Social Security Coordination

Provisional trilogue agreement on the revision of Regulation 883.

Adobe Stock/Hurca!

After more than nine years of negotiations, negotiators from the Council of the European Union (EU) and the European Parliament reached a provisional agreement on 22 April on the revision of the coordination rules. Trilogue rounds held in 2019, 2021 and 2025 on updating Regulations (EC) No 883/2004 and 987/2009 on the coordination of social security systems had previously failed to reach agreement. The compromise now reached still requires formal approval by both the Council and the Parliament.

Content of the provisional agreement

In the latest trilogue round, familiar points of contention were on the agenda, notably the prior notification requirement for the A1 certificate and the export of unemployment benefits. A compromise was reached on both issues.

The agreement provides that, in future, no A1 certificate will be required for business trips and short postings of up to three days within a period of 30 days, while the construction sector is excluded from this exemption. In all cases where the A1 certificate is necessary, it must be applied for in advance. This constitutes a significant change compared to the current legal framework and reflects a key demand of the European Parliament. The Council had also envisaged exemptions for short activities but without a specific rule for the construction sector and with the possibility of ex post notification in emergencies. On this point, the Council has made a significant concession to Parliament.

In return, Parliament made concessions on the export of unemployment benefits. In the future, unemployment benefits may be exported for six months, provided that a person has previously worked for at least 22 weeks in the competent Member State. However, this does not create an automatic entitlement, as eligibility continues to be governed exclusively by national legislation. Under current rules, benefits can be exported for three months, with the possibility of an extension to up to six months. Parliament had advocated for an export period of up to ten months, while the Council maintained a six-month limit.

Statement by DSV and REIF

Ahead of the decisive trilogue round, the representations of the German and French social security institutions in Brussels – DSV and REIF – contributed to the discussions with a joint statement. Their message: make full use of the available scope for compromise. The organisations pointed to progress already achieved, such as agreements on the cross-border coordination of long-term care benefits, the definition of fraud and a uniform procedure for determining the applicable social security legislation for mobile workers.

In addition, DSV and REIF warned against merging the procedures for labour law posting declarations and the social security A1 certificate, as has repeatedly been discussed in the context of the revision. These are two fundamentally different procedures with distinct objectives, addressed to different authorities and based on different legal frameworks. Any attempt to reduce administrative burdens for companies must therefore target the appropriate level and reflect the realities of existing communication channels, according to the statement.

Outlook

With the provisional agreement, an important breakthrough has been achieved after years of negotiations. The Committee of Permanent Representatives (Coreper) confirmed the agreement on 29 April, while the European Parliament’s Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL) is expected to approve it on 6 May. Formal adoption by both institutions will follow the legal-linguistic revision.

GKV Financial Reform

National reform with a European dimension.

Hardly any issue has shaped the socio-political debate in Germany this month as strongly as the recommendations of the Health Financing Commission (“Finanzkommission Gesundheit”) on stabilizing the statutory health insurance system (GKV). On 30 March, the independent commission presented its first report containing 66 proposals aimed at securing the financing of the GKV from 2027 onwards in the long term and limiting any further rise in contribution rates.

The pressure to act is considerable: Germany now spends around €540 billion annually on health, while the GKV is already facing a financing gap of around €15 billion next year. Without structural reforms, this gap could grow to around €40 billion by 2030. Among other measures, the independent commission identifies savings potential in the pharmaceutical sector of around €7 billion per year.

European dimension

The debate is therefore not purely national – even if the recommendations of the Financing Commission are tailored to the complex German healthcare system. Developments in Germany are being closely monitored in Brussels and other EU Member States, as the financial sustainability of social security systems is also a key issue at European level. Germany has one of the most efficient, but at the same time one of the most expensive healthcare systems in Europe. The aim is now to bring revenues and expenditures back into balance and unlock efficiency potential without reducing the quality of care – a “revenue-oriented expenditure policy” that also plays a central role at EU level.

From a European perspective, the following proposals of the Financing Commission are particularly noteworthy.

Prevention: tax policy measures

A key focus of the report is prevention. The direct medical treatment costs of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and cancer each amount to double-digit billions within the German healthcare system. The Financing Commission therefore recommends three tax policy measures intended both to create steering effects and generate additional revenues for the GKV: 1) an increase in tobacco tax, 2) higher taxation of alcohol, and 3) a tiered tax on sugar-sweetened soft drinks. According to the Commission’s calculations, these measures could generate around €1.9 billion in 2027 and around €5.5 billion by 2030.

These approaches are also reflected at EU level, particularly in the European cardiovascular plan (“Safe Hearts Plan”). The revision of the EU Tobacco Tax Directive was already presented in July 2025 and is currently under discussion in the Council of the European Union. While a reform of the Alcohol Tax Directive is currently not on the agenda, corresponding political demands continue to be raised in the context of the prevention debate. In addition, the Safe Hearts Plan also addresses nutrition policy. Although the Commission has so far refrained from proposing direct taxes on fat, salt or highly processed foods, it has announced that, based on a study on highly processed foods, it will examine suitable instruments – including possible financial measures.

Pharmaceuticals: Orphan Drug Privilege

The pharmaceutical sector is also at the center of the recommendations. The Financing Commission advocates abolishing the so-called Orphan Drug privilege. To date, medicines for rare diseases in Germany benefit from special rules in the benefit assessment process: up to a legally defined turnover threshold, they are automatically granted a non-quantifiable additional benefit upon market authorization, without having to provide empirical evidence to the same extent. The Financing Commission recommends ending this preferential treatment. The associated savings potential can only be estimated approximately, as it depends on future authorizations, price negotiations and the actual additional benefit of new therapies. As guidance, the report cites savings of up to €30 million in 2027 and up to €45 million in subsequent years.

The underlying objective is to prevent the GKV from permanently paying higher prices for medicines without proven additional benefit. This is a demand that the DSV also regularly raises at EU level, particularly in the context of the pharmaceutical reform, but also in ongoing legislative procedures such as the Critical Medicines Act and the Biotech Act.

What follows from recommendations with an EU dimension

The proposals of the Financing Commission did not remain without consequences. Shortly after the publication of the report, Health Minister Nina Warken presented a draft bill for a GKV Contribution Rate Stabilization Act - “Referentenentwurf für ein GKV-Beitragssatzstabilisierungsgesetz” - on 16 April. This was followed by the Federal Government’s cabinet draft on 29 April. Both drafts take up recommendations of the Commission, though not all of them. The proposed tax measures concerning tobacco and alcohol were included in neither the ministerial draft nor the cabinet draft. Newly added in the cabinet draft, however, was the plan to introduce a levy on sugar-sweetened beverages from 2028 through a separate legislative procedure. This falls within the remit of Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil. The government’s position on the Orphan Drug privilege also remains unchanged: it does not follow the recommendation of the Financing Commission and refrains from abolishing the special status of orphan drugs within the benefit assessment framework.

The Federal Government’s draft bill will now enter the parliamentary procedure. The aim is for the German Bundestag to adopt it before the summer recess. The law will then be discussed in the German Bundesrat. The position paper by the GKV-Spitzenverband on the ministerial draft can be found here. The further legislative process is also being closely followed in Brussels.

Digital Omnibus on AI

Parliament and Council aim to reach a swift compromise.

In November 2025, the European Commission presented a proposal for a Digital Omnibus in the field of artificial intelligence (AI). Immediately following the adoption of the European Parliament’s negotiating mandate on 26 March, trilogue negotiations between the Council of the European Union (EU) and the Parliament began. The Council had already adopted its negotiating mandate on 13 March. While some points are largely uncontroversial, disagreement remains particularly regarding the treatment of industrial AI.

Postponement of deadlines uncontroversial

The European Commission had proposed linking the timing of the entry into application of the provisions on high-risk AI to the availability of supporting tools, including the necessary standards, and postponing it accordingly. However, the rules were to become applicable after 16 months at the latest. Both Parliament and Council oppose a flexible mechanism and instead favour fixed deadlines for the application of the high-risk AI provisions – 2 December 2027 for stand-alone high-risk AI systems under Annex III and 2 August 2028 for high-risk AI systems embedded in products under Annex I.

Furthermore, there is agreement between the two institutions that providers of AI systems under Annex III should continue to be required to register these systems in the EU database for high-risk systems. The European Commission had proposed abolishing this registration obligation if providers conclude, on the basis of a documented assessment, that the system is not high-risk.

Industrial AI as main point of contention

The main disagreement concerns the treatment of industrial AI, i.e. AI systems under Annex I that form part of already regulated products. These include, for example, machinery, protective equipment or medical devices. The European Parliament is calling for AI systems – contrary to the current provisions of the AI Act – not to be classified as high-risk solely because they are used in regulated products and could theoretically be safety-relevant. Instead, a purpose-based assessment should be carried out, with AI only being classified as high-risk where it is actually considered safety-relevant. The Council rejects this approach due to concerns about inconsistencies and duplication of obligations between the AI Act and sectoral legislation.

In addition to the treatment of industrial AI, two further lines of conflict shape the negotiations: the institutional role of the AI Office and the scope of fundamental rights protection. While Parliament is seeking stronger central enforcement powers at EU level, the Council emphasises national competences and the principle of subsidiarity. As regards fundamental rights protection, the objectives are broadly aligned, for example with regard to a ban on nudifier apps, bias rules and data protection, but the exact scope of obligations remains contested.

Outlook

The negotiations are under considerable pressure as the provisions on high-risk AI systems under the AI Act will become applicable in August this year. The aim of the trilogues, which were held several times a week, was therefore to reach an agreement by the end of April. However, the most recent trilogue on 28 April ended without a result. A further trilogue is expected to take place in the coming weeks, although no specific date has yet been confirmed.

European Business Wallets

European Parliament begins deliberations.

Shutterstock/madpixblue

On 19 November 2025, the European Commission presented a proposal for a Regulation establishing European Business Wallets (EBW). The aim is to digitalise and simplify interactions between companies and with public administrations within the European Union (EU). To this end, a Europe-wide digital identity for economic operators and public authorities will be introduced, building on the existing eIDAS framework. The EBW will enable, in particular, secure identification and authentication, electronic signatures, the exchange of documents and legally binding communication across borders. While the use of the EBW will remain voluntary for companies under the proposal, public authorities will be required to provide the core functionalities.

Draft report in ITRE

The Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) is responsible for this file in the European Parliament. On 15 April, it held a first exchange of views on the draft report by rapporteur Eero Heinäluoma (S&D, FI). The draft report broadly supports the introduction of the EBW and considers it an important contribution to improving digital identification, authentication and data exchange in the Single Market, particularly in cross-border contexts. It emphasises that the EBW should function as an interoperable overarching architecture integrating existing national and European systems rather than creating parallel structures.

The draft report maintains the voluntary use of the EBW for companies and the mandatory implementation by public authorities. However, the implementation deadline should not – as proposed by the Commission – start 24 months after publication in the Official Journal but only 24 months after the entry into force of the relevant implementing acts; the transitional arrangements for the use of existing alternative solutions would be aligned accordingly. The rapporteur also places a strong emphasis on interoperability. Existing national and European digital infrastructures – such as the Once-Only Technical System (OOTS), the Business Registers Interconnection System (BRIS) and the European Digital Identity Wallet (EUDI Wallet) – should be taken into account and integrated to ensure a coherent and cost-efficient implementation. Furthermore, data exchange should not only take place via documents but also through structured, machine-readable data formats.

Draft opinions in JURI and IMCO

Both the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) and the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) are providing opinions on the file. The JURI draft opinion by rapporteur Axel Voss (EPP, DE) emphasises, inter alia, the use of the EBW for interactions between companies and public authorities in the context of electronic declarations in line with the once-only principle. It also calls for clear and timely implementing acts to ensure a stable technical framework. Further clarifications concern the automatic allocation of a European Unique Identifier (EUID), which should, where possible, be based on or linked to existing national identifiers, as well as shorter implementation and transition periods for public authorities (implementation of core functionalities within 18 months instead of 24 months and a corresponding reduction of the transitional period to 24 months).

The IMCO draft opinion by rapporteur Veronika Cifrová Ostrihoňová (Renew, SK) focuses in particular on promoting the use of the EBW by economic operators, especially small and medium-sized enterprises and the self-employed. It highlights the potential to reduce administrative burdens and improve the functioning of the Single Market. It also emphasises user-friendliness, accessibility and the avoidance of disproportionate burdens. Compared to the ITRE and JURI drafts, however, the IMCO draft does not include major changes regarding implementation deadlines for public authorities and places less emphasis on interoperability with existing European solutions.

Relevance for social security

As public authorities, social security institutions will be required to enable the use of the core functionalities of the wallets. In addition, the EBW is relevant in the context of cross-border applications and procedures, particularly in relation to the coordination of social security systems. One example is the application for A1 certificates, where the EBW could complement existing procedures and facilitate secure cross-border applications. Furthermore, the A1 certificate is expected to be stored in the future as a digital document in the EUDI Wallet, which will also serve as the basis for the planned European Social Security Pass (ESSPASS). This creates interfaces and increases the need for coordination between different instruments relevant to cross-border social protection.

Chemicals Policy 

Movement on the ECHA basic regulation and PFAS restriction. 

European chemicals policy remains in motion, even if key reform projects continue to be stalled. While the comprehensive revision of the REACH Regulation remains politically controversial, other important dossiers are gaining increasing momentum. In particular, concrete progress is emerging with regard to the ECHA basic regulation as well as the restriction of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). 

REACH Regulation remains politically blocked 

The revision of the REACH Regulation, which governs the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals, remains politically controversial. For months, the chemical industry has been advocating vis-a-vis political decision-makers for a focus on more efficient and smarter implementation rather than a fundamental overhaul of the existing legal framework. From its perspective, many of the intended changes could also be implemented at the level of secondary legislation, for example, through adjustments in the comitology procedure. 

Germany has also clearly spoken out against a fundamental revision of the regulation in its Chemicals Agenda 2045. Neither a comprehensive reform nor targeted amendments, for example in the context of an omnibus procedure, are supported. However, the federal government calls for targeted relief measures, for instance, with regard to deadlines, information requirements, the digitalisation of substance dossiers as well as testing methods and procedures.

ECHA: strengthening role and mandate 

Despite the deadlock on the fundamental REACH revision, progress is being made in other key dossiers related to the regulation. In mid-April, the European Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety (ENVI) adopted its report on the ECHA basic regulation by a large majority. Members of Parliament are calling in particular for more resources and capacities for ECHA in order to meet growing regulatory requirements. At the same time, the agency’s governance and financing structures are to be more clearly defined and separated from the REACH Regulation.

In addition, the committee advocates for reliable and sufficient funding based both on fees and on EU budget resources. Greater transparency and independence in scientific work, as well as strengthening the agency’s ability to take on future tasks in the context of further reforms, are also key points.

Occupational safety is gaining importance 

Furthermore, ECHA is to expand its scientific and technical support across different areas of legislation. In addition to REACH, this includes frameworks on biocides, persistent organic pollutants, as well as the import and export of hazardous chemicals. In the area of occupational safety and health, the European Commission had already proposed strengthening the role of the scientific work of the Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) in the setting of occupational exposure limits. 

In its amendments, ENVI emphasises that, alongside a high level of protection for people and the environment, occupational safety also plays a central role. This is also reflected in the composition of the Management Board, which is responsible, among other things, for overseeing the agency’s activities and appointing RAC members, and which focuses on strategic planning. In this context, ENVI highlights that, among the persons representing interested parties from trade unions, those with expertise in occupational safety and health should be given greater consideration.

Trilogue negotiations with the European Commission and the Council, which already agreed on its general approach at the end of 2025, can begin once the plenary has voted on the ENVI report. 

PFAS restrictions: scientific assessment progressing 

ECHA is working intensively to complete the scientific analyses in the PFAS restriction procedure by the end of the year. One of the two responsible committees, the RAC, presented its opinion in March. In it, the committee concludes that PFAS pose significant risks to human health and the environment. Due to their extreme persistence, they remain in the environment for long periods, spread widely, and can contaminate soils and groundwater. Some substances are also linked to serious health effects such as cancer or reproductive impairments. 

According to the RAC, existing regulatory measures are not sufficient to effectively control these risks. The committee therefore recommends additional measures to reduce emissions, in particular for uses that may fall under possible exemptions. These include site-specific management plans, emissions monitoring, improved communication along the supply chain, clear consumer labelling, as well as reporting obliga

SEAC advocates for an EU-wide approach with exemptions 

The Committee for Socio-Economic Analysis (SEAC) also generally supports an EU-wide restriction on the manufacture, placing on the market and use of PFAS, albeit with targeted exemptions. In its draft opinion, SEAC emphasises the need for a harmonised EU approach in order to avoid distortions of competition in the internal market. At the same time, it supports exemptions where no suitable alternatives are available and where a cost-benefit assessment justifies them. 

Stakeholders can submit comments on the SEAC draft until 25 May. ECHA plans to present the final opinion by the end of 2026. The European Commission will then analyse the scientific input and develop a restriction proposal. 

EHDS Implementation

Keeping pace at national and European level.

iStock / metamorworks

The European Health Data Space (EHDS) turned one year old this month – yet it is still very much in its infancy. The EHDS Regulation was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 5 March 2025 and entered into force on 26 March 2025. Around one year later, it is becoming clear how extensive the remaining work and implementation steps are that are still required to make the legislation “operational” – both at EU level and at national level in Germany.

