Inhoudsopgave van deze pagina:
Delen
I.
INTRODUCTION
At its meeting on 12-13 July, the Social Questions Working Party held a first examination of
the above-mentioned parts of the proposal and completed the first reading of Title III, chapter
IV of the proposal for an implementing Regulation (doc. 11754/06).
II. DELEGATIONS'COMMENTS
Article 1(2)
AT suggested that the text be simplified further through a horizontal provision. CION
supported that suggestion.
Article 1(3)
The discussions were held in the light of proposals made by the Austrian, French and German
delegations (DS 369/06, 114/06 and 467/06, respectively).
ES could go along with Article 1(3) as set out in the CION proposal or as suggested by FR
but entered a scrutiny reservation in relation to the issue of schemes requiring a specific
period of insurance. DE and SE could agree with the CION text and could also go along with
the French proposal. DE stressed the need to take account of certain contribution-based
pensions (eg. invalidity pensions). SE entered a scrutiny reservation on the Austrian proposal.
FR expressed concerns that the overall consistency of the Regulation might be jeopardised to
take account of borderline cases. It emphasized that pro rata-calculation was the main rule and
could be laid down in the preamble. AT drew attention to periods of less than one year. SK
and PL stressed that their new pension systems did not allow for pro-rata calculation. DE
stressed that if pro-rata was not possible, specific rules regarding independent systems of
calculation should be included in Annex XI. LV, PL and SK entered scrutiny reservations on
Article 1(3).
A number of delegations (DK, FR, HU, PL, SK) could go along with the approach of the
German delegation (DS 467/06) but stressed that the suggested text under b) could not work
for certain specific schemes. DK stressed that it would be inappropriate to provide that this
particular period had to be calculated on the basis of pro-rata calculation as its system would
give better results. DE supported the Austrian proposal and considered that the time element
used in calculation should be decisive rather than the issue as to how the system was financed.
ANNEX VIII
DE introduced its note regarding the pension schemes for liberal professions (DS 459/06) and
SK its proposal for a new entry (DS 345/06). FR suggested to change the title of the Annex.
CION stressed that these issues were linked to the final wording of Article 52.4.
No other comments were made at this stage.
ANNEX XI
C. DENMARK
N0 2
Following a suggestion by AT, DK and CION agreed to examine the possibility of improving
the drafting of this entry by making reference to the applicable legislation.
N0 3
No comments were made at this stage.
N0 5
No comments were made at this stage.
D. GERMANY
N0 5
EE, LV and LT entered scrutiny reservations on the German delegation's request for two new
entries which were closely related to the German legislation after the Second World War (DS
460/06). AT was of the view that this issue could be solved without the need for new entries
in Annex XI.
N0 6
Following remarks by AT and FR, it was agreed that AT, FR and CION would discuss the
possibility of redrafting the text of this entry with DE.
G. SPAIN
N0 1
No comments were made at this stage.
N0 2
CION and FR took a positive stance on ES's suggestion to amend the entry and broaden its
content (DS 454/06).
N0 3
No comments were made at this stage.
N0 4
No comments were made at this stage. ES announced that it was still holding consultations
with CION on a specific issue.
H. FRANCE
In reply to a question by DE, FR indicated that this entry was intended to avoid any possible
loopholes in the legislation as the same legislation should apply to both the basic and the
supplementary schemes. It referred to drafting changes in the French version as suggested in
DS 114/06. DE agreed on the need for this entry and felt that the German text should be
reviewed.
I. IRELAND
IE indicated that the reference to its legislation in entry N0 2 should read "Section 118(1)(a)
of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 2005."
Following a remark by AT, the Chair invited IE and CION to discuss the possible need for a
redrafting of the text.
Q. NETHERLANDS
N0 2 (a)
AT and FR considered that the text should be simplified and that it should also cover self-
employed persons. CION stressed that any such extension would represent an excessive
burden and preferred to leave the entry unchanged.
N0 2 (b), (c) and (d)
No comments were made at this stage.
N0 2 (e)
In reply to ES, CION confirmed that this provision deviated from Article 12 of the
implementing Regulation and that it was limited to very specify situations. FR felt that this
derogation was appropriate and that the text should be made as uniform as possible. AT
stressed that it should be redrafted to make it clear that it was the same rule than under (c). It
was agreed that NL and CION would reflect on the possible redrafting of the text to make it
clearer.
N0 2 (f), (g) and (h)
No comments were made at this stage.
N0 2(i)
In reply to ES, NL indicated that the deadline of one year referred to a national provision
which the insured persons should be made aware of. CION considered the entry useful.
N0 2 (j)
No comments were made at this stage.
N0 3(a)
Following comments by AT and ES, the Chair invited NL and CION to think about a possible
horizontal clause.
N0 3(b) and (c)
FR stressed that the text should read "periods" instead of "periods of insurance" in (b).
N0 3(e)
It was agreed that the Chair and CION would ensure that the date of application of the basic
Regulation would be mentioned once the whole package would become applicable.
N0 4
The Working Party took note of the suggestion by NL to adapt this entry in view of the new
Dutch legislation relating to incapacity for work which entered into force on 1 January 2006
(DS 523/06).
R. AUSTRIA
N0 1
It was noted that the words "at any time" should be changed to "at some time".
N0 3, 4 and 5
No comments were made at this stage.
W. FINLAND
N0 1
No comments were made at this stage.
N0 2
FR considered that this entry might have to be re-examined. ES felt that a better form of
words should be sought as the text should be made more specific and not refer to pensions but
to the amount of pensions. FI stressed that, while there might be some room for improvement
with regard to the text, if necessary, this entry should remain as set out in the Council minutes
Statement upon approval of the Pensions Chapter of the basic Regulation. CION further
added that the need for this entry was explained in a recital in the basic Regulation.
N0 3
FI did not share AT, ES and PL's views that this entry reflected the same situation than the
relevant Estonian and Swedish entries and that an horizontal approach would be needed. It
indicated that Finnish legislation only took account of the income levels and not of the
employment periods. AT entered a scrutiny reservation. CION stressed that this entry should
not raise problems as it did not affect rights in any way. It hinted that a provision determining
the reference period might have to be added as in the case of the Swedish entry. Another
possibility would be to envisage an horizontal provision but this might prove difficult. FI
noted that the entry was included in the text of the Council general approach on
Miscellaneous Amendments 2005 to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71. The Chair
invited FI and CION to consider the issue further.
X. SWEDEN
N0 2
No comments were made at this stage.
N0 3 and 4
Upon suggestion by CION, it was agreed that the text of these entries would have to be
adjusted to make it consistent with the text of the Council's general approach on
Miscellaneous Amendments 2005 to Regulation N0 1408/71.
On No 4(b), SE indicated that it would come back to a question raised by AT about the
reference period.
Y. UNITED KINGDOM
N0s 1 and 4
No comments were made at this stage.
N0 5
AT considered that the text should be more specific as in entry N0 14 in Annex VI to
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71. UK recalled that acceptance of this entry was a pre-condition
for the UK accepting the Pensions Chapter in the basic Regulation. Therefore, while drafting
changes could be possible, the substance should remain unchanged. The Chair invited UK and
CION to examine whether entries N0s 4 and 5 could be combined and the text improved
further.
N0 6
Following a question by AT, CION considered the entry justified, taking into account the
provisions in their entirety.
__________________
- 24 jan '06Coördinatie van socialezekerheidsstelsels: bijlage XI
- 24 jan '06COM(2006)7 - Wijziging van Verordening (EG) nr. 883/2004 betreffende de coördinatie van de socialezekerheidsstelsels, en tot vaststelling van de inhoud van bijlage XI
-
Toepassing van de sociale zekerheidsregelingen op loontrekkende en hun gezinnen, die zich binnen de EG verplaatsen
