. It concludes that the complicated and contradictorily worded provisions on employment and social security rights in this Directive reflect the ambiguity in the perception of the status of this type of migrant worker coming from a third country: are they to be considered as temporary workers or do they really participate in the labour market of the host Member States?

Employment and social security rights of third-country nationals under the EU labour migration directives*

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 100-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herwig Verschueren
Keyword(s):  
Social Security ◽  
Migration Policy ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Labour Migration ◽  
Member States ◽  
Seasonal Workers ◽  
Playing Field ◽  
Additional Protection ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Third Country Nationals

This article explores the employment and social security rights of third-country nationals guaranteed by a number of EU Directives which are specifically meant to promote and regulate labour migration to the EU. Some were agreed with a view to making the EU more attractive for labour migration from outside the EU. Others were meant to (partially) harmonise rights and/or procedures in order to create a level playing field between the Member States. More specifically, it examines the relevant provisions in the Blue Card Directive 2009/50, the Employers’ Sanctions Directive 2009/52, the Single Permit Directive 2011/98, the Seasonal Workers Directive 2014/36, the Intra-corporate Transferees Directive 2014/66 and the Students and Researchers Directive 2016/801. The article emphasises that this set of EU labour migration Directives are the result of a sector-by-sector approach. The EU failed to adopt an overall and common EU labour migration policy and corresponding legal instruments. Even with regard to entitlement to equal treatment in terms of employment and social security rights, these EU instruments lack a common approach and give the Member States room to provide for exceptions. In addition, these Directives do not contain any provisions regarding the aggregation of periods of insurance, employment or residence. As a result, they offer additional protection for the social security rights of migrant persons, but they need to be complemented by other instruments such as multilateral or bilateral agreements with third countries, or even human rights instruments.

Reflexive Governance in EU Equality Law

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma Lantschner
Keyword(s):  
Opportunity To Learn ◽  
Learning Processes ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Member States ◽  
New Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Comparative Review ◽  
The Right ◽  
Employment Equality ◽  
The Eu

The Covid pandemic has revealed how far we, as a European society, still are from the proclaimed Union of Equality. This book explores how the promise of equal treatment can become a reality and compliance with the EU acquis relating to equality and non-discrimination be improved. It studies enforcement and promotion aspects of the two watershed Directives of 2000, the Racial Equality Directive 2000/43/EC and the Employment Equality Directive 2000/78/EC, through the lens of reflexive governance. This governance approach is proposed as having a great potential in enhancing the likelihood of sustainability (or continuation) of reforms in the current candidate countries and EU Member States through its emphasis on reflexive learning processes and the cooperation between EU institutions, national authorities, and civil society actors. In order to deploy this potential, there is, however, a need for more consistent and transparent monitoring, both with regard to candidate countries as well as old and new Member States, and a reconsideration of the understanding of monitoring as such. It should be seen as helping to deconstruct own-preference formations and as an opportunity to learn from successes and failures in a cooperative and recursive process. To work on these lacunae and improve learning and monitoring processes, this book identifies indicators that are deduced from the comparative review of the implementation practice of the Member States. It is thus a contribution to the existing literature in the fields of Europeanization, governance studies, and the right to equality and non-discrimination.

A Blurred Piece of Jigsaw: On the Status of Jobseekers within the Framework of Directive 2004/38

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 571-596
Author(s):  
Rufat Babayev
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Approach ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Member States ◽  
Legislative Change ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
National Implementation ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

Abstract This article explores the status of jobseeker in Directive 2004/38 that is aimed to simplify and strengthen the right of free movement and residence of all Union citizens. Unlike the categories of economically active and inactive persons, Directive 2004/38 employs a somewhat piecemeal approach towards setting out the status of jobseekers. It is submitted that this leads to much uncertainty over their residence rights and raises the prospect of divergent national implementation measures, leaving much leeway for the adoption of stringent approaches. While this is manifested itself, for instance, in the UK’s policy towards Union jobseekers, it is also particularly salient within the framework of the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement that authorises a constitutive approach to post-Brexit residence status, which is shown to carry a greater risk for UK nationals residing in EU Member States. Both instances are argued to further substantiate the need for a more systematic approach towards the outline of the status of jobseeker in Directive 2004/38, though the introduction of any legislative change may not currently be politically viable.

II. Fourteen Against One: The Eu Member States' Response To Freedom Party Participation In The Austrian Government

2000 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 953-963 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Happold
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Democratic Governance ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

The participation of the Freedom Party in the Austrian government has given rise to exceptional reactions both in Austria and internationally. The imposition of a freeze in bilateral diplomatic relations by Austria's European Union partners has been particularly notable, amounting to an unprecedented response to the election of a new government in another Member State. This note seeks to describe the development of events and assess the status of the 14 Member States' actions under international law, in particular in the light of any developing norms concerning non-intervention, respect for human rights and the right to democratic governance.

scholarly journals Overview of recent cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union (July 2019-September 2019)

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 370-377
Author(s):  
Anne Pieter van der Mei
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Social Security ◽  
Member State ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Insurance Cover ◽  
The Status ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right

In the reporting period July-September 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered various rulings that are significant for social security. The ruling that stands out is the one in Van den Berg and others, which concerned the power of a non-competent Member State to grant residents benefits where they lack insurance cover in the competent State. The other cases included in this overview concern the application of the right to equal treatment to social security conventions concluded between a Member State and a third country ( EU), the retention of the status of self-employed person by women who cease to be active due to pregnancy ( Dakneviciute) and the right to export student financial aid ( Aubriet).

