latest developments in the field of social security

Latest developments in the field of Social Security Coordination

FresSco Seminar Maastricht, Netherlands

5 October 2015 Laura White

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion Unit B4 - Free Movement of Workers, Social Security Coordination

- Overview - Latest developments in the field of social

security coordination

1) Work of the European Commission – Labour Mobility Package

2) Activities of the Administrative Commission 3) Electronic Exchange of Social Security Information (EESSI)

4) Latest developments in the field of family benefits

3

8.7 million economically active third-country nationals living in the EU (4.3% of total labour force in EU)

8.1 million economically active EU citizens living in another MS in 2013 (3.3% of total labour force in EU)

20% of EU citizens interested to move to another country – but only1.2% with firm intentions (planning to move in next 12 months)

1.6 million cross-border workers

1.3 million certificates for posted workers

Mobility

Key Figures

Jean-Claude Juncker President of the European Commission

•  Free Movement of Workers: one of the key pillars of the internal market •  Right of national authorities to fight abuse of fraudulent claims •  Targeted review of Posting Directive to ensure "that social dumping has no place in the European Union" •  Free movement is an economic opportunity and not a threat (vacancies and skill matching)

•  Political Guidelines for the new Commission (15 July 2014)

Marianne Thyssen Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs,

Skills and Labour Mobility

"My policy action will be focused on four priorities: boosting jobs, fairness, skills and mobility. I will seek to pursue concrete actions that deliver for citizens in those areas."

Labour Mobility Package 2015 (1)

A Balanced Approach •  Lifting remaining obstacles to free movement of workers and promoting labour mobility, especially in fields with large skill mismatches or unfilled vacancies •  Improving Member States' capacity to prevent and fight social dumping, frauds and abuse, as regards, in particular, the posting of workers and the access to welfare benefits.

Labour Mobility Package 2015 (2)

•  Targeted Review of the Posting of Workers Directive

•  Revision of Social Security Coordination Rules •  Revision subject to Impact Assessment (collection of data and

figures) •  Consultation with stakeholders (Member States, social

partners, public consultation) https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/b993f63c-d38e-8c9e-c015-9b50d0d4ef4d •  Planned adoption date: December 2015

2) Activities of the Administrative Commission

•  Adoption of new Decisions to be published in the

Official Journal

•  Reflection Forum on the EU Social Security

Coordination in 2020 and beyond

•  Setting up of an ad-hoc group on posting

9

•  14.1 million EU citizens living in another Member State, all insured persons potential beneficiaries of social security coordination rules

•  Over 10000 institutions connected through Access Points (over 60)

•  Several million messages are likely to be exchanged each year

•  Approximately 300 Structured Electronic Documents (SEDs) are defined and agreed for the exchanges

•  Master Directory with contact details of institutions already available

•  EESSI Newsletter available to national administrations for updates about the progress of the project

EESSI - Highlights

EESSI - high level steps towards delivery

Agreement on choice of technical solution and technical option

Pilot phases with gradual development of system builds

Full implementation of the EESSI solution in all Member States Close of

2013

2014 to 2016

2016 to 2018

4)Coordination of Family Benefits

•  Periodic monitoring questionnaire on export of family benefits •  Approval of Decision F2 of the Administrative Commission •  Reflection Forum of Administrative Commission – December 2015

Information and communication on family benefits

•  Updated websites of the Your Europe – Citizens' portal

•  Working with Member States to inform citizens - Social Security Coordination Communication Network (SSC-CN)

Thank you for your attention!

Visit us @ http://ec.europa.eu/social-security-coordination

http://www.facebook.com/#!/socialeurope

Social Europe

Recent developments in the field of free movement of workers

FRESSCO SEMINAR Maastricht, 5 October 2015

Radek Casta

European Commission DG EMPL B/4 Free Movement of Workers, Social Security Coordination

Social Europe

Today's presentation

Ø Transitional arrangements for Croatian workers

Ø The enforcement directive 2014/54 Ø Overview

Ø Work on its implementation

Ø Cases C- 333/13 Dano and C- 67/14 Alimanovic

Social Europe

Transitional arrangements for workers from Croatia

•  - transitional arrangements in the Accession Act ("2+3+2")

•  - Commission report of 29.5.2015, ref. COM(2015) 233

•  - end of first phase:30.6.2015; •  - second phase 1.7.2015 – 30.6.2018:

prolongation of transitional restrictions: UK, NL, AT, SI, MT

•  - HR – reciprocal measures

Social Europe

TA for workers from Croatia – Commission report I

•  In 2014 around 229,000 economically active Croatian citizens in the EU-27 countries, (around 0.1% of the total labour force).

•  Mobility small in relation to the population and labour force of 13 Member States that applied transitional restrictions.

•  Germany and Austria: main destinations despite the fact that they apply restrictions. (Germany +22,800, received 68% of all mobile Croatians, Austria +3,340, received 17% of them).

•  In the 14 Member States which have opened their labour markets, the increase of Croatian workers has been very low in absolute terms.

•  Mobile Croatians: working-age and relatively well educated; younger and more likely to be employed

Social Europe

TA for workers from Croatia - Commission Report II

•  Conclusions: •  à future potential flows of Croatian workers likely to be small and

unlikely to lead to labour market disturbances •  à previous EU enlargements mobile EU workers have brought

needed skills to the host labour markets and help fill local labour shortages.

•  à Studies have also shown that they tend to have a neutral or positive fiscal impact on the host economies.

•  à remittances and lower unemployment in Croatia •  à 'brain drain' – increased but limited

Social Europe

Directive 2014/54/EU on facilitating the exercise of rights in the context of free movement of workers Specific measures to ensure effective protection of

rights conferred by Art 45 TFEU and Regulation (EU) No 492/2011: 1.  Defence of rights; 2.  National body or bodies must exist to provide

assistance to Union workers (including jobseekers) and their family members;

3.  Promotion of dialogue; 4.  Better information provision at national level.

Social Europe

Subject matter of the Directive (Article 1)

• 

•  The Directive aims to improve and reinforce the way in which Article 45 TFEU and Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 are applied in practice within Member States across the European Union.

Social Europe

Personal scope (Article 1)

The beneficiaries of the provisions of Directive 2014/54/EU are the same as those under Article 45 TFEU and Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 •  à All persons exercising their right to free

movement for work purposes •  à the members of their family (according to

recital 1 as the term defined in point (2) of Article 2 of Directive 2004/38/EC,

•  à including jobseekers, •  à persons retaining the status of worker.

Social Europe

Material scope (Article 2)

•  The Directive applies to the matters covered by Article 45 TFEU and by Articles 1 to 10 of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011.

