Member States’ social security agreements with India
| Published date | 01 June 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1388262718771786 |
| Date | 01 June 2018 |
| Author | Pauline Melin |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
EJSS
Article
European Journal of Social Security
2018, Vol. 20(2) 173–187
Member States’ social
ª The Author(s) 2018
security agreements with
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
India: Lessons for the future
DOI: 10.1177/1388262718771786
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejs
of a common EU approach
Pauline Melin
Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
Abstract
In a 2012 Communication, the European Commission described the current approach to social
security coordination with third countries as ‘patchy’. The European Commission proposed to
address that patchiness by developing a common EU approach to social security coordination with
third countries whereby the Member States would cooperate more with each other when con-
cluding bilateral agreements with third countries. This article aims to explore the policy agenda of
the European Commission in that field by conducting a comparative legal analysis of the Member
States’ bilateral agreements with India. The idea behind the comparative legal analysis is to
determine whether (1) there are common grounds between the Member States’ approaches, and
(2) based on these common grounds, it is possible to suggest a common EU approach. India is
taken as a third-country case study due to its labour migration and investment potential for the
European Union. In addition, there are currently 12 Member State bilateral agreements with India
and no instrument at the EU level on social security coordination with India. Therefore, there is a
potential need for a common EU approach to social security coordination with India. Based on the
comparative legal analysis of the Member States’ bilateral agreements with India, this article ends by
outlining the content of a potential future common EU approach.
Keywords
Bilateral agreements, social security, coordination, EU common approach, international social
security
Corresponding author:
Pauline Melin, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
E-mail: pauline.melin@maastrichtuniversity.nl
174
European Journal of Social Security 20(2)
Introduction
With the continuing increase in international migration,1 guaranteeing the social security rights of
migrant workers is of the utmost importance. Social security coordination provides for a set of
rules for building bridges between social security systems in order to help secure the social security
rights of migrant workers.
Within the EU, social security coordination is regulated for EU citizens and their family
members moving between Member States (Regulation 883/20042 and its implementing Regulation
987/2009)3 as well as for third-country nationals moving between Member States (Regulation
1231/2010).4,5 This EU system of social security coordination is therefore solely applicable to
persons moving between Member States (situation of internal mobility).
However, for persons coming from outside the EU into the EU (situation of external mobility),
there is no uniform system of social security coordination. Instead, there is a patchwork of
instruments adopted either by the Member States or by the EU itself that apply to the social
security rights of third-country workers. As explained in the articles by Strban, Pennings and
Spiegel in this Special Issue, bilateral agreements concluded by Member States with third countries
are the oldest and the most common instruments on social security coordination. There are cur-
rently over 350 bilateral agreements between Member States and third countries.6 Besides these
national instruments, the EU has concluded some agreements with third countries on the mobility
of third-country nationals, including provisions on social security.7 For example, the Association
Council of the Turkey-EU Association Agreement has adopted Decision 3/80 on social security
coordination.8 In addition, the EU has adopted unilateral measures on migration such as the Blue
Card Directive9 and the Seasonal Workers Directive10 which contain provisions on equal treatment
with regard to social security.11 This patchwork of instruments results in a fragmented approach to
1. The UN reported that international migration is increasing with 222 million international migrants in 2010, 231.5
million in 2013, and 244 million in 2015. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (Population
Division), ‘International Migration 2013’: 1, available at http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migra
tion/publications/wallchart/docs/wallchart2013.pdf; United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs
(Population Division, ‘International Migration Report 2015, Highlights’: 5, available at http://www.un.org/en/devel
opment/desa/population/migration/publications/migrationreport/docs/MigrationReport2015_Highlights.pdf
2. Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of
social security systems (OJ 2004 L 200:1).
3. Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the
procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (OJ 2009 L 284:1).
4. Regulation No 1231/2010/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 extending Reg-
ulation No 883/2004/EC and Regulation No 987/2009/EC to nationals of third countries who are not already covered
by these Regulations solely on the ground of their nationality (OJ 2010 L 344:1).
5. See the contribution by Cornelissen in this Special Issue.
6. Verschueren (2016: 404); MISSOC (2013:19).
7. See the contribution by Eisele in this Special Issue.
8. Decision 3/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the application of the social security schemes of the
Member States of the European Communities to Turkish workers and members of their families (OJ 1983 C 110:60).
9. Directive 2009/50/EC on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purpose of highly
qualified employment (OJ 2009 L 155:17).
10. Directive 2014/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the conditions of entry
and residence of third-country nationals for the purpose of employment as seasonal workers (OJ 2014 L 94:375).
11. Verschueren explored these different Directives and their equal treatment provisions in his contribution to this Special
Issue.
Melin
175
EU social security coordination with third countries. In order to improve this fragmented approach,
the European Commission published a Communication in 2012 calling for a common EU approach
to be developed whereby the Member States would collaborate more when concluding social
security coordination agreements with third countries.12
The aim of this article is to explore whether there is any possibility for Member States to
collaborate more and, if there is such a possibility, what the content of a common EU approach
could entail. Consequently, the research question is: ‘Is a common EU approach to social
security coordination with India possible and if so, what could it contain?’. The method used
to determine whether there are common grounds for cooperation is the comparative legal anal-
ysis of Member States’ Social Security Agreements (SSAs). The idea behind the comparative
legal analysis is to assess whether there are common elements in the Member States’ SSAs.
Those elements would then constitute the basis for a future common approach to social security
coordination with third countries.
This article focuses on one third country, i.e. India, with whom Member States have concluded
SSAs. The decision to choose India was guided by the existing and future potential labour migra-
tion between India and the EU13 as well as the potential for Indian companies’ investment in the
EU, and vice versa.14 Currently, India has concluded social security bilateral agreements with 12
Member States: Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, France, Denmark, Hungary, Czech Republic,
Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Austria and Portugal. In that context, there is room for improve-
ment in achieving a common EU approach as other Member States might conclude SSAs with
India in the future and the current SSAs might need to be updated.
The comparative legal analysis conducted in this article concerns the 12 SSAs concluded
between the Member States and India. It focuses on the scope of the SSAs (material and personal
scope), as well as on what is considered to be the five fundamental principles of social security
coordination:15 i.e. equal treatment, export of benefits, aggregation of periods of insurance, deter-
mination of the law applicable and administrative cooperation.
Based on the comparative legal analysis, this article ends with a recommendation on what a
common EU approach to social security coordination with India could entail.
Comparative legal analysis of the Member State SSAs with India
Background of the bilateral agreements
To date, India has concluded bilateral agreements on social security with 12 Member States. The
first SSA signed by India with a Member State was with Belgium in 2006. The most recent SSA
concluded by India with a Member State was with Portugal; signed in 2013 and which entered into
12. European Commission, ‘Communication on the External Dimension of EU Social Security Coordination, 30 March
2012, COM (2012) 153.
13. India is currently the second most populated country in the world, behind China, with 1.3 billion people. By 2024, the
UN predicts that India will become the most populated country in the world and the UN expects India to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial