15 Amendments of Ulrike TREBESIUS related to 2016/0397(COD)
Amendment 63 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) It has emerged from evaluations and discussions within the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems that in the areas of long- term care benefits, unemployment benefits and family benefits the modernisation process should continue, in order to make such rules fairer, clearer and easier to apply.
Amendment 67 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4 a (new)
Recital 4 a (new)
(4a) Freedom of movement is a cornerstone of the internal market. However, the internal market cannot function in the absence of mutual trust. In order to safeguard the benefits of mobility, the EU must fight abuse, fraud and unfair competition.
Amendment 74 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) It is necessary to guarantee legal certainty by clarifying that access to social security benefits for economically inactive mobile citizens in the host Member State, may be made conditional upon that citizen holding a legal right of residence in that Member State in accordance with Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.33 For these purposes, an economically inactive citizen should be clearly distinguished from a jobseeker whose right of residence is conferred directly by Article 45in accordance with Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 ofn the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Unionright of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. __________________ 33 OJ L 158, 30.4.2004, p. 77.
Amendment 82 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6 a (new)
Recital 6 a (new)
Amendment 104 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) In the area of unemployment benefits, the rules on the aggregation of periods of insurance should be applied uniformly by all Member States. With the exception of cross-border workers referred to in Article 65(2), the rules on the aggregation of periods for the purpose of conferring entitlement to unemployment benefits should be subject to the condition that an insured person has most recently completed at least threesix months of insurance in that Member State. The previously competent Member State should become competent for all insured persons who do not satisfy this condition. In this case, registration with the employment services of the Member State of most recent insurance should have the same effect as registration with the employment services of the Member State, where the unemployed person had been previously insured.
Amendment 108 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) Following the recommendations in the EU Citizenship Report 2013,35 there is a need to extend the minimum duration of export of unemployment benefits from three to six months in order to improve the opportunities for unemployed persons moving to another Member State to look for work and their chances for reintegrationIntra-EU mobility can address mismatches between skills and employment opportunities, and help tackling unemployment in the EU. However, the exportability of unemployment benefits poses significant problems in terms of mutual cooperation between Member States for monitoring jobseeking activities. To avoid the misuse of rights, the competent Member State can take into account national labour needs as well as available opportunities into the labour market and to address skills mismatches across borderhost Member State before granting the exportation of unemployment benefits. __________________ 35COM(2013) 269 final.
Amendment 124 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10 a (new)
Recital 10 a (new)
(10a) While coordination rules cannot prevent that mobile citizens have lower protection than non-mobile citizens, Member States are encouraged to find bilateral solutions according to Article 16.
Amendment 140 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) With a view to expediting the procedure for the verification and withdrawal of documents (in particular concerning the social security legislation which applies to the holder) in case of fraud and error, it is necessary to strengthen the collaboration and the exchange of information between the issuing institution and the institution requesting a withdrawal. Where there is doubt about the validity of a document or about the correctness of supporting evidence or where there is a difference of views between Member States concerning the determination of the applicable legislation, it is in the interest of the Member States and the persons concerned that the institutions concerned reach an agreement within a reasonable period of time. In case of irrefutable fraud the receiving Member State can refuse these documents. The principle ‘fraus omnia corrumpit’ has an absolute character in Union law.
Amendment 167 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Regulation (EC) No 883/2004
Recital 5a
Recital 5a
(5a) The Court of Justice has held that Member States are entitled to make the access of economically inactive citizens in the host Member State to social security benefits, which do not constitute social assistance within the meaning of Directive 2004/38/EC subject to a legal right of residence within the meaning of that Directive. The verification of the legal right of residence should be carried out in accordance with the requirement of Directive 2004/38/EC. For these purposes, an economically inactive citizen should be clearly distinguished from a jobseeker whose right of residence is conferred directly by Article 45in accordance with Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 ofn the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Unionright of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member State. In order to improve legal clarity for citizens and institutions, a codification of this case law is necessary.
Amendment 370 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 19
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 19
2. Where an unemployed person does not satisfy the conditions for the aggregation of periods in accordance with paragraph 1 because the total duration of his or her most recently completed periods of insurance, employment or self- employment in that Member State is less than threesix months that person shall be entitled to unemployment benefits in accordance with the legislation of the Member State where he or she had previously completed such periods under the conditions and subject to the limitations laid down in Article 64a..
Amendment 383 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 20 – point a
Regulation (EC) No 883/2004
Article 64 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 64 – paragraph 1 – point c
(a) In paragraph 1(c) the word “three” shall be replaced by “six” and the words “of three months up to a maximum of six months” shall be replaced by the word, point (c) is replaced by the following: “(c) the competent Member State has assessed the national labour needs as well as the job opportunities in the host Member State and concludes that the exportability of unemployment benefits creates additional possibilities for activation. In that case entitlements to benefits shall be retained for a period of three months from the date when the unemployed person ceased to be available to the employment services “of six months up to the end of the perthe Member State which he left, provided that the total duration for which the benefits are provided does not exceed the total duration of the period of this entitlement to benefits under the legislatiodn of that person's entitlement to benefits”; Member State; the competent services or institutions may extent the period of three months up to a maximum of six months. The Member State which declines the exportability of unemployment benefits provides an individual motivation for this decision.”
Amendment 437 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22 a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 22 a (new)
Regulation (EC) No 883/2004
Article 67 a (new)
Article 67 a (new)
22a. The following article is inserted: “Article 67a Indexation of family benefits The competent Member States may index the exportation of family benefits for family member residing in another Member State. "
Amendment 511 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Regulation (EC) No 987/2009
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point e a
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point e a
(ea) ‘fraud’ means any intentional act or omission to act, in order to obtain or receive social security benefits or, to avoid to pay social security contributions or to avoid the applicable law, contrary to the law of a Member State in accordance to the basic Regulation and the implementing Regulation;.
Amendment 521 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Regulation (EC) No 987/2009
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
1. Documents issued by the institution of a Member State and showing the position of a person for the purposes of the application of the basic Regulation and of the implementing Regulation, and supporting evidence on the basis of which the documents have been issued, shall be accepted by the institutions of the other Member States for as long as they have not been withdrawn or declared to be invalid by the Member State in which they were issued. Such documents shall only be valid if all sections indicated as compulsory are filled in. However, such documents shall not be required to be accepted in the case of irrefutable fraud by the institution of the receiving Member State.
Amendment 540 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7
Regulation (EC) No 987/2009
Article 5 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Where the institution of the receiving Member State refuses the validity of the document in the case of irrefutable fraud, it notifies, without delay, the issuing institution. The issuing institution has 25 days to proof the validity of the document or to withdraw the document. During those 25 days the document is considered to be invalid. In case proof of validity is not accepted by the receiving institution, and the issuing institution disagrees, it can bring the matter before the Administrative Commission.