Social Europe

Material scope: Matters covered by Article 45 TFEU

•  The issues also within the scope of Article 45 TFEU:

•  - residence of workers, jobseekers and family members

•  -Recognition of professional qualifications for access to employment and working conditions (salary, promotion…)

•  -supplementary social security rights.

Social Europe

Effective Protection of Rights:

•  Judicial procedures must be made available for the enforcement at national level;

•  Guarantee of effective, dissuasive and proportionate remedies;

•  Protection from victimisation;

Social Europe

Right of associations to provide assistance with protection of rights:

Article 3(2)-(4)

•  Right of associations, organisations or other entities – with a legitimate interest in accordance with criteria laid down in national law - to represent Union workers in judicial and/or administrative proceedings in order to ensure enforcement of rights.

•  National collective action rules unaffected [Article 3(3) and Recital 15]

Social Europe

FMOW Body (1): Each Member State shall designate "one or more structures or bodies for the "promotion, analysis, monitoring and support of…Union workers and their family members":

Provide or ensure provision of independent legal and/or other assistance to Union workers…and their family members in pursuing their complaints

Conduct independent surveys and publish independent reports

Publish relevant information on application at national level of the EU rules on free movement of workers

Social Europe

FMOW Body (2) – cooperation and coordination duties

Make use of and cooperate with existing information and assistance services at EU level [Article 4(4)]

Act as a contact point vis-à-vis equivalent contact points in other Member States [Article 4(2)(b)]

Cooperate with existing information and assistance services provided by social partners and… other entities at national level (see Recital 20)

Social Europe

FMOW body (3) - flexibility for national implementation

"one or more structures or bodies"

"may form part of existing bodies at national level which have similar objectives"

Possibility under Article 8(2) to extend competences to cover discrimination on ground of nationality under Article 18 TFEU

Social Europe

FMOW body (4) - Resources and Coordination

If a Member State decides to allocate the tasks to an existing body… "It should ensure allocation of adequate resources…for the effective and adequate performance of its existing an additional tasks" [Recital 18]

If the tasks are allocated to more than one body… "MS should ensure…they are adequately coordinated" [Article 4(5)]

Social Europe

Provision of Information: Article 4(2)(e) and Article 6

•  Art. 4(2)

(e)

• FMOW body to publish information on national implementation of EU rules

Art. 6(1)

• Duty on MS to provide information to all stakeholders about rights conferred by Directive and associated EU rights

Art. 6(2)

• Duty as to how the information should be provided: "clear, free of charge, easily accessible, comprehensive…up-to-date" and in more than one EU language.

Social Europe

•  Timeline 30 April

2014

• Publication in OJ and entry into force on the twentieth day following its publication,

21 May 2016

• Implementation date for Member States and communication of national measures to Commission

21 Nov. 2018

•  Commission to submit a report to the EP, Council, ECSC on implementation of the Directive

Social Europe

•  - informal 'non-paper' •  - To facilitate the task of implementation of the

and provide technical information on certain points relating to the application of the Directive.

•  -To allow the Commission services to have up-to-date information on the process of transposition the different Member States.

A guidance/Questionnaire document for Member States

Social Europe

Procedure

•  -Document of the Commission services discussed with the Technical and Advisory Committees on free movement of workers.

•  -Member States and Social Partners had to send comments on content of non-paper by 12 June 2015.

•  -Commission services will send out final text to Member States by end of September 2015

•  -Replies of national authorities to the questionnaire by end November 2015

Social Europe

Case C- 333/13 Dano and C-67/14 Alimanovic

Problem: residence and social assistance (Directive 2004/38; Article 45(2) TFEU) Beneficiaries concerned Benefit concerned • DANO: an economically inactive EU citizen moving solely to obtain social assistance; no right of residence à no social assistance, no individual assessment • ALIMANOVIC: jobseeker: residence arising solely on the basis of search for employment, residence more than 6 months, work less than a year à no social assistance, no individual assessment • Coming soon: GARCIA NIETO – first time jobseekers, first 3 months; character of benefit, link with host MS

Social Europe

THANK YOU! Comments? Questions?

Funded by

Family benefits and the outer limits of

coordination Nicolas Rennuy University of Cambridge

Funded by

  Outer limits  Fiscal benefits

 The allocation of social responsibilities between designated Member States and beyond

 The secondarily competent Member State

 The non-competent Member State

Funded by

Family benefits and tax advantages

 Family-related tax benefits  Social security?  Family benefit?  Implications?

Funded by

Material scope: social security

  Social security?  “the constituent elements of each particular benefit, in particular its purposes and the conditions on which it is granted”  Regardless of:

 National qualification and formal characteristics  Method of financing  The legal mechanism by which the Member State implements the benefit

Funded by

 “the fact that a benefit is governed by national tax law is not conclusive for the purpose of evaluating its constituent elements.”

Funded by

1.  grant without any individual and discretionary assessment of personal needs

2.  on the basis of a legally defined position 3.  related to one of the enumerated social security

risks

4.  “without any link to the income or the tax owed by the applicant”?

Funded by

  Lachheb (EU:C:2013:689)  Luxembourg National Family Benefits Fund pays “child bonus” (€77 per month) for each child, on top of family benefits  Q: social security?

 ECJ repeats three-tiered test and adds:  “As the CNPF and the Commission contend, the benefit at issue in the main proceedings is, first, automatically granted in the case where there is a dependent child in order to compensate for the maintenance of that child, and, second, it corresponds to a set amount, granted automatically, without any link to the income or the tax owed by the applicant. Consequently, a benefit such as that at issue in the main proceedings is indeed a social security benefit.”

Funded by

  Two interpretations  Lachheb inserts a fourth requirement

 A link to the income or the tax owed by the applicant -> not social security

 No hermetic boundary (yet)  Formula and position  Imbernon Martínez (EU:C:1995:306)  The constituent elements of each particular benefit, in particular its purposes and the conditions on which it is granted

Funded by

Material scope: family benefit?

  Social security?   Family benefit?  “all benefits in kind or in cash intended to meet family expenses, excluding advances of maintenance payments and special childbirth and adoption allowances mentioned in Annex I.”

