Between hope and fear.
The European elections are just around the corner. The
tangible consequences of climate change, solutions to the migration issue, the
long-term continuity and further development of the European social model and
new foreign policy threats and conflicts pose major challenges for everyone in
Europe. At the same time, the European Union (EU) and the Member States are
confronted with a strong rise of populist and extreme movements within the EU.
According to current polls, right-wing populist forces in particular will
emerge stronger from the European elections in June. In Germany, too, many
politicians from various political camps are therefore expressing concern. Why
are anti-European and right-wing populist parties gaining strength across
Europe? How do the established parties intend to counter this in order to win
back the favour of the electorate? Will the shifting balance of power in the EU
influence the European social policy of tomorrow? And at this point, does it
mean: Hope or Fear?
We want to discuss these questions with
members of the German Bundestag on 21 March in Berlin at a joint event
organised by the GVG (Gesellschaft für Versicherungswissenschaft und
-gestaltung) and the DSV (German Social Insurance).
The past legislative term was characterised
by the joint management of the COVID-19 pandemic and dealing with the Russian
war of aggression against Ukraine and the resulting sharp rise in inflation. At
the same time, the EU has set an important course for the future of Europe: The
European social model with the European Pillar of Social Rights has continued
to take shape. The European Green Deal and the Digital Decade have laid the
foundations for a sustainable Europe. Will the EU be able to continue along
this path and bring these three important policy areas together?
The experiences of recent years have shaken
many supposed certainties. It seems that many citizens have lost confidence in
Europe's future viability. One reaction to the increasingly complex challenges
and the associated difficulties in decision-making at European level is the
belief in supposedly simple solutions at national level.
According to current polls, populist,
extreme and anti-European forces will see a significant increase in voters in
the European Parliament, while the established parties will lose seats. The
current polls for the upcoming national elections - for example in Belgium,
Austria and Romania - also show a strengthening of anti-European forces. This hampers
joint political solutions in the European Council and the Parliament.
How can the EU and its institutions
(re)gain the trust of its citizens in a common European future?
On 21 March, GVG and DSV are hosting a
high-level event in Berlin with a view to the challenges ahead: "Between Hope
and Fear: the European elections, the shift to the right and the social policy
of tomorrow".
On the panel, Ralph Brinkhaus, member of
the Bundestag and former chairman of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group; Angelika
Glöckner, deputy spokesperson of the SPD's Labour and Social Affairs working
group; Dr Anton Hofreiter (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen), chairman of the Bundestag
Committee on European Union Affairs; and Dr Ann-Veruschka Jurisch, chairwoman
of the FDP parliamentary group in the Bundestag Committee on European Union
Affairs, will discuss their ideas for a Europe fit for the future. Click here to register for the event.
Reforming the
coordination law will not be finalised during this legislative period.
Reforming the
law covering how social security systems are to be coordinated - Regulation
(EU) No. 883/2004 and its implementing
Regulation (EU) 987/2009 - will not be completed for the time being. On 14
February, Frank Vandenbrouke, the Belgian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Social Affairs, made official in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs
(EMPL) what had basically been clear since the compromise proposal failed at
the end of January: The dossier will not be pursued any further by the Belgian
Council Presidency. This means that the EC's
proposal of 13 December 2016 to revise the coordination law was not
successfully negotiated during the second legislative term either.
The Belgian
Council Presidency had proposed that the remaining contentious points be
negotiated separately. These relate to the mechanism for determining the social security liability of employees in other EU countries under the
A1 certificate and unemployment benefits for cross-border workers. The move could not be agreed with the responsible EMPL committee. This paved the way for its termination in the current legislative period, which was already drawing to a close.
Gabriele
Bischoff (S&D, DE), the rapporteur for the legislative file, said that
the European Parliament would remain on the ball with regard to the Council's
decision. They are still open to a compromise, whether it is during this or the
next legislative period. A press
release issued on the 15 February by the EMPL negotiators stated: "The
Belgian Presidency's unwillingness to continue the Spanish Presidency's efforts
to reach an overall compromise is disappointing". However, splitting up
the issues is unacceptable. Only finalising parts of the reform would mean
abandoning key points of its position indefinitely. They are in favour of a
balanced package. Moreover, Parliament would not be held hostage just because
the member states are encountering difficulties in finding a common position.
In fact, a
provisional agreement between the Parliament and the Council was reached twice
in the past - in spring 2019 and December 2021. The compromise was rejected by
the member states on both occasions. The dossier will probably be taken up
again during the next legislative term. Whether Gabriele Bischoff will still
hold the negotiating reins on the parliamentary side then is uncertain, but likely. . Given her position as number one on the SPD's Berlin state list for the European elections, she stands a very good chance of entering the newly appointed parliament on 1 July. There is much to suggest that she will bring her expertise
in coordination law to bear when the responsibilities for legislative
procedures are redistributed.
The second provisional agreement also failed to obtain sufficient support in the Council.
On 16 February, the Belgian Council
Presidency was unable to secure the necessary support from the member states
for the provisional agreement about platform working that was reached in the
trialogue. The wording used for the disputable presumption of employment, which
should form the basis for determining the status of platform employees,
remained controversial right up to the end and the Council failed to reach a
consensus. Following the rejection of the agreement reached under the Spanish
Council Presidency on 22 December 2023, this is the second time that a
provisional agreement reached by the negotiators from the European Parliament
and the Council did not gain a qualified majority in the Committee of Permanent
Representatives (Coreper). This means that there is little hope that the
dossier can be successfully completed before the end of the parliamentary work
and the start of the EU election campaign.
On 8 February, the negotiators from the
European Parliament and the Council agreed in their provisional agreement to
adopt the chapter on "algorithmic management in the workplace" from
the provisional agreement made in December without any changes being made to
it. However, the section covering how the employment status is determined has
undergone significant changes. There are no longer any harmonised conditions
for triggering the disputable presumption of employment. A reference to
"facts" has been included instead, which refers to control and
management in accordance with the national laws applicable in the member states
and taking the case law of the Court of Justice (ECJ) into consideration. The text
simultaneously obliged the member states to create a disputable presumption of
employment in their national systems - without going into the details as to how it
should be applied.
However, the addition to the recitals
requested by France, whereby an indicator of the disputable presumption of
employment is not deemed to be fulfilled if this is a consequence of national
law or trade union agreements, was not included in the agreement. The
parliamentarians criticised the fact that digital labour platforms could undermine the status
determinations by reaching agreements with non-representative or
self-established trade unions.
A qualified majority is needed in the
Council to approve the draft law. At least 55 % of the member states,
representing at least 65 % of the total population of the European Union (EU), must vote
in favour of approval. Any abstentions thus count as votes against. Estonia, Germany, Greece and France
abstained from voting. This means that more than the required 15 member states
agreed on it. However, these 23 member states only represent 63.66 % of
the European Union's (EU) population. This meant that the second criterion for a qualified
majority was not met.