German progress

For the national implementation, Germany has already adopted two key laws on primary and secondary data use with the Digital Act and the Health Data Use Act. The current focus is on the Federal Ministry of Health (BMG), from which a draft bill for a further law is expected – a law on data and digital innovation in healthcare  - “Gesetz für Daten und digitale Innovation im Gesundheitswesen”. This is intended to further specify the national implementation of the EHDS. Planned measures include binding interoperability requirements between IT systems, new responsibilities for supervision and implementation, as well as a strengthened role for the digital health agency gematik in operating the digital infrastructure. In substantive terms, the focus is also on cross-border data exchange via MyHealth@EU, improved access to health data for research and innovation, as well as new rules for health data access bodies, data subject rights, and the use of health insurance and care data.

European progress

The EHDS Regulation provides for almost 30 implementing acts that must be prepared by the European Commission in the coming years to further specify the new rules – in some cases with tight deadlines by 2027, in others with longer implementation periods. They concern key issues of primary and secondary data use as well as aspects of governance, cooperation and supervision. All of this takes place under the EU comitology procedure, through which the European Commission adopts so-called implementing acts under the control of the Member States. Many crucial detailed questions are therefore only being clarified now, after the EHDS Regulation established the overarching framework.

The EHDS Board as steering body

The first and therefore particularly important step was the establishment of the EHDS Board. On 8 April, the first implementing regulation on the organization and working methods of this body was published in the Official Journal of the EU. The Board under Article 92 of the EHDS Regulation supports the implementation of the EHDS, discusses draft implementing acts and votes on them. It therefore serves as the central steering forum for European implementation.

In addition, three further implementing acts are currently under discussion and have already been published in draft form.

Identity and authentication management

One draft concerns identity and authentification management. It provides for rules on an interoperable, cross-border identification and authentication mechanism for citizens and health professionals in line with the eIDAS Regulation. This creates the basis for practically implementing secure access to health data via MyHealth@EU. The key legal basis here is Article 16 of the EHDS Regulation.

Cross-border exchange of personal health data (MyHealth@EU)

A further draft concerns MyHealth@EU – the European infrastructure for the exchange of personal health data, such as patient summaries or prescriptions. It sets out detailed technical and organizational requirements, including the role of the European Commission as processor of personal data. The legal basis is found primarily in Article 23 of the EHDS Regulation.

Dataset descriptions

The third draft is an implementing regulation on dataset descriptions. It lays down which information health data holders will in future have to submit about their datasets to the access bodies so that these can be included in national and European dataset catalogues. Covered datasets include, for example, health insurance claims data, hospital and registry data, study data, or user-authorized data from electronic health records. Information to be provided includes the origin, content, scope and access conditions of the data. The aim is a common European standard so that datasets can be found more easily, compared more effectively and used for secondary use purposes. The legal basis is found, among others, in Article 77 of the EHDS Regulation.

Against the background of the many open detailed questions and the wide range of implementation processes, the complexity of the next steps becomes clear. To return to the metaphor used at the beginning: the EHDS may now be one year old, but it is still in its infancy. Many of its practical first steps are only now being taken. With developments progressing in parallel at national and European level, it will be crucial that it moves in the same direction and does not stumble along the way. Only if regulation, technical implementation and governance are closely aligned will the EHDS be able to realize its full potential.

Insolvency Law

New Harmonisation Directive offers opportunities for social security systems.

iStockphoto/Gil-Design

The new Insolvency Directive has now entered the implementation phase. More rapidly than anticipated, the Directive on the harmonisation of certain aspects of insolvency law was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 1 April, just one day after its adoption by the Agriculture and Fisheries Council. The European Parliament had already given its consent on 10 March. The Directive will therefore enter into force on 21 April. For the Member States, this means that, with only limited exceptions, national transposition measures must not only be adopted but also enter into force by 22 January 2029 at the latest.

Stopping financial outflows in insolvency proceedings

The DSV closely followed the conclusion of the legislative process, as the new EU provisions may help to better protect social security contributions in corporate insolvency proceedings. This would constitute a tangible contribution to stabilising the financing of statutory social security systems. Under the current legal framework, social security institutions regularly lose contribution revenue amounting to hundreds of millions of euros due to avoidance actions in insolvency proceedings.

Germany in a comparatively unfavourable position

Unlike in many other Member States – such as France, Spain, Italy and Portugal – social security institutions in Germany are treated on an equal footing with ordinary unsecured creditors. As a result, insolvency practitioners may reclaim contributions already paid and add them to the insolvency estate. Given recovery rates in the low single-digit range – 2.4 per cent in 2020, for example – the vast majority of recovered contributions is effectively lost to the social security system, while benefit entitlements and accrued rights of insured persons must nevertheless continue to be honoured in full.

Preventing the avoidance of contributions

The new EU Directive introduces a pragmatic approach. Article 6(3) recommends that Member States, in accordance with national law, exclude social security contributions from avoidance actions in insolvency proceedings. This creates legal scope to shield contribution revenue from recovery claims by insolvency practitioners. In the view of the DSV, which strongly advocated for this exception, Member States should make full use of this margin of discretion.

Seizing the political momentum

It is well known that the financial situation in Germany – particularly in health and long-term care insurance – is highly strained and requires targeted efforts to ensure sustainability. The obligation to transpose the new EU Insolvency Directive places the treatment of social security contributions in corporate insolvencies back on the political agenda. The Directive offers an opportunity to reassess the issue within a revised legal framework. It would be desirable to put a definitive end to the diversion of social security contributions in insolvency proceedings.

Mental Health

EU drives forward regulation of psychosocial risks.

Mental health in the workplace is increasingly moving into the focus of European occupational safety and health policy. The topic is gaining additional momentum through the clear political mandate to Executive Vice-President Roxana Mînzatu to further develop the European approach to occupational safety and health (OSH) by 2029. A first initiative is expected as part of the upcoming Quality Jobs Act.

The European Parliament has already emphasised the need for action several times, most recently in 2022, with regard to mental health in the digital world of work. Now, an initiative by the Belgian Member of Parliament Estelle Ceulemans (S&D) is taking up the issue again and calling for concrete legislative measures. The aim is to close gaps in existing OSH legislation and to create a more uniform level of protection within the European Union (EU).

Inconsistent levels of protection across the EU

The current European legal framework does contain general principles of prevention, but, in the view of MEP Ceulemans, it provides too few binding provisions for dealing with psychosocial risks. Existing agreements between social partners, for example, on stress or violence at work, are also implemented inconsistently. This leads to significant differences in the protection of employees across Member States.

Psychosocial risks include, among other things, high workload, unclear roles, lack of support, conflicts, or difficulties in balancing work and private life. They can lead to stress, exhaustion, or burnout and also have economic effects, for instance, through absenteeism or declining productivity.

Proposed measures of the initiative report

Against this background, a central point of the initiative is the call on the European Commission to present, by the end of 2026, a directive with binding minimum requirements. This is intended to strengthen prevention and facilitate the recognition of work-related mental illnesses, which often still fail due to high evidentiary hurdles.

Among other things, mandatory annual psychosocial risk assessments are envisaged, as well as stronger obligations for companies to implement appropriate measures. In addition, training for employees and managers is proposed. Furthermore, EU-wide minimum standards for labour inspections are to be introduced and preventive measures are to be more strongly integrated into national strategies. Programmes for reintegration after mental illness are also part of the approach.

The democratic parties in the European Parliament are generally open to the proposal by the Social Democrat, but see a need for improvements, particularly with regard to small and medium-sized enterprises, the handling of artificial intelligence, as well as in the areas of climate and gender.

Different positions of the social partners

The reactions of the social partners in the context of an interparliamentary committee meeting vary. The European Trade Union Confederation supports the initiative and calls for stronger protection of employees. BusinessEurope, on the other hand, expresses criticism, in particular of additional legal requirements and what it sees as a one-sided approach. It is also criticised that existing structures such as the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work (ACSH) are not sufficiently taken into account. Even in countries with already existing regulations, such as Belgium, case numbers, for example for burnout, remain high.

National developments and state of research

A study published in March by Eurogip shows that psychosocial risks arise primarily from working conditions such as high workload, poor organisation, or lack of support. Although the EU OSHƒ directive generally requires the assessment of all risks, specific provisions at European level are lacking.

Many of the seven Member States represented in the study have developed their own regulations, which, however, vary considerably. In addition to legislative measures, instruments such as assessment tools, campaigns, and company programmes also play an important role. Overall, it becomes clear that a holistic approach is required that takes into account both work organisation and the well-being of employees.

Outlook

Whether the Quality Jobs Act will actually advance the stronger consideration of psychosocial risks long called for by the European Parliament remains to be seen. The European Commission intends to provide initial insights into its regulatory plans in early May as part of the second consultation with social partners. At the same time, MEP Ceulemans aims to conclude negotiations on her legislative initiative report in the European Parliament by early October so that its proposals can also be taken into account in the context of the Quality Jobs Act.

