2004 (text with relevance for the EEA and Switzerland) - Hoofdinhoud

Kerngegevens
Tekst
Behandeld document
Meer informatie
EU Monitor

1. Kerngegevens

Documentdatum	16-12-2016
Publicatiedatum	17-12-2016
Kenmerk	15642/16 ADD 3
Van	Secretary-General of the European Commission, signed by Mr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Director
Externe link	origineel bericht
Originele document in PDF

2. Tekst

Council of the European Union Brussels, 16 December 2016 (OR. en)

15642/16

Interinstitutional File: ADD 3

2016/0397 (COD) i

SOC 812 EMPL 549 CODEC 1910

COVER NOTE

From: Secretary-General of the European Commission, signed by Mr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Director

date of receipt: 15 December 2016

To: Mr Jeppe TRANHOLM-MIKKELSEN, Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union

No. Cion doc.: SWD(2016) 460 final PART 2/6

Subject: COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Initiative to partially revise Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i of the European Parliament and of the Council on the coordination of social security

systems and its implementing Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 i Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i on the coordination of social security systems and regulation (EC) No 987/2009 i laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i (text with relevance for the EEA and Switzerland)

Delegations will find attached document SWD(2016) 460 final PART 2/6.

Encl.: SWD(2016) 460 final PART 2/6

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Strasbourg, 13.12.2016 SWD(2016) 460 final

PART 2/6

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Initiative to partially revise Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i of the European Parliament and of the Council on the coordination of social security systems and its implementing

Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 i

Accompanying the document

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council

amending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i on the coordination of social security systems and regulation (EC) No 987/2009 i laying down the procedure for implementing

Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i

(text with relevance for the EEA and Switzerland)

{COM(2016) 815 final i}

{SWD(2016) 461 final}

Table of Contents

1.

ANNEXE IV: ANALYTICAL MODELS USED………………………….........................3

2.ANNEX V: IMPACT ASSESSMENT STUDY LONG TERM CARE AND

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS…………… .......................................................................17

ANNEXE IV – Analytical models used in preparing the impact assessment

Several studies, using different analytical models and methodologies, have been used to prepare the impact assessments 1 . When reliable quantitative information on the totality of impacts of the proposed initiative was not available, the analysis has been mainly based on a qualitative assessment of cross-checked criteria. Since options on the coordination of long-term care benefits, coordination of unemployment benefits for frontier workers and export of unemployment benefits had been assessed in 2013-2014, an update with more recent and newly available data has been conducted in

2015 2 .

A general point in terms of data limitations is that some statistical treatment are based on citizenship (Labour force survey) and therefore identify EU mobile citizens/workers (those living/working in another country than their country of citizenship) – while other data (administrative data collection) are based on headcounts of case where citizenship is not collected and that therefore constitutes a broader definition of mobility , i.e. includes not only EU mobile citizens/workers but also nationals returning to their country of citizenship as well as third-country nationals moving between EU Member States. This means that, at least for the treatments based on the administrative data collection, the Impact assessment adopts a broad definition of mobility and does take into account that not only EU mobile citizens benefitting from coordination but also other groups, which also means that there is therefore no underestimation of the phenomenon when using those data.

Hereunder a detailed list of the analyticial models and methodologies which have been used by the different studies.

1.

Coordination of Long-Term Care benefits

HIVA

The fact there is no specific coordination regime and a common definition, made it difficult to collect data on LTC. Member States did not explicit collect data on LTC and had no common understanding of LTC benefits. Administrative data on LTC are only available in specific forms dealing with the coordination rules of the sickness chapter. The number of those insured for health care living in another country than the competent country – which sometimes includes long-term care or to which LTC-insurance is closely linked – can be calculated based on the number of PD S1. However, no data are currently collected on the number of PD S1 within the framework of the Administrative Commission. The number of PD S1 was estimated by the sum of 3 categories:

• Cross-border workers (and their family members);

• Retired former cross-border workers (and their family members);

• Other mobile pensioners (and their family members).

1 For a detailed description of the analytical models and the methodologies used in each studies, please refer to Annexes V-XIX, and XXVI

Firstly, by way of using the LFS, the number of cross-border workers were estimated. Secondly, we assumed in the calculation model that 20% of the cross-border workers will have an insured family member. Thirdly, to estimate the total number of retired former cross-border workers, we applied the percentage of cross-border workers on the labour market to the number of pensioners in 2013 and this by individual (former) working Member State and assumed that 1 in 5 retired cross-border workers always had worked in the same Member State of employment. Fourthly, an estimation of the number of migrant pensioners was calculated by using the LFS. Finally, we assumed in the calculation model that 25% of the pensioners will have also an insured family member. The sum of all these categories results in an estimate of the number of PD S1. As next step we have estimated the cross-border expenditure on long-term care in kind and in cash based on figures from the 2015 Ageing Report. Here we have applied the average LTC benefits in cash and in kind per dependent user. It is as mobile citizens (workers, pensioners, their family members) are using this system of LTC as if they were nationals. This involves a ‘potential’ overestimation of the number of users of crossborder LTC benefits and the related expenditure due to fact some Member States consider their LTC benefit as not exportable. At the same time these estimates assume a complete ‘take-up’ of rights by mobile citizens which will not be the case in the baseline scenario.

Deloitte

The data collection and analysis are focused on a representative sample of 14 Member States 3 . The sample of Member States covers seven of the eight welfare state models 4 (given their similarities,

the “new” Bismarck-oriented Mediterranean Member States –Malta and Cyprus- not included). The selection of the countries is primarily based on relevant mobility patterns and a balanced coverage in terms of types of the social security systems, more notably in the area of long-term care benefits.

Cluster Main features Countries

1.

Beveridge oriented Tax financed more flat rate, but at a United Kingdom, Ireland
lower level of social protection

2.

Beveridge oriented Tax financed, more flat rate, at a high Sweden, Denmark, Nordic countries level of social protection, more in kind Iceland, Norway,
benefits Finland

3.

Bismarck oriented More contribution financed, income Belgium, France,
related benefits, more in cash oriented, Austria, Germany, The at a high level, the so called ‘corporatist’ Netherlands, welfare state Luxemburg, Switzerland

4.

Bismarck oriented More contribution financed, income Spain, Portugal, Italy, Mediterranean related benefits, more in cash oriented, Greece

countries at a lower level of social protection

3 The 14 countries retained, as indicated in the table, are: Austria; Belgium; Denmark; Estonia; France; Germany; Poland; Luxemburg; the Netherlands; Romania; Spain; Slovakia; Sweden and the United Kingdom.

4 The fact that one or more States belong to the same welfare system does not imply that they will encounter the same problems in terms of the management of social security cases. The administration and the legislation in this area could diverge even within a specific model.

Cluster Main features Countries

5.

Beveridge oriented More oriented to neo-liberal welfare Estonia, Latvia, Baltic countries state regimes of Beveridge type Lithuania

6.

Bismarck oriented Mixture of Beveridge oriented neo Poland, Czech Republic,

Central/Eastern or liberal welfare state but with converging Hungary, Slovakia

Visegrad countries back to corporatist welfare state regime

7.

Bismarck oriented Evolving back to a corporatist welfare Romania, Bulgaria, South/East state regime, at a lower level of Croatia

Mediterranean & protection

Balkan countries

8.

New Bismarck oriented Cyprus, Malta, Slovenia Members states of

Mediterranean area

Two types of data sources were used during this study: secondary data (available literature and reports at EU and MS level, particularly the trESS reports; replies to the online public EC Consultation on the need to revise of the current rules; available statistical data with regard to mobility patterns and the use of LTC benefits in cross-border cases) and primary data, collected through interviews and a consultation of the stakeholders (findings from strategic interviews with DG EMPL officials; findings from interviews with stakeholders at EU level, e.g. European umbrella organisations; findings form interviews with key stakeholders at national level (health insurers, healthcare providers); replies to the EU-wide web-based survey among responsible public authorities; new, generated statistical data with regard to mobility patterns and the use of LTC benefits in cross-border cases; findings from the 13 workshops/group interviews and 8 phone interviews on the administrative costs and administrative burden related to the policy options).

2.

Unemployment benefits: coordination of unemployment benefits for frontier workers

HIVA

Based on Labour force Survey (LFS) data for 2013 and 2014, an estimation of the number of crossborder workers has been made. In the further analysis we considered all workers who worked in another country than the country of residence as cross-border workers. Workers who worked in a neighbouring country are considered as frontier workers. This is different from the legal definition. National unemployment rates from Eurostat were applied to the number of cross-border workers in order to estimate the number of unemployed cross-border workers. The unemployment rates of the country of last activity and not of the country of residence have been applied on the number of cross-border workers. In order to estimate the budgetary impact of the baseline scenario, the estimated number of unemployed cross-border workers are multiplied by the annual unemployment benefit per unemployed by taking into account the annual average duration of the payment of the unemployment benefit (on the basis of ESSPROS, Eurostat figures and the LFS).

Deloitte

The data collection and analysis are focused on a representative sample of 14 Member States 5 . The sample of Member States covers seven of the eight welfare state models 6 (given their similarities,

Cluster Main features Countries

1.

Beveridge oriented Tax financed more flat rate, but at a United Kingdom, Ireland
lower level of social protection

2.

Beveridge oriented Tax financed, more flat rate, at a high Sweden, Denmark, Nordic countries level of social protection, more in kind Iceland, Norway,
benefits Finland

3.

Bismarck oriented More contribution financed, income Belgium, France,
related benefits, more in cash oriented, Austria, Germany, The at a high level, the so called ‘corporatist’ Netherlands, welfare state Luxemburg, Switzerland

4.

Bismarck oriented More contribution financed, income Spain, Portugal, Italy, Mediterranean related benefits, more in cash oriented, Greece

countries at a lower level of social protection

5.

Beveridge oriented More oriented to neo-liberal welfare Estonia, Latvia, Baltic countries state regimes of Beveridge type Lithuania

6.

Bismarck oriented Mixture of Beveridge oriented neo Poland, Czech Republic,

Central/Eastern or liberal welfare state but with converging Hungary, Slovakia

Visegrad countries back to corporatist welfare state regime

7.

Bismarck oriented Evolving back to a corporatist welfare Romania, Bulgaria, South/East state regime, at a lower level of Croatia

Mediterranean &

5 The 14 countries retained, as indicated in the table, are: Austria; Belgium; Denmark; Estonia; France; Germany; Poland; Luxemburg; the Netherlands; Romania; Spain; Slovakia; Sweden and the United Kingdom.

6 The fact that one or more States belong to the same welfare system does not imply that they will encounter the same problems in terms of the management of social security cases. The administration and the legislation in this area could diverge even within a specific model.

Cluster Main features Countries

Balkan countries protection

8.

New Bismarck oriented Cyprus, Malta, Slovenia Members states of

Mediterranean area

Two types of data sources were used during this study: secondary data (available literature and reports at EU and MS level, particularly the trESS reports; replies to the online public EC Consultation on the need to revise of the current rules; available statistical data with regard to mobility patterns and the use of unemployment benefits in cross-border cases) and primary data, collected through interviews and a consultation of the stakeholders (findings from strategic interviews with DG EMPL officials; findings from interviews with stakeholders at EU level, e.g. European umbrella organisations; findings form interviews with key stakeholders at national level (public employment services); replies to the EU-wide web-based survey among responsible public authorities; new, generated statistical data with regard to mobility patterns and the use of unemployment benefits in cross-border cases; findings from the 13 workshops/group interviews and 8 phone interviews on the administrative costs and administrative burden related to the policy options).

3.

Unemployment benefits: export of unemployment benefits

HIVA

Figures for all EU-Member States on the export of unemployment benefits have become available via the administrative PD U2 Questionnaire launched within the framework of the Administrative Commission (for 2013). Additional data available for Belgium has been used to describe the impact of the prolongation period on finding a job abroad. Finally, figures of Eurostat (based on the LFS) were used to calculate the average duration of the unemployment period.

4.

Unemployment benefits: aggregation of unemployment benefits

HIVA (financial impact for Member States)

Based on the data from the administrative questionnaire on the aggregation of periods for unemployment the budgetary impact of the current rules and the different alternative options could be calculated. Member States had to provide a breakdown by Member State of origin and a breakdown by length of insurance. The reported cases have been multiplied by the annual average expenditure per unemployed person (also by taking into account the annual average duration of the payment of the unemployment benefit) in order to estimate the public unemployment spending. Option 4 (change of the calculation method) required more detailed information about the unemployed recent migrant worker’s salary. No information on the salary earned in the competent Member State as well as in the Member State of origin was collected via the administrative questionnaire. Therefore, wage data published by Eurostat have been used.

Brodolini (costs for public administrations)

The methodology for assessing the administrative costs and burden for the national administrations in the Member States handling cases of aggregation of unemployment benefits takes outset in the definition of administrative costs and burden provided by the EC Impact Assessment Guidelines. While doing this, we have adopted a broad definition of administrative information obligations – i.e. we have considered the costs of administrative tasks such as the determination of Member State of competence, the calculation of benefits, and the reimbursement and recovery of benefits in between Member States. In addition, we have looked into the administrative burden for the mobile EU- workers.

The calculations of the administrative costs for the national administrations are as illustrated in the below figure in principle simple. Firstly, the number of cases in the left-hand side of the figure are the annual cases currently registered in six case study Members States (Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, and the UK) – information that has been provided by the HIVA KU Leuven Research Institute for Work and Society via a data gathering exercise. In our main calculations, we assume that the number of cases does not change as a result of revisions to Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i. However, we do to illustrate the sensitivity of this assumption also show scenarios where we assume a change in the number of cases based on the results of Task 3 and 4, respectively, of this study.

Secondly, we calculate the unit costs for the national administration – i.e. the current administrative costs per case as well as the changed administrative costs per case as a result of the EU revisions. Such administrative costs per case clearly differ between cases, i.e. there will be easy cases only involving standard administrative tasks while other more complex cases will involve additional tasks. Hence, we estimate in practice average costs.

Calculation of administrative costs for national administrations

Most study resources were allocated to the estimation of the man-hours needed to carry out the administrative tasks. Such information is not available from official sources, and so we have gathered the information through interviews with national administrations in the six case study Member States. For this purpose, we identified the national administrations to interview, and we developed interview guides that was applied by our Member States experts/interviewers in the six case study Member States.

It must in this context be acknowledged that most of the man-hour estimates are based on a few interviews only. This is partly because there is often only a few national administrations that handle cases in each of the Member States, and partly because of limited interview resources. Hence, the premise for this analysis and so its results is the uncertainty associated with few assessments that, furthermore, mostly are based on the subjective assessments of the interviewees rather than on actual registrations of time spent on different administrative tasks.

Brodolini (secondary impacts)

The simulations used in the study aim at translating the implications of the proposed revisions into expected income changes. Assuming a connection between income differentials and the propensity to move among EU countries, a variation in mobility flows and in the dimension of the target population is estimated. Finally, taking into account the variation in the latter, the different level of benefits and the redistribution of competences between sending and receiving countries envisioned by the policy options, we give an estimate of the variation in expenditure for the aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits for the selected countries.

The variation both in mobility and in expenditure, are estimated in relation to the status quo scenario. This scenario is built on a virtual ‘baseline year’, with a defined level of mobility flows and a defined level of expenditure. The mobility flow is computed as the averages of the most recent values of annual bilateral mobility flows among the selected countries (7 MS for task 3 and 8 MS for task 4). The number of potential cases of aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits (the ‘target population’ of task 4) is computed by multiplying the status quo mobility flow registered from a given sending country to a given receiving country with the ratio of unemployed non-national EU28+EFTA individuals on the total number of non-national EU28+EFTA individuals in the given receiving country. Then, the aggregate expenditure is estimated by multiply the target population identified for the average values of the benefits in each selected MS.

It is assumed that the income differences observed in the status quo scenario – along with all other factors that the policy options do not have an impact on – generate the mobility observed in the status quo period both in terms of general mobility flows and in terms of dimension of target population. The influence of unemployment benefits on mobility is evaluated by calculating the change attributable to the various policy options on the amounts unemployment benefits paid in relation to the family income in the country of origin or in the country of previous residence.

Once the income change is calculated, we convert that change into a potential mobility effect, using a theoretical assumptions on the elasticity of migration flows to income changes, which relates elasticity to income differentials for each bilateral combination of countries. As a measure for earnings, we consider the net earnings (PPS-adjusted) of a single individuals without children at 100% of the average wage. Once elasticity is computed, the percentage of income change is translated into a mobility percentage change. The percentage of mobility change is then translated into a change in mobility flows and in potential target population by relating the calculated percentage change to the absolute number of mobile citizens in the status quo case, according to the policy options proposed.

In order to define the expenditure variations, we compute the present level of expenditure by multiplying the number of present potential cases of aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits by the average amount of unemployment benefits. We then observe the percentage variation of expenditure – total and related to each bilateral relation.

FreSsco (legal analysis)

FreSsco analytical impact assessment reports are based on the description of a specific problem of social security coordination and/or free movement of workers which arises in the application of EU law and which should be subjected to a legal analysis.

Immediately after receiving and confirming the mandate, thorough consideration is given to the selection of the team of experts entrusted with the analysis of the specific legal problem, one of whom is selected as the team coordinator. It is observed that their expertise is to the highest possible extent tailored to the subject matter of the analysis. In addition, two meetings between the experts are organised. One is arranged at the beginning of the task, in order to get acquainted with the task and allocate the responsibilities, and another one before the final results are presented, in order to come to an agreement with the final text. If the deadline, set by the mandate, is too pressing, only one meeting is organised. Nevertheless, in both cases, i.e. one or two meetings, intensive communication between the experts is guaranteed and facilitated during the analysis, mainly by the internal coordinator and the FreSsco management. Only by applying the dialectical method of testing various options, and confirming or rejecting ideas via discourse between the experts, can the best solutions be found. It goes without saying that better and faster results might be achieved when discussions occur inter preasentes and not inter absentes.

Regarding the report itself, first the existing application of EU law to a specific cross-border situation is presented. To this end, the existing legislative and non-legislative documents as well as decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and other bodies (like the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems) are taken into account. The historical method might be applied in order to discover the reasons for the present legislative solutions.

In the next step of the analysis several options – either enumerated in the mandate and/or discovered during the analysis – which might present a solution to a given problem are tested. Their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats are stressed. In some of the reports, for each of the possible solutions specific criteria are taken into account, such as clarity, simplicity, protection of rights, administrative burden and implementation arrangements, risk of fraud and abuse and potential financial implications.

To this end, not only the relevant EU law is taken into consideration, but other sources as well. These might include relevant literature and academic studies, reports and selected key policy documents of the EU and possibly of other international organisations.

Next to this comparison on an EU (and international) level, a vertical comparative method is applied in order to present the problems and test the solutions in (some or all, depending on the mandate) Member States. A horizontal comparative method at the national level is enabled by mapping the situation in several (or all) Member States.

Logical, grammatical and teleological methods of legal interpretation are relied upon as well.

Conclusions are as a rule drawn from the descriptive-analytical method of the research, which might prove useful for selecting the best policy options at national and EU level and for finding the most appropriate normative solutions de lege ferenda.

5.

Export of family benefits

HIVA (financial impact for Member States)

Data of the administrative questionnaire has been used to report figures on the baseline scenario.

Member States provided data on their export of family benefits and provided sometimes even more detailed data by the primarily or secondarily competence of the reporting Member State. By making use of the price level indices for consumer goods and services reported by EUROSTAT a correction coefficient between the exporting Member State and the Member State of residence of the child(ren) could be calculated in order to make an adjustment of the amount of exported family benefits to the cost of living in the Member State of residence of the child(ren). The scope of the administrative questionnaire was limited to the number of households and children who received a child benefit from a competent exporting Member State. However, for the calculation of one option (Option 3: Reverse order of competence) the complete reference group affected by the coordination of family benefits had to be taken into account. Also, more information on the average amount of the family benefit on the basis of ESSPROS was required as not all Member States had answered the administrative questionnaire.

Brodolini (costs for public administrations)

The methodology for assessing the administrative costs and burden for the national administrations in the Member States handling cases of export of family benefits takes outset in the definition of administrative costs and burden provided by the EC Impact Assessment Guidelines. While doing this, we have adopted a broad definition of administrative information obligations – i.e. we have considered the costs of administrative tasks such as the determination of Member State of competence, the calculation of benefits, and the reimbursement and recovery of benefits in between Member States. In addition, we have looked into the administrative burden for the mobile EU- citizens and their families.

Calculation of administrative costs for national administrations

Brodolini (secondary impacts)

The simulations used in the study aim at translating the implications of the proposed revisions into expected income changes. Assuming a connection between income differentials and the propensity to move among EU countries, a variation in mobility flows and in the dimension of the target population is estimated. Finally, taking into account the variation in the latter, the different level of benefits and the redistribution of competences between sending and receiving countries envisioned by the policy options, we give an estimate of the variation in expenditure for the export of family benefits for the selected countries.

The variation both in mobility and in expenditure, are estimated in relation to the status quo scenario. This scenario is built on a virtual ‘baseline year’, with a defined level of mobility flows and a defined level of expenditure. The mobility flow is computed as the averages of the most recent values of annual bilateral mobility flows among the selected countries (7 MS for task 3 and 8 MS for task 4). In the definition of the tartget population interested by the proposed revisions we made use of the HIVA study (Pacolet et al., 2015), which allows to identify, for each selected country, the total number of persons entitled to the export of child benefits. Then, the aggregate expenditure is estimated by multiply the target population identified for the average values of the benefits in each selected MS.

It is assumed that the income differences observed in the status quo scenario – along with all other factors that the policy options do not have an impact on – generate the mobility observed in the status quo period both in terms of general mobility flows and in terms of dimension of target population. The influence of family benefits on mobility is evaluated by calculating the change attributable to the various policy options on the amounts of family benefits paid in relation to the family income in the country of origin or in the country of previous residence.

Once the income change is calculated, we convert that change into a potential mobility effect, using a theoretical assumptions on the elasticity of migration flows to income changes, which relates elasticity to income differentials for each bilateral combination of countries. As a measure for earnings, we consider the net earnings (PPS-adjusted) of a one-earner married couple with two children at 100% of average wage. Once elasticity is computed, the percentage of income change is translated into a mobility percentage change. The percentage of mobility change is then translated into a change in mobility flows and in potential target population by relating the calculated percentage change to the absolute number of mobile citizens in the status quo case, according to the policy options proposed.

In order to define the expenditure variations, we compute the present level of expenditure by multiplying the number of present potential cases. We then observe the percentage variation of expenditure – total and related to each bilateral relation.

FreSsco (legal analysis)

Logical, grammatical and teleological methods of legal interpretation are relied upon as well.

6.

Access for economically inactive mobile EU citizens and jobseekers to certain social benefits

FreSsco (legal analysis focussed on access to SNCBs)

Logical, grammatical and teleological methods of legal interpretation are relied upon as well.

Access for economically inactive mobile EU citizens and jobseekers to certain social benefits

In relation to the option extending the derogation from the principle of equal treatment in relation to access to non-contributory family benefits, long-term care benefits and sickness benefits for economically inactive mobile EU citizens and jobseekers, as this was developed quite late in the process, data from the Labour Force Survey (LFS), ESSPROS and the 2015 Ageing report were used to estimate the affected population and economic impact (see Annex XXIV).

Annex V Study for an impact assessment for revision of Regulations (EC) Nos 883/2004 and (EC) Nos 987/2009

Study for an impact assessment for revision of Regulations (EC) Nos 883/2004 and 987/2009

VT/2008/87

Final report

6 December 2013

Richard Doherty, Benoît Vandresse, Steven Bulté, Miguel Bardaji Horno,

Michael Ulrich *

Jozef Pacolet, Frederic De Wispelaere**

*

Deloitte Consulting ** HIVA KU Leuven

COLOPHON

Title: Study for an impact assessment for revision of Regulations (EC) Nos 883/2004 i and

987/2009

Authors: Richard Doherty (Deloitte Consulting), Benoît Vandresse (Deloitte Consulting),

Steven Bulté (Deloitte Consulting), Miguel Bardaji Horno (Deloitte Consulting) , Michael Ulrich (Deloitte Consulting) , Jozef Pacolet (HIVA KU Leuven), Frederic De Wispelaere (HIVA KU Leuven),

National experts: Roland Eisen, Hans-Christian Mager and Jürgen Faik (Johann Wolfgang Goethe

Universität Frankfurt am Main,), Norman Wagner (Social Policy Unit in the Chamber of Labour,

Austria), Jan Edling (Flexicurity, Sweden), Eigil Boll Hansen (KORA, Danish Institute for Local and

Regional Government Research), Raphael Wittenberg (London School of Economics and Political

Science), Catalin Ghinararu (National Research Institute for Labour and Social Protection Romani),

Marek Radvansky (Institute of Economic Research (EU SAV), Slovakia), Jüri Kore (Tartu University),

Gregorio Rodríguez Cabrero (University of Alcalá), Dorota Kawiorska (Krakow University of

Economics), Franz Clément (Centre d'Etudes de Population, de Pauvreté et de Politiques Socio

Economiques, Luxembourg), Cristina-Maria Martin (Deloitte Romania), Filip Van Overmeiren (Laga

Belgium).

Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank DG EMPL for the research possibilities provided within this project and especially the department EMPL B4 and the Impact assessment steering group for their constructive, challenging and inspiring support for this work and the hospitality while discussing this and previous versions of the report.

Contents

1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 15

1.1 Purpose of the document .................................................................................... 15

1.2 Structure and content of the final report ............................................................. 15

2 STUDY OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................. 16

3 METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH ........................................................................ 17

3.1 In-depth analysis based on a sample of 14 Member States ................................ 17

3.2 Data sources ........................................................................................................ 20

3.2.1 Strategic interviews with DG EMPL officials and other key EC officials .............................................................................................. 20

3.2.2 Available literature ............................................................................ 20

3.2.3 Analysis of replies to the online EC public consultation .................. 21

3.2.4 EU-wide web-based survey among responsible public authorities and social security institutions .......................................................... 21

3.2.5 Interviews with key stakeholders at EU level ................................... 22

3.2.6 Country visits: data collection at national level ................................ 22

3.2.7 Available and newly generated statistical data .................................. 23

4 BASELINE SCENARIO ............................................................................................ 30

4.1 Coordination of unemployment benefits ............................................................ 32

4.1.1 Scale of cross-border mobility of workers in EU-27 ........................ 32

4.1.2 Aggregation of periods of employment/insurance/self-employment 39

4.1.3 Export of unemployment benefits ..................................................... 43

4.1.4 Estimated cros-border expenditure on unemployment benefits ........ 47

4.1.5 Reimbursement claims ...................................................................... 48

4.1.6 Estimated current administrative costs and burden ........................... 50

4.2 Coordination of long-term care benefits ............................................................. 61

4.2.1 Scale of cross-mobility of pensioners ............................................... 61

4.2.2 Number of persons insured for LTC ................................................. 63

4.2.3 Number of persons receiving LTC benefits in cash .......................... 64

4.2.4 Number of persons receiving LTC benefits in kind .......................... 66

4.2.5 Estimated number of PD S1 issued by category and estimated expenditure on LTC benefits ............................................................. 66

4.2.6 Estimated cross-border expenditure on healthcare and LTC ............ 73 4.2.7 Current estimated administrative costs and burden ........................... 83

4.3 Summary – Estimated current administrative cost - Baseline scenario .............. 87

5 PROBLEM DEFINITION .......................................................................................... 88

5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 88

5.2 Coordination of LTC benefits ............................................................................. 89

5.2.1 Problems of classification of long-term care benefits under EU law 91

5.2.2 Uneven application of coordination rules by Member States ........... 95

5.2.3 Gaps in social protection of mobile citizens ..................................... 96

5.2.4 Risk of double-payments for the same risk ....................................... 97

5.2.5 Instability of the current system of coordination of long-term care benefits .............................................................................................. 98

5.2.6 Citizens not sufficiently understanding their rights under EU law ... 98

5.2.7 Coordination of long-term care benefits: Problem tree ..................... 99

5.3 Coordination of unemployment benefits .......................................................... 101

5.3.1 Unawareness of rights of mobile workers among workers and public authorities ............................................................................. 107

5.3.2 EU rules not sufficiently taking into account changing job market conditions & Risk mobile workers enjoy less favourable conditions for reintegration into the labour market ......................... 107

5.3.3 Unbalances distribution of financial burden ................................... 108

5.3.4 Migrant workers receiving low returns on their contributions ........ 111

5.3.5 Risk of loss of rights to benefits ...................................................... 112

5.3.6 Barriers to job-seeking abroad ........................................................ 114

5.3.7 Uneven application of current coordination rules by Member States ............................................................................................... 115

5.3.8 Coordination of unemployment benefits: problem tree .................. 117

6 DESCRIPTION OF THE POLICY OBJECTIVES ................................................. 119

7 IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE POLICY OPTIONS ........................................ 124

7.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 124

7.2 Impact assessment criteria ................................................................................ 124

7.3 Scoring indicators ............................................................................................. 127

7.4 Coordination of long-term care benefits ........................................................... 128

7.4.1 Overview of possible options .......................................................... 128

7.4.2 Option A: Baseline scenario ............................................................ 128

7.4.3 Option B: Adoption of a safeguarding provision ensuring that a mobile person does not remain without any protection .................. 128

7.4.4 Option C1: Member State of residence provides long-term care benefits on the basis of its legislation .............................................. 131

7.4.5 Option C2: Competent Member State provides long-term care benefits to insured persons residing abroad (export) ....................... 137

7.4.6 Overview of impact assessed .......................................................... 140

7.5 Coordination of unemployment benefits .......................................................... 141

7.5.1 Overview of possible options .......................................................... 141

7.5.2 Option A: Baseline scenario ............................................................ 141

7.5.3 Option B: Right of choice for frontier workers (B)......................... 142

7.5.4 Option C: Unemployment benefits for all workers to be provided by the country of the last activity regardless of the person’s residence .......................................................................................... 147

7.5.5 Option D: Prolongation of the minimum period of export from 3 months to 6 months ......................................................................... 151

7.5.6 Option E: Clarification of the provision on the aggregation of periods of insurance, employment and self-employment ................ 157

7.5.7 Overview of the impact assessed..................................................... 162

8 COMPARISON OF THE OPTIONS ....................................................................... 163

8.1 Coordination of unemployment benefits .......................................................... 164

8.1.1 Overview ......................................................................................... 164

8.1.2 Budgetary impacts of the different options and likely reimbursement claims ...................................................................... 165

8.1.3 Administrative cost and burden of rules related to the aggregation of periods of insurance or (self-)employment ................................. 172

8.2 Coordination of LTC benefits ........................................................................... 176

8.2.1 Overview ......................................................................................... 176

8.2.2 Budgetary impact of the different options ....................................... 177

8.2.3 Administrative cost and burden of cross-border LTC in kind or in cash .................................................................................................. 182

9 SUMMARY OF THE CONCLUSIONS .................................................................. 184

9.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 184

9.2 Current situation ............................................................................................... 185

9.3 Current problems .............................................................................................. 186

9.3.1 Coordination of LTC benefits ......................................................... 186

9.3.2 Coordination of unemployment benefits ......................................... 186

9.4 Policy objectives ............................................................................................... 188

9.5 Impact assessment of the options ..................................................................... 189

9.5.1 Coordination of LTC benefits ......................................................... 189

9.5.2 Coordination of unemployment benefits ......................................... 192

10 ANNEXES .............................................................................................................. 196

10.1 Data collection: questionnaire ....................................................................... 196

10.1.1 Coordination of unemployment benefits: data collection ............... 196

10.1.2 Coordination of LTC benefits: data collection ................................ 213

10.2 Labour Force survey and other survey data .................................................. 222

10.3 Detailed tables on unemployment benefits ................................................... 231

10.3.1 Estimated annual expenditure baseline scenario and different options ............................................................................................. 231

10.3.2 Estimated reimbursement claims baseline scenario and different options ............................................................................................. 237

10.4 Detailed tables on long-term care .................................................................. 248

10.4.1 Estimated number of insured persons living in another country than the competent country ............................................................. 248

10.4.2 Estimations based on data from the Audit Board ............................ 254

10.4.3 Annual cross-border expenditure LTC benefits in kind and in cash257

10.5 Eurostat: inactivity rates ................................................................................ 263

10.6 List of national experts for the statistical data collection .............................. 265

10.7 Reliability limits LFS .................................................................................... 266

10.8 Analysis of the administrative burden ........................................................... 267

10.9 Analysis of online survey of national administrations and social security

institutions ..................................................................................................... 273

10.9.1 Coordination of unemployment benefits ......................................... 273

10.9.2 Coordination of LTC benefits ......................................................... 283

10.10 List of strategic interviews ............................................................................ 288

10.11 List of face-to-face interviews ....................................................................... 289

List of figures

Figure 1: Welfare state models ........................................................................................... 18 Figure 2: Applied methodology - LTC ................................................................................ 29

Figure 3: Applied methodology - UB .................................................................................. 29 Figure 4: Problem tree - coordination of LTC benefits ...................................................... 100

Figure 5 - Problem tree coordination of unemployment benefits ...................................... 118 Figure 6: Options - Coordination of LTC benefits ............................................................. 128

Figure 7: Coordination of unemployment benefits: considered policy options .................. 141 Figure 8: Current and future flow of documents applicable to the aggregation of periods. 267

Figure 9: Current and future flow of documents applicable to the export of UB ................ 267 Figure 10: Current and future flow of documents applicable to LTC ................................. 268

List of tables

Table 1 : Overview of data sources ..................................................................................... 20 Table 2: Overview of statistical data sources used: data availability and limitations ............ 28

Table 3: Synoptic overview of the scope of the cross border use of unemployment benefits and LTC benefits under scrutiny** ..................................................................................... 31

Table 4: Number of cross-border workers and frontier workers, EU-27, Average of 2010 & 2011, in .000 .................................................................................................................... 34

Table 5: Migrant workers (from 15 to 64 years) in 2011 by country of previous residence, EU-27 ................................................................................................................................ 35

Table 6: Estimated number of cross-border workers who will become unemployed, in .000 37 Table 7: Estimated number of recent mobile workers who will become unemployed ........... 38

Table 8: Estimated number of received PD U1 in the EU-27: 2010, 2015 & 2020 ................ 42 Table 9: Yearly estimated amount paid to unemployed persons who received a PD U1 2010,

2015 & 2020 (in EUR) ........................................................................................................ 43 Table 10: A projection of the number of export unemployment benefits (PD U2): 2010, 2015

&

2020 .............................................................................................................................. 46 Table 11: Number of jobseekers registered in EURES cv online and comparison with

estimated number of PD U2 certificates issued, by country of residence, in .000 ................ 47 Table 12: Estimated administrative Cost - PD U1 (‘received’), EU-27, EUR, 2010 ................ 54

Table 13: Estimated administrative Cost – PD U1 (‘issued’), Poland and Belgium, EUR, 2013 54

Table 14: Estimated administrative Cost –SED U004 ‘Salary Info’, SED U006 ‘Family Info’, Poland EUR, 2013 .............................................................................................................. 55

Table 15: Estimated administrative Cost –PD U2 (‘issued’), EU-27, EUR, 2010 .................... 56 Table 16: Estimated Administrative Cost – Competent employment service, SED U001, SED

U012, Poland, EUR, 2013 ................................................................................................... 57 Table 17: Estimated Administrative Cost – Employment service of the Member State where

the jobseeker has gone, PD U2 (‘process’), SED U007, SED U009, SED U010, PD U3 ‘issue’, SED U013, SED U028, Poland, EUR, 2013 ........................................................................... 58

Table 18: Estimated Administrative Cost, Member State of Residence, SED U020, SED U025, Poland, 2013 ..................................................................................................................... 59

Table 19: Estimated Administrative cost – Competent Member State, SED U021, SED U022, SED 023, SED U024, Poland, EUR, 2013 .............................................................................. 60

Table 20: Migrant pensioners (65 years or over) in 2011 by country of previous residence, EU-27 ................................................................................................................................ 62

Table 21: Estimated number of PD S1 issued by category of citizen, in .000 ....................... 70 Table 22: Estimated number of PD S1 issued/received, in .000 .......................................... 71 Table 23: Entropy and Herfindahl indexes of concentration of cross-border insured persons

by PD S1 ............................................................................................................................ 73 Table 24: Estimated LTC cross-border expenditure baseline scenario (in € billion), as % of

total spending and projections 2020 and 2030 .................................................................. 75 Table 25: % cross-border users LTC in kind or in cash of total population and average

amount per dependent person using LTC in kind or in cash (thousand €) ........................... 76 Table 26: Estimated number of cross-border users benefiting from LTC (in thousand) and

budget (in million €) .......................................................................................................... 77

Table 27: Estimated number of cross-border users from LTC in kind or in cash, projections 2020 and 2030 (in thousand)............................................................................................. 78

Table 28: Estimated LTC cross-border expenditure baseline scenario (in € .000), by country of residence* ..................................................................................................................... 79

Table 29: Estimated claims of LTC benefits in kind introduced in 2011, by debtor country, in .000 .............................................................................................................................. 82

Table 30: Estimated administrative cost - PD S1 'issued', EU-27, EUR, 2013, in 000 ........... 85 Table 31: Estimated administrative Cost – Competent Member State, E125, Poland, EUR,

2013 ................................................................................................................................. 86 Table 32: Estimated administrative Cost – Member State of residence, E125,

S1/E100/E107/E001, S001, Poland, EUR, 2013 .................................................................. 86 Table 33: Baseline scenario – estimated administrative cost: PD U1 (in €), PD U2 (in €), PD S1

(in € 000) .......................................................................................................................... 87 Table 34: General attitude towards need to change the current LTC coordination rules ...... 90

Table 35: Lack of common definition of LTC benefits under EU law - comparison of definitions ......................................................................................................................... 91

Table 36: Diversity of benefits that can/should be considered as LTC benefits in the MS & Benefits situated under different social security branches .................................................. 93

Table 37: Diversity of LTC benefits system: in cash, kind or both ....................................... 94 Table 38: Impact assessment criteria ............................................................................... 124

Table 39: Coordination of LTC benefits: overview of the impacts assessed per option ...... 140 Table 40: Coordination of unemployment benefits: overview of impact assessed per option

....................................................................................................................................... 162 Table 41: Comparison of the effectiveness, efficiency and coherence of the options

(baseline=1) .................................................................................................................... 164 Table 42: Total estimated yearly expenditure unemployment benefits for unemployed crossborder

workers (in € 000) ................................................................................................ 166 Table 43: Total estimated yearly expenditure unemployment benefits for unemployed crossborder

workers paid by the country of residence (in € 000) .............................................. 166 Table 44: Total estimated yearly expenditure unemployment benefits for unemployed crossborder

workers paid by the country of last activity (in € 000) ........................................... 167 Table 45: Total estimated yearly expenditure unemployment benefits for unemployed crossborder

workers - % proportion country of residence vs. country of last activity ................ 167 Table 46: Estimated reimbursement claims (scenario 3 months) for the baseline scenario and

the different options and the impact of the maximum boundary, in € 000 ....................... 169 Table 47: Summary estimated yearly expenditure on unemployment benefits and estimated

reimbursement claims (in million €) ................................................................................. 171 Table 48: Estimated number of unemployed cross-border workers and country responsible

for payment and reimbursement ...................................................................................... 174

Table 49: Estimated administrative cost aggregation of periods of insurance of (self)employment ................................................................................................................... 175

Table 50: Comparison of the effectiveness of the options (baseline scenario = 1) ............ 176 Table 51: Estimated number of cross-border users benefiting from LTC (in thousand) and

budget (in million €), Option where competent country is providing LTC benefits ............. 178 Table 52: Estimated number of cross-border users benefiting from LTC (in thousand) and

budget (in million €), Option where country of residence is providing LTC benefits .......... 179 Table 53: Estimated budgetary impact as debtor of baseline scenario and options where

country of residence or competent country are providing LTC benefits, breakdown LTC benefits in cash and in kind, in .000 € ............................................................................. 180

Table 54: Estimated % difference with baseline scenario (=100%) of options where country of residence or competent country are providing LTC benefits, breakdown LTC benefits in cash

and in kind, by debtor country ......................................................................................... 181 Table 55: Estimated administrative cost and burden baseline scenario and options where

country of residence or competent country are providing LTC benefits ............................. 183 Table 56: Synoptic overview of the scope of the cross border use of unemployment benefits

and LTC benefits under scrutiny** ................................................................................... 185 Table 57: Comparison of the effectiveness of the options (baseline scenario = 1) ............ 191

Table 58: Comparison of the effectiveness, efficiency and coherence of the options (baseline=1) .................................................................................................................... 195

Table 59: Number of unemployed persons that have been certified insurance or (self)employment periods completed in another Member State taken – number of received forms

(U1/E301) by Member State issuing a U1/E301 form ........................................................ 197 Table 60: Number of unemployed persons that have been certified insurance or (self)employment

periods completed in another Member State taken – number of unique unemployed persons by Member State issuing a U1/E301 form ....................................... 198

Table 61: Number of unemployed persons that have been certified insurance or (self-) employment periods completed in another Member State – number of received forms

(U1/E301) or number of unique unemployed persons by Member State issuing a U1/E301 form (summary) ............................................................................................................... 199 Table 62: Number of unemployed persons that have been certified insurance or (self)employment

periods completed in another Member State – estimation EU-27 ................. 200 Table 63: Total yearly amount of unemployment benefits paid to unemployment persons

who have certified periods from other Member States? ..................................................... 201 Table 64: Number of issued U1/E301 forms .................................................................... 202

Table 65: Number of unemployed persons who want to look for work in another Member State while continuing to receive unemployment benefits in the competent Member State –

number of requests ......................................................................................................... 203

Table 66: Number of unemployed persons who want to look for work in another Member State while continuing to receive unemployment benefits in the competent Member State –

number of requests of prolongation ................................................................................ 205 Table 67: Number of unemployed persons who want to look for work in another Member

State while continuing to receive unemployment benefits in the competent Member State – success rate ..................................................................................................................... 206

Table 68: Number of U2/E303 forms received .................................................................. 207 Table 69: number of unemployed persons who went to look for work in another Member

State while continuing to receive unemployment benefits in the competent Member State - estimation for the whole EU-27 ....................................................................................... 209

Table 70: Numbers of U3 forms issued and received ........................................................ 210 Table 71: Reimbursement of competent Member State to institutions of place of residence -

claims paid (as debtor - amount in EUR ........................................................................... 211 Table 72: Reimbursement of competent MS to institutions of place of residence - claims

received (as creditor) - amount in EUR ............................................................................. 212 Table 73: Number of persons (insured persons and family members) insured for LTC benefits

in kind and in cash who are living in another MS than the competent MS - status ............. 214 Table 74: Number of persons (insured persons and family members) insured for LTC benefits

in kind and in cash who are living in another MS than the competent MS .......................... 215 Table 75: Number of persons (insured persons and family members) receiving LTC benefits

in cash who are living in another MS than the competent MS – in cash ............................. 216 Table 76: Number of persons (insured persons and family members) receiving LTC benefits

in kind who are living in another MS than the competent MS – reporting country=debtor – in kind ................................................................................................................................. 217

Table 77: Number of persons (insured persons and family members) receiving LTC benefits in kind who are living in another MS than the competent MS – reporting country=creditor – in

kind ................................................................................................................................. 218 Table 78: Yearly cross-border expenditure related to LTC in cash? Reporting country =

debtor – in cash ............................................................................................................... 219 Table 79: Yearly cross-border expenditure related to LTC in kind – reporting country =

debtor – in kind ............................................................................................................... 220 Table 80: Yearly cross-border expenditure related to LTC in kind - reporting

country=creditor - in kind ............................................................................................... 221 Table 81: Number of cross-border workers (in .000), 2011 .............................................. 222

Table 82: Number of cross-border workers (in .000), 2010 .............................................. 223 Table 83: Average number of cross-border workers EU-27 (in 000), Average 2011 and 2010

....................................................................................................................................... 224 Table 84: Share in total number of incoming cross-border workers (as % of column total), by

country of residence, top 3 of incoming MS, average of 2011 and 2010, EU-27 ............... 226 Table 85: Share in total number of outgoing cross-border workers (as % of row total), by

country of employment, top 3 of outgoing MS, average of 2011 and 2010, EU-27 ........... 227

Table 86: PD A1 issued in reporting countries by destination, 2010, EU-27 (without SE as sending country) .............................................................................................................. 228

Table 87: PD A1 issued in reporting countries by destination (as % of row total), top 3 of sending countries, 2010, EU-27 (without SE as sending country) ..................................... 229

Table 88: PD A1 issued in reporting countries by destination (as % of column total), top 3 of destination countries, 2010, EU-27 (without SE as sending country) ................................ 230

Table 89: Baseline scenario: frontier workers return to country of residence and other crossborder workers have right to choose, scenario: 50% register in country of residence and 50%

register in country of employment, in € .000 ................................................................... 231 Table 90: Baseline scenario: frontier workers return to country of residence and other crossborder

workers have right to choose, scenario: rational decision, in € .000 ...................... 232 Table 91: Right to choose: All cross-border workers have right to choose, scenario: 50%

register in country of residence and 50% register in country of employment, in € .000 ..... 233 Table 92: Right to choose: All cross-border workers have right to choose, scenario: rational

decision, in € .000 ........................................................................................................... 234 Table 93: Stay in country of employment: All cross-border workers stay in the country of last

employment, in € .000 .................................................................................................... 235 Table 94: Return to country of residence: All cross-border workers return to their country of

residence, in € .000 ......................................................................................................... 236 Table 95: Baseline scenario: frontier workers return to country of residence and other crossborder

workers have right to choose, scenario: 50% register in country of residence and 50% register in country of employment – reimbursement claim of 3 months, in € .00 .............. 238

Table 96: Baseline scenario: frontier workers return to country of residence and other crossborder workers have right to choose, scenario: 50% register in country of residence and 50%

register in country of employment – actual payment, in € .000 ........................................ 239 Table 97: Baseline scenario: frontier workers return to country of residence and other crossborder

workers have right to choose, scenario: rational decision – reimbursement claim of 3 months, in € .000 ............................................................................................................ 240 Table 98: Baseline scenario: frontier workers return to country of residence and other crossborder

workers have right to choose, scenario: rational decision – actual payment, in € .000 ....................................................................................................................................... 241

Table 99: Baseline scenario: frontier workers return to country of residence and other crossborder workers have right to choose, 50% register in country of residence and 50% register

in country of employment – reimbursement claim of 3 months, in € .000......................... 242 Table 100: Right to choose: All cross-border workers have right to choose, scenario: 50%

register in country of residence and 50% register in country of employment – actual payment, in € .000 ......................................................................................................................... 243

Table 101: Right to choose: All cross-border workers have right to choose, scenario: rational

decision – reimbursement claim of 3 months, in € .000 ................................................... 244 Table 102: Right to choose: All cross-border workers have right to choose, scenario: rational

decision – actual payment, in € .000 ................................................................................ 245 Table 103: Return to country of residence: All cross-border workers return to their country

of residence – reimbursement claim of 3 months, in € .000 ............................................. 246 Table 104: Return to country of residence: All cross-border workers return to their country

of residence – actual payment, in € .000 .......................................................................... 247 Table 105: Number of insured incoming cross-border workers and their family members

(20%), in 000, average 2010 and 2011 ............................................................................. 248 Table 106: Number of insured retired cross-border workers and their family members (25%),

in 000 ............................................................................................................................. 249 Table 107: Number of insured migrant pensioners (number of persons aged 60 and older at

arrival and retired by country of birth), in 000, 2011 ........................................................ 250 Table 108: Number of insured migrant pensioners and their family members (25%), in 000,

2011 ............................................................................................................................... 251 Table 109: Share in total number of persons insured in another country than the country of

residence (as % of row total), top 3 of competent MS ........................................................ 252 Table 110: Share in total number of persons living in another country than the competent

country (as % of column total), top 3 of MS of residence ................................................... 253 Table 111: Claims on health introduced in 2011 by creditor countries ............................. 254

Table 112: Outstanding health claims on 31/12/2011 by creditor and debtor country as new health claims introduced in 2011, in € .000 ..................................................................... 255

Table 113: Estimate of new claims introduced in 2011 (health including LTC) by debtor and creditor countries (based on outstanding claims), in €. 000 ............................................. 256

Table 114: Cross-border expenditure LTC benefits in kind, based on LTC spending per capita of the country of residence, in € 000 ..................................................................... 257

Table 115: Cross-border expenditure LTC benefits in kind, based on LTC spending per capita of the competent country, in € 000 ........................................................................ 258 Table 116: Cross-border expenditure LTC benefits in cash, based on LTC spending per

capita of the country of residence, in € 000 ..................................................................... 259 Table 117: Cross-border expenditure LTC benefits in cash, based on LTC spending per

capita of the competent country, in € 000 ........................................................................ 260 Table 118: Cross-border expenditure LTC benefits in cash, based on LTC spending per

capita of the country of residence, in € 000 ..................................................................... 261 Table 119: Cross-border expenditure LTC benefits in kind and in cash, based on LTC

spending per capita of the competent country, in € 000 .................................................. 262

Table 120: Inactivity rates (inactive population as a percentage of the total population, from 20 to 64 years, quarterly figures ...................................................................................... 263

Table 121: Statistical data collection: list of national experts ............................................ 265 Table 122: Reliability limits Labour Force Survey, 2012 .................................................... 266

Table 123: Administrative burden – aggregation of periods – baseline scenario - Case: Belgium ........................................................................................................................... 269

Table 124: Administrative burden – export of UB – baseline scenario - Case: Belgium ...... 270 Table 125: Administrative burden – LTC benefits in kind – baseline scenario - Case: Belgium

....................................................................................................................................... 271 Table 126: Administrative burden – LTC benefits in cash – baseline scenario - Case: Belgium

....................................................................................................................................... 272 Table 127: Profile of respondent – unemployment benefits survey - by MS ...................... 273

Table 128: With which countries do you mostly exchange information (top-3)? ................ 275 Table 129: Opinions on likely impacts of the options - unemployment benefits ............... 276

Table 130: Opinions on impacts of options (export of unemployment benefits) - unemployment benefits ................................................................................................... 277

Table 131: Export of unemployment benefits - current practices ..................................... 278 Table 132: Opinions on the need for physical presence while job seeking ........................ 279

Table 133: Opinions on communication with other MS – unemployment benefits ............. 280 Table 134: Opinions on need to reform coordination rules - unemployment benefits ....... 281

Table 135: Profile of respondent – LTC benefits survey - by MS ....................................... 283 Table 136: options on competent MS for provision of LTC benefits .................................. 284

Table 137: Opinions on impacts of the different LTC options ........................................... 284 Table 138: Opinions on fair burden sharing of the financial burden between Member States

....................................................................................................................................... 285 Table 139: Opinion on functioning of communication between MS - LTC ......................... 286

Table 140: Opinions on the need to reform the current LTC coordination rules ................ 286 Table 141: Main problem regarding application of LTC coordination rules........................ 286

1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the document

This is Deloitte’s and HIVA’s report to the European Commission, DG EMPL with regard to the “Study for an impact assessment for revision of Regulations (EC) Nos 883/2004 i and 987/2009”.

1.2 Structure and content of the final report

We have structured the final report as follows:

Chapter 1 includes a short introduction to the final report;

Chapter 2 outlines the objectives of this study;

Chapter 3 recalls the methodology that we have used for this study;

Chapter 4 presents the current situation with regard to the coordination of LTC and unemployment benefits. We focus specifically on the scale of potentially affected people and the most common mobility patterns

Chapter 5 contains a definition of the problems under the current rules that were identified for both the coordination of unemployment benefits and the coordination of long-term care benefits.

In chapter 6, we describe the policy objectives that the Commission aims to achieve with the coordination of LTC and unemployment benefits.

Chapter 7 aims to describe the likely qualitative and quantitative impacts of the various policy options in relation to the baseline scenario.

In Chapter 8, we provide an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the various policy options according to three meta-criteria: efficiency, effectiveness and coherence.

Chapter 9 contains a summary of the main conclusions of this study (we have also produced this summary in a separate standalone document).

Chapter 10 contains the annexes attached to this final report.

2 Study objectives

The overall objective of the study consists in evaluating the social and economic impacts of a limited number of policy options for a revision of the EU rules in the area of free movement of workers and social security coordination. These rules concern in particular Articles 21, 45 and 48 of the Treaty and Regulations (EC) N°s 883/2004 and 987/2009. The study focuses on the rules on coordination of long-term care benefits and unemployment benefits.

The following tasks were carried out by the research team:

The collection of socio-economic data for determining the scale of the identified problems and the baseline scenario in the area of coordination of social security schemes, in particular with regard to the coordination of long-term care and unemployment benefits. The study should provide the evidence-based description of the baseline scenario and focus on providing supporting data, providing input for the verification of the intervention logic.

A description of the qualitative and quantitative impacts of the policy options.

Comparison of the policy options.

Providing support in the process of stakeholders' consultation, namely to:

o evaluate results of the public consultation (online questionnaire launched

online in all EU languages by the EC on 5/12/2013 and closed on 5/3/2013)

o carry out and evaluate results of a consultation of organisations & networks

operating in cross-border regions

o carry out and evaluate results of a consultation of national institutions and

administrations (e.g. employment services, health services).

3 Methodological approach

3.1 In-depth analysis based on a sample of 14 Member States

The data collection and analysis are focused on a representative sample of 14 Member States. The selection of the countries is primarily based on relevant mobility patterns and a balanced coverage in terms of types of the social security systems, more notably in the area of unemployment and longterm care benefits.

Existing research on the welfare state and the social protection for dependent older persons (longterm care) has shown that a characterisation along the lines of more Bismarck-oriented and more

Beveridge oriented welfare states remains fruitful 7 .

Bismarck-oriented models are characterized by income-based contributions earmarked to specific funds destined to cover concrete social risks. They are usually tightly linked to the employment system (contributions made by the employer and/or the employee, and benefits limited to the contributor and his/her family; besides, the job employment sector often determines the corresponding insurance fund).

Beveridge-oriented models, on their side, are based on the idea of universal coverage against the main social risks, providing access to all the citizens. The Nordic countries and the UK represent this approach, though universal coverage became the guiding

principle in all European countries during the second half of the 20 th Century. Some

of the “new” Member States, which mainly followed Beveridge-oriented models

during the second half of the 20 th Century, are shifting to a “Bismarck”-oriented

model since the 90s.

The system of social protection in the EU is characterized by welfare pluralism. Member States aim at the same or similar goals, however making use of different implementation mechanisms and institutions. Although the differences between social security models are blurring and each country has its own specificities, eight groups or clusters of Member States can be distinguished following their Bismarck/Beveridge orientation. Four models can be differentiated among the “old” Member States (EU-15); similarly, four models can be identified among the “new” Member States.

In spite of the apparent convergence, welfare state regimes remain rooted in history are path depending that determines further directions for new branches of social protection, like long-term care. Those typologies of welfare state regimes seem to be clustered also geographically, and are characterised also by differences in the development of the welfare state (at a higher or lower level), coupled with higher or lower levels of economic development (GDP) and more or less oriented to in cash or in kind benefits. Those dimensions substantially influence the flows of funds related to the social protection of mobile citizens. The apparent geographic clustering seems also to be confirmed

7 See Pacolet J. and Coudron V., 2006 “State of the Welfare State in the EU Anno 1992: Ten years later and with ten new Member States. Welfare State trend spotting”, in Pacolet J., Ed. (2006). L'Etat de l'Etat-providence dans l'UE en 1992 et dix ans plus tard avec dix nouveaux Etats membres. (Pacolet, J., Ed.). La Revue Belge de Sécurité Sociale.

by labour market mobility 8 . Those typologies appear in similar form in most of the comparative studies of welfare state regimes. 9 Furthermore, research on unemployment systems has yielded similar clusters of countries 10 .

For these reasons, we have decided to use the same sample of countries for both areas (long-term care and unemployment). We selected from each of those regimes one or more countries to cover the welfare state pluralism in Europe. The distinction between old and new will disappear, but we retain it for this study because of the still relative recent occurrence of the enlargement and because of the difference in economic development between both at this point of time.

Figure 1: Welfare state models

Beveridge oriented Nordic countries

Beveridge oriented

Bismarck oriented

Bismarck oriented Mediterranean

Beveridge oriented Baltic countries

Bismarck oriented Central/Eastern or Visegrad countries

New Bismarck oriented Members states of Mediterranean area

Bismarck oriented South/East Mediterranean & Balkan countries

8 European Commission, Posting of Workers in the European Union and EFTA countries: Report on E101 certificates issued in 2010 and 2011.

9 Delsen, L. & Pacolet J. (2011), ‘Globalisation and national social security systems’, in M. De Clercq, J.Albrecht & T. Verbeke (eds.), Global policy in Europe. Local policy for a global market: competition or coordination within the EU?, 29 th Scientific Economic Congres, Acco, Leuven.

10 See, for instance, the “Benchmarking Unemployment Benefit System” paper published by DG ECFIN in May 2012. Though small differences exist, such as the grouping of Cyprus, Malta, Ireland and the UK, the clustering is essentially the same. The only other relevant difference involves Greece, which is grouped with Central and Eastern countries instead of with Southern/Mediterranean countries, but it will be not covered by this study.

Cluster Main features Countries

9.
Beveridge oriented Tax financed more flat rate, but at a United Kingdom, Ireland
lower level of social protection
- 10.
  
  Beveridge oriented Tax financed, more flat rate, at a high Sweden, Denmark,
Nordic countries level of social protection, more in kind Iceland, Norway,

benefits Finland
- 11.
  
  Bismarck oriented More contribution financed, income Belgium, France,
  related benefits, more in cash oriented, Austria, Germany, The at a high level, the so called ‘corporatist’ Netherlands, welfare state Luxemburg, Switzerland

12.
Bismarck oriented More contribution financed, income Spain, Portugal, Italy,
Mediterranean related benefits, more in cash oriented, Greece

countries at a lower level of social protection
- 13.
  
  Beveridge oriented More oriented to neo-liberal welfare Estonia, Latvia,
Baltic countries state regimes of Beveridge type Lithuania

14.

Bismarck oriented Mixture of Beveridge oriented neo Poland, Czech Republic,

Central/Eastern or liberal welfare state but with converging Hungary, Slovakia

Visegrad countries back to corporatist welfare state regime

15.

Bismarck oriented Evolving back to a corporatist welfare Romania, Bulgaria,

South/East state regime, at a lower level of Croatia

Mediterranean &

Balkan countries protection

16.

New Bismarck oriented Cyprus, Malta, Slovenia Members states of

Mediterranean area

Source: Pacolet J. and Coudron V., 2006 “State of the Welfare State in the EU Anno 1992: Ten years later and with ten new Member States. Welfare State trend spotting”, in Pacolet J., Ed. (2006). L'Etat de l'Etat-providence dans l'UE en 1992 et dix ans plus tard avec dix nouveaux Etats membres. (Pacolet, J., Ed.). La Revue Belge de Sécurité Sociale

The 14 countries retained, as indicated in the previous table, are: Austria, Belgium, Denmark,

Estonia, France, Germany, Poland, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Romania, Spain, Slovakia, Sweden and United Kingdom.

With the aim of ensuring the representativeness and robustness of the impact analysis, which according to the Terms of Reference may be done by clusters of countries, our sample of Member States covers seven of the eight welfare state models (given their similarities, the “new” Bismarckoriented Mediterranean Member States –Malta and Cyprus- not included).

The allocation of a country to a specific model (Beveridge or Bismarck-oriented) does not necessarily imply that this country will have the same problems in terms of the management of social security cases compared to the other countries allocated to this specific model. The administration and the legislation in this area could diverge even within a specific model.

We account as well, in the country selection, labour mobility trends. With the selection of those countries we include at least 80% of both the outgoing and ingoing cross-border working citizens in the EU-27. In terms of population, our sample accounts for around 75% of the EU-27 population (cf. from Table 83 until Table 88).

3.2 Data sources

Two types of data sources were used during this study:

secondary data, in particular existing statistical data; primary data, collected through interviews and a consultation of the stakeholders.

Table 1 : Overview of data sources

Data types Secondary Primary

Qualitative 1. Available literature and 1. Findings from strategic interviews with DG reports at EU and MS level, EMPL officials;

particularly the trESS reports 2. Findings from interviews with

2.
Replies to the online public stakeholders at EU level, e.g. European EC Consultation on the umbrella organisations (cf. list of consulted need to revise of the current organisations)
rules 11 3. Findings form interviews with key stakeholders at national level (during country visits: public employment services, health insurers, healthcare providers;
- 4.
  
  Replies to the EU-wide web-based survey among responsible public authorities (Annex 10.9)

Quantitative 1. Available statistical data 1. New, generated statistical data with with regard to mobility regard to mobility patterns and the use of patterns and the use of LTC LTC benefits and unemployment benefits in benefits and unemployment cross-border cases

benefits in cross-border cases 2. Findings from the 13 workshops/group interviews and 8 phone interviews on the administrative costs and administrative burden related to the policy options (during the country visits).

3.2.1 Strategic interviews with DG EMPL officials and other key EC officials

In the initial stage of the study, we conducted 5 face-to-face interviews with EC officials within DG EMPL and DG ECFIN. The interviews with DG EMPL officials served to acquire more detailed knowledge concerning the contextual environment of the study. DG ECFIN officials assisted us in identifying relevant data from the Labour Force Survey (LSF) and the Ageing Working Group that was used for this study. These interviews also led to the transfer of relevant documents to the contractor.

The list of conducted strategic interviews can be found in Annex 10.10

11 http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=699&consultId=12&furtherConsult=yes

3.2.2 Available literature

For this study, we made use of a wide ranging and comprehensive desk based research. It encompassed a comprehensive review of available literature on both topics (coordination of longterm care benefits and of unemployment benefit systems) and its implications for mobile workers at EU level. Review of available literature on the subject provided input into three main issues: the underlying causes of the problems that provide the focus for the regulations on the coordination of long-term care benefits and unemployment benefits at EU level;

the description of the problem situation and of the policy objectives;

the impact of the “baseline scenario” of continuity with the current situation.

Literature that was part of the scope of the review included:

Communications, resolutions and legislation at EU level, i.e. Regulation (EC) N° 883/2004 and Implementing Regulation N°987/2009 on the coordination of social security systems, 30.10.2009

Relevant Court of Justice rulings (cf. Chapter: Context); Reports and studies at EU level, including the work conducted by the TrESS network; Reports and studies at national level.

3.2.3 Analysis of replies to the online EC public consultation

The European Commission launched on the 5 th December 2012 a public consultation

(http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=699&consultId=12&furtherConsult=yes) addressed to:

All EU and non-EU citizens who are insured under the social security system of an EU or EEA/EFTA Member State.

Any public and private organisations with activities in an EU or EEA/EFTA Member State.

The objective of the consultation was to collect opinions and experience in the area of coordination of unemployment and long-term care benefits for persons who are in a cross-border situation. Furthermore, opinions on possible policy options and further ideas on how to remove existing problems or obstacles in these areas were gathered.

We were asked to analyse and exhaustively report the replies to the EC public consultation. The consultation received 299 online (+3 email) replies across the EU and EEA/EFTA states. 199 were from individuals and 103 on behalf of an organisation or as specialists. In addition, three other stakeholders did not fill out the online questionnaire, but sent their opinions separately by e-mail. By nationality, Spanish were the most numerous among individual respondents, accounting for 26.6% of the responses. No replies were received from Cyprus, Denmark, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta and Switzerland.

The analysis of the public consultation replies is considered a stand-alone document, in line with the ToR. It was submitted to the European Commission before the finalisation of the final report.

3.2.4 EU-wide web-based survey among responsible public authorities and social security institutions

In order to expand the scope of our analysis to all EU and EEA countries, we launched a web-based survey among the responsible national public authorities and other key actors with regard to both topics. The Commission sent an invitation to the members of the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security systems in December 2012. After several reminders and prolongation of the deadlines, we finally closed the survey on the 28 February 2013.

We received 81 complete replies to our survey:

No answers at all were received from the following countries: Bulgaria, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.

59 respondents have only filled in the survey on unemployment benefits. 10 respondents have only filled in the survey on long-term care benefits. 12 respondents have filled in both surveys on unemployment and long-term care benefits.

In addition, we received 67 incomplete replies. The incomplete replies were not taken into account in the survey analysis (in the figures and tables) to avoid double counting. However, relevant and useful information, examples or arguments from these incomplete replies were taken into account in the impact analysis.

On top of the countries that have not participated at all in the survey, we have no answer from BE,

CY, DK, FR, IE, PT, RO, CH and UK for the questions on LTC. Among these countries, the UK public officials expressed their intention of submitting a reply during the meetings held with them after the survey’s deadline. Belgian authorities also expressed in mid-March their intention to provide a reply.

On top of the countries that have not participated at all in the survey, we have no answer from SV for the questions on unemployment benefits.

Some countries from which we have received several completed questionnaire are overrepresented in the aggregated results. Therefore, the analysis of the aggregate results was complemented by the analysis of national replies when necessary.

The analysis of the on-line survey can be found in Annex 10.9 to the final report.

3.2.5 Interviews with key stakeholders at EU level

In order to complement the EC public consultation (and to address stakeholders that have not replied to the public consultation), a number of face-to-face interviews were conducted with stakeholder parties that are organised at EU level. We particularly addressed: We will particularly addressed:

networks operating in cross-border regions; social partners organised at EU level;

civil society organisations at EU level.

The list of interviews with stakeholders at EU level can be found in Annex 10.10 to the final report.

3.2.6 Country visits: data collection at national level

In order to assess the impacts of the policy options, we organised country visits in the 14 countries of our sample. During these field visits, we met the key stakeholders and affected actors in the field of long-term care benefits and unemployment benefits. The field research was conducted by Deloitte and HIVA staff, supported by academic experts with a good knowledge of the national context. A country visit usually took 3 to 6 working days depending on the availabilities of the interviewees. Country visits consisted of interviews with responsible public authorities and other interested parties (depending on the specificities of the national context) and where feasible in the time-frame of our visits, workshops to be able to assess the administrative costs and administrative burden related to each of the policy options that are being considered. We have privileged face-to-face interviews or group interviews but after our visits in the countries we have had also the opportunity to come-back to some interviewees by phone in order to complete our information.

3.2.6.1 Face-to face interviews with key stakeholders

For both topics (LTC and unemployment benefits), 5-8 key stakeholders at national level were consulted. In total, we have conducted more than 100 relevant interviews with stakeholders in these 14 Member States.

Interviews with these people fed the problem definition and generated anecdotic evidence and examples and helped us to assess the likely impacts of the different policy options (for example, with regard to the impact on the level of social security coverage of affected persons, changes in administrative burden and costs, impact on the budgets of Member States, expected changes in the EU internal market, etc.).

The (type of) stakeholders differed from country to country and per topic. We consulted:

National, (regional or local) institutions and administrations, particularly the public employment services (coordination of unemployment benefits) and healthcare services (coordination of long-term care benefits).

Health insurers (coordination of long-term care benefits); Social partners (coordination of unemployment benefits);

Civil society organisations operating in cross-border regions.

The face-to-face interviews were based on a semi-structured questionnaire that was prepared by the core team in advance.

Please find a list of interviews (per country) in Annex 10.10 to the final report.

3.2.6.1 Workshops/group interviews on administrative burden on administrations

In order to assess the administrative burden and administrative costs related to the baseline scenario and each of the different policy options, we aimed to organise a one-day workshop per topic (coordination of long-term care benefits and coordination of unemployment benefits) and per country. We used face-to-face interviews and group interviews, where we faced availability or practical difficulties or where we have been referred to only a limited number of key persons that could help us further.

For the assessment of the administrative burden and costs, we used the Standard Cost Model, as requested by the ToR (more detail cf. 4.1.6 – baseline scenario).

The Standard Cost Model (SCM) serves as a useful tool for assessing the administrative cost and administrative burden stemming from Information Obligations (IOs) imposed by a Regulation. We have applied the SCM for assessing the administrative cost and administrative burden of the management of a cross-border case of unemployment benefits.

In our approach, we measured the time (T) the national administrations and stakeholders spent on the information obligations (IO) imposed by the Regulations on cross-border cases. Once we have defined the time spent on each IO, we have multiplied the (average) time by the hourly tariff (W) of those involved in meeting the information obligation (administrative staff). For consistency and comparability with other SCM assessments of EU regulation, the tariff variable used in this study is based on hourly labour costs (plus overheads) per category of employment that has previously been

used in recent SCM studies for DG EMPL 12 and our recent Impact Assessment studies we have

conducted for the Commission. We have applied an average tariff/hour of 18€. The multiplication of the average tariff by the time spent on the IO results in an estimated cost per unit. Then, we have multiplied the estimated cost per unit by the amount of cases per year (N). The following formula summarizes our approach:

N x W x T

3.2.7 Available and newly generated statistical data

The following data sources were exploited to obtain a detailed quantitative view on the baseline scenario of the coordination of unemployment benefits and LTC benefits:

Replies to our own questionnaire on LTC and unemployment benefits. The data

collection was conducted in 14 Member States by national experts 13 ;

The EU Labour Force Survey (LFS);

The EC 2012 Ageing Report 14 ; Other databases from Eurostat (e.g. Eurostat migration statistics 15 and ESSPROS 16 );

Other data sources (e.g. national reports, EU publications, Audit Board Report).

Replies to our own questionnaire on LTC and unemployment benefits by national experts

First, in order to describe and assess the baseline scenario, we deployed a network of national researchers in 14 Member States (Table 121). Their task was to contact the responsible national administrations in order to collect statistical data with regard to a significant number of indicators in the areas of LTC and unemployment benefits. The reporting format for this data collection contained an Excel-file. A manual was provided to the national experts, including a short description of the objectives of the study and of the coordination legislation, more specific concerning the applicable rules on the coordination of unemployment and long-term care benefits. In the annex of the manual, a list with specific LTC benefits by Member State - defined by trESS 17 and based on the MISSOC-

12 For instance: Review of the Working Time Directive 2003/88/EC i: measuring administrative costs and burdens of various possible options. Economisti Associati srl, 21/12/2011

13 For an overview of the national experts see Annex 10.6.

14 EC (2012), The 2012 Ageing Report. Economic and budgetary projections for the 27 EU Member States (2010-2060), European Union, 470 p. See also Statistical Annex. http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2012/2012-ageingreport_en.htm

15 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Migration_and_migrant_population_statistics#Database 16 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Glossary:ESSPROS 17 Jorens, Y., Spiegel, B., Fillon, J. & Stroban, G. (2012), Legal impact assessment for the revision of Regulation 883/2004 i with regard to the

coordination of long-term care benefits. Analytical Study 2012, trESS, 156 p.

tables 18 - was provided. Also, possible contact persons sitting in the Administrative Commission or

the Audit Board were provided. The questionnaire referred explicitly to the old E-forms and current

Portable Documents (PD) 19 and Structured Electronic Documents (SED) 20 in order to obtain a similar understanding of the data needs. In the analysis below we refer frequently to these documents.

Therefore, we first give a short definition/description of the Portable Documents we refer to: 21

PD U1 certificate: “The PD U1 certifies periods of insurance and employment or selfemployment in another EU country that will be taken into account for the award of unemployment benefits”;

PD U2 certificate: “The PD U2 is the authorization you need to export your unemployment benefit if you are unemployed in an EU country and wish to move to another EU country to look for work”;

PD S1 certificate: “The S1 form allows you (and/or your family members) to register for healthcare if you live in an EU country but you are insured in a different one. The form is delivered per person (not per family)”;

PD P1 certificate: “The P1 form provides an overview of the decisions taken in your case by the various institutions in the EU countries from which you have claimed an old age, survivors or invalidity pension. The information on the P1 is intended to enable you to examine whether any of your pensions have been adversely affected by the interaction of decisions taken by two or more institutions”.

EU Labour Force Survey (LFS)

Second, we relied on data from the EU Labour Force Survey (LFS). The LFS is the main source of information with regard to the labour market situation and labour market trends in the European Union. While the LFS provides demographic data for all age groups, questions relating to labour market status are limited to persons in the age group of 15 years or older. The economically active population consists of employed and unemployed persons. Employed persons are persons aged 15 year and older, while unemployment persons are aged between 15 to 74 years. The LFS includes estimates of certain aspects of social protection for the whole population. It also contains some data on mobile population (e.g. cross-border workers, frontier workers, (recent) migrants working-age population, migrant pensioners, …) which can be used as a proxy for certain subcategories of the mobile population or as a benchmark for the total population and the total level of social expenditure, both at current point of time and in the future. The main advantage of the LFS is the data availability for all 27 MS and enables us to calculate proxies for indicators which could not been obtained by the questionnaire in 14 countries. At the same time these proxies could be cross

18 The EU's Mutual Information System on Social Protection (MISSOC) provides detailed, comparable and regularly updated information about national social protection systems.

19 Portable documents replace the old E-forms and are issued by the competent social security institutions where one is insured. There are ten portable documents altogether, including the European Health Insurance Card. The documents are issued from 1 May 2010. Today national administrations use in some cases/for some social security branches the old E-forms next to these portable documents or even only the old E-forms.

20 Art. 1, point 2, (d) Regulation (EC) No. 987/2009 i describes a Structured Electronic Documents as “any structured document in a format designed for the electronic exchange of information between Member States.” The electronic exchange shall be organized through EESSI (Electronic Exchange of Social Security Information). At this moment EESSI is not yet operational. Nevertheless, SEDs are already available and some of them are transmitted by mail or post.

21 See also: http://ec.europa.eu/social/keyDocuments.jsp?type=0&policyArea=849&subCategory=868&country=0&year=0&advSearchKey=

portdoccombined&mode=advancedSubmit&langId=en

checked by the available administrative data for some MS collected by the questionnaire. This report presents different cross-tables based on the use of the LFS. We present them as detailed as possible. However, to guarantee reliability of the figures we only take into consideration the row and column totals of the cross-tables in our analysis. Row and column totals which can be assumed as reliable are

marked with a *. 22 Nevertheless, the different cells in these cross-tables are important to estimate

the baseline scenario and the different options (e.g. we need to select the cells which describe flows between neighbouring countries to define the number of frontier workers). Most of the cells will fall under the reliable limits. For that reason we refer especially to the reliability limits. The absolute numbers of those reliability limits are also given in Annex 10.7. Cells or even row and column totals with numbers of persons below those figures are considered as not reliable. An additional part of the LFS is the so called 'ad hoc module’ which adds a set of questions to the questionnaire. Each year the subject of this module is different. In 2008 an ad hoc module about ‘the labour market situation of migrants and their immediate descendants’ was added to the core questionnaire. In 2014 this topic will be added again to the LFS which can be considered as an opportunity to analyse some of the specific defined variables in this module. 23

EC 2012 Ageing Report

The 2012 Ageing Report was written by the European Commission (DG ECFIN) and the Economic

Policy Committee (AWG) and presents projections of the budgetary impact of an ageing population in the EU-27 over the period 2010–2060. The report includes specific scenarios on the LTC public expenditure based on combined information from the System of Health Accounts (SHA) and ESSPROS (European system of integrated social protection statistics). The forecasted LTC public expenditure comprises both in-kind and cash benefits. The breakdown by type of LTC benefit (in cash or in kind), which is a crucial element for the calculation of the baseline scenario, is described in another

publication of DG ECFIN. 24 Also the projections regarding employment and unemployment (e.g.

amount paid to unemployed persons, number of unemployed persons) and other interesting general variables integrated in the Ageing Report will be used. The underlying assumptions and projection

methodologies used in the Aging Report are described in a separate report of the EC. 25

Eurostat data

Eurostat provides statistical information based on national administrative information or statistical surveys organized at national or EU level. Within the context of this project, we have mainly focused on the use of ESSPROS and the available migration statistics. ESSPROS contains data on the expenditure and receipts for all national social protection schemes and allows us to compare the total expenditure on unemployment benefits by a Member State (e.g. unemployment benefits paid to full unemployed persons) with unemployed benefits paid to persons who export their unemployment benefit (PD U2) or who needed to prove completed periods of insurance or (self)employment in another Member State (PD U1). Also the Eurostat migration statistics are useful to estimate the number of migrants who moved abroad. We were particularly interested in the flows

22 Based on the reliability limits for the LFS http://circa.europa.eu/irc/dsis/employment/info/data/eu_lfs/LFS_MAIN/Related_documents/reliab_annual_average.htm

23 E.g. variables ‘Last country of work abroad’ and ‘Reason for migrating’ (European Statistical System, ESS agreement – Labour Force

Survey (LFS) ad hoc module 2014 on the labour market situation and their immediate descendants) 24 Lipszyc, B., Sail, E. & Xavier, A., (2012), Long-term care: need, use and expenditure in the EU-27, European Union, 87 p. 25 EC (2011), The 2012 Ageing Report: Underlying Assumptions and Projection Methodologies, European Union, 309 p.

(yearly movements) and stocks (situation at a certain period of time) of recent migrants at working age (aged from 15 or 20 to 64) as well as in migrant pensioners. As mentioned above, also the Ageing Report is using ESSPROS regarding the expenditure on LTC. 26 But also the migration statistics collected by Eurostat, delivered by MS via administrative data or national surveys, will have their importance. Obtaining a reliable view on the number of migrant workers and pensioners will be important to assess the baseline scenarios of unemployment and LTC.

Other statistical data

Finally also other statistical information was considered. Yearly reports of national administrations and specific national reports discussing the export of unemployment and long-term care benefits delivered general or detailed information. At the same time, some recent reports published on EU level describe (labour) migration/mobility (E.g. Eurostat (2011), Indicators of Immigrant Integration; European Commission (2011), Mobility in Europe 2011).

Overview of the statistical data sources used

Table 2 provides an overview of the data sources that were used, with a particular attention to their limitations in terms of data availability. It gives a first impression of the strengths and weaknesses of the data. Within the context of this project data should be collected concerning the aggregation of periods of insurance or (self-)employment (PD U1/E301 form), reimbursement of unemployment benefits (SED U020-SED U025), export of unemployment benefits (PD U2/E303 form). Also, data on the number of PD P1 (Summary of pension decisions) could be interesting to determine the competent Member State. Not for all 14 selected MS administrative data was received by the questionnaire. Also, none of the Member States could response to all questions. More data input related to the application of the coordination rules for unemployment was obtained by the national experts compared to the application of the coordination rules for LTC benefits. Reasons for the lack of data for some MS, topics or questions are divers. The fact that administrative forms are received/issued decentralised OR are received on paper documents and not electronically will have a negative impact on the availability of administrative data. Due to the fact LTC is not considered as a specific social security branch in the coordination rules and is embedded within the rules of sickness benefits, MS do not explicit collect data on LTC. However, the PD S1 indicates if the holder is receiving a LTC benefit in cash 27 and a breakdown by nature of benefit is taken up in the SED S080 (claim of reimbursement). Today, still old E-forms are used which excludes the availability and use of information based on those ‘new’ forms. Also, some MS consider (some of) the LTC benefits in cash

as not exportable within the current coordination rules. 28 The response to the questions is explicitly

mentioned for each of the described topics below. MS who have answered the questionnaire are also taken up in the column titles (see Annex 10.1.2). Data collected by other administrative sources than by the national experts are inserted in footnotes below the tables (e.g. on the basis of national reports).

26 LTC benefits in cash are reported within two ESSPROS functions: ‘Disability’ and ‘Old Age’. Concerning LTC benefits in kind, for some

countries proxies have been calculated on the basis of the ESSPROS data (see EC, 2012 Ageing Report).

27 See EC (2011), The 2012 Ageing Report: Underlying Assumptions and Projection Methodologies, European Union, p. 234.

28 E.g. (not exhaustive): in France: Allocation personnalisée d’autonomie (APA); in Belgium: Personal Assistance Budget.

The LFS is confronted with a high non-response rate of migrants – and more particularly recently

arrived migrants. 29 This will have a negative impact on the sample size and will cause a possible

distortion of the composition of the migrant population. One of the limitations of using the LFS is that the calculated proxies do not completely correspond to the legal definitions. E.g. the number of frontier workers is calculated by taking into account the neighbouring countries and not the legal definition (return daily or at least once a week). Some ‘small’ adjustments could be made in the Labour Force Survey to guarantee useful data collection and more conformity with the legal definitions. Currently, migration statistics from the LFS are based on the ‘country of birth’ or the ‘nationality’. However, to obtain a reliable view on the migrant pensioner one should know the ‘competent Member State’ or the Member States which are paying an old-age benefit to these pensioners or at least the previous residence of the migrant pensioner (but also for migrant workers). This could be a priority in the ad hoc module of the Labour Force Survey of 2014 ‘Labour market situation of migrants and their immediate descendants’ or in a next module or on a permanent basis in the LFS. It could become a proxy for the number of pensioners who received a PD S1.

The 2012 Ageing Report is an important data source for the calculation of the baseline scenario of the coordination of unemployment and LTC benefits as well as for projections of both social security branches. However, these data will have its limitations compared to administrative data. First, no breakdown by type of unemployed person is available. In view of the reimbursement procedure it is necessary to select only cross-border workers and not migrant workers. Also, the Ageing Report made use of assumptions for the calculations of the chapter LTC. As reported in the methodology report (EC, 2011, p. 234) “The choice of methodology and various scenarios is heavily constrained by

the availability, accessibility and quality of long-term care data”. 30 Nevertheless, a general agreement

was reached of the underlying assumptions and projections for LTC in the Ageing Report and a number of sensitivity tests were carried out. The LTC projections in the Ageing Report are calculated

for different scenarios (AWG 31 reference scenario, demographic scenario, high life expectancy

scenario, base case scenario, constant disability scenario, shift 1% of dependents to formal scenario, coverage convergence scenario, cost convergence scenario, AWG risk scenario). The AWG reference scenario is used in this research report to calculate the projections on cross-border LTC spending. Thus this involves the assumptions used for this scenario. For calculating the LTC projections assumptions are made in the ageing report for:

“the future numbers of elderly people (through changes in the population projections used);

the future numbers of dependent elderly people (changes to the prevalence rates of

dependency); 32

the balance between formal and informal care provision (assuming a given shift in

demand

or exogenous changes in the availability of informal carers);

the balance between home care and institutional care within the formal care system;

the unit costs of care.”

In the Ageing Report, long-term care is defined 33 according to the System of Health Accounts (SHA), “as the sum of the following publicly-financed items:

29 See Eurostat (2011), Indicators of Immigrant Integration. A Pilot Study, European Union, 253 p.

30 See Annex 8.2 in the methodology report (EC, 2011, p. 2011) for the applied methodology and the data availability of LTC.

31 Ageing Working Group.

32 E.g. EU-SILC data are used to obtain a proxy of "ADL-dependency" rates.

Services of long-term nursing care (HC.3) (which is also called “the medical component of long-term care” or “long-term health care”, and includes both nursing care and personal care services), and

Social services of long-term care (HC.R.6.1), which is the “assistance services” part, relating primarily to assistance with IADL (instrumental activities of daily living)

tasks". 34

If necessary, the SHA database will be supplemented with data from ESSPROS. The SHA-definition mainly represents in kind benefits. For that reason cash benefits from the ESSPROS functions ‘Disability’ and ‘Old-age’ are added to the SHA database.

The LTC cash benefits are projected separately from LTC benefits in kind – at home or in the institutions.

The migration statistics contain a number of interesting variables which could be used in the baseline scenarios. Especially variables ‘immigration by sex, age group and country of previous residence’ and ‘emigration by sex, age group and country of next usual residence’ should have an added value. By these variables the last country of residence is known, which is a much better proxy for the determination of the competent country than the variables ‘country of birth’ or ‘nationality’. One of the limitations of these variables is the lack of data for some of the MS as also a detailed breakdown by MS.

As already mentioned above, administrative data as national reports shall be added to the data received from the questionnaire. Next to it, interesting data on European level is collected. One of the tasks of the Audit Board of the Administrative Commission for the coordination of social security systems is ‘collect the necessary data and carry out the calculations required for establishing the

annual statements of claims of each Member State’. 35 Information about the claims of

reimbursement (based on actual expenditures or fixed amounts) of healthcare costs, which includes also LTC, is collected by the Audit Board. However, at this moment the Audit Board has only a detailed view on the outstanding claims between countries and not on the total yearly amount of claims received/issued by MS.

Some first conclusions can be made concerning the availability of information. The questionnaires launched within the framework of this study, and the collected data, show that important data is missing and that data should be collected more systematically. Particularly, the data collection on the number of insured persons (PD S1) by type of person (insured person, family member of insured person, pensioner and family member of pensioner) should be granted priority. Also, an analysis of the total yearly number and amount of claims for health care seems to be of the utmost importance. This should be taken up by the Audit Board of the Administrative Commission.

The launch of questionnaires related to the use of PD A1 (posted workers), EHIC (European Health

Insurance Card – Health insurance), PD U2 (exportation of unemployment benefits) as well as the planned questionnaire on PD S2 (planned/scheduled care) by DG EMPL are important steps to collect more administrative information at EU level. Also, the launch of an electronic exchange system

33 An overview of other definitions is provided in Jorens, Y. & Spiegel, B. (ed.) (2011), ‘Coordination of Long-term Care Benefits – current situation and future prospects – Think Tank Report 2011’, trESS.

34 EC (2012), The 2012 Ageing Report. Economic and budgetary projections for the 27 EU Member States (2010-2060), European Union, Annex I.

35 Art. 74, (b), Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004 i.

between national administrations could be seized as “an opportunity” to collect more data.

Especially the detail of some of the structured electronic documents will be useful. E.g. the SED S080 (claim of reimbursement) offers the possibility to select data concerning the number of persons who received LTC benefits in kind and the related claim (however, only for actual expenditure). At this moment we have no information with regard to this point. For the benefits in cash a further analysis of the administrative data collected within the context of the Ageing Report 2012 might be useful.

Table 2: Overview of statistical data sources used: data availability and limitations

Other (e.g. administrative Questionnaire Labour Force Survey (LFS) Ageing report Eurostat/ESSPROS information, ...)

Portable Document/ Type E-form/SED Available? Remarks/limitations Available? Remarks/limitations Available? Remarks/limitations Available? Remarks/limitations Available? Remarks/limitations Aggregation of U1/E301 Yes *Total number of U1 forms Yes *Estimation of cross Yes *Number of unemployed Yes *ESSPROS: total expenditure Yes *National report from periods received: available for 8 MS. border workers and persons (20-64) situation unemployment benefits is compared France (CLEISS - Rapport

*Detail (crossborder worker frontier workers 2010 and projections 2015 with cross-border expenditure Statistique 2011) OR migrant worker): available *Estimation of recent and 2020 *Eurostat: unemployment rate and for 4 MS. Detail is also migrants who are *Amount paid to average annual unemployed persons important to calculate claims unemployed unemployed persons are two variables which are used of reimbursement. (based on LFS Adjusted Series - persons between 15 to 74 years of age)

Reimbursement SED U020 - SED U025 Yes *Data from 3 MS Yes *Estimation of cross Partial *Number of unemployed No No

border workers and persons (20-64) situation

frontier workers 2010 and projections 2015

and 2020

*Amount paid to

unemployed persons

*No distinction type of

unemployed person

Export of U2/E303 Yes *Total number of U2 forms No Yes *Number of unemployed Yes *ESSPROS: total expenditure Yes *National

unemployment issued: available for 10 MS. persons (20-64) situation unemployment benefits is compared reports/information from

benefits *Success rate: available for 3 2010 and projections 2015 with cross-border expenditure Austria (AMS), France

MS and 2020 *Eurostat: average annual unemployed (CLEISS), Luxembourg,

*Amount paid to persons (based on LFS Adjusted Series - the Netherlands (UWV)

unemployed persons persons between 15 to 74 years of age) and Sweden (IAF)

Number of S1/E106-E109-E121 Yes *Total number of S1 forms Partial *Estimation of insured Partial *Pensioners aged 65 Partial *Eurostat - migration statistics: No insured persons issued: available for 4 MS incoming cross-border *Number of dependent Immigration of previous residence, *Detail (insured person, workers people Emigration of next usual residence family member insured *Lack of information person, pensioner, family about the competent member pensioner): available MS for (migrant) for 2 MS. pensioners. Variables 'country of birth' or 'nationality' are unreliable proxies. Users/ claims LTC E125/SED S080 Partial *SED S080 is not used by No Partial *Total LTC spending (per No No in kind national administrations. E125 dependent person) in kind form does not foresee a and in cash (combined category 'LTC' with number of insured *Proxy for Belgium was made persons) based on age profile Users/ claims LTC Yes *Export of LTC benefits in No Partial *Total LTC spending (per Yes *ESSPROS: two ESSPROS Yes *National in cash cash: available for 5 MS. dependent person) in kind functions: 'Disability' and 'Old Age' as reports/information from *Some MS consider the and in cash (combined used in the 2012 Aging Report. Austria, Germany and national LTC benefit in cash as with number of insured Belgium. not exportable and do not persons) deliver data Competent P1 No No Partial Partial *ESSPROS: total expenditure old-age No Member State benefits

Source: own figure based on the data collection

Both figures below provide a first overview of the applied methodology to estimate/calculate the budgetary impact of the baseline scenario and the different options. It was the ambition to collect in 14 Member States administrative data from the competent institutions. Afterwards, the results would have been extrapolated to the EEA countries and Switzerland. However, the scale of this administrative data collection in terms of number of Member States which have responded and in terms of available data in these Member States was too limited to assess in detail the baseline scenario and the different options. As result, mainly data from the LFS, the Ageing Report and the Audit Board Report was exploited to estimate the number of involved persons and the budgetary impact. Both schemes are described in detail in chapter 4.

Figure 2: Applied methodology - LTC

Source: own figure

Figure 3: Applied methodology - UB

Source: own figure

4 Baseline scenario

Before further elaborating the problems that we identified with regard to the current coordination rules, we would like to give some insights in the number of cross-border workers and pensioners in the EU-27 that are affected by the coordination rules, their main mobility patterns and their use of long-term care and unemployment benefits. Cross-border workers and pensioners – and their insured family members – are the two main groups which impact cross-border expenditure on unemployment and LTC benefits.

The table below summarises the statistics that are described and discussed in detail in the next sections.

On several occasions we refer to the official administrative documents in use for the coordination of social security systems. Three sets are in use, the original set of ‘E-forms’, a limited number of new documents on paper called the ‘portable documents PD’ (including the European Health Insurance Card) and the Structured Electronic Documents (SEDs) that in the future will be used for the electronic exchange of information between the involved administrations. For the list and content of the portable documents PD and the SED’s see http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=868, where also a description of the previous E-documents can be found: see on that web page Related Documents: former E-forms. The three set of documents are simultaneously in use in the different MS and this for a transition period. For that reason we refer sometimes simultaneously to documents from the different sets. For the relevance of those documents for the collection of statistics of cross border use of social security benefits see the interim report of an on-going trESS- project: Pacolet J. & F. De Wispelaere, with input from J. Hajdu & G. Berki (2013), Collection of statistical data concerning the application of Regulations (EC) Nos 883/2004 i and 987/2009 (A.C. 017/12), Interim Report for the Administrative Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=10026&langId=en

Table 3: Synoptic overview of the scope of the cross border use of unemployment benefits and LTC benefits under scrutiny**

Indicator Year Unit Amount/ Type number variable

Coordination of unemployment benefits

Cross-border workers within EU-27 2010-2011 in thousand 1.032,0 stock of which frontier workers 2010-2011 in thousand 701,0 stock

Migrant workers (from 15 to 64 years, within

EU 27)*** 2011 in thousand 1.017,0

yearly flow

Posted workers (PD A1 issued) 2011 in thousand 1.508 yearly issued

Estimated number of unemployed crossborder

workers 2010-2011 in thousand 73,7 stock

as share of total unemployment in % 0,35%

of which frontier workers 2010-2011 in thousand 45,2 stock

Unemployed recent migrant workers 2011 in thousand 94,8 stock

Estimated number of proven period of

insurance PD U1 2010 in thousand 341,2 stock

as share of total unemployment 2010 in % 1,60%

Estimated number of exported

unemployment benefit PD U2 2011 in thousand 23,7 stock

as share of total unemployment in % 0,11%

Coordination of long-term care benefits

Migrated pensioners*** 2011 in thousand 44,1

yearly flow

Total estimated number of persons insured

for LTC (PD S1) 2010-2011 in thousand 1.980,0 stock

as % of total population EU 27 in % 0,4%

Of which:

cross border workers and family members 2010-2011 in thousand 1.239,0 stock

retired cross border workers and family

members 2010-2011 in thousand 503,0 stock

mobile pensioners and family members 2010-2011 in thousand 238,0 stock Estimate of mobile persons obtaining LTC 2010-2011 in thousand 93 stock Outstanding reimbursement claims for

health, Audit Board 2011 in million € 3.607,3 stock

Reimbursement claims for health, Audit

board 2011 in million € 3.590,9 flow

Estimated reimbursement claims for LTC

benefits in kind on figures Audit Board 2011 in million € 592,0 flow

Estimated health expenditures for mobile

citizens on LFS and Ageing Report * 2010 in million € 3.167,4 flow

Estimated reimbursement claims for benefits 2010 in million € 618,3 flow in kind for mobile citizens based on LFS and

Ageing Report

Estimated LTC benefits in cash for mobile

citizens based on LFS and Ageing Report 2010 in million € 376,4 flow

Total estimated expenditure LTC for mobile citizens

based on LFS and Ageing Report 2010 in million € 994,7 flow

as % of total LTC spending in % 0,4% as % of GDP in % 0,008%

*

Figure calculated in the interim report

** Figures described in detail in several chapters of this report

*** No data for BE, BG, HU, MT, NL, PL and RO

4.1 Coordination of unemployment benefits

In the next section, we present a number of basic tables on the number of cross-border workers (incl. frontier workers) and recent migrant workers.

Based on Labour force Survey (LFS) data, an estimation of the number of cross-border workers can be made (based on the question ‘What is the name and address of the local unit of the enterprise where you work?’ and variables ‘COUNTRYW’ (country of place of work) and ‘COUNTRY’ (country of residence) in the database. These LFS data were also used in another, recent report on ‘cross-border

commuting’ 36 . However, some interpretation problems appear. While legally a distinction should be

made between the free movement of workers and of services, this distinction is not made by this question in the LFS. The applicable rules differ considerably between cross-border workers and posted workers. Cross-border workers will be insured in their country of employment while posted workers are still insured in their country of residence. For that reason we assumed that the LFS question covers both cross-border workers (within the rules of free movement of workers) and posted workers (within the rules of free movement of services). Ideally, the LFS should make this distinction to avoid possible interpretation problems. In the further analysis we considered all workers who work in another country than the country of residence as cross-border workers.

Workers who work in a neighbouring country are considered as frontier workers (as also is assumed in the report ‘Mobility in Europe 2011’) (which is not equal to the legal definition of a ‘frontier

worker’) 37 .

4.1.1 Scale of cross-border mobility of workers in EU-27

4.1.1.1 Number of cross-border workers

Table 4 gives an overview of the number of cross-border workers 38 and frontier workers 39 in the EU-

27.

The average of 2010 and 2011 is calculated to avoid outliers. To guarantee reliability of the figures we only took into consideration the row and column totals of the cross-tables. However, the

36 EC, Mobility in Europe 2011

37 See art. 1, (f), Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004 i: “frontier worker” means any person pursuing an activity as an employed or self-employed person in a Member State and who resides in another Member State to which he returns as a rule daily or at least once a week.

38 For the purpose of the data collection, cross-border workers are workers who are employed in another Member State than the Member State of residence.

39 For the purposes of the data collection, frontier workers are workers who work in a neighbouring country. This is different than the definition in Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i, according to which frontier workers are defined as workers who return to their State of residence on a daily or weekly basis.

details in the different cells are important to estimate the baseline scenario and the different options (e.g. we need to select the cells which describe flows between neighbouring countries to define the number of frontier workers) 40 . The national employment figures (living and working in the same country) are yellow coloured while the figures coloured in red are the neighbouring countries of a specific country.

The table shows that on average 1 million cross-border workers are employed in the EU27 or 0.5% of the total employed population, of which on average 701.000 frontier workers are employed in a neighbouring country. This implies that 68% of the cross-border workers can be assumed as frontier workers. These figures are similar to the results in the ‘Mobility in Europe 2011’ Report which reports “that just 5 people in 1,000 of those employed commute across borders between EU Member States”

and “some 63% of cross-border commuters go to work in a bordering country” 41 .

In general, we observe an increase of the number of cross-border workers between EU-27 MS of

1.4% between 2010 and 2011 (see Table 81 and Table 82). The Report ‘Mobility in Europe 2011’ already observed this increase for earlier years (with a slowdown for more recent years).

Outgoing cross-border workers

In absolute figures, most outgoing cross-border workers live in Germany (165 thousand), France (160 thousand) and the Slovak Republic (117 thousand). However, in terms of share in national employment (see Table 83), the highest impact is observed in the Slovak Republic (5.0%), Estonia

(3.1%) and Belgium (2.2%). For Belgium (97%), the Netherlands (95%) and Ireland (88%) most of the outgoing cross-border workers are employed in a neighbouring country. While for Romania (1%),

Lithuania (5%) and Latvia (9%) few of the outgoing cross-border workers are employed in a neighbouring country. As Croatia joined the EU on 1 July 2013 it is interesting to look at the number of cross-border workers of this country. For 2011, 20.6 thousand outgoing cross-border workers from Croatia were counted primarily going to Italy and Germany (see Table 81).

Incoming cross-border workers

Most incoming cross-border workers are employed in Germany (186 thousand), Luxembourg (130 thousand) and the Netherlands (110 thousand). The highest impact of incoming cross-border workers on the national employment is identified for Luxembourg (37.4%), Austria (2.4%) and Belgium (1.4%). Most of the incoming cross-border workers in Luxembourg (99%), the Czech Republic (98%), Austria (94%) and the Slovak Republic (94%) are living in a neighbouring country. Only 6.6% of the incoming cross-border workers employed in Italy, 10% in Romania and 11% in the UK are living in a neighbouring country. A very popular country for incoming cross-border workers is Switzerland. In 2011, Switzerland employed 320 thousand incoming cross-border workers mainly coming from

France (see Table 81 and Table 82).

4.1.1.2 Number of posted workers As it is possible that the LFS data also include posted workers in the number of cross-border workers, the profile of the cross-table of cross-border workers from the LFS is compared with this from the number of PD A1 certificates issued (certifies which social security legislation applies to the holder of

40 See information on LFS and its reliability in 3.2.7.

41- This 63% is calculated for the group of cross-border workers living in EU AND Non EU countries. This is a broader group of cross-border workers compared to our analysis.

the form). This was done by calculating the row and column percentages and indicating the 3 MS with the highest percentages.

First, we compare the data of the outgoing cross-border workers with these from the outgoing posted workers (See Table 84 and Table 87). Germany (14 times), the Slovak Republic (8 times) and Poland (8 times) appear most frequently in the top-3 of ‘sending’ MS concerning cross-border workers. At the same time most important (in top 3) sending MS for posted workers are Germany (26 times), Poland (22 times) and France (20 times). However, the spread of sending countries is somewhat more diverse for cross-border workers compared to posted workers (more concentrated in Germany, Poland and France as sending countries).

Also the spread over MS receiving incoming cross-border workers was compared with this for MS receiving incoming posted workers (see Table 85 and Table 88). Germany (17 times) and the UK (12 times) are the most important working countries for cross-border workers while posted workers mostly are sent to Germany (18 times), France (12 times) and the Netherlands (10 times).

The relationship between the two variables can be calculated by the correlation coefficient. 42 We see

a strong positive linear relationship (0.76) between the variables ‘incoming posted workers’ and

‘incoming cross-border workers’, which implies the same MS receive as well cross-border workers as well as posted workers, probably to be considered as attraction pools of mobile workers. Besides, there is also a strong positive linear relationship (0.71) between the ‘outgoing posted workers’ and ‘outgoing cross-border workers’.

4.1.1.3 Migration of workers The possible number of PD U1 issued is also influenced by recent migrant workers. Eurostat migration statistics are collecting the number of migrant workers (from 15 to 64 years) who have moved from one EU-country to another in 2011 (Table 5). One of the limitations is the lack of figures for BE, BG, HU, MT, NL, PL and RO.

For those countries of which figures are available, we observe most migrant workers migrated to

Germany (237 thousand in 2011), the UK (185 thousand in 2011) and Spain (54 thousand in 2011).

This table shows also the importance of Romania as emigration country. Also here we have calculated the relationship between ‘incoming migrant workers’ and ‘incoming cross-border workers’. We observe a strong positive linear relationship (0.70) between both variables, which implies that the same MS are dominant or less dominant. Within this group of recent migrant workers the unemployment rate of their current country of employment has been used to estimate the number of unemployed recent migrant workers.

42 The closer the coefficient is to either −1 or 1, the stronger the correlation between the variables. +1 = the case of a perfect positive (increasing) linear relationship (correlation) and −1 in the case of a perfect decreasing (negative) linear relationship.

Table 4: Number of cross-border workers and frontier workers, EU-27, Average of 2010 & 2011, in .000

Column Labels (country of employment) % frontier

Row Labels Outgoing Outgoing workers vs (country of cross-border % of total frontier crossborder residence) AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK EU-27 workers employment workers workers AT 4067,2 0,2 0,2 0,0 0,6 24,1 0,1 0,0 0,3 0,0 0,3 0,0 0,6 0,0 1,3 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,2 0,0 0,7 0,1 0,6 1,7 0,7 4099,3 32,1 * 0,8% 28,9 * 89,8% BE 0,1 4395,5 0,1 0,1 0,1 7,0 0,0 0,0 0,4 0,1 13,5 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,2 0,0 37,1 0,0 0,1 35,8 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 1,1 4492,2 96,6 * 2,2% 93,4 * 96,6% BG 0,1 0,3 2978,8 1,0 0,5 3,2 0,0 0,0 3,1 0,0 0,9 6,2 0,1 0,1 2,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,6 0,0 0,2 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,0 2,1 3000,0 21,2 * 0,7% 6,3 * 29,6% CY 0,0 0,0 0,0 391,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 391,7 0,0 0,0% 0,0 CZ 4,9 0,8 0,0 0,0 4867,6 9,2 0,0 0,0 0,6 0,0 0,4 0,3 0,1 0,7 0,5 0,0 0,4 0,0 0,0 0,8 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 2,2 2,7 4891,7 24,1 * 0,5% 16,6 * 68,6% DE 37,4 3,1 1,3 0,0 4,3 39004,6 6,7 0,0 6,2 0,6 6,4 2,0 1,2 0,0 1,8 0,0 31,1 0,0 0,0 46,3 5,6 0,0 0,0 3,9 0,0 0,0 7,7 39170,0 165,4 * 0,4% 140,8 * 85,1% DK 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,3 2695,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,7 0,0 0,0 0,7 2699,5 4,4 * 0,2% 3,0 * 69,3% EE 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 568,1 0,0 15,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,3 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,0 0,0 0,7 586,2 18,1 * 3,1% 15,3 * 84,8% ES 0,2 0,8 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,7 0,0 0,0 18244,4 0,8 3,8 0,0 0,2 1,2 1,6 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,1 0,0 1,8 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 9,2 18267,0 22,6 * 0,1% 5,7 * 25,1% FI 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,1 0,1 2457,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 2459,3 1,7 0,1% 1,0 60,0% FR 0,2 38,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 46,0 0,1 0,0 3,3 0,5 25372,9 0,0 0,0 0,8 1,6 0,0 60,6 0,0 0,0 1,3 0,2 1,0 0,8 0,4 0,0 0,0 4,6 25532,6 159,6 * 0,6% 149,6 * 93,7% GR 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 4239,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 4239,7 0,0 0,0% 0,0 HU 20,9 1,0 0,0 0,2 0,2 12,8 0,6 0,0 0,3 0,2 1,8 0,0 3738,9 1,4 1,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,7 0,1 0,0 0,3 0,1 0,1 1,3 8,6 3792,3 53,4 * 1,4% 22,5 * 42,2% IE 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1831,9 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 8,8 1841,9 10,0 * 0,5% 8,8 * 88,2% IT 1,3 1,3 0,1 0,0 0,0 6,6 0,1 0,0 1,8 0,0 5,3 1,1 0,2 0,3 22829,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,3 0,0 1,7 0,0 0,3 0,0 4,0 22853,6 24,4 * 0,1% 6,9 * 28,1% LT 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,3 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 1296,3 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,4 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,4 1298,2 1,9 0,1% 0,1 5,0% LU 0,0 0,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,8 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 217,7 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 220,5 2,8 * 1,3% 2,2 * 79,9% LV 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,8 0,2 0,5 0,0 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,4 0,1 0,1 0,0 890,9 0,0 0,4 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,5 0,0 0,0 3,0 897,8 6,9 * 0,8% 0,6 8,5% MT 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 164,8 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,5 165,7 0,9 * 0,5% 0,0 0,0% NL 0,2 8,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 11,9 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 8306,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,3 8327,3 21,3 * 0,3% 20,1 * 94,5% PL 3,7 3,0 0,0 0,9 7,4 41,5 3,1 0,0 0,5 0,5 3,4 0,4 0,0 0,6 1,9 0,1 0,3 0,1 0,0 13,4 15942,3 0,2 0,0 2,8 0,0 0,6 7,3 16034,1 91,7 * 0,6% 49,6 * 54,1% PT 0,0 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 6,2 0,0 3,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 4869,3 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,2 4879,8 10,5 * 0,2% 6,2 * 59,2% RO 1,1 0,9 0,0 0,6 0,0 8,2 0,3 0,0 13,6 0,0 0,9 1,0 0,4 0,1 56,6 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,0 1,2 9099,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 2,5 9187,6 87,7 * 1,0% 0,4 0,5% SE 0,4 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,6 22,4 0,1 0,4 1,0 0,4 0,2 0,1 0,3 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,2 0,0 0,0 4541,7 0,0 0,0 2,1 4570,7 29,0 * 0,6% 23,4 * 80,8% SI 5,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,8 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 2,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 940,9 0,3 0,1 949,5 8,7 * 0,9% 7,2 * 83,4% SK 24,9 0,7 0,0 0,5 48,2 6,0 0,3 0,0 1,7 0,4 1,4 0,0 10,8 2,6 3,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 5,4 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,2 2212,8 10,2 2329,9 117,1 * 5,0% 84,2 * 71,9% UK 0,3 1,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 2,5 0,7 0,0 1,2 0,0 4,5 0,0 0,0 8,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,5 1,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 28938,9 28959,2 20,3 * 0,1% 8,2 * 40,5% EU-27 4168,0 4457,1 2980,6 395,2 4929,0 39190,7 2730,1 568,9 18284,7 2477,4 25420,2 4251,3 3752,8 1849,3 22905,0 1296,5 347,7 891,3 165,6 8415,9 15950,0 4873,8 9103,6 4554,2 942,3 2219,0 29016,6 216137,1 1032,3 * 0,5% 700,9 * 67,9% Incoming cross-border workers 100,9 61,6 1,8 3,6 61,4 186,1 35,0 0,8 40,3 19,7 47,3 11,6 13,9 17,3 75,8 0,3 130,0 0,4 0,8 109,8 7,7 4,5 3,7 12,5 1,5 6,2 77,6 1032,3

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * % of total employment 2,4% 1,4% 0,1% 0,9% 1,2% 0,5% 1,3% 0,1% 0,2% 0,8% 0,2% 0,3% 0,4% 0,9% 0,3% 0,0% 37,4% 0,0% 0,5% 1,3% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 0,3% 0,2% 0,3% 0,3% 0,5% Incoming frontier workers 94,4 50,1 0,0 0,0 60,5 141,9 29,1 0,5 9,6 16,0 29,7 6,2 11,9 8,2 5,0 0,2 128,8 0,4 0,0 82,1 6,1 1,8 0,4 2,6 1,0 5,8 8,8 700,9

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * % frontier workers vs. cross-border workers 93,6% 81,3% 0,0% 0,0% 98,4% 76,2% 83,1% 67,6% 23,7% 81,0% 62,8% 53,1% 85,3% 47,3% 6,6% 76,7% 99,1% 83,4% 0,0 74,7% 79,2% 39,9% 10,2% 20,8% 67,8% 93,6% 11,4% 67,9%

*

Row and column totals which lay above the reliability limits are indicated with a *. Please take notice that some of the figures mentioned in the row and column totals are not reliable. This will specifically be the case for the detailed cells. For an overview of the LFS reliability limits see Annex 10.7: http://circa.europa.eu/irc/dsis/employment/info/data/eu_lfs/LFS_MAIN/Related_documents/reliab_annual_average.htm ** Red colour: frontier workers; yellow colour: national employment; ‘EU-27’= total employment

Source: own calculations based on LFS

Table 5: Migrant workers (from 15 to 64 years) in 2011 by country of previous residence, EU-27

Column Labels (previous residence) Row Labels

(current residence) BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EE ES FR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK EU27 BE

BG CZ 12.686 DK 296 907 177 0 2.774 209 239 318 1.272 949 810 27 738 1.462 102 421 35 601 184 2.813 197 2.514 52 224 195 3.431 2.346 23.300 DE 237.763 EE 8 7 15 7 44 62 3 22 18 14 4 31 6 2 1 6 5 5 4 1 1.024 37 82 1.408 IE 335 111 290 183 1.596 99 0 104 2.103 2.143 1.003 70 886 1.301 52 552 51 516 169 3.088 234 954 36 369 144 361 7.082 23.832 EE 54.136 ES 2.379 9.173 737 674 8.262 217 1.515 969 0 9.637 11.228 75 488 1.055 115 1.048 56 3.228 726 3.228 6.727 48.857 193 517 697 1.555 15.134 128.490 FR 93.445 IT 740 4.310 436 177 5.481 90 508 538 2.601 2.766 0 28 271 427 138 794 111 569 437 4.813 410 77.544 193 675 120 266 3.200 107.643 CY 11.984 LV 1.623 LT 57 23 24 369 631 23 1.619 85 656 161 184 81 148 0 12 6 3 289 40 115 23 50 4 10 48 363 5.872 10.896 LU 14.927 HU

MT NL

AT 59.064 PL

PT 4.830 RO

SI 135 598 49 11 566 5 20 23 45 84 433 2 2 10 27 51 2 51 320 44 20 83 0 160 17 40 139 2.937 SK 55 202 758 12 235 6 30 29 82 98 184 4 11 16 1 652 0 32 154 171 28 448 18 0 10 8 176 3.420 FI 132 152 59 429 724 3.918 127 160 518 273 281 35 191 105 47 268 17 215 90 305 57 189 11 36 0 2.613 930 11.882 SE 386 455 214 3.950 2.312 455 334 1.240 1.449 997 957 78 656 1.050 61 628 76 830 255 3.500 207 1.541 61 129 2.308 0 3.114 27.243 UK 185.204 Total* 1.016.713

*

Total= sum of migrant workers of which the current country of residence is known

Source: Eurostat Migration Statistics, [migr_imm5prv]

4.1.1.4 Estimated number of unemployed cross-border workers Making the breakdown between unemployed cross-border workers and migrant workers is important for different reasons. First, it gives a first impression of the impact both categories have on the number of issued PD U1 certificates and the budgetary impact on the unemployment expenditure. Second, Member States can only claim a reimbursement for the unemployment benefits they have paid to cross-border workers.

National unemployment rates are applied on the number of cross-border workers. 43 The national

unemployment rates of 2010 (from 20 to 64 years) defined in the 2012 Ageing Report were used.

Also, the unemployment rates of the country of employment and not of the country of residence have been applied on the number of cross-border workers calculated by way of the LFS. This results in an estimation of 73.7 thousand unemployed cross-border workers of which 45.2 thousand frontier workers (Table 6). These figures will be used to estimate the expenditure as well as the claimed reimbursement of the provision of unemployment benefits to cross-border workers taking into account the baseline scenario and the policy options.

4.1.1.5 Estimated number of recent migrant workers The same unemployment rates are applied on recent migrant workers. As no data are available for BE, BG, HU, MT, NL, PL and RO no exhaustive view on the number of unemployed recent migrant workers can be obtained. When we extrapolate these figures for the EU-27, 128 thousand unemployed migrant workers are counted (Table 7). The chance is rather high that this group will need a PD U1 certificate to prove periods of insurance or (self)-employment in another country.

4.1.1.6 Estimated number of proven period of insurance (PD U1) By counting the estimated number unemployed cross-border workers (4.1.1.4) and migrant workers (4.1.1.5) together, we become a total result of 202 thousand unemployed persons who may need a PD U1 certificate to prove periods of insurance of (self)employment from another country. This seems rather a minimum estimation compared to our other estimation of unemployed persons who will issue/receive a PD U1 certificate, namely 341 thousand unemployed persons (see Table 8).

43 Currently the average unemployment rate in incoming country is used, while the unemployment rate of foreign EU nationals is usually somewhat higher than nationals of the declaring country. However, the activity rate of foreign EU nationals is considerably higher and their employment rate is also higher. So compared to the size of the working age population the share of unemployed is not higher for foreign EU nationals.

Table 6: Estimated number of cross-border workers who will become unemployed, in .000

Column Labels (country of employment) Row Labels Outgoing Outgoing (country of cross-border frontier residence) AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK EU-27 workers workers AT 170,8 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,7 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 173,3 2,5 2,2 BE 0,0 351,6 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,5 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 1,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,6 0,0 0,0 1,4 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 356,7 5,1 4,7 BG 0,0 0,0 303,8 0,1 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,6 0,0 0,1 0,8 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 306,1 2,2 0,8 CY 0,0 0,0 0,0 25,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 25,1 0,0 0,0 CZ 0,2 0,1 0,0 0,0 345,6 0,7 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,2 347,4 1,8 1,2 DE 1,6 0,2 0,1 0,0 0,3 2769,3 0,5 0,0 1,2 0,0 0,6 0,2 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 1,3 0,0 0,0 1,9 0,5 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,5 2778,9 9,6 6,9 DK 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 186,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 186,3 0,3 0,2 EE 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 94,9 0,0 1,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 96,3 1,4 1,2 ES 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 3557,7 0,1 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,6 3559,5 1,8 0,5 FI 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 189,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 189,4 0,1 0,1 FR 0,0 3,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 3,3 0,0 0,0 0,7 0,0 2283,6 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,0 2,6 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,3 2294,0 10,5 9,7 GR 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 530,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 530,0 0,0 0,0 HU 0,9 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,9 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,2 0,0 415,0 0,2 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,6 418,4 3,4 1,1 IE 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 241,8 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,6 242,5 0,7 0,6 IT 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,5 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,0 0,5 0,1 0,0 0,0 1849,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,3 1851,3 2,1 0,6 LT 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 230,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 230,9 0,2 0,0 LU 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 9,4 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 9,6 0,2 0,2 LV 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 163,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 164,5 0,6 0,1 MT 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 9,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 9,9 0,1 0,0 NL 0,0 0,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,8 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 332,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 333,9 1,6 1,5 PL 0,2 0,2 0,0 0,1 0,5 2,9 0,2 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,5 1530,5 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,1 0,5 1536,7 6,3 3,6 PT 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,2 0,0 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 540,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 542,1 1,6 1,2 RO 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,6 0,0 0,0 2,6 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 4,6 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 664,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 672,9 8,6 0,0 SE 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,5 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 331,5 0,0 0,0 0,1 333,7 2,1 1,6 SI 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 67,7 0,0 0,0 68,3 0,5 0,4 SK 1,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 3,4 0,4 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,0 0,1 0,0 1,2 0,3 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 307,6 0,7 315,9 8,3 5,7 UK 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,4 0,0 0,0 1,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1996,8 1998,9 2,1 1,1 EU-27 175,1 356,6 304,0 25,3 350,0 2782,5 188,4 95,0 3565,5 190,8 2287,8 531,4 416,6 244,1 1855,3 230,8 15,0 164,0 9,9 336,6 1531,2 541,0 664,6 332,5 67,8 308,4 2002,1 19572,3 73,7 45,2 Incoming

Cross-border workers 4,2 4,9 0,2 0,2 4,4 13,2 2,4 0,1 7,9 1,5 4,3 1,5 1,5 2,3 6,1 0,1 5,6 0,1 0,0 4,4 0,7 0,5 0,3 0,9 0,1 0,9 5,4 73,7 Incoming frontier 4,0 4,0 0,0 0,0 4,3 10,1 2,0 0,1 1,9 1,2 2,7 0,8 1,3 1,1 0,4 0,0 5,5 0,1 0,0 3,3 0,6 0,2 0,0 0,2 0,1 0,8 0,6 45,2

*

Row and column totals which lay above the reliability limits are indicated with a *. Please take notice that some of the figures mentioned in the row and column totals are not reliable. This will specifically be the case for the detailed cells. For an overview of the LFS reliability limits see Annex 10.7: http://circa.europa.eu/irc/dsis/employment/info/data/eu_lfs/LFS_MAIN/Related_documents/reliab_annual_average.htm ** Red colour: frontier workers; yellow colour: national unemployment; ‘EU-27’= total unemployment Source: Estimate based on LFS and 2012 Ageing Report

Table 7: Estimated number of recent mobile workers who will become unemployed

current/previous residence BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EE ES FR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK EU27 BE

BG CZ 901 DK 20 63 12 0 191 14 16 22 88 65 56 2 51 101 7 29 2 41 13 194 14 173 4 15 13 237 162 1.608 DE 16.881 EE 1 1 3 1 7 10 1 4 3 2 1 5 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 171 6 14 235 IE 44 15 38 24 211 13 0 14 278 283 132 9 117 172 7 73 7 68 22 408 31 126 5 49 19 48 935 3.146 EE 6.767 ES 464 1.789 144 131 1.611 42 295 189 0 1.879 2.189 15 95 206 22 204 11 629 142 629 1.312 9.527 38 101 136 303 2.951 25.056 FR 8.410 IT 60 349 35 14 444 7 41 44 211 224 0 2 22 35 11 64 9 46 35 390 33 6.281 16 55 10 22 259 8.719 CY 767 LV 299 LT 10 4 4 66 112 4 288 15 117 29 33 14 26 0 2 1 1 51 7 20 4 9 1 2 9 65 1.045 1.939 LU 642 HU

MT NL

AT 2.481 PL

PT 536 RO

SI 10 43 4 1 41 0 1 2 3 6 31 0 0 1 2 4 0 4 23 3 1 6 0 12 1 3 10 211 SK 8 28 105 2 33 1 4 4 11 14 26 1 2 2 0 91 0 4 21 24 4 62 3 0 1 1 24 475 FI 10 12 5 33 56 302 10 12 40 21 22 3 15 8 4 21 1 17 7 23 4 15 1 3 0 201 72 915 SE 28 33 16 288 169 33 24 91 106 73 70 6 48 77 4 46 6 61 19 256 15 112 4 9 168 0 227 1.989 UK 12.779 EU27 94756

*

The unemployment rate of 2010 (Ageing Report) was multiplied by the number of recent migrant workers (Eurostat migration statistics)

** Row lable: current residence and column lable: previous residence

Source Estimate based on Eurostat migration statistics and 2012 Ageing Report

4.1.2 Aggregation of periods of employment/insurance/self-employment

When making the decision to grant the unemployment insurance benefit all completed unemployment insurance periods in other member countries shall be taken into consideration. The unemployment insurance periods completed in different countries are then to be aggregated. In the following paragraphs, we aim to assess the extent to which periods of insurance and (self-) employment in another EU Member State were taken into account when granting unemployment benefits. Therefore, the number of PD U1 or E301 forms received and issued was counted.

Ideally, a distinction should be made between frontier workers, ‘other’ cross-border workers and migrant workers:

Frontier workers return to their country of residence daily, or at least once a week. ‘Other’ cross-border workers return to their country of residence less than once a week. Migrant workers worked and lived already in the competent MS before their unemployment but will prove completed periods of insurance or (self-)employment in another Member State.

For only some EU Member States, it was possible to make this distinction.

Furthermore, in our original questionnaire, we aimed to find data which would make it possible to distinguish between the number of PD U1/E301 forms received each year and the number of ‘unique persons’ behind these forms. This distinction might be relevant, as a single person can submit more than one form during a single year. However, in this analysis both questions are discussed together in the ambition to extrapolate to an EU-27 level.

Also, we did not ask specifically for the number of PD U1/E301 forms issued by each EU Member State(questionnaire was limited to 14 MS). Nevertheless, it was possible to obtain statistics for some other EU Member States and these are included in this report.

We compared the number of documents received and the number of documents issued. This for two specific reasons: firstly, it enabled us to fill gaps in the data on the PD U1/E301 forms received. Secondly, it allowed us to cross-check the data collected (e.g. whether the number of PD U1/E301 received forms from a specific EU Member State equals the number of PD U1/E301 forms issued by the other EU Member State).

Below, results from the questionnaire regarding the aggregation of periods are summarised. It will be mentioned explicitly in the text when another source than the questionnaire is used. Also, we will refer to the different tables added in Annex of this report. The number of received PD U1 certificates will be compared to the total number of unemployed persons. For this, data from the ‘unemployment – LFS adjusted series’ was used. An unemployed person is defined in the LFS as “a person 15 to 74 years of age (16 to 74 years in ES, IT and the UK) who was not employed during the reference week, had actively sought work during the past four weeks and was ready to begin working

immediately or within two weeks” (Eurostat) 44 .

44 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_SDDS/en/une_esms.htm

4.1.2.1 Number of received and issued PDU1/E301 forms

Number of PD U1/ E301 forms received

Data on the number of PD U1/ E301 forms received (or ‘unique’ persons involved) was collected for Belgium, Estonia, France, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic, Sweden and UK. Only for four countries the distinction between frontier workers, cross-border workers and migrant workers could be made: France, Poland, Romania and Sweden. For the other EU Member States, it was not possible to obtain data.

In 2012, the competent institutions in Belgium took 2,400 PD U1 forms into account in granting an unemployment benefit (cf. Table 59 and Table 61). This is not the actual number of PD U1’s received by the Belgian competent institution; which shall be (much) higher. Only the PD U1’s which were used to grant an unemployment benefit because of a too short period of insurance or (self)employment in Belgium are counted. Most of the PD U1 documents taken into account were for periods of insurance and (self-)employment completed in neighbouring countries, primarily the Netherlands (45.5%) and Luxembourg (31.9%), but also France (5.4%) and Germany (4.9%). The figure for Spain was also relatively important (4.9%). As the average number of unemployed in Belgium in 2012 was 369,000, this implies that only 0.7% of Belgium’s unemployed made use of the PD U1 document to receive an unemployment benefit.

Between 2010 and 2012, the number of PD U1/E301 forms received by Estonia increased by 38%

(from 1,505 to 2,082) (cf. Table 59 and Table 61). Of these, 53.5% were issued by Finland (in 2012). The proportion of the unemployed in Estonia providing a PD U1 to receive an unemployment benefit in 2012 was 2.9%.

In 2011, 50,003 people were granted an unemployment benefit in France which took periods from

other EU Member States into account (see CLEISS (2012), Rapport Statistique 2011) 45 . Of this group,

49,961 were in the cross-border worker category and 42 were migrant workers (however, based on article 61 Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004 i and not art. 65) 46 . As in the case of Belgium, most of the PD U1/E301 forms received were issued by neighbouring countries, in particular Switzerland (48.2%), but also Luxembourg (20.7%), Germany (15.1%) and Belgium (14.8%). The percentage of the total average number of unemployed in France in 2011 providing a PD U1 form was 1.8%.

Poland received a PD U1 for 13,884 cross-border workers (77.8% of the total) and 3,980 migrant workers (22.2% of the total) in 2011 (Table 59, Table 60 and Table 61). The forms were primarily issued by the United Kingdom (42.3%), the Netherlands (18.6%), Ireland (10.2%) and Germany (9.2%). In 2011, 1.2% of Poland’s unemployed provided a PD U1 to receive an unemployment benefit. For Poland, as well the number of PD U1 documents received as the number of ‘unique persons’ concerned are known. One person received 1.1 PD U1 documents (19,432 forms compared to 17,481 ‘unique’ persons).

For Romania, data was available only on the PD U1 documents delivered by migrant workers. In

2012, 92 forms were received, of which 66% applied to Spain (Table 36).

45 http://www.cleiss.fr/docs/stats/rapportstat2011.html

46 Comment received by HIVA – KU Leuven from CLEISS.

It was estimated by the national competent institution that the United Kingdom received some

300 PD U1/E301 forms (Table 59 and Table 61). Compared to the data from other Member States, this seems a rather low figure. It means that only 0.012% of the UK’s unemployed would have provided a PD U1 form.

In 2012, the Slovak Republic received 10,912 PD U1 forms (Table 59 and Table 61). Most were issued by the Czech Republic (27.9%), United Kingdom (22.1%) and Hungary (15.9%). The Slovak Republic ranked with Estonia at the top end of the range of the percentage of the unemployed receiving unemployment benefit based on evidence from a PD U1, i.e. 2.9%.

Finally, Sweden received 2,202 PD U1/E301 forms in 2011 (Table 60 and Table 61). Of these, 1,762 were from cross-border workers (80%) and 427 were from migrant workers (20%). The forms mainly came from Norway (42.8%) and Denmark (36.6%). Of the total number of unemployed in 2011, 0.6% had proven periods of insurance or (self-)employment in other Member States to confer unemployment rights in Sweden.

Number of PD U1/E301 forms issued

Data on the number of PD U1/E301 forms issued were collected for Belgium, Estonia, Luxembourg and Romania (Table 64).

Belgium issued 11,522 PD U1 forms in 2011 (Table 64). No breakdown by receiving EU Member State is available, but there is data by nationality. Of the total, 22.9% were issued to Belgian nationals. According to a recent report (Pacolet, et. al., 2012) 47 which sought to provide a detailed profile of French, Belgian and German frontier workers and their knowledge and use of, and satisfaction with social security benefits (especially sickness benefits), 33% of the frontier workers living in France and working in Belgium are born in Belgium. However, a PD U1 might also be issued for a migrant worker

47 Pacolet, J., De Wispelaere, F. & De Coninck, A. (2012), The social security rights of frontier workers. A survey on their knowledge, use and satisfaction, focusing on sickness benefits, HIVA-KU Leuven.

coming from Belgium but living and working in another Member State. Of the PD U1’s issued by the Belgian authorities, 61.2% were for French nationals.

Between 2010 and 2012, the number of PD U1 forms issued by Estonia increased by 45.3% (from 428 to 622 forms) (Table 64). Of these, 73% were used to request an unemployment benefit in Finland.

The number of PD U1/E301 forms issued by Luxembourg is indicative of the popularity of this country for mobile workers (Table 64). In 2012, Luxembourg issued 18,875 PD U1 forms, an increase of 5.9% compared to 2010. A high percentage of the forms were received by the French authorities (63.1%). An important number also went to Belgium (15.9%) and Germany (15.4%).

For Romania, we were only able to obtain the number of PD U1 forms issued for migrant workers. In 2012, this was 5,067 (Table 64).