The Belgian Council Presidency is still trying
to organise a qualified majority and wants to discuss the dossier at
ministerial level at the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs
Council (EPSCO). This is most likely the last
opportunity to complete the dossier in this legislative term.
The European Parliament defines its
negotiating position.
When the European
Parliament meets in Strasbourg on 27 February, it will also adopt its
position on most of the dossiers enshrined in the legislative package for the protection
of intellectual property. These include the two dossiers on protection
certificates for medicinal products. The decision in the plenary meeting will be
based on the reports by Tiemo Wölken (S&D, DE) on the unitary Supplementary Protection Certificate and the revision
of the Regulation on the Supplementary Protection Certificate for medicinal
products, which were voted on by the responsible European Parliament's
Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) on 24 January.
Even if further amendments are possible in
the plenary meeting, the JURI reports show the negotiating priorities with
which Parliament's negotiators will enter the trialogue. The guiding principle
for the MEPs in the committee was that, as with the reform of pharmaceutical
legislation, it is crucial to maintain a healthy balance between the timely
entry of generics and biosimilars and thus competition on the one hand, and the
preservation of the innovation and competitiveness of European pharmaceutical manufacturers
on the other.
Protection certificates act like patents
and protect an original preparation from competition. Their purpose is to
compensate the manufacturer for the sometimes long and complex procedures
required to obtain marketing authorisation for a product through additional
protection periods of up to five years. MEPs want to use the introduction of a unitary
European protection certificate as an opportunity to develop it into an
instrument that helps to ensure that new medicinal products are available on as
many markets as possible. To this end, the certificate holder should be able to
grant the rights from it by licence if there is no own interest in marketing
it.
However, in order to protect European manufacturers from competitive disadvantages, it should also be possible to restrict the rights arising from protection certificates. Namely, in cases where the medicinal product is to be manufactured exclusively for export to third countries. After all, the property rights would not apply to competitors from third countries either way. In these cases, it should be possible to manufacture the medicinal product without the consent of the certificate holder.
The JURI is also of the opinion that in
certain cases it may be necessary to bring about decisions on the granting of
supplementary protection certificates more quickly. An accelerated review
procedure is to be set up for this purpose. All applications, statements,
complaints and other administrative processes must be carried out
electronically to ensure procedural efficiency. The competent offices - the
European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) based in Alicante in the
case of the unitary European certificate and the national patent offices in the
case of national Supplementary Protection Certificates - shall be obliged to
decide on the applications within six months, or four months in case of an accelerated
procedure. The deadlines were apparently so important to the MEPs that they did
not want to leave their definition up to the implementing acts of the European
Commission.
The European Commission's draft regulations
already contained requirements for the establishment of registers - both for
the unitary supplementary certificate and for the certificates to be issued
nationally. In addition to the basic details of the application, these should
also summarise certificate validity periods and procedural information. JURI
urges that these registers be made publicly accessible and that they also
include information on direct public financial support for the development of
the product. However, the committee does not go as far as the Green MEPs did
with the pharmaceutical reform. The Green shadow rapporteurs had suggested that the dates of expiry of patent protection and regulatory protection be made transparent together. A demand that would see generic competition fostered, and which the DSV fully agrees on.
Perhaps this idea could be taken up in the trialogue on the reform of
intellectual property protection?
The European Parliament
confirms new occupational exposure limit values.
On the 7th February
2024, the European Parliament approved the provisional trilogue agreement to amend the Directive regarding the exposure limit values for lead and its inorganic compounds and
diisocyanates by a large majority in the plenary session.
The vote was preceded by a
parliamentary debate in which MEPs emphasised the importance of the new provisions governing the health and safety of workers. In
the European Union (EU), around 50,000 to 150,000 workers are exposed to lead
and 4.2 million workers are exposed to diisocyanates every year. Both materials
are used in batteries and roofing materials, as well as in the manufacture of
wind turbines and electric vehicles.
The Directive will now update
the occupational exposure limit value for lead for the first time since 1982
and reduce it to 0.03 mg/m3. The biological limit value for lead
will be reduced to 15 µg/100 ml from 1 January 2029, until then a transitional
limit value of 30 µg/100 ml will apply. According to the European
Chemicals Agency, exposure to lead may cause cardiovascular disease, kidney
disease, high blood pressure or fertility problems. Further health surveillance
measures are therefore being introduced for women of childbearing age and
employees who have already been exposed to lead for a longer period of time.
Diisocyanates are chemical
agents that can have effects on the health of the respiratory tract and skin in
the event of occupational exposure. The Directive now sets an exposure limit
value for the first time. The maximum allowable concentration during an
eight-hour working day is set to 6 µg NCO/m3. A limit value of 12 µg
NCO/m3 is set for short-term exposure of 15 minutes.
The Council will formally vote on the
adoption of the legislative act on 26 February 2024. Provided that the Council also confirms the new provisions, the Directive will be published in
the Official Journal of the EU and will enter into force 20 days later.
European
Commission presents proposal for Council Recommendations on the fight against
cancer through vaccination.
On 31 January, the European Commission
published a proposal for Council Recommendations on vaccine-preventable
cancers. The proposal centres on supporting the Member States of the European
Union (EU) in preventing and reducing the risk of cancer caused by human
papillomavirus (HPV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV). To this end, immunisation
coverage rates are to be increased and vaccination rates better monitored. The
initiative is based on the European
Beating Cancer Plan, which aims to achieve an HPV vaccination rate of 90 % among girls and young women by 2030, and to vaccinate significantly
more boys. The HBV vaccination rate is also to be increased.
HPV are viruses that infect the cells of
the skin and mucous membranes. They are the main cause of cervical cancer.
Every year, around 28,600 people in the European Economic Area (EEA) are
diagnosed with cervical cancer and 13,700 die from it.
HBV are viruses that can cause an infection
of the liver, which can be acute or chronic, and increases the risk of liver
cirrhosis and liver cancer. In 2021, 30 EU and EEA countries reported 16,187
newly diagnosed HBV infections, of which a large proportion (43%) were
classified as chronic.
There are major differences within the EU,
particularly in vaccination rates against HPV. In some EU Member States, the
HPV vaccination rate for girls is 90 %, in others it is less than 50 %. There is currently only limited data available on immunisation coverage
rates for boys and young adults. Data from a recent Cancer
Inequality Study published by the OECD shows that more than 90 % of
girls in Iceland, Portugal and Norway receive the recommended doses of the HPV
vaccine to prevent cervical cancer - more than twice as many as in Bulgaria,
France, Luxembourg, Slovenia and Latvia. Socio-economic inequalities can be
observed for most risk factors, to the detriment of people with a lower level
of education or income.
In its draft, the European Commission
proposes 16 measures to better prevent infections with the carcinogenic HPV and
HBV. The focus is on introducing or strengthening national vaccination
programmes, including through the provision of free vaccinations and/or full
reimbursement of vaccination costs for people for whom vaccination is
recommended. In addition, access for particularly vulnerable and possibly
disadvantaged groups is to be improved. Vaccination programmes in schools and
educational institutions play an important role in this context.
To improve monitoring, Member States are
encouraged to better integrate HPV and HBV vaccination into national cancer
prevention programmes and ensure better links between vaccination and cancer
registries. Another focus will be on increasing
awareness, particularly by emphasising the benefits of vaccination to parents,
young people and target groups, as well as combating misinformation and false
information.
Germany can also benefit from the proposed
measures. In Germany, the HPV vaccination rates for a complete vaccination
series are currently 54 % for 15-year-old girls and 27 % for
boys. The German Social Insurance (DSV) therefore welcomes the European
Commission's initiative. The German social security institutions support and
finance the implementation of all vaccinations recommended by the Standing
Committee on Vaccination (STIKO) for their insured persons within the scope of
their responsibility and provide information about them. In the case of the HPV
vaccination, the health insurance companies even go beyond the STIKO
recommendations in many cases. As part of the social security institutions'
commitment to prevention, numerous projects that provide information and draw
attention to protection options, particularly in schools and the workplace, are
also supported. The DSV had already taken a position on this in its feedback in February 2023.
The Commission's proposal for the Council Recommendations will now be submitted to the Council of the EU. The Council plans to formally adopt the non-binding Council recommendations in the
Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council (EPSCO) on 21
June.
EU and social partners commit to
strengthening social dialogue.
On 31 January 2024, the European Commission, the
Belgian Council Presidency and the European social partners signed a "Tripartite
Declaration for a Thriving European Social Dialogue". The declaration constitutes a renewed commitment to strengthening
social dialogue at European Union (EU) level and to jointly tackling the
challenges facing EU economies and labour markets. The aim is to create
flourishing companies, high-quality jobs and services as well as improved
working conditions.
As part of the declaration, the European
Commission, the Council and the European social partners commit to a series of
measures.
Addressing labour and skills shortages is crucial
for sustainable growth and the EU's competitiveness. Against this backdrop, the
signatories to the declaration pledge to do their part to bring more people
into the labour market, improve working conditions, facilitate the recognition
of qualifications and better integrate workers from abroad. In addition, the
European Commission, in cooperation with the social partners, intends to
present an Action Plan to address labour and skills shortages by spring 2024.
The social dialogue is a process that is
precisely regulated in Articles 151 to 156 of the Treaty on the Functioning of
the European Union (TFEU) with regard to participants, powers and procedures. Its role
as an essential component of the European social model and European democracy
differs from other forms of consultation, such as dialogue with civil society,
the functioning of which is not enshrined in the Treaties. The European
Commission, the Council and the European social partners therefore reaffirm their
commitment to promoting the role of the social partners and social dialogue.
In order to promote and strengthen the role of
social dialogue at European and national level, a European Social Dialogue Envoy
will be appointed. The impartial representative is to monitor the
implementation of the European
Commission's Communication on strengthening social dialogue in the EU and be the contact point in the European Commission for the
social partners.
According to the declaration, a series of
meetings will be held with the European social partners to identify ways to
further strengthen the European social dialogue. These should include
institutional and financial support for European social dialogue at all levels,
as well as capacity building for the social partners, including in the EU
candidate countries. This should result in a "Pact for European Social
Dialogue" by early 2025.
How can
the pension gap be closed?
On 8
February, the High Level Conference of the Belgian Council Presidency on the
"Gender Pension Gap" took place in Brussels. The gender pension gap
describes the differences in retirement income between women and men. The
question of how this pension gap can be reduced in future was discussed by
high-ranking politicians with experts from the European Commission and the
Member States, including
the Belgian Minister of Pensions and Social Integration, Karine Lalieux, the Belgian Minister for the
Self-Employed and SMEs, David Clarinval, and the German State Secretary of the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, Dr Rolf Schmachtenberg.
The
gender pension gap reflects the differences in the employment histories of men
and women. This includes, for example, the unequal distribution between paid
employment and the unequal distribution of unpaid care work between men and
women, such as childcare or care for the elderly, but also family support, home
care or help among friends. In addition, women work part-time more often than
men and take more frequent and longer breaks from work for family reasons. In
addition, women's earnings are still significantly lower than those of men
(gender pay gap).
However,
the gender pension gap should not be interpreted as an expression of a
precarious income situation for women in old age. The income situation of women
in old age depends on the income situation of the household in which they live.
Other sources of income are also included, such as capital income, income from
leasing and rentals or from employment of other household members. The gender
pension gap therefore not only encompasses women's independent retirement income,
but also their economic dependency.
The
pension gap mainly relates to women who are retired today, meaning those whose working
lives predominantly began before 1970. At that time, more traditional
partnership models, in which only the man was employed, for example, were much
more common than they are today. However, role perceptions and life plans have
changed considerably. This is also reflected in the steady increase in female
labour force participation, which has risen by almost twelve % in the
European Union (EU) and by a good 14 % in Germany since 2002.
In
addition to the employment history, the design of the pension systems also has
a direct influence on the gender pension gap, thus on its reduction. At the
conference organised
by the Belgian Council Presidency, this was illustrated by way of best
practice examples.
Susan Kuivalainen from the Finnish Centre for Pensions presented an
easily accessible pension calculator that enables Finnish insured persons to
find out the consequences of a reduction in their employment on their future
retirement income. Dina Frommert from the German Pension Insurance explained
pension splitting, which divides pension entitlements acquired during marriage
in the event of divorce. Giselda Curvers and Dries van der Bosch also explained
the positive impact of the basic pension on women in Belgium. Three different
measures that benefit women and can reduce the gender pension gap.
Over the course of the event, it also became clear that reducing the gender pension gap can only
be achieved through equal access to the labour market and to social protection.
The same applies to an equal distribution of paid work and unpaid care work
between men and women. In addition, access to company and private pension
schemes must be given greater consideration. For example, the gender pension
gap for occupational pensions is significantly higher than that for statutory
pension insurance.
Analogous
to the European Minimum Income Network for the evaluation of minimum incomes in
Europe, Lalieux and Schmachtenberg proposed the establishment of a Gender
Pension Gap Network. The European statistical office Eurostat and the indicator group of the European Union's
Social Protection Committee have created comprehensive statistics and analysis
tools. This should be utilised
systematically, in order to gradually close the pension gap.