Employment Rights and Church Discipline: Obst and Schüth

2011 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 208-215
Author(s):  
Frank Cranmer
Keyword(s):  
Good Faith ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Occupational Activity ◽  
Church Discipline ◽  
Member States ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Religious Associations ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Right ◽  
Employment Rights

The Equal Treatment Directive ‘respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the member states and … of philosophical and non-confessional organisations’ and empowers member states to make ‘specific provisions on genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirements which might be required for carrying out an occupational activity’. Specifically, Article 4 permits member states to make such provision taking account of their ‘constitutional provisions and principles, as well as the general principles of Community law’. Crucially, Article 4 concludes as follows: … this Directive shall thus not prejudice the right of churches and other public or private organisations, the ethos of which is based on religion or belief, acting in conformity with national constitutions and laws, to require individuals working for them to act in good faith and with loyalty to the organisation's ethos.

Provisions Common to the Right of Residence and the Right of Permanent Residence

2019 ◽  
pp. 229-252
Author(s):  
Elspeth Guild ◽  
Steve Peers ◽  
Jonathan Tomkin
Keyword(s):  
Economic Activity ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Permanent Residence ◽  
The Status ◽  
Free Movement Of Workers ◽  
The Right ◽  
Treatment Rules ◽  
The Eu

This chapter addresses Chapter V of the citizens’ Directive, which sets out a number of overarching provisions that apply both to the right of residence and the right of permanent residence. The Articles in Chapter V define the territorial scope of residence rights (Article 22) and confirm the entitlement of family members of EU citizens who move within the EU to engage in economic activity (Article 23). Further provisions elaborate on the application of the principle of equal treatment to migrant Union citizens and their family members (Article 24) and clarify the status of residence documents issued by national authorities (Article 25). Chapter V also regulates the entitlement of Member States to carry out checks on non-nationals (Article 26). Chief among these provisions is the principle of equality, which also overlaps with equal treatment rules in legislation governing the free movement of workers and the Treaty rules on equal treatment in relation to EU citizenship.

The role and limits of European social security coordination in guaranteeing migrants social benefits

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 390-402
Author(s):  
Herwig Verschueren
Keyword(s):  
Social Security ◽  
Social Protection ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Social Benefits ◽  
Policy Objective ◽  
The Social ◽  
Coordination System ◽  
The Right ◽  
Waiting Periods ◽  
The Eu

This article examines whether the EU social security coordination Regulations 883/2004 and 987/2009 contribute or fail to contribute to the EU policy objective of guaranteeing adequate social protection and fighting against poverty as set by Article 9 TFEU. Even if this coordination system does not directly interfere with the social protection systems of the Member States, it plays an important role in preventing persons who use the right to free movement within the EU from ending up in a situation in which they would lose entitlement to social benefits because of their migration. In analysing this issue I will concentrate on the role of the underlying general principles of this coordination, more specifically, on the rules for the determination of the applicable legislation, the principle of equal treatment, the export of benefits and the aggregation of periods. I will also elaborate on a number of examples where this coordination system fails to prevent the loss of entitlement to social benefits, such as the position of workers in non-standard forms of work, the limited rights of economically inactive migrants, the recent introduction of waiting periods for newcomers, and situations in which the migrants risk falling between two stools. I will conclude with the notion of fairness.

scholarly journals The Right of Free Movement and the Access To Social Protection in the EU: The Economical Dimension. Notes on the Case Elisabeta Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig, C-333/13

2015 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 110-120
Author(s):  
Daniela Guimarães
Keyword(s):  
Social Protection ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Social Benefits ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Assistance Systems ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

This article seeks to analyse the impact of the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) decision in the Dano judgement concerning the free movement of EU citizens and their cross-border access to social benefits. The debate about social tourism or welfare migration has been acrimonious in the last years. The Member States face new challenges concerning the possibility of excluding economically inactive European Union (EU) citizens from other Member States from special non-contributory social benefits. However, if on one hand we have the need to protect the financial sustainability of the Member States, as non-active EU citizens from other Member States can represent a burden on their social assistance systems, on the other hand, we also need to respect one of the EU’s most basilar principles: the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality. The CJEU has decided that the economically nonactive citizens of other Member States can only claim equal treatment in regard to access to social benefits, when they have a right of residence under Directive 2004/38 in the host Member State.

Bariery w przepływie pracowników na rynku wewnętrznym – stary problem w nowych odsłonach

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (4 (1)) ◽  
pp. 39-54
Author(s):  
Robert Grzeszczak
Keyword(s):  
Equal Treatment ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Integration Process ◽  
Labour Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Political Criticism ◽  
Eu Policies ◽  
The Will ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
The Eu

The issue of re-nationalization (disintegration and fragmentation) of integration process is manifested by the will of some of the Member States to verify their relations with the European Union. In the age of an economic crisis of the EU and in relation to the large migration of the population, there has emerged strong social and political criticism, on the European level, of the integration process, with some Member States even consideringtheir withdrawal from the EU. In those States, demands forextending the Member States’ competences in the field of some EU policies are becoming more and more popular. The legal effects of the above-mentioned processes are visible in the free movements of the internal market, mainly within the free movement of persons. Therefore, there are problems, such as increased social dumping process, the need to retain the output of the European labour law, the issue of the so-called social tourism, erosion of the meaning of the EU citizenship and the principle of equal treatment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document