Work in the Digital Age

EMPL discusses AI, platform work, and psychosocial risks.

iStockphoto/BrianAJackson

On 15 April, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL) invited representatives of national parliaments, the social partners and other institutions to Brussels for an inter-parliamentary Committee Meeting (ICM). The discussions covered both the regulation of new forms of work in the context of artificial intelligence (AI) and psychosocial risks arising from ongoing digitalisation. It became clear that in both areas there remains a continuing need for regulation and coordination at EU level.

Opportunities and challenges of AI

The increasing use of AI, for example in the context of algorithmic management, highlights both the opportunities and challenges of AI for the workplace. The Cypriot Minister of Labour, Marinos Moushouttas, emphasised in his keynote speech that AI can enhance efficiency both across organisations and at the individual level. At the same time, he pointed to potential negative effects, such as intensifying work, increasing monitoring of employees and fears of job loss. This assessment was largely shared by representatives of the national parliaments during the meeting.

Psychosocial risks in a digitalised workplace

Ongoing digitalisation has far-reaching consequences for employees, also in connection with the increase in the prevalence of telework since the coronavirus pandemic. This is often accompanied by a rise in psychosocial strain, for example when telework goes hand in hand with constant availability and an extension of working hours. Against this backdrop, EMPL has been calling for measures to curb these risks since 2022. In preparation for a corresponding own-initiative report with recommendations for action addressed to the Commission, the Committee discussed with national representatives the health impacts of a digital workplace, in particular the tension between AI as an additional source of stress and AI as a tool for prevention.

Progress through the regulation of platform work

In response to these developments, the European Union (EU) has recently made significant progress with the Platform Work Directive, which is to be transposed into national law by 2 December 2026. It establishes, for the first time, rules governing the use of AI, in particular algorithmic management, in the workplace. Under the directive, digital labour platforms are required to ensure transparency regarding the functioning of their automated systems and decision-making processes. Platform workers are also granted the right to human review and to contest automated decisions affecting their working conditions, remuneration or access to the platform. In addition, platforms must assess the impact of such systems on working conditions, health and safety, as well as on the fundamental rights of the persons performing platform work.

Health and safety vs. simplification

EMPL welcomes these developments and, in its resolution on digitalisation, AI and algorithmic management in the workplace of December 2025, called on the Commission to extend the achievements of the Platform Work Directive to other employment contexts. By contrast, the Commission’s proposals for a Digital Omnibus envisage, inter alia, amendments to the General Data Protection Regulation and the AI Act. These Regulations contain key safeguards for workers, including provisions on lawful data processing as well as transparency and human oversight in the use of AI systems in the workplace. Against this background, the Committee sees a risk that existing protection standards may be lowered, with potential implications also for the workers’ rights enshrined in the Platform Work Directive.

Challenges in the Member States

Against this background, representatives of the national parliaments were invited to report on relevant developments in the Member States. It became clear that the transposition of the Platform Work Directive is at different stages of progress. They also emphasised that the rapid pace of developments in this area constitutes a particular challenge. As an example, they referred to the expected amendment of the AI Act in the context of the AI Digital Omnibus – even before an evaluation has taken place.

Overall, the national representatives largely called for a more ambitious European approach. In particular, the importance of training and upskilling to strengthen workers’ resilience was highlighted (Marko Pavić, Croatia). Furthermore, calls were made for clear rules on sanctions in cases of misuse of AI by employers (Giulio Romani, European Trade Union Confederation), as well as for greater transparency and contestability of AI-based decisions (Jacek Włosowicz, Poland).

By contrast, the employers’ organisation BusinessEurope pointed out that increased regulation does not necessarily lead to improvements in workers’ health and may also have a dampening effect on growth, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises.

Outlook

The Quality Jobs Act, announced for the end of 2026, is expected to address both areas — new forms of work and psychosocial risks in the workplace. The European Commission is currently conducting consultations with the social partners in preparation for this legislative initiative. In addition, the Digital Omnibus on AI, which is currently under trilogue negotiations, is likely to have an impact on the further development of the regulatory framework.

Population projections

Eurostat: Migration is stabilising the social security system in Europe.

Rawpixel Ltd

The population in the European Union is expected to decline more sharply in the coming decades than previously assumed. A key reason for this is lower migration assumptions. This development also has implications for social security systems, particularly in light of the ageing population and the shrinking workforce.

New projections paint a pessimistic picture

According to the projections, the EU’s population is expected to decline only slightly between 2025 and 2050, by 1.5 per cent or 6.7 million people. By the end of the century, however, it is projected to fall by 11.7 per cent compared to 2025, from 451.8 million to 398.8 million. This corresponds to a decline of 53 million people. According to Eurostat’s population projections, Germany will experience a similar trend to the EU as a whole. The population is expected to decline from the current 83.6 million by 3.9 per cent by 2050 and by 10.7 per cent by 2100, reaching 74.7 million people.

Based on the projections, it is expected that Europe will reach its population peak in 2029, with an estimated population of 453.3 million. Germany has already reached its peak in 2025 with 83.6 million people. According to Eurostat’s forecasts, the population will start to decline as early as this year – albeit only marginally, by around 75,000 people. Eurostat’s forecasts show a very heterogeneous population trend across Europe. Luxembourg and Malta will not reach their peak population until around 2075.

Migration stabilises population trends

Without migration, the projections indicate that the population in all EU countries would decline significantly by 2100: by 10.5 per cent or 45 million people by 2050, and by as much as 40.5 per cent or nearly 183 million people by 2100.

This effect is also of central importance to social security systems, since immigration increases the number of people in employment, thereby stabilising the revenue base. In Germany, the stabilising effect of migration is even more pronounced than the EU average. Without immigration, the decline would be 13.2 per cent by 2050 and 43 per cent by 2100. This effect is particularly pronounced in Malta, Luxembourg and Spain. Without migration, the population there would shrink by 56 per cent and 37 per cent respectively (Malta, Luxembourg) and by over 50 per cent (Spain) by 2100. In Bulgaria, by contrast, the stabilising influence is comparatively small, reducing the decline by only 9.5 percentage points.

Demographic change and social security

The Eurostat forecasts highlight demographic change in Europe and its far-reaching implications for social security systems, as well as for employment and the world of work. The projected decline in the working-age population can only be offset by an increase in labour force participation and by productivity gains resulting from technological progress. This places considerable demands on the continuous upskilling of the workforce, as well as on measures relating to rehabilitation, health and safety at work.

At the same time, the increasing ageing of the population is leading to a growing need for care and support services. This not only poses a financial challenge for the social system, but also exacerbates the challenges facing service providers against the backdrop of a declining working-age population.

Population data for European monitoring processes

The new population projections will be incorporated into country-specific monitoring within the framework of the European Semester, as well as into various reports, including the report on ‘Adequate social protection in old age’ by the Working Group on the Adequacy and Sustainability of Old-Age Pensions (Working Group ADAGE) and the Ageing Report 2027 by the Working Group on Ageing of the Economic Policy Committee. These reports will assess the extent to which Member States have taken precautions in their social protection systems, in light of pessimistic forecasts, to ensure an adequate level of benefits in the long term whilst also safeguarding their financial sustainability.

Report on job quality

Eurofound: Job quality in Europe has generally improved.

iStockphoto-industryview

In recent years, the quality of jobs in Europe has improved overall – though not all workers are benefiting equally. This is the conclusion reached by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) in its latest overview report on the European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS 2024), published on 14 April.

Europe’s changing world of work

The analysis covers 35 European countries, including all EU Member States, and examines the impact of ecological, digital and demographic change on the world of work. In addition to providing a comprehensive description of the workforce, the report focuses in particular on digital working practices, social relationships and issues of inclusion. A key finding is that good working conditions pay off – they foster motivation, innovation, productivity and a positive workplace climate.

Progress with downsides

Eurofound assesses the quality of jobs across seven dimensions: pay, prospects, skills and autonomy, working time, work intensity, and the social and physical environment. In five of these areas, the situation has improved over the past 15 years. Conversely, there have been deteriorations in the social environment at work and in work intensity. The survey also highlights that improvements in the social environment at work, as well as in further training measures, are strongly linked to access to social protection.

Gender-specific differences are also striking: men are less frequently affected by high work intensity, whilst the situation for women in this dimension has deteriorated. By contrast, the physical working environment has improved, particularly due to the decline in traditional physical strain. At the same time, however, new risks are emerging – for example, from heat, chemicals or infectious substances.

Working environment and employees’ perceptions

For the majority of employees, financial aspects are not the main priority. Rather, a safe working environment and trust in the workplace are crucial. Most find their work meaningful and are convinced that they perform well: more than 80 per cent consider their work useful, and 85 per cent feel they are treated fairly. Nevertheless, shortcomings remain: 14 per cent of workers in the EU state that they are inadequately informed about health and safety risks. At the same time, there is a clear disparity in the integration of occupational safety and health within companies: whilst in Sweden around 80 per cent of workers have access to an occupational safety and health representative, the figure in Bulgaria is just under 30 per cent.