The European Commission proposes more than just
deadline extensions for In Vitro Diagnostics
On 23 January, the European Commission
presented a proposal
for a regulation to amend the In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices
Regulation (IVDR) and the Medical Devices Regulation (MDR).
Similar to the adaptation of the MDR (see News
12/2022), the IVDR is to be adapted to give manufacturers more time for the
certification of in vitro diagnostics (IVD). IVDs are
tests that use biological samples to determine a person's state of health, such as HIV tests, pregnancy tests or blood glucose meters.
The proposed extended transitional periods
depend on the type of product, in particular the risk class of the IVD. For
high-risk IVDs, the transitional periods are to be extended by two and a half
years from 26 May 2025 to 31 December 2027. For medium and low-risk IVDs,
certification is to apply until 31 December 2028 and 31 December 2029
respectively.
The European Commission justifies the
adjustment with impending bottlenecks, particularly for high-risk in vitro
diagnostics (class D). According to the European Commission, the extension of
the conformity assessment procedures for IVD is intended to "ensure the
availability of safe products that are essential for healthcare systems and
protect patient care".
The long title of the proposed regulation
already gives it away: this is not merely an extension of the IVD deadline. In
addition to extending the transitional periods, the European Commission is
proposing two fundamental changes that also affect the MDR. For example, a
reporting obligation is to be introduced for manufacturers of Medical Devices
and IVDs if they discontinue "critical" products from the market. A
reporting obligation should always apply if the discontinuation has or may have
serious consequences for the health of patients or public health.
In addition, the introduction of the
European Medical Devices Database (EUDAMED) is to be accelerated. According to
the current regulations, the use of EUDAMED will only become mandatory once all
modules are functioning properly. This is to be changed according to the
European Commission's proposal. Fully functional modules will be mandatory from
the end of 2025.
The temporary risk-based extension of the
transitional periods for IVDs serves to counteract bottlenecks in
the supply of these products. The introduction of a reporting obligation for
manufacturers when "critical" products are discontinued from the
market is also welcomed. It is important to know which products are at serious
risk of discontinuation and the exact reasoning why they are being discontinued from the
market. From the German Social Insurance's (DSV) point of view, however, a more
precise wording is missing. It is unclear under which conditions "serious
harm or risk of serious harm to patients or public health in one or more Member
States" is to be assumed. The German Social Insurance (DSV) has submitted
corresponding proposals in its Opinion.
The Commission proposal is now being
discussed in the European Council and Parliament and is to be dealt with in a
so-called urgency procedure - as was the case last year with the extension of
the MDR deadline.
Effective competition contributes to keeping pharmaceutical innovations affordable.
Besides state regulation, market competition
is the most important instrument for ensuring supply of medicines to citizens
at affordable prices. Active enforcement of European antitrust and merger
control rules helps to keep markets moving and ensure that people in Europe
have access to affordable and innovative medicines. This is the conclusion of a report
published by the European Commission on 26 January 2024. The report looks
at the years between 2018 and 2022. It is the second of its kind and the result
of cooperation between the European Commission and the competition authorities
of the EU Member States in the European Competition Network (ECN). Compared to
the previous report, the number of antitrust decisions rose from an average of
three to five per year during the period under review.
On the one hand, the report refers to the
application of antitrust regulations on anticompetitive agreements and
practices. These include measures against behavioural patterns that prevent or
delay the market entry of generics, as well as measures against price level
abuse of medicinal products due to a market-dominating position
("unreasonable prices"), bid rigging in hospital tenders,
market-sharing agreements between pharmacies, restrictions on parallel imports
that exploit price differences of medicines in the European Union (EU), and
much more. Around 100 cases involving medicinal products were investigated. The
competition authorities issued antitrust decisions in 28 cases, while 30 cases
are still pending.
On the other, 30 mergers in the
pharmaceutical sector were under review in order to prevent abuse of a
market-dominating position. The greater market power of merged companies can
lead to nullification of competitive pressure, resulting in higher prices and
disadvantages for patients and healthcare systems. Concerns were raised in five
cases. Of these, four mergers were approved after the companies signalled their willingness to adjust their plans.
The bottom line of the report is: the
monitoring and clarification of the interpretation of competition and antitrust
law by the competition authorities is necessary to support price and innovation
competition, ensure the functioning of the pharmaceutical markets and improve
access to affordable and innovative medicines.
What the report fails to address: state
regulation is just as important for fair pharmaceutical prices. In Germany,
regulatory instruments such as the reference price regulation, the import quota or the possibility of concluding discount agreements allows for tens of billions of euros to be cut from pharmaceutical expenditure every year. And this without compromising supply.
Leverage potential to enforce labour and social security
rights.
The "The European Social Security
Passport (ESSPASS)" study,
commissioned by the European Parliament's Committee on Employment and Social
Affairs (EMPL), examines the potential of the European Social Security Pass to
enforce labour and social security rights in Europe. Its tenor: The added value
of the ESSPASS lies primarily in the area of employee posting. The European
social security pass can make a significant contribution to preventing
fraudulent practices, raising awareness among posted workers of their labour
and social protection rights and facilitating mobility. At the same time, it
can help to significantly reduce the administrative burden on social security
institutions, employers and audit authorities.
The central component of the ESSPASS
initiative is the introduction of digital credentials that make use of the EU DI Wallet
(European Digital Identity Wallet). This initiative resulting from the eIDAS
2.0 Regulation is intended to further facilitate mobility within the European
Union (EU) in the coming years and, in the future, make two administrative
procedures in the area of social insurance digitally accessible: The portable
document "A1" for posted workers and the European Health Insurance
Card (EHIC) for cross-border healthcare.
The DC4EU consortium is currently
conducting a pilot project at European level. In the area of the social
security system, the German Pension Insurance Fund, together with partner
institutions from Austria and Denmark, is leading the development of the A1
digital certificate of posting. The Health Insurance Liaison Office - Overseas (DVKA) is involved in the development of the
European Health Insurance Card. The pilot projects should be completed by April
2025.
The study calls for the potential of the
ESSPASS to be fully harnessed and to go beyond the currently planned scope of application. It is therefore
recommended that the documentation of the labour law entitlements of posted
workers be included in the ESSPASS, if possible, during the pilot phase. This applies in
particular to the posting notification required by the Member States under the Enforcement Directive.
The study refers to the steps announced by the European Commission in its 2024
work programme to digitalise and standardise the posting of workers. This would facilitate inclusion.
In contrast, the inclusion of national
labour cards or social ID cards is considered to be more difficult. Their areas
of application diverge and contain a lot of diverse information. The
willingness of the Member States to agree to standardise these national practices is also viewed
with scepticism. Despite these difficulties, the study recommends investigating
the extent to which this evidence can be included in the ESSPASS. This applies
in particular to the construction sector, which is heavily affected by posting.
EU
decision-makers discuss mental health in the workplace.
According to the European Agency for Safety
and Health at Work (EU-OSHA),
psychosocial risks are amongst the greatest challenges to the health and safety
of employees. These risks appear to have increased since the COVID-19 pandemic.
In a survey conducted by EU-OSHA in 2022, 27 % of European employees reported that
they had suffered from anxiety, depression or work-related stress during the
previous twelve months. This could also have physical health consequences. There is also a risk of cardiovascular, muscular or skeletal disorders.
The Belgian Council Presidency devoted a
separate high-level
conference to the issue of mental health in the workplace, which was held
on 30 and 31 January. The European Commission and representatives from the
member states met there to discuss preventive measures for promoting the mental
health of employees with the European social partners and health and safety
experts.
The European Commission published a communiqué covering its comprehensive approach to mental health, which also included
initiatives and campaigns for dealing with psychosocial risks in the workplace
back in June 2023. The Council published its own conclusions about the link between mental health and employment in October
2023. In particular, it focused on controlling precarious working relationships
as a means of preventing psychosocial risks (see News
11/2023 as well). Mental health, including that in the workplace, has long
been on the European Parliament's agenda.
During the high-level conference, EU
decision-makers and stakeholders also expressed their views about a possible
regulatory approach to confronting the psychosocial risks in the workplace. The
view of Nicolas Schmit, EU Commissioner for Employment and Social Rights, is
that a European instrument or directive could prove useful in raising the profile
and improving the issue of mental health. Nicolas Schmit, who is the S&D
group's top candidate, is also in the running to become the next president of
the EC. It does not seem out of question to assume that a new commission
will not only prioritise mental health, but also consider taking legislative action.
Capacity building strategy launched.
In January 2024, the implementation of the Capacity
Building Strategy 2024-2030 of the European
Labour Authority (ELA) began. The capacity building of the ELA is derived from
its Founding
regulation and aims to support
the Member States of the European Union (EU) and to improve cooperation,
knowledge sharing and mutual learning between Member States in order to promote
the consistent application and enforcement of EU labour mobility legislation.
Capacity building refers to the process of
improving the knowledge, skills and capabilities of individuals, organisations
or systems so that they can perform their tasks effectively. The ELA's vision
presented in the strategy is to support and oversee coordinated capacity
building efforts in the Member States until 2025. By 2030, the end date of the
strategy, the ELA should have established itself as a reference point and
important partner for capacity building in the context of labour mobility in
Europe.
The flexible support through various measures
that the ELA is planning as part of the strategy is based on the three
principles of knowledge, networking and technical focus. Firstly, the ELA will
collect and share information on the application and enforcement of EU labour
mobility legislation. Secondly, networks between Member States and stakeholders
involved in labour mobility are to be promoted. Thirdly, the focus will be on
advanced tools and technologies for the electronic exchange of information
between national organisations. The electronic exchange of social security data
(EESSI) is also addressed here. The ELA is committed to get involved in the
ongoing work and support it.
The ELA's capacity building focuses on all
stakeholders involved in labour mobility, including employees of national
institutions, authorities and agencies, such as labour, social security, tax
and transport authorities. Social partners, especially employers working in
sectors with high labour market mobility, are also identified as both a target
group and a cooperation partner. Based on this, the training needs of the
target groups form the starting point for the conceptualisation of specific
capacity building measures. A pilot study on training needs was already
conducted between December 2022 and February 2023.
The ELA's capacity building programmes are to be tailored
to the specific needs and target groups. Accordingly, the strategy includes
various sectoral and cross-sectoral activities aimed at promoting understanding
and mutual learning, including different types of training programmes, study
visits and exchange programmes, sharing of knowledge and best practices as well
as workshops. There will also be an online platform on which interactive
modules, e-learning courses, webinars and other educational materials will be
accessible.
The strategy is to be implemented step by step
until 2030, continuously evaluated both qualitatively and quantitatively and
adjusted as needed. The measures planned over the course of a year are
presented in annual activity plans.
Securing a safe and affordable supply of
medicines for Europe
The European Union's (EU) pharmaceutical
reform is gathering pace in the European Parliament after MEPs from the Health
Committee tabled their numerous amendment motions to the draft reports by the
two rapporteurs Tiemo Wölken (S&D, DE) and Pernille Weiss (EPP, DK). A
total of 3563 amendments have been tabled to the draft report on the proposed
regulation and the proposed
directive. In principle, the number and range of content of the amendment submitted
is very large. While the left-of-centre groups, i.e. the S&D, Greens and
Left, are more critical of industry in their view of the draft reports, the
amendment motions tabled by the EPP, the liberal Renew, ECR and ID are more
industry-friendly.
The DSV is following the political
discussions in the European Parliament and in its statement once again emphasises key points regarding the EU pharmaceutical
reform:
Fortunately, many MEPs are in favour of
more transparency in the financing of pharmaceutical innovations. In future,
manufacturers of medicinal products will not only be required to disclose in
databases whether and how much financial support they have received from public
authorities, but also how much money they spend on researching and developing
new medicinal products. This is crucial for pricing and reimbursement
procedures.
The political differences between the
parliamentary groups are particularly evident in the amendments on the length
and staggering of protection periods and the incentives for the manufacture of
medicinal products under discussion. In view of this, the (DSV) warns against
longer exclusivity periods for new medicinal products. Some of the proposed
extensions will have a massive impact on pharmaceutical prices, as they extend
the monopolies for blockbuster medicinal products far beyond the current legal framework
and have a significant impact on the cost burden on healthcare systems, thus
coming at the expense of affordable care for citizens.
MEPs attribute varying degrees of importance
to increasing transparency regarding the expiry of the medicinal
product’s exclusivity protection. While the liberal-conservative groups want to
enable more transparency on market and data protection, the Greens, for
example, go beyond this and also demand transparency on the expiry of patents. DSV
shares this demand. It makes sense that the expiry of patent for regulatory
protection, but also for patent protection, should be publicly accessible in
order to promote competition between generics and biosimilars.
MEPs agree in principle on the need for
improved monitoring of shortages in medicinal products. All groups are calling
for stronger monitoring, for example via the European Medicine Verification System (EMVS). The DSV supports the
proposals to use the EMVS for comprehensive monitoring of medicinal products in
order to detect delivery and supply bottlenecks at an early stage. In
addition, manufacturers of medicinal products should be more strongly obliged to
report shortages of medicines. With regard to the depth of regulation, there
are different demands between the left-green and liberal-conservative groups in
the amendment motions received.
The entire DSV statement is available here.
The rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs of
the respective political groups in the European Parliament are now negotiating
compromises on content. The draft reports are to be submitted to the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) for a vote on 7 March. The plenary meeting is expected to vote on the
two draft reports on 10 April. This timetable can change at any time, and it is
still unclear whether the European Parliament will be able to agree on a common
position in this legislative period. This does seem to pose a challenge, given the
diversity of opinions. Discussions in the Council's Health Working Group have
only recently begun.
MEPs lay down their negotiating mandate.
On 14 July, the European Commission formulated
its plan to ban the use of dental amalgam in the EU from 2025 through its
proposed regulation to revise the EU Mercury Regulation. The European
Parliament is not deviating from this
requirement, and officially adopted its position on the planned EU mercury ban on 17 January. MEPs adopted the report by
rapporteur Marlene Mortler (EPP, DE) by a large majority: 550 votes in favour,
14 against and 64 abstentions.
Political differences over the timing of
the ban on the use, manufacture and export of dental amalgam also persisted in
the plenary vote. The conservative EPP attempted to push through a ban on
dental amalgam from 31.12.2026 with two amendments in the plenary meeting.
However, the parliamentary group did not achieve a majority for this
requirement. It was also unable to push through a subsequent ban in the
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI). MEPs are
therefore in favour of a ban on dental amalgam from 1.1.2025 onwards. There is not much
time left. In the Council, the dossier will be dealt with by the Council's
environment working group. A compromise text was presented there on 18 January.
The German Social Insurance (DSV) had
positioned itself with an opinion on the revision of the EU Mercury Regulation.
In principle, DSV welcomes the aim of improving environmental and health
protection. DSV believes that the timetable should be reconsidered, and it
should not take place until 2030 in order to ensure a smooth implementation of
the ban on dental amalgam. Finally, the ban has contractual and supply policy
implications in some Member States. In Germany, it is causing a fundamental
health policy discussion about co-payment-free fillers in healthcare. They are
part of the statutory health insurances’ catalogue of benefits, which needs to
be further maintained.
Dental amalgam - a filling material made
from mercury alloys - is used in dental treatments and constitutes one of the last
remaining forms of mercury usage in the EU. In Germany, around 47 million
dental fillings were billed to the statutory health insurance funds in 2021. Of
these, 1.4 million were amalgam fillings - a share of about 3.2 per cent. The use of dental amalgam is strongly declining throughout the EU, as well
as in Germany. This is mainly due to the implementation of an international
treaty - the Minamata Convention on Mercury. The Minamata Convention entered into force on
16 August 2017 and has so far been ratified by the EU and 143 countries,
including all EU Member States. It has been implemented through the Mercury
Regulation (EU) 2017/852 since 1 January 2018. Since then, dental amalgam has
been banned in the EU for deciduous teeth, children under 15 years of age and
pregnant and breastfeeding patients.
For ensuring stable supply chains and a
strong European pharmaceutical industry.
The European Commission called for a Critical Medicines Alliance on 16 January. This will create "a new industrial
pillar for the European Health Union". It will not be created to last
forever. The project - i.e. a network comprising the European Commission,
national governments and local authorities, industry and civil society - is
initially scheduled to run for five years. Interested parties - especially
stakeholders from the pharmaceutical industry and the public healthcare sector
- have until 24 February to join the alliance via this web
page. Subsequent accessions are not excluded.
This alliance comes as no surprise. It was
announced in October last year in the European
Commissions communication about combating shortages in medicinal products
within the EU as a medium and long-term measure for securing the supply of
medicines and combating drug shortages. Its focus is on particularly important
- critical - medicines. The European Commission published a list of them on 12
December last year (see DSV
News 12/2023 as well). This new network should enable targeted
consultations to be held between its members and find suitable solutions to the
problems. This means that existing problems must be identified, and suitable
measures must also be determined to eliminate them. The relevant contact
partners will all sit "at the same table" in this alliance. They will
be expected to provide recommendations and advice for faster manufacturing,
contractual or financing solutions, which will ultimately contribute to greater
strategic autonomy for the European Union (EU) as well.
The initial meeting of the Critical
Medicines Alliance is planned for the end of April. A work plan should be
adopted during this meeting. Then it goes to the working groups. The European
Commission is currently analysing the critical medicinal products with the
greatest vulnerabilities in the supply chain.
Creating the Critical Medicines Alliance
means that the European Health Union, which was conceptually launched in
November 2020 with a package of three legislative proposals for expanding the
EU's framework for health security and has been continuously expanded since
then, will have another industry-focused module added to it. This new
initiative is also about strengthening the EU's pharmaceutical industry, in
addition to avoiding shortages and increasing supply reliability.
The Belgian Council Presidency is seeking a new compromise
During the last meeting of the
Permanent Representatives Committee (COREPER) under the Spanish Council Presidency on 22
December, the provisional agreement reached in the trialogue between the negotiators from the Council and the European
Parliament about a European law covering platform working did not receive
adequate support. France in particular spoke
out against the compromise made at this meeting. The wording used in the
disputable presumption of employment, which should form the basis for
determining the status of platform employees, deviates too far from the
Council's position, and it would result in a blanket reclassification that would
also include "genuine" self-employed people. France received support
from the Baltic States, Italy, the Czech Republic and Hungary.
The original European Commission's draft provided for the
study into the actual employment status for the disputable presumption to be
based on five criteria. The presumption would then be triggered if two of the
five criteria were met. The Council raised the threshold to three out of seven
criteria, whereas the Parliament's original position was to remove the criteria
altogether and focus on the actual working conditions. The provisional
agreement no longer refers to the criteria, but to five indicators that are to
be based on European Court of Justice case law. The disputable presumption would be triggered if at
least two of the indicators are present.
The member states supporting France criticised the wording of the
specific criteria in the provisional agreement as being too broad, so that some
of them would be systematically met. Furthermore, France pointed out that the
role of the responsible national authorities in establishing and triggering the
disputable presumption, as provided for in the provisional agreement, did not
take national administrative and legal circumstances into consideration. Only
the judiciary can reclassify a person as an employee in France.
The European Parliament's chief negotiator, Elisabetta Gualmini
(S&D, IT), pointed out the balance of the compromise initially reached and
highlighted the importance of the Platform Employment Directive for many
workers. The Parliament's aim is still to adopt the directive during this
legislative period. MEPs will strive to reach an agreement
with the Council right up to the last minute. However, any further negotiations
will have tot be based on the provisional political agreement. On the other hand,
the French side is calling for discussions to be resumed on a working version
that is as close as possible to the Council's general approach.
Finalising the legislative process before the European elections is a
top priority for the Belgian Council Presidency. Due to the limited time
available for this, the provisional text has to be taken as the basis for
further negotiations, even though it is not acceptable in its entirety to the
majority of member states. The Belgian Council Presidency has asked the member
states to comment on the controversial sections. They relate to the indicators
for triggering the disputable presumption, exemptions, the discretion of
national authorities in the event of an incorrect classification, the effects
of reclassification decisions, the consequences of a lack of or an unsuccessful
dispute and the prescriptive nature of the accompanying measures.