Funded by

  Social security benefits v. tax benefits  Pro narrow social qualification

 Reg. 883/2004 does not do justice to fiscal peculiarities  Coherence of tax system  Will of EU legislator

 Pro broad social qualification  Circumvention  Comprehensive coordination-mechanism

Funded by

Applicable legislation

 The competent Member States

Funded by


  Applicable legislations  Other social security benefits: one person -- one MS

 Closest connection of the person

 Family benefits:  Paid to one parent  In respect of a dependent child  “Earned” by each parent

 One family -- more than one MS  Closest connection(s) of the family as a unit

Funded by

Supplement

  A pool, a ladder,…  Determination of the legislation applicable to each family member

 Title II Reg. 883/2004 -> pool

 The priority rules  Art. 68 Reg. 883/2004 -> ladder

–  Payable –  Same period –  Same family member, and –  Same kind

Funded by

[Title]

  … and one or more baskets  One basket

 All family benefits are of the same kind

 More than one basket  Wiering (EU:C:2014:300)

–  Pool: DE and LUX –  Ladder: DE is primarily competent; LUX grants supplement –  Baskets?

Funded by

[Title]

  Wiering: how to calculate the supplement?  One basket

 Supplement = sum of LUX – sum of DE = nil –  Luxembourg institution

DE Kindergeld + Elgerngeld LUX family allowance

DE Kindergeld + Elgerngeld

Funded by

[Title]

 Two baskets  Supplement for family allowances = LUX family allowance – DE Kindergeld  Supplement for child-raising allowances = nil

– Wiering family

DE Kindergeld LUX family allowance

DE Elterngeld DE Elterngeld

DE Kindergeld

LUX supplement

Funded by

[Title]

One basket Two baskets

DE Kindergeld

DE Elterngeld DE Elterngeld

DE Kindergeld

LUX supplement

Funded by

[Title]

  ECJ  only overlapping of benefits of the same kind is unjustified

 Art. 12(1) Reg. 1408/71

 Same kind:  Same purpose  Same object  Same calculation method  Same eligibility conditions

Funded by

[Title] Luxembourg family allowances German Elterngeld

Neither eligibility nor the amount depends on: -‐ income or assets of the family members -‐ the occupa8onal ac8vity of the parents.

Eligibility depends on the reduc8on of the occupa8onal ac8vity. The amount depends on the parent’s professional income prior to reducing his or her occupa8onal ac8vity.

The only eligibility condi8ons are the age and the number of children, meaning that the benefit is to be regarded as a “family allowance” within the meaning of art. 1(u)(ii) Regula8on 1408/71.

While the number and age of the children are eligibility condi8ons, they are not the sole (or even main) condi8ons. Accordingly, Elterngeld is not a “family allowance”.

The ul8mate intended beneficiary is the child. Whilst not explicitly spelled out, it is clear that the Elterngeld benefits the child less directly than the Luxembourg family allowance.

The objec8ve of the benefit is to support parents in mee8ng the costs flowing from their children’s needs.

The objec8ve is to contribute to the maintenance of the living standards of families where one of the parents temporarily reduces or suspends his occupa8onal ac8vi8es so as to look aSer their children.

Funded by

[Title]

 Expiry date?  “Family allowances” disappear as a legal category, but not as a reality  Reasoning is based on art. 12(1) Reg. 1408/71 = art. 10 Reg. 883/2004  A multiple indicator test

 How many baskets?  Child-raising benefits versus the most classic family allowances  Outer boundaries?

Funded by

[Title]

 Social function  Administrative burden

 Calculation per kind  Kind? Comparative law + duty of sincere cooperation

 Art. 4(3) TEU & art. 76 Reg. 883/2004  Disagreements

 Increase in total amount  Possibly in excess of maximum in either Member State

Funded by


 The non-competent Member States

Funded by

[Title]

  The principle of exclusivity  Art. 11(1) Reg. 883/2004

 “Persons to whom this Regulation applies shall be subject to the legislation of a single Member State only.”

Competent MS Non-competent MS

Contributions May May not (Perenboom; EU:C:1977:71)

Benefits Must May not (Ten Holder)

Funded by

[Title]

  The principle of inviolability of purely national rights  Objective of Regulation: social protection of migrant workers  European objective and European means  Typical situation:

 Reg. is more protective than national law – supremacy

Funded by

[Title]

 Atypical situation:  Reg. is less protective than national law  Letter or spirit?  Competent MS: the principle of inviolability of purely national rights  Non-competent MS: competing principles

Funded by

[Title]

  The non-competent MS  Ten Holder: exclusivity > inviolability

 No rights in the non-competent MS  (EU:C:1986:242)

Funded by

Competence under Reg. 883/2004

Purely national right under national law

Ten Holder

Funded by

[Title]

  The non-competent MS  Bosmann: inviolability > exclusivity

 The non-competent may grant social security benefits –  Resident in DE –  °Employment in NL (no family benefits for 18+) –  DE family benefits refused on basis of exclusivity –  (EU:C:2008:290)

Funded by

[Title]

  Must the non-competent MS grant benefits?  Bosmann:

 Yes, if there is a purely national right

 But B. (EU:C:2014:2199):  “a Member State which lacks competence retains the possibility of granting family benefits if there are specific and particularly close connecting factors between the territory of that State and the situation at issue, on condition that the predictability and effectiveness of the application of the coordination rules of Regulation No 1408/71 are not disproportionately affected”

Funded by

[Title]

  Must the non-competent MS grant benefits?  Wawrzyniak (EU:C:2012:339)

 Yes, if a refusal would constitute an obstacle to free movement

–  Posted from PL to DE – Wife received PL family benefit + DE anti-overlap rule = no purely

national right

Funded by

[Title]

  Must the non-competent MS grant benefits?  Franzen (EU:C:2015:261)

 Residence in NL  Minijobs in DE (only insured for accidents at work)  Old-age pensions & family benefits in NL, if it were not for anti-overlap rule

Funded by

[Title]

Competent MS Non-competent MS

Contributions May May not (Perenboom)?

Benefits Must Must if: - National law: purely national right - TFEU – outer boundaries?

Funded by

Competence under Reg. 883/2004

Purely national right under national law

Right directly under the TFEU

B.

Hendrix Wawrzyniak Franzen

Bosmann Hudzinski

von Chamier

Funded by

[Title]

FreSsco Seminar

Coordination of Family Benefits and Student Financial Aid:

Recent Developments and Practice

Maastricht 5 november 2015

Family benefits Policy perspec3ves and Tax perspec3ves

Henk van der Most

•  Kinderbijslag (general family benefit) allowance for parents to meet the costs of having children.

•  Kindgebonden budget (income tested family benefit) allowance for parents to meet the costs of having children.

•  Kinderopvangtoeslag (child care allowance) allowance for parents to meet the specific costs for child care.