Inequalities persist

Despite the overall positive trend, not all groups of workers benefit equally. The study shows that gender-specific differences in employment trajectories remain a key challenge. However, there are also significant differences in occupational safety and health at country and sector level. Progress on job quality therefore requires targeted measures and the expansion of social safety nets.

A key issue for Europe’s future

Improving working conditions has been a key objective of European policy since the Treaty of Rome. The European Pillar of Social Rights and current initiatives such as the Quality Jobs Roadmap or the competitiveness compass also underline the importance of good working conditions for sustainable growth and competitiveness.

Against the backdrop of an ageing and shrinking workforce, the issue is becoming even more important. High-quality jobs are seen as crucial to attracting more people into the labour market, keeping them in work for longer and, at the same time, boosting productivity. This requires continuous investment in people, including in rehabilitation, health and safety at work. The Eurofound report shows that Europe has made progress but still faces key challenges.

Interinstitutional work

Parliament adopts new Framework Agreement with the Commission.

artJazz

On 11 March, Members of the European Parliament adopted the revised Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission. The Framework Agreement sets out the rules governing cooperation between Parliament and the Commission in legislative, budgetary and political matters. Negotiations on updating the previous Framework Agreement of 2010 were launched in 2024, shortly after the European elections, by the Presidents of the two institutions, Roberta Metsola and Ursula von der Leyen. The revision aims to take account of more than a decade of practical application, as well as evolving institutional requirements and the strengthened role of the Parliament.

Strengthening of Parliament’s right of initiative

A key change in the revised Framework Agreement concerns the strengthening of the European Parliament’s right of initiative. While the formal right of initiative remains with the Commission, Parliament’s de facto influence is enhanced. In the future, the Commission is expected to respond more systematically to Parliament’s requests to submit legislative proposals (Article 225 TFEU), in particular where amendments to or the repeal of existing legislation are concerned. Cooperation between the two institutions in this procedure is also clarified. In addition, the Commission is placed under a stronger obligation to justify its decisions – for example when withdrawing proposals or relying on legal bases that limit Parliament’s involvement.

Improved information flow and stronger parliamentary scrutiny

The new agreement also provides for a significantly enhanced flow of information from the Commission to the Parliament. This is to be more comprehensive, timely and detailed, thereby facilitating Parliament’s exercise of its legislative, budgetary and scrutiny functions. This applies in particular to legislative procedures, international agreements and the use of emergency instruments, under which the Commission may, in certain crisis situations, propose measures without involving Parliament in the ordinary legislative procedure (Article 122 TFEU). New transparency requirements are also introduced for urgency procedures: requests from the Commission must in future be submitted in writing and duly reasoned, where appropriate complemented by explanations in plenary.

Strengthening of the Commission’s political accountability

Another focus lies on strengthening the Commission’s political accountability to Parliament. The presence of the responsible Commissioners in plenary and committee debates is made more binding, as is their participation in other parliamentary formats upon request. Members of the Commission are expected to be regularly available for parliamentary hearings and may be specifically invited by Parliament. Their ability to be replaced in committees is also restricted and subject to clear conditions. In addition, in the case of sensitive decisions – such as the withdrawal of legislative proposals – they are required to provide personal explanations.

Criticism from the Council regarding the institutional balance

However, the agreement has been criticised by the Council. This is due in particular to the enshrined principle of equal treatment of Parliament and the Council in the legislative process, which Member States consider not to be in line with the EU Treaties, as these assign a stronger role to the Council. Member States therefore called for amendments to the text and at times considered legal action before the Court of Justice of the European Union. While an immediate action has since been ruled out, the Council has announced that it will closely monitor the implementation of the agreement and reserves the right to take further steps to safeguard its institutional prerogatives.

MDR Revision

Health insurers warn against compromises on patient safety and clinical evidence.

iStockphoto/4X-image

In March, the European Commission hosted a high-level conference on the revision of the Medical Devices Regulation (MDR) and the In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Regulation (IVDR). Around 400 representatives from politics, industry and healthcare discussed the legislative proposal presented on 16 December 2025 (see News 12/2025). In her closing remarks, Sandra Gallina, Director-General of DG SANTE, struck a self-critical tone. Europe, she said, had itself created a problem of medical device shortages through some of the more extreme elements of risk avoidance. Reflecting on the existing regulatory framework, Gallina acknowledged: “We did not get it right.” The MDR, developed in 2017 in response to several medical device scandals, had in some respects gone too far. According to the European Commission’s assessment, the regulation has proven too complex and overly burdensome. The new proposal is therefore intended to bring greater simplification and reduce administrative burden.

From patient safety to new political priorities

Nevertheless, it should be recalled that the original reform was a direct response to serious medical device scandals – including faulty brain stents causing strokes, hip and knee implants with material wear, and breast implants made of industrial silicone. These cases clearly demonstrated , to the detriment of patients , the consequences of insufficient regulation.

Against this background, the MDR was established with a clear focus on patient safety. This objective remains in place, as emphasised by the Commission. At the same time, the current revision – also evident in the conference discussions – shows that additional objectives have gained importance. Alongside quality and patient safety, strengthening the European health industry, ensuring product availability and enhancing the competitiveness of the internal market are increasingly coming into focus.

Comprehensive reform rather than a purely technical adjustment

The legislative proposal presented in December is therefore clearly guided by the political mandate of simplification and reducing administrative burden. Objectives such as relieving stakeholders, accelerating procedures and ensuring the availability of medical devices are in principle understandable and justified. At the same time, however, the proposal goes well beyond the announced “technical adjustment” and constitutes a comprehensive reform of the existing regulatory framework – with potentially far-reaching implications for patient safety, quality of care and the requirements for clinical evidence.

Role of statutory health insurers

Given the responsibility of statutory health insurance for providing care to around 75 million insured persons in Germany, the safe, effective and reliable supply of medical devices is of central importance. Health insurers are not only responsible for financing, but are also directly confronted with the consequences of regulatory decisions for healthcare provision, quality and patient safety. Reliable clinical evidence and transparent market surveillance are therefore indispensable prerequisites for sound reimbursement decisions. This also applies in the context of the European Health Technology Assessment (EU HTA), which relies on a robust and comparable evidence base.

Perspective of health insurers

From the perspective of the German Social Insurance (DSV), simplification must not be equated with deregulation. Efficiency gains should be realised in a targeted manner where they improve procedures without undermining the high level of protection established by the MDR and IVDR. Uniform requirements for clinical evidence, market surveillance and traceability remain essential prerequisites for patient safety, trust and high-quality healthcare.

At the same time, strengthening the European market in the long term is crucial. This cannot be achieved solely by reducing administrative barriers to production and market access – and certainly not by lowering clinical evidence requirements. On the contrary, a key competitive advantage of Europe lies in its high quality and safety standards (“Made in Europe”), which must be preserved and further developed. Consistent quality oversight throughout the entire lifecycle of a medical device – from development and market placement to use – remains as indispensable as a robust clinical evidence base.

Against this background, the central question of the current revision arises: where does necessary simplification end, and where does deregulation begin?

With its position paper, the DSV is contributing to the ongoing discussions with the following key priorities:

• Clinical evidence requirements must not be lowered.
  
• Special regimes for orphan, breakthrough and well-established technologies must be clearly limited.
  
• Transparency and binding rules in market surveillance and in addressing shortages must be strengthened.
  
• Liability provisions and patients’ rights must be consistently safeguarded.
  
• Digitalisation should be used in a targeted way to make procedures more efficient and enable genuine reduction of administrative burden.
  

Outlook

The DSV will closely accompany the further legislative process from this perspective. Discussions in the Council began on 23 March, and in the European Parliament the rapporteur, Oliver Schenk (EPP/DE), is expected to present his draft report in early summer. The objective remains to achieve simplification where it is meaningful – without compromising patient safety, quality of care and evidence-based regulation.

Gender Equality

EU Gender Equality Strategy: Policy implications for social protection and the labour market.

The European Commission presented its Gender Equality Strategy 2026–2030 on 5 March. The strategy builds on the Equality Strategy 2020–2025 and the Roadmap for Women’s Rights adopted in 2025, and further specifies the European objectives for promoting equality between women and men over the next five years. Despite important progress, the Commission still identifies a significant need for action and emphasises the economic importance of increasing women’s participation in the labour market.

New focal points of the strategy

According to estimates, at the current pace of progress it would still take around 50 years to achieve full gender equality in the European Union. In this context, the Commission emphasises that further progress is not only of societal but also of significant economic importance: greater participation of women in the labour market and improved working conditions could strengthen growth, help address skills shortages, and enhance Europe’s competitiveness.

The strategy therefore sets out measures across several key policy areas:

• combating gender-based violence, including digital violence and the abusive use of AI, such as deepfake pornography,
  
• improving women’s healthcare, for example by better integrating gender-specific differences into medical research and treatment,
  
• promoting economic equality, including through measures to implement the EU Pay Transparency Directive and to support women in research, innovation and entrepreneurship,
  
• measures to improve work–life balance and to reduce the gender pay and pension gaps,
  
• as well as initiatives to strengthen women’s political participation.
  