Belgium has simultaneously submitted an initial proposal for rewording
the indicators on which the legal presumption is based. The first two criteria
for determining remuneration and monitoring work performance remain unchanged
from the provisional agreement. However, the next three criteria should be
defined more narrowly and focus on the question whether a digital working
platform restricts the freedom of platform employees to organise their own
work. This includes accepting and rejecting jobs, working hours and the
possibility of using your own employees or subcontractors. It should also be
stated in the considerations that the indicators do not apply to situations in
which anyone undertaking platform working is genuinely self-employed.
The Council and Parliament must reach an
agreement by the end of February in order to finalise the legislative process
before the end of this legislative period.
The new directive will also force adjustments to be made in Germany.
On 14 December, the Council and the
European Parliament reached a political agreement about the legislative
proposal covering defective products' liability. It will also update the current
law covering civil liability. This is needed to take into account the fact that
many of today's products have digital or AI functions. The current legislation does not
take this into consideration. However, free and open source software is
excluded from its scope.
The European Union (EU) is also reacting to
the increase in online shopping. Online platforms will also be held liable in
the future if they made selling a product possible - this will include products
from third countries. The EU is also clearing the way for transitioning to a
more circular economy, for example, by ensuring that companies and individuals who have
repaired or refurbished a product can be held liable for any damage.
The new legal framework will ensure that
there is always a company based in the EU - whether it is the manufacturer,
importer or authorised representative - that can be held liable for a defective
product. This will not be limited to material damage only. Medically-recognised
mental health damage will also trigger compensation payments. This is why the
liability period will be extended to 25 years in special, exceptional cases.
Such an exception will be made if the damage symptoms only appear slowly.
The German Social Insurance also believes that
the agreement covering the compromise text represents a significant step
towards providing better protection to consumers in a changing world. However,
the regulations that make it easier to access compensation are particularly
positive. Courts will be able to order companies to disclose "necessary
and proportionate" evidence in the future. Product defectiveness can be
presumed if the injured consumer would be confronted with excessive problems,
especially those caused by the complexity of the product and the likelihood of
the product being defective. At present, the consumer would have to prove that the
product was defective and that the damage suffered was caused by this defect.
The formal adoption of the proposed new
directive by the Council and the European Parliament will take place shortly
(the final version of the text is not yet available). The new regulations will
apply to products placed on the market 24 months after the directive comes into
force. This means that the German government will have to adapt German product
liability law. This should be straightforward in some respects, for example, when
changing the existing liability claim limitation period to the new limitation period.
But it will be considerably more difficult when it comes to easing the burden
of proof. German law uses a different legal terminology in which the contents
of the new EU directive must be included.
Social security contributions need special
protection.
The ninth legislative period is drawing to
a close. The most recent legislative proposals are still waiting to be
finalised. They include the European Commission's proposed directive to
harmonise specific insolvency law issues. Whereas compromise texts are
currently being discussed by the relevant working groups in the Council, the
European Parliament - and not only there - is looking forward to the report
from Pascal Arimont (BE, EPP), a member of the responsible legal affairs
committee (JURI). This has been scheduled for the beginning of March. So it is
on schedule.
The proposed directive also aims to
standardise the conditions for obtaining the legal instrument needed for an
annulment action. Assets should also be easier to trace, for example, by making it
easier for insolvency administrators to access bank account information. A
simplified liquidation procedure will be introduced for small enterprises. A
new "pre-package procedure" will also enable insolvencies to be
processed more quickly by selling the company in question to the best bidder
with the aim of continuing the business.
During the political consultations, German
Social Insurance has pointed out that the social insurance institutions'
contribution funds will need special protection in insolvency proceedings.
These contributions must be available for the social security system's pension
obligations, and they must never be merged into insolvency assets that will
serve other purposes, such as the restructuring of insolvency debtors. Whether -
in line with the European Court of Justice (judgement of 17 September 2020, file
number C-212/19) - it should even be assumed that unlawful aid is involved
here will also have to be studied, as exemption from social charges falls under
the concept of aid (see DSV
News 03/2023 as well).
These concerns were also taken up by the
European Parliament's Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) in its opinion of 30 November 2023. However, JURI's opinion, being the committee responsible
for the dossier, will be decisive with regard to the position that the European
Parliament is scheduled to adopt at the end of April. We eagerly await the
rapporteur's draft and the subsequent committee discussions.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances to be restricted
Back in
January 2023, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands submitted a proposal for a comprehensive ban on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to the European Chemicals Agency
(ECHA) -the EU agency responsible for the management and regulation of chemicals. PFAS are a group of thousands of synthetic chemicals that are also
known as "forever chemicals" due to their long lifespan. The
carbon-fluorine bonds they contain are among the strongest chemical bonds in
organic chemistry. That is why their degradation is not only very difficult,
but also very cost-intensive.
PFAS are
increasingly being detected in groundwater, surface water and soil. In
particular, their spread in the environment is a major problem. An
international collaboration of journalists, the "Forever
Pollution Project", published in 2023 that more than 17,000 sites across Europe
are already contaminated by PFAS, including 2,100 where the level of
contamination is already hazardous to the health of those exposed. In addition,
there are a further 21,000 locations where relevant pollution that is
attributable to current or industrial activities is suspected. PFAS also pose a
risk to human health. They are associated with cancer, diabetes and obesity. A study from January 2024 also shows
that exposure to PFAS can even affect unborn children.
The
industry has already pointed out several times that PFAS have properties that render them indispensable. They are responsible for making products water-, dirt-
or grease-repellent. Products containing PFAS are also widely used in society.
They can be found in outdoor clothing, pans, cosmetics, packaging for fast food
and fire extinguishing agents, for instance. A comprehensive ban on all PFAS
would therefore have far-reaching effects on industrial processes and the
manufacturers of many products.
In the
past, there have already been several proposals at EU level to restrict various
specific PFAS. However, the application submitted at the beginning of 2023 is
the most far-reaching to date. The EU-Member States and Norway are calling for a
blanket restriction on the manufacture, placing on the market and use of PFAS.
Since 7 December 2023, the ECHA Scientific Committees have been analysing the
proposal and the comments received during the planned consultation. Their
opinions form the basis for the Commission's subsequent discussions with the
Member States. They then jointly decide on a possible legally binding
restriction. In order to establish alternatives to PFAS, the required
restriction provides for various transitional periods.
ECHA had previously proposed a separate restriction of specific PFAS in firefighting foam
in January 2022. The Commission is already consulting with the Member States on
this. A limit value for PFAS concentrations in water was also stipulated in the
revised Water Quality Directive (EU) 2020/2184 in 2020. This will apply from January 2026.