Estimated number of PD U1 to be received: mid-term (2015) and long-term projection (2020)

Data on the total number of PD U1 forms received was obtained from six EU Member States

(Belgium, France, Estonia, Poland, Slovak Republic and Sweden) by way of the launched questionnaire. The proportion of unemployed (LFS definition ‘Average annual unemployed persons (from 14 to 75 years)’) with proven periods of insurance or (self-)employment from other Member States entitling them to unemployment rights is for this group of countries on average 1.6%.

Based on the number of received PD U1 forms by 6 Member States and data from the 2012 Ageing Report, we aimed to make projections of the baseline scenario for 2015 and 2020. For these calculations we will use the number of unemployed persons between 20 and 64 years calculated for 2010 and projected for further years (which differs from the definition used above for an unemployed person (from 14 to 75 years)). From the data we have collected in these Member States, we learned that in general 1.6% of the unemployed persons (from 20 to 64 years) received a PD U1 to prove a period of insurance of (self-)employment from another Member State. This percentage was applied to the total number of unemployed persons residing in Member States for which we found no data. By counting together the survey data together with these estimates, we estimate the total number PD U1 on 341 thousand issued certificates.

If we take into account the unemployment projections for 2015 and 2020 (between 20-64) – found in the 2012 Ageing Report and calculated by applying an unemployment rate to the labour force - the absolute number of issued PD U1 is expected to decrease to 324 thousand forms by 2015 and to 300 thousand forms in 2020. However, here we take only the evolution of the number of unemployed persons into account. Besides, also other variables can/will change in the future (e.g. share of PD U1 compared to total unemployment).

Table 8: Estimated number of received PD U1 in the EU-27: 2010, 2015 & 2020

Unemployed Number PD U1 certificates persons (20-64) - 2010/2011/2012 2010 2015 2020

Country 2010 (in .000) Survey Estimate Total BE 385 2.400 2.400 2.387 2.310 BG 351 5.541 5.541 4.655 3.909 CZ 367 5.792 5.792 5.310 4.973 DK 184 2.902 2.902 1.886 1.880 DE 2.826 44.663 44.663 38.344 37.462 EE 111 2.082 2.082 1.769 1.620 IE 269 4.258 4.258 4.501 4.163 EL 640 10.114 10.114 10.867 8.569 ES 4.405 69.615 69.615 70.352 62.173 FR 2.601 50.003 50.003 47.278 44.121 IT 1.985 31.369 31.369 27.606 28.502 CY 26 412 412 395 363 LV 207 3.273 3.273 3.429 3.058 LT 287 4.535 4.535 4.385 4.022 LU 10 157 157 182 180 HU 473 7.473 7.473 7.974 7.787 MT 10 159 159 165 167 NL 325 5.133 5.133 4.138 4.031 AT 169 2.664 2.664 2.511 2.529 PL 1.696 19.432 19.432 15.798 14.780 PT 578 9.138 9.138 10.360 9.406 RO 684 10.805 10.805 10.035 9.408 SI 72 1.146 1.146 1.368 1.313 SK 374 10.912 10.912 10.801 10.020 FI 195 3.080 3.080 2.372 2.353 SE 340 2.202 2.202 1.852 1.849 UK 2.023 31.965 31.965 33.565 29.042 EU27 21.593 341.223 324.285 299.991 Share PD U1 in total unemployment 1,6%

Source: Estimate based on collected administrative data and 2012 Ageing Report

4.1.2.2 Expenditure on unemployment benefits based on PD U1

Estimated share of actual expenditure on unemployment benefits based on PD U1 in total expenditure on unemployment benefits (2010)

It is interesting to see how much is paid to those in unemployment with proven certified periods from other Member States and how much of global national expenditure on unemployment benefits this amount represents. We received data on this from only three Member States: Belgium, France and Sweden (Table 63). More detail (i.e. a distinction between cross-border workers and migrant workers) was available for France and Sweden.

In Belgium, € 10.5 million was paid (in 2012) to those who needed a PD U1 to receive a Belgian unemployment benefit, or 0.2% of the total expenditure on full unemployment benefits (Table 63). Of this, 47.8% was paid to unemployed who proved a period of insurance or (self-) employment in the Netherlands.

France paid € 516.8 million in 2011 to people in unemployment who aggregated their periods

(mostly cross-border workers) or 1.8% of total expenditure (Table 63 based on CLEISS – Rapport

Statistique 2011) 48 . Of this, 59% of the amount was paid to those with a PD U1 issued by Switzerland.

Finally, Sweden paid € 22.6 million to this group in 2011. Of this, 90.4% was paid to former crossborder workers and 9.6% to migrant workers. Overall, this was 1.1% of total expenditure on full unemployment benefits. Of the total, 48.8% was paid to unemployed who proved insurance periods or (self-)employment in Denmark.

Estimated annual expenditure on unemployment benefits based on PD U1: projections for 2015 and 2020

The maximal annual amount paid to unemployed persons (if we assume that the unemployed did not find a job during the first year of unemployment) who received a PD U1 to prove an insurance period or (self) employment from another Member State can be counted by multiplying the number of estimated PD U1 with the unemployment benefit per unemployed person (in 2010 prices; projected in the 2012 Ageing Report). For 2010, a maximal cost of € 2.07 billion was found. The cost is expected to increase (in absolute figures) to € 2.19 billion in 2015 and to € 2.22 billion in 2020 (in prices of 2010), driven by an increase of the unemployment benefit per unemployed person. However, the breakdown by unemployment cross-border workers and migrant workers is not available. This will be needed to calculate the amount of reimbursement claims between Member States in the baseline scenario and in the other policy options.

Table 9: Yearly estimated amount paid to unemployed persons who received a PD U1 2010, 2015 & 2020 (in EUR)

Country 2010 2015 2020 BE 45.878.431 48.782.839 52.155.037 BG 2.516.832 2.471.472 2.322.888 CZ 8.027.591 6.652.968 7.186.203 DK 27.275.731 31.783.290 32.826.734 DE 398.330.179 328.682.432 343.068.285 EE 1.518.594 1.858.606 1.770.909 IE 63.734.663 94.364.726 93.279.335 EL 21.888.545 26.519.430 24.170.753 ES 329.610.962 506.983.065 499.125.905 FR 628.907.844 606.380.743 615.469.499 IT 182.408.485 124.846.947 134.065.386 CY 1.352.362 1.776.380 1.704.303 LV 1.931.038 2.806.052 2.616.456 LT 1.818.909 2.644.527 2.406.524 LU 3.920.411 4.051.466 4.481.929 HU 6.222.745 7.798.320 7.200.469 MT 350.413 392.599 429.635 NL 147.679.662 150.795.264 153.916.161 AT 33.870.424 32.911.289 35.627.495 PL 7.715.169 5.050.554 5.435.764 PT 33.148.229 41.487.201 37.282.160 RO 8.671.472 5.181.187 5.330.893 SI 1.760.835 2.869.468 2.773.374 SK 4.421.393 3.859.319 3.856.759 FI 45.870.693 43.047.636 47.213.365 SE 13.164.269 14.700.827 15.717.881 UK 70.938.271 102.605.656 102.341.181 EU27 2.072.294.040 2.187.664.422 2.224.972.628

48 http://www.cleiss.fr/docs/stats/rapportstat2011.html

Source: Estimate based on estimated number of PD U1 and 2012 Ageing Report

4.1.3 Export of unemployment benefits

4.1.3.1 Number of issued PD U2 The PD U2 is the authorisation which an unemployed person needs to export his/her unemployment benefit if (s)he wishes to move to another EU country to look for work. The competent national institution is responsible for granting this authorisation.

Statistics on the extent to which requests to export unemployment benefits are accepted or refused are available for Sweden and Poland. In 2012, Sweden refused 37% of the requests for a PD U2 (Table 65). In 2011, only 19% of the requests were refused. The Polish competent institution refused 23% of the requests (in 2011). No further information could be collected on the proportion of persons who requested a prolongation of the export period to 6 months (the acceptance/refusal ratio).

For ten EU Member States (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovak Republic, Sweden and United Kingdom), data were received on the number of PD U2 issued (Table 65).

Austria issued 1,186 PD U2’s (in 2012) (detail by Member State is not available) (Table 65). This is 0.63% of the average annual unemployed persons.

Belgium issued 1,081 PD U2’s (in 2011), of which most for France (46.3%) but also 16.9% for Spain (Table 65).

Denmark provided 1,108 authorisations (in 2011) to seek a job abroad of which 18.9% for the United Kingdom, 12.5% for Germany and 12.4% for Spain (Table 65).

Estonia issued 64 PD U2’s (in 2012), which was a decrease of 7.2% compared to 2011 (69 forms) (Table 65).

Luxembourg issued 148 PD U2’s (in 2012), mainly to seek a job in France (32.4%) and Portugal (24.3%) (Table 65 based on Report of ‘Le gouvernement du Grand-duché de Luxembourg. Agence pour le développement de l’emploi – Les activités de l’agence pour le développement de l’emploi en

2012’) 49 . The number of PD U2’s issued decreased by 16.1% in 2011 compared to 2010, but increased

again in 2012 by 28.7% compared to 2011. In 2012, the number of authorisations granted in Luxembourg to look for a job in another Member State was 1.14% of the average annual number of unemployed persons. This is the highest percentage in our sample of described Member States.

Poland issued 118 PD U2’s (in 2011), mainly for Germany (34.7%) and the United Kingdom (33.9%) (Table 65).

The competent institution in the Netherlands issued 637 PD U2’s in 2012, of which 18.2% both for Germany and for Austria (Table 65 based on report UWV – Kwantitatieve informatie 2011).

49 http://www.adem.public.lu/publications/index.html#Rapports

Romania issued 11 PD U2’s in 2012 (Table 65).

The Slovak Republic issued 79 certificates in 2012, mainly to look for a job in the Czech Republic,

Germany and the United Kingdom (Table 65).

In 2012, Sweden issued 264 PD U2/E303 forms (Table 65 based on report IAF) 50 . This was 11% fewer

than in 2011. Most of the forms were for those wanting to look for a job in the United Kingdom

(15.4%) or Spain (14.7%). More detail about trends in the number of PD U2/E303 forms issued and the profile of the jobseeker is available for Sweden. There has been a strong decrease in the number of PD U2/E303 forms issued in last decade. E.g. in 2004, even 1,036 E303’s were issued. 87.4% of the unemployed who received a PD U2 form (between May 2010 and August 2011) actually went abroad to look for a job. These jobseekers were mainly aged between 30 and 39 (44%). More unemployed women (58%) than men (42%) went looking for a job abroad. 46% of those with a PD U2 who were not born in Sweden were seeking a job in their country of birth.

Finally, it was estimated by the competent national institution that the United Kingdom issued about 300 PD U2’s (Table 65).

For the EU-27, an estimate of the number of PD U2’s issued can be made by using the statistics collected together with data from Eurostat (LFS definition ‘Average annual unemployed persons (from 14 to 75 years)’). We have the total number of PD U2’s issued for 10 EU Member States, collected by way of launching a questionnaire. This suggests that on average only 0.11% of the unemployed looked for a job abroad. Extrapolating this percentage to arrive at an estimate of the total number of PD U2’s issued in the EU-27 each year the resulting estimation is an annual issue of 23,700 PD U2’s.

Policies on refusal/approval of requests for a prolongation vary considerably between Member

States. For example, Sweden refused all 35 requests for prolongation in 2011, while Poland in the same year accepted all 20 requests for prolongation (Table 66).

The main aim of the possibility of exporting unemployment benefits under the current rules is that the unemployed person actually finds a job abroad. A proxy for the success rate could be calculated for the unemployed from Belgium, Poland and Sweden who have moved abroad (export PD U2) and for the unemployed from other Member States who have sought a job in the Netherlands (import PD U2) (Table 67). Of the unemployed in Belgium who received a PD U2, 44% actually found a job abroad. The success rate for the unemployed people coming from Belgium in the two most popular Member States for looking for a job, namely France and Spain, was 46% and 36%. However, this should be considered as a broad definition of the success rate for Belgium. It is based on the number of people who are no longer registered within the Belgian National Employment Office after their period of export. This might be for different reasons: they have found work in the country of export, they have found work in Belgium, or they moved to some other country. The success rates for Poland

and Sweden are 10% and 12%. For the incoming jobseekers in the Netherlands 51 , a success rate of

22.8% was obtained. So the rates are highly variable.

50 http://www.iaf.se/Global/Fakta%20om%20arbetsl%C3%B6shetsf%C3%B6rs%C3%A4kringen/Vilka%20personer%20s%C3%B6ker%20a rbete%20i%20Europa%20med%20svensk%20arbetsl%C3%B6shetsers%C3%A4ttning.pdf

51 Information from the Dutch Institute for Employees Insurances (UWV) provided by Fleur Veltkamp (DG EMPL).

4.1.3.2 Number of received PD U2 Figures were available for the number of PD U2’s received in five Member States (Estonia, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Sweden) (Table 68).

In 2012, Estonia received 41 PD U2’s, mainly from Ireland. This is an increase of 17.1% compared to 2011 (35 forms received).

For France, only the number of received E303 forms in 2011 is available, mainly issued by Switzerland and Norway (Table 68 based on CLEISS – Rapport Statistique 2011) 52 .

Luxembourg received 171 certificates for jobseekers in 2012, many of them coming from Portugal

(based on Report of ‘Le gouvernement du Grand-duché de Luxembourg. Agence pour le développement de l’emploi – Les activités de l’agence pour le développement de l’emploi en

2012’) 53 . The number of PD U2 received by Luxembourg has increased in recent years, mainly due to

a spectacular increase in the number of jobseekers coming from Portugal.

In 2012, the Netherlands received 483 PD U2’s, mostly from Spain.

Finally, Sweden welcomed 691 jobseekers from other Member States. The number of persons

seeking a job in Sweden has fluctuated strongly over the years (lowest in 2000 and highest in 2004). 54

Observing the row totals for the number of issued PD U2 forms (Table 65), France, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom seem to be the most popular Member States in which to look for a job.

4.1.3.3 Mid-term and long-term projection of the number of exported unemployment benefits Statistical data about the number of PD U2 issued was already obtained for 10 EU Member States. This administrative information could be compared by the number of unemployed persons between 20 and 64 years calculated for 2010 and projected for further years (which differs from the definition used above for an unemployed person (from 14 to 75 years)). On average 0.11% of the unemployed persons in the countries of which administrative information is available moved abroad to seek work and export their unemployment benefits. This percentage was applied to the number of unemployed persons (20-64) in the other 17 EU Member States.

Taking together both components (survey data and estimates) we estimate that 23.7 thousand unemployed persons have exported their unemployment benefits in 2010. Based on the projections of the 2012 Ageing report, the number of jobseekers moving abroad would decrease to 22.8 thousand unemployed persons in 2015 and 21.2 thousand unemployed persons in 2020.

52 http://www.cleiss.fr/docs/stats/rapportstat2011.html

53 http://www.adem.public.lu/publications/index.html#Rapports

54 See also http://www.iaf.se/Statistik/EUEES-arenden/

Table 10: A projection of the number of export unemployment benefits (PD U2): 2010, 2015 & 2020

Unemployed Number PD U2 certificates persons (20-64) - 2010/2011/2012 2010 2015 2020

Country 2010 (in .000) Survey Estimate Total BE 385 1.081 1.081 1.075 1.040 BG 351 385 385 323 272 CZ 367 402 402 369 346 DK 184 1.108 1.108 720 718 DE 2.826 3.103 3.103 2.664 2.603 EE 111 64 64 54 50 IE 269 296 296 313 289 EL 640 703 703 755 595 ES 4.405 4.837 4.837 4.888 4.320 FR 2.601 2.856 2.856 2.701 2.520 IT 1.985 2.180 2.180 1.918 1.980 CY 26 29 29 27 25 LV 207 227 227 238 213 LT 287 315 315 305 279 LU 10 148 148 172 170 HU 473 519 519 554 541 MT 10 11 11 11 12 NL 325 637 637 513 500 AT 169 1.186 1.186 1.118 1.126 PL 1.696 118 118 96 90 PT 578 635 635 720 654 RO 684 11 11 10 10 SI 72 80 80 95 91 SK 374 79 79 407 378 FI 195 214 214 165 163 SE 340 264 264 222 222 UK 2.023 2.221 2.221 2.332 2.018 EU27 21.593 23.710 22.769 21.225 Share PD U2 in total unemployment 0,11%

Source: Estimate based on collected administrative data (cf. Annex 10.1.1 – UB) and 2012 Ageing Report

4.1.3.4 Number of exported unemployment benefits vs. total number of persons seeking a job abroad Jobseekers can create a CV in EURES and make it available for registered employers and EURES advisers helping employers to find suitable candidates. Those people generally still reside in their origin country. In June 2013 about 1 million jobseekers were registered on the EURES Portal (= current stock). Most registered jobseekers live in Spain, Italy and Portugal. As this number is the current stock of registered jobseekers it is necessary to have also an overview of the yearly new registered jobseekers. This could be a proxy of the total number of (unemployed) jobseekers looking for a job abroad but not a good proxy of people looking for a job in another country in which they already established. Between June 2012 and June 2013 about 274 thousand new persons registered on the EURES Portal. We estimated that about 23.7 thousand unemployed persons receive a PD U2 which is 8.7% of the total number of ‘new’ registered jobseekers in EURES.

Table 11: Number of jobseekers registered in EURES cv online and comparison with estimated number of PD U2 certificates issued, by country of residence, in .000

Jobseekers registered in EURES % share PD (stock) Number U2 in total

June June Absolute of PD U2 registerd Country 2013 2012 difference issued jobseekers Spain 294 209 85

Italy 155 109 46 Portugal 79 60 19

Romania 77 63 14 Poland 58 48 10

Germany 43 37 6 France 38 32 6

Greece 39 29 10 Other MS 252 172 80

All EU 1035 761 274 24 8,7%

Source: Own calculations based on estimate EU-27 and EC, EU Employment and Social Situation – Quarterly Review June 2013.

4.1.4 Estimated cros-border expenditure on unemployment benefits

In order to estimate the budgetary impact of the baseline scenario, the estimated number of unemployed cross-border workers based on the LFS and the unemployment rates of the Ageing Report is multiplied by the annual unemployment benefit per unemployed person (in 2010 prices; projected in the 2012 Ageing Report). For each of the flows between Member States (in the different cells) the unemployment benefit of the country of last activity and the unemployment benefit of the country of residence was taken into consideration (see Table 89).

Under current rules unemployed frontier workers must claim unemployment benefits in the country of residence while unemployed other cross-border workers can choose to claim unemployment benefits in the country of last employment or in the country of residence. Due to fact the other cross-border worker can choose, an assumption has to be made about how many of them return to the country of residence and how many stay in the country of last activity. We assume first that 50% of the other unemployed cross-border workers will return and 50% will stay. An alternative assumption could be based on the rational decision which Member State (country of last activity or country of residence) is paying the highest unemployment benefit.

The actual total yearly expenditure is estimated based on the unemployment benefit per unemployed person in prices 2010 (unemployment benefit spending in 2010 prices / (labour force * unemployment rate)) taken up in the 2012 Ageing Report as also the estimated unemployed crossborder workers. This yearly expenditure assumes that the unemployed person did not find a job

during the first year of unemployment. 55 A breakdown between the expenditure by the country of

residence (Table 43) or the country of last activity (Table 44) is made. We also refer to bilateral expenditure between countries.

The baseline scenario (option A) whereby frontier workers have to return to the country of residence and other cross-border workers can choose between the country of residence or the country of last activity involves a yearly expenditure of € 540.0 million of which € 392.4 million related to frontier

55 The reader has to take this assumption into account when reading the estimated budgetary impact. A more ‘realistic’ calculation of the yearly expenditure could be obtained by taking into consideration the average duration of the unemployment (which is an indicator in the LFS) and the specific national rules concerning the maximum length of the payment of the unemployment benefit.

workers when assuming that 50% of the other cross-border workers are returning to their country of residence (Table 89 - baseline scenarioA1). This involves that 81% of the yearly expenditure on crossborder workers will be paid by the country of residence and 19% by the country of last activity. 56 The specific expenditure for frontier workers will be fully covered by the country of residence.

Assuming for the baseline scenario that other cross-border workers choose on the basis of the amount of the unemployment benefit (= rational decision) (baseline scenarioA2), involves a yearly expenditure of € 638.5 million or an increase of 18.2% compared to the first baseline scenario (Table 90). 70% of this expenditure shall be paid by the country of residence while 30% by the country of last activity (Table 90). It implies that in more than 50% of the cases it is more interesting to claim an unemployment benefit in the country of last activity.

4.1.5 Reimbursement claims

4.1.5.1 Number and value of received reimbursement claims

Claims can be made by the country of residence to the country of last activity for fully unemployed frontier workers but also for other cross-border workers who have decided to register with the competent institution in their country of residence. The country of last activity shall reimburse the unemployed benefits provided in the country of residence during the first three months or five months (when the unemployed person during the preceding 24 months, completed at least 12 months of (self)employment in the country of last activity). Data were collected on the number of claims received (as debtor) and the number of claims issued (as creditor) (Table 71 and Table 72).

It was possible to describe the position as debtor (from request until receipt of reimbursement) in the case of six Member States (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Poland, Romania and Slovak Republic). This means that we have data on the cross-border workers who had worked in these Member States but are receiving an unemployment benefit in their current country of residence.

In 2011, Belgium received reimbursement requests for an amount of € 11.3 million or 3,664 cases (Table 71). France accounted for 84.6% of the cases and 73.8% of the amount requested. This is not surprising when we look at the number of PD U1 forms issued by Belgium.

Denmark received 1,637 reimbursement requests, of which 67.5% came from Germany (Table 71).

There was no detailed information for Germany, but the comment was made by the competent institution (received by the national expert) that some 7,000 reimbursement requests had been received (in the second semester 2011 and first semester 2012) (Table 71). 57

56 However, also the amount of the reimbursement claim should be taken into account. This will imply a higher amount paid by the country of last activity. But also the duration of the unemployment will have an important impact. Actually, the total cost could be allocated to the country of last activity when the duration of unemployment of the unemployed frontier worker/ other cross-border worker is lower than 3 or 5 months and when the claim of reimbursement by the country of residence is equal or lower than the unemployment benefits paid in the country of last activity.

57 Comments received from competent institution in Germany:

Poland only received 84 claims, for an amount € 207,000, mainly issued by Germany (Table 71).

Further detail on the treatment of the reimbursement request is available for Poland. Poland partially accepted 88% of the reimbursement requests, 4% were not accepted and 7% were entirely accepted. This might due to the fact that the amount of reimbursement cannot be higher than the amount payable under the legislation of the country of last activity (see art. 65, 6 Regulation (EC) No.

883/2004). 58 E.g. when we compare the ‘Unemployment benefit per unemployed person in 2010

prices’ calculated in the 2012 Ageing Report we find that the yearly unemployment benefit in

Germany (€ 8,919) is much higher than in Poland (€ 397). The impact of this legal boundary will be discussed further in this report.

In 2011, Romania received reimbursement claims for an amount of € 49,167 (Table 71). Most of the claims were sent by Germany. Romania partially accepted 54% of the reimbursement requests, while 45% were not accepted and only 1% entirely accepted. Also here will the maximum amount of reimbursement play an important role as the unemployment benefit paid in Romania will be in some cases lower than the unemployment benefits paid in other Member States.

Finally, in 2011 the Slovak Republic received reimbursement requests for an amount of € 102,000

(Table 71).

4.1.5.2 Number and value of issued reimbursement claims The position as creditor can be described for the same six Member States (Table 72). This means that we collected data on cross-border workers receiving unemployment benefits in these Member States after having worked in other Member States.

In 2011, Belgium sent 3,353 reimbursement requests for an amount of € 8.7 million (Table 72). Most of these claims were sent to neighbouring countries (France, Germany, Netherlands and Luxembourg).

Denmark only issued eight reimbursement requests (Table 72).

No detail was available for Germany. However, the relevant German institution sent yearly about

16,000 reimbursement requests (second semester 2011 – first semester 2012) (Table 72). See for the German case the comments made as debtor (footnote).

“For several reasons we cannot provide detailed information on statistical data about reimbursement:

1.

The numbers are still not stable for diverse reasons. E.g.

** the reimbursement rules have recently changed (with the introduction of Decision U4 of the Administrative Commission) and may change again in future;

** MS (Member States) changed / will change the way / periodicity how they submit their claims;

** some rather large MS have not sent any claims until now (probably because of problems within their administrations);

** One important partner for Germany is Switzerland. We do not yet have meaningful statistical data because the application period of the reimbursement procedure is rather short.

2.

We do not know whether our partner MS would agree that we provide information regarding claims from or towards the respective MS. Therefore we can only provide a rough estimation about yearly reimbursement claims. The estimation is based on claims from the second semester 2011 (submitted in the first semester 2012) and the first semester 2012 (submitted in the second semester 2012). ** yearly claims from Germany (Germany as creditor): 16.000 cases;

** yearly foreign claims towards Germany (Germany as debtor): 7.000 cases”.

58 This limitation is not foreseen in the healthcare chapter of Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004 i. It would have an important impact on the amounts of reimbursement for LTC benefits in kind.

Poland issued 7,599 reimbursement requests in 2011 for an amount of € 4.7 million (Table 72). Most of the Polish claims were received by the United Kingdom (41% of cases) and the Netherlands (23% of cases). The debtor country rejected 71% of these Polish claims, while 29% of the claims were entirely accepted. The rejection rate is mainly influenced by the decision of the United Kingdom to reject all claims (644) from Poland.

Romania sent a total amount of € 33,000 of reimbursement claims, mainly to Germany and

Luxembourg. Of Romania’s claims, 76% were entirely accepted and 24% not accepted (Table 72).

Finally, the Slovak Republic claimed an amount of € 2.4 million, of which 42.9% was sought from the Czech Republic (Table 72).

The extent to which Member States experience labour mobility will have an impact on the number and amount of reimbursement claims.

For example: The number of incoming cross-border workers in Belgium is high, but the number of outgoing cross-border workers is even higher (Table 83). This high degree of labour mobility results in high levels of reimbursement requests sent and received. The amount of reimbursement requested (€ 8.7 million in 2012) will to a large extent compensate for the unemployment benefits paid out by the Belgian competent institution to former cross-border workers (€ 10.5 million in 2012). Germany, Poland and the Slovak Republic have a high number of outgoing cross-border workers which results in a much higher number/amount of claims issued compared to claims received. At the same time, Denmark and Romania attract more cross-border workers, which results in a higher amount/more case of claims received. The reimbursement procedure mainly affects Luxembourg and Switzerland, which have a high number of incoming cross-border workers (see Table 81, Table 82, and Table 83).

4.1.5.3 Estimates of current reimbursement claims for the EU-27 A breakdown between claims for 3 months or 5 months is not available in the data of the launched

questionnaire. 59 None of the responding countries could make this distinction in our questionnaire.

In order to make an estimate, we will assume 3 months of claims (minimum scenario). Another crucial element which we should take into account for the calculation is the fact that the amount of reimbursement by the country of last activity is limited to the maximum unemployment benefit the

unemployment person would receive in case of unemployment in the country of last activity. 60 For

this exercise, we have multiplied the estimated number of unemployed cross-border workers based on the LFS and the unemployment rates of the Ageing Report by the unemployment benefit per unemployed person for three months (in 2010 prices; projected in the 2012 Ageing Report). For that reason the figures concerning the estimated yearly expenditure on unemployment benefits for unemployed cross-border workers should be read together with the figures dealing with the estimated reimbursement claims to assess who is sharing the burden of unemployment.

For each of the flows between MS (in the different cells) the unemployment benefit of the country of last activity and the unemployment benefit of the country of residence is taken into consideration (see also Table 95). The unemployment benefit of the country of residence will be used to calculate the claim of reimbursement. Also, this claim will be compared with the actual reimbursement taking into account the rule that the reimbursement cannot be higher than the amount payable, in the case

59 Art. 65, 6 and 7, Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004 i.

60 See art. 65, 6, Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004 i; art. 70 and Annex 5 Implementing Regulation (EC) No. 987/2009 i.

of unemployment, under the legislation of the country of last activity (=maximum amount). The actual reimbursement will be equal to the claim when the unemployment benefit in the country of residence is lower than or equal to the unemployment benefit in the country of last activity. The actual reimbursement will be equal to the unemployment benefit in the country of residence (=maximum amount) when the unemployment benefit in the country of residence is lower than the country of last activity (Table 95-Table 99).

The baseline scenario A1 whereby frontier workers have to return to the country of residence and other cross-border workers can choose between the country of residence or the country of last activity involves a claim of € 108.8 million of which € 98.1 million for frontier workers when we assume that 50% of the other cross-border workers return to their country of residence (Table 95). However, these claims are based on the unemployment benefits paid by the country of residence and not on the maximum payable amount by the country of last activity. It implies for this baseline scenario that the reimbursement will be 24% lower than the possible actual claim (see baseline scenario A1a - Table 96).

If other cross-border workers are making a rational decision on the basis of the amount of the unemployment benefit (baseline scenario A2a - Table 97 & Table 98), the claim will increase with 3% compared to the baseline scenario A1a whereby 50% of the other cross-border workers are returning to their country of residence.

4.1.6 Estimated current administrative costs and burden

4.1.6.1 Data limitations

In order to allow the stakeholders to identify the time spent on the information obligations related to the Regulations, we have defined prior to our visits in the Member States a standard legal process stemming from the Regulations, in cooperation with the Commission.

During our first visits, we noticed several issues concerning this process:

National administrations have developed their own administrative processes for processing/handling documents related to cross-border cases for unemployment benefits and long-term care. These differ substantially between the Member States. As a result, the experts in the respective countries faced difficulties in plugging the suggested administrative processes into their national way of working (processing documents);

The legal process encompassed several sub-administrative processes and documents and therefore Information Obligations (IOs). The complexity of the different processes proved to be an obstacle in making precise estimations of the (estimated) time spent for each of the processes. The experts were often not able to provide robust data on the time spent per each of the steps defined by the legal process.

Moreover, as the Regulations impose “principles” of coordination more than specific information obligations in the sense of the SCM, and as the principles were already applied partly or integrally by the administrations or applied still differently, it proved to be impossible for the stakeholders to

differentiate the specific administrative burden 61 created by the Regulations from the business-asusual (the administrative tasks they would perform anyway in the absence of the Regulations).

Another consequence of the nature of the Regulations is that each national process is different, meaning that it results in different requirements, documents, times and complexity. It makes it impossible to standardize one process that fits all national specificities.

There are examples demonstrating the complexity of the processing of cross-border cases for unemployment benefits which can result in administrative cost and burden for Member States’ authorities:

The occasionally ‘blurry’ distinction between frontier workers and other cross-border workers, the distinction between wholly and partially unemployed frontier workers, the highly interpretable character of the criteria to determine the residence of a worker, the provisions on the aggregation of periods of insurance, employment and selfemployment, and the reimbursement mechanism were mentioned as factors rendering the current coordination rules as complex;

While these regulatory distinctions intend to reflect the complexities of real situations and account for the actual differences between different types of cross-border workers and different types of national systems, the result is a striking variety of possible cases in which the interpretation of the rules carried out by each institution plays a significant role;

There are notable differences in the interpretation and application of the rules on the aggregation of periods and the extension of the period of export of unemployment benefits;

The classic distinction between frontier workers and other cross-border workers has become more problematic. Inter alia, the improvement and reduction in the cost of different means of transportation has allowed workers to cover ever larger differences to commute daily or weekly for work. The elements fixed in Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 i are broad enough to prevent mobile workers to know with certainty their country of residence and hence the legal regime applicable to them in case of unemployment;

The reimbursement mechanism was often criticized, including claims considering that it should be made more transparent (Belgium) and that clear guidelines should be provided to each country (Luxembourg).

While the interviewees in certain countries defended that the current rules are sufficiently clear (e.g. the German Employment Services), the prevalent view was that the current coordination rules do not facilitate transparency and could be simplified. The burdensome character of the current rules was also criticized in countries which did not call for a revision of the coordination rules.

The diversity of opinions and practices in the application of certain aspects of the coordination rules is a testimony to the complexity of the rules and the lack of transparency they generate (since, given a similar situation in different regions, the similar outcome is not guaranteed). This complexity and

61 The administrative burden is burden created by a legal requirement while the administrative cost is the full cost of an administrative process, including the business as usual.

incoherent understanding and application of the rules create a substantial (administrative) burden for the (national) administrations. This ‘burden’ is inherent to the management of cases where different understanding and national administrative processes apply; it goes beyond the definition of the administrative burden of the SCM where it is related to legal information obligations.

Around 40% of the participating public administrations reported that the EU rules create significant administrative costs and burden for national administrations. They consider the different types of forms/documents used per country, the varying requirements/understanding in terms of the information needed to fill out the documents, their mandatory or optional character and advance the procedures, and the different delays in the completion and transmission of documents as some of the most salient and recurrent problems. The reimbursement mechanism was repeatedly mentioned as a source of burden mainly due to the slow and ineffective communication between Member States.

“There are high administrative costs in what concerns to the reimbursement of the unemployment benefits that were paid. Moreover, we would highlight the delay on the treatment of the processes and the requests for payment that are denied. Because the EU rules create significant administrative costs and burdens for national administrations, EU law is not uniformly "understood" and applied by Member States and vice versa. … Paper SEDs are not always suitable for the exchange of information and not all MS use the same documents/forms. Reimbursement procedures create high administrative burden and important costs for both the MS of last activity and the MS of residence and the cost/benefit ratio is not effective, mainly for the MS of residence. The communications between institutions is slow and needs to be more effective.”

Several public officials expect the administrative burden to decrease in the next couple of years as a result of learning effects after the successful implementation and alignment of the rules. While the adoption of the Regulations took place ten years ago, it has taken time to fine-tune the implementation of the new rules and procedures. The lack of sound implementation of the new rules and procedures is particularly visible in a number of Member States. According to the online survey, 64% of the administrations stated that the communication (with other Member States) works well in general. However, there are problems with specific Member States. These reported problems are expected to be the main source of administrative costs.

Technological evolution could resolve some of the problems related to cooperation and communication. However, divergent interpretations of the rules and the information requirements for the completion of portable documents will continue to pose difficulties in the proper application of the Regulations.

In light of the limitations associated with the quantification of information obligations stemming from the application of the Regulations, we have adapted our approach for quantifying the IOs resulting from the Regulations and for assessing the (potential) impact of the policy options on the overall administrative process. In our analysis, we focused on a selected number of documents for which the stakeholders were able to provide robust information on a) the time spent to process/handle a document and b) the (approximate) number of cases.

We have collected useful information on the processing of documents related to cross-border cases for unemployment benefits on a) the estimated time and b) the number of cases in the following countries: Belgium, Poland, Luxembourg and Romania by means of a workshop. Other countries have provided a wealth of qualitative information which is useful for understanding the underlying problems related to the processing of the different documents and for assessing the (potential) impacts of the different options.

Despite the data limitations resulting from the problems discussed in this chapter, the assessment of the administrative cost (baseline scenario) for a number of key documents provides a robust basis for assessing the theoretical impact (positive or negative) of the different policy options on the administrative cost.

4.1.6.2 Aggregation of periods of employment/insurance/self-employment 62

The number of PD U1/E301 documents received/issued provides insight into the extent to which periods of insurance and (self-) employment in another Member State were taken into account when granting unemployment benefits. For the purpose of the assessment of the administrative costs, we do not make any distinction between PD U1 documents and E301 documents (Member States are using either of the documents, depending on their national administrative processes). Both documents are treated interchangeably for the purpose of this exercise.

In the framework of this study, we have collected data on the number of PD U1 documents ‘issued’ and ‘received’. The following countries provided data on the total number of PD U1 documents ‘issued’: Belgium, Estonia, Luxembourg and Romania. With regards to the number of PD U1 forms ‘received’, we have collected data for Belgium, Estonia, France, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic, Sweden and the UK. In addition, we have collected data on the aggregation of periods of employment/insurance/self-employment by means of a workshop in the following countries: Belgium, Poland and Romania (data provided for E301 only).

In order to assess the administrative costs for the EU-27 stemming from the processing of the PD U1

documents, we have carried out the following steps according to the Standard Cost Model (SCM) 63 :

Calculation of the unit cost per case:

The unit cost per case (processing/handling of a PD U1 form by the administrative staff – clerk level) provides insight into the total cost for processing one single PD U1 document (in a given Member State). It is based on the following formula:

Time (T) x Wage (W)

During the workshops and interviews in the Member States, we have collected data on the average standard time spent for processing/handling a PD U1 document for the following countries: Poland (5

minutes), Belgium (60 minutes) and Romania (363 minutes) 64 . As the data show, there are stark

differences between the lowest time for processing data/information (Poland - 5 minutes) and

62 See also 10.8

63 Based on the following formula: Number of cases (N) x Wage (hourly tariff) (W) x Time (minutes) (T).

64 We have also received a rough, undetailed estimation of the issuance of E 301/PD U1 documents for the Netherlands (source: public

employment service UWV). The average administrative burden to issue this document is estimated at 30 minutes (comparable to Belgium’s estimates). 90% of the cases is processed within 8 weeks.

countries where the processing time is relatively higher (Romania - 363 minutes). Belgium (60 minutes) ranges in the middle.

In Poland, for example, the process for handling PD U1 documents is automatized - Poland uses the portable documents efficiently (the administrative staff faces less administrative burden). According to the interviewees (national administration), the handling of the documents is reported to be less burdensome.

In Romania, on the other hand, the administration of E301 documents (note: not PD U1 in this case) is reported to be more burdensome. According to the interviewees, the administration of simple cases, with limited or no clarifications requested from the beneficiary or employer, may take

minimum 1 hour of work in total for the person in charge 65 . The administration of complex cases,

with a lot of missing, inadequate or incorrect information in the dossier, may request up to 8 hours of effort from the person in charge. In such cases, the respective civil servant assumes an active role in the completion of a correct dossier and starts giving phone calls, researching different taxes and employment data bases etc.

Based on the interviewees’ responses for Poland, Belgium and Romania, it can be assumed that these three countries give good indications for calculating the average unit cost for processing/handling a PD U1 document: Poland (low administrative burden – 5 minutes), Belgium (average administrative burden – 60 minutes) and Romania (high administrative burden – 363 minutes).

For consistency and comparability with other SCM assessments of EU regulation, the tariff variable used in this study is based on hourly labour costs (plus overheads) per category of employment that has previously been used in recent SCM studies for DG EMPL 66 and our recent Impact Assessment studies we have conducted for the Commission. We have applied an average tariff/hour of EUR 18. It results in a rate per minute of EUR 0.3 (EUR 18/60 minutes).

The average unit cost for the EU-27 is EUR 42.8. It is calculated on the following basis: Time ((5 minutes (Poland) + 60 minutes (Belgium) + 363 minutes (Romania)) / 3) x Wage 0.3 = EUR 42.8

1.

Number of cases:

We have collected data for the number of PD U1 documents ‘received’ for the following countries:

Belgium, Estonia, France, Poland, Slovak Republic and the UK. We have estimated the number of PD U1 documents for the other EU-27 countries on the basis of our own calculations based on collected administrative data and the 2012 Ageing Report (see section 4.1.2.1 for more detailed information on the number of PD U1/E301 forms ‘received’ and ‘issued’). We were able to calculate the

65 There are no legislation/manual/ instructions/guidelines explaining step by step what the Romanian authorities need to do specifically for each procedure for unemployment under the Regulation; in fact, no other Romanian authority has prepared any specific national legislation/manual/instructions/guidelines related to the implementation of the Regulation, with the exception of the Pensions Authority. The Regulation 883/2004 i is implemented in Romania via the Intermediary Body (National Labour Office) and Competent Institutions (County Labour Offices – 42 in total). The Intermediary Body mainly acts as a facilitator of contacts between Romanian institutions and foreign ones, as well as trainer and day-to-day support to county offices meeting difficulties in implementation of the Regulation. In the Intermediary Body there are two persons working on the Regulation (one person is 100% dedicated to the activities related to the Regulation, the other one dedicates approximately 70% of his/her time to the Regulation).

66 For instance: Review of the Working Time Directive 2003/88/EC i: measuring administrative costs and burdens of various possible options. Economisti Associati srl, 21/12/2011. This study presents a tariff per MS and per level (managerial and clerical staff) that we have averaged. The result is in line with the tariff we use in other SCM that we have conducted for other European Commission DGs.

estimated administrative cost for the EU-27 on the basis of this data. The total estimated number of PD U1 documents ‘received’ in the EU-27 in 2010 is around 340 000.

2.

Calculation of the administrative cost (per Member State and for the EU-27)

We have calculated the administrative cost for processing PD U1 documents on the basis of this formula:

Time (T) x Wage (W) x Number (N)

The table below presents the total estimated administrative cost for processing PD U1 documents. The estimated total cost for the EU-27 in 2010 was EUR 14 604 326. Within the EU-27, the estimated total cost for processing PD U1 documents was highest (˃ EUR 1 million) in a number of the old Member States (in descending order): Spain, France, Germany and Italy. It was lowest (˂ EUR 100 000) in descending order in Sweden, Estonia, Slovenia, Cyprus, Luxembourg and Malta.

Table 12: Estimated administrative Cost - PD U1 (‘received’), EU-27, EUR, 2010

PD U1 (received) Unemployed

persons (20-64) - 2010/2011/2012 2010

Country 2010 (in .000) Survey Estimate Total Total cost (in EUR) BE 385 2,400 2,400 102,720 BG 351 5,541 5,541 237,141 CZ 367 5,792 5,792 247,911 DK 184 2,902 2,902 124,194 DE 2,826 44,663 44,663 1,911,564 EE 111 2,082 2,082 89,110 IE 269 4,258 4,258 182,221 EL 640 10,114 10,114 432,895 ES 4,405 69,615 69,615 2,979,503 FR 2,601 50,003 50,003 2,140,128 IT 1,985 31,369 31,369 1,342,577 CY 26 412 412 17,635 LV 207 3,273 3,273 140,092 LT 287 4,535 4,535 194,083 LU 10 157 157 6,699 HU 473 7,473 7,473 319,826 MT 10 159 159 6,805 NL 325 5,133 5,133 219,708 AT 169 2,664 2,664 114,016 PL 1,696 19,432 19,432 831,690 PT 578 9,138 9,138 391,099 RO 684 10,805 10,805 462,453 SI 72 1,146 1,146 49,032 SK 374 10,912 10,912 467,034 FI 195 3,080 3,080 131,834 SE 340 2,202 2,202 94,246 UK 2,023 31,965 31,965 1,368,111 EU27 21,593 341,223 14,604,326

Source: Estimate based on collected administrative data and 2012 Ageing Report and data provided during the workshops on administrative burden (Belgium, Poland and Romania).

We have also calculated the average administrative cost for processing/handling a number of other documents, based on the data available. We were only able to produce the administrative cost for processing PD U1 documents (‘received’) for the EU-27 as we had data available for the EU-27 on the basis of our own calculations (there are no calculations for the other documents presented below).

We have calculated the administrative cost for ‘issuing’ a PD U1 document (‘issued’) for Poland and Belgium (based on the data we have collected during the workshops in the different countries). The total estimated cost for ‘issuing’ a PD U1 document in Poland is estimated at EUR 19 800. The amount is EUR 103 698 in Belgium. The table below presents the estimated cost for ‘issuing’ a PD U1 document for Poland and Belgium.

Table 13: Estimated administrative Cost – PD U1 (‘issued’), Poland and Belgium, EUR, 2013

Poland Belgium Unit cost per case (EUR) 6.6 9 Number of cases 3000 11522 Total cost (EUR) 19800 103698

Source: Deloitte, Workshop, Poland and Belgium

We have also estimated the cost for the following documents for Poland 67 :

• SED U004 'Salary Info' (answer on SED U003); • SED U006 'Family Info' (answer on SED U005).

The table below presents the estimated cost for processing the above-mentioned documents in

Poland. The total estimated cost for processing a SED U004 document ‘Salary Info’ in Poland is EUR 402. The cost for processing SED U006 documents ‘Family Info’ is estimated at EUR 825.

Table 14: Estimated administrative Cost –SED U004 ‘Salary Info’, SED U006 ‘Family Info’, Poland EUR, 2013

SED U004 'Salary Info' (answer on SED U003)

Unit cost per case (EUR) 4.2 Number of cases 100

Total cost (EUR) 420

SED U006 'Family Info' (answer on SED U005)

Unit cost per case (EUR) 7.5

Number of cases 110

Total cost (EUR) 825

Source: Deloitte, workshop in Poland

4.1.6.3 Export of unemployment benefits 68

The PD U2 form is the authorisation which an unemployed person needs to export his/her unemployment benefit if (s)he wishes to move to another EU country to look for work. The competent national institution is responsible for granting this authorisation. There is a wide variety of practices in the EU-27 with regard to granting (and prolonging) authorisation to export unemployment benefit.

We have collected data on the number of PD U2 documents ‘issued’ for ten EU Member States:

Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovak Republic, Sweden and the UK. Taking together both components (survey data and own estimates) we estimate that 23.7 thousand unemployed persons have exported their unemployment benefits in 2010 (see section

67 Poland has provided the most comprehensive data set on the administrative burden resulting from the information obligations stemming from the Regulation during the workshop.

68 See also 10.8

4.1.3.3 for a detailed discussion on the calculation of the number of PD U2 ‘received’ and on the methodology for calculating missing data).

We have calculated the administrative cost for processing/handling a PD U2 document for the EU-27 using the following methodology:

1.

Calculation of the unit cost per case:

The average unit cost per case is based on the data we have received from Poland (the only country

for which we have received robust data on the time spent for processing a PD U2 document 69 ). The

average unit cost per case that we found concerns the export of an unemployment benefit to 3

months 70 . Following the formula Time (T) x Wage (W), we have estimated an average unit cost per case (PD U2 ‘issued’) at EUR 4.5 71 .

The estimated unit cost should be treated with caution as it is based on one case only (Poland). As discussed in the section on the ‘aggregation of periods’, Poland seems to have an efficient (automatized) system for processing/handling PD documents (the processing of the documents is reported to be less burdensome). Therefore, it is to be expected, that the Polish example presents a rather positive picture on the overall time spent to process these documents. Other countries, such as Romania (which reported a much higher time spent for processing the PD U1 document) may report longer periods for processing/handling these types of documents. Due to data limitations, we have calculated the average unit cost on the basis of the Polish example.

2.

Number of cases:

We have collected data on the number of PD U2 documents ‘issued’ by means of a questionnaire for the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovak Republic, Sweden and United Kingdom. In 2010, the total EU-27 number of PD U2 documents ‘issued’ is estimated at around 23 700.

3.

Calculation of the administrative cost (per Member State and for the EU-27)

We have calculated the administrative cost for processing PD U2 documents (‘issued’) on the basis of this formula:

Time (T) x Wage (W) x Number (N)

The calculation includes the time spent on national administrative procedures supporting the processing of the SEDS and the time needed for processing the SED.

The table below presents the total estimated administrative cost for processing PD U2 documents.

The estimated total cost for the EU-27 in 2010 was EUR 106 695. Within the EU-27, the estimated total cost for processing a PD U2 documents was highest (˃ EUR 10 000) in a number of the old

69 A rough, undetailed estimation was collected for the Netherlands (source: public employment service UWV).UWV estimated the average time needed to issue a PD U2 document at 1.5 hour. 90% of the cases are estimated to be processed within 5 weeks. 70 We were not able to collect data on the average unit cost of a case where an unemployed persons export his unemployment for 6 months.

Therefore, we needed to rely on a qualitative assessment to know how the administrative burden shifts if the export period is

prolonged from 3 to 6 months.

71 Average time to process a PD U2 document in Poland is approximately 15 minutes. The average wage (clerk) is estimated at EUR 0.3 per

minute (EUR 18 per hour): 15 x EUR 0.3 = EUR 4.5.

Member States (in descending order): Spain, Germany and France. It was lowest (˂ EUR 500) in descending order in Slovenia, Slovak Republic, Estonia, Cyprus Malta and Romania.

Table 15: Estimated administrative Cost –PD U2 (‘issued’), EU-27, EUR, 2010

PD U2 certificates issued

Unemployed

persons (20-64) 2010/2011/2012 2010

Country - 2010 (in .000) Survey Estimate Total Total cost ( in EUR)

BE 385 1,081 1,081 4,865

BG 351 385 385 1,732

CZ 367 402 402 1,811

DK 184 1,108 1,108 4,986

DE 2,826 3,103 3,103 13,965 EE 111 64 64 288

IE 269 296 296 1,331

EL 640 703 703 3,163

ES 4,405 4,837 4,837 21,767

FR 2,601 2,856 2,856 12,854

IT 1,985 2,180 2,180 9,809

CY 26 29 29 129

LV 207 227 227 1,023

LT 287 315 315 1,418

LU 10 148 148 666

HU 473 519 519 2,337

MT 10 11 11 50

NL 325 637 637 2,867

AT 169 1,186 1,186 5,337

PL 1,696 118 118 531

PT 578 635 635 2,857

RO 684 11 11 50

SI 72 80 80 358

SK 374 79 79 356

FI 195 214 214 963

SE 340 264 264 1,188

UK 2,023 2,221 2,221 9,995

EU27 21,593 23,710 106,695

Source: Estimate based on collected administrative data and 2012 Ageing Report and data provided during the workshops on administrative burden (Poland).

We have also estimated the cost for the following documents for Poland 72 :

Competent employment service:

• SED U011 'Effect to Entitlement - Export' (answer to SED U010); • SED U012 'Request for monthly follow-up'.

Employment service of the MS where jobseeker has gone:

• Process PD U2; • SED U007 'Request Document on Export'; • SED U009 'Notification Registration - Export'; • SED U010 'Circumstances Affecting Entitlement - Export' (linked with U3 form);

72 Poland has provided the most comprehensive data set on the administrative burden resulting from the information obligations stemming from the Regulation during the workshop.

• Issue of PD U3 (linked with SED U010); • SED U013 'Monthly Follow-up' (answer on SED U013); • SED U028 'Request Entitlement to Export'.

The tables below present the total estimated administrative cost for processing the respective documents presented according to a) competent Member State and b) employment service of the Member State where the jobseeker has gone. The estimated unit cost per case is based on the data provided by Poland (T: time and W: wage (EUR 0.3)). Note that the unit cost per case differs from the one calculated for processing the PD U2 document in the documents presented below. We have not calculated the EU-27 average cost for all documents due to data limitations. Be aware that these costs occur separately, others are combined. There is no overview of the total number of flows. In the future this should be made possible by EESSI.

Table 16: Estimated Administrative Cost – Competent employment service, SED U001, SED U012,

Poland, EUR, 2013

SED U011 'Effect to Entitlement - Export' (answ er to SED U010)

Unit cost per case (EUR) 1.5

Number of cases 11

Total cost (EUR) 16.5

SED U012 'Request for monthly follow -up'

Unit cost per case (EUR) 2.4

Number of cases 120

Total cost (EUR) 288

Source: Deloitte, workshop in Poland

Table 17: Estimated Administrative Cost – Employment service of the Member State where the jobseeker has gone, PD U2 (‘process’), SED U007, SED U009, SED U010, PD U3 ‘issue’, SED U013, SED U028, Poland, EUR, 2013

Process PD U2

Unit cost per case (EUR) 1.5

Number of cases 200

Total cost (EUR) 300

SED U007 'Request Document on Export'

Unit cost per case 3

Number of cases 410

Total cost 1230

SED U009 'Notification Registration - Export'

Unit cost per case (EUR) 3

Number of cases 2330

Total cost (EUR) 6990

SED U010 'Circumstances Affecting Entitlement - Export' (linked w ith U3 form)

Unit cost per case (EUR) 3.6

Number of cases 1110

Total cost (EUR) 3996

Issue of PD U3 (linked w ith SED U010)

Unit cost per case (EUR) 3.6

Number of cases 1110

Total cost (EUR) 3996

SED U013 'Monthly Follow -up' (answ er on SED U013)

Unit cost per case (EUR) 2.7

Number of cases 4900

Total cost (EUR) 13230

SED U028 'Request Entitlement to Export'

Unit cost per case (EUR) 3

Number of cases 15

Total cost (EUR) 45

Source: Deloitte, workshop in Poland

4.1.6.4 Reimbursement claims 73

Claims for reimbursement can be made by the country of residence to the country of last activity for fully unemployed frontier workers but also for other cross-border workers who have decided to register with the competent institution in their country of residence. The country of last activity reimburses the unemployed benefits provided in the country of residence during the first three months or five months (when the unemployed person during the preceding 24 months, completed at least 12 months of (self)employment in the country of last activity). Reimbursement procedures are defined under art. 65(6) and (7) of Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004 i and art. 70 of Regulation (EC) No. 987/2009 i.

1.

Calculation of the unit cost per case:

The average unit cost per case is based on the data we have received from Poland (the only country for which we have robust data on the reimbursement claims. Following the formula Time (T) x Wage (W), we have estimated an average unit cost per case for each of the individual documents.

2.

Number of cases:

We have collected data on the number of cases for Poland for a number of documents. There are no estimated data available for calculating the estimated total number of cases of reimbursement claims in the EU. For a detailed discussion on the number of claims received (as debtor) and the number of claims issued (as creditor) (see section 4.1.5)..

3.

Calculation of the administrative cost (Poland)

We have calculated the administrative cost for processing a number of documents related to reimbursement claims for Poland by applying the following formula: Time (T) x Wage (W) x Number (N).

Data were collected for the following documents:

Member State of residence:

• SED U020 'Reimbursement Request'; • SED U025 'Reimbursement Receipt/Closing notification'.

Competent Member State:

• SED U021 'Reimbursement Full Acceptance' (possible answer to SED U020); • SED U022 'Reimbursement Non Acceptance' (possible answer to SED U020); • SED U023 'Reimbursement Partial Acceptance' (possible answer to SED U020); • SED U024 'Reimbursement Payment Notification'.

73 See also 10.8

The table below presents the total estimated administrative cost for processing the following documents for Poland presented according to ‘Member State of residence’ and ‘Former working Member State’:

Table 18: Estimated Administrative Cost, Member State of Residence, SED U020, SED U025, Poland, 2013

SED U020 'Reimbursement Request'

Unit cost per case (EUR) 1.5 Number of cases 48

Total cost (EUR) 72

SED U025 'Reimbursement Receipt/Closing notification'

Unit cost per case (EUR) 4.5

Number of cases 10

Total cost (EUR) 45

Source: Deloitte, workshop in Poland

Table 19: Estimated Administrative cost – Competent Member State, SED U021, SED U022, SED 023, SED U024, Poland, EUR, 2013

SED U021 'Reimbursement Full Acceptance' (possible answ er to SED U020)

Unit cost per case (EUR) 1.5

Number of cases 5

Total cost (EUR) 7.5

SED U022 'Reimbursement Non Acceptance' (possible answ er to SED U020)

Unit cost per case (EUR) 1.5

Number of cases 3

Total cost (EUR) 4.5

SED U023 'Reimbursement Partial Acceptance' (possible answ er to SED U020) )

Unit cost per case (EUR) 1.5

Number of cases 62

Total cost (EUR) 93

SED U024 'Reimbursement Payment Notification'

Unit cost per case (EUR) 4.5

Number of cases 15

Total cost (EUR) 67.5

Source: Deloitte, workshop in Poland

4.2 Coordination of long-term care benefits

4.2.1 Scale of cross-mobility of pensioners

Pensioners and cross-border workers – and their insured family members – are the most important group impacting cross-border expenditure on LTC benefits.

The recent migrant pensioners (aged 65 and over) who have moved from one EU-country to another in 2011 are counted in the Eurostat migration statistics (Table 20). Also for this group of recent migrant pensioners we are missing figures for BE, BG, HU, MT, NL, PL and RO. Especially the UK (11 thousand in 2011) and Spain (10 thousand in 2011) are important migration countries for pensioners.

Ideally, a table with the current stock of pensioners by previous country of residence should be available because this variable is probably the best proxy to estimate the number of pensioners insured in another country than the country of residence and to calculate the amount of LTC reimbursements between countries.

Table 20: Migrant pensioners (65 years or over) in 2011 by country of previous residence, EU-27

Column Labels (previous residence) Row Labels

(current residence) BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EE ES FR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK EU-27

BE BG

CZ 346 DK 8 0 1 0 52 3 1 9 96 68 13 0 4 4 8 0 0 9 4 9 5 7 0 2 1 119 28 451 DE 4.936 EE 3 1 4 25 6 39 IE 5 1 2 1 21 1 0 0 14 22 8 3 6 8 1 0 0 6 2 17 2 5 0 0 1 3 401 530 EE 3.284 ES 489 304 7 99 1.759 1 172 15 0 1.510 515 1 10 27 19 26 0 467 65 68 277 1.039 2 3 166 263 2.812 10.116 FR 3.601 IT 149 115 9 12 994 1 10 27 128 509 0 2 3 3 23 15 7 28 38 106 14 858 2 3 4 17 275 3.352 CY 444 LV 49 LT 1 0 1 0 14 0 2 2 3 1 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 3 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 54 LU 315 HU

MT NL

AT 1.995 PL

PT 219 RO

SI 2 3 5 0 209 0 0 1 2 19 51 0 0 0 1 3 0 5 34 2 0 0 0 0 1 23 6 367 SK 0 4 68 0 15 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 7 2 0 3 2 0 0 1 0 123 FI 0 6 0 1 27 41 2 1 153 8 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 4 2 4 7 1 0 1 0 259 16 540 SE 23 10 3 103 93 13 8 50 146 92 25 4 9 2 4 15 6 36 14 34 9 19 2 1 87 0 62 870 UK 12.447 Total* 44.078

*

Total= sum of migrant pensioners of which the current country of residence is known

Source: Eurostat Migration Statistics, [migr_imm5prv]

4.2.2 Number of persons insured for LTC

The number of those insured for health care living in another country than the competent country – which sometimes includes long-term care or to which LTC-insurance is closely linked – can be calculated based on the number of PD S1s - or E106 forms (insured person), E109 forms (family member of insured person) and E121 forms (pensioner and family member of pensioner).

The PD S1 form allows a person to register for healthcare in the country of residence when insured in a different one. The form is delivered per person (not per family). The distinction between the types of person insured for health care is still made by the PD S1. For that reason, the questionnaire (limited to 14 MS) asked for the number of insured persons, family member of insured persons, pensioners and family members of pensioners. Only two Member States (Belgium and Luxembourg) provided a breakdown of the number of PD S1 issued by type of person (Table 73). More general data was obtained for two other Member States (the Netherlands and Slovak Republic). The questionnaire asked only for the number of PD S1s issued. However, the number of PD S1s received could also be given. For example, there are data on the number of PD S1’s received by Belgium (including by type of insured person) (Table 74). For reason of this poor response to our administrative questionnaire we opted for an estimate of the PD S1. Two large categories can be distinguished (see also tables above). PD S1 forms will be issued to cross-border workers (and their family members) and mobile pensioners (and their family members).

4.2.2.1 PD S1 issued to incoming cross-border workers and their family members A PD S1 is issued to incoming cross-border workers and in some cases also to their family members (e.g. when the partner is inactive). Based on our survey we observed the following for Luxembourg and Belgium.

As Luxembourg attracts a lot of cross-border workers, it issues a high number of PD S1 forms. As of end March 2011, 162,638 cross-border workers were insured in Luxembourg (Table 73). They resided mainly in neighbouring countries: 48.1% in France, 24.9% in Belgium and 24.7% in Germany. In addition, 60,868 family members of cross-border workers working in Luxembourg were insured there, or 37.4% of the number of cross-border workers. It should be noted that more than one family member can be related to a cross-border worker (inactive partner and children).

For Belgium, only figures on incoming frontier workers were received. As of end-June 2012, there were 46,484 frontier workers in Belgium, of whom 79.1% resided in France (Table 73). The number of family members of cross-border workers employed in Belgium and insured in this Member State was 512. A striking figure is the percentage of family members residing in Poland who are insured in Belgium (32.8% of the total number of family members of persons insured in Belgium).

Due to the lack of data, it is necessary to use other data sources in estimating the number of insured cross-border workers for the EU-27. By making use of LFS data, the number of cross-border workers

can be estimated. 74 On average, one million cross-border workers live in one EU-27 Member State

but work in another (average of 2010 and 2011). Cross tables provide insights into their country of residence and country of employment. We consider the row and column totals as the most reliable,

74 Based on the question ‘What is the name and address of the local unit of the enterprise where you work?’ and variables ‘COUNTRYW’ (country of place of work) and ‘COUNTRY’ (country of residence) in the database. As already mentioned also posted workers who are insured in their country of residence can be captured by this question.

in line with the reliability limits provided by Eurostat for the LFS. 75 The bilateral cells between

countries need to be interpreted with even more care. All cells should be compared with these reliability limits. However, by taking two years together, the cells can be assumed to be relevant by avoiding outliers and by counting more observations. We will need them for further calculations. Most cross-border workers are employed in Germany (186,000) and Luxembourg (131,000). The country of employment will have to issue a PD S1 for all these cross-border workers living in another country.

4.2.2.2 PD S1 issued to pensioners moving to or living in another Member State A PD S1 can also be issued to pensioners (and their family members) who move to or live in another Member State than the competent Member State. Chapter I ‘Sickness, maternity and equivalent paternity benefits’, section II ‘Pensioners and member of their families’ in Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004 i makes the distinction between ‘Right to benefits in kind under the legislation of the Member State of residence’ and ‘No right to benefits in kind under the legislation of the Member State of residence’.

First, we look at the Regulation when a pensioner is entitled to benefits in kind under the legislation of the Member State of residence. Art. 23 states that: “A person who receives a pension or pensions under the legislation of two or more Member States, of which one is the Member State of residence, and who is entitled to benefits in kind under the legislation of that Member State, shall, with the members of his family, receive such benefits in kind from and at the expense of the institution of the place of residence, as though he were a pensioner whose pension was payable solely under the legislation of that Member State.”

Second, we look at the Regulation when a pensioner is entitled to benefits in kind under the legislation of the Member State of residence. Art. 24, 2 makes a distinction between being only entitled to benefits in kind under the legislation of a single Member State and being entitled to benefits in kind under the legislation of two or more Member States: “(a) where the pensioner is entitled to benefits in kind under the legislation of a single Member State, the cost shall be borne by the competent institution of that Member State;(b) where the pensioner is entitled to benefits in kind under the legislation of two or more Member States, the cost thereof shall be borne by the competent institution of the Member State to whose legislation the person has been subject for the longest period of time; should the application of this rule result in several institutions being responsible for the cost of benefits, the cost shall be borne by the institution applying the legislation to which the pensioner was last subject.”

We do not have data on the relative shares of exclusive or mixed pensions. It is a share between 0 and 100% that could be used as minimal or maximal estimate. The average would be 50% of those two extreme hypotheses.

This legislation is important in making an estimation of the number of pensioners who received a

PD S1 form from a specific Member State. First, we discuss the data from the Member States of which data has been received (Table 73).

75 http://circa.europa.eu/irc/dsis/employment/info/data/eu_lfs/LFS_MAIN/Related_documents/reliab_annual_average.htm and Annex VII

As of end of March 2011 (= number of insured persons living abroad at that moment), Luxembourg had issued 7,622 PD S1 to pensioners mainly moving to/residing in Belgium, France, and Germany (Table 73). There were also, 2,798 family members of pensioners moving/residing in another Member State insured in Luxembourg.

Belgium had issued 28,166 PD S1’s (situation end of June 2012) to pensioners (Table 73). Most of these forms were issued to pensioners moving to/residing in France (42.3%). More ‘surprising’ is the high number of PD S1’s issued to pensioners moving to/residing in Spain (22.5%) and Italy (15.7%). It confirms, yet for Belgium, the hypothesis of pensioners moving to Mediterranean countries and also of Italian migrant workers moving to their country of origin/birth.

If we want to estimate the total number of pensioners in the EU-27 who have received a PD S1 form, other data sources have to be used. The legislation to determine which Member State is competent has a strong impact on the calculations. The number of pensioners moving abroad can be estimated by the LFS. We already discussed the limitations of the LFS regarding the interpretation of the number of pensioners who moved abroad after their retirement.

4.2.3 Number of persons receiving LTC benefits in cash

There are data from five Member States (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and United Kingdom) on exported LTC cash benefits (Table 75 and Table 78).

Before describing the data, some explanation is needed. Some of our national experts who collected the data did not receive any data in their Member State because the LTC benefit in cash was not

considered to be exportable (e.g. APA in France 76 ; Romania 77 ). At the same time, no (detailed) data

were available for some Member States. Moreover, not every Member State has an LTC benefit in cash. 78

In 2012, 2,570 people exported Pflegegeld from Austria to another Member State (Table 75) 79 . This

was only 0.6% of the total number of people entitled to it (444,000 persons). The number exporting this LTC benefit decreased between 2010 and 2012 by 7.4%. A breakdown by Member State could be made for February 2012, where 70% of this LTC benefit in cash was exported to Germany.

Data were collected for three types of LTC cash benefits cash in Belgium (Table 75). 27 people living abroad were entitled to the Flemish Care Insurance. The estimated cost is € 42,000. This is only 0.01% of the total number entitled to this LTC cash benefit (217,400 in 2011) (Table 78). In addition, on average 30 people exported the Integration allowance OR the allowance for assistance to the elderly from Belgium to another Member State. Thus, export of these Belgian LTC cash benefits was very

limited. The competent institution assumes that the Personal Assistance Budget is not exportable. 80

For that reason no data was provided by them. It was not possible to collect exact figures on how

76 The French competent institution CNSA stated in an email to HIVA KU Leuven that “the Allocation personnalisée d’autonomie (APA) benefit supposes a condition of residence in France”. However, we read in a trESS national report for France that “in practice though, it seems that the APA is sometimes exported to other Member States (especially Belgium) by the French local authorities which are in charge of their granting.”

77 The Romanian competent institution stated that the “Health Insurance Houses do not insure persons for LTC for benefits in kind and in

cash”. 78 See ‘list of cash benefits and benefits in kind as referred to in Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004 i’

(http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=868&langId=en) and the MISSOC tables. 79 See also https://www.statistik.at/web_de/statistiken/soziales/sozialleistungen_auf_bundesebene/bundespflegegeld/index.html 80 The Flemish Agency for Disabled Persons stated that the Personal Assistance Budget only is granted to persons domiciled in Belgium.

many people receive an allowance for children with disabilities supplementary to child benefit.

However, an estimate could be made. There were in 2011 42,242 children of foreign cross-border workers entitled to a child benefit paid by Belgium. 81 Also, in Belgium, there are in total 2.1% children with disabilities. This percentage was applied to these 42,242 children. This results in an estimate of 900 children entitled to an allowance for children with disabilities supplementary to child benefit or a total cross-border expenditure of € 3 million.

In 2010, 1,875 people living abroad were assessed to receive in cash Pflegeversicherung (‘Pflegegeld’)

from Germany (Table 75). 82 This was a decrease of 9.7% compared to 2006. The assessment was

mainly asked for by people living in Spain (30.3%) and Austria (27.8%). The competent institution estimates that on average 5,000 persons living abroad receive the Pflegeversicherung from

Germany. 83 This accounts for an expenditure of € 3 million (Table 78). This is 0.2% of the total

number of people in the Pflegeversicherung (2.4 million persons in 2010) or 0.01% of expenditure (€

21.5 billion). 84

In 2011, Luxembourg’s LTC Insurance was exported to another Member State in 359 cases, especially to Germany (51.8%) (Table 75) 85 . This number represents some 2.3% of beneficiaries of LTC in Luxembourg). This involves a total yearly cross-border expenditure of € 3.6 million (Table 78 based

on CNS, Décompte de l’assurance dépense de l’exercice 2011 86 ). The Luxembourg report on social

protection 2011 observes “Toutefois, le nombre de personnes bénéficiant de prestations et résidant

à l'étranger est très faible alors que la population protégée résidant à l'étranger est importante” (p.

148). 87 This illustrates that our further calculations on cross border LTC expenditures will be

considered as theoretical and maximized.

Finally, total numbers were collected for three types of LTC cash benefits in the United Kingdom

(Table 75 and Table 78). In 2011, 4,210 people exported the Disability Living Allowance from the

United Kingdom, a cross-border expenditure of £11 million. Again the impact is limited to 0.1% of the total beneficiary population (3.2 million persons) receiving this cash benefit or 0.1% of total expenditure (£ 12.6 billion). The Attendance Allowance is received by 1,090 persons living abroad at a cost of £ 3 million. Finally, the Carers Allowance is exported by 230 persons to another Member State at a cost of £1 million.

The relative importance of the number of cross-border users and related expenditure on these LTC benefits in cash is very limited compared to the total number of users and expenditure on LTC benefits in cash by a Member State. It mostly fluctuates between 0.01% and 0.6% of total number of users and expenditure.

81 See report RKW (Belgian competent institution for the payment of family benefits for employees) ‘Kinderen opgevoed buiten het Rijk

2011’ http://www.rkw.be/Nl/Documentation/Publication/Statistics/KinderenOpgevoedBuitenRijk2011.pdf

www.bmg.bund.de/fileadmin/dateien/Publikationen/Pflege/Berichte/Bericht_der_Bundesregierung_ueber_die_Entwicklung_der_ Pflegeversicherung_und_den_Stand_der_pflegerischen_Versorgung_in_der_Bundesrepublik_Deutschland.pdf

84 Statistisches Bundesambt – Gesundheid – Ausgaben 2011 https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/Gesundheit/Gesundheitsausgaben/AusgabenGesundheitPDF_2120711.pdf; jsessionid=A3958E9AAFB20BC7A316C1B06F28C84F.cae4?__blob=publicationFile 85 http://www.mss.public.lu/publications/rapport_general/rg2011/rg_2011.pdf

86 http://www.cns.lu/files/publications/Decompte_AD_2011.pdf

87 http://www.mss.public.lu/publications/rapport_general/rg2011/rg_2011.pdf

4.2.4 Number of persons receiving LTC benefits in kind

The number of persons who received a LTC benefit in kind and the cost involved can be calculated via the Structured Electronic Document (SED) S080 (claim for reimbursement) (point 3.14 ‘Long-term care benefit’ amount AND /OR point 3.20 ‘Nature of benefits’ = long-term care). However, this is only for reimbursements determined on the basis of actual expenditure and not on the basis of fixed amounts. Some Member States receive only fixed amounts calculated on the basis of a formula defined in Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004 i. Even though Member States can use the SED-forms related to health care, they still use the old E-forms (E125 ‘Individual record of actual expenditure’, E126 ‘Rates for refund of benefits in kind’ and E127 ‘Individual record of monthly lump-sum payments’). There is a limitation in that LTC is not mentioned on the E 125 form, which makes it very difficult to calculate LTC benefits in kind.

None of the Member States could respond to our question asking for a calculation of the number of people receiving a LTC benefit in kind and the cost involved (Table 76 and Table 77). 88 However, a proxy of the use and cost of the export of LTC benefits in kind was noted for Belgium. We saw that 28.3% of the claims received by Belgium via an E125 form were applicable to persons aged between 65-80 and 10% to persons aged older than 80. 27.9% of the claims received by an E125 form involve persons aged between 65-80 and 16.5% aged older than 80 (Table 77). This pattern is also visible in the other direction: 10% of the E125 claims sent by Belgium to other Member States involve someone aged 65-80 (or 20.3% of the amount of claims issued) and 5% are for people aged older than 80 (or 20.5% of the amount of claims issued) (Table 77).

4.2.5 Estimated number of PD S1 issued by category and estimated expenditure on LTC benefits

Our questionnaire aimed to obtain an overview of the number of persons insured for LTC benefits in kind and in cash, the extent to which these people actually received benefits and the corresponding cost of the benefits provided (reimbursed by the competent Member State).

However, this exercise requires detailed information from the reporting Member States concerning the issue of PD S1 by status (insured person, pensioner, family member of the insured person and family member of the pensioner) and the claims (e.g. by SED S080 – only for actual expenditure in kind). We observed that many of the Member States still use the ‘old’ E-forms to communicate with other national administrations or with the citizens involved. For example, the E-106 form (certificate entitlement to sickness benefits in kind insured person), the E-109 (certificate entitlement to sickness benefits in kind family members insured person) and the E-121 form (certificate entitlement to sickness benefits in kind pensioner and family members of the pensioner) were replaced by the portable document (PD) S1 (and SED S072 ‘Entitlement document – residence’). Nevertheless, the total number of these three forms is still counted to calculate the number of persons insured to sickness benefits in kind, who reside in a Member State other than the competent Member State. This detail was only collected for two Member States in our sample. That is why other data sources needed to be exploited.

88 E.g. Belgium: it has to be mentioned that LTC benefits in kind included in the health insurance (old age homes, nursing homes, district nursing) or other social care could not be documented, although they especially are included in the LTC-definition used in the 2012 Ageing Report.

The number of persons who received LTC benefits in kind could be calculated by extracting data from the SED S080. In principle, the general method of reimbursement is the refund on the basis of actual expenditure and exchanged between the competent national authorities by the use of SED S080 (former E125) which is an individual claim for an actual expenditure. The receipt of LTC is explicitly mentioned in this form (point 3.14 ‘Long-term care benefit’ amount AND point 3.20 ‘nature of benefits’: Long-term care). This detail would deliver us valuable information about the number of

persons who received long-term care. Only by a way of exemption, those Member States 89 whose

legal or administrative structures are such that the use of reimbursement on the basis of actual expenditure is not appropriate, can reimburse benefits in kind on the basis of fixed amounts for some specific categories: family members who do not reside in the same Member State as the insured person and pensioners and members of their families. Each of these Member States has to calculate the monthly fixed amount (average costs) per person, which should be as close as possible to actual expenditure. The method of calculation is defined in the implementing Regulation (EC) 987/2009 i. For the exchange of the information needed for the refunds on the basis of fixed amounts SED S095 (former E127) is used. That form is an individual record of monthly lump sum payments. However, a long-term care category is not explicitly taken up by this form. A possible proxy is the selection of SEDs S095 forms handling a claim of a person aged 65+ (see point 2.5 ‘Lump sum category’ in this SED). However, today both forms (SED S080 and SED S095) are not used by Member States. The E125 form (actual expenditure) and E127 form (fixed amounts) do not mention the specific category ‘long-term care’. By this, it was not possible to count the number of persons who received long-term benefits in kind. Again, we had to look for alternative data. We estimated the probable number of PD S1 and will use it further to estimate the use of health care and LTC.

Three categories of PD S1 are identified:

Cross-border workers (and their family members); Retired former cross border workers (and their family members); Other mobile pensioners (and their family members).

First objective was to calculate the number of persons who are insured to sickness benefits in kind living in a Member State other than the competent Member State. To work as detailed as possible a distinction should be made between the different categories of insured persons. By the Labour Force Survey, the number of cross-border workers was calculated for 2010 and 2011. An average of both years was calculated to improve the representativeness of cell data and to exclude outliers. Calculations were made only for the EU-27 Member States. On average 1 million cross-border workers are employed in another EU-27 Member State than the Member State of residence, or 0.48% of the total working population. The working countries will issue a PD S1 to these incoming cross-border workers while the countries of residence will receive this PD S1. However, as already mentioned also posted workers can be included by the definition used in the LFS. These persons are still insured in the country of residence. The cross table illustrates which countries are mostly involved in this cross-border mobility of workers (Table 81). Most of the PD S1 certificates have been issued by Germany (186.1 thousand forms) and Luxembourg (130 thousand forms) while most of the PD S1 have been received by Germany (165.4 thousand forms) and France (159.6 thousand forms). The accurateness of these survey figures can be verified by the administrative data we received from two Member States (Belgium and Luxembourg) (Table 73). Luxembourg issued 162.6 thousand PD S1

89 Annex III Regulation (EC) No. 987/2009 i: Ireland, Spain, Cyprus, the Netherlands, Portugal, Finland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Norway.

forms to insured persons (situation end of March 2011), which is somewhat higher compared to the LFS estimation of PD S1 issued. For Belgium we know from the administrative survey that 46.5 thousand PD S1 certificates were issued to frontier workers (only cross-border workers coming from France, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands). Based on data of the LFS, 50.1 thousand frontier workers should have received a PD S1 certificate from Belgium.

Second, the number of family members of insured persons who are insured in a Member State other than the competent Member State should be counted. They should be added as ‘dependent persons’. We assume that 20% of the insured persons will have an insured family member. This assumption is based on data we received on the PD S1 from Belgium and Luxembourg, the inactivity

rates published by Eurostat based on the LFS and a study we recently published. 90 Based on our

questionnaire, the number of insured family members in proportion to the number of insured persons was very low in Belgium (almost 1 in 100) but high in Luxembourg (1 in 3). On the basis of the results of the LFS, Eurostat publishes on a quarterly basis the inactivity rate (inactive population as a percentage of the total population) (see 10.5). The main reason for inactivity of young people is participation in education, while retirement is the main reason for older people. For that reason we only looked at the population between 20 and 64 years. On average 24% of the population between 20 and 64 years old is considered as inactive. In our study we observed 22.8% of the frontier workers are living together with a partner who is inactive. A household counts on average 1.2 children which assuming the same composition in active and non-active households will fall also under the social security system of the cross-border worker when the partner is inactive (or 27.4% of the frontier workers). 91 Together, this is about 50% of the number of frontier workers. For those reasons, the assumption that 20% of the insured cross-border workers have an insured family member is perhaps rather a conservative hypothesis. A more liberal assumption could be made (e.g. 40% of the crossborder have an insured family member). We keep the conservative assumption since other hypotheses could overestimate the number of issued PD S1 (see below). Generalizing this percentage of 20% to the whole population, an estimation of 206.5 thousand family members of insured persons who have received a PD S1 is obtained.

Third, the number of persons who live in another Member State than the competent Member State has to be estimated. To determine the competent Member State, Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004 i makes a distinction between pensioners and member of their families who have right or NO right to benefits in kind under the legislation of the Member State of residence’. Three different scenarios appear (see EC (2011), The coordination of healthcare in Europe, page 17):

“the Member State of residence, if the person concerned is in receipt of a pension from that State entitling him/her to benefits in kind (even where the person concerned is in receipt of pensions from one or more Member States);

the Member State responsible for paying the pension entitling the person concerned to benefits in kind if s/he resides there, if the person concerned is not in receipt of a pension in his/her State of residence (even where s/he is in receipt of benefits in kind in this State by virtue solely of his/her residence);

the Member State responsible for paying a pension entitling the person concerned to benefits in kind if s/he resides there, to whose legislation the pensioner was subject for

90 Pacolet, J., De Wispelaere, F. & De Coninck, A. (2012) The social security rights of frontier workers. A survey on their knowledge, use and satisfaction, focusing on sickness benefits.

91 It was suggested by the IA Steering Group to extract additional household data from the LFS. We consider the data from the study described above as a good alternative.

the longest period, if s/he is in receipt of pensions from several Member States other

than the Member State where s/he resides”.

This is perhaps the most difficult exercise, since there is no correct variable available in the LFS which can be considered as a good proxy for the scenarios described above. For that reason, we defined two separate scenarios. First, we have estimated the number of retired cross-border workers. When the cross-border worker only worked abroad he/she will receive only a pension from that Member State. In that case the former working country will be the competent Member State. When he/she was also for a period of time employed in the country of residence, he/she will receive a mixed pension. In that case the country of residence will be the competent Member State. The average would be 50% of those two extreme hypotheses. In our estimation we assume that all cross-border workers receive only a pension from their former working country. Nevertheless, also other scenarios can be considered. To estimate the total number, we applied the percentage of crossborder workers on the labour market (total average of 0.48%) (Table 81) to the number of pensioners in 2010 (figure from 2012 Aging Report- variable ‘Pensioners aged 65+’) and this by individual (former) working Member State. E.g. 2.42% of the employment in Austria is related to incoming cross-border workers. This percentage is applied to the 1.8 million pensioners in Austria which results in an estimation of 43.9 thousand persons receiving only a pension from Austria whereby Austria will also be the competent Member State and will issue a PD S1 since this retired cross-border worker lives in another Member State. This assumption results in an estimation of 419.5 thousand pensioners who were previously working abroad.

Finally, an estimation of the number of migrant pensioners in 2011 is calculated by using the LFS (= selection of ‘retired persons aged older than 60 at arrival’ of which country of birth= EU27 and country of residence=EU27). We have used ‘country of birth’ as a proxy of the competent Member State (an alternative is ‘Nationality’). This was the only best practical option in the ambition to determine the competent Member State. In total 190.5 thousand pensioners live in another EU Member State than their country of birth (no data available of the number of pensioners living in

Germany and Romania). 92 We assume the country of birth is the competent Member State and will

issue a PD S1. By the Eurostat migration statistics already figures on the number of recent migrant pensioners (aged 65 and over) who have moved from one EU-country to another in 2011 were obtained (see also table). However, for this group of recent migrant pensioners no data were available for BE, BG, HU, MT, NL, PL and RO as migration country. For the limited group of countries, already 44 thousand pensioners migrated to another Member State in 2011. It seems that the total group of 190.5 thousand pensioners (stock value) who moved after retirement to another Member

State is a (small) underestimation from the real situation. 93 However, as the ‘popular’ Mediterranean

countries are already inserted in the table of recent migrant pensioners the total number of recent migrant pensioners will not that much higher. In 2011, 10 thousand pensioners migrated to Spain. Based on the LFS a total number of 61.4 thousand retired persons older than 60 at arrival lives in Spain. 3.6 thousand pensioners moved to France in 2011 while based on the LFS a stock of 34.1 thousand migrant pensioners was obtained. The proportion between flow and stock seems for both countries more or less realistic.

92 Remark received from L. Aujean (DG EMPL): ‘BE has detected a coding error for YEARESID (from 2008 on). By this, the

number of persons with YEARESID = 1 is strongly overestimated’.

93 From the perspective that when there is an equal flow of migrant pensioners each year, the stock of 190.5 pensioners covers only 4 years of flows of pensioners.

Finally, we had to estimate the number of family members of pensioners who live in another

Member State than the competent Member State. We assume that 25% of the pensioners will have also an insured family member. Based on the administrative data from the questionnaire, a percentage of 37% was calculated for Luxembourg and 20% for Belgium. This assumption results in an estimation of another 152.500 family members of pensioners who live in another Member State than the competent Member State.

By counting these different components together, we estimated a total number of about 2 million insured persons living in another Member State than the competent Member State (cf. 10.4.1). Some 60% is determined by the present cross-border workers which imply some 40% is related to mobile pensioners. In the future this share of retired former cross-border workers and mobile pensioners probably will increase. Most PD S1 certificates are issued by Germany (18.6% of total), UK (11% of total) and Luxembourg (10.5% of total) (table). Most of these forms were received by France (15.7% of total) and Germany (13.8%). Belgium seems also to receive a high number of PD S1 certificates (11.4% of total). However, the calculations for Belgium as destination country for migrants are probably not reliable due to problems with the variable ‘years of residence’. 94 Just to illustrate the ambitions of these estimates, the calculated figure for Luxembourg as competent state of PD S1 and so by definition also insured for LTC, of 207 thousand insured persons is 262 thousand in the administrative questionnaire.

However, these figures should always be considered as an estimation of the number of PD S1

certificates based on several assumptions. 95 As explained above, we are confronted with several data

limitations that had a significant impact on our calculations. By adding some additional questions to the LFS and by becoming an exhaustive view on the number of migrating pensioners by the Eurostat migration statistics most of these data limitations would be solved which would result in a more reliable ‘proxy’.

94 ‘ BE has detected a coding error for YEARESID (from 2008 on). By this, the number of persons with YEARESID = 1 is strongly

overestimated’ (remark received from L. Aujean, DG EMPL.).

95 These estimates could be compared with administrative data. Administrative data is available for Belgium, Luxembourg and Spain. Belgium issued 80.8 thousand PD S1 forms (without data about the number of ‘other insured cross-border workers’) compared to an estimated number of 113 thousand PD S1 forms issued (Table 73 and Table 21). Luxembourg issued 262.7 thousand PD S1 forms compared to an estimated number of 207 thousand PD S1 forms issued (Table 73 and Table 21). Belgium received 114 thousand PD S1 forms compared to an estimated number of 225 thousand PD S1 forms received (Table 74 and Table 21). Spain received about 155 thousand PD S1/E121 forms (only for pensioners) while we become an estimated number of PD S1 forms of 88 thousand received by Spain for pensioners living in Spain but insured in another country (see Table 21 and ICF GHK & Milieu Ltd (2013), A fact finding analysis on the impact on the Member states’ social security systems of the entitlements of nonactive intra-EU migrants to special non-contributory cash benefits and healthcare granted on the basis of residence, commissioned by DG EMPL via DG Justice Framework contract, Table A9.9, p. 253).We can conclude that for some Member States the number of PD S1 forms received/issued will be overestimated (e.g. number of received PD S1 forms by Belgium) while for other Member States the number of PD S1 forms received/issued will be underestimated (e.g. number of received PD S1 forms by Spain, number of issued PD S1 forms by Luxembourg).

Table 21: Estimated number of PD S1 issued by category of citizen, in .000

Competent country Residing country

retired cross Share of retired cross Share of Incoming crossborder workers Migrant Total total Outgoing crossborder workers Migrant Total total border workers only worked pensioners number insured border workers only worked pensioners + number insured + 20% family abroad + 25% + 25% family of PD S1 persons + 20% family abroad + 25% 25% family of PD S1 persons Country members family members members issued (in %) members family members members issued (in %)

BE 74 35 5 113 5,7% 116 41 68 225 11,4% BG 2 1 1 4 0,2% 25 11 0 37 1,9% CZ 74 25 2 101 5,1% 29 12 2 43 2,2% DK 42 14 1 57 2,9% 5 2 3 10 0,5% DE 223 101 44 368 18,6% 198 75 0 273 13,8% EE 1 0 0 2 0,1% 22 9 0 30 1,5% IE 21 6 1 29 1,4% 12 5 7 24 1,2% GR 14 7 1 23 1,1% 0 0 2 2 0,1% ES 48 18 4 71 3,6% 27 11 77 115 5,8% FR 57 27 19 102 5,2% 192 77 43 311 15,7% IT 91 50 27 167 8,5% 29 13 5 47 2,4% CY 4 1 0 5 0,3% 0 0 5 5 0,3% LV 1 0 0 1 0,0% 8 3 0 12 0,6% LT 0 0 0 1 0,0% 2 1 0 3 0,2% LU 156 50 1 207 10,5% 3 1 2 7 0,3% HU 17 8 3 28 1,4% 64 28 0 92 4,7% MT 1 0 0 1 0,1% 1 0 1 2 0,1% NL 132 43 28 203 10,2% 26 12 2 39 2,0% AT 121 55 1 177 8,9% 39 17 11 66 3,4% PL 9 3 4 17 0,8% 110 45 1 156 7,9% PT 5 2 2 10 0,5% 13 5 2 20 1,0% RO 4 2 0 6 0,3% 105 52 0 158 8,0% SI 2 1 0 3 0,1% 10 5 0 16 0,8% SK 7 2 2 11 0,6% 141 55 0 196 9,9% FI 24 9 0 33 1,7% 2 1 1 4 0,2% SE 15 6 2 23 1,2% 35 12 6 53 2,7% UK 93 36 88 218 11,0% 24 9 0 34 1,7% EU-27 1239 503 238 1980 100,0% 1239 503 238 1980 100,0%

Source: Estimate based on data from LFS and 2012 Ageing Report

Table 22: Estimated number of PD S1 issued/received, in .000

Column Labels (competent country)

Row Labels Grand total (country of residence residence) AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK state AT 0,0 0,4 0,3 0,0 2,0 49,9 0,1 0,0 0,5 0,1 0,5 0,1 1,2 0,0 2,8 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 1,1 0,4 0,0 1,1 0,1 1,1 2,8 1,6 66 BE 0,6 0,0 0,2 0,1 1,2 20,2 0,2 0,0 4,2 0,2 37,7 1,1 2,1 0,2 22,7 0,0 59,3 0,0 0,1 69,6 2,1 0,5 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 2,9 225 BG 0,2 0,6 0,0 1,5 0,7 5,8 0,0 0,0 5,2 0,0 1,5 11,2 0,2 0,2 4,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,0 0,3 0,2 0,4 0,5 0,0 3,5 37 CY 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 4,4 5 CZ 8,5 1,4 0,0 0,0 0,0 16,0 0,1 0,0 1,1 0,0 1,1 0,6 0,5 1,1 0,9 0,0 0,6 0,0 0,0 1,3 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,0 4,6 4,5 43 DE 65,2 5,4 2,2 0,0 7,0 0,0 10,7 0,0 10,3 1,0 11,2 3,6 2,0 0,0 3,4 0,0 49,2 0,0 0,0 73,6 8,9 0,0 0,0 6,6 0,0 0,0 12,8 273 DK 0,2 0,2 0,4 0,0 0,0 3,5 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,4 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,7 0,0 0,0 2,9 0,0 0,0 1,5 10 EE 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,4 0,0 0,0 0,1 25,1 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,5 0,2 0,0 0,1 0,5 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,7 0,0 0,0 1,1 30 ES 0,3 2,4 0,3 0,0 0,0 17,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,4 10,0 0,0 1,2 2,7 6,2 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 11,4 0,0 3,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 58,8 115 FI 0,0 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,2 0,0 0,0 2,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 4 FR 0,4 69,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 84,4 0,2 0,0 5,9 0,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,8 3,0 0,0 96,5 0,0 0,0 5,5 0,8 3,1 1,2 1,7 0,0 0,0 36,2 311 GR 0,0 0,0 0,4 0,0 0,0 0,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,8 2 HU 36,4 1,7 0,0 0,3 0,3 22,3 0,9 0,0 0,5 0,4 3,2 0,0 0,0 2,1 3,5 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 2,7 0,2 0,0 0,5 0,1 0,2 2,3 14,5 92 IE 0,0 0,2 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,7 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,5 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 21,3 24 IT 2,5 2,7 0,2 0,0 0,0 13,8 0,2 0,0 3,1 0,0 9,9 2,0 0,3 0,4 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,8 0,5 0,0 2,8 0,0 0,6 0,1 7,1 47 LT 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,4 0,1 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,6 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,4 0,0 0,0 0,6 3 LU 0,1 1,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,6 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,7 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,3 7 LV 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,3 0,0 1,4 0,3 0,8 0,0 0,3 0,2 0,3 0,0 0,6 0,2 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,7 0,4 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,0 0,0 4,9 12 MT 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,3 2 NL 0,3 15,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 21,1 0,0 0,0 0,4 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,7 39 PL 6,5 5,3 0,0 1,4 11,9 73,0 5,0 0,0 0,8 0,8 5,9 0,7 0,0 1,0 3,5 0,4 0,5 0,1 0,0 21,2 0,0 0,4 0,1 4,8 0,0 0,9 12,2 156 PT 0,0 0,6 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,4 0,0 0,0 10,3 0,0 5,6 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,7 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,0 0,0 1,2 20 RO 2,0 1,7 0,0 1,0 0,1 14,2 0,5 0,0 22,5 0,0 1,6 1,8 0,8 0,2 104,8 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,3 0,0 2,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 4,2 158 SE 0,6 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,1 4,6 36,5 0,4 0,7 1,8 0,7 0,8 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,2 1,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 3,8 53 SI 8,9 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,4 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 4,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,5 0,2 16 SK 43,5 1,3 0,0 0,7 77,6 10,5 0,5 0,0 2,8 0,7 2,5 0,1 18,9 4,2 5,7 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 8,6 0,4 0,0 0,0 0,5 0,3 0,0 17,1 196 UK 0,5 2,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 4,3 1,1 0,0 1,9 0,0 7,9 0,0 0,0 12,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,7 1,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 34 Grand total competent state 177 113 4 5 101 368 57 2 71 33 102 23 28 29 167 1 207 1 1 203 17 10 6 23 3 11 218 1.980

Source: Estimate based on data from LFS and 2012 Ageing Report

The table above provides the estimated cross table for the stock of provided (by competent member state) and received (by country of residence) portable documents S1. We can again read the table row by row or column by column. Each column shows the total number persons where the state is competent for and in which countries those persons are resident. Each row shows the total number of persons residing in their country and with a foreign state competent for their social protection and how this is distributed over those countries. We immediately observe that in absolute figures those cells are dominated by the large countries, but on top of that it seems to be concentrated among a limited number of countries. For instance taking the first row and column we can see that of the 69 thousand PD S1 received for persons living in Austria, 52 thousand come from Germany, 3 thousand from Slovakia and 2.8 thousand from Italy. The top 3 of competent states for S1 counts for 84 % of the total. Reading the column for Austria, of the 177 thousand PD S1 issued some 65.2 thousand persons are living in Germany, 43.5 thousand living in Slovakia, and 36.4 thousand living in Hungary.

These 3 largest countries count for 82 %. Those ‘concentration ratios’ of the share or the 3 largest countries (in concentration analysis it is called the C 3 ) can be calculated for each country either by country of residence or by country of competence. We observe that especially Germany (20 times in top 3 of competent MS) and the UK (16 times in top 3 of competent MS) are the most ‘important’ competent MS (in % of residents insured in another MS than the competent MS). The picture of the most ‘important’ MS of residence (in % of persons living in another MS than the competent MS) is more diverse.

The share of the largest countries includes only the information about those large countries, without telling something about the share of the other countries. For that reason in the economic analysis of the distribution some alternative measures are in use, the Herfindahl index weighting the share m i with its own, what will over accentuate the large shares, but includes in any case all shares, and the

Entropy index that weights each share with the logarithm of the inverse of this share, what reduces the importance in the concentration analysis of large countries. To make those concentration indexes intuitively more appealing a ‘number (here of countries) equivalent is calculated what stands for the number of countries of the same size that ends up in the same Herfindahl or entropy index than we will obtain in reality, but now of the same size. Those indexes are calculated as follows:

When m i is the share of country i in the total for EU 27 of a certain on pages n variable, then the

Herfindahl index H= 27 ∑ (ð‘šð‘š ð‘–ð‘–=1 ð‘–ð‘– ) ² and its number equivalent NE H = 1/H; the entropy index

E =� (ð‘šð‘š ð‘–ð‘– ). log 2 ( 1 ð‘šð‘š ) and its number equivalent NE E = antilog 2 E.

ð‘–ð‘–=1 ð‘–ð‘–

In reality we look here at 27 countries but they are already of an unequal size of the population. We calculate that those countries are unequal according to the size of their population similar to only

NE H of 10.4 in the EU 27 of the competent countries and a NE E in the EU 27 for the competent countries of 13.4. The respective NE H and NE E of the total population is 10.6 and 14.3, illustrating how dominant the total population figures are. Those figures illustrate further how the Herfindahl index weights the largest share more, resulting in a lower number of countries.

Those are the distributions that can be expected in proportion with the population. What is now the distribution for the 27 member states of their issued PD S1 as a competent country and distributed by countries of destination or residence and the number of PD S1 received as a country of residence and distributed over competent country. Both NE H and NE E are calculated where the number (here number of countries) equivalent of Herfindahl over accentuates the concentration. Those figures are provided in Table 23. But first we have to look at the first two columns that tell us if either a country is more a country of residence or a competent country. Some are even both. Then we can see if the number equivalent is large or small. Looking for the lowest number we find NE H in the resident countries of the number of competent states of some 1.8 in Austria or 1.3 and 1.4 in respectively

Ireland and Estonia illustrating that the number of competent countries the people living there is small. Those countries will also being identified with similar figures but somewhat higher for the number equivalent of entropy in the residence country for the number of competent countries. They tell us that the distribution of the number of PD S1 according to country of competence is as those persons are coming from one to two or three countries. Some other countries demonstrate much higher numbers, illustrating that the people come from much more countries.

The same analysis can be made for either Entropy or Herfindahl indexes in the country of competence for the number of countries of residence, illustrating over how many countries the PD

S1 issued are spread. This implies that people for whom the country is competent are limited to a small number of countries they are residing in, or to a larger number. For each country their index as a country of residence or a country of competence can be compared, for instance illustrating that the country is competent for people coming from a large or small number of countries while the people residing there with a PD S1 come from a small or large number of competent countries. Different patterns can be observed. For instance Belgium and Austria have an opposite profile, with Belgium being competent for people residing in a limited number of countries, while hosting people with a larger number of competent states. Austria was hosting people with a smaller number of competent states, while it is competent for a larger number of countries.

Table 23: Entropy and Herfindahl indexes of concentration of cross-border insured persons by PD S1

Total number of PD S1 Number equivalen entropy Number equivalen herfindahl NEE in NEH in

Grand total Grand total NEE in resident compentent NEH in resident competent competent residence country of country of country of country of country country competent countries of competent countries of (in .000) (in .000) countries residence countries residence

BE 113 225 6,1 4,8 4,7 2,5 BG 4 37 8,6 5,8 6,2 2,9

CZ 101 43 7,3 2,3 4,8 1,6 DK 57 10 6,3 3,4 4,5 2,2

DE 368 273 8,3 10,8 5,8 5,8 EE 2 30 2,2 4,3 1,4 2,9

IE 29 24 1,8 6,9 1,3 4,1 GR 23 2 3,9 5,4 3,1 3,4

ES 71 115 5,1 8,8 3,3 6,0 FR 102 311 5,3 8,7 4,3 5,4

IT 167 47 8,1 4,4 5,9 2,3 CY 5 5 1,9 6,2 1,3 5,1

LV 1 12 8,4 3,3 4,8 2,0 LT 1 3 9,0 3,7 7,8 2,3

LU 207 7 7,4 3,1 5,0 2,8 HU 28 92 6,1 3,5 4,1 1,9

MT 1 2 3,8 4,8 2,2 2,6 NL 203 39 2,6 5,5 2,2 3,7

AT 177 66 3,2 5,4 1,8 4,1 PL 17 156 6,8 6,0 3,8 3,0

PT 10 20 4,0 4,7 2,8 3,9 RO 6 158 3,4 4,9 2,1 2,4

SI 3 16 3,4 4,6 2,5 1,3 SK 11 196 6,5 4,3 4,4 2,0

FI 33 4 4,6 3,0 2,7 1,7 SE 23 53 3,8 8,3 2,1 6,0

UK 218 34 5,7 11,5 4,3 7,5 EU-27 1980 1980 13,4 14,7 10,4 11,3

Source: Own calculations based on data from LFS and 2012 Ageing Report

4.2.6 Estimated cross-border expenditure on healthcare and LTC

As next step we have estimated the cross-border expenditure on health care and long-term care based on figures from the 2012 Ageing Report (variables ‘Health care spending in 2010 prices per person’, ‘Population (million)’ and ‘Long-term care spending in 2010 prices (in billion Euros)’).

We calculated our estimates on average benefits for the total of the insured population. It is as mobile citizens (workers, pensioners, their family members) are using this system of LTC as if they were nationals. This involves a ‘potential’ overestimation of the number of users of cross-border LTC benefits and the related expenditure due to fact some MS consider their LTC benefit as not exportable. At the same time these estimates assume a complete ‘take-up’ of rights by mobile citizens which will not be the case in the baseline scenario.

To get as close as possible to the applicable rules in Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004 i a distinction had to be made between LTC benefits in cash and in kind. In the 2012 Ageing Report this breakdown is not available. Nevertheless, in a paper of DG ECFIN the public expenditure on LTC as % of GDP by type of

care was published for each of the 27 EU Member States. 96 The yearly health and LTC (by type)

expenditure per capita could be calculated for each of the Member States. These amounts are applied to the total number of insured persons who received a PD S1 certificates to estimate the

claims issued as creditor and received as debtor for health and LTC. 97

Following rules are kept in mind when constructing the calculation model for the baseline scenario:

LTC benefits in kind are provided according to the legislation of the Member State of residence and reimbursed by the competent Member State;

LTC benefits in cash are provided according to the legislation of the competent Member State.

For the baseline scenario on LTC the current budgetary impact is calculated as well as the number of insured persons (Table 24, Table 25 and Table 28).

4.2.6.1 Estimated actual cross-border expenditure on LTC The overall budget is estimated at € 994.7 million of which € 618.3 million (62% of total budget) is related to LTC benefits in kind and € 376.4 million (38% of total budget) is related to LTC benefits in cash (Table 24).

Compared to total national expenditure of LTC (variable ‘Long-term care spending in 2010 prices’ –

2012 Ageing report) the share of the cross-border LTC expenditure is limited to 0.4% of total EU expenditure or 0.008% of total GDP of the EU-27 (variable ‘Long-term care spending as % of GDP’- 2012 Ageing Report). Those low but realistic percentages illustrate we are making estimates literally on the frontier of the borderline of those systems, what results in ‘marginal’ shares in relative terms, but nevertheless substantial in absolute terms.

In absolute figures Germany (€ 172.9 million), the Netherlands (€ 166.3 million) and Luxembourg (€

119.4 million) are the most important debtor countries taking into account the total cross-border expenditure on LTC.

In % of total spending, 29.4% of national expenditure on LTC by Luxembourg is granted to crossborder workers and pensioners (and their family members). In reality we observed not the tenth of this figure, illustrating probably also the difference of the use of LTC by the rest of the population and

by the cross-border mobile population (see comments again on the situation in Luxembourg). 98

Nevertheless, by using this ‘real life information’ (as the LTC expenditures and the hypothesis that the cross-border mobile citizens are in a similar way entitled and using LTC as the rest of the population) this is not only an optimistic interpretation of the application of the coordination principles, but it reflects also the possible implications of changes in those systems. For instance a shift of a LTC system from in kind to in cash systems (‘consumer oriented’ payment systems) that is

96 Lipszyc, B., Sail, E. & Xavier, A. (2012), Long-term care: need, use and expenditure in the EU-27, Economic Papers 467, EU. (see table 3 p. 15). http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/economic_paper/2012/pdf/ecp469_en.pdf

97 The use of those ‘expenditures per capita’ (for the total population) is warranted since the number of estimated persons refers also to insured workers and related family members, what should imply their share of the total population.

98 See also report CNS, Décompte de l’assurance dépense de l’exercice 2011. http://www.cns.lu/files/publications/Decompte_AD_2011.pdf

under discussion in many countries, will have an impact on the application of the coordination regulation. Countries less oriented to in cash benefits (for instance Luxembourg, but probably also other countries) and countries substantially oriented to in cash (as the Netherlands), and the impact of this in those estimated flows, clearly ‘pop up’ in our calculations.

Main debtor countries for LTC benefits in kind received in another member state than the competent Member State are again Germany (€ 120.1 million), Luxembourg (€ 104.1 million) and the Netherlands (€ 73.2 million).

The highest total amounts of LTC benefits in cash to cross-border workers and pensioners are paid by the Netherlands (€ 93.1 million), Germany (€ 52.8 million) and Austria (€ 49.8 million).

4.2.6.2 Cross-border expenditure on LTC: mid-term and long-term projections Based on the projections, the cross-border expenditure on LTC will increase to €1.3 billion in 2020 (0.009% of GDP) and €1.8 billion in 2030 (0.010% of GDP). An estimated number of 93 thousand mobile workers and pensioners residing in another Member State than the competent Member State would have receipt LTC in 2010. Projections let increase the number of recipients to 106 thousand persons in 2020 and 121 thousand persons in 2030 (Table 24 and Table 27).

Table 24: Estimated LTC cross-border expenditure baseline scenario (in € billion), as % of total spending and projections 2020 and 2030

LTC for mobile workers and pensioners in billion euros Estimation Baseline scenario % of total Projections

Debtor country In kind In cash Total spending 2020 2030 BE 0,0581 0,0165 0,0746 0,9% 0,105 0,139 BG 0,0016 0,0001 0,0016 1,0% 0,002 0,003 CZ 0,0062 0,0074 0,0136 1,2% 0,019 0,026 DK 0,0545 0,0492 0,1037 1,0% 0,129 0,180 DE 0,1201 0,0528 0,1729 0,5% 0,236 0,305 EE 0,0007 0,0001 0,0008 1,0% 0,001 0,001 IE 0,0075 0,0000 0,0075 0,4% 0,011 0,016 EL 0,0037 0,0016 0,0053 0,2% 0,007 0,008 ES 0,0139 0,0023 0,0162 0,2% 0,021 0,027 FR 0,0374 0,0104 0,0478 0,1% 0,068 0,090 IT 0,0250 0,0370 0,0620 0,2% 0,075 0,095 CY 0,0003 0,0002 0,0004 1,6% 0,001 0,001 LV 0,0001 0,0000 0,0001 0,1% 0,000 0,000 LT 0,0001 0,0000 0,0001 0,0% 0,000 0,000 LU 0,1041 0,0153 0,1194 29,4% 0,203 0,290 HU 0,0034 0,0016 0,0050 0,6% 0,006 0,008 MT 0,0006 0,0000 0,0006 1,6% 0,001 0,002 NL 0,0732 0,0931 0,1663 0,7% 0,227 0,313 AT 0,0266 0,0498 0,0764 1,6% 0,101 0,132 PL 0,0073 0,0006 0,0079 0,3% 0,012 0,018 PT 0,0027 0,0000 0,0027 0,5% 0,003 0,004 RO 0,0020 0,0000 0,0020 0,3% 0,003 0,004 SI 0,0006 0,0003 0,0009 0,2% 0,001 0,002 SK 0,0013 0,0001 0,0013 0,7% 0,002 0,003 FI 0,0044 0,0035 0,0079 0,2% 0,012 0,018 SE 0,0079 0,0014 0,0093 0,1% 0,012 0,017 UK 0,0550 0,0333 0,0883 0,3% 0,123 0,161 EU27 0,6183 0,3764 0,9947 0,4% 1,345 1,785 as % of GDP 0,008 0,009 0,010

Source: Estimate based on data from LFS, 2012 Ageing Report and Lipszyck, B., Sail, E. & Xavier, A. (2012), Long-term care: need, use and expenditure in the EU-27, EU.

Based on the constructed table on the number of PD S1, as a total of cross-border workers, retired cross-border workers and other mobile pensioners, and for all their family members, we made estimates on the potential users of LTC. We make a difference between benefits in cash and benefits in kind. This is not only an important distinction in the LTC itself, but also in the coordination regulation. We apply on this total PD S1 the same percentages of use of LTC in cash or in kind as is the case in the total population of the EU 27. This is acceptable since the structure of this ‘S1 population’ is similar to the total population including an active population, retired persons and their family members. Those percentages of users are derived from the Ageing report 2012 (additional data was delivered by DG ECFIN, necessarily for making a distinction between LTC in kind, LTC in cash and informal LTC). Based on those figures and the total spending on long-term care in cash and in kind in the EU 27 Member States also the average spending per dependent person benefitting either in cash or in kind benefits is calculated. In Table 25, we provide for the total population by each country the % of users in cash and in kind and the average amount.

Table 25: % cross-border users LTC in kind or in cash of total population and average amount per dependent person using LTC in kind or in cash (thousand €)

Average amount per Average amount per % users in dependent person % users in cash dependent person kind total using care in kind total using care in cash

Country population (thousand euro) population (thousand euro) BE 5,7 10,8 2,5 5,8 BG 0,6 1,4 0,9 1,6 CZ 2,0 2,0 2,4 3,1 DK 3,9 27,0 2,3 37,5 DE 2,7 11,1 1,2 11,5 EE 1,5 1,5 0,9 4,0 IE 1,7 22,4 2,5 0,0 EL 3,1 6,6 2,5 2,8 ES 1,5 10,7 0,9 3,6 FR 2,2 25,0 2,4 4,2 IT 1,7 15,5 2,9 7,6 CY 0,5 0,4 0,9 3,7 LV 0,9 4,7 0,3 3,2 LT 4,7 1,7 2,5 0,8 LU 2,2 33,7 0,4 18,5 HU 1,5 1,7 2,5 2,3 MT 3,3 3,0 1,8 0,0 NL 5,8 15,6 2,5 18,4 AT 3,1 8,6 5,1 5,5 PL 0,4 7,4 4,0 0,9 PT 1,4 3,5 0,9 0,0 RO 1,4 2,5 0,9 0,1 SI 1,9 8,5 1,7 5,5 SK 1,4 1,9 0,9 0,7 FI 3,2 22,9 5,3 2,0 SE 4,8 28,5 2,4 2,4 UK 2,0 19,4 2,5 6,1 EU27 2,2 10,5 2,1 6,1

Source: Estimate based on data from LFS, 2012 Ageing Report and additional data delivered by DG ECFIN

We will apply in three scenarios (the baseline scenario is descripted in this chapter and two options are described in chapter 8) those figures to calculate the number of people either benefitting from an benefit in cash or in kind, and the total amount of LTC spending that this implies. For each pair of country of resident combined with a competent country either the percentage of use but also the spending per dependent person can be defined on the level of the country of residence or the country of competence. Both dimensions, % of use and amount per user matter. The level of development of a LTC system is a matter of the ‘breadth’ or the number of persons that might be eligible, and of ‘depth’ or the amount of spending per dependent person. By applying those parameters to the number of cross-border mobile persons, we treat them in the same way as the ‘national’ total population, as is the ambition on this EU Coordination regulation. The difference between the three scenarios is that we make the hypothesis that both the use % and the amount are based on the country of residence or the country of the competent state.

In the baseline scenario we estimate that some 48 thousand mobile citizens are using LTC in kind, defined on the usage rate and average spending per dependent person. This implies a total cost of € 618 million, spend in the country of residence and also to be reimbursed by the competent state. We further estimate the total users of in cash benefits at 45 thousand. The total spending in cash is € 376 million, directly paid by the competent state to the dependent person. In terms of the coordination regulation it is an export of the benefit in cash. In total some 93 thousand users of LTC are estimated or a total budget of € 995 million.

Table 26: Estimated number of cross-border users benefiting from LTC (in thousand) and budget (in million €)

In kind In cash In total Numbers (in thousand) Budget (in million €) Numbers (in thousand) Budget (in million €) Numbers (in thousand) Budget (in million €) Resident Competent Resident Competent Resident Competent Resident Competent Resident Competent Resident Competent Country state state state state state state state state state state state state BE 13 3 139 58 4 3 49 16 17 6 188 75 BG 0 0 0 2 1 0 4 0 1 0 4 2 CZ 1 2 2 6 1 2 7 8 2 4 9 14 DK 0 2 11 55 0 1 1 49 1 3 12 104 DE 7 9 82 120 7 5 72 53 15 13 154 173 EE 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 0 2 0 4 1 IE 0 1 9 7 1 1 4 0 1 1 13 7 GR 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 5 ES 2 1 18 14 3 1 20 2 4 2 38 16 FR 7 3 172 37 5 3 39 10 11 6 211 48 IT 1 4 13 25 1 5 6 37 2 8 19 62 CY 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 LV 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 LT 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 LU 0 7 5 104 0 1 1 16 0 8 6 119 HU 1 1 2 3 3 1 19 2 4 1 22 5 MT 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 NL 2 7 36 73 1 5 6 92 3 12 41 166 AT 2 3 19 27 1 9 9 50 3 13 28 76 PL 1 1 5 7 3 1 32 1 4 1 37 8 PT 0 0 1 3 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 3 RO 2 0 6 2 4 0 28 0 6 0 34 2 SI 0 0 2 1 1 0 4 0 1 0 6 1

SK 3 0 5 1 6 0 30 0 9 0 35 1 FI 0 1 3 4 0 2 0 4 0 2 3 8 SE 3 1 73 8 1 1 34 1 4 1 107 9 UK 1 4 13 55 1 5 4 33 1 9 17 88 EU27 48 48 618 618 45 45 376 376 93 93 995 995

Source: Estimate based on data from LFS, 2012 Ageing Report, Lipszyck, B., Sail, E. & Xavier, A. (2012), Long-term care: need, use and expenditure in the EU-27, EU and additional data delivered by DG ECFIN

Table 27: Estimated number of cross-border users from LTC in kind or in cash, projections 2020 and

2030 (in thousand)

In kind In cash Total

Country 2010 2020 2030 2010 2020 230 2010 2020 230 BE 13 15 17 4 5 5 17 20 23 BG 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 CZ 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 DK 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 DE 7 9 10 7 8 9 15 17 19 EE 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 IE 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 GR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ES 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 5 6 FR 7 8 10 5 5 5 11 13 15 IT 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 CY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HU 1 2 2 3 3 3 4 5 5 MT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NL 2 3 4 1 1 1 3 4 4 AT 2 3 3 1 1 1 3 4 4 PL 1 1 1 3 3 4 4 4 5 PT 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 RO 2 3 3 4 4 4 6 7 7 SI 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 SK 3 3 4 6 6 7 9 10 11 FI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SE 3 3 4 1 1 1 4 4 5 UK 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 EU27 48 57 67 45 49 54 93 106 121

index 2010=100 100 118 138 100 109 120 100 114 129

Source: Estimate based on data from LFS, 2012 Ageing Report and additional data delivered by DG ECFIN

Most important creditor countries for the expenditure of LTC benefits in kind are France (€ 171.9 million), Belgium (€ 138.8 million) and Germany (€ 82.1 million) (table). The highest amounts of LTC benefits in cash are also paid to insured persons living in these countries but who are insured in another Member State.

Table 28: Estimated LTC cross-border expenditure baseline scenario (in € .000), by country of residence* Competent country

Country of residence Benefits in kind Benefits in cash Total BE 138.848 49.314 188.162 BG 303 4.162 4.465 CZ 1.707 6.810 8.516 DK 11.019 1.204 12.223 DE 82.102 71.696 153.798 EE 655 3.124 3.780 IE 9.140 3.736 12.876 EL 372 223 596 ES 18.054 19.683 37.737 FR 171.972 38.784 210.756 IT 12.892 6.116 19.007 CY 11 728 739 LV 526 1.746 2.272 LT 275 851 1.126 LU 4.844 1.012 5.856 HU 2.382 19.194 21.576 MT 199 396 594 NL 35.801 5.622 41.423 AT 18.714 9.150 27.864 PL 5.330 31.819 37.148 PT 988 1.623 2.611 RO 5.562 28.283 33.844 SI 2.497 3.735 6.232 SK 5.351 29.545 34.895 FI 2.645 360 3.005 SE 73.081 33.679 106.760 UK 13.015 3.787 16.802 EU-27 618.281 376.381 994.662

*

Amounts are paid by the competent countries

Source: Estimate based on data from LFS, 2012 Ageing Report and Lipszyck, B., Sail, E. & Xavier, A. (2012), Long-term care: need, use and expenditure in the EU-27, EU

4.2.6.3 Actual number & value of reimbursement claims It is important that (some of) these estimates could be verified by way of existing administrative data. Important data on health are collected by the Audit Board which is attached to the Administrative Commission (Art. 74 Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004 i). One of the defined tasks of the Audit Board is “collect the necessary data and carry out the calculations required for establishing the annual statement of claims of each Member State”. It implies that a view on the number and the amount of claims for healthcare in kind, which includes LTC, should be obtained from this information. However, it is limited to benefits in kind and not benefits in cash, so even there is this official source not ‘exhaustive’ and are additional (probably national) sources and data collection at European level needed. There is also another limitation. At the moment, the Audit Board reporting is (also legally) oriented at outstanding stocks of mutual claims. The budgetary impact of those LTC expenditures is in terms of flows of yearly expenditures and yearly new claims for reimbursement of those expenditures. Unfortunately, at the moment there is no specific reporting of the annual bilateral new claims between countries but only of the outstanding claims. The total new claims by creditor country were however available for 2011 in the reporting of the Audit Board. We applied the bilateral distribution of those totals over the debtor countries based on the structure of the outstanding stock. So assumptions could be made to estimate the amount of claims of LTC benefits in cash. Data concerning the claims introduced on health care by the creditor countries (based on fixed and actual amounts) in 2011 (taking into account that these claims submitted in 2011 will deal about provided health care mainly from 1 or 2 years ago) have been used to estimate the amount of claims of LTC benefits in kind received or issued (cf. 10.4.2). What we already know from data available within the Audit Board are the outstanding claims from creditor countries divided over the debtor countries (cf. 10.4). This detailed breakdown by debtor country for the outstanding claims is also used for the newly introduced claims in 2011 (cf. 10.4). So we assume that the breakdown of the newly introduced claims by debtor country is similar to this of the outstanding claims. It implies also that debtor countries which have important delay’s in payment will influence this assumption. This assumption results in a detailed cross-table (debtor and creditor country) of the LTC claims introduced in 2011. On top of that an additional hypothesis needs to be made on the share of LTC benefits in kind compared to the total level of health and LTC expenditures (by using variables ‘Health care spending as % of GDP’, ‘Long-term care spending as % of GDP’ – 2012 Ageing Report and the breakdown of LTC by type – see Lipszyck, B., Sail, E. & Xavier, A. (2012)). This results in a crosstable of introduced claims on LTC benefits in kind whereby also the debtor countries are known (see Table 29). We arrive at a total amount of LTC reimbursement of € 592 million. This grand total, estimated on different sources with different hypotheses, is very similar to the estimate we made in the previous exercise (also some € 618 million, in the baseline scenario).

The three main creditor countries based on the administrative data from the Audit Board are France (€ 207.2 million), Belgium (€ 113.3 million) and Germany (€ 74 million). These are the same main creditor countries as obtained by way of the calculation model based on several assumptions (table above). At the same time also the amounts of reimbursement claims are more or less similar to each other. Nevertheless, we observe an important underestimation of the claims issued by Spain in the calculation model when observing the administrative data from the Audit Board.

But also the three main debtor countries are the same in both methodologies, namely Germany,

Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Also the received claims are to a high extent similar for Germany and the Netherlands but differ somewhat for Luxembourg.

Finally, also data we received from Belgium on the total number of issued claims on health can be used. In 2011, Belgium issued an amount of € 336 million claims of which € 137.2 million claims for persons aged 65 and older (which can be considered as the main group of dependent persons and recipients of LTC in kind). This amount is very close to the estimated issued claims on LTC by Belgium, namely € 138.8 million.

For the estimated figures on total health spending, we observed that at least for the EU 27 total but even for the individual Member States, they seems to be good proxies for the figures we found in those administrative data of the Audit Board. This could be an indicator the methodology used is reliable, but also that the real expenditures converge with what is expected because this is a mature system of social protection and well settled ways of coordination. For few of the estimated values on LTC on even the totals by country of residence or competent state, we obtained in the survey administrative information. It was so also difficult to systematically cross check our estimates with this administrative information. There are further several reasons why our theoretical calculations based on the hypothesis that the cross border citizens might differ from official statistics. We observe that most of the times no separate statistics could be obtained, or were made. Other reason is that LTC is not always recognized as such in the national situation, or is not considered as falling under the coordination regulation, or finally there can be a lack of knowledge on those entitlements, leading to non-uptake. This can result in substantial differences between what could have been found, and what we estimate in theory.

4.2.6.4 Limitations: right of choice of country to receive sickness benefits For cross-border workers different rules apply when the insured person is worker or pensioner. Within the sickness chapter of Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004 i specific rules are adopted for active cross-border workers and their family members (art. 17 and 18) which will also have an impact on LTC. Cross-border workers have the right of choice to receive sickness benefits in kind in the country of residence (as defined in art. 17 – in accordance with the legislation in the country of residence and reimbursed by the competent country) or in the competent country (as defined in art. 18,1 – in accordance with the legislation in the competent country). It implies that about 1 million insured cross-border workers (with a PD S1) have the right to choose between LTC benefits in kind in the country of residence OR in the competent country. This will have budgetary consequences for the competent country, especially when the cross-border worker is taking a rational decision taking into consideration the most advantageous, most extensive, most expensive ‘LTC insurance package’. However, we observed from a recent study (Pacolet, De Wispelaere & De Coninck, 2012) that the main reason to choose for a specific health care system is the familiarity with the health care provisions. Most of the time, this will be in the country of residence. Despite this right of choice, most cross-border workers choose to receive benefits in kind in their country of residence (Ibid.). This right of choice is also applicable to the family members. However, art. 18.2 states that family members of a frontier worker “shall be entitled to benefits in kind during their stay in the competent Member State, unless this Member State is listed in Annex III of Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004 i”. Restrictions appear for Denmark, Spain, Ireland, Netherlands, Finland, Sweden and United Kingdom. Retired cross-border workers lose this right to choose. However, Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004 i introduces some new rules applicable to this specific group (art. 28). Retired frontier workers are entitled to benefits in kind in the country of last activity, insofar as this is a continuation of treatment begun in that Member State (art. 28.1). Also, retired frontier workers (and their family members) who have worked at least two years in the five years before their retirement as frontier worker will be entitled to benefits in kind in the country of last activity (art. 28.2). This only applies if the country of last activity and the competent country are both listed in Annex V of Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004 i: Belgium, Germany, Spain, Luxembourg, Austria and Portugal. The retired cross-border worker will need a PD S3 ‘Medical treatment for former cross-border workers in former country of work’ to receive benefits in kind the country of last activity. We did not make any hypothesis on this right of choice.

Table 29: Estimated claims of LTC benefits in kind introduced in 2011, by debtor country, in .000

Debtor DE AT BE BG CY DK ES EE FI FR EL HU IE IT LV LT LU MT NL PL PT RO UK SK SI SE CZ Creditor TOTAL DE 0 10.344 3.070 1.350 19 2.165 2.397 65 229 10.069 5.669 424 111 6.031 292 95 7.712 5 13.091 2.556 551 3.204 3.332 109 250 280 647 74.067 AT 12.368 0 268 272 9 32 208 3 17 778 543 357 31 1.626 8 4 27 3 1.509 386 148 1.843 731 133 320 62 222 21.909 BE 4.222 128 0 713 10 280 2.936 14 65 26.585 3.000 79 0 3.300 33 0 19.747 9 42.571 736 2.027 1.262 5.256 107 87 78 95 113.339 BG 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 16 CY 1 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 13 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 56 0 0 0 0 85 DK 690 7 3 6 0 0 139 4 0 0 0 4 0 85 6 5 10 14 61 56 0 8 0 20 2 0 1 1.122 ES 15.951 387 3.350 625 6 3.497 0 8 440 11.048 186 54 4.030 4.286 28 18 46 3 1.593 176 5.582 1.530 7.266 50 31 1.285 128 61.607 EE 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 15 1 0 0 1 4 9 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 41 FI 416 5 29 10 2 0 816 422 0 272 44 14 49 192 9 12 1 0 94 32 41 69 2 1 10 1 3 2.546 FR 42.963 847 36.734 1.733 41 1.011 7.515 162 335 0 6.210 254 906 19.914 45 102 41.553 14 9.054 1.733 17.159 4.945 10.335 356 131 2.269 848 207.170 EL 13.308 176 810 152 237 27 23 0 19 645 0 1 28 684 1 0 3 0 627 14 12 32 1.258 2 0 885 26 18.969 HU 129 129 7 4 0 1 2 0 0 13 1 0 1 9 0 0 0 0 18 4 0 161 0 10 2 9 2 502 IE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IT 10.078 254 5.801 167 2 82 150 13 12 1.374 415 32 120 0 5 9 307 8 847 234 89 2.200 1.766 35 138 54 331 24.522 LV 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 11 LT 42 0 0 0 0 8 5 8 1 13 1 0 15 5 76 0 0 0 10 7 1 1 32 1 2 5 10 241 LU 252 14 1.725 9 0 7 44 1 6 1.101 84 3 0 398 0 3 0 0 158 16 2.225 29 40 3 1 0 6 6.125 MT 7 2 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 9 0 0 7 21 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 1 0 0 0 20 0 103 NL 13.074 248 4.625 457 14 29 883 4 88 1.374 782 94 367 1.706 20 17 464 5 0 491 1.129 266 4.277 98 105 138 124 30.879 PL 467 44 22 15 1 21 34 2 0 48 10 0 130 94 2 13 5 0 172 0 5 3 313 3 1 44 132 1.581 PT 567 4 47 1 0 0 128 0 5 3.238 3 1 22 42 0 1 673 0 149 4 0 5 102 0 1 33 2 5.027 RO 17 3 6 1 0 0 6 0 0 2 1 7 2 43 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 99 UK 289 638 14 14 30 0 1.062 0 0 599 477 0 2.366 1.330 0 0 0 0 0 40 471 99 0 6 40 0 34 7.507 SK 26 404 1 1 0 0 4 0 0 3 2 79 16 13 0 0 1 0 13 6 1 4 15 0 3 1 279 873 SI 982 786 12 10 1 3 10 0 2 105 8 21 7 698 0 0 2 0 38 11 3 16 62 3 0 9 15 2.806 SE 1.103 134 64 86 6 113 193 4 38 934 2.660 55 667 453 53 6 0 87 516 1.177 226 424 825 17 8 0 69 9.918 CZ 286 87 4 15 1 1 11 0 0 20 13 2 18 42 1 1 7 1 40 47 6 19 26 304 2 11 0 963 EU27 117.246 14.641 56.597 5.647 380 7.279 16.573 712 1.274 58.233 20.125 1.480 8.895 40.981 590 287 70.560 150 70.590 7.729 29.677 16.123 35.704 1.258 1.133 5.187 2.977 592.028

Source: Estimate based on data from the Audit Board, 2012 Ageing Report and Lipszyck, B., Sail, E. & Xavier, A. (2012), Long-term care: need, use and expenditure in the EU-27.

4.2.7 Current estimated administrative costs and burden 99

Introduction

For long-term care benefits, we have applied the same approach as for the unemployment benefits due to the same limitations with regards a standard process including the same Information

Obligations in the sense of the SCM methodology.

For long-term care, it appears that the situation is even more complex than for unemployment benefits, as it encompasses different cares that are not understood in the same way in the whole EU and that imply a fragmented landscape of responsible and implementing actors in some Member

States (e.g. over 70 different bodies are involved in Germany, while each of the 17 regions of Spain also has a different system; in many Member States, local entities are a dominant actor, etc.). The different national specificities result in a large variety of situations which may have a significant impact on the administrative burden when dealing with cross-border cases for long-term care.

There a number examples demonstrating the complexity of the processing of cross-border cases for long-term care which can result in administrative cost and burden for Member States’ authorities:

According to the interviewees, there is legal uncertainty about which benefits should be coordinated under the Sickness Chapter. Some countries still do not consider the care (social assistance) they provide as being included in the Sickness Chapter;

In our survey to the national administrations, around 50% of national administrations that are opposed to changes to the current coordination rules state that the current rules need only to be better applied in practice and to be better explained. National administrations who are in favour of a change of the current rules say that the identified problems (legal uncertainty, complex regulation and uneven applications of the rules by Member States) will persist if no change occurs;

Not in all Member States (particularly not in Member States that generally are in favour of keeping the status quo such as Germany, Austria and the Netherlands) administrative burden was perceived a major concern by national administrations. One Danish interviewee gave the following argument to put the administrative burden into perspective:

“Before 2009, Germany did not ask reimbursement to Denmark for costs that it incurred by provision of LTC services to citizens that fell under the Danish system, based on a special agreement between both Member States. However, recently, Germany asked to reintroduce a reimbursement system again between both countries. The fact that Germany asked to reinstall a reimbursement system again shows that other aspects seem more important for Germany than administrative burden from reimbursement claims, for example the financial impact of LTC services provided by Germany.”