Relevance for Statutory Health Insurance Funds

A new focus is placed on women’s health, which is, for the first time, established as a distinct policy area within the Gender Equality Strategy. Planned measures include, inter alia, an initiative with the World Health Organization to improve the quality and accessibility of healthcare, as well as actions to strengthen the consideration of gender differences in medical research, diagnostics and treatment.

These initiatives have direct implications for healthcare provision and prevention. A stronger integration of gender-specific differences in research and medical care could, in the long term, have an impact on healthcare structures, prevention strategies and health research. For statutory health insurance, the discussion on gender-sensitive prevention, diagnostics and treatment is of particular relevance.

Social Accident Insurance and occupational safety

The strategy also contains relevant approaches in the area of occupational safety and working conditions. These include measures to combat sexual harassment and violence in the workplace, as well as a stronger consideration of gender-specific risks in the design of working conditions. These issues are closely linked to European occupational safety and health policy and could, in the future, also be reflected in EU-level initiatives on occupational safety and health. For statutory accident insurance, prevention, psychosocial risks and safe working conditions are of particular relevance.

Federal Pension Insurance

The strategy also addresses the persistent issue of the gender pay and pension gaps. On average, women in the EU receive around 25 per cent lower retirement incomes than men. The underlying causes include lower labour market participation, more frequent part-time employment, and career interruptions due to care responsibilities. The Commission therefore plans to further analyse the causes of the pension gap, promote the exchange of best practices between Member States, and strengthen the monitoring of developments within the framework of European social policy reporting.

Outlook

With the new strategy, the European Commission underlines its commitment to further strengthening gender equality as a cross-cutting priority of European policy and to accelerating progress towards a gender-equal society.

EPSCO Council meeting

Overview of recent decisions on EU social policy.

On 9 March, Ministers for employment and social affairs met in Brussels for a meeting of the Council for Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs (EPSCO). Discussions focused on employment and social policy. Key topics included the European Semester, quality jobs and investment in people, in particular children and youth.

EU equality strategies

At its meeting, the Council inter alia addressed the Gender Equality Strategy 2026–2030 and the EU Anti-Racism Strategy. In the debate on the Gender Equality Strategy, the Cypriot Council Presidency and the European Commission emphasised that equality is not only a normative issue but also makes economic and societal sense: a more equal society is more resilient, sustainable and economically stronger. In the context of the Anti-Racism Strategy, the European Commission said that it would initially focus on the implementation of existing measures and, where appropriate, their further development. A financial envelope of 3.6 billion euros was mentioned, although its financing remains unclear.

Investment in people

The Council approved conclusions on investing in children. It was emphasised that investment in children should not be seen as a cost factor but as an investment in the future. Particular attention was given to tackling child poverty. In addition, ministers held an exchange of views on breaking the poverty cycle. The European Commission stated that the first EU Anti-Poverty Strategy is to be presented in May. In this context, Germany underlined the need for a strong European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) in the next Multiannual Financial Framework and highlighted the importance of investment in education and social inclusion at European level.

European Semester

The Council adopted the Joint Employment Report and endorsed the related conclusions. Based on the European Pillar of Social Rights, the report identifies current progress and challenges. It highlights that the EU labour market has proven resilient despite economic and geopolitical uncertainties. The unemployment rate fell to a historic low in 2024, while the employment rate reached a new record in the first half of 2025. However, it is noted that labour productivity growth remains stagnant. To strengthen the EU’s competitiveness and innovation capacity in the long term, the report emphasises the importance of investment in human capital and measures to improve job quality.

Quality jobs

Ministers also held an exchange of views on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to support quality employment and workers’ rights. In particular, they discussed how reforms aimed at better matching labour supply and demand in the context of AI-driven changes can be further supported through the European Semester, and which additional measures are required at national and EU level. Many Member States emphasised the importance of comprehensive investment in digitalisation as well as upskilling and reskilling measures. Greece underlined that potential impacts on social protection – for example due to a possible decline in social security contributions resulting from increased use of AI – need to be addressed at an early stage.

Posting of third-country nationals

At the initiative of the Netherlands – supported, inter alia, by Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg and Germany – the issue of the posting of third-country nationals was discussed. According to the supporting Member States, there is currently a lack of sufficient legal clarity. In particular, existing rules set the general framework for posting controls but do not adequately take into account the residence-related dimension for third-country nationals. The European Commission acknowledged the need for action and pointed to enforcement deficits in the existing legislation. It is examining various options and intends to cooperate more closely with the European Labour Authority. The Fair Labour Mobility Package announced for the autumn could also be relevant in this context.

EU Directive on the Recognition of Professional Qualifications

Common training standards for physiotherapy planned.

iStockphoto/kokouu

The European Commission is continuing to advance the mobility of healthcare professionals: for the profession of physiotherapists, it is planning the introduction of a common training framework (CTF). A corresponding delegated act has been announced for the third quarter of 2026. The objective is to expand the automatic recognition of professional qualifications across the EU, thereby simplifying and accelerating procedures and reducing administrative burden. Against the backdrop of workforce shortages in the healthcare sector and the importance of the free movement of workers within the internal market, this represents an important initiative.

More mobility – significant administrative burden

Physiotherapists are among the most mobile health professions in Europe. More than half a million people work in this profession across the EU, and their number has steadily increased in nearly all Member States over the past decade. At the same time, physiotherapy is a regulated profession in almost all EU countries, meaning that a relevant qualification or registration with a competent authority is required to practise – in Germany, for example, with the Medical Service of the Health Insurance Funds (“Medizinischer Dienst der Krankenkassen”). Recognition of professional qualifications is currently carried out mainly through complex case-by-case assessments, which involve considerable administrative effort and, in some cases, lengthy procedures. A common European training framework could help address these challenges and significantly facilitate access to the labour market within the EU.

Common standards, shared opportunities

In its feedback to the Commission, the German Social Insurance (DSV) explicitly welcomes the European Commission’s initiative to develop a common training framework for physiotherapists. A harmonised framework can help simplify recognition procedures, promote workforce mobility and strengthen the quality of physiotherapy care across Europe.

From the DSV’s perspective, this would bring concrete benefits for Germany: recognition procedures could be accelerated and standardised, administrative burdens for authorities and health insurance funds reduced, and transparency and comparability of qualifications improved. In Germany, more than 212,000 physiotherapists are currently practising, with demand continuing to grow.

Taking into account a dual training structure

At the same time, the DSV emphasises the importance of adequately reflecting national specificities in education systems. In Germany, training is provided either through a three-year vocational school programme or through a Bachelor’s degree programme of at least six semesters. Against this background, the DSV recommends that a common European training framework should include two qualification levels within the European Qualifications Framework (EQF): EQF level 4 for vocational training and EQF level 6 for academic training. Such differentiation would enable European harmonisation without undermining well-established national structures, while also ensuring broad access to training.

Background:

The initiative is based on Article 49a of the EU Directive on the Recognition of Professional Qualifications (Directive 2005/36/EC). Following its revision in 2013, the Directive introduced the possibility, under certain conditions, to establish common training frameworks enabling the automatic recognition of professional qualifications. The Directive governs the mutual recognition of professional qualifications within the EU and constitutes a key foundation for the free movement of workers, as well as the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services. Its objective is to ensure that qualifications acquired in one Member State can be used in another, despite national differences in access to and the exercise of regulated professions. Key instruments include automatic recognition and the European Professional Card.

28th Regime

Proposal for EU Inc. meets opposition.

On 18 March, the European Commission presented its proposal for a new European company law form – the EU Inc. – and, with the so-called 28th regime, simultaneously introduced the corresponding legal framework. This new company form would exist alongside the established national legal forms.

At present, companies are confronted with 27 national legal systems and more than 60 different company forms. This complexity makes any incorporation process time-consuming. Under the 28th regime, it would become possible to establish new companies digitally, quickly and seamlessly, on the basis of a uniform set of rules.

“One Europe, one market” – by 2028?

The EU Inc. legal form is intended for companies with a digital orientation that wish, in the future, to make use of EU-provided tools for electronic identification, registration and communication. Reduced formalities are intended to limit administrative burden. Incorporation would take place fully online within 48 hours, irrespective of the Member State in which the company chooses to establish its registered office. This is expected to be possible as of 2028. Common, fast, digital and cost-efficient procedures, combined with reduced administrative requirements, are intended to stimulate private investment.

Start-ups and scale-ups as drivers of growth

An EU Inc. would be able to expand freely across EU borders and is designed in particular as an attractive option for high-growth companies. At the same time, it is intended to make the EU a more attractive location for business founders. The concept primarily targets start-ups and scale-ups, which the Commission associates with a higher risk appetite, a focus on scalability and strong innovation potential. These companies are expected to contribute significantly to EU growth and competitiveness. In principle, however, the new company form would be open to all businesses.