Legal ground: •  Fair wage •  Development of the individual child

2010: 1 in 10 children in the Netherlands in a household beneath the poverty line

3,7% children in households with long term low income

Source: armoedesignalement CPB 2010

Exportability as a rule CJ EU: judgmenten Pinna I and II

No export CJ EU: judgment Geven EFTA Court: judgment Finnmark

Art. 45 TFEU (ex Ar3cle 39 TEC)

1. Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Union.

2. Such freedom of movement shall entail the aboli3on of any discrimina3on based on na3onality

Equality on the shop floor?

or in the street ?

Exportability

Ar3cle 48 TFEU

The European Parliament and the Council shall, (. . .), adopt such measures in the field of social security as are necessary to provide freedom of movement for workers; to this end, they shall make arrangements to secure (. . .):

(a) aggrega3on, for the purpose of acquiring and retaining the right to benefit and of calcula3ng the amount of benefit, (. . .);

(b) payment of benefits to persons resident in the territories of Member States.

Ar3cle 7 regula3on no 492/2011

1. A worker who is a na3onal of a Member State may not, in the territory of another Member State, be treated differently from na3onal workers (. . .).

2. He shall enjoy the same social and tax advantages as na3onal workers.

Ar3cle 4 regula3on no 883/2004

(. . .) persons to whom this Regula3on applies shall enjoy the same benefits and be subject to the same obliga3ons under the legisla3on of any Member State as the na3onals thereof.

Equality on the shop floor

What is a family benefit ?

Social security benefits

Fiscal deduc3ons

Family benefits Title III, Chapter 8, Reg. 883/2004

Judgment Lachheb

Is a tax deduc3on in the form of a child bonus a family benefit in the sense of regula3on no 1408/71 ?

The fact that a benefit is governed by na3onal tax law is not conclusive for the purpose of evalua3ng its cons3tuent elements.

Other benefits

Ar1cle 1, z), regula1on no 883/2004 ‘family benefit’ means all benefits in kind or in cash intended to meet family expenses

Judgment Lachheb Criteria ‘social security benefit’: •  Granted without any individual and discre3onary assessment of personal needs, •  on the basis of a legally defined posi3on , •  relates to one of the risks expressly listed in Ar3cle 4(1) of Regula3on No

1408/71.

Irrelevant: •  classifica3on by na3onal legisla3on, •  the method by which a benefit is financed , •  legal instrument (e.g. family law or social security law). Type of benefit under regula3on no 883/2004 The risk covered by each benefit must be taken into considera3on the fact that the public contribu3on to a family’s budget takes the form of a cash benefit payable under the na#onal tax law regime and that the child bonus has its origin in a tax reduc#on for children has no bearing on the classifica3on of that benefit as a ‘family benefit’

Commission v. European Parliament, case C-‐299/05 Judgment and Opinion AG Finish and Swedish benefits for handicapped children are ‘sickness benefits’ and not family benefits Its objec3ves are to facilitate special care measures and physical and psychological rehabilita3on measures and to avert the risk of the claimant subsequently being unfit for work. The general aim is not to make good the loss of parental income or to meet family expenses.

Polish law on family benefits Zasiłek pielęgnacyjny: Care Allowance = Family benefit (Centrale Raad van Beroep 30 January 2015, ECLI:NL:CRVB:2015:226). Świadczenie pielęgnacyjne: Nursing Allowance = sickness benefit

Who is en3tled ?

Ar1cle 67 regula1on no 883/2004 A person shall be en3tled to family benefits in accordance with the legisla3on of the competent Member State, including for his/her family members residing in another Member State, as if they were residing in the former Member State.

Who is a family member ? Reg. 883/2004 Art. 1(i)(1)(i) any person defined or recognised as a member of the family or designated as a member of the household by the legisla3on under which benefits are provided.

Robards: Former spouse

What rights does a family member have ? Hughes: Northern-‐Irish family credit for, i.a., spouses that do not

work Hoever and Zachow: Child-‐raising allowance (Erziehungsgeld) Humer: Advances on maintenance payments Individual rights of the family member

Slanina (Humer) The purpose of Ar3cle 73 is to guarantee members of the family of a worker subject to the legisla3on of a Member State who are residing in another Member State the grant of the family benefits provided for by the applicable legisla3on of the former State.

Romana Slanina is the mother of Nina, born on 23 June 1991. She received Austrian family allowances and tax credits both before and aqer her move to Greece.

1997

Who is en3tled ?

Slanina What if Romana works in Greece and is en1tled to Greek benefits ? If it emerged that such was the case, it would be necessary to apply the rule against ‘overlapping’ in Ar3cle 76 of Regula3on No 1408/71. That provision is intended to resolve cases where en3tlement to family benefits under Ar3cle 73 of that regula3on overlaps with en3tlement to family benefits under the na3onal legisla3on of the family members’ State of residence by reason of the carrying on of an occupa3on.

Who is en3tled ?

Case of Trapkowski: Slanina in the mirror

Who is en3tled ?

According to German law, if two parents are en3tled to family benefit the en3tlement of the parent caring for a child prevails. The other parent loses en3tlement.

Tomislaw Trapkowski resides and works in Germany. His former wife lives in Poland with their son. She has not applied for German family benefit, although she is en3tled (see the Slanina judgment). She has not applied for Polish family benefit either.

Tomislaw has applied for the German family benefit.

Ar3cle 60(1) regula3on no 987/2009

Where a person en3tled to claim the benefits does not exercise his right, an applica3on for family benefits submired by the other parent, (. . .), shall be taken into account by the competent ins3tu3on of the Member State whose legisla3on is applicable.

Can Tomislaw claim the “Slanina” en3tlement of his former wife ??? Judgment 22 October 2015

Who is en3tled ?

Case of Trapkowski: Slanina in the mirror

En3tlement in what Member State ?

New Ar1cle 67 regula1on no 883/2004 ??? A person shall be en3tled to family benefits in accordance with the legisla3on of the competent Member State. His/her family members residing in another Member State, will also be en3tled to family benefits in the former Member State as if they were residing there.

Exclusive effect ?

Not for Slanina !!!

€ 450 or Kurzfris3g

Exclusive effect ?

Case of Geven

En3tlement in what Member State ?

Geven: Minijob not a worker for the applica3on of the chapter on family benefits in Title III of regula3on no 1408/71, no en3tlement to a social advantage because she does not have a real link with German society

Bosmann: Children older than 18 Ar3cle 13(2)(a) of Regula3on No 1408/71 does not preclude a migrant worker, who is subject to the social security scheme of the Member State of employment, from receiving, pursuant to the na3onal legisla3on of the Member State of residence, child benefit in the larer State.

Hudzinski and Wawrzyniak: Posted workers from Poland migrant workers must not lose their right to social security benefits or have the amount of those benefits reduced because they have exercised the right to freedom of movement conferred on them by the Treaty.

Exclusive effect ? En3tlement in what Member State ?

Exclusive effect ?

Judgment Kik

Judgment Franzen

Ar3cle 13(2)(a) of Regula3on No 1408/71, read in conjunc3on with Ar3cle 13(1) of that regula3on, must be interpreted, as not precluding a migrant worker, who is subject to the legisla3on of the State of employment, from receiving, by virtue of na3onal legisla3on of the Member State of residence, an old-‐age pension and family benefits from the larer State.

Title II -‐> applicable legisla1on

Overlapping

Ar3cle 12 of regula3on no 1408/71

Ar3cle 10 of regula3on no 883/2009 Preven3on of overlapping of benefits Unless otherwise specified, this Regula3on shall neither confer nor maintain the right to several benefits of the same kind for one and the same period of compulsory insurance.

When does overlapping occur ? What is meant by benefits of the same kind ?

Case of Schwemmer

Miss Schwemmer and two children live in Germany. She has a “mini-‐job” and is, therefore, not a worker for the purpose of the chapter on family benefits in Title III of Reg. 1408/71.

The father of the children and former husband of Miss Schwemmer works in Switzerland. He is en3tled to Swiss family benefits but does not apply for them.

Case of Pérez García

Spanish residents with en3tlement to both a Spanish and German pension, with a handicapped child older than18.

In Spain the parents of a handicapped child of 18 and older can choose to receive family benefits or a invalidity benefit can be awarded directly to the child.

Is Germany en3tled to deduct the (fic33ous) Spanish family benefit if the Pérez family choses not to receive this benefit, but opts for the award of an invalidity benefit?

When does overlapping occur ?

Point 58 Judgment Schwemmer

the legisla3on of the Union on the co-‐ordina3on of na3onal social security legisla3on, taking account in par3cular of the underlying objec3ves, cannot, save in the case of an express excep3on in conformity with those objec3ves, be applied in such a way as to deprive a migrant worker or those claiming under him of the enjoyment of benefits granted simply by virtue of the legisla3on of a Member State

Result for Pérez García •  Germany pays kindergeld for pensioners •  The en3tlement to pension of Pérez García exists without recourse to the

aggrega3on of periods Ergo, Germany cannot deduct fic33ous Spanish family benefits

•  Objec3ve of the regula3on = Coördina3on •  Express excep3ons ??? •  benefits granted simply by virtue of the legisla3on of a Member State

When does overlapping occur ?

§ 4 of the Bundeskindergeldgesetz No family benefits are granted for a child for which benefits can be granted outside Germany that are similar to family benefits

2. If an applica3on for benefits is not made in the Member States in whose territory the members of the family are residing, the competent ins3tu3on of the other Member State may apply the provisions of paragraph 1 as if benefits were granted in the first Member State.

Ar3cle 76(2) regula3on no 1408/71

Overlapping: Fassbender-‐Firman

Fassbender-‐Firman resides together with her husband and children in Belgium.

She works in Germany and is subject to German social security law. She has always received family benefits in Germany.

Her husband works since November 2006 for a Belgian temporary employment agency (he was previously unemployed).

Her husband has not applied for family benefits in Belgium. Consequently, he and his wife have not received any.

It is clear from the wording of Ar3cle 76(2) that that regula3on does not require the suspension of the en3tlement to the family benefits payable in accordance with the legisla3on of Member State of employment (. . .), but that it authorises such suspension.

Ar3cle 76(2) of Regula3on No 1408/71 authorises the Member State of employment to make provision in its legisla3on for suspension of the en3tlement to family benefits when no applica3on has been made for benefits in the Member State of residence. In such circumstances, the ins3tu3on does not have discre3on as regards the applica3on, under Ar3cle 76(2) of that regula3on, of the rule against overlapping (. . .).

Conclusion ???

Ar3cle 76(2) forms an Express excep3on to the rule that the regula3on should not lead to the loss of rights acquired outright by na3onal law.

Ar3kel 76(2) conforms to the objec3ves of the social security coordina3ng regula3on. Judgment is not relevant for the Netherlands because there is no basis in na3onal law for the applica3on of ar3cle 76(2)

Judgment

Overlapping: Fassbender-‐Firman

The case Wiering

Benefits of the same kind?

The „Elterngeld” as provided for by German legisla3on is not of the same kind, in the sense of Ar3cle 12 of regula3on no 1408/71, as the German „Kindergeld” and the Luxemburgse family allowance.

Parents can, under certain condi3ons, receive a benefit called Elterngeld for 14 months star3ng from the date of birth of a child. The benefit amounts to 67% of the final net salary received by the parent who cares for the child at home. Every parent can receive up to 12 months Elterngeld with a minimum amount of € 300 and a maximum of € 1,800.

Judgment

Social security benefits must be regarded as being of the same kind when their purpose and object together with the basis on which they are calculated and the condi3ons for gran3ng them are iden3cal. Characteris3cs which are purely formal cannot be regarded as relevant criteria for the purpose of classifying benefits. However, if the basis for the calcula3on and the condi3ons for the grant of benefits were required to be exactly the same, the prohibi3on on overlapping benefits contained in Ar3cle 12 of Regula3on No 1408/71 would be applied to a considerably lesser extent. Such a result would run counter to the aim of that prohibi3on, which is to obviate unjus3fied duplica3on of social security benefits

CRvB 30 January 2015, ECLI:NL:CRVB:2015:226, <<USZ>> 2015/84

(...) The Council considers that the Polish benefit is comparable to the Dutch allowance for handicapped children [TOG], which has, aqer all, as its main objec3ve the provision of a financial contribu3on towards the cost of home care of a disabled child. This type of benefit is also of a different kind than the general family benefit which is intended to provide support in general for the living expenses of dependent children. Support for this view can also be found in the fact that in the Netherlands the family benefit can both be paid without any reduc3on of either benefit. This means that the Dutch legislator does not view the simultaneous payment of both benefits (the TOG and regular family benefit) as unjus3fied overlapping of benefits.


Qualifica3on of benefits in the Netherlands

AKW/KGB

Top up of AKW/KGB because of sickness or handicap

Kinderopvangtoeslag (child care allowance)

Art. 58 regula3on no 987/2009 In the event of applying Ar3cle 68(1)(b)(i), the competent ins3tu3on of the Member State whose legisla3on provides for the highest level of benefits shall pay the full amount of such benefits and be reimbursed half this sum by the competent ins3tu3on of the other Member State up to the limit of the amount provided for in the legisla3on of the larer Member State. the Member State whose legisla#on provides for the highest level of benefits: Per individual benefit or per basket of benefits. If it has to be calculated for each individual benefit, it could well occur that two or more Member States would pay benefits. This runs contrary to the aim of Ar3cle 58.