The European Parliament is calling for the
mandate to be strengthened and expanded.
On 18 January 2024, the European Parliament adopted a Motion for
a resolution to revise the mandate
of the European Labour Authority (ELA). The underlying report had already been
approved by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL) the week
before. The ELA was established in 2019 to support European Union (EU) Member
States and the European Commission in enforcing EU rules on labour mobility and
social security coordination in a fair, simple and effective way.
In the resolution, MEPs call on the European
Commission, as part of its assessment of the ELA's mandate and operational
capacity, to make a proposal for a revision of the Founding
regulation of the ELA -
Regulation (EU) 2019/1149 - which strengthens the powers and competences of the
ELA, thus its added value for national authorities. For example, the European
Parliament is calling for the ELA to be able to investigate suspected
infringements in cross-border cases on its own initiative and to be able to
initiate and carry out checks.
Furthermore, MEPs note that the ELA's remit
should be extended to workers from third countries. The authority is often confronted with
problems in connection with the working conditions of third-country nationals
and should therefore also be given powers to act. The European Parliament also
calls for better support for Member States in the application of relevant Union
law and for inclusion of sector-specific legislation on labour law in the
mandate in connection with labour mobility, for example in the transport or
construction sectors.
The resolution further states that the ELA also requires sufficient resources, including its own staff, to be able to carry out its
tasks, in particular to carry out on-site inspections to detect violations of
labour law. Currently, a large part of the staff consists of seconded national
experts (SNE), which, in view of the time limit, could contribute to
institutional incoherence in the medium to long term, jeopardise operational
continuity and lead to difficulties in carrying out the ELA's core tasks. A sufficient
number of SNE positions must therefore be converted into permanent posts.
According to Article 40 of the ELA's founding
regulation, the European Commission is obliged to submit an evaluation of the agency's performance by 1 August 2024. In addition to the resolution of the
European Parliament, the results of a Conference of the Belgian EU Council Presidency on the role of the ELA on 25
January 2024 will also be included in this assessment.
The application of the non-binding procedure has so far been inconsistent.
The Spitzenkandidaten process, or lead candidate process, is a political process based on European
political parties nominating one or more persons to lead their respective
campaigns before the European elections and to support them as President of the
European Commission if they win the elections. The procedure was applied for
the first time in 2014, but is not enshrined in the treaties, thus being not
legally binding.
The
idea behind the lead candidate process has been to make the selection process
for the President of the European Commission more transparent and easier to
understand. At the same time, it can be argued that the President of the
European Commission gains democratic legitimacy in this way, as voters are
given the opportunity to influence the choice of the head of the EU executive.
However,
the lead candidate process has so far only been implemented unreliably. In
2014, Jean-Claude Juncker actually became President of the European Commission
after being nominated as the lead candidate of the European People's Party
(EPP), which won the most votes. However, the procedure was not followed in the
last European elections in 2019: Instead of Manfred Weber, the lead candidate
of the EPP - which once again became the strongest
party - Ursula von der Leyen became President of the European Commission without
having been the lead candidate.
Not all European parties support the lead candidate
process. For example, the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) and the
Identity and Democracy Party (IDP) are not nominating any candidates. The EPP
will nominate a lead candidate at its party congress on 6 and 7 March 2024,
while the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) will nominate a lead
candidate on 20 and 21 March. The Party of European Socialists (PES) will
nominate candidates on 1 and 2 March, but there was only one candidate by the
application deadline on 17 January 2024, the current Luxembourg EU Commissioner
for Jobs and Social Rights, Nicolas Schmit. His nomination at the party
congress can therefore be considered certain.
The European Parliament is in favour of making
the lead candidate process mandatory. Accordingly, the anchoring of the system
is part of the Resolution of the European Parliament of 3 May 2022, which aims to revise
the rules on European elections with the objective of standardisation. In this
resolution, the European Parliament links the lead candidate process with the
demand for EU-wide lists, through which - in addition to the existing national
constituencies - 28 additional MEPs are to be elected and which are to be
headed by the respective candidate for the Presidency of the European
Commission.
However, no agreement has yet been reached on
these proposals in the Council of the European Union, which is why the
proposals will not be applied in the 2024 European elections.
Prerequisite for the release of funds from
the EU Reconstruction Fund.
The Belgian pension reform came into force
on 1 January. Belgium is thus complying with the European Commission's request
to improve the financial and social sustainability of the pension system. The
European Commission had linked the release of 300 million euros from the EU
Reconstruction Fund with the fulfilment of this requirement.
The reform aims to reduce pension
expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product by 0.5 percentage points
by 2070, increase employment beyond the standard retirement age and provide
better protection for women.
As part of the pension reform of July 2022,
the conditions for drawing the minimum pension were tightened. In addition to
30 qualifying years, 20 years of employment (effective career) will in future
be a prerequisite for drawing a minimum pension.
The number of years of service required
will be gradually increased. All those who were 61 or older when the reform
came into force do not have to show any years of service. The requirement of
younger cohorts is gradually increased. The full 20 years apply to insured
persons who are aged 53 or below at that time.
This increase in eligibility requirements
is primarily at the expense of women. Their periods of employment are generally
shorter and have more frequent interruptions. With the reform, more periods of
caring and family life are now counted as periods of effective career. Even
short periods of unemployment are now counted as periods of effective career.
In this context, the Belgian Minister for Pensions and Social Inclusion, Karine
Lalieux, emphasises the overarching goal of reducing the gender pension gap through
adjustments within the pension system.
The current rule remains valid that a full contribution
period of 45 years under Belgian law is required to receive the current full
minimum pension of EUR 1,619. If someone has worked for 30 years, the
entitlement is reduced accordingly to two thirds of this amount.
The pension bonus, which was abolished
under the government of the current President of the European Council, Charles
Michel, will be reintroduced on 1 January 2025. Insured persons who fulfil the
requirements for early retirement are to be given an incentive to work longer.
The bonus is aimed at insured persons who have been insured for a full 42 years
and can therefore go into retirement without deductions. When they retire later, they can
not only build up further pension entitlements, but also receive a pension bonus.
This increases gradually over a period of three years to 22,645 euros net and
can also be paid out as a one-off payment.
While the pensions of employees and the
self-employed are price-indexed in Belgium, civil servants' pensions were
adjusted in line with the salary development of active civil servants. From now
on, this adjustment will be a maximum of 0.3 percentage points above the price
indexation of pensions.
The Wijninckx contribution, a solidarity
contribution to social insurance on high employer contributions to
supplementary pension schemes, will also be increased. As part of the reform,
this has risen from three to six per cent.
The reforms for a social and financially
sustainable pension system are to continue. To this end, the government had
asked the social partners to develop joint proposals by the end of last year.
However, the social partners have indicated that these will not be available
before the end of the legislative period in June.