A German health insurance considered the reimbursement of LTC benefits to be slow and problematic from an administrative point of view:

99 See also 10.8

“There are EUR 500 000 – 600.000 interest costs per year that my organisation has to bear because of non- or late payment. The reimbursement mechanism is not functioning well and needs a substantial revision of the rules. There is an outstanding amount of EUR 12-13 million in 2013. Late payments can be the result of checks/scrutiny of services rendered by the country of residence; however, the checks do not justify a waiting period of up to 18 months in some cases. The time needed for checks should be reduced substantially. The reimbursement mechanism could be made more efficient by using lump sum compensation mechanism. However, the views about its effectiveness are divided amongst the insuring companies.”

An Austrian representative of a health insurance fund confirms the long processing time of reimbursement:

“Particularly the reimbursement of LTC benefits in kind by the competent MS poses difficulties. Often, the information about the amount/costs of benefits in kind rendered by the Member State of residence reaches the competent Member State (which reimburses these costs) very late. Regularly, it takes 1-1.5 years to reimburse such claims. The rules stipulating information procedures should be more detailed (e.g. duty for monthly information provision of the value of the benefits in kind rendered by the MS of residence). The time-bound provision of information by all Member States is of key importance as to ensure an effective application of the reimbursement mechanism”.

In general, regardless if they believed that administrative burden from the current rules is a major problem or not, only a small minority of national administrations have a good view on the actual administrative burden or are able to support their arguments with quantitative data or a detailed description of the burden. The lack of concrete (quantitative) evidence adds to the difficulty for making a sound judgment about this issue.

In terms of substantiation of the administrative costs related to the current rules and considering the limitations of the application of the SCM methodology in this exercise, we present in the table below the estimated costs related to processing of the PD S1 document.

Despite the data limitations resulting from the problems discussed in this chapter, the assessment of the administrative cost (baseline scenario) for the PD S1 document provides a robust basis for assessing the theoretical impact (positive or negative) of the different policy options on the administrative cost.

The methodology for assessing the administrative cost is based on the following formula:

Time (T) x Wage (W) x Number (N)

The hourly rate is EUR 18 per hour. We provide an estimate for the total number of cases for processing PD S1 documents for the EU-27.

Estimated current administrative cost (Baseline Scenario)

The PD S1 form allows a person to register for healthcare in the country of residence. This form is delivered per person (not per family). The number of PD S1 forms issued provides insight into the number of people who (may) receive LTC benefits in another Member State. In the framework of this study, we have collected data on the number of PD S1 documents ‘issued’ by category of citizen and have estimated expenditure on LTC benefits. In addition, we have collected data on the number of

PD S1 documents issued for Poland and Belgium by means of a workshop with experts in the respective countries. In this section, we use the data available to calculate the estimated administrative cost for processing a number of documents related to long-term care in a crossborder case.

In order to assess the administrative costs for the EU-27 stemming from the processing of the PD S1 documents, we have carried out the following steps according to the Standard Cost Model (SCM):

1.

Calculation of the unit cost per case:

The unit cost per case (processing/handling of a PD S1 form by the administrative staff – clerk) provides insight into the total cost for processing one PD S1 document. It is based on the following formula:

Time (T) x Wage (W)

During the workshops in the Member States, we have collected data on the average standard time spent for processing/handling a PD S1 document. Robust data are available only for Poland. The estimated time for processing one PD S1 document in Poland is estimated at 60 minutes.

The hourly rate for processing the administrative tasks is EUR 18; this results in a rate per minute of EUR 0.3 (EUR 18/60 minutes). The average unit cost for the EU-27 per case of handling a PD S1

document is EUR 18 100 . It is calculated on the following basis: Time (60 minutes) x Wage (EUR 0.3).

Caution should be paid when interpreting this estimated unit cost as the result is based on an example of one country only (Poland) which seems to have a rather efficient way of processing PD documents (see also the discussion on the processing of PD U1 documents above). It can be expected that the time for processing a PD S1 document in the other Member States may differ (substantially).

Due to data limitation, however, we have calculated the administrative cost on the basis of the Polish example.

2.

Number of cases:

In our research, we have estimated data for the number of PD S1 documents ‘issued’ for the EU-27 countries on the basis of our own calculations based on data from LFS (for a detailed discussion on the estimated number of PD S1 issued by category of citizen, see section 4.2.5 in this report). The total estimated number of PD S1 documents ‘issued’ in the EU-27 is estimated at around 1 980 000.

3.

Calculation of the administrative cost (per Member State and for the EU-27)

We have calculated the administrative cost for processing PD S1 documents on the basis of this formula:

Time (T) x Wage (W) x Number (N)

100 Standard time (60 minutes) x EUR 0.30 (average wage – clerk level) = EUR 18

The table below presents the total estimated administrative cost for processing PD S1 documents. The estimated total cost for the EU-27 is EUR 35 632 000. Within the EU-27, the estimated total cost for processing PD S1 documents was highest (˃ EUR 3 000) in a number of the old Member States (in descending order): Germany, the UK, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria and Italy. It was lowest

(˂ EUR 100) in a number of the new Members States (in descending order): Cyprus, Bulgaria,

Slovenia, Estonia, Malta, Lithuania and Latvia.

Table 30: Estimated administrative cost - PD S1 'issued', EU-27, EUR, 2013, in 000

Competent country Total number of PD S1

Country issued Total cost (EUR) BE 113 2043 BG 4 79 CZ 101 1821 DK 57 1025 DE 368 6622 EE 2 27 IE 29 515 GR 23 407 ES 71 1277 FR 102 1839 IT 167 3013 CY 5 98 LV 1 14 LT 1 16 LU 207 3726 HU 28 496 MT 1 23 NL 203 3650 AT 177 3180 PL 17 299 PT 10 171 RO 6 111 SI 3 49 SK 11 203 FI 33 597 SE 23 414 UK 218 3917 EU-27 1980 35632

Source: Own calculations based on data from LFS and workshop in Poland

We have also calculated the administrative cost for processing a number of other documents related to long-term care benefits for Poland by applying the following formula: Time (T) x Wage (W) x

Number (N). Data were collected for the following documents:

Member State of residence:

• Service of E125 forms.

Competent Member State:

• Request for the issue of S1 document/ E100 series form (service of E107/E001 forms);

• Registration of the S1 document;

• Registration of the E100 -series form (part B);

• Service of SED S001 documents;

• Issuing E125 forms.

There are no data available for the EU-27 for these documents; a calculation of administrative cost for these documents is therefore not possible at this stage. We present the data only for Poland, where robust data are available. The table below presents the total estimated administrative cost for processing the documents for Poland presented according to ‘Member State of residence’ and

‘Former working Member State’:

Table 31: Estimated administrative Cost – Competent Member State, E125, Poland, EUR, 2013

Service of E125 forms

Unit cost per case (EUR) 28.5

Number of cases 99504

Total cost (EUR) 2835864

Source: Deloitte, workshop in Poland

Table 32: Estimated administrative Cost – Member State of residence, E125, S1/E100/E107/E001, S001, Poland, EUR, 2013

Service of E125 forms Unit cost per case (EUR) 28.5 Number of cases 99504 Total cost (EUR) 2835864

Request for the issue of S1 document/ E100 series form (service of E107/E001 forms) Unit cost per case (EUR) 10.5 Number of cases 1704 Total cost (EUR) 17892

Registration of the S1 document (EUR)

Unit cost per case 16.5 Number of cases 45048 Total cost (EUR) 743292

Service of SED S001 documents Unit cost per case (EUR) 13.5 Number of cases 1.5 Total cost (EUR) 20.25

Issuing E125 forms Unit cost per case (EUR) 12 Number of cases 324924 Total cost (EUR) 3899088

Source: Deloitte, workshop in Poland

4.3 Summary – Estimated current administrative cost - Baseline scenario

The table below summarises the administrative cost for the EU-27 for the following documents for the baseline scenario: PD U1 ‘received’, PD U2” ‘issued’ and PD S1 ‘issued’.

Table 33: Baseline scenario – estimated administrative cost: PD U1 (in €), PD U2 (in €), PD S1 (in € 000)

Country PD U1 'received' PD U2 'issued' PD S1 'issued'

BE 102,720 4,865 2,043

BG 237,141 1,732 79

CZ 247,911 1,811 1,821

DK 124,194 4,986 1,025

DE 1,911,564 13,965 6,622

EE 89,110 288 27

IE 182,221 1,331 515

EL 432,895 3,163 407

ES 2,979,503 21,767 1,277

FR 2,140,128 12,854 1,839

IT 1,342,577 9,809 3,013

CY 17,635 129 98

LV 140,092 1,023 14

LT 194,083 1,418 16

LU 6,699 666 3,726

HU 319,826 2,337 496

MT 6,805 50 23

NL 219,708 2,867 3,650

AT 114,016 5,337 3,180

PL 831,690 531 299

PT 391,099 2,857 171

RO 462,453 50 111

SI 49,032 358 49

SK 467,034 356 203

FI 131,834 963 597

SE 94,246 1,188 414

UK 1,368,111 9,995 3,917

EU27 14,604,326 106,695 35,632

Source: Own calculations based on collected administrative data and 2012 Ageing Report and data provided during the workshops on administrative burden (Poland, Belgium and Romania).

5 Problem definition

5.1 Introduction

The free movement of persons, one of the “four freedoms” offered by the internal market 101 , is one

the most important principles of the EU and a fundamental right of EU citizens. The rights to move, to reside and to work freely within the territory of the Member States are enshrined in both the

Treaties (Article 21, 45, 49 and 56 TFEU) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Preamble, considerations 15 and 45). Legally resident third country nationals can also enjoy certain rights to free movement within the territory of the Union 102 .

Preventing disadvantages in the social security rights of citizens when they move is necessary to make the right to free movement effective. As such, Article 48 TFEU states that “The European

Parliament and the Council shall … adopt such measures in the field of social security as are necessary to provide freedom for workers”. To comply with such mandate, currently Regulation (EC)

No 883/2004 and the Implementing Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 i coordinate Member States’ social security schemes. Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i started to apply in May 2010, and replaced previous

Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 i.

The EU legislation does not replace the different national social security systems, but coordinates them in situations with an intra-EU cross border element. EU regulations coordinate the crossborder aspects of the social security systems of EU Member States plus Iceland, Liechtenstein,

Norway and Switzerland.

Removing the obstacles to mobility for European citizens is on the priorities of the European

Commission. It has been highlighted on several occasions under President Barroso’s tenure

(including with occasion of the European Year of Workers Mobility 2006, the European Parliament report on citizenship in 2009, the Monti report on the Single Market, President Barroso’s political guidelines, Commission Work Programme 2013) that despite the important legal acquis in the area of free movement of workers, European citizens still face problems and obstacles when moving

across borders within the EU. Labour mobility across Member States remains low 103 , as emphasized in the 2012 Annual Growth Survey 104 . In line with this priority, the Commission issued a policy

communication in April 2012 (“Employment package”), in which it identified the EU’s biggest job potential areas and the most effective ways for Member States to create more jobs. Among other objectives, the employment package also aims to contribute to a genuine EU labour market.

101 Article 3 (2) TEU and Article 26 (2) TFEU

102 Cf. Council Directive 2003/109/EC i of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents. 103 Merely 2,8% of the European working age population (between the ages of 15-64) resided in a Member State other than their own in

2010 (EU Labour Force Survey 2010). 104 COM (2011) 815 i, Communication from the Commission, Annual Growth Survey 2012.

In the same perspective, the Commission announced, in the EU Citizenship report 2013 "EU citizens:

your rights, your future" 105 that it would propose a revision of the social security coordination

regulation, looking in particular into extending the export of unemployment benefits for longer than the mandatory three months, to make it easier for citizens to look for a job in another EU country (action 1).

The EU regulatory instruments in the area of social security coordination constitute necessary elements for making intra-EU mobility a reality and for the smooth operation of the EU labour market. They date back to the 1950’s and have been amended on numerous occasions in order to take into account developments at EU level, changes at national level and rulings of the Court of Justice. Both the Member States and the Commission have the obligation to make sure the Regulations are fit to meet today’s needs and reflect the developments in national and EU legislation, the case-law of the Court of Justice and the socio-economic context.

Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i represents a step in the modernisation of social security coordination rules, adapting them to changing realities at EU and national levels. The legislative process for the modernised rules lasted over 10 years, a period during which important socio-economic changes took place in the EU and the Member States (including two enlargements) and where the Court of Justice delivered a number of important rulings. The regulation strengthened the principles of coordination and brought improvements in several social security branches. It did not, however, in the Commission’s view, lead to the expected results in the areas of coordination of unemployment and long-term care benefits.

To fully align coordination in these areas with developments at EU and national level, and meet the citizen’s needs, the Commission has set in motion the process for a possible partial revision of Regulations (EC) Nos 883/2004 i and 987/2009. The initiative covers the area of coordination of unemployment and long-term care benefits. It is also linked to the overarching EU objectives as

reflected in the “Europe 2020 – A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth” 106 , which

calls for the EU to encourage mobility and for European citizens to make more sue of their freedom of movement, as well as to ensure that a vulnerable part of the EU population is enabled to live in dignity and is not expose to the risk of poverty when exercising the right of free movement.

The initiative for a partial revision of the coordination regulation includes the present preparatory study for an impact assessment. As a first step, the current problems with regard to the coordination of long-term care and unemployment benefits are described and assessed. Further background details are briefly presented for each area and then the existing problems are discussed in depth. A problem tree was drafted based on documentary analysis, survey data complemented by statistical data analysis and interviews with stakeholders in 14 Member States. The problem tree reflects the problems discussed in detail in the text of the report and their underlying causes (drivers). It also links them to the policy objectives, which are divided into operational, specific and general objectives.

Given the substantial and thorough work conducted by the trESS network on the topic, we refer to the studies conducted by the network on both topics for an in-depth legal analysis on existing and

105 COM(2013) 269 final i

106 COM(2010)2020 i

potential problems under the current coordination Regulation. The reports have been used as sources for this study.

5.2 Coordination of LTC benefits

Long-term care benefits were not explicitly mentioned in Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 i. This is still the case in Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i, with the exception of one overlapping provision (art.34). The coordination regulation does hence not include a definition of “long-term care”, nor does it contain a specific chapter for the coordination of these benefits. Long-term care benefits do however fall within the material scope of the coordination Regulation. The Court of Justice ruled that, in the absence of a specific legal regime for their coordination, they must be regarded as “sickness benefits” within the meaning of the Regulation and coordinated as such.

Long-term care benefits are increasing in importance given the demographic changes in the EU

(namely, the ageing of the population). Member States continue to develop special schemes for persons in need of care, and national legislative developments (including new types of benefits) abound but vary across Member States. Since the last decade, the European Union has been promoting access, high-quality and sustainable healthcare and long-term care in Member

States. 107 108 On 9 September 2010, the European Parliament adopted a Resolution on “Long-term

care for older people” calling for a development of the Social OMC. To take into account this development, the Commission adopted in 2013 the Social Investment Package, describing the national orientations in this field.

Given these developments, the number of rulings delivered by the Court of Justice in this area and the problems persisted in the area (as highlighted by the trESS network) justify analysing the possibility of revising the coordination rules.

The current system of coordination of long-term care benefits thus presents a series of problems to which the “no policy change” option would not provide any solution. They are described in detail below, based on the information gathered through the various data collection activities conducted for this study. The problems are summarised visually in a problem tree, included at the end of the section. The problem tree links the problems to objectives, and also depicts the drivers behind such problems. General information about problems and the stakeholders’ view on the need to change the rules is first presented.

40% of the organisations that participated in the EC public consultation declared to have noticed problems of application of EU law in this field. In Deloitte’s survey of national administrations, 60% of national administration has experienced problems in the application of the current coordination rules.

A general complexity of the EU Law regulation on the coordination of long-term care is widely regarded as root problem of the current system according to the interviews conducted in 14

107 COM(2005)76 i “Working together, working better – A new framework for the open coordination of social and protection and inclusion policies in the European Union”.

108 SWD(2013)44 final, adopted on 20.02.2013.

Member States. This complexity results in and is at the same elicited by a number of more specific problems.

The most recurrent problem, mentioned by 24% of all type of organisations participating in the public consultation was that migrant workers are not sufficiently aware of their rights under EU law. The second problem most commonly mentioned was that national administrations do not apply EU law correctly. Then came the problems with the cross-border communication between institutions of Member States and that national administrations do not provide EU workers with sufficient and correct information.

Looking into specific problems and who raised issues with them in the consultation, the lack of awareness of migrant workers about their rights was mostly pointed out by social partners and trade unions and national administrations. The incorrect application of EU law by national administrations was pointed out mainly by national administrations. No national administration, social partner, trade union, non-governmental or civil society organisation considered that migrant workers are abusing the possibilities of EU law. Two respondents (one on behalf of a company and an unknown one) did so. However, none of them was able to elaborate on such claim.

Interviewed civil society organisations active in the area (EUROCARERS and the AGE Platform) stated problems related to the lack of effective protection of migrant workers. However, it must be noted that some of these claims were linked to the residence requirements in national legislation, which is beyond the scope of the (coordination) regulation. They also concerned the interpretation and application of the law at national level.

The general attitude towards the need (or lack thereof) of modifying the rules of the different stakeholders participating in the EC public consultation was the following:

Table 34: General attitude towards need to change the current LTC coordination rules

Almost half of the respondents (48%) preferred to change the current

National coordination rules. Furthermore, about 20% of the group of

public respondents who think that the current coordination rules should be authorities continued think that the rules should be better explained or better applied in practice.

83% of trade unions and social partners are in favour of changing the rules. Only 17% of the responding trade unions and social partners’

Trade unions representatives are in favour of keeping the current coordination rules.

and social Two other alternatives are more popular: the option where the Member

partners State of competence fully provides the LTC benefits for insured people residing abroad (33%) and the option where the Member State of

residence provide LTC benefits in cash supplemented with a supplement by the Member State of insurance (25%).

Civil 88% of civil society representatives would like to break the status quo.

society/NGOs All other policy options are considered as better than the baseline scenario.

Individual 82% the individuals that have responded to the public consultation are

respondents in favour of changing the current rules. Keeping the current rules is

only the third preferred option. Two other options received more

support: the option where the Member State of competence fully

provides the LTC benefits for insured people residing abroad (39%)

and the option where the Member State of residence provide the LTC

benefits according to its national legislation (29%).

5.2.1 Problems of classification of long-term care benefits under EU law

Each country has its own social security system, where the risk of reliance of care is covered in very different manners. Differences include the definition (or lack thereof) of a definition for long-term care, the branches of the social security system and/or public assistance schemes under which the risk of reliance on care is covered, and the specific type of benefits granted.

Lack of common definition of LTC benefits under EU law & Lack of common criteria to determine them

There is no agreed definition of LTC benefits at EU level. There is no agreement on the definition of the risk of reliance on care and to determine common criteria for LTC benefits.

The OECD has adopted its own definition of long-term care, but it has no binding legal status under

EU law. 109

Member States might or might not have an official definition for long-term care. Among those that have definitions, these vary. The trESS Think Tank Report 2011 on the coordination of long-term care benefits (“Coordination of Long-term Care Benefits – current situation and future prospects”) included the following synaptic table regarding the definition of LTC in the different Member States:

Table 35: Lack of common definition of LTC benefits under EU law - comparison of definitions

Definition of social Range of

risks / LTC definitions Comparison with the OECD definition Member States

benefits

Member State's definition is equal or

Yes General definition broader (more sophisticated and BE (Flemish care insurance), CZ, LV, LU,

detailed) that the OECD definition PT, ES, DE

109 As quoted in the OECD’s Working Paper “The long-term care workforce: overview and strategies to adapt supply to a growing

demand”: ( http://search.oecd.org/officialdocuments/displaydocumentpdf/?doclanguage=en&cote=delsa/elsa/wp2/hea(2009)1) , the OECD’s definition is the following: “Long-term care is a range of services required by persons with a reduced degree of functional capacity, physical or cognitive, and who are consequently dependent for an extended period of time on help with basic activities of daily living (ADL), such as bathing, dressing, eating, getting in and out of bed or chair, moving around and using the bathroom. This is frequently provided in combination with basic medical services such as help with wound dressing, pain management, medication, health monitoring, prevention, rehabilitation or services of palliative care. Long-term care services also include lower-level care related to help with instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), such as help with housework, meals, shopping and transportation.”

Member State's definition is more restricted (less sophisticated and AT, CY, DK, EE, FI, IS, NL, SI detailed) than the OECD definition

Various descriptions, depending on the particular

scheme/benefit BE, FR, HU, IE, IT, LT, PL, CH, LI, SE

BG, GR, MT, NO, RO, SK, UK (conditions No for entitlement are defined for each

benefit)

The European Court of Justice established in the Molenaar case (C-160/96, Para.3) that a person is reliant on care if “a permanent need were to arise for those insured to resort, in large measure, to assistance from other persons in the performance of their daily routine (bodily hygiene, nutrition, moving around, housework, and so on)”. In various rulings, the ECJ has outlined elements of LTC benefits that are to be regarded as sickness benefits for the purposes of coordination. trESS compiled in an annex to their Think Tank Report 2011.

The national administrations interviewed (including quite clearly Austria, Belgium, Germany the

Netherlands and Spain) considered the lack of a common definition or criteria as a major obstacle for an effective coordination of LTC benefits and a smooth implementation of the current rules.

National administrations in many Member States expressed their preference for a common definition of LTC and a detailed list of LTC benefits per Member State. However, some Member

States - Sweden, Finland en Belgium – expressed their concern that several benefits in their system could then be seen as LTC benefits, while they do not consider them to be subject to the current coordination rules.

Diversity of benefits that can/should be considered as LTC benefits in the MS & Benefits situated under different social security branches

The risk of reliance on care is covered under different branches of the social security system and/or public assistance schemes.

This further complicates coordination at EU level, as “national” benefits are often coordinated under different regimes (including sickness, old age, family protection, work accidents and occupational diseases, invalidity, survivors and social assistance); they can be in kind or in cash or even a mixture of both; they can be social security benefits or social assistance benefits, contributory or noncontributory; they are processed by a wide range of bodies and institutions, which complicates control. In addition, the LTC beneficiaries are diverse (and might vary across countries: workers, unemployed persons, pensioners, survivors, family members) and the development of LTC benefits is not homogeneous in the different Member States. Differences in national systems and no common understanding of the concept complicate the coordination of LTC benefits at EU level.

The insights gained during the country visits confirmed the diverse ways in which Member States cover the risk of reliance on care and how this, in the view of the public officials directly in charge of applying the coordination rules, complicates the coordination. While EU rules aim to coordinate, and not harmonise, the national social security schemes, a root problem is perceived to be in the different manner in which the Member States recognise, consider and deal with LTC benefits.

Firstly, Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i aims to coordinate social security schemes. However, the risk of reliance of care is not covered in all countries by branches of the social security system. It is, in some cases, covered by public or social assistance schemes. Secondly, following the ECJ’s case-law, LTC benefits are to be coordinated as sickness benefits. However, LTC benefits present certain distinctive characteristics that make them different from sickness benefits, and benefits addressing the reliance on care might be coordinated under different social security branches (including family, old age and invalidity) in different. Thirdly, while the ECJ has outlined elements of LTC benefits that must be regarded as sickness benefits for the purposes of coordination, but there is still no common definition or agreed exhaustive list of criteria that allow to identify benefits as LTC benefits

(however, the Court has ruled on particular benefits of certain countries (as is the case in the UK) that must be considered as LTC benefits for the purposes of coordination). All this renders the precise identification of benefits, provided under any social security of public assistance scheme, that must be considered as LTC benefits for the purposes of coordination. It generates uncertainty and hampers the understanding and ownership of the rules by national administrations, which might hold different views on the benefits that fall under the scope of the coordination regulation.

Four basic positions were identified during the country visits:

-

Specific, dedicated system of LTC; - LTC benefits considered as sickness benefits; - LTC as a complement to pensions; - LTC as social assistance.

The trESS network attempted to provide a picture of the statutory organisation of LTC in all Member States, simplifying to a certain extent the characteristics of national schemes to group countries in six different categories. The following, included in their Think Tank Report 2011, summarises their work:

Table 36: Diversity of benefits that can/should be considered as LTC benefits in the MS & Benefits situated under different social security branches

Statutory

organisation Classification Member States

Global care system Social security BE (Flemish care insurance), LU, NL

and/or unifying Public assistance CY, EE, ES, UK* legislation Combination of both social

security and public assistance DK, SE* (although social security element is by far the strongest)

Differentiated Social security CZ

approach Public assistance LV, MT, RO (disintegrated care Combination of both social AT*, BE, BG, CH, FI*, FR, GR, HU, IS IE, IT, LI, LT, NO, PL, PT, SK, system) security and public assistance SI, DE*

*

Some (or all) of the benefits of these states have been declared as “normal” sickness benefits for the purpose of the application of

Regulation (EC) No. 8823/2004 by the ECJ or the EFTA Court.

The main issues have been identified through interviews in countries for which LTC benefits are not part of the Social Security system. This refers mainly to countries in which LTC is considered as social assistance, or assimilated to social assistance. Social assistance is explicitly excluded from the coordination Regulations (Art.3.5 Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 i). In these cases, the transposition of the Regulation into the national legislation, and the subsequent application of the coordination mechanisms, becomes highly problematic. Amongst the countries visited, this is the case in Estonia, Romania (where the benefits that would fall under LTC are part of the social assistance system),

Spain (although a specific regulation for LTC exists in Spain, these benefits are not part of the Social Security system; they are provided as “Social services”, which can be assimilated to social assistance), Slovakia and France (there is no explicit definition of LTC benefits in the French

legislation) 110 . This complicates the application of the coordination rules in these cases.

As an example from the visits conducted to these countries, the authorities from the National Health Insurance Institute of Romania (Casa Naţională de Asigurări de Sănătate) considered that, given the lack of definition of long-term care regulated at EU level and materials submitted by the

Administrative Commission, the coordination of long-term care benefits does not fall under their competence. They referred us to the Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Protection, which in turn declined to have further discussions, indicating that “The Regulations specify very clearly that they do not cover social assistance, only social security. The benefits that would fall under long-term care benefits are of social assistance”. Similarly, the officials of the French Direction Générale de la

Sécurité Sociale expressed the difficulties they are suffering to apply the coordination rules. In

France, benefits are granted by territorial bodies, and are not linked to contributions. Citizens do not contribute during their lives to cover the risk of reliance on care, but are granted benefits if and when in need of them, based on their residence. Benefits in kind are provided directly in care centres or at the person’s home. Both the degree of reliance on care and the resources of the concerned person are assessed. However, it is not possible to identify the citizens who have worked and/or resided abroad. While there is no lack of willingness to comply with the coordination rules, there are practical difficulties. An internal procedure has been launched to try and solve the issues.

110 In Poland, different branches of social security have their own definitions of “LTC” and “LTC benefits” (with a different scope and

function).

The branch of the Social Protection system under which the benefits fall in each country determines the method by which they are financed, which in turns impacts the willingness of Member States to pay for or reimburse certain benefits provided to mobile citizens. In the EU, contributory benefits (based on LTC contributions by citizens) and non-contributory benefits (based on residence) co-exist. Similarly, benefits are means-tested (that is, the resources of the person in need of care are assessed to determine his/her contribution to the costs of providing the benefits) in some countries, but not in others.

LTC benefits can be in kind or in cash. The benefits available in each country, the way they are provided, and the eligibility conditions, vary per country. In an attempt to shed some light on the diversity of benefits per country, trESS grouped them according to the type of benefits (in kind, in cash or both) and their organisation (provider, spending and benefits) per Member States. The following table is included in the Think Tank Report 2011:

Table 37: Diversity of LTC benefits system: in cash, kind or both

Benefits in

kind/cash or Organisation (choice of provider / Member States both spending / benefit)

Only state-run / Only private institutions and/or

Only benefits informal caregivers / in kind Combination of both public and private institutions and caregivers EE, FR, IS, LV

Freedom of choice regarding the

Only benefits spending of the allowances BE (Flemish care insurance)

in cash No freedom of choice regarding the

spending of the allowances /

Combination Possibility to choose and/or combine AT, BE, CY, DK, HU, IE, LU, MT, NL, of both and/or substitute both types of benefits PL, RO, SK, SI ,SE, DE benefits in No possibility to choose and/or

cash and in combine and/or substitute both types BG, CH, CZ, FI, GR, IT, LT, NO, PT, kind of benefits ES, UK, LI

trESS updated this mapping in their Analytical Study 2012 “Legal impact assessment for the revision of Regulation 883/2004 i with regard to the coordination of long-term care benefits. The initial mapping was complemented with the replies submitted by the Member States to a questionnaire sent to the Administrative Commission members (A.C. 18/12). The questionnaire included questions about the definition, mapping and description of the national schemes. The results are presented in annex to the report, with a detailed list of the benefits in each country that should be considered LTC benefits for the purposes of the coordination. However, it should be noted that this list has no official validity. It only constitutes a (highly elaborated) theoretical exercise. During the country visits, the list of LTC benefits per country prepared by trESS received mixed reviews.

In line with the general problem of classification of LTC benefits under EU law and the drivers outlined, the trESS Think Tank Report 2011 identified and discussed in more detail the following challenges:

-

Differences in national systems – no common understanding; - Huge variety of LTC systems; - Social security or social assistance; - Benefits with elements of LTC considered as benefits from other branches of social security by Member States.

Distinct character of LTC benefits

LTC benefits vary across countries. They can be in cash or in kind, which affects the determination of the competent country for providing them and for bearing their cost. Their variety across countries is compounded by the fact that certain Member States are introducing new mixed-types of benefits. In these cases, it becomes increasingly difficult to determine the nature (in cash or in kind) of the benefit.

The same or similar benefits might be considered in kind in one country and in cash in others (this was the case, as reported by the national experts involved in trESS Analytical Study 2012).

Regardless of how the benefits are considered or recognised in domestic legislation, however, the

ECJ case law should be applied with regard to the distinction between benefits in kind and in cash.

As outlined by trESS, traditional benefits in kind do not usually present any problems. However, benefits in cash are more problematic. In these cases, the circumstances under which the money is given must be considered. In case money is given to the person so that he decides the use to make of it, respecting his autonomy and being paid out irrespective of any bill to be presented, the benefit should be considered as a cash benefit. In any other case where the use of the money must be justified by bills on services purchased, the benefits should be considered in kind.

Whilst the distinction between benefits in kind and in cash is not particularly problematic for sickness benefits, it becomes more complicated for LTC benefits (which must be coordinated as sickness benefits). We refer to trESS Analytical Study 2012 for a more detailed analysis of the problems the distinction between benefits in kind and in cash can cause in the following situations:

-

Loss, withdrawal or suspension of LTC benefits when the beneficiary changes his or her residence to another country;

-

Accumulation of the benefits in cash of the competent Member State and the benefits in kind for the same purpose of the Member State of residence (Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i);

-

The application of Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 i in relation to Member States which have opted for lump-sum reimbursements;

-

General aspects of accumulation of cash benefits and/or benefits in kind also outside Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i.

Beyond the pure distinction between benefits in kind and benefits in cash, there are other mismatches caused by applying the coordination rules devised for sickness benefits to LTC benefits. Sickness and LTC benefits differ in their aims, instruments and means. Several articles of the

Regulation (including Articles 19, 21 and 28) are not designed for LTC benefits but should be applicable to them, even if their wordings do not refer to them. In terms of goals, while traditional sickness benefits in cash are mostly related to the loss of salary or income, LTC benefits in cash can have other goals (therefore making the provisions on the calculation of benefits in cash under Article 21 (2) to (4) of little importance to LTC benefits). These problems were also identified by trESS, which considered as a challenge the “mismatches of concepts as a result of the inclusion of LTC benefits in the chapter on sickness benefits”.

To complement the information provided about the problems of classification of LTC benefits under EU law with insights from the country visits, during these several national administrations (in

Germany, Austria, Poland and the Netherlands) expressed to be in favour of clearly listing all LTC benefits (in kind and in cash) that are considered to be LTC benefits in other Member States or that should or could fall under the coordination Regulations. A German health insurance fund representative stated that “the lack of a clearly defined list of LTC benefits makes any coordination between Member States difficult and slow”. An interviewee from the Austrian national administration added: “The present list attached to the Regulation is helpful but insufficiently concrete and meaningful for categorising the different national LTC benefits (in kind and in cash).

Therefore, a concrete ‘benefits catalogue’ should be drafted, listing the available benefits in EU/EFTA and Switzerland with precise definitions of the types of benefits, the level of the amount, the essential eligibility criteria and the competent administration.”

Similarly, these national administrations would also like to better define “social assistance”, as more benefits could be qualified as a LTC benefit than often believed. A representative of a Polish national administration stated with regard to social assistance: “Several Member States claim to only have social assistance benefits, which fall outside the scope of the Regulation. However, some of these might be qualified as LTC benefits”. A Danish interviewee proposed to use the decisions of the ECJ as input to a common definition of LTC and the listing of LTC benefits (in particular the Molenaar

case 111 ).

5.2.2 Uneven application of coordination rules by Member States

The application of the coordination rules is uneven among countries. It appears that the exchange of portable documents, the recognition of entitlement to LTC benefits, and the claims for reimbursement (impacting, in the cases foreseen in Article 34 of the Coordination Regulation, the cash benefits perceived by the beneficiary) would vary significantly across countries. This was reported during the interviews conducted in the country visits. The biggest problem according to the national administrations that responded to the EC public consultation is the incorrect and uneven application of the EU rules by national administrations (32% of them see this as a major concern). This is confirmed by another opinion revealed by the EC public consultation: among the organisations considering that there is no need to change the rules (53.3% of the total), the majority (79.17%) was not entirely satisfied, considering that they should be better explained or better applied in practice.

As an illustration of the opinion of public authorities believing that the rules do not need to be changed, but should be better applied in practice, a German health insurance fund representative stated the following: “Local health insurance funds - often the entry point for citizens’ claims – are

111 Molenaar, C-160/96, Para. 3

insufficiently informed about the current rules and regulations which apply according to the EU Regulation. Current problems result from a wrong application of the current rules, not from the legal text itself; the coordination rules as such are sufficient and considered as good. The current problems could be reduced substantially, if the current rules were implemented more thoroughly by the different stakeholders involved in providing long-term care services in the different Member States”.

The differences in the way in which Member States cover the risk reliance on care and the different social security branches and/or social assistance schemes under which they are granted can lead to an uneven application of the coordination rules. Member States hold their own opinions on which benefits provided under their legislation should be considered as LTC benefits falling under the scope of the coordination rules. They cling strongly to such opinions, as evidenced during the country visits conducted, including expressing still disagreement with ECJ’s rulings (such was the case in the United Kingdom for instance). European organisations consulted (EUROCARERS and the Age Platform) raised concerns about the incorrect application of the coordination rules in some

Member States. trESS encountered similar issues, as reported in their Think Tank Report 2011: “Many Member States do not recognise some benefits as LTC benefits that at European level would be considered as such. In some cases those benefits are considered, at national level, as social assistance benefits and are therefore excluded from the scope of the Regulation. In other cases, the fact that the benefits are still considered (by the said Member States) as special non-contributory benefits of a mixed type prevents them from being exported. Both ways of interpretation seem contrary to the spirit of European law. Unfortunately, it is not easy to convince Member States to change their minds and behaviour.”

5.2.3 Gaps in social protection of mobile citizens

The current coordination rules make it possible to leave a person reliant on care completely devoid of protection in very specific cases. A person reliant on care may be left with no protection if he/she receives LTC benefits (only) in kind from a Member State and moves to a Member State that covers

the LTC protection only by means of benefits in cash 112 .

This risk of a gap in protection of mobile persons was regarded as a minor problem by the majority of the national administrations: only three organisations responding to the EC public consultation considered it as a major problem. National administrations mostly considered a loss of social protection as a theoretical possibility and they were not able to identify effective cases of a complete lack of protection.

Beyond this gap in protection resulting directly from the design of the coordination rules, problems in the protection of mobile citizens reliant on care can appear due to the uneven application of coordination. As outlined in the previous points, trESS perceived issues in this regard and European organisation active in the area consulted for this study also voiced their concerns, quoting actual cases during the interviews. These same organisations also alluded to the fact that the imposition of residence conditions to perceive long-term care benefits in kind, as is the case in several Member States, also results in an effective lack of protection; mobile citizens reliant on care would be less protected, or completely unprotected, during the time spanning from their change of residence to the completion of the requested period of residence.

112 Cf. case C-208/07, Chamier Glisczinski On another hand, significant disparities in the level of development of LTC benefits across countries have been observed. This was not perceived as an issue per se by the Member States. The generosity of each national system will always be different, and must be assessed in the context of the whole national social protection system. Social protection systems are designed with the aim of being internally balanced, and tend to compensate the relative weaknesses in certain benefits with more generous provisions in other fields. To some extent, individual workers will always have to gauge the amount and generosity of benefits they would be entitled to in each country when making a decision about mobility. In this sense, it should be borne in mind that the Regulation aims for the coordination, and not harmonisation (this falls out of the EU competencies in the field) of the systems.

However, interviewees in Member States with more generous benefits did point at the risk of losing quality of care when moving to another Member State, due to the fact that LTC benefits are not developed homogeneously in all Member States. In some, a mature, high-quality LTC scheme exists, while in others LTC benefits hardly exist. This makes LTC benefits different from other social security benefits (where the issue is more about higher of lower benefits in different Member States).

The heterogeneous development of LTC benefits in all Member States was also considered a challenge by trESS. As was outlined in their Think Tank Report 2011, a complete scheme exists in some countries, while in others this type of benefits barely exists. Such a situation does not however arise in other branches of social security, where the development is much more common and standard (such as in sickness protection). The situation for LTC is different. Thus, according to trESS, “Any cross-border movement may not only involve a quantitative loss of rights, but also a qualitative loss or rights or simply the removal or elimination of a possible right”.

5.2.4 Risk of double-payments for the same risk

While art.34 of Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004 i intends to avoid the overlapping in LTC benefits, the lack of an EU-wide definition (and, relatedly, of a well-suited coordination regime) of LTC benefits, creates loopholes in the application of the article. Its application is impossible in many cases (e.g., cases in which countries do not consider their benefits in kind as LTC benefits at the European level; or cases in which the benefits are coordinated under different chapters – e.g. pension, family benefits).

However, social tourism in the case of LTC was generally not seen a risk by interviewees. 113

Although most of the interviewed national administrations considered this risk to be rather low, concerns were raised which did not lie for the most on the possibility of double-payments for the same risks, but rather on the lack of operability of the system and the lack of visibility of Member

States on the costs incurred into and the reimbursements claims received or entitled to issue 114 . The

differences in the concept of LTC benefits and their treatment across Member States lead to a lack of operability of the reimbursement and mechanism of deduction for the avoidance of double payments set up by Article 34 of the Coordination Regulation. Countries lack information on the LTC benefits cross-border workers are entitled to in other countries, and therefore cannot always adjust

113 See also ICF GHK & Milieu Ltd (2013), A fact finding analysis on the impact on the Member states’ social security systems of the entitlements of non-active intra-EU migrants to special non-contributory cash benefits and healthcare granted on the basis of residence, commissioned by DG EMPL via DG Justice Framework contract, 275 p.

114 Long-term care benefits in kind are reimbursed under the same rules as sickness benefits in kind.

the level of benefits provided accordingly. The exchange of portable documents does not always take place.

Sometimes, the recognition of the entitlement to LTC is not asked (no EU forms are exchanged), conveying the idea that some beneficiaries are content with the benefits they receive from the competent Member State or might not be aware that they should notify a country of residence about the benefits that they receive. In other occasions, the benefits are provided to cross-border citizens just as they are provided to nationals, without a possibility to distinguish them (and no reimbursement between Member States takes place). As illustration of this fact, a Danish interviewee stated:

“How many foreigners live in Denmark and are awarded LTC benefits by Denmark? We do not know that because our public authorities do not ask for it. We do not make the distinction between crossborder or mobile citizens and Danish people. If they have the right to live here, their Danish municipality will provide them the benefits”.

Frequent complaints about the reimbursement mechanism were received during the interviews conducted in different Member States. Given the frequent criticism, and given that the reimbursement mechanism is directly linked to the avoidance of double payments, it appears that this aspect of the coordination bears watching.

Additionally, practical problems concerning the identification of beneficiaries were sporadically raised. It seems that in certain cases the information sent by the competent Member State to the Member State of residence (or vice-versa) would not be detailed enough to identify the person in question. Social Security numbers or even national ID numbers would be provided to the other country, for which such information would not be sufficient; in other cases, the simple indication of the name and last name, without any additional details, would not be enough to identify the person either. However, this is a cross-cutting challenge for the entire EU coordination system and not strictly limited to the coordination of long-term care benefits.

5.2.5 Instability of the current system of coordination of long-term care benefits

In the lack of a comprehensive and coherent coordination regime well suited to the particularities of LTC benefits, it is the CJEU which constantly has to make clarifications. The system can thus be altered at any moment by a CJEU ruling.

Legal uncertainty was identified as an issue. The authorities interviewed at national level, dealing on a daily basis with the coordination of LTC benefits, confirmed the problems derived from the lack of a common definition and treatment of LTC across countries, and the poor fit that the coordination as sickness benefits provides on certain aspects. To a certain extent, the perception that the major issues have already been addressed by the case law of the CJEU was shared. However, the general view amongst those interviewed was that indeed the system is unstable and prone to constant modifications.

Similarly, the level of complexity of the regulatory framework and the rulings of the CJEU render the issue not easily accessible for all the concerned staff public authorities. The changes introduced by the CJEU require regular updates and continuous formation in the Member States’ administrations.

5.2.6 Citizens not sufficiently understanding their rights under EU law

The complexity of the legal framework, including the lack of common definition and/or classification of long-term care benefits at EU level, and the large disparities across countries’ regimes results in an uneven application of the coordination rules. This results in a non-transparent, uncertain system, where citizens are not able to determine beforehand their entitlements in each country. Our findings confirm the lack of upfront visibility mobile citizens have on their entitlements. In the EC public consultation survey, the statement “Migrants are not sufficiently aware about their rights under EU law” was supported as one of the three major problems of the coordination mechanism by 57% of individual respondents, 40% of trade unions/social partners’ representatives and 26% of national administrations.

Interviews during field visits suggest that certain broad differences can be perceived amongst mobile workers. The more highly educated, tech-savvy amongst them would be making use of the Internet (including questions submitted to national administrations) to inform themselves about their entitlements in different countries and conditions. However, others would be making their mobility decisions rather blindly as it comes to entitlement to LTC benefits.

It seems, in particular, that mobile workers would have limited knowledge about the LTC benefits in kind to which they would be entitled in a different country (those are determined based on the legislation of the Member State of residence), and how that would affect any other LTC benefits they currently perceive or would perceive in the competent Member State (notably, reductions in cash benefits due to the enjoyment of LTC benefits in kind in another country).

This lack of knowledge apparently affects public authorities as well. Except for specifically dedicated bodies or units, the amount of public employees potentially dealing with a LTC case is very high while the frequency of the cases is low. While the cases can often be transferred to units with more specific knowledge, it appears that some obscurity would persist, even within the administrations, as to the exact content and entitlements of particular workers in cross-border situations. In this regard, findings from the public consultation survey reveal that 10% of the national administrations and 13% of the social partners’ representatives say that national administrations provide insufficient and/or incorrect information to mobile persons. One civil society representative argued that “Staff working in state bodies as well as migrant workers do not understand the rules. They need to be simple so that everyone knows what the entitlement is in each country. Also simple so that they are applied correctly and fairly.”

Similarly, the wide range of bodies and institutions dealing with the claims appears to generate certain issues of communication and to complicate the processing of claims. A Belgian health insurance fund representative argued: “You do not know to whom in the other Member State you can address your question. The responsible local public authority is not always known. The contact details of the Zorgkassen (Care funds), for example, are not adopted in the European database

(EURES).”

Systems also vary significantly in each country depending on the amount of competencies devolved to the regions and local entities. The size, population and number of bordering countries influence the number of cases. The distribution of competencies within each country impacts decisively the way the claims are dealt with (including the average length of the process), ultimately affecting the beneficiaries. Generally, it was gathered that individual civil servants, numbering in thousands in many countries, are the entry point for the claims. Except for dedicated ones, handling LTC claims from cross-border workers is only one amongst a wide range of responsibilities and sometimes health insurance funds only have 1-2 cross-border cases per year. This makes it difficult to instruct a large workforce on the particularities of these cases. The complexity of the rules adds to this difficulty. Therefore, detailed knowledge of the rules not only affects citizens, but also public authorities. One Danish national administration representative argued:

“Several municipalities in Denmark – the competent level to provide most LTC benefits in kind to the citizen - did not even know that they could claim reimbursement from other Member States for the LTC benefits that they had provided to foreign residents in Denmark” (foreign citizens insured in another Member State and resident in Denmark).

5.2.7 Coordination of long-term care benefits: Problem tree

The following problem tree, based on the information collected through the different data collection activities conducted for this study, summarizes in a visual way the main problems the current rules for the coordination of long-term care benefits present. The problem tree links the problems to policy objectives, in the upper part, and to the drivers behind such problems, in the lower part.

Objectives are divided in general, specific and operational, following the methodology of the EC

Impact Assessment Guidelines. The relationships between the individual objectives at each of the three levels are also depicted.

Figure 4: Problem tree - coordination of LTC benefits

5.3 Coordination of unemployment benefits

Unemployment benefits fall within the material scope of the coordination Regulation. Chapter 6 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i is dedicated to “Unemployment benefits”. Therefore, in contrast with LTC benefits, there are specific rules for the coordination of unemployment benefits. The coordination rules have not changed substantially in comparison to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 i. There were limited amendments to the provisions on the calculation of unemployment benefits (in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice) and to the provisions on export of unemployment benefits (a possibility to extend the export period from three for six months, upon a decision by the competent institution, was included). Notably, a limited reimbursement mechanism between

Member States was also introduced. It covers the unemployment benefits provided by the country of residence to unemployed frontier or cross-border workers.

The Council already agreed in 2001 on Parameters for the modernisation of the coordination

Regulations with regard to unemployment benefits. 115 The modernisation should result in a simplification of the coordination rules on unemployment benefits to enhance their readability and transparency.

However, apart from the adaptions previously outlined, the rules did remain similar as in former

Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 i. The trESS on the right to actively search for a work in the EU

(possibility to extend the export period) and the changes applied to the calculation of benefits can be seen as elements of modernisation of the rules. Given the accrued internal mobility in comparison with the period of the previous regulation (approved in 1971), so does the introduction of the reimbursement provisions. However, no major simplification of the rules took place. The introduction of the reimbursement mechanism actually added some complexity to the coordination rules. These changes reflected a compromise achieved in the search for consensus (unanimity was then needed to change the coordination rules). In addition, a new provision (Article 65a) was introduced 116 to address a legislative gap in order to ensure the protection of rights of self-employed workers, in line with Article 48 TFEU.

The discussions in the Administrative Commission and in the Council 117 have demonstrated that this

compromise is complex and is subject to different interpretations and misunderstandings. Against this backdrop, the Commission made a declaration for launching a broader revision of the unemployment chapter of the coordination regulation at the EPSCO Council in December 2011.

We describe in the following text the main problems elicited via the data collection activities conducted for this study. The problems are summarised visually in a problem tree, included at the end of the section. The problem tree links the problems to objectives, and also depicts the drivers behind such problems.

115 Document 15045/01 of 6 December 2001. Parameter 10 stated: “The unemployment chapter must be simplified with due respect for the current coordination rules. However, it must be extended to cover the self-employed schemes existing in a number of Member States. In addition, the unemployed person must be guaranteed the right to search actively for work in the Union, with payment of unemployment benefit in cash being maintained for a period of at least three months under simplified conditions”.

116 Regulation (EU) No 465/2012 i amending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i

117 The Council discussed several provisions of the Unemployment Chapter (namely Article 65 and new Article 65a) in the framework of adoption or Regulation (EC) 465/2012 i, which introduced miscellaneous amendments to the Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i.

To further facilitate the understanding of the problems, and to substantiate their analysis, we first provide some additional background information and discuss one of the main drivers behind the identified problems, i.e., the complexity of the current coordination rules. Discussing this driver, which involves elaborating on different elements of the current rules, is relevant because it has a horizontal effect on the remaining drivers identified. The complexity of the rules is both caused by and reflected in the diverse aspects and cases contemplated by the current coordination rules. The support for a revision of the rules, as well as the sentiment or opinion of different stakeholders on particular issues is also provided by reflecting the results of the EC’s public consultation and

Deloitte’s survey to national administrations.

Complexity of current coordination rules

The coordination rules were generally perceived as complex during the interviews conducted with public authorities and other stakeholders. The results of the online survey launched by Deloitte and the EC public consultation also point to such complexity and to the effect that, it becomes difficult for migrant workers and national institutions to know with certainty which are the workers’ rights under EU law.

In the online survey conducted by Deloitte among public authorities, 19.6% pointed out directly that “EU rules are too complicated” as one of the main problems noticed regarding the application of EU law in the area of unemployment benefits. Other responses also elicit such complexity. More precisely, 72% of the participating institutions thought that Member States are not correctly or uniformly applying EU law, whilst 60% considered that migrant workers are not sufficiently aware of their rights. These problems - which stem directly from a lack of simple, clear rules - were the most often selected by public institutions. In addition, 47% saw a problem in the ineffective and burdensome communication, while 39.2% saw administrative burden as a problem. Both of these problems could also be considered a certain by-product or consequence of complex coordination rules.

44.4% of the representatives from public institutions participating in Deloitte’s survey considered that the current coordination rules need to be changed. An additional 19.4% thought that, although they do not need to be changed, they should be better applied in practice (incorrect or uneven application can also stem from the complexity or lack of clarity of the rules). 12.5% of the respondents to the survey considered that, while the coordination rules need to be changed, they should be better explained. Among the 44.4% of representatives from public institutions that considered that the coordination rules need to be changed there were also concerns related to shortcomings of the coordination rules in defining precisely certain procedures or concepts, leading to a degree of obscurity that renders the coordination complex in practice.

Similar results were obtained in the EC public consultation. Three problems which can be linked to the complexity of the rules were the three most frequently selected by the respondents. 38% of the national administrations, 41% of the social partners and trade unions, and 56% of the civil society and non-governmental organisations considered that the lack of awareness of migrant workers about their rights (which results to a certain extent from complexity of the rules) is one of the three main problems of the application of EU law in the area. It was the problem noticed most frequently by each of these groups of stakeholders. The second problem encountered most often by the stakeholders consulted was the slow and/or ineffective communication between institutions of

Member States; it was selected by 38% of national administrations, 24% of social partners and trade unions and 33% of civil society organisations. Another problem related to the complexity of the coordination rules was the third most-frequently noted problem. It referred to the fact that national institutions do not provide migrant workers with correct and sufficient information (29% of national administrations, 24% of social partners and trade unions and 33% of the civil society and nongovernmental organisations participating selected this problem). More directly, for 13% of the national administrations and 12% of the social partners and trade unions, the excessive complexity of EU law was one of the three main problems of application of EU law in the area. For 23.6% of national administrations, the incorrect application of EU law by national institutions or administrations is also a top-three concern.

While they did not consider it necessary to change the coordination rules, 18% of the national administrations participating in the public consultation believed that the rules should be better explained, as did 29% of the social partners and trade unions. Another 20% of the national administrations thought that the rules should be better applied in practice. Among those who believed in the need to change the coordination rules (27% of national administrations, 35% of social partners and trade unions and 66% of civil society and non-governmental organisations) there were also concerns related to concrete aspects that render the coordination rules complex.

According to the stakeholders, different elements contribute to the complexity and lack of transparency of EU coordination rules. These include:

The distinction between frontier workers and other cross-border workers & the determination of cross-border workers’ country of residence

The first element of complexity comes from the distinction between migrant workers, frontier workers and other cross-border workers. The distinction is difficult to apply in practice, and becomes blurry in certain cases. During the interviews carried out it was generally agreed that, while there are marked differences between “classic” frontier workers and other types of cross-border workers, the latter are becoming less and less common and the distinction between frontier workers and other cross-border workers is increasingly blurry.

Typical frontier workers are considered to maintain stronger links with their country of residence, and are perceived as less likely to leave it due, inter alia, to family links. However, it was pointed out that the distinction between frontier workers and other cross-border workers is often rather

complicated 118 . Even more, the distinction between cross-border workers and cases of foreign

workers considered as national workers (i.e. migrant workers), whereby migrant workers become resident in the country of activity, also appears to be blurry. Relevant differences were also reported among frontier workers. As mentioned during the interviews conducted in Germany, frontier workers range from workers who live barely some minutes or kilometres away from their place of work to others who cover distances over 500 km. This challenges the original conception that frontier workers are close (in terms of distance and commuting time) to their place of employment (and hence unemployed frontier workers to their country of last activity).

It can also create conflicts with national law. Thus, for example, in order to be considered an unemployed person (and hence be entitled to unemployment benefits), the individual concerned

must be close (in time and geographical terms) to his/her district or area 119 . Frontier workers

covering greater distances to go to work do not fall into this category. On a similar note, according to the ZAV-IPS Frankfurt, not all national authorities inform the migrant workers sufficiently or

118 Cross-border workers are persons who work in one Member State and reside in another. Frontier workers are a subcategory

of cross-border workers who work in one Member State and reside in another where they return daily, or at least once a week.

119 In Germany for instance, the regulation requires individuals to reside in the area so as to be entitled to unemployment benefits. Luxembourgish authorities also mentioned the German case as an example of how conflicts with national legislation can arise. Although the Law in Luxembourg does not make such a requirement (unemployed workers living in Belgium, France and Germany can perfectly receive unemployment benefits).

correctly where to claim unemployment benefits, due in part to the fact that there is a lack of clarity

regarding the “real” and “false” 120 cross-border workers.

In accordance with the views gathered, the determination of the country of residence remains difficult in practice, as it is subject to a high degree of interpretation. The criteria for the determination of residence set out in Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 i are, according to the interviewees, broad and cannot be applied straightforwardly. This generates some uncertainty.

Public authorities do not often have sufficient information at their disposal to control the frequency of return home of frontier workers, and the distinction between frontier workers and other crossborder workers fades out in many cases. Furthermore, economic development and infrastructural improvements reduce progressively the importance of physical distance. In these circumstances, the distinction between frontier workers and cross-border workers established by the Regulation adds an element of complexity that is on occasion not fully coherent with reality. As an example, the

British authorities made explicit allusions in the interviews conducted to the case of Polish workers, whom in many cases are apparently not considered as resident in the United Kingdom even after

living and working there for years 121 . Polish authorities, on their side, stated that the assessment

criteria of the habitual residence test for cross-border workers does not work well and results in administrative burden. The Federal Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Consumer Protection of Austria (BMASK) considered that there should be a clear definition of a cross-border worker in the Regulation.

The distinction between frontier workers (and, within those, between wholly and partially

unemployed frontier workers 122 ) and cross-border workers is important because it determines

where the unemployed workers can register and claim unemployment benefits.

While wholly unemployed frontier workers must register and ask for unemployment benefits in their country of residence, cross-border workers other than frontier workers have the choice between their country of residence and the country of last activity. On one hand, this distinction might be confusing for the workers, who may not be aware of their own status. It might also be confusing for the public authorities. Problems regarding the lack of awareness of migrant workers about their rights, as well as problems concerning the fact that national institutions or administrations do not provide migrant workers with correct and sufficient information have been reported (see above). On the other hand, the right of choice given to cross-border workers other than frontier workers introduces an element of uncertainty for public authorities. It requires communication efforts with other Member States to have information on the situation of particular workers.

Rules on aggregation of periods of insurance, employment and self-employment

120 “Real” or “classic” frontier workers could be considered as those who live almost literally on the border, just a few kilometres away from their place of work, so they do not have to cover long distances and could also easily, if needed, make themselves available for interviews, training courses and also administrative procedures, at their place of last employment –“abroad”, but close by-. “False” or “non-classic” frontier workers would those who indeed cover much larger distances to go to work, yet still come back “home” often enough to receive the consideration of frontier workers and therefore could enjoy a favourable taxation system.

121 The assessment of habitual residence by the United Kingdom has been contested by the European Commission in an infringement procedure.

122 Regulation 883/2004 i establishes a distinction between wholly unemployed frontier workers and partially or intermittently unemployed frontier workers (art.65.1-2 Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004 i). Wholly unemployed frontier workers must register and apply for unemployment benefits in their country of residence, while partially or intermittently unemployed frontier workers must register in their country of last activity.

A second element of complexity is provided by the rules on the aggregation of periods. We hereby refer to the evidence provided on administrative burden in the baseline scenario chapter. The coordination Regulation provides for the aggregation of periods of insurance, employment or selfemployment conducted under the legislation of different Member States for the purposes of the acquisition, retention, recovery or duration of unemployment benefits. A specific provision is introduced for the cases in which the right to benefits is conditional on the completion of periods of insurance. In these cases, the periods of employment or self-employment completed under the legislation of another Member State shall not be taken into account unless such periods would have been considered to be periods of insurance had they been completed in accordance with the applicable legislation.

Therefore, the coordination rules (Art.61 (1) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i) start by drawing a distinction between cases where the national legislation of the competent Member State makes the entitlement and the length of the unemployment benefits subject to the completion of periods of insurance on one hand and, on the other hand, cases where the legislation makes the entitlement conditional on the completion of periods of employment. By so doing, the regulation intends to reflect actual differences in national systems.

The conditions to consider certain periods completed under the national legislation as periods of insurance, employment and self-employment under national legislation vary across countries. Since the acquisition, retention, recovery or duration of unemployment benefits are linked to the different periods of each type completed, and the consideration of the same periods might vary across countries, this makes it complicated for mobile workers to know their rights. This is also the case for public authorities (therefore, workers cannot always solve their doubts by asking to the administration). This diversity of opinions of the national administrations is well documented in the annexes to AC 470/11.

In particular, the interviews carried out with public officials pointed towards particular issues with the periods of self-employment. The regulation of self-employment varies significantly across countries. In some of them, contributions to Social Security, including for the coverage of the risk of unemployment, is entirely voluntary. In others, there are no schemes for self-employed workers at all. The way unemployment benefits are financed also varies across countries. While in certain countries the funds come exclusively from contributions of self-employed workers (e.g. Spain and Denmark), in other countries there is contribution from the State’s budget (e.g. Luxembourg). This in turns impacts the consideration of periods of self-employment as periods of insurance. Selfemployment periods might not be considered as periods of insurance, and therefore not generate the right to unemployment benefits. Concerns about the particularities of self-employed workers were particularly raised in Spain. In the view of the Spanish public authorities, art.61 (1), second paragraph, fails to account sufficiently for the complexity brought about by the significant differences across countries. Representatives from French authorities also criticised the coordination rules in this aspect, suggesting that the coordination regulation should clearly set out from the beginning a difference between those countries that provide unemployment benefits to selfemployed workers and those that do not (they could be specified in an Annex, covering potentially conflicting situations). The rules should then be different for each group of countries. In Belgium a representative from the National Employment Office pointed out the different interpretations that Member States make of periods of insurance. He signalled, as an example, the classification of selfemployed periods treated as insurance period. Two specific cases for Belgium were provided as examples:

-

OSSO-assurance (overseas social security office) 123,124 : periods of employment in

another country insured by an OSSO-assurance were considered as ‘Belgian

periods’. 125 This is no longer the case. Now, it is necessary to have/prove a Belgian

period of insurance to receive an unemployment benefit. In addition, foreign periods outside the EEA, not employed as a posted worker, will not be mentioned on the U1- form.

-

Belgium does not have unemployment insurance for self-employed persons. Selfemployed persons living in Belgium and working in another Member State will not receive a Belgian unemployment benefit. However, these periods of self-employment will be taken into account when the person was afterwards employed as crossborder worker/frontier worker OR accomplished a Belgian period of insurance OR is a migrant person who has accomplished also a Belgian period of insurance.

The Confederation of the German Trade Unions also reported occasional problems with the aggregation of periods. These occurred in cases of short-term employment contracts and in cases when the former employer could no longer be traced.

Hence, while the coordination Regulation should cover all different contingencies, it follows from the opinions gathered in several Member States that the wide variety of cases that can occur is not, allegedly, sufficiently addressed by the Regulation. Self-employment’s peculiar characteristics and the disparity of its regulation across countries add to the overall complexity of EU rules. Mobile workers, and even officials in national public institutions, are put in a difficult situation to find out with certainty and a priori the entitlements of migrant workers. Public authorities in many of the countries visited (including Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Poland and Spain) generally supported a clarification of the rules on the aggregation of periods of insurance, employment and self-employment (therefore acknowledging the problems stemming from the current ones).

trESS identified this same issue in their Think Tank Report 2012. As stated in the report, “A major problem in the field of the application of the aggregation rules is that the interpretations of these rules differ significantly among the Member States’ institutions. Especially in cases where the national legislation makes benefit entitlement conditional on the completion of periods of insurance, different approaches are taken with regard to periods of employment or self-employment, which under the legislation under which they were completed are not regarded as periods conferring entitlement to unemployment benefits”. The report outlines different problems arising from the application of the aggregation rules, including the periods of (self-) employment to be taken into account and the periods to be taken into account with regard to voluntary schemes. Other practical problems are also mentioned.

123 http://www.dosz-ossom.fgov.be/user_docs/02-12-Brochure-Anglais.pdf

124 OSSOM offers a broad social protection to anyone:

1.

who works outside the European Economic Area and Switzerland.

2.

who is a citizen of Switzerland or of a Member State of the European Economic Area (Nationals of other countries must be employed by the Belgian State, the Regions or the Communities or by a company with registered office in Belgium.)

125 See also cases Bozzone (87/76) and Laborero/Sabato (82 and 103/86).

Provisions on the export of unemployment benefits: minimum period of export of three months with a possible extension to six months (discretionary decision of the competent institution)

A third element contributing to the lack of transparency is the regime for the exportation of unemployment benefits (cf. Table 131: Export of unemployment benefits - current practices). The regulation foresees a minimum period of export of three months, with a possible extension to six months. However, there are not fixed criteria for the concession or refusal of the extension. The decision is taken by the competent institution, which applies its own set of criteria or, in some cases, has no pre-defined criteria at all. The competent institutions in the Member States are supposed to apply discretionary power, meaning (according to the ECJ) an assessment of the situation of each individual case (and not the adoption of a general policy decision on the prolongation or not of the export). This reduces, in practice, the transparency for the workers, who cannot know in advance the likely duration of their export period, which might in turn affect their mobility decision. In addition, some countries do not grant the export at all (such as the UK).

Certain interviewees (including British public officials, a representative from the Confederation of the German Trade Unions and certain EURES advisors) considered that the duration of the period needs to be clearly defined (be it three months, six months or other duration –they held different views-). A time-span (as is the case, with a span between three and six months) can easily lead, in their view, to a misinterpretation by the citizens, and is ineffective in practice.

The interplay between the current coordination rules and national rules can also create conflicts in practice. This was the case in Germany, where it was reported that it is not possible for recipients of Hartz IV benefits (Arbeitslosengeld 2) to export their unemployment benefits; it is only possible to export the “true” unemployment benefits (Arbeitslosengeld 1). This is, allegedly, often unclear to the citizens who seek advice (e.g. at EURES).

Reimbursement of unemployment benefits between Member States

Even though they do not impact EU citizens directly, the rules on reimbursement between Member States also add to overall complexity of the system and represent a source of administrative burden for Member States. Several claims were raised during the interviews with public officials pertaining the inefficiency and burdensome character of the reimbursement mechanism (they are described more in detail below).

Depending on the conditions, the Member State of last activity might have to reimburse the

Member State of residence the benefits provided during the first three or five months to a frontier or cross-border worker.

The reimbursement provisions are a novelty of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i, as they were not included in Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 i.

Communication between institutions of Member States

Communication between institutions of Member States is clearly perceived as an area with substantial margin for improvement. Under the current coordination rules, problems of ineffectiveness and derived burden are reported by a significant number of public authorities. They are also noticed by other stakeholders.

As previously reported, the results of both Deloitte’s online survey and the public consultation carried out by the Commission reveal shortcomings in the communication between institutions of Member States. In Deloitte’s survey, 47% of the public authorities saw a problem in the ineffective and burdensome communication. Only 10.6% of the respondents considered that the communication is fast, efficient and effective; over twice as many respondents, in contrast, indicated that cross-border communication is slow, burdensome and/or ineffective.

In the EC public consultation, 38% of national administrations, 24% of social partners and trade unions and 33% of civil society and non-governmental organisations ranked the slow and/or ineffective communication between Member States as one of the three main problems of application of EU law in this area. It was the second most-frequently selected by the respondents who replied on behalf of organisations.

The complexity of the current system is reflected in the use of different types of documents for exchanging similar information. As an example, according to representatives from the Polish government:

“There are too many documents that are used to confirm basically the same information (e.g.

U002/U017/E301). Other countries use other forms such as PD U, PD S, PD F, etc. This may result in confusion among migrant workers and may lead to the loss or reduction of their entitlement to unemployment benefits. The documents need to be clear and be used universally across the EU.”

5.3.1 Unawareness of rights of mobile workers among workers and public authorities

As has been discussed above, the complexity of the rules generates problems both for mobile workers and for public authorities to know with certainty the rights mobile workers are entitled to under EU law. The results of both Deloitte’s survey and the EC public consultation, as well as the interviews conducted at national level point towards a relatively low level of awareness or rights. While workers would actively look for information upon becoming unemployed, the complexity of the rules and the uncertainty that surrounds the interpretation and application of certain ones would persist as obstacles for a high level of awareness of rights.

5.3.2 EU rules not sufficiently taking into account changing job market conditions & Risk mobile workers enjoy less favourable conditions for reintegration into the labour market

The coordination rules try to ensure that migrant workers receive unemployment benefits in the conditions most favourable to the search for new employment. Under the current coordination rules, cross-border workers other than frontier workers can choose to register and apply for unemployment benefits in their country of residence or in their country of last activity. The onus is on them, then, to ponder the pros and cons of both systems and opt for the one they consider more beneficial given their circumstances. Wholly unemployed frontier workers, meanwhile, must register and claim unemployment benefits in their country of residence. As a supplementary step, they might also register as job seekers in the employment service of their country of last activity. However, if they do so, the compliance with the job-seeking obligations of the country of residence takes priority over the requirements of the country of last activity. As such, the rule mandating frontier workers to claim unemployment benefits in their country of residence is based on the assumption that they enjoy the most favourable conditions for seeking employment in their country of residence. Due to changing job market conditions, such assumption is nowadays questionable.

In interviews carried out for this project, particularly with public officials, as well as in our online survey, several interviewees and respondents manifested the view that unemployed frontier workers might not enjoy the most favourable conditions for seeking employment in their country of residence. Instead, they could have better chances of finding a job in their country of last activity. The qualification conditions that apply, the value attached by employers to experience in a particular market, and the importance of professional networks are some of the factors that might turn the country of last activity into a more attractive option for frontier workers. In this sense, a British public official argued that “as research shows, many of the opportunities to find a job are due to formal networks, not informal ones”. He argued that formal networks would be stronger for the frontier worker in his/her country of last employment, while informal networks would be stronger in his/her country of residence.

However, it was also noted during the interviews that it is not possible to generalise. Each case is different. The most relevant factors to determine the chances of finding a job are the educational background, qualifications and experience of the job seeker as well and the conditions of the job market in the area concerned. Demand for specific skills and the economic conditions of a specific area are paramount (as evidenced particularly in times of economic crisis, were unemployment rates vary strikingly across countries and regions). Therefore, it is difficult to determine, on a general basis, whether frontier workers enjoy a better chance of finding a job in their country of residence or in their country of last activity. At any rate, precisely because of the importance of individual circumstances and the swings in the economic prospects of each region over time, the assumption that unemployed frontier workers enjoy better conditions for seeking employment in their country of residence does not seem to hold.

The Court of Justice did indeed identify an exceptional application of the rule for other cross-border workers to unemployed frontier workers, who have better prospects of finding another job in the State of last activity and could therefore apply for unemployment benefits there (Case C-1/85

Miethe).

While the Court has recently stated that the provisions of the new Regulation (the Miethe case concerned the previous coordination regulation, dating from 1971) are not to be interpreted in the

light of its earlier case-law 126 , it does not deny the existence of a certain type of frontier workers

who, having maintained particularly close personal and business links with the country where they were last employed, have better chances of reintegrating into working life in that Member State.

Therefore, while not denying frontier workers the chance of receiving support from a public employment service to find a job, it appears that the current coordination rules do not necessarily reflect the current job market conditions for unemployed frontier workers.

It should be noted, however, that some opinions in favour of making the country of residence responsible for the provision of unemployment benefits to frontier workers were also voiced. They were partially based on the belief that the country of residence offers the best chance for frontier workers to find a job. This was the case in Germany. According to the German Employment Services, unemployed workers receive an optimal support to find employment when they are supported by the employment services in the country of residence; in such cases, there are no disadvantages for the jobseeker resulting from the participation in reintegration services, such as travel costs, uncertainty about training courses, advanced vocational training, etc. In addition, the German

Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs argued that when receiving unemployment benefits from his/her country of residence, the unemployed person receives benefits which are in line with the person’s direct environment (e.g. cost of living and wage level) and is offered equal treatment compared to “national” unemployed persons. This system also guarantees, in their opinion, an undivided competence that ensures a proper functioning of the chain of reintegration –granting of services and control.

The previously discussed (increasingly) blurry distinction between certain frontier workers and some other cross-border workers, as well as the differences between different types of frontier workers (some of them maintain particularly strong links with the country of last activity, which creates effective differences between them and other frontier workers who remain more attached to their country of residence), also reflect changes in the job market not fully accounted for by the current coordination rules.

126 See Case C-443/11 Jeltes. Following the Court’s ruling, the grant of unemployment benefits by the Member State of residence applies even in relation to wholly unemployed frontier workers who have maintained particularly close links with the State of their last employment.

In addition, public authorities interviewed in Slovakia pointed out that the current coordination regulation is focused on the problems of the “old” EU Member States. Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i

was enacted on 29 th April 2004, two days before ten new Member States officially joined the

European Union (1 st May 2004). These interviewees argued that the “old” Member States generally had (and have) higher living standards than the new entrants, while their social security systems also vary. These differences affect the actual results of the implementation of the coordination rules.

One interviewee, for instance, pointed out that “the motivation for a Slovak worker to go abroad largely differs from the one from old EU Member States”.

5.3.3 Unbalances distribution of financial burden

Member State of residence bearing costs of unemployment benefits and other social security benefits without receiving contributions and with only limited coverage by

reimbursement mechanism

The impact of the current coordination rules on the fair sharing of financial burden among Member States is different with regard to frontier workers and to other types of cross-border workers.

The unfair character of the rules for the Member State or residence, in terms of distribution of costs between Member States (considering the link between the reception of contributions from workers and the expenditure in unemployment benefits), was agreed by the vast majority of the public authorities interviewed.

In general terms, it was agreed that to provide for a fair sharing of burden, the country receiving contributions should be in charge of paying out the unemployment benefits. In other words, there should be a link between contributions and payments.

Cross-border workers other than frontier workers can choose to claim their unemployment benefits in their country of residence or in their country of last activity. For those who choose the country of residence, the same reasoning just explained for wholly unemployed frontier workers applies. For those who choose their country of last activity, the Member State that received contributions from the worker bears the costs of the unemployment benefits.

In the online survey conducted among public authorities, these considered clearly the best option, from the point of view of a fair sharing of the financial burden between Member States, that the country where the person last worked and paid social security contributions (even if he/she lived in another Member State) should provide the unemployment benefits (it received a score of 3.19 in a scale of 1 to 4). By comparison, the options stating that the benefits should be provided by the

Member State in which the person last lived (even if he/she last worked and paid social security contributions in another Member State), and that the unemployed person should be allowed to choose to claim the benefit either in the Member State of last employment or in the Member State of residence, were both similarly scored (2.29 and 2.28, respectively) and clearly below the option making responsible the country of last activity (see Annex 10.9).

As mentioned previously, a reimbursement mechanism exists. According to it, the Member State of last activity must reimburse the benefits provided to wholly unemployed frontier workers during the first three or five months (depending on the periods of employment or self-employment completed by the worker) to the country of residence. As long as the unemployment spell of the concerned worker lasts for longer than the period of reimbursement, the current coordination rules impose an unfair burden on the Member State of residence. In this situation, the Member State of residence has not received contributions from the unemployed worker, yet it has to cover his/her unemployment benefits and possibly also bear other social protection costs. Numerous public officials with direct experienced in the matter interviewed considered that the coverage of the reimbursement is not sufficient to compensate the expenditure in unemployment benefits (let alone other social security expenses) given the average duration of unemployment spells. Among those, the following quote was received from Portuguese civil servant:

“The reimbursement of 3-5 months by the competent Member State is considered as peanuts compared to the costs that we face in paying out unemployment benefits to Portuguese seasonal workers who have worked abroad. That is why we are so much in favour of a system where they would claim their unemployment benefit in the country of last employment” (Portugal has a significant amount of seasonal workers who work abroad during a certain period of time while retaining their habitual residence in Portugal. When they come back and become unemployed,

Portugal has to pay the unemployment benefit of these people).

However, the duration of the reimbursement period was considered sufficient to provide for a fair distribution of the costs by the public authorities interviewed in some Member States, including notably Luxembourg and the United Kingdom. Public officials in the United Kingdom argued that around 50% of unemployed workers there found a job within 13 weeks of becoming unemployed, and the remaining ones do it before six months. Therefore, the coverage of the reimbursement mechanism seemed appropriate to them.

Other problems of unfair sharing of financial burden

Other aspects of the current coordination also stood out as factors causing an unfair distribution of financial burden. These can generate an uneven distribution of the burden in one direction or the other, that is, unfair for the country of last activity of unfair for the country of residence. These include:

-

The lack of a minimum period of employment required for the determination of the competent Member State: the current coordination rules do not fix any minimum amount of time of employment to determine the Member State of last activity. Thus, periods of employment of barely a few days or two or three weeks are enough to consider a country as the country of last activity; as such, the country in question will be responsible for the provision or reimbursement of unemployment benefits. Cases of this kind were reported during the interviews (inter alia, by public authorities in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg and Spain). This can generate an unfair burden on the concerned countries (for instance, a country might have to reimburse up to three months of unemployment benefits for a worker that has only worked in the country for a few days).

-

The exclusiveness of the last salary for the determination of the benefits the unemployed worker is entitled to: currently the last salary of the migrant workers is used to calculate the benefits he/she is entitled to (following art.62 Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i). It is possible that such last salary has been perceived only for a very short period of time (see previous point). Salary conditions might also vary abruptly between the country of residence and the country of last activity (and hence possibly between the unemployed person’s two latest remunerated activities). In these cases, the last salary might not be a good indicator to use as a basis for the calculation of the benefits, in the sense that it might lead to benefits disproportionate to the contributions paid by the worker over a representative period of time. The worker might end up in a winning or losing situation, and situations of unfair sharing of the burden (via reimbursements) might arise. It was alleged by numerous public officials that previous sources of income, over a more extended period of time, should be considered for the calculation of unemployment benefits.

Examples of the first of these problems gathered during the interview include:

“A lot of people exporting their unemployment benefit quickly find an interim job in the Netherlands. Then they become unemployed after a while which makes them entitled to Dutch unemployment benefits, if they live in the Netherlands”

“A Polish person with a U2 document moves to Belgium. If he finds an interim job for a month in

Belgium, he can be entitled to a Belgian unemployment benefit if his periods of employment are aggregated. This is social tourism.”

As evidenced by the second example, concerns about the lack of a minimum period required to determine the country of last activity (and hence potentially competent for providing unemployment benefits) are linked to concerns about a certain misuse or abuse of rights.

TrESS discussed the aforementioned problems and expanded briefly on them when dealing with the problems brought about by the adoption of the system of reimbursement of between Member

States. These problems relate directly to the distribution of the financial burden between Member

States. The following problems were listed in the Think Tank Report 2012:

-

The State of last employment or last activity may be obliged to reimburse some amounts although the person concerned would not have been entitled to benefits under its legislation. The application of a foreign legislation is binding, which may in principle collide with the apparent neutrality of coordination provisions.

-

The State of residence ameliorates its situation with respect to the provisions of Article 71 of Regulation 1408/71 i, but in many cases the reimbursements do not fully cover (three to five months) the cost of the unemployment or other benefits awarded.

-

The amounts reimbursed may not be proportional to the periods completed in the Member State of last employment or last activity. No minimal period of insurance is required for the start of the obligation; an insurance period of only one day may suffice.

-

The State of residence is obliged to be in a position of creditor and needs to require the correspondent reimbursement from the debtor.

-

The maximum amount provided in paragraph 6 of Article 65 can be a theoretical amount, taking into account that the real amount payable by the State of last employment or last activity could amount to zero. Member States frequently disagree on this maximum amount.

-

The administrative procedure is very complicated and burdensome. Delays of reimbursement are common and frequent. For the State of residence, there always is the uncertainty whether and when it will receive the reimbursement. This objection weighs most heavily against the reimbursement approach.

In addition, trESS reported persistent problems regarding the joint interpretation of the reimbursements, as some Member States declared they may not follow Decision U4 of the

Administrative Commission (the decision constituted nevertheless a positive step towards a joint interpretation of the reimbursement rules). Practice also shows, according to trESS assessment, that there is uncertainty as to how to handle claims for reimbursement, and institutions seem in general to lack the experience to properly assess reimbursement claims.

As additional information beyond the pure problems identified in this regard, the following table summarises the opinions of the participants in the EC public consultation and Deloitte’s online survey regarding the question of which Member State should provide the unemployment benefits (which is intimately linked to the sharing of the financial burden between Member States):

National public authorities

According to the EC public consultation findings, a large majority of the respondents is in favour changing the rules. Only 11% of national public authorities think that the unemployment benefits should be provided by the Member State where the person has lived (as is currently the case for wholly unemployed frontier workers), even if he/she last worked and paid social security contributions in another Member State (third preferred option of national public authorities after the right of choice option -47%- and the country of last activity option -38%).

This percentage significantly differs from the 26% derived from the Deloitte survey findings (the country of last activity option was also the third preferred). Analysing the replies to the Deloitte survey country-by-country, maintaining the status quo is the preferred option of respondents from national public authorities in nine countries (AT, BE, DK, DE, IE, LU, ES, SE, CH), compared to the ones from 11 Member States in favour of making the country of last activity responsible for providing the unemployment benefit.

Trade unions and social partners:

88% of the trade unions and social partners who have responded to the public consultation preferred breaking the status quo. Keeping the current rules was the least preferred option amongst this group.

Civil society/NGOs

78% of civil society organisations and NGOs that responded to the public consultation preferred a change of the current coordination rules. The current rules were the second preferred option after the granting the right of choice for frontier workers).

Individuals:

93% of individual respondents to the public consultation preferred to change the current rules.

5.3.4 Migrant workers receiving low returns on their contributions

Wholly unemployed frontier workers must currently claim unemployment benefits in their Member State of residence. However, these workers paid contributions to Social Security, covering the contingency of unemployment (or contributed otherwise, such as via taxes paid to the Treasury, to the financing of such benefits), in their country of activity. Therefore, frontier workers receive unemployment benefits based on a different system than that to which they contributed. This leads to situations in which certain wholly unemployed frontier workers may lose out on benefits, and receive unemployment benefits below what their contribution should have enabled them to. In

other words, they do not receive benefits proportional to their contribution. 127

This existence of this problem was manifest, according to the public authorities interviewed. Some

cases of glaring disproportion were reported during the country visits. 128

As trESS pointed out in the Think Tank Report 2012, problems might also arise when there is a switch in the applicable legislation. Once a person is qualified as a wholly unemployed frontier worker or a non-frontier worker who continues to habitually reside in the State of residence, the State of residence will be, in virtue of Art.65, the competent State for the provision of social security benefits. The State of residence becomes then responsible for the payment not only of unemployment benefits, but also of sickness and family benefits. This change of system might give rise to disputes, especially when applying the legislation of the State of last employment would have resulted in a more favourable outcome for the person concerned and/or his family members.

Cross-border workers other than frontier workers, on their side, have the right to choose to claim unemployment benefits either in their country of last activity or in their country of residence. Hence, barring any major problems in terms of information about their rights in each country, they are able to compare the total benefits they are entitled to in each country and therefore avoid problems of lack of return on their contributions. However, as explained earlier when commenting on the complexity of the current coordination rules, there are widely perceived issues among EU mobile workers regarding a lack of awareness of their benefits. This was noted by public administrations as one of the main problems related to the application of EU law in the only survey conducted by

Deloitte, as well as in the EC public consultation. Other stakeholders also declared to have noticed this problem, while the majority of individual respondents (general public) declared not to know

(27.4%) or only have a vague idea (29%) about their rights under EU law. While the interviews carried out with public officials directly involved in the matter during country visits (clearly in France and Romania) confirmed that, upon becoming unemployed, mobile workers become much more aware about their rights, it appears that they would still face challenges to know with the certainty their entitlements. Thus, Deloitte’s survey and the EC public consultation showed that there appear

127 The situation can also be the reverse. Frontier workers might enjoy comparatively high benefits, over what their contribution should enable them to earn. However, in this case the rules would not present problems in terms of lack of return on contributions or loss of rights to benefits.

128 As an example, the Austrian authorities interviewed put the example of a Hungarian frontier worker, resident in Hungary and having worked for 30 years in Austria with an average monthly salary of € 2 000, who becomes wholly unemployed. This person, upon becoming unemployed, receives unemployment benefits of around €110 per month during three months; had he lived in Austria, he would get approximately €1 100 for a period of minimum nine months.

to be problems concerning the level of awareness of the coordination rules among public authorities, causing them on occasion to provide migrant workers with incorrect and/or insufficient information. In these cases, cross-border workers other than frontier workers could also end up missing a return on their contributions if failing to identify the Member State that would provide them with the higher unemployment benefits and/or the highest chances of reintegration in the labour market.

Using the “impact on social protection” as a proxy for return on contributions, the public authorities participating in Deloitte’s survey ranked the right of choice as the best option (a score of 2.79 in a scale of 1 to 4), followed by the “country of last activity” (2.67). The “country of residence” option (currently applied to wholly unemployed frontier workers) received a lesser score than both of them (2.53). These results are consistent with the arguments presented.

Additionally, issues with the aggregation of periods could also lead to the loss of entitlements. In these cases, workers would also receive unemployment benefits which are not commensurate with the contributions paid. No glaring issues of this kind were identified in the interviews carried out with public administrations.

5.3.5 Risk of loss of rights to benefits

The aforementioned informational challenges for EU citizens and administrations can result in a loss of benefits for mobile workers. The complexity of the coordination rules creates challenges for workers to know their rights, which can result in migrant workers being unprotected (being left without any unemployment benefits) because they requested unemployment benefits in the wrong Member State. As staff working in national administrations also face challenges in obtaining an indepth knowledge about the migrant workers’ rights, they are not always able to advise workers so as to avoid situations of losses of benefits.

TrESS points directly at the complexity of the legal framework as a potential source of problems, and in particular to the fact that the applicable legislation for the granting of unemployment benefits varies depending on whether the person concerned is wholly or partially unemployed. Regulation 883/2004 i does not define these concepts, and while decision U3 of the Administrative Commission provides criteria to determine whether a person is to be regarded as a partially or wholly unemployed person, the interpretation of the criteria can still create problems. The unemployed person might see his/her application rejected because of the different interpretation of the facts and criteria that apply.

Changes in the applicable legislation, discussed previously, can also lead to a comparative loss of benefits.

However, this loss of rights was not considered a major issue by the stakeholders interviewed. While the relative lack of knowledge about their rights was confirmed during the interviews, and the challenges for the public authorities themselves were echoed, the general perception of the public authorities was that the system was not failing to protect the workers. No cases were a total loss of rights had occurred due to informational barriers and lack of transparency of the system, were reported by any interviewed representatives of national administrations.

9.8% of the public institutions participating in our online survey considered as one of the three main problems of application of EU law in the area is that “EU rules do not provide for the effective protection of social rights of migrant workers”. These included the following claim from an Austrian civil servant: “Many migrant workers are unaware which institution could support them. As the regulation is quite unspecific (for example, how long do you need to work in a foreign country to be entitled to unemployment benefits), each country adds its own rules which makes it difficult for jobseekers. If a cross-border worker loses his job and moves from country A to country B: Country A is not responsible because he does not live there anymore, and country B is not because he did not work there before... A German public official, meanwhile, stated that “Not all national authorities inform the migrant workers sufficiently … Migrant workers from abroad ( Eastern European

Countries) are not sufficiently informed about their rights - social insurances, employees entitlements, contracts etc. A lot of guest workers are not well informed about minimum wages or collective labour agreements and usually earn less than a domestic worker.”

Two representatives of national administrations (out of 55) and one representative from the social partners (out of 17) participating in the EC public consultation considered that “EU rules do not provide for an effective protection of social rights of migrant workers” as an important problem.

The divergent Member States’ interpretations of Article 61 of Regulation 883/2004 i also can lead occasion to the loss of benefits by unemployed workers. A survey launched in the Administrative

Commission showed that divergent interpretations of art.61 lead some Member States to an application of the rules that does not conform to EU law. These issues, confirmed in the European Report 2011 of the trESS network, can have a negative effect on the rights of migrant worker –who may not qualify for unemployment benefits as a result-.

Other issues in terms of incorrect application of the coordination rules can also lead to loss of rights to benefits. 29% of national administrations participating in the Deloitte online survey and 22% of those participating in the EC public consultation considered that, while they do not need to be changed, the coordination rules should be better applied in practice.

The following issues were reported in Poland: According to the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, certain institutions of Member States of last activity refuse to grant unemployment benefits (and consequently to export those benefits) to cross-border workers other than frontier workers only because they are not residents of that Member State (this in breach of Art. 65(5) (b) in connection with Art. 65(2) third sentence of Regulation 883/2004 i). Certain institutions do not fulfil their obligations as stipulated in Art. 12(1) in connection with Art. 54(1) of Regulation 987/2009 i and make the persons concerned acquire their insurance records (on PD U1) from other Member States on their own. In addition, certain institutions do not fulfil their obligations as stipulated by Art. 54(3) of Regulation (EC) No. 987/209 and make the persons concerned acquire certificated of their family situation (on the outdated forms E302) form Member States on their own. This applies especially to the UK.

The shortcomings of communication between the institutions of Member States can also cause a certain loss of rights to workers by unnecessarily depriving them temporarily of their rights. Only

10.6% of public authorities participating in Deloitte’s online survey considered that cross-border communication with other Member States is fast efficient, and effective. In contrast, in the opinion of 25.5% of the respondents the cross-border communication is slow, burdensome and/or ineffective. For the remaining 63.8%, it generally works well, but there are specific problems with certain Member States. During the country interviews, such bilateral issues between different countries were confirmed. The slow or ineffective communication can affect the unemployed people insofar as it can lead to delays in the processing of documents. Since the payment of unemployment benefits depends upon the completion of the administrative procedures, unemployed workers are directly affected by issues in cross-border communication between institutions. These issues were mentioned by several Member States representatives (for instance in Denmark, the Netherlands and France).

In Belgium, it was reported that the issue of the U1 document by the competent Member State can take six to eight weeks; in the meantime, the unemployment benefit cannot be paid to the unemployed person. In addition, it was stated that not all the necessary documents are provided by the institution or the unemployed person when they are requested (e.g., C4 form, pay slip) and that there are enormous differences across countries in the number of asked “verification documents” (e.g., contracts, pay slips, information about the unemployed person or information about the last employer) when the Belgian unemployment office request a U1 document. Certain countries

(notably France) would request a large amount of documents.

Long delays in the exchange of documents were also reported in France.

In Romania, problems were noted in certain cases, notably concerning the missing feedback from requests made to other Member States. Due to this, it was reported that a case can be solved in a timespan ranging from one month and a half to an undetermined duration. In addition, according to the public officials’ interviews, approximately 30% of the forms requested to other Member States were not received or were received with delays, after following up on the initial request.

Another claim related to the loss of rights to benefits was made in the Netherlands: “The current rules are pretty difficult to apply if a frontier worker is made redundant by a company within the framework of a collective redundancy. In this case, he could benefit from social plan arrangements concluded between the company and trade unions. Many social plans provide topping-up mechanisms where the company supplements the unemployment benefit of his former employee. Supplements are calculated on the basis of the unemployment benefit system of the competent

Member State. For frontier workers, who have to claim their unemployment benefit in the country of residence, this kind of topping-up mechanisms could generate unforeseen situations (in their benefit or in their disadvantage)”.

5.3.6 Barriers to job-seeking abroad

Member States’ practices regarding the extension of the period of export of unemployment benefits (from three to six months) vary significantly. As reported in the trESS network Think Tank Report

2012, on the Coordination of Unemployment benefits, some countries have developed their own criteria to assess the convenience of granting the extension, while others assess each individual case on the basis of the reasons mentioned in the request. In some Member States, granting the extension is exceptional; while others do not apply the extension at all (such is the case in Sweden, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) (cf. p.121 and Table 39).

In those cases when the extension is never granted, or only granted on an exceptional basis, the practices of the competent Member States equates to a lack of facilitation of job-seeking abroad

(and hence of labour mobility across the EU).

No set of objective, homogeneous criteria to decide on the granting of the extension across Member States exist. This creates comparative disadvantages between workers in different countries. Those who see their petition of extension directly rejected, without an assessment of the circumstances of their case, are denied of a chance to facilitate their job seeking abroad.

The workers who are denied the extension of the export do maintain the right to receive unemployment benefits for the remainder of their period of entitlement upon condition of their return to the competent Member State. While maintaining the protection of the workers, this presents an effective obstacle to job-seeking abroad.

According to their replies to the Deloitte online survey, public authorities correlated the duration of the period of export with the impact on labour mobility (the current rules received a score of 2.47 in a scale of 1 to 4, while the option of raising the minimum period of export to six months received a score of 2.54 and the option of making the export possible until the end of the person’s entitlement received a 2.72 score). In other words, the longer the possibility to export unemployment benefits, the longer the impact on labour mobility. Therefore, if the duration of the export of benefits is limited due to the different national practices, labour mobility is curtailed.

trESS also reported additional problems of a more practical nature that can hamper job-seeking abroad. These include delays due to the difficulty of finding the required information in time, and also the insistence of many institutions on receiving a confirmation of the jobseeker’s registration with the employment services in another MS. This is relevant because the benefits will only be paid after this confirmation. Jobseekers may also encounter difficulties to register with the employment services in another MS, as experience shows. There are also differences with regard to the monthly follow-up information, and there is no uniform approach concerning the use of the PD U2 and the SED S009. Some institutions still use E- forms without any reference to the new Regulations.

As additional information, the opinions of stakeholders participating in the EC public consultation and Deloitte’s online survey about the rules on the export of unemployment benefits are summarized as follows:

National public authorities

According to the EC public consultation’s findings, 63% of national public authorities are in favour of extending the period of export to six months or even longer. Extending the period of export until the end of a person’s entitlement to unemployment benefits is slightly more preferred by national public authorities than extending the period of export to 6 months. This percentage of support is in line with was found in the Deloitte survey.

Analysing the replies to the Deloitte survey country-by-country, extending the period of export until the end of a person’s entitlement is the most preferred option by respondents from nine Member States (HU, IT, LV, MT, PL, RO, SK, SI, ES, UK). Representatives from these countries generally see a low risk of abuse and positive effects in terms of labour market mobility and labour market reintegration. Maintaining the status quo is the preferred option by respondents from national

public authorities in 11 countries (AT, BE, CY, DK, EE, FI, FR, DE, LI, LU, NL and CH 129 ).

Trade unions and social partners:

Only 22% of respondents to the public consultation will like to change the current export rules, whereas 78% of the respondents to the public consultation are in favour of keeping the current rules on export of unemployment benefits (preferred option).

Civil society/NGOs

78% of respondents in this group are in favour of changing the current rules on the export of unemployment benefits. Prolonging the period of the export to the end of a person’s entitlement to unemployment benefit is the preferred option of NGOs/civil society (56%).

Individuals:

76% of individual respondents would like to change the current rules on the export of unemployment benefits. 59% of individual respondents would like to see an extension of the period of export until a person’s entitlement to unemployment benefits.

5.3.7 Uneven application of current coordination rules by Member States

Public authorities pointed out problems of application of the current coordination rules consistently via the different data gathering activities conducted for the study. 72.5% of the participating institutions selected in the Deloitte online survey “EU law is not uniformly understood and applied by Member States” as one of the three main problems regarding the coordination of unemployment benefits, making it the most-frequently noted problem. On top of the 44.4% of public authorities considering, for various reasons, that the coordination rules need to be changed, 19.4% of the respondents thought that, while the rules do not need to be changed, they should be better applied in practice. Thus, per countries, whilst considering that the coordination rules do not need to be changed, representatives of public authorities from the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Malta, Portugal and Spain pointed out in the online survey that the rules should be better applied in practice. Meanwhile, authorities from Austria, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia and Switzerland stated that, whilst they do not need to be changed, the rules should be better explained.

Results were similar in the EC public consultation. “National institutions/administrations do not apply EU law correctly” was the fourth most-frequently selected problem. 19% of the total amount of respondents from national administrations participating considered this as an important problem (in contrast, it was only selected by one social partner and one civil society organisation). On top of the 27% of respondents from national administrations (and 35% of social partners and trade unions, as well as 66% of civil society and non-governmental organisations) that considered that the rules should be changed, 20% of respondents from national administrations considered that, although they did not need to be changed, the coordination rules should be better applied in practice (this option was again only selected by one social partner and one civil society organisation).

129 It should be noted that the survey includes personal opinions of national administrations’ representatives. These can by no means considered as the official position of a Member State.

Considering specific rules where an uneven application has been noticed, the rules of the aggregation of periods (art.61 Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i) are a clear example.

A survey launched in the Administrative Commission in 2011 showed the widely divergent interpretations of art.61 by Member States, some of which were not in accordance with EU law.

These issues were confirmed in the European Report 2011 of the trESS network, and were also confirmed during the interviews conducted with involved public officials for this study.

Two aspects are particularly problematic. First, the consideration of periods of employment or selfemployment, when the national legislation of the competent Member State makes the entitlement to benefits conditional on the completion of periods of insurance, and the periods of employment or self-employment are not regarded as periods conferring entitlement to unemployment benefits, is controversial. Second, the consideration of periods with regards to voluntary schemes.

Concerning the first problem, some institutions hold the view that they should not be obliged, by virtue of art.61, to take into account periods which would not qualify to generate entitlement to benefits under the legislation of the State under which these periods were completed (but would have been considered as a period of insurance under the national legislation of the competent

Member State). Concerning the second problem, a similar problem arises. Only the national legislation of the competent Member State is considered (therefore, if the period of employment or self-employment completed abroad would have been considered as a period of insurance if it had been completed in the competent country, then it will be considered as such and will qualify for benefit entitlement); this even in cases where the unemployed worker did not insure himself voluntarily. In these cases, as with the first problem, some Member States consider that such period should not generate the right to unemployment benefits (and hence should not be aggregated) since it would have not done so in the country where it was completed.

An example of this type was brought up in Denmark:” If Germans work in Denmark and if they chose not to become member of the unemployment fund, Germany needs to take into account the periods these people who have worked in Denmark but these people never contributed to the system. It should be clear that when people move to other MS, they should not have rights for which they have not contributed anything. Also Czech republic complained about it”.

Another similar example was gathered in the Netherlands: “Aggregation of period of insurance/employment problems with Germany and United Kingdom. Germany did not want to accept the period of employment of people in the Netherlands, as under German legislation this would not have led to entitlement to unemployment benefit. However, the problems are solved now with Germany. With the UK, there problem still persists”.

The uneven application of art.64 concerning the extension of the period of export of unemployment benefits has also been documented, as discussed above.

Different national practices concerning cross-border communication between institutions of

Member States were discussed during the country interviews with the public authorities. This concerns in the first place the use of different portable documents. As clearly pointed out by the

Polish authorities, this includes the use of different documents that are used to confirm essentially the same information (e.g. U002/U017/E301). Member States use different documents (e.g., E- and U- documents for coordination unemployment benefits), paper-based or in electronic form, and exchange them differently (by postal mail or electronically). Secondly, it concerns the practices regarding the requests for specific information to fill out portable documents. During interviews, representatives in most Member States commented on how some countries require much more information than others do (for example France), which effectively delays procedures. Thirdly, as brought up mainly by public officials from Spain and the United Kingdom, there are different practices with regard to the claims for reimbursement. According to them, certain countries were much more prone to ask for the reimbursement of unemployment benefits that others, particularly with regard to relatively unclear cases. In this sense, certain public officials felt a certain lack of

“institutional loyalty”, whereby treatment and relations with other countries would not be reciprocal.

TrESS identified similar “practical problems” concerning the application of Article 61. As presented in the Think Tank Report 2012, sometimes wrong SEDs are used. In other occasions, the SEDs contain incorrect information or do not contain information on the nature of the employment, or the recipient cannot be identified. Even if the correct forms are used, the different approaches of

Member States can lead to confusion as to the periods to be filled in on the PD U1 and the SEDs.

Thus, while some institutions fill in all periods, others only include periods that qualify for benefit entitlement based on the argument that, otherwise, periods that cannot lead to an unemployment benefit in the State where the periods were complete have to be taken into account by the competent State which is to pay for the benefit. Moreover, as reported by trESS, some institutions refuse to deliver the PD U1, while in practice institutions must often wait for months for the PD U1 or the SEDs.

5.3.8 Coordination of unemployment benefits: problem tree

The following problem tree presents in a visual way the main problems presented by the current rules on the coordination of unemployment benefits. The tree is based on the information gathered via the different data collection tools and activities employed for this study. The problem tree relates the problems to their underlying drivers (which are depicted below the problems), and to the policy objectives, that are defined based on such problems (the objectives are depicted above them). The relationships between drivers and problems, and between problems are objectives, are pictures using arrows. Following the EC Impact Assessment methodology, a difference is made between general, specific and operational objectives. The relationships between the objectives at each of three levels are also presented visually by using arrows.

Figure 1 - Problem tree coordination of unemployment benefits

6 Description of the policy objectives

A central question in this section is: what should the EU rules for coordination of unemployment and long-term care benefits aim at? The objectives that are set should reflect the identified problems, and should be structured according to the chain of problems (drivers). An objective tree was developed in which a hierarchy of objectives (operational, specific, and general) was defined according to a causal chain effect:

General objectives: These refer generally to treaty and/or EU 2020 Strategy-based goals (and are therefore a link with the existing policy-setting).

Specific objectives: Relate to the specific domain and the nature of the intervention considered. The specific objectives correspond to result indicators, and defining these is crucial, as they set out what the Commission wants to achieve with the intervention.

Operational objectives: Concern deliverables or objectives of actions that the

initiative is expected to achieve and are linked with the outputs of the intervention.

The objectives are to be coherent with the overall EU policy in the area, and should be SMART

(Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time-Dependent) to the possible extent.

For both the coordination of long-term care benefits and unemployment benefits, the general objective is to ensure the protection of mobile citizens’ social security rights and to facilitate free movement. By ensuring the rights of mobile citizens within the EU (plus Iceland, Liechtenstein,

Norway and Switzerland), obstacles to free movement are removed. Actual mobility is not an objective per se, but creating an enabling and conducive environment for mobility is. All obstacles to free movement must be removed so that it is ensured. This general objective is in line with Articles 21, 45 and 48 of the TFEU, which constitute the basis for the coordination of social security schemes.

This general objective and the specific objectives set out are consistent with the horizontal policies of the European Union, including the Europe 2020 strategy, whose flagship initiative “An agenda for new skills and jobs” seeks inter alia to respond to the need to facilitate and promote intra-EU labour mobility. Removing the obstacles to mobility for European citizens is on the priorities of the

European Commission, but it has been highlighted by it and other European institutions over the last few years that European citizens still face problems when moving across borders in the EU (see, among others, the European Year of Workers Mobility 2006, the European Parliament report on citizenship in 2009, the Monti report on the Single Market, President Barroso’s political guidelines and the Commission Work Programme 2013). Labour mobility across Member States remains low, as

emphasized in the 2012 Annual Growth Survey 130 . In line with this priority, the Commission issued a

policy communication in April 2012 (“Employment package”), in which it identified the EU’s biggest job potential areas and the most effective ways for Member States to create more jobs. Among other objectives, the employment package also aims to contribute to a genuine EU labour market. Boosting

130 COM (2011) 815 i, Communication from the Commission, Annual Growth Survey 2012.

labour mobility as a means of boosting the EU's economic growth, alleviating social suffering among EU citizens and opening opportunities for their personal and professional development were also the aims pursued by Action 1 of the EU Citizenship report 2013 "EU citizens: your rights, your future", in which the Commission announced its intention, cited above, to propose a revision of the social security coordination regulation, looking in particular into extending the export of unemployment benefits for longer than the mandatory three months, to make it easier for citizens to look for a job in another EU country.

For both topics, while it might be complicated to define SMART operational objectives, there a number of indicators that can be used as proxies to measure the progress in achieving the objectives, such as the number of Court cases, the amount of complaints raised to the Commission, the number of infringement procedures opened against Member States and the results of surveys that can be launched ad hoc (including surveys to EU-funded networks and services that help EU citizens to resolve their doubts and problems when dealing with public institutions and EU rules, such as EURES advisors, the SOLVIT network or Europa Direct).

The order in which the objectives are presented does not reflect any particular level of importance.

The following objectives have been identified at the specific and operational level for the coordination of long-term care benefits. The specific objectives are outlined, and for each of them the operational objectives corresponding to it are listed and briefly discussed. Operational objectives might relate to several specific objectives. To the extent possible, the objectives intend to express the desired future state, towards which the policy options should contribute. The links of the objectives with the identified problems the current coordination rules present are also briefly introduced.

Improve protection of mobile citizens

 Ensure EU rules do not leave any migrant citizen without protection: the current coordination rules leave a gap in protection. Citizens reliant on care moving from a competent country which only grants benefits in kind to a country (new country of residence) that grants only benefits in cash can be left without any protection. The coordination rules must aim to close this gap and guarantee the protection of all Member States’ citizens.

 Make legal framework simple, transparent and easy to administer: beyond the gap in protection that can arise depending on the types of benefits granted in the countries involved in the mobility of the citizens reliant on care, the protection of mobile citizens can be hampered by other reasons. These include the uneven or incorrect application of the coordination rules. Failures to correctly and consistently identify the benefits provided under each national system that should be considered as LTC and hence coordinated, can also lead to losses of benefits (e.g. Member States considering certain LTC benefits as social assistance and not applying the coordination rules). Similarly, the coordination of LTC benefits under different social security branches in different Member States can also generate issues in terms of the protection of citizens. Public administrations can face obstacles to apply the rules given the complexity of the legal framework. For these reasons, a simpler, more transparent and easy to administer legal framework would contribute to ensuring the protection of mobile citizens in the EU.

Facilitate classification of LTC benefits under EU law

 Common understanding of LTC benefits across Member States (common definition of LTC or common criteria to determine them): there is currently no common definition of LTC at EU level, nor a common set of criteria to determine which benefits provided under each national system should be considered LTC benefits and hence coordinated. The ECJ has filled some of this gap, but problems of classification persist. Regardless of the means employed, a common understating of what LTC is a pre-requisite to make a clear classification of LTC benefits under EU law possible.

 Make legal framework simple, transparent and easy to administer: a general simplification of the legal framework and accrued transparency would contribute to facilitate the classification of LTC benefits under EU law. No specific coordination rules exist for LTC, which must in turn be coordinated as sickness benefits. This results in a series of mismatches given the different characteristics of both types of benefits. In this particular case, the operational and specific objective could be seen as the two sides of the same coin. A simpler, more transparent and easier to administer legal framework would facilitate the classification of LTC benefits under EU law. At the same time, however, facilitating such classification would be in itself a major step towards simplifying the legal framework.

Rules taking into account the specific characteristics of LTC benefits

 Make legal framework simple, transparent and easy to administer: the complexity of the current coordination rules and the different problems derived from it stem in part from the lack of a specific coordination regime for LTC and the application instead of the rules for the coordination of sickness benefits. LTC benefits present however distinct characteristics. The application of the rules from the sickness hence fail to account for the specific characteristics of LTC benefits, giving place to certain shortcomings that should be overcome.

Improve legal certainty & Stable regime of coordination of LTC benefits

 Ensure EU rules do not leave any migrant citizen without protection: creating (or modifying existing ones) provisions ensuring that no citizen is left without protection regardless of his/her circumstances would in itself contribute to increase legal certainty. Cases of lack or total lack of protection would be prevented, and hence it would be expected that less cases and proceedings would be brought before the Court of Justice, which would bring some stability to the coordination regime.

 Make legal framework simple, transparent and easy to administer: a simpler, more transparent and easy to administer legal framework would enhance legal certainty and, as direct result, make the system of coordination of LTC benefits more stable.

 Limit individual complaints and proceedings before the Court of Justice: setting limiting the complaints and proceedings before the Court of Justice as an operational objective facilitates the measurability of improvements in terms of legal certainty and stability. The current instability of the system of coordination, manifested by the amount and relevance of the ECJ’s rulings in the field, leads logically to the objective of limiting the amount of cases and procedures.

High awareness of migrant citizen’s LTC rights

 Make legal framework simple, transparent and easy to administer: as evidenced by the interviews conducted during the project, the results of the EC public consultation and Deloitte’s online survey, and as also pointed out by trESS, the complexity and intricacies of the legal framework for the coordination of LTC benefits make it difficult for migrant citizens and public authorities to know with certainty the entitlements of migrant citizens to LTC rights. A simpler, clearer framework would make it easier to gain knowledge about LTC rights.

 Improve information regarding LTC in cross-border situations among citizens and public authorities: beyond the difficulties brought about by the complexity of the rules, a way to raise the awareness about the LTC rights of migrant citizens is directly tackling information and communication activities. While not all aspects of the coordination might be entirely clear even for those actively looking for information about it, the knowledge of the average citizens about LTC rights in case of mobility within the EU could be increased.

Fair distribution of the financial burden between Member States

 Ensure there are no double payments: the current diversity of benefits provided in the MS that should be considered as LTC benefits for the purposes of the coordination, the actual coordination of the benefits under different social security schemes, the consideration of LTC as social assistance by some MS (which do not apply the coordination rules), combined with the lack of a definition of LTC or common criteria at EU level, results in difficulties to apply the provisions (Art.34) to avoid the overlapping of benefits. As a result, the risk of double payments persists. To guarantee a fair distribution of the financial burden, it must be ensured that the cost of providing LTC benefits is borne by the competent MS and that no double payments are done for the same risk. This, beyond the pure distributional aspects, can also lead to higher overall costs and affect negatively the sustainability of the system.

The following objectives have been identified at the specific and operational level for the coordination of unemployment benefits. As has been done for long-term care, the specific objectives are outlined, and for each of them the operational objectives corresponding to it are listed and briefly discussed. Operational objectives might relate to several specific objectives. To the extent possible, the objectives intend to express the desired future state, towards which the policy options should contribute. The links of the objectives with the identified problems the current coordination rules present are also briefly introduced.

Consistent application of the coordination rules

 Uniform application of rules on the aggregation of periods: a survey launched within the Administrative Commission in 2011, the findings of the trESS Think Tank Report 2012 and the results of the interviews with public authorities conducted for this project indicate that Member States apply the rules on aggregation of periods in widely different ways. As reported in the answers to the Administrative Commission survey, some would not be in accordance with EU law. Therefore, in order to ensure a consistent application of the coordination rules, the rules on the aggregation of periods must be applied uniformly.

Simplified legal framework

 Make legal framework simple, transparent and easier to administer: as part of the general effort to render the legal framework for the coordination of unemployment benefits less complex, a simpler, more transparent and easy to administer legal framework should be achieved. These objectives reflect in reality the same purpose, only the formulation varies to provide a more operational nuance, where proxies for output indicators can be found and hence progress towards achieving the goal monitored. The currently uneven application of the coordination rules, as well as the low level of awareness of mobile unemployed workers about their rights and the information and knowledge problems faced by public authorities justify the need to simplify the legal framework.

Facilitate reintegration in the labour market & improved protection of jobseekers abroad

 Ensure all unemployed workers the possibility to export their unemployment benefits and look for a job abroad: not all unemployed workers in the EU enjoy currently the same possibilities to export their unemployment benefits and look for a job abroad. The rules about the export of periods are applied unevenly by Member States, creating differences among unemployed workers. To maximise the possibilities for reintegration in the labour market and providing a fair and similar chance to unemployed workers across the Member States, the rules must ensure to all unemployed workers the possibility to export their unemployment benefits and look for a job abroad.

Unemployed mobile workers receiving return on their contributions

 Ensure link between contributions and benefits, and contributions and payments (financial burden): under the current coordination rules, wholly unemployed frontier workers might receive a low return on their contributions due to the fact that they receive their unemployment benefits from a country (their country of residence) other than the one in which they paid contributions (their country of last activity). The lack of a required minimum period of employment (or self-employment) to determine the country of last activity might also lead certain unemployed cross-border workers to receive benefits disproportionately lower with regard to their contributions. A similar effect might arise due to the fact that the unemployment benefits are calculated

based only on the salary perceived during the last activity. 131

Fair distribution of the financial burden

 Ensure link between contributions and benefits, and contributions and payments (financial burden): the country of residence must currently bear the costs of the unemployment benefits of wholly unemployed frontier workers and certain cross-border workers other than frontier workers without having received any contribution from them. Although a reimbursement mechanism exists, it has a limited coverage. It does not cover all the costs of the unemployment benefits provided by the country of residence in any case (the period to be reimbursed is limited to three or five months), and the country of residence must also bear other costs such as those of sickness and family benefits. Ensuring the link between contributions and payment is necessary to provide for a fair distribution of the financial burden between Member States.

High awareness of rights

 Increasing awareness among citizens, employers, public authorities and other stakeholders about the rights of EU migrant workers: the results of the EC public consultation and Deloitte’s online survey point to a low level of awareness about the rights of unemployed mobile workers. The interviews conducted with public authorities in 14 Member States showed that it is also complicated for public officials, and not only potential beneficiaries of the benefits, to have a thorough and reliable knowledge of the rules. This was also pointed out by trESS. The complexity of the coordination rules, including the wide variety of cases contemplated in the legislation, contribute to render difficult higher degrees of awareness. In response to such situation, increasing the awareness of rights among citizens, employers, public authorities and other stakeholders about the rights of EU migrant workers is set as an objective.

Rules reflecting current job market conditions

131 It should be noted that in all the cases presented, the unemployed mobile workers could also end up in a winning situation.

 Ensure all cross-border workers the chance to apply for unemployment benefits in the country giving them the best chances for reintegration: wholly unemployed frontier workers must now register and apply for unemployment benefits in their country of residence. While they might register as jobseekers in their country of last activity as a supplementary step, compliance with the requirements of the country of residence’s public employment service has priority. These rules were created under the assumption that wholly unemployed frontier workers enjoy the best chance for reintegration into the labour market in their country of residence. Given the changing market conditions, this might however not always be the case anymore. Higher chances of reintegration might exist in their country of last activity.

7 Impact assessment of the policy options

7.1 Introduction

Multiple decision paths can be chosen by decision-makers to tackle effectively the existing problems and to address the challenges related to social security coordination. Decision makers could analyse all the different options, assess any combination of options, and approach the final solution step by step. Some of these options are of horizontal nature and could be taken irrespective of the way of coordination chosen; others are clearly separated paths of coordination. This makes it very complex to take a clear-cut decision.

In this chapter we present a description of each option. We would like to note that we have not examined all possible options, but a selection taking into account the work of trESS on this issue and the mandate of the Commission services for this study.

Furthermore, this chapter focuses on the assessment of the likely impacts of the policy options. All policy options have been assessed according to the same assessment criteria.

7.2 Impact assessment criteria

The following impact assessment criteria have been applied:

Table 38: Impact assessment criteria

Coordination of longterm

benefits + • The impact (increase/reduction) on social security coverage of the insured persons who move within the EU,

coordination of and the members of their families and survivors;

unemployment benefits

• The impact (increase/reduction) on administrative burden of each option, transparency and complexity of the rules

• Impact on public budgets of the Member States, Impact on fair burden sharing of the burden between Member States

• Impact on the risks of misuse or abuse of the EU rules;

• Possible impact on the EU internal market;

• Impact on the fundamental rights of EU citizens, incl. gender equality

• Possible impact on the EU budget.

Specific - coordination of

long-term care benefits • Impact (increase/reduction) on social security coverage of the insured persons dependent on care who move within

the EU

• Impact on correct and uniform application of the rules.

Specific – coordination

of unemployment • Impact on the social security coverage of migrants worker, particularly with regard to:

benefits

o the conditions for reintegration in the labour

market (less or more favourable)

o return on the workers’ contributions.

• Impact on the intra-EU labour market mobility (increase/reduction) (prolongation of the period of export).

Impact on social security coverage of the insured persons

An important question is whether the social security rights of the person concerned are well

protected 132 . This means that we have checked if all benefits which could be claimed without a crossborder

situation can also be granted in a cross-border situation or if the person loses entitlements and thus could in the worst case be left without any entitlements although the Member States involved know such benefits.

Furthermore, concerning the coordination of unemployment benefits, we assessed all possible options on the return that workers receive on their contributions to the social security benefit system. Moreover, we evaluated the options with regard to their potential to create less or more favourable conditions for reintegration in the labour market of the unemployed. An important aspect that has been evaluated is the increase or decrease in services and assistance offered by public employment services to mobile jobseekers in the EU.

Impact on administrative burden, transparency and complexity of the rules

We assessed the impact of each option on the likely administrative burden on national administrations and other institutions that are involved in handling cross-border cases. More specifically with regard to the following questions:

Do new processes or new information flows between Member States have to be set up?

Do national administrations or other institutions have to set up new implementing arrangements to put the coordination into practice?

Disclaimer:

During the interview phase, it became clear that when discussing administrative burden on administrations, stakeholders (regardless of type) relate administrative burden issues to complexity of the rules and lack of transparency of the coordination rules, which lead to incorrect and nonuniform application of the rules. The complexity of the rules and transparency of the coordination rules is considered as a determining factor in the administrative burden that is imposed on national

132 Treaty on the functioning of the EU (TFEU), Art.48, FFTEU: “they shall make arrangements to secure for employed and selfemployed migrant workers and their dependants.”

administrations. In our (qualitative) description of the impacts, it is difficult to discuss these three aspects (administrative burden, transparency and complexity) separately, because they are very much related to each other.

Impact on public finance of the Member States

First, we have assessed the impact on public finance of Member States, based on the impact on the social security coverage of the insured persons linked to each option. We have paid attention to the financial impact for Member States both at an aggregated level and at individual Member State level (where possible).

Second, we have assessed the impact of each option on the extent to which it enhances fair sharing of the financial burden between Member States. We would like to note that this is difficult to evaluate. Fair burden sharing between Member States is strongly depending on the system the

Member States apply. Examples of unfair burden sharing:

Member States which have to reimburse benefits which their national legislations do not know may see this as unfair.

Member States with insurance-based schemes could be seen as burdened if they have to grant/reimburse benefits for persons which are not insured there and thus also do not pay any contributions towards these schemes of these Member States.

Examples of Member States which are not to be regarded as unfairly burdened:

Member States which are obliged to grant all the benefits which they would have to grant already under national legislation (e.g. in residence based tax financed schemes for all residents, such as in Sweden) are not to be regarded as unfairly burdened.

Impact on risk of abuse or misuse of rights

The options were evaluated based on their risk of abuse or misuse of rights by the citizens or workers, often referred in the general and more colloquial terms of “benefit tourism” or “social tourism”. One has to be very careful with the use of these concepts. Abuse is to be understood as “an artificial conduct entered into solely with the purpose of obtaining the right of free movement and residence under Community law which, albeit formally observing of the conditions laid down by

Community rules, does not comply with the purpose of those rules” 133 .

Potential impact on EU internal market

We have also assessed if the options better stimulate mobility of persons and intra-EU labour market mobility - both in the sense of geographic mobility (movement of workers between countries and regions) and job-to-job mobility (e.g. moving to another job) than the baseline scenario. We particularly paid attention to the removal of barriers to labour market mobility.

133 EC, Communication on guidance for better transposition and application of Directive 2004/38/EC i on the right

of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, COM/2009/0313 final. Reference to judgments of the Court of Justice of the EU in: Cases C-110/99 Emsland-Stärke (para 52 et seq.) and C-212/97 Centros (para 25).

Potential impact on EU budget expenditure

Impact on fundamental rights of citizen

The chosen option has to be compatible with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Commission “Impact Assessment guidelines” provide a full-list of fundamental rights in annex 8.1. Fundamental rights that are potentially affected by social security coordination rules are:

Chapter II – Freedoms:

o Freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work o Freedom to conduct a business

Chapter III – Equality

o Equality before the law o Non-discrimination o The rights of the child o The rights of the elderly o Integration of persons with disabilities

Chapter IV – Solidarity

o Family and professional life o Social security and social assistance o Health care

Chapter V – Citizen's Rights

o Right to good administration o Freedom of movement and of residence

With regard to the impact of prolongation of the period of export , several factors were specifically considered:

The impact the reintegration of people in the labour market; Risks of misuse or abuse of the EU rules: we had to examine if this option favours situations where the persons concerned could easily influence and manipulate their situation in such a way that they receive more benefits than they would otherwise be entitled to. This is especially so if two Member States grant benefits or provide specific services and if it cannot be excluded that they do not know about the other Member States granting such benefits (the person concerned does not report the benefits received); Intra-EU labour market mobility; Social security coverage, particularly with regard to the return on the workers’ contributions.

7.3 Scoring indicators

A scoring system was developed to allow judgments on ‘performance’ of an option with regard to the impact assessment criteria described above. The baseline scenario - a continuation of the current rules - served as the benchmark, as the decision maker needs to know if an option is better or worse than the situation we are confronted with today:

A ‘+’ indicates that an option is better than the baseline scenario with regard to of the criterion in question.

A ‘-’ indicates that an option is worse than the baseline scenario. We used a “+/-” when it was not clear which impact the option will have with regard to the criterion in question or in case evidence gives a mixed picture (both positive and negative impacts were identified). We use “0” for the identified impacts in the baseline scenario.

We have chosen a simple and straightforward scoring system in order not to complicate the

assessment of the impacts. trESS made a similar consideration regarding the value system 134135 .

The different impact assessment criteria were not weighted.

134 trESS, Legal impact assessment for the revision of Regulation 883/2004 i with regard to the coordination of longterm care benefits,

Analytical Study 2012: http://www.trESS- network.org/EUROPEAN%20RESOURCES/EUROPEANREPORT/trESS_Analytical%20Study%202012.pdf

135 TrESS admits that a “+/-“ system is a rough value system, which could be more elaborated. However, it refrained from adopting a more complex value system, because “it make it more difficult to evaluate all the different options in a systematic and coherent way”. Furthermore , trESS makes the following caveat: “It has to be said that these marks (‘+’, ‘-’ or ‘±’) were not easy to agree on. Our discussion of these marks always involved a very subjective element, as each author had a slightly different approach towards giving the marks.”

7.4 Coordination of long-term care benefits

7.4.1 Overview of possible options

The figure below presents an overview of the options that were assessed on their likely impacts for the coordination of the LTC benefits.

Figure 6: Options - Coordination of LTC benefits

Baseline scenario x Alternative policy options

Status quo = Adoption of a safeguarding continuation of current provision: LTC benefits in cash by

coordination rules MS of residence if no such benefits (Option A) in competent MS (Option B)

One MS provides long-term care benefits (Option C)

MS of residence provides LTC benefits on the basis of its With supplement (C.1.1)

legislation (Sub-option C.1) Without supplement (C.1.2)

Competent MS provide LTC benefits to insured persons

residing abroad (export) (Suboption C.2)

7.4.2 Option A: Baseline scenario

The baseline scenario (OPTION A) implies no change of policy and a continuation of the current rules for coordination.

Long-term care benefits in kind continue to be provided according to the legislation of the Member State of residence (if they exist) and reimbursed by the competent Member State (= where the person is insured);

Long-term care benefits in cash (if they exist) continue to be provided by the competent Member State (= where the person is insured).

The baseline means to change nothing and keep the coordination rules as they stand today. This implies that outlined problems and challenges. The status quo is the benchmark for any other alternative option proposed.

7.4.3 Option B: Adoption of a safeguarding provision ensuring that a mobile person does not remain without any protection

Long-term care benefits in cash will be provided by the Member State of residence if the application of the rules under the Sickness Chapter would mean that a person does not receive any long-term care benefits. The amount of the benefits provided by Member State of residence would then be reimbursed by the competent Member State.

With this policy option, the safeguarding provision would ensure that all the mobile persons are protected: they would always be entitled to some LTC benefits. Whenever a person would not be entitled to any LTC benefits (neither in cash nor in kind) under the current system (meaning the application of the Sickness Chapter’s rules), the Member State of residence would provide benefits in cash in accordance with its legislation. The competent Member State would then reimburse to the Member State of residence the amount of the benefits provided.

This safeguarding option however does not guarantee that the level of protection for long-term care would not be reduced after the person's move.

Attitude of consulted stakeholders:

Generally, public authorities perceived this option as rather theoretical. No such cases as those intended to be covered by the safeguarding provision were reported, conveying the impression that the existent gap in protection does not represent a sizeable problem.

This being said, the large majority of interviewed stakeholders (across the different Member States) national public authorities seemed receptive to the introduction of the provision, particularly in view of the negligible impacts that it would have. If the clause served to ensure the protection of a fringe group of migrant persons who might be left without protection, it would be welcome.

7.4.3.1 Impact on social security coverage of the insured persons who move within the EU, and the members of their families and survivors

Score: +

This option addresses the current problem of the gap in the protection of mobile persons, as it can overcome the complete loss of social security protection; for example if the competent Member State does not have any LTC benefits in cash (only benefits in kind) and the Member State of residence has only LTC benefits in cash. However, the option does not guarantee perfect social security coverage of mobile persons reliant on care and cannot ensure that the protection would remain at the same level as if the person remained in his/her competent Member State. Therefore, a differential supplement would have been needed.

One EU civil society representative made the remark that under this option, “mobile persons – a small minority in the total population - would be put at a disproportional advantage over the nonmobile persons in that country. In case the competent country does not provide any long-term benefits at all, those people can receive cash benefits in the country of residence and would thus be better-off than non-mobile persons in the competent Member State (who would not be entitled to any benefits)”.

7.4.3.2 Impact on administrative burden, transparency and complexity of the rules

This option is likely to increase the administrative burden compared to the baseline scenario, as it requires a complex and burdensome cooperation between national public authorities (worse than the baseline scenario). This would be particularly the case if the obligation of the Member State of residence to provide LTC benefits depends on the actual granting of LTC benefits by the competent Member States (and not on the question whether or not such benefits are included in the legislation of the competent Member States).

Transparency: -

This option would be less clear than the status quo. Many questions could arise. It has to be clarified what exactly is meant by the condition that the competent MS does not grant LTC benefits in cash. Does this mean that no LTC benefits in cash are provided under the national legislation or does it also cover situations in which this legislation knows such benefits but the person concerned does not fulfil the conditions for entitlement (e.g. because the relevant degree of need of care or the relevant age are not reached – a question similar to the question concerning the existing text for taking into account of child raising periods under Article 44 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 i)? For the MS of residence this would give rise to many uncertainties. In relation to some MSs (which are competent for the persons concerned) LTC benefits in cash would have to be granted, whereas not in relation to others (in the same situation - depending on whether the competent MS grants such benefits or not).

Complexity of the rules: -

This option does also not provide more simple rules compared to the baseline scenario. All situations have to be explained in detail under which in addition to the obligations of the competent Member State, the Member State of residence has to grants its LTC benefits in cash. Furthermore, for the MS of residence it could become very complex in case it also has benefits in kind. Which of these benefits should this MS grant by priority (both benefits will be reimbursed); could the competent MS refuse the reimbursement of the more expensive version? Options with reimbursement are usually more complex than without reimbursement.

It could also be questioned why this obligation only becomes applicable when the competent MS does not at all grant any LTC benefits in cash, but not if it grants an LTC benefit in cash which is lower than the benefit in the MS of residence.

Administrative burden on public authorities: -

This option does not tackle any of the major problems in the baseline scenario which have an impact on administrative burden on public authorities (e.g. uneven application of coordination rules, problems of classification of LTC benefits under EU law and insufficiently specified reimbursement mechanisms).

It has to be considered that– as regards the administrative burden of granting benefits – the Member State of residence is expected to face an additional administrative burden compared to the baseline scenario.

Furthermore, when opting for a system of reimbursement for benefits in cash provided by the country of residence (which can be a sub-option), the administrative burden on both Member States is likely to increase even more.

According to a German civil servant, “this option would lead to substantial, additional administrative burden. First, additional administrative steps are needed to ensure the implementation of the ‘safeguarding provision’. Based on this, the insured person needs to submit a request to receive the LTC benefits (enabled by the ‘safeguarding provision’). Following, the country of residence will need to request information about any LTC payments by the competent Member State. The competent Member State will then reply to this request by sharing information on the LTC benefits that were already paid to the person. As a next step, the Member State of residence will need to provide the long-term benefits in cash if the application of the Sickness Chapter would mean that the person does not receive any long-term care benefits. Finally, in case of a reimbursement system, the country of residence will need to prepare and send a claim for reimbursement to the competent Member State”.

Similar administrative burden problems can be expected as in the case of reimbursement between Member States for unemployment benefits to frontier workers (Article 65 (5) and (6) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i). A national administration explained:

“The reimbursement mechanisms are not properly applied by the institutions/bodies concerned. The terms of reimbursement are not applied. In some cases, Member States do not fully reimburse the costs incurred. This presents a major problem which could be aggravated by the introduction of this option.”

One should however put these additional administrative costs into the right perspective, as option B will only need to be applied in a limited number of cases.

7.4.3.3 Impact on public finance of the Member States

Impact on public finance of Member States: +/-

Under this option, the protection of the mobile persons would thus come first. Once it had been ensured, the issue of which Member State bears the cost, and the opportune reimbursement, would be resolved. National public authorities considered that although logically an increase in public expenditure can be expected, the impact on their budgets of this option would be negligible.

Fair burden sharing between Member States: -

A sub-option where the benefits provided are reimbursed could contribute to fair burden sharing.

However, there is also a flip side of the coin. According to a legal assessment by the trESS network 136 ,

it could be said that it is an additional burden for the competent MS, which “might deliberately make a decision to compensate the risk of LTC only by way of benefits in kind. This MS would thus also have to reimburse benefits in cash”.

7.4.3.4 Possible impact on the EU internal market

Score: +

With this policy option, the safeguarding provision would ensure that the mobile persons are better protected: they would not remain without any entitlements due to the coordination rules. In this manner, mobile persons would not see their mobility options restrained because of a lack of LTC coverage as an effect of their decision to move.

136 JORENS, Y. (e.a.) Legal impact assessment for the revision of Regulation 883/2004 i with regard to the coordination of long-term care benefits. Analytical study 2012, trESS

7.4.3.5 Impact on the fundamental rights of EU citizens Score: +

By contributing to eliminate gaps in protection and ensuring that mobile citizens reliant on care can receive a minimum level of care, this policy option has a positive impact on different fundamental rights that it would to promote: non-discrimination (certain citizens would not suffer a total loss of benefits based on their country of origin), the rights of the elderly, the rights of the persons with disabilities, family and professional life and, in general, on the fundamental right to social security and social assistance.

By guaranteeing that mobile citizens would not be left without any protection, this policy option would also contribute positively to ensuring the right of freedom of movement and of residence. Thus, citizens would not see their mobility options based on a possible total loss of entitlements to long-term care benefits.

7.4.3.6 Possible impact on the EU budget Score: +/-

No impact on the EU budget could be identified.

7.4.4 Option C1: Member State of residence provides long-term care benefits on the basis of its legislation

In Option C.I, the Member State of residence shall provide long-term care benefits on the basis of its legislation:

with a supplement from the competent Member State if benefits in Member State of residence are at lower level (C.I.1)

without a supplement from the competent Member State (C.I.2).

This policy option sets out clearly which Member State would provide LTC benefits. Contrary to the baseline scenario, where the distinction between benefits in cash and in kind is the starting point and an element of crucial importance (as it determines which Member State must provide the LTC benefits), this policy option would not make any distinction among the types of benefits. The starting point and critical element would be the Member State legally in charge of providing the LTC benefits (the Member State of residence or the competent Member State depending on the sub-option).This Member State would then provide all LCT benefits (be them in kind, in cash or mixed), with a system of reimbursement.

The competent Member State would always be responsible for the cost of the benefits.

In Option C1, the Member State of residence would provide the LTC benefits (again, regardless of their type) on the basis of its legislation, and the competent Member State would then reimburse them. Option C1 includes two sub-options itself: in the first one, the competent Member State would provide a supplement to the beneficiary in the event that the benefits in the Member State of residence were at a lower level (in this case -in line with the non-distinction amongst benefits in this policy option-, the comparison of the level of the amount of LTC benefits between the residence and the competent Member State would have to include all types of LTC benefits). In the second suboption, there would be no compensation even if the benefits in the Member State of residence were lower than those in the competent Member State.

Attitude of consulted stakeholders

According the EC public consultation replies, there is weak support National public among public authorities for both options. Option C1.2 is slightly more authorities popular (9%) than option C.I.1 (4%). Our public authorities’ survey

shows significantly higher support for option C.I.2 (22%).

In the public consultation:

Most popular option: 25% of the responding trade unions and social partners’ representatives are in favour of the option where the Member

Trade unions State of residence provides LTC benefits in cash supplemented with a

and social supplement by the Member State of insurance (option C.I.1).

partners 17% of trade unions and social partners’ representatives would like that

the Member State of residence provide the LTC benefits based on its own legislation without any supplement by the competent Member of State (C.I.2).

50% of the civil society representatives are in favour of C.I.2 (without Civil a supplement by the competent Member State).

society/NGOs No respondent claimed to be in favour of C.I.1 (with a supplement by

the competent Member State).

One fifth of individuals (25) that have responded to the public consultation are in favour of letting the Member State of residence pay

Individual for the LTC benefits based on its own national legislation (C.I.2 -

respondents second preferred option).

Only 7% of the individuals expressed a preference for C.I.1 (with a supplement by the competent Member State).

7.4.4.1 Impact on social security coverage of the insured persons who move within the EU, and the members of their families and survivors

Score C1.1 and C.I.2: +

Both options would ensure that mobile persons are always protected at the same level as the persons who are insured in the Member State of their residence. C1.1 option (with supplement) would also, address the problem of the gap in the protection of mobile persons. Both sub-options give entitlements to all the benefits which are provided for the residents of a Member State. This can in itself be seen as positive compared to the baseline scenario (which is why both sub-options received a positive scoring). In our public authorities’ survey, national administrations highly scored both sub-options with regard to their impact on the social protection of insured people. Sub-option C.I.2 with no supplement received an average rating of 4.3 on a 1-to-6 scale; whereas the sub-option C.I.1 with supplements remarkably scored slightly lower (4.0).

Findings from the face-to-face interviews reveal that the sub-option, which includes a supplement by the competent Member State (C.I.1), is without any doubt seen as better than the baseline scenario and (in many cases) also than C.I.2 (without supplement). It seeks very effectively to avoid that rights are lost and the highest benefits are always safeguarded.

With regard to the sub-option without supplement by the competent Member State (C.I.2), interviewees expect that it will depend on the specific case whether there will be a positive or negative impact on social security coverage. Depending on the specificity of the long-term care benefits in the country of residence and its generosity, citizens will be better or worse off in terms of social security coverage.

With regard to this point, one trade union representative stated: “There is a large discrepancy between the social systems between the Member States; the insured persons would be disadvantaged should no supplements be granted”. It illustrates the overall opinion of the interviewees.

In addition, an Austrian national administration employee/representative mentioned, “Austrian citizens (who have paid social security contributions in Austria) would be worse-off if they moved to a Member State with a lower level of LTC services or to a country that does not grant any LTC benefits at all.”

7.4.4.2 Impact on administrative costs and administrative burden

C.I.1 - Supplement provided by the competent Member State

Transparency: +

This sub-option would bring slightly clearer rules than the baseline scenario. The MSs involved would always know that they have to grant benefits (the MS of residence always provide the whole range of benefits; the competent Member State provides a top-up on these benefits in case its benefits are higher). Furthermore, the person concerned would know where to request the benefits and what legislation applies. The division of tasks between MSs would be clear and would not depend that much on peculiarities of the national legislation.

Complexity of the rules: -

In terms of complexity, this sub-option would open simultaneous entitlements under the legislations of more than one MS. This is perceived as more complex than the baseline scenario. The provision of supplements is always complex, as the legislator has to draft complex rules concerning priority, the benefits to be included into the calculation of the supplement (benefits in cash or also benefits in kind, what ‘amount’ of the benefits in kind etc.) and rules for procedures to settle these supplements.

Administrative burden on national administrations: -

See C.I.2

This a complex option from an administrative point of view, which is regarded as slightly worse than the baseline scenario according to the public authorities’ survey results (it receives 3.6 average rating on a 1-to-6 scale compared to a 3.5 average rating for the baseline scenario; a lower score means less expected administrative burden).

This option necessitates an extensive exchange of information between national public authorities concerned. Especially if also benefits in kind are included, it could lead to different supplements every month. It would necessitate a lot of new business flows and SEDs under the potential future

EESSI.

The complexity and the administrative burden of supplement system is generally the main reason for the low support for this option among national public authorities.

C.I.2. No supplement provided by the competent Member State

Transparency and complexity of the rules: -

This sub-option would bring clarity, simplicity and legal certainty, by setting out clearly which

Member State would provide LTC benefits. Contrary to the baseline scenario, where the distinction between benefits in cash and in kind is the starting point and an element of crucial importance (as it determines which Member State must provide the LTC benefits), this policy option would not make any distinction among the types of benefits. The starting point and critical element would be the

Member State legally in charge of providing the LTC benefits. In this option, beneficiaries are able to know in advance which legislation will systematically apply to them depending on the MS where they will reside. There will be no doubts even if it is not clear under the relevant legislation whether a certain benefit is a benefit in cash or in kind.

It was gathered during the interviews with public authorities carried out in certain Member States that this option would help to circumvent to a certain extent the issues caused by the problems of classification of LTC benefits under EU Law. Without tackling the underlying problem, this policy option would help to bring certain clarity.

Administrative burden on national administrations: -

At first sight, the administrative burden on Member States’ administration is expected to decrease, because of reduced complexity of the rules under this option (only one Member State provides the long-term care benefits and no distinction between benefits in kind and benefits in cash).

In Option C 1.2 all calculations for the in kind benefits remain the same. The in cash benefits are now however defined at the % of use and the level of spending of the country of residence. The particularities of our sources reveal that even more persons are using LTC in cash, but the average amount is much lower so that the total budget for in cash is reduced to € 192 million and the total becomes € 810 million (cf. 8.2.3). The administrative burden is even somewhat higher (more cases means more costs) and compared to a lower needed budgetary cost, the share of the administrative burden in the total budget is enlarged to 1.7%, highlighting the impact of probably estimated number of cases.

The provision of all types of LTC benefits by the Member State of residence would require setting up a procedure for the reimbursement of LTC benefits in cash. The current reimbursement procedure only covers benefits in kind. Based on our interviews with national administrations, it appears that setting a system for the settling of monetary amounts, however, would not entitle major problems, as no differentiation needs to be made between benefits in cash and kind.

7.4.4.3 Impact on public finance of the Member States

Impact on public finance of Member States: +

For options C1, namely claims (as debtor and as creditor) based on LTC spending per capita of the country of residence (option C1), the budgetary impact of a change in the Regulation was estimated 137 (based on estimated number PD S1 forms and variables ‘Health care spending in 2010 prices per person’, ‘Population (million)’ and ‘Long-term care spending in 2010 prices (in billion

Euros)’ in the Ageing Report). For both options, a distinction should be made between LTC benefits provided in kind and in cash.

This option, whereby the Member State of residence shall provide LTC benefits (in kind and in cash) on the basis of its legislation, implies a total expenditure of € 810.1 million or a decrease of 19% compared to the baseline scenario 138 .(Table 53 and Table 54).

In this option the expenditure on LTC benefits in kind shall be the same as in the baseline scenario, namely € 618.3 million. The LTC benefits in cash shall be provided on the basis of the legislation of

the country of residence and no longer on this of the competent country. 139 This switch results in an

expenditure on LTC benefits in cash of € 191.9 million or a decrease of 49% compared to the baseline scenario (Table 53 and Table 54). .

On the level of Member States especially a positive impact (less spending) is observed for Italy

(decrease of 49% of expenditure on LTC benefits), Austria (decrease of 47% of expenditure on LTC benefits), Denmark (decrease of 43% of expenditure on LTC benefits) and the Netherlands (decrease of 42% of expenditure on LTC benefits). Primarily, a negative impact (more spending) is observed for the Slovak Republic (increase of 106% of expenditure on LTC benefits), Romania (increase of 60% of expenditure on LTC benefits) and Bulgaria (increase of 51% of expenditure on LTC benefits).

Countries in which we do not observe a crucial negative or positive impact are: Belgium (same expenditure as in the baseline scenario), Estonia (same expenditure as in the baseline scenario),

137 We calculated our estimates on average benefits for the total of the insured population. It is as the mobile citizen (workers, pensioners, their family members) is using this system of LTC as if they were nationals. This involves a ‘potential’ overestimation of the number of users of cross-border LTC benefits and the related expenditure due to fact some MS consider their LTC benefit as not exportable. At the same time these estimates assume a complete ‘take-up’ of rights by mobile citizens.

138 We estimated for the baseline scenario (Option A) a total LTC cross-border expenditure of € 994.7 million of which € 376.4 million LTC

benefits in cash paid to persons living in another country than the competent country based on the legislation of the competent country and € 618.3 million paid to creditor countries which provided LTC benefits in kind to insured persons living in another country than the competent country, according to the legislation of the country of residence.

139 The ‘real life’ dimension of this option is illustrated by the growing discussion in the Netherlands that the ‘in cash’ LTC expenditures exported to other countries should not be adopted to the cost of living (or care) in those countries, as is the case when benefits in kind are used.

Germany (decrease of 1% compared to the baseline scenario) and France (increase of 3% expenditure compared to the baseline scenario) (Table 54).

The changes are not always as what is expected since they are sensitive to the real levels of spending. For instance the shift of the reimburse mechanism to the basis of spending at the level of residence implied an increase for Luxembourg (as competent country) because they were ‘less generous’ (or less oriented) to in cash benefits.

Fair sharing of the burden between Member States: -

Reimbursement is a step towards burden sharing, but in this option, the negative aspects compared to the baseline scenario outweigh the positive impacts. As also the trESS Analytical report on LTC remarked:

“It could be said that it is an additional financial burden for the competent Member State, which might deliberately make a decision to compensate the risk of LTC only by way of benefits in kind.

Under this option, these Member States would thus also have to reimburse benefits in cash”.

According to the results of our public authorities’ survey, this option also received the lowest average score with regard to its impact on fair burden sharing (3.39 on a 1-to-6 scale).

7.4.4.4 Risk of abuse or misuse of the EU rules Score: -

This sub-option incorporates risks of misuse of benefits, as two Member State could be competent to grant benefits at the same time. Persons concerned could thus be tempted not to inform the competent MS of the receipt of benefits under the legislation of the Member State of residence (leading to double payments).

Furthermore, several national administrations in Member States with more generous LTC benefits warned that this option could lead to social tourism in the EU (Austria, Germany and the Netherlands). One German national administration representative stated:

“This option may lead to an increase of inflow of persons from ‘poorer’ Member States seeking LTC benefits in our country (the standard of LTC benefits in our country is relatively high compared to other Member States). Indirectly, this could also result in an increased pressure on the (supply of) nursing staff, in case there is a high inflow of mobile persons seeking long-term care services as a result of this option.”

This argument was repeated by an Austrian national administration representative:

“In 2012, the Austrian Bund (federation) allocated EUR 2.6 billion for LTC; there were 430.000 recipients of benefits. The benefits ranged between EUR 154 - EUR 1655 per month. Approximately 5% of the Austrian population receives LTC benefits, which is relatively high compared to other EU countries. For instance, Germany has a lower share of population receiving LTC benefits. The threshold as of which people receive LTC benefits is relatively low in Austria. Under this option, a Romanian citizen, who has not paid any contributions into the Austrian social security system, would be entitled to receive LTC benefits from Austria. So, reimbursement between Member States is crucial”.

7.4.4.5 Possible impact on the EU internal market

C.I.1 – No supplement provided by the competent Member State +/-

Should there be no supplement, the difference in the level of LTC benefits between the competent Member State and the Member State of residence would seem to be a factor in the decision of (potentially) mobile persons.

C.I.2. Supplement provided by the competent Member State: +

This option would prevent the situation where persons would not move due to the impossibility of receiving any LTC benefits in their new country of residence.

According to the public authorities’ survey, national administrations believe that this option is one of two best options to stimulate free movement of persons within the EU (3.94 average score on a 1-to 6 scale), with a higher average score than the sub-option with supplement.

7.4.4.6 Impact on the fundamental rights of EU citizens

Score: +

For both options by contributing to eliminate gaps in protection and ensuring that all mobile citizens reliant on care receive adequate levels of care, this policy option has a positive impact on different fundamental rights that it would to promote: non-discrimination (citizens would be less likely to suffer loss of benefits based on their country of origin), the rights of the elderly, the rights of the persons with disabilities, family and professional life and, in general, on the fundamental right to social security and social assistance.

By removing obstacles to mobility linked to the potential lack or loss of rights to long-term care and increasing the transparency of the rules (mobile citizens should have more visibility on their entitlements with this policy option than they do with the current coordination rules), this policy option would also contribute positively to ensuring the right of freedom of movement and of residence.

One civil society representative provided the following concrete examples about the impact of this option on fundamental rights:

Example 1:

A couple lives in Portugal. The husband receives a low Portuguese pension and a high German pension, after having worked in both countries. Under the current rules, he is not entitled to German Pflegegeld. His wife only receives a German pension and is entitled to German Pflegegeld in Portugal (exported).

Under the alternative regime (country of residence provides all LTC benefits), this couple – in the same way as their Portuguese neighbours – would be entitled to all Portuguese LTC benefits in kind (Sachleistung) and Portuguese LTC benefits in cash (Geldleistung) . If the couple would move back to Germany, both pensioners would be entitled to the German Pflegegeld. Equal treatment in the country of residence.

Example 2:

A couple lives in Germany. The husband receives a German pension and is entitled to German

Pflegegeld. His wife receives a Belgian pension. Under the current rules, the wife is not entitled to the high German Pflegegeld but to the lower Flemish Zorguitkering (Flemish equivalent of Pflegegeld).

Under the alternative regime, both pensioners would be entitled to all German LTC benefits in cash and LTC benefits in kind, in the same way as their German neighbours.

Example 3:

A family lives in Germany. A husband starts working as a frontier worker in the Netherlands. His wife does not work and receives German Pflegegeld for care of their disabled son. Because the husband is going to work in the Netherlands, the whole family is insured for healthcare in the Netherlands. However, from the moment the husband goes working in the Netherlands, the family is only entitled to German LTC benefits in kind in the country of residence. Thus, the family loses its entitlement to LTC benefits in cash (German Pflegegeld). From the Netherlands, the family does not receive any LTC benefits in cash, because this is not existent in the Netherlands.

Under the alternative regime, the family will be entitled to all German LTC benefits, whether these benefits are in cash or benefits in kind. If the family moves to the Netherlands, the family would be entitled to all Dutch LTC benefits, as their Dutch neighbours.

7.4.4.7 Possible impact on the EU budget

Score: +/-

No impact on the EU budget could be identified.

7.4.5 Option C2: Competent Member State provides long-term care benefits to insured persons residing abroad (export)

In Option C.II, the competent Member State shall provide long-term care benefits to insured persons residing abroad (export). Where benefits are only available in the forms of services, the competent Member State will reimburse the services provided in the country of residence.

The competent Member State would provide LTC to insured persons residing abroad (that is, the mobile persons would export their benefits). In this policy option, the competent Member State would be “responsible” for all types of LTC benefits, including the benefits in kind (not “naturally” exportable as the benefits in cash). The following solution would be established: where the benefits were only available in the form of services, the competent Member State would reimburse the services provided in the Member State of residence.

This policy option sets out clearly which Member State would provide LTC benefits. Contrary to the baseline scenario, where the distinction between benefits in cash and in kind is the starting point and an element of crucial importance (as it determines which Member State must provide the LTC benefits), this policy option would not make any distinction among the types of benefits. The starting point and critical element would be the Member State legally in charge of providing the LTC benefits (the Member State of residence or the competent Member State depending on the sub-option). This Member State would then provide all LCT benefits (be them in kind, in cash or mixed), with a system of reimbursement.

Under this option, it should be considered and clarified, according to which legislation the person might be considered as dependent and what the level of the dependency is, given the diversity of national legislations. A communication channel would also have to be established between the Member States for Option C2, in order to avoid that the person concerned receives benefits from the competent Member State and services in the Member State of residence for the same purpose.

Attitude of consulted stakeholders

Public consultation results:

National public 18% of the national public authorities think that persons should be treated equally in the Member State where he/she is insured and should

authorities not have his/her care benefits reduced if he/she moves to another

Member State (second preferred option). Our public authorities’ survey shows a preference of 28% for this statement.

Trade unions 33% of the responding trade unions and social partners’ representatives and social are in favour of this option (preferred option).

partners

Civil 25% of the civil society representatives are in favour of this option society/NGOs (second preferred option).

39% of the individuals (49) believe that persons should be treated Individual equally in the Member State where he/she is insured and should not have respondents his/her care benefits reduced if he/she moves to another Member State

(preferred option).

7.4.5.1 Impact on social security coverage of the insured persons who move within the EU, and the members of their families and survivors

Score: +

In our survey of national administrations, this option is considered as better than the status quo with regard to its impact on the social protection of mobile citizens (receiving an average score of 3.83 on a 1 to 6 scale, compared a 2.83 score for the baseline scenario). We have also given this option a positive mark, as it allows mobile persons in need of LTC to be treated equally in the Member States where they are insured and not to have their care benefits reduced if they move to another Member State.

Under this option, several national administrations (in Germany and Austria) noted that it should however be considered and clarified, according to which legislation the person might be considered as dependent and what the level of the dependency is, given the diversity of national legislations.

7.4.5.2 Impact on administrative costs and administrative burden

Transparency: +

In terms of transparency, this option is expected to have a positive impact compared to the baseline scenario. It is expected to decrease legal uncertainty because all LTC benefits will be provided on the basis of a single legislation: the one of the competent Member State.

Complexity of the EU rules: -

However, this will not reduce the complexity of the coordination rules, as always more than one Member State will be involved in the provision of LTC benefits. Indeed, it was considered by a large majority of the national administrations that this option would entail significant feasibility challenges, not in the least due to the need of huge communication and coordination between Member States. A comparison of the LTC benefits in kind available in both countries would be necessary, so as to provide in the Member State of residence benefits similar to those in the competent Member State. This calculation could be complex (e.g. due to differences in eligibility conditions across EU Member States) and to a large extent theoretical. For the benefits common in both countries, the current rules for the valuation of LTC benefits in kind would suffice. For those provided in the competent Member State but not existent in the Member State of residence, cash compensation should be provided.

Impact on administrative burden on national administrations: +

In option C 2 there is no change in the baseline scenario for the in cash benefits, but now the entitlements as well number of cases and the average spending for the in kind benefits is defined on the level of the competent country. Those systems are better developed in the competent states and we see the number of cases increasing to 58 thousand, and the total budget to € 900 million (cf. 8.1.2 and 8.1.3). For reason of this increased number of cases also the administrative burden for the in kind LTC increases to € 5.8 million (or 120 % of the baseline situation) while the relative share of the administrative cost to the total budgetary cost for in kind LTC declines to 0.6%.

7.4.5.3 Impact on public finance of the Member States

Impact on public finance of Member State: -

Option C2 whereby the competent Member State shall provide LTC benefits (in kind and in cash) on the basis of its legislation implies a total expenditure of € 1.3 billion or an increase of 28% compared to the baseline scenario. In this option the expenditure on LTC benefits in cash shall be the same as in the baseline scenario, namely € 376.4 million. LTC benefits in kind shall be provided on the basis of the legislation of the competent Member State and no longer on this of the country of residence.

These results in an increase of expenditure on LTC benefits in kind to € 900.3 million or an increase of 46% compared to the baseline scenario (Table 53 and Table 54).

On the level of the Member States primarily a positive impact (less spending) of this option compared to the baseline scenario is observed for Bulgaria (decrease of 94% of expenditure on LTC benefits), Estonia (decrease of 89% of expenditure on LTC benefits), Romania (decrease of 88% of expenditure on LTC benefits), Poland (decrease of 86% of expenditure on LTC benefits) and Portugal

(decrease of 72% of expenditure on LTC benefits). Mainly a negative budgetary impact (more spending) of the option compared to the baseline scenario is observed for Finland (increase of 255% of expenditure on LTC benefits), Sweden (increase of 254% of expenditure on LTC benefits) and the

Netherlands (increase of 66% of expenditure on LTC benefits) (Table 54)..

Compared to the baseline scenario, the competent Member State could be in a better position to control or forecast LTC expenditure on mobile persons abroad, as these persons will receive benefits in kind that are seen as equivalent to the benefits in kind provided in the competent Member State. This is because the legislation of the competent Member State will have the most important role in the provision of the LTC benefits. Nevertheless, it should be noted this effect is likely to be limited. Significant disparities exist between EU Member States with regard to the monetary value that can be assigned to a specific LTC benefit in kind. For instance, home nursing (benefit in kind) exists both in Germany and Belgium (equivalent benefits), but the provision of this benefit in Germany could be more costly than in Belgium.

Fair burden sharing between Member States: +/-

In the public authorities’ survey, this option received the highest average score of all options in terms of fairness. However, this results contrasts with our own survey results and interview findings, which suggest a negative impact in terms of fair burden sharing.

7.4.5.4 Risk of abuse or misuse of the EU rules

Score: “+/-“

This option does not entail a higher risk of fraud or abuse than the baseline scenario. Interviewees found it difficult to estimate the likely impact of this option in terms of fraud risk. One interviewee believed that this option might actually entail a lower risk of fraud than the baseline scenario, because of the increased communication between Member States that is required. This way it will be more difficult for mobile persons to claim LTC benefits in the country of residence without that the competent Member State is informed.

7.4.5.5 Possible impact on the EU internal market

Score: +

Together with option C.I.2, this option was seen by surveyed national administrations as the best option to stimulate mobility of people in the EU (receiving a 3.94 average rating on a 1 to 6 scale, compared to 2.94 for the baseline scenario). It allows mobile persons in need of LTC to be treated equally in the Member States where they are insured and not to have their care benefits reduced if they move to another Member State. This element is regarded as a decisive factor in the decision of citizens to move to another Member State.

7.4.5.6 Impact on the fundamental rights of EU citizens

Score: +

This option contributes to eliminate gaps in protection and ensuring that all mobile citizens reliant on care receive adequate levels of care and thus a positive impact on different fundamental rights that it would to promote: non-discrimination, the rights of the elderly, the rights of the persons with disabilities, family and professional life and, in general, on the fundamental right to social security and social assistance.

7.4.5.7 Possible impact on the EU budget

Score: +/-: No impact on the EU budget could be identified. -

7.4.6 Overview of impact assessed

Table 39: Coordination of LTC benefits: overview of the impacts assessed per option

Impact assessment criteria B. Adoption of a C.1: MS of residence shall provide LTC A. Status quo safeguarding provision benefits on the basis of its legislation

C.2: Competent MS shall provide LTC

( BASELINE ensuring that a mobile C.1.1: with C.1.2: without benefits to insured SCENARIO) person does not lose supplement by supplement by persons residing his/her entitlement to LTC competent MS competent MS abroad (export)

Impact on social security coverage of mobile

citizens, with regard to: 0 + + + +

Impact on admin. burden, transparency and complexity of the rules

o impact on transparency of the rules 0 - + + + o impact on complexity of rules 0 - - + -

o impact on admin. burden on national admin. 0 - - - + Coordination of Impact on public finance of MS, particularly with

LTC benefits regard to: o impact on public finance 0 +/- + + (-19%) - (+28%)

o fair burden sharing between MS 0 - - - +/- Risk of abuse/misuse of rights 0 + - - +/- Impact on the internal market 0 + + +/- + Impact on fundamental rights of EU citizens 0 + + + + Impact on EU budget 0 +/- +/- +/- +/-

A “+” should be interpreted as a positive impact on the impact assessment criterion, whereas a “-“ indicates a negative impact on the impact assessment criterion. Be aware that a positive impact on public finance of MS (+) actually reflects an expected decrease in public expenditure. Similarly, a “+”impact on administrative burden actually reflects an expected decrease in the administrative burden on administrations.

7.5 Coordination of unemployment benefits

7.5.1 Overview of possible options

The figure below presents the options that were considered in the impact assessment. Options D and E are of a horizontal nature and can be combined with options A, B and C.

Figure 7: Coordination of unemployment benefits: considered policy options

Baseline scenario Alternative policy options

Same rules for frontier workers and other cross-border workers. This implies a right of choice for frontier

Status quo = workers to claim benefits in MS of residence or continuation of current competent MS (Option B).

coordination rules

(Option A) This option could be possibly combined with other limited actions such as:

-

the clarification of the aggregation periods - long period of export
Until the end of the entitlement for as long as job

MS of last activity provides unemployment benefits for seeking obligations are fullfilled in the MS where all workers (Option C). This option could be possibly person is registered as a job-seeker.

combined with other limited actions such as: - the clarification of the aggregation periods

-

long period of export Provision of benefit limited in time

Limited actions, while maintaining the current principles of coordination of unemployment benefits: - longer period of export (Option D) - clarification of the aggregation periods (Option E)

7.5.2 Option A: Baseline scenario

The baseline scenario (OPTION A) implies no change of policy and a continuation of the current rules for coordination. This means:

Workers shall claim unemployment benefits in the country of last activity, if they have not resided during their activity in another Member State. Periods of insurance completed abroad, as well as other periods of employment/self-employment, are taken into account for establishing the right to the unemployment benefits (if the periods of employment/self-employment would also have been accounted for an entitlement to unemployment benefits in the competent Member State).

Unemployed workers have a limited possibility of export of unemployment benefits for 3 months, with the possible extension to 6 months (when he/she looks for work in another Member State). It is the competent institution of the Member State paying the unemployment benefits that may extend this period to 6 months.

Frontier workers (people who work in one country and live in another, and return home daily or at least once a week) who become wholly unemployed must apply for unemployment benefits in their country of residence. They can in addition register with the employment services in the country of last activity.

The country of last activity will reimburse the institution of the place of residence the full amount of the benefits provided by the latter institution during the first three months (extensible to five months in certain circumstances).

Cross-border workers, other than frontier workers, may apply for unemployment benefits and register with the employment service in either the country of last activity or the country of residence.

7.5.3 Option B: Right of choice for frontier workers (B)

This option implies that frontier workers have the choice between applying for unemployment benefits and registering with the employment services either in the country of last activity or in the country of residence. In this system, frontier workers and cross-border workers, other than frontier workers, are put subject to the same rules.

This option would eliminate the obligation for frontier workers to apply for unemployment benefits in their country of residence. Since conditions might be more favourable for them in the country of last activity, they would have the possibility to apply for unemployment benefits there. The qualification conditions that apply, the value conferred to experience in that particular market, a higher demand for certain skills and expertise, or an overall labour market policy better suited to their needs are factors that could make it easier for unemployed workers to find a job in the country of their last activity (as compared to their country of residence).

It would not be the legislator who would make the choice for the workers. The workers themselves would ponder pros and cons and decide the Member State in which to apply for unemployment benefits (their country of residence or that of their last activity). The unemployed workers, it should be borne in mind, will have to comply with the job seeking requirements of the country they choose to receive the benefits from. Such requirements, together with policy support and labour market conditions, might vary across countries. Frontier-workers would, under this policy option, be subject to the same rules than the other cross-border workers, enjoying the right of choice that cross-border workers other than frontier workers enjoy in the baseline scenario.

Attitude of consulted stakeholders

51% of the national public authorities responding the public consultation preferred this option. However, the results of the Deloitte survey of

National public national public authorities show a significantly lower support for this

authorities option (27%) 140 .

Analysing the replies to the Deloitte survey country-by-country, the right of choice for frontier workers seems the most preferred option in only 5

140 The differences between both percentages are due to the overrepresentation of the some Member States and the underrepresentation of other Member States in the respondent group of both surveys. In order to circumvent over/underrepresentation issues, we analysed the replies to both surveys country-by-country.

Member States (CZ, EE, SK, RO and UK). The face-to-face interviews with national public authorities revealed that

respondents in some Member States with generous social benefit systems strongly oppose this option (AT, DE, DK and SE).

Trade unions 31% of the social partners and trade unions responding the public and social consultation preferred this option (second preferred option).

partners

Civil 78% of the civil society/NGOs responding the public consultation society/NGOs preferred this option (preferred option).

Individual 49% of the national public authorities responding the public consultation respondents preferred this option (the most preferred option of individual respondents).

7.5.3.1 Impact on social security coverage of the insured persons who move within the EU

In the current regime, an unemployed frontier worker might be better or worse off, depending on the characteristics of the unemployment benefits in the Member State of last activity and the Member State of residence (the conditions, heights and duration of the unemployment benefits). Under this policy option, it is generally believed by interviewees that the unemployed frontier worker will be better off, as he has a right of choice (although conditional). Experience with Miethe cases show that frontier workers will likely choose the most beneficial and generous system of both countries. According to the Deloitte survey, public authorities think that this option guarantees the best the protection of social security rights of all options (rated 2.79 on average on a 1-4 scale).

Return on workers’ contributions:

Score: +

Several consulted civil society representatives and trade unions representatives believe that granting frontier workers a right of choice will have a positive impact in terms of non-discrimination and equality between workers. It gives frontier workers the possibility to be treated in the same way as their former work colleagues which live in the country of last employment. Within this regard, one EURES adviser who is active in a cross-border region stated:

“Workers are always comparing themselves with their colleagues at the workplace and not with other workers from their country of residence. Imagine a person who lives in Belgium but who is working in the Netherlands, and a person who lives and works in the Netherlands. Both men work for the same company, Philips Lighting Company in Eindhoven, the Netherlands. One day, the company decided to make both of them redundant. Under the current rules, the Belgian frontier worker claims his unemployment benefit in Belgium and not in the Netherlands, although he paid workers’ contributions for many years in the Netherlands. So, two former employees of the same company receive different unemployment benefits, both in terms of height as in terms of duration. Many Belgian frontier workers feel discriminated under the current rules”.

Furthermore, the right of choice is considered as fairer and more equal than the baseline scenario by many civil society representatives, as it ensures frontier workers a better return on the workers’ contributions which they have paid in the country of last activity before becoming unemployed. Granting a right of choice for frontier workers ensures that they are not deprived from the rights that frontier workers have built up in the country of last activity.

Conditions for reintegration in the labour market:

Score: +/-

There is mixed evidence on whether this option would really make conditions for reintegration in the labour market less or more favourable for frontier workers, compared to the baseline scenario.

On the one hand, several interviewees – particularly NGO representatives and several EURES advisers - believe that unemployed people have a better chance of finding a job in the Member State of last activity. Often, these people have built up a network in the country of last activity and do know the

labour market well. The Court of Justice has identified in its case-law 141 a category of frontier workers

(so called 'atypical frontier workers') who have better prospects of finding another job in the State of last activity and could therefore apply for unemployment benefits.

However, it is questionable according to several Member States (Austria, Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands) if the employment services of the country providing unemployment benefits will be able to provide any direct (local) assistance to those unemployed persons who are residing in another Member State but claimed their unemployment benefit in the country of last activity. For example: national administrations in Germany and Austria raised doubts whether the country of last activity would have the necessary means/infrastructure/instruments to support unemployed people abroad in finding employment. Vice versa, they wonder if the elder unemployed people would have the required skills and instruments to seek a job from abroad. This was confirmed by our public authorities’ survey results: in the majority of the Member States, national administrations think that physical presence is a requirement to find a job in another Member State (than the country of residence).

Furthermore, the experience of national public authorities and trade union representatives with

Miethe cases 142 give us useful information about the motives of frontier workers to make use of the

Miethe case law and thus to claim unemployment benefits in the country of last activity. According to three EURES advisers who are active in cross-border regions between Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium, of the hundreds of people who made use of the Miethe ruling to claim unemployment benefits in the country of last activity; very few used the argument of seeing better chances on the labour market in the country of last activity. The overwhelming majority of the people had based their choice on the height of the unemployment benefits and chose the most beneficial and generous system of both countries.

Finally, it should be noted that, under the current rules, frontier workers can already register as jobseekers in their country of last activity, so this option was not thought to bring much positive effects in terms of facilitation of the reintegration into the labour market.

141 Case C-1/85 Miethe

142 Case C-1/85 Miethe

7.5.3.2 Impact on administrative costs and administrative burden

There is a mixed picture with regard to the impact of this option with regard to the administrative burden that is expected to arise. All in all, from an administrative point of view, we believe that the negative impacts are likely to outweigh the positive impacts.

Transparency and complexity of the rules

Score: -

On the one hand, many public authorities considered that this option will cause a significant increase in uncertainty among public administrations. Several public officials expressed the view that giving workers the right to choose between two national systems generally makes it more difficult and costly for them to be aware of the situation of the worker, as more communication efforts (which might not always work optimally) are needed. This statement is supported by the public authorities’ survey results: public authorities in the Member States see by far this option as the most burdensome of all options from an administrative point of view.

One Austrian public servant also raised a legal concern with regard to the binding force of a ‘right of choice’: “What does that mean in practice? Does the decision count once and for all when it is taken; or can the persons change their ‘choice’? There is a need for legal certainty.”

Administrative burden on public authorities

Score: +

Adopting a right of choice for frontier workers will reduce the number of reimbursements between Member States, as no reimbursement is needed between the MS for the frontier workers who have chosen to claim their unemployment benefit in the country of last activity.

Based on our simulations, we expect a reduction of the administrative burden to € 4.8 million in total, of which € 1.9 million for the country of residence or 27% of the total (cf. 8.1.3). Compared to the baseline cost this is a reduction to 59% of the baseline amount.

For the countries of last activity the direct cost of handling the unemployment benefit increases substantially, but the costs for handling a PD U1 and for the reimbursements is substantially reduced, also in the country of residence. The relative cost of the administrative cost to the total budgetary cost is 0.5 %.

Note: for cases of people who will make use of the possibility to claim unemployment benefit in the country of last activity, several Member States expect that the administrative burden related to “control” of the job seeker abroad (and the legitimacy of the unemployment benefit provided) could increase. The employment services will need to exchange information if the person has launched a request for unemployment benefits in that country to avoid double payments or to avoid that the person would receive no payment at all.

7.5.3.3 Impact on public finance of the Member States and fair burden sharing

Impact on public finance of Member States:

Score: -

Public expenditure on unemployment benefits

For this exercise the estimated number of unemployed cross-border workers based on the LFS and the unemployment rates of the Ageing Report is multiplied by the annual unemployment benefit per unemployed person (in 2010 prices; projected in the 2012 Ageing Report). For each of the flows between Member States (in the different cells) the unemployment benefit of the country of last activity and the unemployment benefit of the country of residence was taken into consideration. The yearly expenditure assumes that the unemployed person did not find a job during the first year of

unemployment. 143 For that reason, the percentual change between the different options is more

useful. However, also the amount of the reimbursement claim should be taken into account.

A first alternative option involves that frontier workers will have the right to choose between the country of residence and the country of last activity (option B). As similar for the baseline scenario, we define 2 scenarios (equal distribution and rational choice).

The first scenario whereby 50% of the cross-border workers are returning involves a yearly expenditure of € 624.3 million (or an increase with 15.6% compared to the baseline scenario) of which € 476.7 million for frontier workers (Table 42 and Table 91). It implies a much higher expenditure by the country of last activity (62% of total expenditure) (Table 45).

The scenario where cross-border workers will make a rational decision implies the highest yearly expenditure. The expenditure will increase to € 891.6 million (what illustrates a higher level of protection (benefit)) - of which € 645.5 million related to the expenditure for frontier workers (Table 42 and Table 92). This increases the general expenditure with € 351.6 million or 65% compared to the baseline scenario whereby 50% of the other cross-border workers return to their country of residence.

There is a substantial shift of taking up the unemployment benefit in the country of last activity, and this is also illustrated by a substantial shift of direct payment of those benefits by the country of last activity. 73% of the expenditure would be paid by the country of last activity (Table 45). Their direct payment (again calculated on one year) increases to € 653 million (Table 44). On the other side, there is a reduction (calculated on 3 months) of their reimbursement (Table 46).

Please consider the caveats for the reliability limits for reason of a) the estimates of bilateral crossborder and frontier workers in the LFS b) the hypothesis to be made on as well average unemployment benefits, choice of either unemployment benefits in country of competence and country of residence c) the assumption the unemployed person did not find a job during the first year of unemployment and d) for a more detailed analysis on the level of MS also the reimbursement claims have to be taken into account.

Estimated impact on number of reimbursement claims

143 The reader has to take this assumption into account when reading the estimated budgetary impact. A more ‘realistic’ calculation of the yearly expenditure could be obtained by taking into consideration the average duration of the unemployment (which is an indicator in the LFS) and the specific national rules concerning the maximum length of the payment of the unemployment benefit.

The option whereby frontier workers also have the choice (option B) will decrease the reimbursement claims with 45% - for both scenarios (equal distinction and rational choice) compared to the baseline scenario a1 (Table 46). The actual reimbursement will be lower based on the maximum amount of unemployment benefits of the country of last activity (Table 100, Table 101 & Table 102).

Fair burden sharing between Member States:

Score: +

In terms of fair burden sharing between Member States, a right of choice for frontier workers is seen as slightly better than the baseline scenario by about half of the national public authorities who responded to our public authorities’ survey. While in the baseline scenario the State of residence has to bear the costs of unemployment and other social security benefits (such as sickness or family benefits) for unemployed frontier workers without having received any contribution from them, this option would shift some of these costs to the country of last activity – the reimbursement mechanism established by the current legal framework and the sharing of the burden of unemployment benefits do not fully address the issue.

7.5.3.4 Risk of abuse or misuse of the EU rules

Score: -

Many trade unions’ representatives and national public authorities would not see it as a positive development that an unemployed frontier worker can choose to claim unemployment benefits under the best conditions: identified risks of misuse of rights by frontier workers under this option. Many of them referred to concrete practices of “social benefit tourism” in cases where frontier workers recalled on Miethe case law to claim unemployment benefits in the country of last activity: not because they saw better labour market chances, but because of the generosity of the unemployment benefit system. Some stakeholders saw this possibility as an incentive for ‘social tourism’, encouraging job-seekers to find employment in countries with a high standard of living and providing an advantage to them should they become unemployed and move/reside in a country with substantially lower costs of living.

In order to restrict such a “shopping” by frontier workers, a Dutch public authority representative proposed to make the right of choice for frontier workers conditional by a minimum 5 years of working in the country concerned.. For example, when a frontier worker who becomes unemployed, has been insured for minimum 5 years based on the legislation of the Member State of last activity, he could have the right to claim his unemployment benefit in the country of last activity as if he would have lived there.

7.5.3.5 Possible impact on the EU internal market

Score: +

The right of choice option is generally seen as the option which would best stimulate intra-EU labour market mobility. In the public authorities’ survey, this option received the highest average score of all options with regard to its impact on intra-EU labour market mobility.

First, the option allows frontier workers to be treated in the same way as other cross-border workers. This possibility is generally perceived as the removal of a significant barrier to labour market mobility.

Second, frontier workers are better off under this option in terms of social protection, as they can choose under which unemployment benefit regime they would like to fall. Most of the frontier workers are likely to choose the most beneficial system in their view.

7.5.3.6 Impact on the fundamental rights of EU citizens

Score: +

This option would bring frontier workers and other cross-border workers on equal footing. By providing frontier workers with the right of choice, they would enable them to select the system that, in their belief, grants them the best opportunity to reintegrate in the labour market –including that of other Member States-. In this sense, the adoption of this policy option would contribute positively to the freedom of movement.

7.5.3.7 Possible impact on the EU budget

Score: +/-

No impact could be identified on the EU budget.

7.5.4 Option C: Unemployment benefits for all workers to be provided by the country of the last activity regardless of the person’s residence

Under a third option, the unemployed person should claim unemployment benefits and register with the employment services in the country of the last activity and could, in addition, also register with the employment services of another Member State. If the person decides to look for work in another Member State and registers with the employment services there, there could be a number of suboptions:

C.I: The provision of the unemployment benefits from the competent State would last until the end of the entitlement for as long as the person fulfils the job-seeking obligations in the Member State where he is registered as a job-seeker. Regular information shall be provided to the competent State by the public employment services of the Member State where the person looks for work. Additionally, EU Member States could agree on a minimum common set of job-seeking obligations to be monitored by the public employment services.

C.II: The provision of the unemployment benefits would be limited.

The unemployed person should register with the employment services in the country of the last activity and could also register with the employment services of another Member State. If the person decides to look for work in another Member State and registers with the employment services there, there could be a number of sub-options:

C.I: The provision of the unemployment benefits from the competent State would last until the end of the entitlement for as long as the person fulfils the job-seeking obligations in the Member State where he is registered as a job-seeker.

C.II: The provision of the unemployment benefits would be limited.

Attitude of consulted stakeholders

National public 41% of the national public authorities responding the public authorities consultation preferred this option (second preferred option of public

authorities). The results of the Deloitte survey of national public

authorities are in line with this percentage (43%) 144 , but in this

survey option C is the preferred option among public authorities. Analysing the replies to the Deloitte survey country-by-country, option C was preferred by respondents from 11 Member States (CY, CZ, FI, FR, HU, IT, LV, MT, NL, PT, SI).

Trade unions and 44% of the social partners and trade unions responding the public social partners consultation preferred this option (preferred option of trade unions

and social partners).

Civil society/NGOs 0% of the civil society/NGOs responding the public consultation preferred this option.

144 The differences between both percentages are due to the overrepresentation of the some Member States and the underrepresentation of other Member States in the respondent group of both surveys. In order to circumvent over/underrepresentation issues, we analysed the replies to both surveys country-by-country.

Individual 40% of the individual respondents preferred this option (second respondents preferred option)

7.5.4.1 Impact on social security coverage of the insured persons who move within the EU

The Deloitte's public authorities’ survey shows that this option is positively rated with regard to the impact on social security of coverage of persons moving within the EU (2.67 on a scale from 1 to 4), however less than the right of choice option (2.79). The option received the highest rating from public authorities in 8 Member States.

First of all, the probability of any worker being left without any unemployment benefits would diminish substantially, compared to the baseline scenario, as it would always be clear to which country request the unemployment benefits.

Return on workers’ contributions

Score: +

Secondly, civil society representatives and trade unions representatives believe that this option enhances equality and non-discrimination, as it ensures that frontier workers are treated in the same way as their former work colleagues which live in the country of last activity. Furthermore, similar to those frontier workers who would make use of a right of choice to claim their unemployment benefits either in the country of last activity either in the country of residence (cf. option B), this option is considered as fairer than the baseline scenario as it ensures frontier workers a better return on the workers’ contributions which they have paid in the country of last activity before becoming unemployed.

Conditions for reintegration in the labour market

Score: +/-

There is mixed evidence on whether this option would really make conditions for reintegration in the labour market less or more favourable for frontier workers, compared to the baseline scenario.

On the one hand, several interviewees believe that unemployed people have a better chance of

finding a job in the Member State of last activity. The Court of Justice has identified in its case-law 145

a category of frontier workers (so called 'atypical frontier workers') who have better prospects of finding another job in the State of last activity and could therefore apply for unemployment benefits.

However, it is questionable according to several Member States if the employment services of the country providing unemployment benefits will be able to provide any direct (local) assistance to an unemployed person who is residing in another Member State. For example: national administrations in Germany and Austria raised doubts whether the country of last activity would have the necessary means/infrastructure/instruments to support unemployed people abroad in finding employment. Vice versa, they wonder if the older unemployed people would have the required skills and instruments to seek a job from abroad.

145 Case C-1/85 Miethe

There is a general concern that important fiscal technical problems may arise under this option, the tax on unemployment benefits is not aligned between countries.

7.5.4.2 Impact on administrative costs and administrative burden

Impact on transparency and complexity of the rules

Score: +

This option is expected to bring more clarity and legal certainty for unemployed workers compared to the baseline scenario. By making the country of last activity always responsible for the provision of the unemployment benefits –regardless of the person’s residence- the complexity of the EU rules is likely to be reduced. Certain clarity and transparency would be gained, since the distinction between frontier workers and other cross-border workers would be eliminated.

Administrative burden on public authorities

Score: +/-

Since the distinction between frontier workers and other cross-border workers would be eliminated, there is no need for reimbursement between Member States anymore, which is expected to have a positive impact from an administrative point of view. Analysing the replies to the public authorities’ survey country-by-country, this option is ranked as the one that creates the least administrative burden.

In the option C the administrative burden is further reduced to 36% of the baseline scenario, or

€ 2.9 million (cf. 8.1.3). This burden is completely situated in the country of last activity, but under the present hypothesis of standard costs, this is not even more expensive because all cases of payment are threated in the country of last activity, but there are no costs for exchange of a PD U1 or reimbursements to be made.

Note: public authorities considered that this option will also make it more difficult and costly for the country of last activity to follow-up the job seeking efforts and job status of beneficiaries of unemployment benefits who live in another Member State.

7.5.4.3 Impact on public finance of the Member States and fair burden sharing

Impact on public finance of Member States

Score: -

unemployment. 146 For that reason, the percentual change between the different options is more

useful.

The option whereby the country of last activity is paying the unemployment benefit (option C) leads to a yearly expenditure of € 770 million or an increase with 42.6% compared to the baseline scenario (Table 42 and Error! Reference source not found.). More specific for frontier workers this option would involve an expenditure of € 561.0 million or an increase in expenditure of 43%. All costs are fully paid by the country of last activity.

If the unemployment benefit would be provided by the country of last activity (Option C) no reimbursements would be claimed by the country of residence (Table 46).

This option is generally expected to lead to a decrease in public expenditure in some Member States, being outweighed by an increase of public expenditure in other Member States. This is certainly going to be the case for countries that are net residing countries versus countries that are net competent Member States. Further, we will see that the total expenditure will probably increase to the present situation, but less than would be the case with right of choice and most unemployed choose the Member State with the highest benefit.

Fair burden sharing between Member States

Score: +

Member States widely considered this option as positive in terms of providing a more equitable distribution of the financial burden between Member States. The effects are similar to those discussed for policy option B for the frontier workers deciding to apply for unemployment benefits in their country of last activity. In our public authorities’ survey, this option is seen as the one that incorporates the fairest burden sharing between Member States (receiving an average rating of 3.19 on a 1 to 4 scale).

7.5.4.4 Risk of abuse or misuse of the EU rules

Score: -

The prolongation of the unemployment benefits from the competent Member State for as long as the person fulfils the job-seeking obligations in the Member State where he is registered was thought to apply mainly to the country of residence of the cross-border worker. Otherwise, it would operate as a regular export of benefits. In this sense, those in the countries visited generally opposed to the

146 The reader has to take this assumption into account when reading the estimated budgetary impact. A more ‘realistic’ calculation of the yearly expenditure could be obtained by taking into consideration the average duration of the unemployment (which is an indicator in the LFS) and the specific national rules concerning the maximum lenght of the payment of the unemployment benefit.

export of benefits for as long as the entitlement would be maintained in the competent Member

State. The main reason alleged was the lack of control on the beneficiary.

The export of benefits in these situations lends itself easily to a certain abuse of misuse, whereby the benefits could be paid to a person not actively seeking a job. The aim of providing economic means to compensate for the lack of income until a new job is found would be lost in favour of other personal, vested interests. Clear issues of moral hazard were perceived. Countries with generous unemployment benefits and/or net inflow of cross-border workers (notably Luxembourg, but also Denmark, Germany, Austria and the Netherlands) raised these complaints whereas Romania, with a clear net outflow of workers, favoured the extension of the benefits for as long as the entitlement would last in the competent Member State. In Spain, an intermediate, flexible system such as the one currently provided for the Regulation was better valued.

While the policy option includes the provision of regular information to the competent Member

State, which should in theory soothe the concerns expressed by some countries, the majority of the interviewees raised their doubts about the actual operability and success of such regular information provisions. The control of “national” job-seeker appears to be difficult. In this regard, the interviewees generally share the view that no particular control system should be put in place for cross-border workers exporting their benefits. In this sense, the freedom of movement should not be favoured over the equal treatment. Workers exporting their benefits would be subject to the same type of control (verifying that the worker is actually effectively looking for a job, including, when appropriate, attending courses and job interviews) that other local workers. In light of the expressed difficulties to control unemployed workers, the aforementioned provision of regular reports to the competent Member State would be difficult. The administrative costs would also be increased.

This is compounded by the fact that job-seeking demands less and less physical presence, and is carried out more online. This difficulties the control and the establishment of formal job-seeking requirement (e.g., a person might have been very active, submitting dozens of applications online, but there is not an easy manner to verify it).

Similarly, and while Member States shared their interest in controlling their job-seeker abroad, the agreement on a common set of job-seeking obligations was regarded as highly unfeasible. Conceptually, it was deemed positive, but serious doubts were raised about its feasibility.

This option would also make it difficult to react quickly to any non-compliance by the employment seeker with the job-seeking requirements in country of last employment. It would require a laborious administrative process in order to clarify any issues of non-compliance with the employment agencies of another Member State (and to proceed with sanctions, if needed). According to one public authority representative, the problem could be aggravated by language differences between the responsible bodies in the Member States concerned.

A standardised documentation system (taking all national legal sensitivities into account) which informs the country of residence about all criteria for imposing any sanctions against the employment seeker which are applicable in the country of last activity could be a solution, but the feasibility of setting up such a system was questioned by several Member States.

A public authority representative who opposed this option stated that this option could only work if the Member States agreed on a harmonised legal system and its interpretation.

A proposed alternative would be for the country of last activity to provide the job-seeker with a questionnaire to be filled in in the country where the person is looking for employment – this would result in an unacceptable level of administrative burden.

7.5.4.5 Possible impact on the EU internal market

Score: +/-

Public authorities ranked this option as the option that is least stimulating intra-EU labour market mobility.

Should the unemployed workers decide to look for a job in another Member State and register with the employment services there, two sub-options are considered: maintain the unemployment benefits until the end of the entitlement or limit them.

While the provision by the competent Member State of the unemployment benefits until the end of the entitlement would be more in line with the support of labour mobility across EU countries (unemployed workers would be in a similar situation to look for a job in the competent country or in any other Member State), several national authorities (e.g. in the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden) argued that the Member State in which the person registers as a job-seeker might not be equally ready to spend resources to help a person find a job in a different country, and might prefer to maintain the job-seeker under their own supervision. Hence, the authorities preferred second-sub option: limit the provision of unemployment benefits. Although, this sub-option would be more limiting in terms of promoting the labour mobility.

7.5.4.6 Impact on the fundamental rights of EU citizens

Score: +

By making the country of last employment competent for the provision of unemployment benefits to all workers, it would guarantee a similar degree of return on their contributions to all migrant workers. As such, it would eliminate the current distinction between frontier workers and other cross-border workers and migrant workers. In the current situation, frontier workers might lose out on benefits due to their mobility decisions, receiving lower benefits than what their contributions in their country of last activity would have entitle them had they been resident there.

7.5.4.7 Possible impact on the EU budget

Score: +/-

No impact on the EU budget could be identified.

7.5.5 Option D: Prolongation of the minimum period of export from 3 months to 6 months

Option D foresees a general prolongation of the period of export of unemployment benefits for persons who look for work in another than the competent Member State to minimum 6 months. The option could be combined with options A, B and C.II 147 .

This policy option would lift the period of export to a minimum of six months for all Member States.

Whilst this option would still not harmonise the conditions across all countries (the export could last only up to the end of person's entitlements in the competent Member State; also, more generous provisions -that is, longer periods of entitlement- by any Member State would in principle still be allowed), it would elevate the minimum period of export to bring it to a level that would guarantee all unemployed workers a fair chance to find a job in a different country.

On a different note, while the Terms of Reference refer specifically to the possibility of combining

Option D with Options A, B and C.II, the possibility of combining it with Option C.I is worth exploring. In this regard, Option D cannot be combined with Option C.I straight away. Both options deal with the duration of the period of export of unemployment benefits (while Option C.I also addresses the question of determining the country in charge of providing the unemployment benefits). Option C.I proposes that the period of export (that is, the provision of unemployment benefits by the competent Member State) shall last until the end of the entitlement –for as long as the person fulfils the job-seeking requirements in the Member State where he is registered as a job-seeker-. Option D, on its side, proposes to extend the period of export to a minimum of 6 months. The period of entitlement under the competent Member State rules can be inferior, equal to or higher than 6 months, therefore resulting in prolongation periods which could be in line or not with option D. Both options could be however easily combined by stating that the period of export of the unemployment benefits will be of 6 months unless the rules of the competent Member State provide for a longer period of entitlement, in which case the latter would be respected –in line with current art.64.3 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i, which allows for more generous provisions in the competent Member State-. To add the Option C distinctive element, this new “hybrid” option should state that the unemployment benefits would be provided by the country of last activity regardless of the person’s residence. The export period shall be never longer than the entitlement period a person enjoys if she stays in the MS. E.g. if a country has unemployment benefit duration of 3 months, it should not be asked to provide benefits for 6 months for those who left the country.

Attitude of consulted stakeholders

National public 20% of the national public authorities responding the public

authorities consultation preferred this option (third preferred option of public

authorities). Two options were more popular: the current export rules (period of export of three months, with a possible extension up to six months) and the one where one should be able to export the unemployment benefit until the end of the person's entitlement, according to the rules of the Member State which provides them.

The results of the Deloitte survey of national public authorities show a lower percentage of preference (13%), but it is also the third preferred option of public authorities. The majority of the public authorities’

147 Especially if combined with option C, it should be considered if option D should also not include the export until the end of the entitlement period.

opinions are distributed between two alternative, extreme options: prolonging the period of export until the end of the person's entitlement to unemployment benefits (39%) and maintaining the status quo (37%).

Analysing the replies to the Deloitte survey country-by-country, this option was preferred by respondents from only 1 Member State (PT). In 11 Member States, a period of export of 3 months with a possible extension to 6 months remains the preferred option (baseline), whereas prolonging the period of export until the person’s entitlement to unemployment is the dominant preference in 9 Member States. With regard to the public consultation, a prolongation of the period of export to minimum 6 months was most preferred by respondents from public authorities in 2 Member States (FR, HU).

Trade unions and 0% of respondents on behalf of the social partners and trade unions social partners responding the public consultation preferred this option (preferred

option of trade unions and social partners).

Civil

society/NGOs 22% of respondents from civil society/NGOs responding the public consultation preferred this option.

Individual

respondents 40% of the individual respondents in the public consultation preferred this option (second preferred option after the export until the end of

person's entitlement under the national rules)

7.5.5.1 Impact (increase/reduction) on social security coverage of the insured persons who move within the EU

Impact on return on contributions

Score +/-

Although longer export means that a person looking for job abroad does not have his rights reduced due to this effect, this option was paradoxically not perceived by the public authorities and other stakeholders interviewed as having a relevant impact on the return on workers’ contributions.

However, it should be borne in mind that the return on contributions refers not only to the level but also duration of the benefits. Though the level of unemployment benefits would not change with this option, the duration of the benefit would not be limited due to the fact that the job seeker registers with employment services of another Member State.

Under the current rules (baseline scenario), unemployed people are able to export their unemployment benefits for a period of three months. The competent institution can then grant an extension for the export of benefits to up to six months. Upon expiry of the period of export (be it three or six months, or a period in between), the concerned worker must return to the competent Member State to continue perceiving the benefits (he/she shall lose all entitlement to benefits under the legislation of the competent Member State if he does not return there on or the expiry of the said period). Therefore, in order not to lose his entitlements upon expiry of the period of export; he must return to the competent country to continue perceiving unemployment benefits until the end of his entitlement. If he does not return with this period, the remaining entitlements are lost.

Impact on the reintegration in the labour market of a person

Score: +

No consistent evidence was provided by the public authorities interviewed showing that longer

periods of export of benefits correlate with better chances of finding a job 148 . Actually, the

institutions participating in our survey ranked the prolongation of the period of export behind the current rules in terms of impact on the reintegration of unemployed people in the labour market. The current rules were the highest-ranked option. However, it was also ranked behind the option enabling the export of benefits until the end of the person’s entitlement to unemployment benefits according to the rules of the Member State which provides them. These results seem contradictory in the sense that, in terms of facilitating the reintegration of unemployed workers in the labour market, the prolongation of the period of export to a minimum of six months is ranked both below an option that leads to shorter periods of export and below and option that leads to longer periods of export.

Considering the qualitative input gathered during the interviews, it nevertheless appears that the stay abroad while retaining entitlement to benefits facilitates job-seeking. While, once again, no hard figures were presented to back up the notion that the export of benefits, in general, leads to better employment prospects and, in particular, that staying abroad for longer increases the chances of finding employment, the public officials interviewed tended to side with the idea that physical presence in the country of job search (made possible by the opportunity to export the unemployment benefits) had, if any, certain positive effects. Thus, while a relevant amount of respondents considered that physical presence is not needed for job-seeking or that it depends on the situation, the most-selected option among public authorities in both the online survey and the public consultation was that physical presence is needed for job-seeking. The majority of trade unions and social partners also maintained the need for physical presence. Those defending the need for presence argued mainly that it is needed for job interviews, but also for “job placement and employment promotion by the Public Employment Service”. The benefits of presence linked to availability for job interviews were also argued by many of the respondents choosing the “it depends” option.

Furthermore, increasing the minimum period of export would confer additional possibilities to mobile workers who do not currently enjoy them. As has been reported, several countries do not grant the prolongation of the export of unemployment benefits at all (the extension is rejected without real consideration of the individual circumstances of the case). Certain workers are thus deprived of the possibility to export their unemployment benefits for more than three months. The adoption of this policy option would grant all the workers in the EU (subject only to their concrete entitlements given their conditions and the rules of the Member State which provides their benefits) a similar possibility to export their unemployment benefits. In a context in which an important

148 For instance, Spain carried out a study in 2008 comparing the duration of unemployment and probability of finding a job for unemployed workers remaining in the country and those exporting the benefits. The results showed that the latter were not more likely than the former to find a job. Similar results were reported in Luxembourg, although the very reduced amount of workers does not allow to draw representative conclusions. Similar effects were also reported in the UK.

responsibility with regard to finding a new job and thus reintegrating in the labour market falls on the workers themselves (who, for example, must choose the country where they claim unemployment benefits in the case of cross-border workers other than frontier workers), it seems that providing them with expanded possibilities to find a job anywhere in the EU is positive.

For this reason, it is considered that this policy option could have a positive impact in terms of the reintegration of unemployed workers in the labour market and thus on the social security coverage of these workers.

7.5.5.2 Impact on administrative costs and administrative burden

Impact on transparency: +

In terms of transparency, the adoption of this option could have positive effects. It was gathered during the interviews conducted that the extension of the export of benefits is not granted as a general rule (for example, in the United Kingdom). Therefore, certain unemployed workers are in practice not granted the possibility to export their unemployment benefits for longer than three months without an individual examination of the circumstances of their case. In this sense, the rules are not entirely transparent, since national institutions might apply widely varying practices that cannot be known a priori by the unemployed workers. The adoption of this option would eliminate the uncertainty derived from the degree of flexibility granted to public institutions by the current coordination rules. While currently workers can count on a period of export of their unemployment benefits of three months (whilst not being certain of whether the export could be prolonged up to six months), this option would guarantee a period of export of six months not subject to individual (and not necessarily entirely transparent) decisions.

Impact on complexity of the rules: +/-

This option was not perceived by the public authorities interviewed as having a clear impact in terms of complexity of the rules. Aspects such as the distinction between frontier workers and other crossborder workers, wholly and partially unemployed frontier workers, or different national practices in terms of the aggregation of periods of insurance, employment and self-employment would not be affected by this option. Since those were mentioned as sources of complexity, the option would not have an impact.

Administrative burden on public authorities

Score: -

In terms of administrative costs and burdens brought about by the coordination of social security systems, this option would primarily have an impact in terms on the communication exchange between countries concerning the situation of the job-seekers exporting their benefits.

On one hand, certain workers who currently (under the baseline scenario) cannot export their unemployment benefits for longer than three months (given the reluctance of some Member States to grant the extension), could pass to indeed export their benefits for longer periods. On the other hand, lifting the minimum period of export to six months might also lead to longer periods of export by workers who are effectively entitled to six-month exports under the current rules (with the minimum set at six months, certain countries might grant the export for longer periods). In both situations, the daily, regular control of the jobseeker would shift from the competent country (be it the country of residence or of last activity) to the country of export. In addition, certain communication should take place between the two countries concerned. While the implications are far from likely to apply regularly and homogeneously across all countries given the differences that exist in their way of operating, this communication is generally not a one-off effort, implying instead additional efforts the longer the period of export.

In cases of export of unemployment benefits, several countries (including Belgium, Estonia,

Netherlands, Poland and Portugal) stated that the situation varies significantly depending on the country they deal with in each concrete case. For such reasons, it is expected that the adoption of this policy option would have a negative impact with regard to administrative costs and administrative burdens.

In addition, it must be noted that the export of unemployment benefits is widely linked, in the view of public authorities, to concerns about the possibility of accrued risks of abuse or misuse of rights. 52% of the organisations participating in Deloitte’s survey indicated so, including 33% that considered that such risk would be particularly high if extending the minimum period of export to six months. Therefore, it seems likely that if such prolongation were to be adopted, it could come hand in hand with additional measures to soothe Member State’s concern about the risk of abuse. While such measures are not considered in the scenarios evaluated by this study, it is worth, for the sake of comprehensiveness, to quickly analyse the potential implications of the adoption of such measures.