A dis3nc3on between married and single persons is not considered relevant


CRvB 30 January 2015, ECLI:NL:CRVB:2015:226, <<USZ>> 2015/84


The impact of Wiering: a theore3cal example

German legisla1on has priority Exis1ng situa1on Netherlands Germany AKW 200 Kindergeld 500 KGB 200 Betreuungsgeld 300 WKO 600 Total: 1000 800 The Netherlands pays 1000 – 800 = 200 euro New situa1on AKW/KGB 400 Kindergeld 500 WKO 600 Betreuungsgeld 300 Total: 1000 800 The Netherlands pays: No supple3on from AKW/KGB (400 – 500 = null euro)

WKO is paid in full: 600 euro

Nuclear family supplement per child: linear v. progressive

Child 2 Child 1 Child 3 Child 4

€ 180 € 180 € 180 € 180 Linear MS

€ 160 € 140 € 180 € 200 Progr. MS

Linear MS

Progr. MS

Supplement per child

€ 20 € 40 € -‐-‐ € -‐-‐

€ -‐-‐ € -‐-‐ € -‐-‐ € 20

total

€ 720

€ 680

total

€ 60

€ 20

€ 720

€ 680

€ 60

€ 20

Familie A in linear MS

Familie B in progr. MS

Non-‐migrants

Nuclear family Reverse discrimina3on

One parent works in linear MS, the other in progr. MS

Nuclear family living in linear MS

Nuclear family living in progr. MS

€ 720

€ 680

€ 740

€ 740

HH

Separated parents

Father Mother

Sick son Sick daughter

HH

Tradi3onal family benefit Tradi3onal family benefit

Allowance for special care € 80

€ 140 € 100

€ 140

Applica3on of co-‐ordina3on rules

Father

MS Blue MS Green

Mother € 40 + € 100 + € 80 = € 220

or in the street ?

Equality with whom?

Equality on the shop floor?

e.g. Judgment European Commission v. Republic of Estonia, case C-‐39/10

Criteria of income and residence: first judgment Schumacker

Equality with whom? The fiscal approach

The Court held in Schumacker that the fact that a Member State does not grant to a non-‐resident certain tax advantages which it grants to a resident is not, as a rule, discriminatory, having regard to the objec3ve differences between the situa3ons of residents and non-‐residents from the point of view both of the source of their income and of their personal ability to pay tax or their personal and family circumstances

Residents and non-‐residents are generally not in comparable situa3ons, since the income received in the territory of a Member State by a non-‐resident is in most cases only a part of his total income, which is concentrated at his place of residence, and a non-‐resident’s personal ability to pay tax, determined by reference to his aggregate income and his personal and family circumstances, is easier to assess at the place where his personal and financial interests are centred, which is generally the place of his usual residence




There could be discrimina3on within the meaning of the Treaty between residents and non-‐residents only if, notwithstanding their residence in different Member States, it were established that, having regard to the purpose and content of the na#onal provisions in ques3on, the two categories of taxpayers are in a comparable situa3on

That is the case where a non-‐resident who has no significant income in his Member State of residence and gains the main part of his taxable income from an ac3vity carried on in the Member State of employment is in a comparable situa3on to that of residents of the larer State because the Member State of residence is not in a posi3on to grant him the advantages resul3ng from the taking into account of his personal and family circumstances. Consequently, as regards his tax treatment, he must be treated as resident in the Member State of employment, and that State must grant him the tax advantages it allows to residents




The Court has also held that, in a situa3on in which there is no taxable income in the Member State of residence under the tax legisla3on of that State (see, to that effect, Wallen3n, paragraph 18), discrimina3on could arise if the personal and family circumstances of a person such as the complainant were taken into account neither in the Member State of residence nor in the Member State of employment (see, to that effect, Wallen3n, paragraph 17).

Imfeld and Garcet

Mr Imfeld, a German na3onal, and Ms Garcet, a Belgian na3onal, are married with two children and live in Belgium.

He works in Germany and paid his taxes in Germany.

She works in Belgium and pays tax there.

The Belgian supplementary tax reduc3on for children provides for a reduc3on of the taxable income. The higher the income, the greater the advantage. For this reason, in case of a married couple the advantage is provided to the spouse with the highest income.

His income, which is taxed in Germany, is higher than hers. He does have a tax exemp3on for dependent children (‘Freibetrag für Kinder’) in Germany.

Belgian supplementary tax reduc3on for children

The alloca3on of fiscal jurisdic3on does not allow Member States to apply measures contrary to the freedoms of movement guaranteed by the FEU Treaty. The supplementary income allowance which might have been exempted from tax was in fact set off against Mr Imfeld’s income earned in Germany. That income was then taken away from the taxable amount, since it was exempt under a bilateral conven3on. In the end, there was no tax-‐free income allowance in the specific form of the supplementary allowance for dependent children. The applicants in the main proceedings suffered, as a couple, a disadvantage. The legisla3on establishes a difference in tax treatment between couples residing in Belgium according to the source and size of their incomes which is likely to discourage those ci3zens from exercising the freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty. it cannot be considered that the grant of that tax advantage in Germany might compensate for the loss of the tax advantage.


Ar3cle 49 TFEU is to be interpreted as precluding the applica3on of the tax legisla3on of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which has the effect that a couple residing in that Member State and earning income both in that Member State and in another Member State does not in fact receive a specific tax advantage, owing to the rules for offse�ng it, whereas that couple would receive that tax advantage if the member of the couple earning the higher income did not earn his en3re income in another Member State.


Ruling by the Court

Pinna I en II Arrest van 15 januari 1986, zaak 41/84, Pinna t. Caisse d'alloca3ons familiales de la Savoie, ECLI:EU:C:1986:1, en arrest van 2 maart 1989, zaak 359/87, Pinna t. Caisse d'alloca3ons familiales de la Savoie, ECLI:EU:C:1989:107. Geven Arrest van 18 juli 2007, zaak C-‐213/05, Geven t. Land Nordrhein-‐Wes�alen, ECLI:EU:C:2007:438. EVA Hof: Finnmark Arrest van 3 mei 2006, zaak E-‐3/05, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway. Lachheb Arrest van 24 oktober 2013, zaak C-‐177/12 , Caisse na3onale des presta3ons familiales t. Salim Lachheb en Nadia Lachheb, ECLI:EU:C:2013:689. Commissie tegen Europees Parlement Arrest van 18 oktober 2007, zaak C-‐299/05, Commissie t. Europees Parlement, ECLI:EU:C:2007:608.

