part of the consultations on the AI White Paper, German Social Insurance has
already commented in detail on the opportunities and risks of the possible use
of AI in the social insurance and its administration in its Opinion.
the meantime, the EC has specified its position in a legal framework for AI
applications, not least with regard to applications in the public
administration context. In April, it presented its proposal for an
"Artificial Intelligence Act", COM (2021) 206 final, and once again
invited all interested parties to submit their comments. German Social
Insurance took the opportunity to submit its Opinion on 14 July 2021.
if AI is not currently being used in the social security sector - at least
nowhere with a high risk potential - this could change in the future, e.g.
through machine learning processes for supporting individual and case-specific
decisions. German Social Insurance is aware of the responsibility that this
entails. We, therefore, welcome clarification of the ethical and liability
issues that also surround the use of AI. However, there are still reservations
about defining AI too broadly. Only those technologies that actually replace
assessments and decisions that were previously genuinely reserved for humans
should be included in it.
Even inactive EU citizens have the right to health insurance in the host country - but the ECJ allows for the demand of an appropriate contribution
rights and social security for mobile "unemployed" EU citizens are a
"permanent issue" on the European agenda and they often end up before
the courts. This was also the case of an Italian national who moved to Latvia
and was neither gainfully employed nor was he receiving a pension. Now the
question was where did he hold health insurance: He was no longer in Italy, but
not yet established in Latvia.
is the kind of situation that the European legal system would like to avoid. At
first glance, the solution looks simple: Coordination Regulation No 883/2004,
and more precisely Article 11, Sentence 3e, assigns responsibility for social
security in such cases to the country of residence, which in this case is
Latvia. But then another regulation comes into play, the so-called "Free
Movement Directive" No. 2004/38. In Article 7, it allows unemployed EU
citizens to reside in another Member State only on condition that they have
sufficient resources and comprehensive sickness insurance cover. The purpose of
this provision is to avoid placing an excessive financial burden on the host
Member State. However, this means that the right of residence could founder due
to a lack of health insurance cover.
ECJ made a clear decision in its Judgement
of 15 July 2021 - C-535/19 to ensure that this does not happen. In cases
such as the present one, the host country must itself provide the immigrant
with the required health insurance cover, e.g. through access to a health
insurance fund or, as in the case of Latvia, through enrolment in the
state-funded public health system. Only one restriction applies: This does not
have to be done free-of-charge. In this respect, the ECJ deliberately accepts
possible unequal treatment between "local" (here: Latvian) and
immigrant EU citizens. However, the required contribution must not be
"disproportionate". This means: The host country must ensure
"that it is not unduly difficult for these citizens to meet those
ECJ has created a wide field for interpretation here, which will continue to
occupy the courts in the future.