Complementary rules on insolvency and liquidation

The Commission’s proposal is complemented by specific provisions on insolvency and liquidation for EU Inc. entities. These include a simplified winding-up procedure for selected innovative start-ups. In straightforward cases, liquidation procedures should be concluded swiftly, allowing EU Inc. entities to be removed from the commercial register within three months. These additional rules are also intended to ensure that insolvency and liquidation procedures can be carried out digitally.

Directive versus Regulation

The proposed legal basis for the Regulation on the 28th company law regime – “EU Inc.” – is Article 114 TFEU. This is already the subject of debate. Article 114 requires the harmonisation of existing law, whereas the EU Inc. would complement national legal frameworks. Moreover, the usual legal instruments based on Article 114 are directives adopted by qualified majority or regulations, which typically require unanimity. However, the Commission has opted for a regulation to be adopted by qualified majority, which has raised concerns. In its recommendations of 19 January, the European Parliament had proposed a maximum harmonisation directive, anticipating more significant and prolonged resistance from Member States in the case of a regulation (see DSV-News 01/2026).

Further critical voices

Initial criticism has already been voiced by the S&D Group and its rapporteur on the 28th regime, René Repasi. The proposal is considered to lack robust safeguards, notably to prevent abuse in areas such as creditor protection, labour law and employee board-level participation. The Left Group has also stated that it will not stand by while workers’ rights are undermined. Criticism has likewise been expressed by European trade unions (ETUC) and the global union federation UNI Global Union. According to them, the EU Inc. constitutes a “Trojan horse”: presented as support for start-ups, it would in practice amount to a broader weakening of workers’ rights and corporate accountability. The free choice of company seat is seen as posing risks to the European social model, industrial relations and high-quality employment. A final point of note: employee participation arrangements vary significantly across EU Member States, and statutory provisions on this form of collective labour right exist in only twelve Member States.

Road safety

Progress report shows acute need for action.

iStockphoto/Olivier Lantzendörffer

On February 13, the European Commission presented a progress report on the implementation of the EU Road Safety Policy Framework 2021–2030. This shows that, while progress has been made in reducing road deaths, the current pace of improvement is not sufficient to achieve the goal of halving the number of road deaths and serious injuries by 2030. To counteract this, the Commission is calling for closer cooperation between EU institutions, Member States and local authorities.

Key messages of the report

In 2024, 19,940 people died on the roads of the European Union (EU) – 440 fewer than in 2023. This represents a decrease of 12 per cent compared to 2019, the reference year for the 2030 target. The required annual decline of 4.6 per cent could not be achieved. According to the report, road traffic accidents continue to impose high economic and social costs, estimated at around 2 per cent of the EU's gross domestic product. In addition, up to 100,000 people suffer life-changing injuries every year. The number of road traffic accidents varies considerably between Member States, and the Commission therefore sees the need for targeted measures across Europe.

Measures and priorities

To increase road safety in Europe, the European Commission is calling for greater coordination between EU institutions, Member States and local authorities. The report names five priority areas for action:

1. Promoting infrastructure security and intelligent transport systems,
2. Strengthening enforcement of traffic rules,
3. Promoting modern vehicle safety technologies,
4. Taking account of new forms of mobility,
5. Promoting road safety research.

Apostolos Tzitzikostas, the EU Commissioner for Sustainable Transport and Tourism, recognises significant progress but emphasises that the measures presented in the areas of action must be implemented more rapidly in the Member States and reaffirmed the Commission's support in this regard.

Relevance for German Social Insurance

The results of the report are of central importance for social security. Commuting accidents are among the most common work-related accidents that require reporting and cause a significant proportion of accident, rehabilitation and follow-up costs. Improvements in general road safety therefore have a direct impact on the number and severity of insured accidents.

The measures announced at EU level – such as safer infrastructure, better enforcement of traffic rules and modern vehicle safety systems – complement and strengthen national prevention strategies. They create a binding framework that supports the prevention work of accident insurance, particularly in the areas of behaviour prevention, technical safety and safe mobility on the way to and from work and school.

At the same time, the report emphasises that road safety can only be effectively improved through the interaction of EU policy, national authorities, social security providers and companies. The EU initiative thus contributes to promoting the common goals of prevention, health protection and sustainable financing of social security systems.

Occupational Exposure Limits

Start of trilogue negotiations on the sixth amendment of the CMRD in sight.

iStockphoto-industryview

Since July 2025, the European Parliament and the Council have been working on the sixth amendment of the Directive on carcinogens, mutagens and reprotoxic substances (CMRD). The European Commission had proposed to include welding fumes as a hazardous workplace substance and to introduce new binding occupational exposure limits for cobalt, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and 1,4-dioxane. While the Council already adopted its position in December 2025, discussions in the European Parliament’s Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL) are still ongoing.

Council calls for limit value for isoprene

In its general approach, the Council calls for the development of additional practical guidelines for welding fumes, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) as well as for labour inspectorates, in order to ensure a uniform minimum level of protection. Since welding fumes are to be included in Annex I of the CMRD for the first time due to their potential reprotoxic effects, the Council also sees a need to adjust the definitions in Article 1 of the Directive.

In addition, the Council advocates setting an EU-wide occupational exposure limit for isoprene, thereby following the recommendations of the European Chemicals Agency and the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work (ACSH). Numerous Member States support its inclusion and refer to the precautionary principle, the limited data available, the need for legal certainty and the low expected implementation costs. For 1,4-dioxane, the biological limit value should in future be determined at the end of the shift or after exposure.

Cobalt in the focus of Parliament

The amendments proposed by the rapporteur in the EMPL Committee, Liesbet Sommen (EPP, BE), focus in particular on the provisions relating to cobalt and welding fumes. She argues that the limit value for cobalt should not be further lowered after the transitional period, but that the value foreseen by the European Commission for the transitional period should be maintained permanently. This is justified by the importance of cobalt for several strategically important sectors. Already in January, the Social Democrats (S&D) and the Greens expressed opposition to these proposals. They support the European Commission’s proposal, which in their view already represents a compromise between industrial policy interests and the protection of workers.

Furthermore, Sommen proposes extending the wording on welding fumes in Annex I to include processes in which fumes are generated in a comparable manner. Like the Council, she also calls for the inclusion of isoprene, greater consideration of the gender dimension, and financial and administrative support for SMEs. Several of her proposals are also reflected in the amendments tabled by S&D, the Greens and Renew. These include, among other things, targeted risk assessments and medical monitoring for firefighters and emergency personnel, mandatory training, as well as regular and proportionate breaks when wearing personal protective equipment.

Outlook

In the first half of March, rapporteur Sommen held several discussions with the shadow rapporteurs on possible compromise proposals for the report. She plans to submit the report adopted by the EMPL Committee to the plenary for a vote, if possible already in April.

Long-term care in transition

New study shows trend towards person-centred and technology-supported care.

©Photographee.eu - stock.adobe.com

On 17 March, the European Commission published a comparative study by the European Social Policy Analysis Network (ESPAN) on long-term care facilities for older people. Based on national reports prepared by the ESPAN country teams, the study provides an overview of the care situation in the Member States, the nine (potential) candidate countries, as well as Iceland and Norway. It also identifies existing gaps in care provision and highlights potential reform approaches.

Care at breaking point

With societies ageing, the demand for long-term care is set to rise significantly. Even today, the care situation in many places is characterised by staff shortages and high costs. Against this backdrop, the authors of the study emphasise that traditional care models will not be sufficient in the long term to meet the diverse needs. Consequently, Member States are increasingly developing alternative and innovative care models that offer more flexible, person-centred and sustainable solutions. These often combine inpatient, home-based, and community-based care and place particular emphasis on promoting autonomy, social participation and continuity of care. Furthermore, many approaches incorporate digital technologies and support informal carers.

The care situation today

According to the findings, all European countries offer residential, home-based, and community-based care services. At the same time, however, there are significant differences in access to and the scope of formal care provision. A key challenge is the fragmentation of responsibilities across different levels of government and between the health and social sectors. This can disrupt care pathways, exacerbate geographical inequalities, and shift costs more heavily onto users and carers, thereby increasing reliance on informal care or undeclared care work.

Significant differences in public spending on care

In 2022, public expenditure on formal long-term care in the EU averaged 1.7 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP), with significant differences between Member States. Whilst Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden spent three per cent or more, expenditure in 14 countries stood at one per cent of GDP or less. At 1.7 per cent, Germany was in line with the EU average. When expenditure on long-term care is set against total age-related costs – including pensions, healthcare and education – a similarly varied picture emerges. The share was highest in the Netherlands at 18.2 per cent, whilst the EU average was 7.1 per cent and in Germany 7.6 per cent.