Jurispruden3e

Robards Arrest van 3 februari 1983, zaak C-‐149/82, Stephanie Robards t. Insurance Officer, ECLI:EU:C:1983:26. Hughes Arrest van 16 juli 1992, zaak C-‐78/91, Hughes t. Chief Adjudica3on Officer, ECLI:EU:C:1992:331. Hoever en Zachow Arrest van 10 oktober 1996, zaken C-‐245/94 en C-‐312/94, Hoever en Zachow t. Land Nordrhein-‐Wes�alen, ECLI:EU:C:1996:379. Humer Arrest van 5 februari 2002, zaak C-‐255/99, Humer, ECLI:EU:C:2002:73, RSV 2002/178 met noot G.J. Vonk. Slanina Arrest van 26 november 2009, zaak C-‐363/08, Slanina t. Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, ECLI:EU:C:2009:732. Trapkowski Arrest van 22 oktober 2015, zaak C-‐378/14, nog niet gewezen.

Jurispruden3e

Bosmann Arrest van 20 mei 2008, zaak C-‐352/06, Brigire Bosmann t. Bundesagentur für Arbeit-‐Familienkasse Aachen, ECLI:EU:C:2008:290. Hudzinski en Wawrzyniak Arrest van 12 juni 2012, zaken C-‐611/10 en C-‐612/10, Waldemar Hudzinski t. Agentur für Arbeit Wesel -‐ Familienkasse en Jaroslaw Wawrzyniak t. Agentur für Arbeit Mönchengladbach – Familienkasse, ECLI:EU:C:2012:339. Kik Arrest van 19 maart 2015, zaak C-‐266/13, Kik t. Staatssecretaris van Financiën, ECLI:EU:C:2015:188. Franzen e.a. Arrest van 23 april 2015, zaak C-‐382/13, Franzen e.a. t. Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank, ECLI:EU:C:2015:261. Schwemmer Arrest van 14 oktober 2010, zaak C-‐16/09, Gudrun Schwemmer t. Agentur für Arbeit Villingen-‐Schwenningen – Familienkasse, ECLI:EU:C:2010:605.

Jurispruden3e

Pérez García e.a. Arrest van 20 oktober 2011, zaak C-‐225/10, Juan Pérez García e.a. t. Familienkasse Nürnberg, ECLI:EU:C:2011:678. Fassbender-‐Firman Arrest van 6 november 2014, zaak C-‐4/13, Agentur für Arbeit Krefeld -‐ Familienkasse t. Susanne Fassbender-‐Firman, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2344. Wiering Arrest van 8 mei 2014, zaak C-‐347/12, Caisse na3onale des presta3ons familiales t. Ulrike en Markus Wiering, ECLI:EU:C:2014:300. European Commission v. Republic of Estonia Arrest van 10 mei 2012, case C-‐39/10, European Commission v. Republic of Estonia, ECLI:EU:C:2012:282. Imfeld en Garcet Arrest van 12 december 2013, zaak C-‐303/12, Guido Imfeld en Nathalie Garcet t. Belgische Staat, ECLI:EU:C:2013:822.

Jurispruden3e

Recent Developments in the Case-law of the EU Court of Justice

05 October 2015; Alexander Hoogenboom

1. Introduction.

•  Free movement of students in the EU; degree mobility •  Three types of students: •  Vanilla •  Student-worker •  Student-family member

•  Distinction: •  Access to education •  Study facilitating benefits

•  Evaluation and comments

2. Access to education

•  Host country principle / assimilation. •  Issues covered: •  Financial: Gravier, Brown, C-42/87 Commission v

Belgium, Raulin) •  Administrative: C-147/03 Commission v Austria, Bressol.

•  Strong equal treatment right; justifications limited; evidentiary threshold high and proportionality strictly applied.

3. Study facilitating benefits: study grants and loans (1) •  Union citizen A wants to study in Member State X.

•  Allocation of financial responsibility: Genuine link.

•  Sources of support: host Member State (X), Third

Member State (Y).

3. Study facilitating benefits: study grants and loans (2) •  Member State of study (Member State X):

•  Vanilla: Five years of prior residence (Förster)

•  Worker/self-employed person (> 8 hours per week)

(L.N.).

•  Family link: Connected to economically active Union citizen (eg. Meeusen).

3. Study facilitating benefits: study grants and loans (3) •  Third Member State (Member State Y). No right to export

(Elrick), but if portability exists under national law:

•  Vanilla: Five years of prior residence (Förster).

•  Worker/self-employed person (as above): Matteucci, C-542/09 Commission v the Netherlands.

•  Family link with economically active Union citizen. •  If family resides: immediate access (Di Leo, Bernini) •  If frontier-family: five years prior employment

(Giersch)

3. Study facilitating benefits: study grants and loans (4) •  Unlawful export restrictions •  No aid for study in country of origin (Di Leo)

•  First-stage study criterion (Morgan and Bucher)

•  ‘Educational discrimination’ (Elrick)

4. Study facilitating benefits: Hybrid benefits. •  Study grants/loans narrowly defined -> not: public

transport benefits for students (C-75/11, Commission v Austria).

•  Hybrid: •  Equal treatment subject to genuine link, •  But genuine link given if enrolled in higher education institute

(excludes Erasmus students). •  -> Host country principle / assimilation.

•  See also: C-233/14, Commission v the Netherlands

•  Raises question: what are student grants and/or loans? •  Cash benefit versus benefits-in-kind?

5. Pecularities and trends (1)

•  Direct discrimination and nationality •  Förster, x out of y residence requirements •  Prinz/Seeberger:

•  (…) a sole condition of residence, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, risks (…) excluding from funding students who, despite not having resided for an uninterrupted period of three years in Germany immediately prior to studying abroad, are nevertheless sufficiently connected to German society. That may be the case where the student is a national of the State concerned and was educated there for a significant period or on account of other factors such as, in particular, his family, employment, language skills or the existence of other social and economic factors..

•  Also: Martens, para. 41.

•  What is the value of nationality? •  Discretion Member State.


•  Förster rule – still applicable? •  No: Prinz/Seeberger (Stewart, Martens etc). •  Yes: hegemony of Directive 2004/38 -> Dano.

•  If Dano -> Förster rule strengthened •  Reference to Article 24(2) jo. 16 Directive

2004/39 •  Legal residence (Directive) versus lawfully

residing (equal treatment)


•  Access to education? •  Easy: assimilation, clear responsibility. •  Union citizen can free-ride on accessibility opportunities.

•  Access to study grants and/or loans? •  No export + Förster = five years of no responsibility.

•  Eg. the UK (England) and the Netherlands. •  Work not necessarily an option

•  Also: attempts by MS to restrict: Eg. NL -> 14 hours...

•  The Giersch-gap: work in A, live in B, study in C... •  Also consider: positive conflicts of law


•  Points of improvement: •  Why no right to export?

•  Right to export -> does not create greater financial responsibility MS than is warranted.

•  Förster five year rule really good law? •  Problem: the more mobile, the less chances of support. •  Prinz/Seeberger versus Dano... •  Better: balancing between degree of genuine link and

degree of solidarity claimed. •  Giersch-gap

•  Mistake to distinguish between frontier-workers and workers.


•  Giersch and the return obligation. •  Member States may reserve funded students for domestic labour

market.

•  Violates Internal market ideal.

•  Violates Union citizenship ideal.

•  Social injustice?

6. Solidarity and higher education (1)

•  Genuine links and marketised social benefits/loans.

•  Study grant and/or loan systems -> social assistance; benefits are predicated on solidarity within a community.

•  Since Grzelczyk, Member States must extend financial solidarity to Union citizens (non-nationals).

•  However, only to those who can show that they have obtained a degree of integration with that Member State (genuine link).

•  What is solidarity?

6. Solidarity and higher education (2)

•  UK (England) 2012 Reforms •  High tuition fees: switch to private funding. •  Income contingent loan; repayment at market interest rate.

•  Consumption smoothing •  Pension scheme: redistribute lifetime income towards later

years. •  Income contingent loans: redistribute (future) lifetime income

towards study years.

•  Overall estimated to be self-financing up to >95% (including ‘defaulting’ students) (Barr, 2013)

•  So: No element of solidarity •  No prima facie justification why mobile EU students should not be

included ab initio!

7. Privately financed higher education

•  Higher education privately financed? HEI = Undertaking! (Humbel).

•  If undertaking: apply Competition Law/State Aid Law.

•  Russel Group intra-university information exchange? Cartel. •  Dutch Competition Authority: Universiteit van Amsterdam /

Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

•  Selection procedures unfair/intransparant for e.g. Cambridge? Abuse of dominant position.

•  Rules as regards which courses are eligible for student grants and/or loans? Scrutiny under State aid (Mediaset).

Student financial aid

Policy perspec3ves and prac3ce by Paul Slagter (Dienst Uitvoering Onderwijs)

Import / export studenten

Interna3onal students in NL

Studiejaar 2005-‐2006

2006-‐2007

2007-‐2008 2008-‐2009 2009-‐201

0 2010-‐2011 2011-‐2012

2012-‐2013

2013-‐2014

non-‐EU/EER 16.750 16.450 17.350 17.850 18.200 19.050 19.450

20.350

22.800

EU/EER 20.450 23.850 27.150 30.400 32.950 37.550 41.100

43.500

56.250

Totaal 37.200 40.300 44.500 48.250 51.150 56.600 60.550

63.850

79.050

Export (2013/2014) of newly applied study grants by Dutch applicants (top

10 countries) Land Aantal percentage

België 1.488 52,71

Groot-‐BriGannië 470 16,65

Verenigde Staten 142 5,03

Duitsland 125 4,43

Spanje 63 2,23

Zweden 57 2,02

Turkije 51 1,81

Frankrijk 47 1,66

Australië 23 0,81

Oostenrijk 20 0,71

Export of studygrant by non-‐Dutch ci3zens

(top 4 of new applica3ons in november 2013)

NaQonaliteit Aantal Percentage

Belgisch

242

67,04 Brits

38

10,53 Duits

20

5,54 Frans

6

1,66

Where do non-‐Dutch ci3zens want to study with a Dutch grant?

(new applica3ons in 2013/2014)

België

246

waarvan Belg

236

Groot-‐BriGannië

71

waarvan Brit

37

Duitsland

13

waarvan Duitser

11

Verenigde Staten

6

waarvan Amerikaan

3

Frankrijk

4

waarvan Spanjaard

2

export of studygrants (in november 2013)

•  10.233 students with a studygrant for a study abroad (in 78 different countries)

Of which 1.263 non Dutch ci3zens Of which 1.123 based on EU-‐ci3zenship And 140 “other”

Most popular countries for export studygrants by Dutch ci3zens België 5.121

Groot-‐BriGannië 1.407

Verenigde Staten 427

Duitsland 356

Zweden 203

Denemarken 120

Frankrijk 118

Spanje 117

Portugal 100

Most popular countries for export studygrant by non-‐Dutch ci3zens

Belgie 899

waarvan 860 EU/EER

Groot-‐BriGannië 229

waarvan 171 EU/EER

Duitsland 46

waarvan 41 EU/EER

Verenigde Staten 13

waarvan 6 EU/EER

Frankrijk 11

waarvan 9 EU/EER

Op3ons in regards to C-‐359/13 (Martens)

•  Striking the op3on for export of studygrants altogether •  Striking the restric3on 3 out of 6 •  Striking 3 out of 6 in connec3on with a re-‐entry obligaton

•  Limi3ng the exporta3on to those that do not study in their country of origin

•  Striking the ar3cles 2.13a and 2.14 (Wsf 2000) and use scholarships instead

•  Limi3ng the export of studygrants to EER/ Bologna countries

Each op3on has tot be considered on apsects of

•  Policy (beleid, both na3onal and interna3onal) •  Legal (law changes) •  Financial consequences •  Administra3on (uitvoering) •  Pro’s •  Con’s


•  Striking the op3on for export of studygrants altogether

Though technically simple, no financial risk en no large consequences for the administra3on,

Not in accordance with Bologna agreement and with the answer of the minister on ques3ons in parliament Only those that can afford will study abroad Tax measures required


•  Striking the restric3on 3 out of 6 a. just for migrant workers b. altogether (including expat Dutch ci3zens)

Student-‐mobility keeps beings s3mulated, no financial hurdles for students, limited number that has tu use tax-‐facili3es But: large financial risk (op3on a. 44,5 mln, b. 175mln)


•  Striking 3 out of 6 in connec3on with a re-‐entry obligaton

(short version: too complicated)


•  Limi3ng the exporta3on to those that do not study in their country of origin

Difficult to foresee the costs, difficult for the administra3on, difficult for legisla3on.


•  Striking the ar3cles 2.13a and 2.14 and use scholarships instead

Number can be limited, low financial risk.

No outcome yet

Any ques3ons?