Week 6
Coordination of Social Security I: General Principles and Unemployment Benefits
In the last two weeks of the course we will turn attention to social security law, and more
specifically Regulations 883/2004 and 987/2009. These regulations do not set up a common
social security scheme nor do they harmonize the national systems; Member States remain free
to organize and finance social security in the way they deem fit untouched. It is up to the
Member States to determine whether or not benefit schemes are set in place, how these are
financed, which persons are affiliated to the schemes, the conditions for entitlement to benefits
and the level of the benefits and the contributions to be paid. The Regulations merely seek to
link the schemes to each other in such a way that the exercise of free movement rights does not
lead to a loss of entitlement to social security rights or to duties to pay premiums in more than
one Member State. This week we will discuss the general features of the coordination system
set up by the two regulation and they key principles on which they are based (lecture) and study
in more detail the coordination rules for unemployment benefits (tutorial group). Week 7 of the
course will be devoted to the coordination rules for health care and health insurance.
Reading Materials Lecture
A.P. van der Mei, Free Movement of Workers and Coordination of Social Security, available via
Eleum.
Reading Materials Tutorial Group:
Unemployment Benefits, available via Eleum.
Case 41/79, Testa, ECLI:EU:C:1980:163
• Mr. Testa was an Italian man working in Germany. The labour office granted him
unemployment benefit for 234 days. The labour office gave the plaintiff a certificate which
enabled him to seek employment in Italy. The plaintiff left for Italy on 12 July 1975 and
continued to receive benefits from the competent Italian institution. On 13 October 1975
he returned to Germany to ask for more unemployment benefit. Germany said that he
was too late, his right was extinguished under article 69 (2) Regulation 1408/71 since he
had not registered at the competent office by 12 October 1975 at the latest.
• The German court asked the following question to the Court of Justice:
Does the second half of the first sentence of article 69 (2) preclude an unemployed
person from entitlement to unemployment benefits in the competent MS if he returns to
that MS after more than three months, even if he still has a residual claim under the
domestic legislation of that MS?
• Article 69 makes it possible for the worker to be exempt for a specific period, for the purpose
of seeking employment in another MS, from the obligation imposed by the various
national laws to make himself available to the employment services of the competent
state without thereby losing his entitlement of unemployment benefits as against the
competent state.
• Under paragraph 1 the right given to the worker by Article 69 is restricted to a period of 3
months from the date on which he ceases to be available to the employment services of
the competent state.
Stel je hebt een export zaak. Stel je woont in NL en je hebt recht op WW voor 12 maanden. Dan
zegt artikel 64: ik moet een maand in NL werk zoeken, dan kan ik 3 maanden naar een andere
lidstaat en dan kan ik voor 3 maanden exporteren. Dan moet je je inschrijven / ze moeten
toezien etc.
Artikel 64 wat als je na 5 maanden terugkomt? Hoeveel verlies je? Verlies je 1 maand of alle 8?
Je verliest alles als je het artikel leest. Is dat niet heel hard?
, Als je terugkomt in NL, dan herleeft je uitkering niet meer. In Testa wordt de vraag voorgelegd:
met die harde sanctie in artikel 64, is dat niet in strijd met vrij verkeer? Als ik mijn hele uitkering
verlies, dan kijk ik 3x uit of ik in het buitenland werk gaat zoeken. Dus grote vraag is, is artikel 64
niet in strijd met het vrije verkeer verdrag?
1) artikel 64 ziet er ook op toe dat lidstaten eventueel kunnen verlengen. Hier geldt de
proportionaliteit.
Wat als ze de verlening niet geven, dat doen ze in NL bijna nooit, is het hele artikel dan ongeldig
omdat het vrij verkeer belemmerd?
Hof vindt dat er geen belemmering is voor het vrije verkeer. Staat in NL recht recht op export
WW? Nee geen enkele lidstaat heeft dat. Je moet op nationale grondgebied werken en wonen,
om recht te hebben op WW. Met andere woorden, op basis van nationale recht is er nooit een
recht op export. Als je dan naar artikel 64 kijkt, dan introduceert het een recht op export. Dan
kun je vinden dat het verlies van 8 maanden erg hard is. Hou wel in gedachte, zonder dat hele
artikel was er helemaal geen export. Dus het artikel 6, wat je ook vindt van het hele artikel, is
slechts bevorderend. Dus zegt het hof: het kan door de beugel. Het hof benadrukt ook heel
duidelijk; dit is een optie, je hoeft niet in een andere lidstaat te gaan werken. Je verliest geen
enkel recht als je naar het buitenland gaat dan als je thuis blijft. Dus het is oké.
Toen ze artikel 69 maakte: iemand die werk gaat zoeken, gaat altijd naar het land waar lonen
hoger zijn. Nu blijkt het tegenovergestelde. Ze gaan in Polen zogenaamd werk zoeken, maar ze
zijn op vakantie. Dan is er geen initiatief om werk te zoeken.
Case 1/85, Miethe, ECLI:EU:C:1986:243
Case C-102/91, Knoch, ECLI:EU:C:1992:303
Case C-444/98, De Laat, ECLI:EU:C:2001:165
This case was about someone who got a new job by the same employer as a window cleaner for
13 hours. He wanted to receive unemployment benefit, because he wasn’t working full time.
Belgium send him to the Netherlands, because according to them mr DeLaat was wholly
unemployed. He was seen as a wholly unemployed frontier worker, so he had to go the the state
of residence. In the Netherlands, they saw him as a partially unemployed person so Belgian law
applied.
Why did Belgian authorities consider him wholly unemployed?
Because he used to be the manager and DeLaat lost the job as a manager completely. They
know that he is working for 13 hours as a window cleaner, but they treat him as wholly
unemployed. In the Netherlands they look at his hours. He still works 13 hours a week, so he is
partially unemployed.
Here you can see the need for a definition, otherwise they will keep sending De Laat away. The
definition was the following:
‘If in a member state other than that in whose territory he resides, a worker remains in
employment the same undertaking, but part-time, while remaining available for work on a full
time basis, he is partially unemployed and the related benefits are to be provide by the for
competent institution of the state. On the other hand, if a frontier worker no longer has any link
with that state and is and wholly unemployed, those benefits are to be provided by the institution
of the place of residence at its own expenses.’
Case C-443/11, Jeltes, ECLI:EU:C:2013:224
This case was about mr Jeltes and ms Peeters who were frontier workers of Netherlands
nationality who worked in the Netherlands while resident in Germany. Mr Jeltes became
unemployed and submitted a claim for unemployment benefit to the Netherlands. His claim was
rejected. Ms Peeters became unemployed and received unemployment benefit from the
