Proposal for a Council Regulation extending the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No […] to nationals of third countries who are not already covered by these provisions solely on the ground of their nationality

Inhoud

Delen

enveloppe
  1. Tekst
  2. Originele weergave
  1. Meer informatie

1.

Tekst

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

Brussels, 8 January 2010

Interinstitutional File: 2007/0152 (CNS)

DOCUMENT PARTIALLY

ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC

SOC 7 MIGR 3

OUTCOME OF PROCEEDINGS

from:

on:

The Social Questions Working Party 7 October 2009

No. prev. doc.: No. Cion prop.: Subject:

6921/09 SOC 146 MIGR 20

12166/07 SOC 287 - COM(2007) 439 final

Proposal for a Council Regulation extending the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No […] to nationals of third countries who are not already covered by these provisions solely on the ground of their nationality

I.

INTRODUCTION

At the Social Questions Working Party's meeting on 7 October 2009, the Swedish Presidency undertook to restart the discussions on the above-mentioned proposal on the basis of a compromise proposal as set out in doc.10634/09 with some changes as distributed in the course of the meeting.1

The Presidency further suggested that the new recital 17a should read as follows: "Germany and Austria could continue to apply their specific provisions as laid down in the Annex to Regulation 859/2003 in the field of family benefits for third country nationals and their family members. Other Member States shall have the possibility to restrict the granting of their family benefits for persons who have not already been covered by Regulation (EC) No 859/2003 because they were not covered by the personal scope of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71. In order to assess the impact and the necessity for continuation of these specific provisions in the field of family benefits, a revision after five years of application of this Regulation is foreseen." It also suggested that recital 17c be deleted.

5077/10

DG G

MdP/mk                          1

LIMITE EN

1

II. OUTCOME OF THE DISCUSSIONS

DELETED welcomed the Presidency's compromise proposal which they found acceptable.

DELETED was also ready to accept it given the importance of the Regulation being adopted

before Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 becomes applicable.

The vast majority of the other delegations (DELETED) took a negative stance on the

Presidency's text.

DELETED considered that a more balanced approach should be sought which should, in particular, provide for stricter conditions to apply to the derogation (notably in terms of time-limits) and avoid extending its scope to other Member States than those already covered under Regulation (EC) No 859/2003.

DELETED was against the principle of an Annex. It further felt that the wording of Part A of the Annex, as suggested by the Presidency, would be problematic as it was substantially different from the wording of the Annex to the current Regulation.

DELETED recalled that its preference would be not to introduce any derogations in the draft Regulation. If derogations were to be necessary, they should, in any case, be duly justified and limited in time. With regard to the Presidency's text, it stressed that Part A of the Annex seemed to be in contradiction with Article 1. Moreover, as the derogation would be broader than the derogation currently applicable, this would represent a step backwards in terms of rights granted to citizens as compared with those granted under Regulation (EC) No 883/2004. In its view, the issue to be discussed was actually whether there was a general agreement on the principle that this Regulation should have the same scope than Regulation

(EC) No 883/2004. DELETED shared those views and entered a scrutiny reservation.

DELETED entered reservations of substance. DELETED considered that this Regulation

should have the same scope than Regulation (EC) No 883/2004.

5077/10                                                                                            MdP/mk                          2

DG G                       LIMITE EN

DELETED entered a scrutiny reservation on the approach taken by the Presidency as it feared that any such solution might constitute a regression with regard to the existing situation.

DELETED shared DELETED opinion and stressed that if the derogation provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 859/2003 was to be maintained, the text should then be left unchanged. If a new derogation was to be established, it should also apply to the DELETED. It also recalled that any derogations should be duly justified and limited in time.

DELETED further recalled that it was in favour of an horizontal solution and stressed that recital No 17a which provided that "Other Member States shall have the possibility to restrict the granting of their family benefits" would result into differences in treatment between Member States.

While emphasising the importance for the Council of adopting the Regulation, DELETED also took a negative stance on the Presidency's text proposal and agreed with DELETED that any derogations should not be granted to some Member States only as differences in treatment should be avoided.

DELETED felt that Part B of the Annex was unclear and wondered about its scope. It considered that all Member States should be able to benefit from any derogations and entered a scrutiny reservation.

DELETED entered negative scrutiny reservations. DELETED considered that the Czech

Presidency's text as submitted to the EPSCO Council in June was more acceptable.

DELETED entered a reservation. After having recalled its concerns about the extension of the scope of Regulation (EC) No 859/2003 to that of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, it indicated that it could accept an horizontal solution without an Annex. In its view, an unlimited derogation would not be acceptable except if it was to be applicable to all Member States. While the Presidency's compromise text went into that direction, it was nevertheless not sufficient as it still raised a number of political and legal issues. Like DELETED,

5077/10                                                                                            MdP/mk                          3

DG G                       LIMITE EN

DELETED further wondered about the reasons for Part A of the Annex being different from

the relevant text in Regulation (EC) No 859/2003.

DELETED was still considering the Presidency's text but maintained a reservation on recital No 13 and referred to its Minutes Statement at the June EPSCO Council. While derogations could be in principle be granted to Germany and Austria, they should nonetheless be limited

in time. In addition, DELETED shared DELETED concerns over Part A of the Annex.

DELETED indicated that it did not have any firm position yet. In its view, the discussions showed the need to clarify the options further. In particular, delegations should clearly take position as to whether they would like to see the Annex removed (subject to a grace period) or extended.

CION recalled that it was in favour of not having an Annex. It stressed that the Presidency's text had the merit of opening the discussion on the issue of the scope.

III. CONCLUSION

The Chair concluded that the discussions had clearly shown that the Presidency's text did not get any sufficient support to constitute a basis for negotiations. It suggested that the Working Party should resume discussions at a later stage, in the light of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty.

5077/10                                                                                            MdP/mk                          4

DG G                       LIMITE EN

2.

Originele weergave

afbeelding document
 
 

3.

Meer informatie