The revision of the social security coordination regulations is again moving to the foreground.
A Trilogue meeting is scheduled for the end of this month.
The provisional agreement was reached between the Council and the European Parliament was rejected last year at the Coreper meeting of 29 March 2019. Subsequently, the European Parliament voted to leave the procedure to the next European Parliament.
The negotiations are pending the following issues:
- criteria for determining the applicable legislation in situations of multi-state activity (Article 13 Regulation 883/2004)
- pre-notification of posting -applications for Portable Documents A1 under Article 11(3)(b) and (d), Article 11(5) and Article 12 Regulation 883/2004
- unemployment benefits
Considering the statement made by the EU Commission at the EMPL Committee meeting of 15 June 2020, there is a consensus as regards the necessity to stick to these issues, and not to enlarge the debate to other issues have been already agreed upon.
In parallel to the legislative work, the judicial debate is pursued before the European Court of Justice. On 13 October, the ECJ will hear the case Team Power Europe (C-784/19). The ECJ is called upon to rule on the concept of substantial activity carried out by a temporary work agency, in the territory of the Member State of establishment, in the meaning of Article 14(2) Regulation 987/2009, laying down the procedure for implementing Article 12 (1) Regulation 883/2004.
In C-879/19 (FORMAT) the question referred to the ECJ concerns the interpretation of the concept of “person normally employed in the territory of two or more Member States” (in the meaning of Article 14(2) Regulation 1408/71).The referring court seeks to ascertain whether the said concept must be interpreted as applying “to a person who, during the period covered by and within the framework of one and the same contract of employment concluded with a single employer, performs work in the territory of each of at least two Member States not simultaneously or concurrently, but during directly consecutive, successive periods of several months”.
In C-115/11 (Format) , the ECJ ruled that as the case at issue “a person who, under successive employment contracts stating the place of employment to be the territory of several Member States, in fact works during the term of each of those contracts only in the territory of one of those States at a time, cannot come within the concept of ‘a person normally employed in the territory of two or more Member States’, within the meaning of that provision”.