Innovative approaches

Member States are responding to these challenges with a variety of measures. A common feature of these approaches is the shift from institutional solutions to person-centred, often community-based care models. Alternative models of residential care, for example, offer smaller, community-integrated or flexible forms of accommodation. Advanced home-care models support care provided by family members or trusted individuals. These typically include employment contracts, training, insurance cover and professional supervision. The aim is to recognise and promote informal care whilst ensuring quality. Community-based care models often combine health, social and preventive services. This is intended to improve access, reduce the number of hospital admissions and ensure coordinated, person-centred care. Technology-supported care models incorporate digital tools and information and communication systems into long-term care. They are intended to complement carers and, particularly in the home environment, improve safety, self-determination and communication.

Working Group on Adequate Social Protection in Old Age

The findings of the study will be incorporated into the work of the Working Group on Adequate Social Protection in Old Age (WG ADAGE) of the EU’s Social Protection Committee. A report on this is scheduled for mid-2027.

Europe’s future begins with fairness

Strategy for Intergenerational Fairness adopted.

andresr

In March, the European Commission presented, for the first time, a Strategy for Intergenerational Fairness. It aims to ensure that political decisions are taken with greater consideration of their long-term impacts and that a balanced distribution of benefits and burdens between present and future generations is maintained. The strategy focuses on addressing key challenges such as demographic change, digitalisation and artificial intelligence. In doing so, it aligns with international efforts towards more forward-looking policymaking, such as the UN Pact for the Future and the Declaration on Future Generations, which were endorsed by the EU and its Member States at the UN Summit of the Future on 22 September 2024.

A new intergenerational contract

The strategy highlights the consequences of inaction – the so-called “costs of inaction”. In the area of climate change alone, failure to act could result in a reduction of the EU’s gross domestic product (GDP) by 7 per cent up to a double-digit percentage by the end of the century. Inaction also poses risks to the resilience of democracy: in the long term, trust in institutions – including social security systems – may decline if political measures are perceived as an inadequate response to generational change. The costs of inaction in the field of intergenerational fairness are therefore not only economic in nature, but also democratic, social and environmental.

To counter this, the strategy introduces a symbolic “intergenerational contract”, developed in response to the recommendations of the European Citizens’ Panel and based on three pillars: 1) Fair policymaking that incorporates long-term thinking and the perspective of young people; 2) fair opportunities that bring generations together around shared goals for a better future; and 3) fair places that promote fairness between generations across all regions. It provides a common framework for aligning foresight, fairness and responsibility for all generations and across all stages of life.

15-Point plan to ensure fairness

The Strategy for Intergenerational Fairness is intended to lay the foundations for greater fairness between generations. To achieve this goal, a 15-action work programme has been developed. Key actions include:

• The development of an index for intergenerational fairness
  
• The organisation of a Demography Forum
  
• The creation of a multilingual toolkit for forward-looking policymaking
  

Several EU Member States are already leading by example and have established initiatives in the past that contribute to intergenerational fairness. These include, among others, the Netherlands, Belgium and Poland.

Social investment

During the presentation of the strategy, Executive Vice-President Roxana Mînzatu, responsible for social rights and skills, emphasised that investing in people can create a fairer and more prosperous future. The aim is to empower people at all stages of life to successfully address current and future challenges. In this context, social security measures – such as medical and vocational rehabilitation, prevention, and occupational health and safety – make an important contribution to intergenerational fairness as social investments.

Outlook

The European Commission emphasises that the strategy is not a single policy measure, but a long-term approach to policymaking. Greater consideration is to be given to the perspectives and concerns of young people – as the young people of today are the older generations of tomorrow. A progress report at the beginning of 2028 will accompany the process and contribute to the implementation of the United Nations’ objectives for future generations.

Netherlands debates retirement age

New government moves away from the 2019 pension compromise.

In the coalition agreement of the new Dutch minority government under Prime Minister Rob Jetten, the social-liberal D66, the conservative-liberal VVD and the Christian Democrats (CDA) have agreed to once again raise the statutory retirement age in the state pension scheme (AOW) from 2033 onwards at the same rate as life expectancy, thereby increasing it more rapidly than previously planned. In doing so, the new coalition government is deviating from key elements of the pension agreement reached in 2019 in consensus with the social partners. Furthermore, the government is planning significant cuts to benefits for the unemployed and those unable to work.

Looking back at the 2010s

Against the backdrop of demographic ageing and for fiscal reasons, the Dutch government raised the standard retirement age for the first pillar in two stages during the first half of the 2010s. Initially, in 2013, a gradual increase from 65 to 67 years by 2025 was decided. This was followed in 2015 by the introduction of an automatic one-to-one link to life expectancy. As a result, the retirement age evolved more dynamically than originally planned: the target of 67 years would have been reached significantly earlier than envisaged in the original timetable due to rising life expectancy, and would subsequently have increased beyond 67.

2019 Pension Agreement

The increase in the standard retirement age decided in 2015 was strongly criticised by insured persons and trade unions, as well as by academics. After lengthy negotiations involving the social partners and following consultation with the Social and Economic Council (Sociaal-Economische Raad, SER), the 2019 Dutch Pension Agreement was reached by consensus. The two major trade union federations, the Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging (FNV) and the Christelijk Nationaal Vakverbond (CNV), sought the approval of their members. These voted in favour of the compromise by a large majority (around 76 per cent in favour for the FNV and 79 per cent for the CNV).

Key elements of the pension agreement were that the retirement age was set at 66 years and 4 months up to and including 2021. In addition, the link to life expectancy was weakened: instead of a one-to-one adjustment, the retirement age has increased since 2022 by eight months for every additional year of life expectancy from 2022 onwards (that is a two-thirds link).

Role of the Socio-Economic Council

An important basis for the 2019 Pension Agreement was the incorporation of the expertise of the Socio-Economic Council (SER). This body advises the Dutch government and parliament on economic and social policy issues. Its members are appointed on a parity basis by employers, trade unions and the government. The SER’s report focused both on the financial sustainability of the pension system and on the social policy implications of raising the statutory retirement age.

Pension policy requires stability

Kim Putters, Chair of the SER, has criticised the government’s plan in the Committee on Social Affairs and Employment. He accused the governing parties of seeking to suddenly break a key provision of the 2019 pension agreement. He noted that this agreement had been finalised by consensus with the social partners following years of negotiations. Putters also emphasised that the two-thirds linkage had been agreed specifically for people in poor health or those in physically demanding jobs. Furthermore, he pointed out that pension policy requires stability. Following the presentation of the plans, the Jetten minority government is now seeking talks with opposition parties and social partners.

Digital Omnibus

Data protection authorities EDPB and EDPS issue joint opinions.

At the beginning of this year, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) and the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) adopted two joint opinions on the Digital Omnibus proposed by the European Commission in November 2025. A first joint opinion of 20 January concerns the Digital Omnibus on artificial intelligence (AI), while a second joint opinion of 10 February addresses the Digital Omnibus covering mainly data-related aspects, as well as cybersecurity and electronic identification.

AI Digital Omnibus: Support for regulatory sandboxes, criticism of high-risk rules

With regard to the Digital Omnibus on AI, the EDPB and the EDPS express a nuanced view. They welcome the establishment of AI regulatory sandboxes at EU level to foster innovation. In this context, they advocate granting the EDPB an advisory role and observer status in the European Artificial Intelligence Board in order to ensure a coherent approach to the design and supervision of regulatory sandboxes. The authorities also recommend maintaining the obligation for AI providers and deployers to ensure an adequate level of AI literacy among their staff.

At the same time, the EDPB and the EDPS are critical of several proposed amendments concerning high-risk AI systems. They oppose the envisaged exemption from the registration requirement for AI systems that fall within a high-risk category but are classified by their providers as “not high-risk”. In the view of both authorities, this would significantly weaken accountability and create incentives for providers to inappropriately claim exemptions in order to avoid public scrutiny. They also object to the proposed postponement of the dates of application for obligations relating to high-risk AI systems and call, in particular, for transparency requirements not to be delayed.

Digital Omnibus on data: Support for notification thresholds, criticism of definitional changes

With regard to the proposed Digital Omnibus in the area of data, the EDPB and the EDPS also identify both positive and negative elements. They welcome in particular the increase of the risk threshold triggering the obligation to notify a personal data breach to the competent supervisory authority, as well as the extension of the corresponding notification deadline. The proposed common templates and lists for personal data breaches and data protection impact assessments are likewise viewed positively.

However, the two authorities are critical of the proposed changes to the definition of personal data. In their assessment, these go beyond a purely technical amendment of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the existing case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Accordingly, they call on the European Parliament and the Council to refrain from adopting the proposed changes in the legislative process.

Outlook on the legislative process

In the European Parliament, rapporteurs for the two dossiers are currently being appointed. The process on the Digital Omnibus on AI is more advanced: rapporteurs Arba Kokalari (EPP, SE) and Michael McNamara (Renew, IE) from the jointly responsible Committees on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) and on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) have already presented a draft report. Particular urgency attaches to this file, as the Commission has proposed postponing the dates of application of the provisions on high-risk AI systems. Without an amendment through the Digital Omnibus on AI, those provisions would apply from August 2026.