When asked about mitigation measures to reduce the risk of abuse, the Member States selected and/or proposed some of the following options:

Several Member States would like to enhance the role of the "guest" Member State in providing information to the competent Member State about the chances of a person to find a job at short-term (BE, EE, CZ and FR).

All jobseekers who have exported their unemployment benefits should be obliged to report about their job seeking activities to the competent Member State (CZ, DE, MT, LT and FR). Some countries are in favour of monthly reporting by the jobseeker to the competent institution (DE, MT and LT); other Member States say that a 3-monthly reporting would be sufficient (FR).

As clearly pointed out by the Danish authorities, and as can be perceived by considering the options proposed, many of the mitigation measures proposed would also increase the administrative burden and costs of Member States. Therefore, should this scenario play out, the negative impact on administrative burden and costs could be increased.

7.5.5.3 Impact on public finance of the Member States (and fair burden sharing)

Impact on public finance of Member States

Score: +/-

The results of the data collection activities conducted suggest that this policy option would not have any significant impacts on the public finance of Member States, neither at individual or aggregate level. However, the ‘success rate’ of finding a job abroad could/will differ by country of residence which will have an impact on the period of unemployment and on the expenditure.

This policy option does not affect the duration and amount of unemployment benefits granted by each country, nor would it affect the national system from which the unemployed person would receive his/her benefits.

There could be differences in terms of “where” the unemployed person receives his/her benefits for a certain period of time, but not the level or amount of benefits received. This would still be determined by the competent institutions according to the individual circumstances of the case (inter alia, the periods of insurance, employment or self-employment completed by the unemployed person, and the salary perceived in the last professional activity). In particular, this option would not guarantee a minimum export of six months at any moment for any unemployed worker regardless of the circumstances. Should the concerned worker be entitled to continue perceiving unemployment benefits for a period shorter than six months (given his (remaining) entitlements according to the legislation of the competent Member State), the export of benefits would only last until the end of the entitlement (and not be prolonged until reaching the six months).

The possible impacts on the public finance of Member States could come via changes in administrative costs and via a possible impact on the period of unemployment (which affects directly the amount spent on unemployment benefits by the competent institution). As commented earlier, the impact on administrative burden and costs is not clear, whilst there is not clear evidence that exporting the unemployment benefits for longer than three months provides additional chances of finding a job. In light of this, no significant impacts on the budget Member States via these factors can be appreciated at this stage.

Impact on fair sharing of the financial burden

Score: +/-

This policy option would not change the amount of unemployment benefits that must be provided by each Member State. When an unemployed person “exports” his or her benefits, the competent institutions continue to pay them. The unemployed person must register as a job-seeker in the “host” country (being then subject to the job-seeking requirements of the public employment service there), but continues to receive his/her benefits from the competent institution. In this sense, there is no shift at all in the sharing of the financial burden between Member States.

Still, Member States rated this option clearly below the current rules in terms of impact on fair sharing of financial burden between Member States in Deloitte’s survey. This option received a score 2.43 (on a scale of 1 to 4), very similar to the possibility of extending the export until the end of the person’s entitlement (2.42), but clearly below the score given to the current rules (2.72). The interviews conducted suggest that this lower rating could be linked to the costs taken on by the “host” country regarding job-seeking support and control activities with regard to the mobile unemployed worker. Thus, the receiving countries would incur in additional costs for every incoming job-seeker (certain administrative costs linked to communication with the competent Member State would also come as a result). While each country could find itself in the “receiving” or “sending” situation, the differential impacts would depend directly on the net flow of “exporting” job-seekers experienced by each country.

7.5.5.4 Risk of abuse or misuse of the EU rules Score: -

This option was clearly identified by a large number of representatives from national administrations interviewed (including Luxembourg and the United Kingdom) as increasing the risk of misuse or abuse of the EU rules.

Such risks would, in this view, be aggravated by the extension of the period of export (the payment of unemployment benefits without the certainty that they are effectively trying to find a job would be prolonged, while additional workers might feel attracted to make use of the possibility of export without a clear focused aim of finding employment as soon as possible in the country of destination).

52% of all the respondents to the Deloitte online survey think that extending the period of export could lead to an increased risk of misuse or abuse of rights. Such risk would be higher, according to the respondents, the longer the allowed period of export. Thus, 79% of the respondents to the online survey for public authorities thought that the risk of misuse or abuse would increase if the unemployment were provided until the end of a person’s entitlement, according to the rules of the Member State that provides them; meanwhile, 33% of the respondents believed that the risk would increase in the minimum period of export was raised to six months.

These data show that the concern exists among public authorities.

The argument of the risk of abuse of rights is linked to the limitations of the control the competent Member State can exert on the jobseeker (whose unemployment benefits they are paying) whilst he/she is abroad exporting his/her benefits.

For such reasons, the impact that this option could have in terms on a higher risk of misuse or abuse appears, in comparison with the baseline scenario, negative.

However, it should be noted that the authorities interviewed were unable to attach figures on the misuse of rights. The cases of abuse related seemed rather anecdotal. Other interviewees also pointed out that, while the risk of misuse or abuse exists, the concerns over it should not lead to deprive the vast majority of workers who export their unemployment benefits legitimately. 45% of the participants in Deloitte’s survey did not think that the misuse or abuse of rights is a risk in cases of export of unemployment benefits.

7.5.5.5 Possible impact on the EU internal market

Score: +

While in many cases reluctant to the extension (due to potential pitfalls such as the increase risk of misuse of the rights, as previously discussed), interviewees (regardless of their type) coincided in general in signalling that the extension of the period of export could have some favourable effects from the point of view of fostering cross-border mobility.

National administrations participating in the survey considered that this option would have a slightly more positive impact on labour market mobility than the current rules (on a scale of 1 to 4, it received a 2.54, compared to the 2.47 of the current rules). The highest-ranked option in this regard was the possibility to extend the export until the end of the person’s entitlement. These results reveal that national administrations recognize that the possibility of exporting unemployment benefits, the more the longer it is, facilitates labour mobility to some degree. In comparison with the baseline scenario, the effects of an increase of the minimum period of export from three to six months seemed limited, but positive.

This question is also directly linked to the chances of reintegration in the labour market for unemployed people exporting their unemployment benefits, discussed before. As previously pointed out, there is no clear evidence that the chances of finding a job in the “host” country improve after three months, but public officials tended to agree that, if any, the effects of the export (and the extension) would be positive. Similarly, the possibility to export unemployment benefits for longer could facilitate not only the reintegration in the labour market but also the decision of unemployed workers to decide going to look for a job in the country. A guaranteed longer period of export in case employment is not found could help to soothe concerns of adaptation of some potentially migrant workers. The cultural and social “acclimation” to the host country would in principle be facilitated by the possibility to remain there for longer. More unemployed workers might then be willing to take their chances leaving their country of residence if a relatively long period of export, allowing them to fully adapt to the local conditions.

7.5.5.6 Impact on the fundamental rights of EU citizens

Score: +

This policy option would in principle provide a direct positive impact in the freedom of movement and of residence. It could also help to eliminate some discrimination problems. As currently unemployed workers in certain countries do not enjoy the chance to extend the export of their unemployment benefits from three to six months, there are de facto differences across workers in different Member States, and what could be considered a certain discrimination. This would be solved with the adoption of this policy option. Most clearly, the impact of this option would be via its further facilitation of job-seeking abroad. By increasing the possibilities to look for a job abroad, the prolongation of the minimum period of export from three to six months would have a positive effect in favouring the freedom of movement and of residence.

7.5.5.7 Possible impact on the EU budget No impacts on the EU budget were identified

7.5.6 Option E: Clarification of the provision on the aggregation of periods of insurance, employment and self-employment

Option E implies a clarification of the provisions on the aggregation of periods of insurance, employment and self-employment. This policy option addresses directly the problem of the different practices in the application of rules on aggregation of periods (Article 61 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i). For such reason, it could be combined with any of the previous options (as Options A, B and C address the first problem and Option D addresses the second problem). Several regulatory instruments are proposed (a Regulation, an interpretative decision of the Administrative Commission or guidelines).

Given that Member State’s legislation often makes the acquisition, retention, recovery or duration of unemployment benefits conditional upon the completion of either periods of insurance, employment or self-employment, mobile unemployed persons would be penalised if it were not possible to take into account the periods completed under the legislation of a Member State other than that whose legislation applies. To prevent this problem, and facilitate cross-border mobility, Article 61 of Regulation (EC) No. 883 /2004 states that the periods of insurance, employment or self-employment completed under the legislation of any other Member State shall be taken into account and considered as though they were completed under the legislation it applies. 149

However, as explained in the problem definition, there is significant diverge of opinions on the proper interpretation of the article and reported practices of some Member States not in accordance with EU law. Therefore, a clarification of the provision on the aggregation of periods of insurance, employment and self-employment which enshrined a unique, unmistakable interpretation, could serve as an effective tool to avoid different practices in the application of rules on aggregation of periods.

Periods of insurance, employment and self-employment completed abroad are taken into account for the acquisition, retention, recovery or duration of the rights to unemployment benefits.

When the legislation of the competent Member State makes the entitlement conditional upon the completion of either periods of insurance, employment or self-employment, the competent institution shall take into account periods of insurance, employment or self-employment completed under the legislation of any other Member State as though they were completed under the legislation it applies.

When the applicable legislation makes the entitlement to benefits conditional upon the completion of periods of insurance, the periods of employment or self-employment completed under the legislation of another Member State shall only be taken into account if such periods would have been

149 In the particular case where the applicable legislation makes the right to unemployment benefits conditional on the completion of periods of insurance, the periods of employment or self-employment completed under the legislation of another Member State shall not be taken into account, with one exception: when these periods of employment or self-employment would have been considered to be periods of insurance had they been completed in accordance with the applicable legislation, they shall be considered as periods of insurance and therefore give right to unemployment benefits.

considered to be periods of insurance had they been completed in accordance with the applicable legislation.

Attitude of consulted stakeholders:

The public consultation and the Deloitte online survey did not contain specific questions on the aggregation of periods of insurance, employment and selfemployment.

Concerns about the incorrect application and the lack of clarity of rules included the question of the aggregation of periods of insurance, employment and selfemployment.

The public authorities and other stakeholders consulted were not able to elaborate on the impacts of a clarification of the provisions on aggregation of periods without more details about the content of such clarifications. Member States interpret art.61 Regulation (EC) No.883/2004 i in the light of their own national legislation and their particular circumstances. This results in different interpretations across Member States. While support for a clarification was provided in general terms during the interviews with public officials, they expressed the concern that it could lead to undesired changes in their own practice (imposing an interpretation of the rules that differs to the one they deem appropriate given their national legislation).

7.5.6.1 Impact (increase/reduction) on social security coverage of the insured persons who move within the EU

The impacts are analysed under the consideration that the clarification of the provisions would ensure a consistent interpretation and application of the rules across countries (without implying any change in the way that each Member State considers, under its own legislation, different periods as periods of or equivalent to periods of insurance, employment and self-employment). This consistent understanding and application of the rules would then reflect accurately the desire of the legislator regarding the rights granted to migrant workers and the responsibilities of each Member State involved. It is in accordance with this potential situation the clarification should bring about that the impacts of this options vis-à-vis the baseline scenario are assessed.

Impact on return on contributions

Score: +

The clarification of the provisions on the aggregation of the periods of insurance, employment and self-employment would bring positive effects in terms of the return that migrant workers receive on their contributions. By guaranteeing a consistent application of the rules, the clarification would ensure that no periods that should haven considered for establishing the entitlement to unemployment rights are left aside due to an uneven application of the rules across Member States.

Impact on the reintegration in the labour market of a person

Score: +

By ensuring that unemployed workers receive the level of unemployment benefits they are rightfully entitled to, and that no periods are unduly left aside for determining and calculating such environments, this policy option would have a positive impact on the reintegration of the labour market. In other words, the clarification of the provisions would help to ensure that the support the unemployed person receives, both income and non-income related (including the duration of such supporting measures), that he is rightfully entitled to and that the legislator intended to grant him. As the provisions on unemployment benefits are designed with the objective of providing the unemployed person with the best possible chances to find a job, a consistent application of the provisions on aggregation of periods would help to ensure that he/she receives exactly the support (considered optimal given the different factors the policy makers must consider and weigh) the legislator intended.

7.5.6.2 Impact on administrative costs and administrative burden

Transparency and complexity of the rules

Score: +

The clarification should have a clearly positive impact in terms of transparency and provide as well a certain reduction in complexity of the rules.

Transparency and clarity are complicated when determining the rights an unemployed worker is entitled to when there must be an aggregation of periods of insurance, employment or selfemployment completed abroad because of two factors: the diversity of national systems and the divergence in the interpretation of art.61.

The diversity of national systems would not have an impact in any way by the adoption of this policy option. Member States will continue to regard different periods (periods of employment, of selfemployment, of maternity, of education, of sickness, etc.) in different manners (as periods of or equivalent to periods of insurance, employment of self-employment, or not). This will not be affected by clarifying the provisions on the aggregation of periods.

However, transparency and clarity will be improved by the adoption of a clarification by eliminating the complications introduced by the divergent interpretation and application of the rules. While it might still be to some extent complex for migrant workers to know the benefits they would be entitled to if/when becoming unemployed in different countries due to the importance that the different national systems have, this would not be compounded by an uneven application of the rules across Member States.

Administrative burden on public authorities

Score: +

The clarification is not expected to have significant effects on public authorities’ administrative burden. The number of cases to deal with would not be altered by the clarification, while the majority of the administrative tasks related to the coordination of unemployment benefits would not be affected either (for instance, essentially the same tasks should be carried out regarding the export of unemployment benefits, and well as the reimbursement procedure –amounts might vary-). If any, the impact should be mildly positive, inasmuch as the clarification could bring about a certain decline of communication exchanges between different Member States institutions over contested cases, as well as citizens’ claims or complaints about a potentially incorrect application of the rules.

7.5.6.3 Impact on public finance of the Member States and fair burden sharing

Impact on public finance of Member States

Score: + / -

The adoption of this policy option should not have relevant effects on the public finance of Member States. A clarification of the rules could imply that certain periods unduly left aside for the calculation of unemployment benefits in certain cases would now be taken into account (hence possibly increasing the amount and duration of benefits granted). However, it could also lead to discarding certain periods that are currently taken into account for establish the entitlement to benefits but that should not be considered. In absence of concrete evidence over how the practices of Member States and the amount and type of cases concerned in each of them, the overall impact on the public finance of Member States does not seem clear (in a positive or negative direction) a priori.

Impact on fair sharing of the financial burden

Score: +

The rules should improve the sharing of the financial burden between Member States by clearly and consistently making every country responsible for the provision and payment of exactly the amount of benefits they should be in charge of according to the coordination rules. Member State should not be negatively affected (or, on the contrary, profit) from an uneven application of the rules. The distribution of costs should reflect the balance intended by the legislator.

7.5.6.4 Risk of abuse or misuse of the EU rules

Score: +/-

This policy option should not increase the risk of misuse or abuse of the EU rules decisively. A clarification of the periods of insurance would ensure a reflection of the possibilities and level of protection for workers desired when designing the coordination rules. Better visibility would exist on the benefits workers would be entitled to upon becoming unemployed depending on their country (or countries) of previous and last activity. It could be argued that this clearer view on their rights could be used to identify the cracks of the system and profit from possible unintended comparative advantages made possible by the system. However, it would also enable the workers to better plan and have a more accurate long-term view on their rights if moving and working in different countries. It would also allow public authorities to better identify possible loopholes or unintended consequences in the system (and counter them if necessary).

7.5.6.5 Possible impact on the EU internal market

Score: +

A clarification of the provisions on the aggregation of periods of insurance, employment and selfemployment would help to ensure that migrant workers would not lose their right to acquire, retain or recover their unemployment benefits, of that the duration of the same would not be shortened, as a result of exercising their right of free movement.

In this manner, this policy option would favour labour mobility. Workers would not refrain from moving abroad due to concerns about their entitlement to benefits if becoming unemployed. They would also not see their chances of finding a job –including jobs in other Member States- diminished due to an unduly reduction in their entitlements (stemming from a wrongful application of the aggregation rules). By removing obstacles to labour mobility, this policy option would have a positive impact on the EU internal markets.

7.5.6.6 Impact on the fundamental rights of EU citizens

Score: +

The uneven application of the rules on aggregation of periods of insurance, employment and selfemployment effectively reduces the entitlements of certain unemployed workers. By ensuring a consistent interpretation and application of these rules, the differences among workers across countries would be removed (eliminating, in a sense, a form of discrimination), and would help to uphold the right to social security of the unemployed persons (their entitlements would not be unduly reduced). By guaranteeing unemployed workers the provision of the unemployment benefits they are rightfully entitled to, this policy option would also facilitate their job-seeking activities (including the possibility of finding a job in another country). In this sense, a certain positive effect could be appreciated in the freedom of movement and of residence.

7.5.6.7 Possible impact on the EU budget No impacts on the EU budget are expected as a result of the adoption of this policy option.

7.5.7 Overview of the impact assessed

This section provides an overview of the likely impacts for each of the options. It aims to show strengths and weaknesses of all options.

Table 40: Coordination of unemployment benefits: overview of impact assessed per option

A.Status quo B. Right of C1.UB provided C2. UB provided by D. Prolongation of E. Clarification of provision on (baseline choice for by country of last country of last min. period of aggregation of periods of

scenario) frontier activity (until end activity (limited in export from 3 to 6 insurance/employment/selfworkers of entitlement) time) months employment

Impact on social security coverage of mobile citizens, particularly with regard to:

o return on workers’ contributions 0 + + + +/- +

o conditions for reintegration in labour

market 0 +/- +/- +/- + +

Impact on administrative burden, transparency and complexity of the rules

o transparency - + + + + o complexity 0 - + + +/- +/-

Coordination of

Unemployment o administrative burden on national admin. 0 + + + - +/-

benefits Impact on public finance of MS and fair

burden sharing:

o impact on budget of MS 0 - (+65%) - (42%) - (42%) +/- +/- o fair share of financial burden between MS 0 + + + +/- +

Risk of misuse/abuse of EU rules 0 - - - - +/-

Impact on internal market and intra-EU

labour market mobility 0 + +/- +/- + +

Impact on fundamental rights of EU citizens 0 + + + +/- +

Possible impact on EU budget 0 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/-

8 Comparison of the options

In this chapter, we recollect the key findings of the previous chapter to provide a summary overview of all positive and negative impacts for the policy options that we analysed in detail in the previous chapter. The criteria used for the comparison of the options against the baseline scenario are:

Effectiveness of the options in relation to the specific objectives (cf. Figure 4: Problem tree - coordination of LTC benefits and Figure 5 - Problem tree coordination of unemployment benefits)

Efficiency of the options in achieving the operational objectives and the extent to which objectives can be achieved for a given level of resources/at least cost.

Coherence of the different policy options.

In a first step, we focused on the performance of the options, with regard to their effectiveness with the defined policy objectives, efficiency and coherence with the overarching EU objectives.

We started by scoring the options on the basis of the effectiveness criteria and identifying which options score best on effectiveness i.e. meets the defined objectives best. All specific objectives were considered as equally important (no weighting mechanism was applied, as requested by the

Commission services).

In a second step, we considered the efficiency of the various options, and looked at the costs that are associated with implementation of the policy options. In many cases this has pointed at trade-offs between effectiveness and efficiency that are relevant for the political choices.

Finally, for all options, we have considered all the relevant positive and negative impacts alongside each other, regardless of whether they could be expressed in qualitative, quantitative or monetary terms.

8.1 Coordination of unemployment benefits

8.1.1 Overview

The table below summarizes the expected impact of each option alongside each objective, based on the previous analysis. The notion of effectiveness refers to the Specific Objectives presented in the objective tree (cf. 5.3.8).

One should note that options D and E should be considered as horizontal options, which can be combined with options A, B and/or C.

Table 41: Comparison of the effectiveness, efficiency and coherence of the options (baseline=1)

Option A: Option B: Option C: UB Option D: baseline Right of provided by Prolongatio

Option E:

scenario choice country of last n period of

Clarification of

activity export aggr. rules

Specific objectives

1.

Consistent application of

coordination rules 1 1,5 1,5 1,5 1,5

2.

Simplified legal framework 1 1,5 1,5 1 1

3.

Facilitate reintegration in labour market & improved protection of job 1 1 1 1,5 1,5 seekers abroad

4.

Unemployed mobile workers

receiving return on their contributions 1 1,5 1,5 1 1,5

5.

Fair distribution of financial burden 1 1,5 1,5 1 1,5

6.

High awareness of rights 1 1,5 1,5 1,5 1,5

7.

Rules reflecting current job market

conditions 1 1,5 1,5 1,5 1

Efficiency

Budgetary impact 1 0,5 0,5 1 1

Administrative burden 1 1,5 1,5 0,5 1,5

Coherence 1 1 1 1 1

Total 10 13 13 11,5 13

Legend: 1= no impact (e.g. baseline scenario); 1.5 = positive impact; 0.5 = negative impact. A “1.5” should be interpreted as a positive impact on the impact assessment criterion, whereas a “0.5“ indicates a negative impact on the impact assessment criterion. Be aware that a positive impact on public finance of MS (+) actually reflects an expected decrease in public expenditure. Similarly, a “+”impact on administrative burden actually reflects an expected decrease in the administrative burden on administrations.

Option E (clarification of the rules of aggregation) is generally considered a good option, both in terms of effectiveness and efficiency. However, the positive impact of this option will largely depend on how the aggregation rules will exactly be clarified. All consulted parties are of course in favour of clear aggregation rules and see the benefits of such a clarification, but the question will be what the result will be. In terms of effectiveness, a clarification of the aggregation rules would create higher return on the contributions of migrant workers and enhance the consistent application of the rules. It would ensure that no periods that should haven considered for establishing the entitlement to unemployment rights are left aside. A clarification of the aggregation rules will however not simplify these rules and the diversity of national systems will be continued.

Options C and B are both evaluated as very effective options, capable to address the wider variety of problems that are faced with the coordination of unemployment benefits (Problem definition).

Option C has consistently positive impacts with regard to all specific objectives except for the objective of “facilitate” reintegration in labour market and improve protection of job-seekers abroad”, for which it is not clear whether the option would have a positive or negative impact compared to the baseline scenario”. Transparency will increase and complexity of the rules will be reduced, as it will also be the country of last activity that will be in charge. Furthermore, it is considered as fairer that the country which receives contributions of workers also pays out the unemployment benefits. There is however an important disadvantage linked to the option: although option C is effective, it is expected to have a negative budgetary impact (an increase in expenditure of 43% - cf. 8.1.2) on the Member compared to the baseline scenario.

Also, option B is expected to produce a negative budgetary impact compared to the baseline scenario (and is also costlier than option C – cf. Table 42). However, option B is considered as very effective.

Under option B, unemployed frontier worker are likely to be better off in terms of social protection, as he has a right of choice. It gives frontier workers the possibility to be treated in the same way as their former work colleagues which live in the country of last employment. It is also fairer, as it ensures frontier workers a better return on the workers’ contributions which they have paid in the country of last activity before becoming unemployed. There is a substantial shift of the financial burden directly to the countries of last activity (cf. Table 45).

Option D (export of unemployment benefits for a period of minimum 6 months) is generally evaluated as better than the baseline scenario. There are indications that a prolongation of the period of export could facilitate the reintegration of unemployed in the labour market. Such a prolongation is also likely to stimulate intra-EU labour market mobility. From an administrative point of view, it could however generate higher administrative burden on public authorities, as unemployed abroad need to be followed up over a longer period than currently is the case. Option D can also make an end to the inconsistent application of the export rules by the different EU Member States.

Option A – a continuation of the status quo - is clearly the worst-case scenario in terms of effectiveness. All other options are expected to be more effective in tackling the current problems.

However, the baseline scenario scores better than all other options (except option E) with regard to the efficiency criterion.

8.1.2 Budgetary impacts of the different options and likely reimbursement claims

We aimed to make quantitative estimates of the likely budgetary impacts for the following options: option A (baseline scenario), option B (right of choice for frontier workers – cf. 7.5.3.3) and option C

(unemployment benefits for all workers to be provided by the country of last activity – cf. 7.5.4.3) 150 .

The section below compares the different options with regard to their likely budgetary impacts

(identified in the previous chapter) 151 .

The baseline option A2 is the most realistic under the hypothesis that the unemployed free to choose, choose for the country of the highest benefit 152 . The total cost is estimated at 638 million euro.

150 In order the estimate the budgetary impact of the baseline scenario, the estimated number of unemployed cross-border workers based

on the LFS and the unemployment rates of the Ageing Report was multiplied by the annual unemployment benefit per unemployed person. For each of the flows between Member States (in the different cells) the unemployment benefit of the country of last activity and the unemployment benefit of the country of residence was taken into consideration. The total yearly expenditure is calculated based on the unemployment benefit per unemployed person in prices 2010 taken up in the 2012 Ageing Report as also the estimated unemployed crossborder workers. This yearly expenditure assumes that the unemployed person did not find a job during the first year of unemployment.

A more ‘realistic’ calculation of the yearly expenditure could be obtained by taking into consideration the average duration of the unemployment

151 Budgets are estimated as if the unemployed remain in that situation for a complete year. The reimbursement between countries of last activity and country of residence (if implied) is limited to 3 months.

152 Please note that, because of the fact that unemployed frontier workers must claim unemployment benefits in the country of residence

while unemployed other cross-border workers can choose to claim unemployment benefits in the country of last employment or in the country of residence, an assumption had to be made about how many of them return to the country of residence and how many stay in the country of last activity (assumption 1: 50% of the other unemployed cross-border workers return and 50% stay; assumption 2: cross-border workers make a rational decision and choose the Member States is paying the highest unemployment benefit. The fact that all cross-border workers are able to choose between the country of residence and the country of last activity involves important budgetary uncertainties as

The option B2 confirms the qualitative assessment of the impact on the budget: it increases to 891 million euro. This is a substantial shift from the burden to the country of last activity, considered in the qualitative assessment as a fairer share of the burden.

A somewhat smaller increase of the total burden (to 768 million euro) is observed in option C (in contradiction with the qualitative assessment) putting the burden completely on the country of last activity. For the competent Member States this option is more expensive than option B2 where their burden via direct payment and reimbursement is only 704 million euro.

The difference (at the benefit of the unemployed) would be in option B2 at the expense of a higher fiscal burden for the country of residence because of that freedom of choice

Table 42: Total estimated yearly expenditure unemployment benefits for unemployed cross-border workers (in € 000)

Total yearly paid expenditure in (000€)

Cross Absolute difference % difference Of which: Absolute difference % difference

border baseline baseline frontier baseline baseline workers scenario1 scenario1 workers scenario1 scenario1

Baseline scenarioA1: Frontier workers return; other cross-border workers 50% 539.976 392.351 stay and 50% return

Baseline scenarioA2: Frontier workers return; other cross-border workers 638.464 98.688 18,2% 392.351 0 0% rational decision (=highest amount UB)

Option B1: right of choice: 50% stay and

50% return 624.281 84.306 15,6% 476.657 84.306 21%

Option B2: right of choice: rational 891.583 351.607 65,1% 645.470 253.119 65%

decision (=highest amount UB)

Option C: UB provided by the country of

230.145 42,6% 560.962 168.611 43%

last activity 153

770.121

Option F: UB provided by the country of

residence 478.442 -61.534 -11,4% 392.351 0 0%

* We assume that the unemployed cross-border worker is a complete year unemployed after employment

source: Estimate based on data LFS and 2012 Ageing Report

Table 43: Total estimated yearly expenditure unemployment benefits for unemployed cross-border workers paid by the country of residence (in € 000)

Total yearly paid expenditure by country of residence in (000€)

Absolute Absolute Crossborder

difference

Of which:

frontier difference workers baseline workers baseline

scenario1 scenario1 Baseline scenarioA1: Frontier workers return; other cross-border

workers 50% stay and 50% return 435.396 392.351

Baseline scenarioA2: Frontier workers return; other cross-border

workers rational decision (=highest amount UB) 449.952 14.555 392.351 0

shown in our estimates. Differences in expenditure between the scenario where 50% of the cross-border workers are returning or where cross-border worker are making a rational decision on the basis of the amount of the unemployment benefit are striking. For all different scenarios, a breakdown between the expenditure by the country of residence (table) or the country of last activity (table) is made. We also refer to the cross-table in annex have a view on the bilateral expenditure between countries.

153 No differentiation has been made as regards the impact of options C1 and C2. Respondents to the questionnaire did not make a distinction between these sub options and that no further information related to the entitlement in a Member State was available. As a consequence it had not been possible to make estimations for both options over the period of one year.

Option B1: right of choice: 50% stay and 50% return 239.221 -196.176 196.176 -196.176

Option B2: right of choice: rational decision (=highest amount UB) 238.365 -197.031 180.765 -211.587

Option C: UB provided by the country of last activity 154 0 -435.396 0 -392.351

Option F: UB provided by the country of residence 478.442 43.045 392.351 0

Source: Estimate based on data LFS and 2012 Ageing Report

Table 44: Total estimated yearly expenditure unemployment benefits for unemployed cross-border workers paid by the country of last activity (in € 000)

Total yearly expenditure paid by country of last activity (000€)

Absolute Of which: Cross-border difference frontier Absolute difference

workers baseline workers baseline scenario1

scenario1

Baseline scenarioA1: Frontier workers return; other crossborder

workers 50% stay and 50% return 104.579 0

Baseline scenarioA2: Frontier workers return; other cross 188.512 83.933 0 0

border workers rational decision (=highest amount UB)

Option B1: right of choice: 50% stay and 50% return 385.060 280.481 280.481 280.481

Option B2: right of choice: rational decision (=highest

amount UB) 653.218 548.639 464.706 464.706

Option C: UB provided by the country of last activity 155 770.121 665.542 560.962 560.962

Option F: UB provided by the country of residence 0 -104.579 0 0

Source: Estimate based on data LFS and 2012 Ageing Report

Table 45: Total estimated yearly expenditure unemployment benefits for unemployed cross-border workers - % proportion country of residence vs. country of last activity

% proportion country of residence vs. country of last activity

Cross-border workers Of which: frontier workers

Country of Country of last Total Country of Country of Total

residence activity residence last activity

Baseline scenarioA1: Frontier workers return; other cross-border workers 50% 81% 19% 100% 100% 0% 100% stay and 50% return

Baseline scenarioA2: Frontier workers return; other cross-border workers rational 70% 30% 100% 100% 0% 100% decision (=highest amount UB)

Option B1: right of choice: 50% stay and

50% return 38% 62% 100% 41% 59% 100%

Option B2: right of choice: rational decision 27% 73% 100% 28% 72% 100%

(=highest amount UB)

Option C: UB provided by the country of

0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 100%

last activity 156

Option F: UB provided by the country of

residence 100% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100%

Source: Estimate based on data LFS and 2012 Ageing Report

154 ibidem

155 ibidem

156 ibidem

The unemployment benefits paid by the country of residence and the country of last activity do not completely reflect the burden sharing of unemployment benefits. Also the amounts of reimbursement should be taken into account. For that reason Table 42 concerning the estimated yearly expenditure on unemployment benefits for unemployed cross-border workers should be read together with Table 46 dealing with the estimated reimbursement claims to assess who is sharing the burden of unemployment.

Claims can be made by the country of residence to the country of last activity for fully unemployed frontier workers but also for other cross-border workers who have decided to register with the competent institution in their country of residence. The country of last activity shall reimburse the unemployed benefits provided in the country of residence during the first three months or five months (when the unemployed person during the preceding 24 months, completed at least 12 months of (self)-employment in the country of last activity). In our estimates, we have supposed a claim of 3 months.

The baseline scenario A1 whereby frontier workers have to return to the country of residence and other cross-border workers can choose between the country of residence or the country of last activity involves a claim of € 108.8 million of which € 98.1 million for frontier workers when we assume that 50% of the other cross-border workers return to their country of residence. However, these claims are based on the unemployment benefits paid by the country of residence and not on the maximum payable amount by the country of last activity. It implies for this baseline scenario that the reimbursement will be 24% lower than the possible actual claim (see baseline scenario A1a). If other cross-border workers are making a rational decision on the basis of the amount of the unemployment benefit (baseline scenario A2a) the claim will decrease with 4% compared to the baseline scenario A1a whereby 50% of the other cross-border workers are returning to their country of residence.

The option whereby frontier workers also have the choice (option B) will decrease the reimbursement claims with 45% - for both scenarios (equal distinction and rational choice) compared to the baseline scenario a1. The actual reimbursement will be lower based on the maximum amount of unemployment benefits of the country of last activity (Table 100, Table 101 & Table 102).

If the unemployment benefit would be provided by the country of last activity (Option C) no reimbursements would be claimed by the country of residence.

Table 46: Estimated reimbursement claims (scenario 3 months) for the baseline scenario and the different options and the impact of the maximum boundary, in € 000

Reimbursement claims (3 months) (000€)

Cross-border Absolute difference % difference Of which: frontier Absolute difference % difference

workers baseline scenario1a baseline scenario1a workers baseline scenario1a baseline scenario1a

Baseline scenarioA1a: Frontier workers return; other cross-border workers 50% stay and 50% return: Claim (based on UB country of 108.849 98.088 residence)

Baseline scenarioA1b: Frontier workers return; other cross-border workers 50% stay and 50% return: Actual reimbursement (based on 82.891 -25.959 -24% 76.749 -21.339 -22% maximum amount country of last activity)

Baseline scenarioA2a: Frontier workers return; other cross-border workers rational decision (=highest amount UB): Claim (based on UB 112.488 3.639 3% 98.088 0 -8% country of residence)

Baseline scenarioA2b: Frontier workers return; other cross-border workers rational decision (=highest amount UB): Actual reimbursement 82.122 -26.727 -25% 76.961 -21.127 -22% (based on maximum amount country of last activity)

Option B1a: right of choice: 50% stay and 50% return: Claim (based on

UB country of residence) 59.805 -49.044 -45% 49.044 -49.044 -50%

Option B1b: right of choice: 50% stay and 50% return: Actual

reimbursement (based on maximum amount country of last activity) 44.622 -64.227 -59% 38.480 -59.607 -61%

Option B2a: right of choice: rational decision (=highest amount UB):

Claim (based on UB country of residence) 59.591 -49.258 -45% 45.191 -52.897 -54%

Option B2b: right of choice: rational decision (=highest amount UB):

Actual reimbursement (based on maximum amount country of last 52.391 -56.458 -52% 45.191 -52.897 -54% activity)

Option Ca: UB provided by the country of last activity 0 -108.849 -100% 0 -98.088 -100%

Option Fa: UB provided by the country of residence: Claim (based on

UB country of residence) 119.610 10.761 10% 98.088 0 0%

Option Fb: UB provided by the country of residence: Actual

reimbursement (based on maximum amount country of last activity) 89.245 -19.604 -18% 76.961 -21.127 -22%

Source: Estimate based on data LFS and 2012 Ageing Report

In Table 47 we summarize the budgetary impact of the baseline scenario and options B and C. It is the total level of expenditure for unemployment benefits for some 73.7 thousand estimated unemployed cross-border workers of which 45.2 thousand frontier workers. We do not comment on the hypothesis that for those that can choose between the country of residence or the country of last activity to take up the unemployment benefit, 50% choose for the one or the other alternative, but we immediately look to the scenario that each group that can choose, will make a rational decision by choosing the place with the highest benefit. Total expenditures for unemployment are calculated for one year, implicitly assuming that all concerned persons stay unemployed for one year what is of course not the case. The reimbursement between country of residence and competent country of part of this unemployment benefit is calculated on 3 months. For the Baseline scenario A2 this results in a total budgetary cost of € 638 million, of which € 450 million for the country of residence and € 188 million in the country of last activity. All those amounts are calculated for a whole year. Of this total expenditure the country of last activity reimbursed € 105 million (calculated on 3 months) and € 82 million when taking into account limits in the reimbursement. Option B2 where all crossborders have right to choose and will choose for the highest amount, the total expenditures increases to € 890 million, what illustrates a higher level of protection (benefit). There is a substantial shift of taking up the unemployment benefit in the country of last activity, and this is also illustrated by a substantial shift of direct payment of those benefits by the country of last activity. Their direct payment (again calculated on one year) increases to € 652 million. On the contrary there is a reduction (calculated on 3 months) of their reimbursement. In option C the unemployment benefit is completely taken up in the country of last activity, what reduces somewhat the total cost to € 768 million (in scenario B2 one could choose for a higher benefit in the country of residence), while the burden is completely situated in those countries of last activity. There is no reimbursement needed. Option F, not under scrutiny in this assessment, illustrates the impact when the unemployment is taken up in the country of residence, what implies a substantial reduction of the budgetary cost and an important reimbursement. Remarks that the reimbursement is always 3/12 of the amount spend in the country of residence. The budgetary results of those scenarios are determined by the difference in average benefit between country of residence and country of last activity, seemingly in most of the cases higher in the country of last activity. This is not unexpected since those differences in benefit reflect also differences in income that triggers cross-border mobility.

Table 47: Summary estimated yearly expenditure on unemployment benefits and estimated reimbursement claims (in million €)

Total yearly expenditure Total yearly expenditure Total yearly expenditure by country of residence by country of last activity Reimbursement from country of last activity to country of

(millions €) (millions €) (millions €) residence(3 months) (millions €) Of which: Of which: Of which:

Cross-border frontier Cross-border frontier Cross-border frontier workers workers workers workers workers workers Cross-border workers Of which: frontier workers (b) Actual (b) Actual (a) reimbursement (a) reimbursement Reimbursement based on Reimbursement based on based on UB maximum based on UB maximum country of amount country country of amount country residence of last activity residence of last activity

Baseline scenario A1: Frontier workers return; other cross-border workers 50% stay and 50% return 539 392 435 392 104 0 109 83 98 77

Baseline scenario A 2: Frontier workers return; other cross-border workers rational decision (=highest amount UB) 638 392 450 392 188 0 105 82 90 77 Option B1: right of choice: 50% stay and

50% return 623 476 239 196 384 280 60 45 49 38 Option B2: right of choice: rational decision (=highest amount UB) 890 644 239 181 652 464 60 52 45 45 Option C: UB provided by the country of last activity 768 560 0 0 768 560 0 0 0 0 Option F: UB provided by the country of residence 478 392 478 392 0 0 120 89 98 77

Source: Estimate based on data LFS and 2012 Ageing Report

8.1.3 Administrative cost and burden of rules related to the aggregation of periods of insurance or (self-)employment

In Table 48 we now calculate for the same group of 73.7 thousand unemployed cross-border workers the administrative implications. There are 45.2 thousand frontier workers and 28.5 other crossborder workers. In the baseline scenario only the latter are allowed to choose the country on taking up the unemployment benefit. 22.2 thousand of them choose the country of last activity in the hypothesis that they choose for the highest unemployment benefit. The rest of the other crossborder workers take the unemployment benefit in the country of residence, as is also the case for the frontier workers. The sum of those two groups is 51.4 thousand persons who take up their benefit in the country of residence. For this 51.4 thousand cross-border workers a reimbursement between the country of residence and the country of last activity needs to be organised. In option B2, where all cross-border workers can choose, and choose for the highest benefit, the number of persons taking up the benefit in the country of last activity increases to 55.2 thousand cross-border workers. The rest of this group, some 18.5 thousand persons, receives an unemployment benefit of the country of residence, at that level, but reimbursed by the competent state for three months. In scenario C all 73.7 thousand persons are paid in the country of last activity, and no reimbursement is claimed.

Again some stylized estimates can be made on the administrative burden. Only anecdotic information on the average cost of this administrative burden was available. Based on this information we suppose first of all that in the country where the unemployment benefit is paid, an average handling time of the cases of two hours, or € 40, is required. On top of that, when there is payment in the country of residence there is an administrative burden of some € 42.8 for the handling of a PD U1 in the country of residence and some € 20 (our hypothesis) in the country of last activity. On top of that there is in those cases in the country of residence and in the country of last activity a handling time for introducing a reimbursement claim and the settling of it. We suppose the same stylised estimate of € 20 in both countries. Multiplying this standard cost (in reality this cost can differ between the countries because of differences in organisation, productivity and wages) with the total number of cases provides us the total administrative cost in the country of residence and the country of last activity, for the payment of a benefit, including the control of the unemployed person, and the cost of reimbursement. In Table 49 those amounts are calculated, and compared with the total budgetary cost of the unemployment benefits. Remember that the total amount of benefits is estimated on a yearly basis, while reimbursement on 3 months. In the baseline scenario the total administrative burden is € 8.3 million of which € 5.2 million in the countries of residence. This is 64% of the total administrative cost and this is a very similar % of the 71% of the budgetary cost. The share of the total administrative burden in the total budgetary burden is some 1.3%. It could be compared with the average administrative cost in the unemployment insurance.

How does this burden shift in the two other options? In option B2, characterized by the way by a substantial increase of the total budgetary cost compared to the baseline scenario, the administrative burden is reduced to € 4.8 million in total, of which € 1.9 million for the country of residence or 27% of the total. Compared to the baseline cost this is a reduction to 59% of the baseline amount. This again is similar to the share of those countries in the total budgetary cost. For the countries of last activity the direct cost of handling the unemployment benefit increases substantially, but the costs for handling a PD U1 and for the reimbursements is substantially reduced, by the way also in the country of residence. The relative cost of the administrative cost to the total budgetary cost is 0.5 %.

In the option C the administrative burden is further reduced to 36% of the baseline scenario, or

€ 2.9 million. This burden is completely situated in the country of last activity, but under the present hypothesis of standard costs, this is not even more expensive because all cases of payment are threated in the country of last activity, but there are no costs for exchange of a PD U1 or reimbursements to be made. The total budgetary burden shifts however completely in the direction of the country of last activity.

We underline that those calculations risk to be speculative in the sense that first of all the number of cases is estimated, but also the behaviour of the unemployed, the spell of unemployment, the administrative burden, all are not controlled in those calculations or are defined as standard stylized estimates. For instance the use of a PD U1 is sometimes not taking into account for those specific cross-border situations, where in fact the unemployed is supposed to have worked only in the country of last activity. In the case that he worked in two countries, already a PD U1 might be needed for other reasons than the cross-border situation under consideration.

The different options illustrate that the option where the unemployed person can choose is the most expensive in terms of budgetary cost, what implies however higher levels of social protections, while the payment in country of last activity is the least expensive in administrative terms, but puts the burden completely on the country of last activity. The baseline scenario is relative limited in budgetary terms but seems to be the most expensive in administrative terms.

Table 48: Estimated number of unemployed cross-border workers and country responsible for payment and reimbursement

Administrative cost PD U1 (numbers in thousand) Administrative reimbursement cost (numbers in thousand)

Country of residence Country of last activity Country of residence Country of last activity Numbers

(in thousand) Issuing Receiving Issuing Receiving Direct paying Reimbursement Direct paying Reimbursement Total cross-border workers 73,7

Baseline scenario * Frontier workers 45,2 * Other cross-border workers 28,5

Number of unemployed cross-border workers Total cross-border workers 18,5 where benefit in country of residence is * Frontier workers 12,3 higher than in country of last activity * Other cross-border workers 6,2

Number of unemployed cross-border workers Total cross-border workers 55,2 where benefit in country of last activity is * Frontier workers 32,9 higher than in country of residence * Other cross-border workers 22,2

Baseline scenario2: Frontier workers return; UB Residence 51,4 51,4 51,4 51,4 51,4 51,4

other cross-border workers rational decision UB Last activity 22,2 Not automatically applicable 22,2

(=highest amount UB) Total 73,7

Reimbursement 51,4 UB Last activity 18,5 18,5 18,5 18,5 18,5 18,5

Option B2: right of choice: rational decision UB Competent 55,2 Not automatically applicable 55,2 (=highest amount UB) Total 73,7

Reimbursement 18,5 UB Residence 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

Option C: UB provided by the country of last UB Last activity 73,7 Not automatically applicable 73,7 activity Total 73,7

Reimbursement 0,0

Source: Estimate based on data from LFS and the 2012 Ageing Report

Table 49: Estimated administrative cost aggregation of periods of insurance of (self-)employment

Country of residence Country of last activity Direct paying Reimbursement Direct paying Reimbursement

Administrative unit cost Control unemployed € 40,0 € 40,0 U1 € 42,8 € 20,0 Reimbursement € 20,0 € 20,0 Total administrative unit cost - UB Residence € 82,8 € 20,0 € 40,0 Total administrative unit cost - UB Last activity € 40,0

Administrative cost Baseline scenario2: Frontier workers return; other cross-border workers

rational decision (=highest amount UB) UB Residence € 4.258.153 € 1.028.539 € 0 € 2.057.079 UB Last activity € 0 € 0 € 889.488 € 0 Administrative cost € 5.286.692 € 2.946.567 Grand total € 8.233.259

% cost country of residence in total administrative cost 64% Estimated annual expenditure UB (in millions) € 450 € 188 Grand total annual expenditure UB (in millions) € 638 % country of residence in total budgetary cost 71% Administrative cost as % of budgetary cost 1,3% Estimated reimbursement (in millions) € 82 Option B2: right of choice: rational decision (=highest amount UB) UB Residence € 1.530.093 € 369.588 € 0 € 739.175 UB Last activity € 0 € 0 € 2.207.391 € 0 Administrative cost € 1.899.681 € 2.946.567 Grand total € 4.846.248 As % of baseline scenario 59% % cost country of residence in total administrative cost 39% Estimated annual expenditure UB (in millions) € 239 € 652 Grand total annual expenditure UB (in millions) € 891 % country of residence in total budgetary cost 27% Administrative cost as % of budgetary cost 0,5% Estimated reimbursement (in millions) € 52 Option C: UB provided by the country of last activity UB Residence € 0 € 0 € 0 € 0 UB Last activity € 0 € 0 € 2.946.567 € 0 Administrative cost € 0 € 2.946.567 Grand total € 2.946.567 As % of baseline scenario 36% % cost country of residence in total administrative cost 0% Estimated annual expenditure UB (in millions) € 0 € 768 Grand total annual expenditure UB (in millions) € 768 % country of residence in total budgetary cost 0% Administrative cost as % of budgetary cost 0,4% Estimated reimbursement (in millions) € 0

Source: Estimate based on data from LFS, 2012 Ageing Report, input from the work shops

8.2 Coordination of LTC benefits

8.2.1 Overview

Table 50: Comparison of the effectiveness of the options (baseline scenario = 1)

Option B: Option C1.1: Option C1.2: MS of

Option A: Safe MS of residence residence provides

Option C2:

baseline guarding provides LTC LTC benefits

Competent

provision benefits (with (without

MS provides

supplement) supplement) LTC benefits

Specific objectives

1.

Fair distribution of financial

burden between MS 1 1 0,5 0,5 1,5

2.

Rules taking into account the

specific character of LTC benefits 1 1 1 1 1

3.

Facilitating classification of LTC

benefits under EU law 1 1 1 1 1

4.

Improve legal certainty and

stability of coordination regime 1 1,5 0,5 1,5 1,5

5.

Improved protection of mobile

citizens 1 1,5 1,5 1,5 1,5

6.

High awareness of rights on

side of mobile persons 1 0,5 1 1,5 1,5

Efficiency

Budgetary impact 1 1 1,5 1,5 0,5

Administrative burden on

administrations 1 0,5 0,5 0,5 1,5

Coherence 1 1 1 1 1

Total 9 9 8,5 10 11

Legend: 1= no impact (e.g. baseline scenario); 1.5 = positive impact; 0.5 = negative impact

Option C2 – the competent Member State provides the LTC benefits to mobile citizens abroad – is rated as the most effective option, most capable of tackling today’s challenges of the coordination regime. It is expected to create a more stable and transparent coordination regime with a fairer distribution of the financial burden between Member States. However, it is considered as an option with also a likely negative budgetary impact (+28% compared to the baseline scenario).

Option C.1.2 generally comes out as a rather effective option. It is expected to generate a positive budgetary impact on the Member States (19% less costly than the baseline scenario) and to create a more stable and legally certain coordination regime, however with a relatively higher administrative burden (in relation to the number of cases and compared to the baseline scenario).

The main advantage of option B lies in the fact that it would ensure that all the mobile persons are protected: they would always be entitled to LTC benefits. However, the option is likely to create more administrative burden compared to the baseline scenario and would also less clear than the status quo.

Option A – a continuation of the status quo - is not seen as the worst-case scenario, despite the problems described earlier in this report. Option C1.1 which includes a supplement mechanism is expected to produce more negative impacts than the baseline scenario. Supplements require an increased exchange of communication and more coordination between Member States. Furthermore, it does not guarantee a more stable and legally certain framework. Option C.1.1 however is expected to have a positive budgetary impact compared to the baseline scenario.

8.2.2 Budgetary impact of the different options

Earlier in this report (cf. Table 24) , we have estimated the cross-border expenditure on health care and long-term care with a distinction between LTC benefits in cash and in kind for the baseline scenario.

The overall, current budget expenditure on LTC is estimated at € 994.7 million of which € 618.3 million (62% of total budget) is related to LTC benefits in kind and € 376.4 million (38% of total budget) is related to LTC benefits in cash (Table 24). Compared to total national expenditure of LTC, the share of the cross-border LTC expenditure is limited to 0.4% of total EU expenditure or 0.008% of total GDP of the EU-27.

Option C1 whereby the Member State of residence shall provide LTC benefits (in kind and in cash) on the basis of its legislation is expected to imply a total expenditure of € 810.1 million or a decrease of 19% compared to the baseline scenario (positive budgetary impact). In this option the expenditure on LTC benefits in kind shall be the same as in the baseline scenario, namely € 618.3 million. The LTC benefits in cash shall be provided on the basis of the legislation of the country of residence and no

longer on this of the competent country. 157 This switch results in an expenditure on LTC benefits in

cash of € 191.9 million or a decrease of 49% compared to the baseline scenario.

Option C2 whereby the competent Member State shall provide LTC benefits (in kind and in cash) on the basis of its legislation implies a total expenditure of € 1.3 billion or an increase of 28% compared to the baseline scenario (negative budgetary impact). In this option the expenditure on LTC benefits in cash shall be the same as in the baseline scenario, namely € 376.4 million. LTC benefits in kind shall be provided on the basis of the legislation of the competent Member State and no longer on this of the country of residence. The result is an increase of expenditure on LTC benefits in kind to € 900.3 million or an increase of 46% compared to the baseline scenario.

157 The ‘real life’ dimension of this option is illustrated by the growing discussion in the Netherlands that the ‘in cash’ LTC expenditures exported to other countries should not be adopted to the cost of living (or care) in those countries, as is the case when benefits in kind are used.

Table 51: Estimated number of cross-border users benefiting from LTC (in thousand) and budget (in million €), Option where competent country is providing LTC benefits

In kind In cash In total Numbers (in thousand) Budget (in million €) Numbers (in thousand) Budget (in million €) Numbers (in thousand) Budget (in million €) Resident Competent Resident Competent Resident Competent Resident Competent Resident Competent Resident Competent Country state state state state state state state state state state state state BE 7 6 142 70 4 3 49 16 12 9 191 86 BG 1 0 10 0 1 0 4 0 2 0 14 0 CZ 1 2 14 4 1 2 7 8 2 4 21 11 DK 0 2 6 59 0 1 1 49 1 4 8 109 DE 9 10 159 115 7 5 72 53 17 15 231 168 EE 1 0 22 0 1 0 3 0 2 0 25 0 IE 1 0 9 11 1 1 4 0 1 1 13 11 GR 0 1 1 5 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 6 ES 3 1 49 11 3 1 20 2 6 2 69 13 FR 10 2 164 56 5 3 39 11 14 5 203 66 IT 1 3 17 45 1 5 6 37 2 8 23 82 CY 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 LV 0 0 5 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 7 0 LT 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 LU 0 4 3 151 0 1 1 16 0 5 4 166 HU 3 0 31 1 3 1 19 2 6 1 50 2 MT 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 NL 2 12 17 183 1 5 6 92 2 17 22 276 AT 2 6 19 48 1 9 9 50 3 15 29 98 PL 5 0 70 1 3 1 32 1 8 1 102 1 PT 0 0 7 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 8 0 RO 3 0 42 0 4 0 28 0 7 0 70 0 SI 0 0 4 1 1 0 4 0 1 0 8 1 SK 5 0 41 0 6 0 30 0 11 0 70 0 FI 0 1 3 25 0 2 0 4 0 3 4 28 SE 2 1 44 32 1 1 34 1 3 2 78 33 UK 1 4 15 84 1 5 4 33 2 10 19 117 EU27 58 58 900 900 45 45 376 377 103 103 1 277 1 277

Source: Estimate based on data from LFS, 2012 Ageing Report and Lipszyck, B., Sail, E. & Xavier, A. (2012), Long-term care: need, use and expenditure in the EU-27, EU.

Table 52: Estimated number of cross-border users benefiting from LTC (in thousand) and budget (in million €), Option where country of residence is providing

LTC benefits

In kind In cash In total Numbers (in thousand) Budget (in million €) Numbers (in thousand) Budget (in million €) Numbers (in thousand) Budget (in million €) Resident Competent Resident Competent Resident Competent Resident Competent Resident Competent Resident Competent Country state state state state state state state state state state state state BE 13 3 139 58 6 3 33 17 19 6 172 75 BG 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 CZ 1 2 2 6 1 1 3 3 2 3 5 9 DK 0 2 11 55 0 1 9 4 1 3 20 59 DE 7 9 82 120 3 11 38 50 11 20 120 170 EE 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 IE 0 1 9 7 1 1 0 3 1 1 9 10 GR 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 5 ES 2 1 18 14 1 1 4 4 3 2 22 18 FR 7 3 172 37 8 2 32 12 15 5 204 49 IT 1 4 13 25 1 2 11 6 2 6 24 32 CY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LV 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 LT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LU 0 7 5 104 0 4 1 25 0 11 5 130 HU 1 1 2 3 2 0 5 1 4 1 8 5 MT 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 NL 2 7 36 73 1 4 18 23 3 11 54 97 AT 2 3 19 27 4 3 19 14 6 6 38 41 PL 1 1 5 7 6 0 6 3 7 1 11 10 PT 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 RO 2 0 6 2 1 0 0 1 4 0 6 3 SI 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 4 1 SK 3 0 5 1 2 0 1 2 5 1 7 3 FI 0 1 3 4 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 6 SE 3 1 73 8 1 1 3 4 4 1 76 12 UK 1 4 13 55 1 4 5 14 2 8 18 69 EU27 48 48 618 618 41 41 192 192 89 89 810 810

Source: Estimate based on data from LFS, 2012 Ageing Report and Lipszyck, B., Sail, E. & Xavier, A. (2012), Long-term care: need, use and expenditure in the EU-27, EU. and additional data delivered by DG ECFIN

Table 53: Estimated budgetary impact as debtor of baseline scenario and options where country of residence or competent country are providing LTC benefits, breakdown LTC benefits in cash and in kind, in .000 €

DEBTOR Baseline scenario Competent country Country of residence In kind In cash Total In kind In cash Total In kind In cash Total BE 58.064 16.538 74.602 69.829 16.538 86.368 58.064 16.865 74.929 BG 1.574 64 1.638 36 64 100 1.574 897 2.470 CZ 6.179 7.434 13.613 3.927 7.434 11.361 6.179 2.651 8.831 DK 54.521 49.202 103.723 59.331 49.202 108.533 54.521 4.189 58.710 DE 120.077 52.782 172.860 114.948 52.782 167.730 120.077 50.201 170.278 EE 715 54 769 33 54 87 715 52 767 IE 7.479 0 7.479 10.889 0 10.889 7.479 2.684 10.163 EL 3.732 1.607 5.339 4.638 1.607 6.245 3.732 1.415 5.147 ES 13.938 2.292 16.230 11.133 2.292 13.425 13.938 4.408 18.346 FR 37.403 10.440 47.843 55.885 10.440 66.325 37.403 11.955 49.358 IT 25.015 36.973 61.988 45.141 36.973 82.114 25.015 6.437 31.452 CY 263 181 444 12 181 193 263 118 381 LV 53 8 61 35 8 43 53 28 81 LT 60 17 77 74 17 91 60 36 96 LU 104.120 15.256 119.377 150.866 15.256 166.122 104.120 25.372 129.493 HU 3.383 1.586 4.969 711 1.586 2.297 3.383 1.206 4.589 MT 638 0 638 129 0 129 638 189 827 NL 73.246 93.099 166.346 182.590 93.099 275.690 73.246 23.346 96.592 AT 26.614 49.760 76.374 47.961 49.760 97.721 26.614 14.090 40.705 PL 7.341 571 7.913 556 571 1.127 7.341 2.671 10.013 PT 2.671 0 2.671 476 0 476 2.671 516 3.187 RO 1.979 4 1.983 228 4 231 1.979 1.188 3.167 SI 572 304 876 516 304 819 572 555 1.127 SK 1.270 75 1.345 330 75 405 1.270 1.504 2.773 FI 4.421 3.460 7.881 24.556 3.460 28.017 4.421 1.458 5.879 SE 7.948 1.360 9.308 31.618 1.360 32.978 7.948 4.144 12.092 UK 55.003 33.314 88.317 83.879 33.314 117.193 55.003 13.681 68.685 EU27 618.281 376.381 994.662 900.327 376.381 1.276.709 618.281 191.857 810.137 Source: Estimate based on data from LFS, 2012 Ageing Report and Lipszyck, B., Sail, E. & Xavier, A. (2012), Long-term care: need, use and expenditure in the EU-27, EU. and additional data delivered by DG ECFIN

Table 54: Estimated % difference with baseline scenario (=100%) of options where country of residence or competent country are providing LTC benefits, breakdown LTC benefits in cash and in kind, by debtor country

DEBTOR Baseline scenario Competent country Country of residence In kind In cash Total In kind In cash Total In kind In cash Total BE 100% 100% 100% 120% 100% 116% 100% 102% 100% BG 100% 100% 100% 2% 100% 6% 100% 1401% 151% CZ 100% 100% 100% 64% 100% 83% 100% 36% 65% DK 100% 100% 100% 109% 100% 105% 100% 9% 57% DE 100% 100% 100% 96% 100% 97% 100% 95% 99% EE 100% 100% 100% 5% 100% 11% 100% 96% 100% IE 100% 100% 146% 146% 100% 136% EL 100% 100% 100% 124% 100% 117% 100% 88% 96% ES 100% 100% 100% 80% 100% 83% 100% 192% 113% FR 100% 100% 100% 149% 100% 139% 100% 115% 103% IT 100% 100% 100% 180% 100% 132% 100% 17% 51% CY 100% 100% 100% 5% 100% 43% 100% 65% 86% LV 100% 100% 100% 67% 100% 71% 100% 367% 134% LT 100% 100% 100% 123% 100% 118% 100% 209% 124% LU 100% 100% 100% 145% 100% 139% 100% 166% 108% HU 100% 100% 100% 21% 100% 46% 100% 76% 92% MT 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 130% NL 100% 100% 100% 249% 100% 166% 100% 25% 58% AT 100% 100% 100% 180% 100% 128% 100% 28% 53% PL 100% 100% 100% 8% 100% 14% 100% 468% 127% PT 100% 100% 18% 18% 100% 119% RO 100% 100% 100% 11% 100% 12% 100% 32385% 160% SI 100% 100% 100% 90% 100% 94% 100% 183% 129% SK 100% 100% 100% 26% 100% 30% 100% 2004% 206% FI 100% 100% 100% 555% 100% 355% 100% 42% 75% SE 100% 100% 100% 398% 100% 354% 100% 305% 130% UK 100% 100% 100% 152% 100% 133% 100% 41% 78% EU27 100% 100% 100% 146% 100% 128% 100% 51% 81%

Source: Estimate based on data from LFS, 2012 Ageing Report and Lipszyck, B., Sail, E. & Xavier, A. (2012), Long-term care: need, use and expenditure in the EU-27, EU and additional data delivered by DG ECFIN.

8.2.3 Administrative cost and burden of cross-border LTC in kind or in cash

The number of cases is multiplied by some standard stylized estimated cost per case. Standard because we use for each country the same cost, stylized because round figures are used and estimated because we have only partial and anecdotic information for two countries, Belgium and Poland. Those parameters can however easily be changed in this kind of calculations when more solid information becomes available. Stylized is also the fact that we do not reproduce all administrative steps for this kind of benefits: the intake of the patient, the decision process to allocate a benefit, the administrative burden to pay a patient, to claim in needed the reimbursement, to verify the entitlements, to reimburse, or claim reimbursement of some of the administrative burden etc. Here we make the hypothesis that in the country of residence the administrative burden for the intake for a benefit in kind is € 60, as it is also € 60 for the benefit in cash. This intake is here to take place in the country of residence, although situations are thinkable that people were already entitled to this benefit before they moved (as a pensioner for instance) from the previous country of residence to a new one. In the case of a benefit in kind also in the competent state an additional cost needs to be made for the handling of this process. On top of that for the payment in kind, based on the level of the country of residence and organised in the country of residence, a reimbursement process is needed, here supposed at € 20 euro per case, triggering at the same time a similar cost in the competent country. Multiplying those standard costs with the number of cases results to an average administrative cost for the in kind cases of € 4.8 million, and € 3.6 million for the in cash cases. The % of this administrative cost to the total budgetary cost is some 0.8% for the in kind benefits, and 1.0% for the in cash benefits. The grand total is some 0.9 % of which the major part of the administrative burden is at the expense of the country of residence while the budgetary cost is completely to be paid or reimbursed by the competent country.

In Option C 1.2 all calculations for the in kind benefits remain the same. The in cash benefits are now however defined at the % of use and the level of spending of the country of residence. The particularities of our sources reveal that less persons (now some 41 thousand) are using LTC in cash, but the average amount is higher (those countries of residence have in most of the cases a less developed level of protection for this social risk of LTC) so that the total budget for in cash is reduced to € 192 million and the total becomes € 810 million. The administrative burden for LTC in cash is somewhat lower (or 91% of the baseline scenario) but compared to a lower needed budgetary cost, the share of the administrative burden in the total budget for LTC in cash is enlarged to 1.7%.

In option C 2 there is no change in the baseline scenario for the in cash benefits, but now the entitlements as well number of cases and the average spending for the in kind benefits is defined on the level of the competent country. Those systems are better developed in the competent states and we see the number of cases increasing to 58 thousand, and the total budget to € 900 million. For reason of this increased number of cases also the administrative burden for the in kind LTC increases to € 5.8 million (or 120 % of the baseline situation) while the relative share of the administrative cost to the total budgetary cost for in kind LTC declines to 0.6%. The total budgetary cost is in this option C2 some € 1.277 million, or the highest amount, illustrating higher levels of social protection, tailored at the size of the competent state. In those scenario’s they also will have to pay it, either directly or via reimbursement.

Table 55: Estimated administrative cost and burden baseline scenario and options where country of residence or competent country are providing LTC benefits

Unit administrative cost In kind In cash In kind In cash In total Resident Competent Resident Competent Resident Competent Resident Competent Resident Competent Country state state state state state state state state state state

Baseline scenario Number of users (in thousand) 48 48 45 45 93 93 Administrative cost assessment (in thousand € - except unit cost) 60 60 20 2.892 2.700 900 5.580 Administrative cost reimbursement (in thousand € - except unit cost) 20 20 964 964 1.860 1.860 Total (in thousand €) 3.856 964 2.700 900 7.440 1.860 Grand total (in thousand €) 4.820 3.600 9.300 Budget (in million €) 618 618 376 376 995 995 As share of budget for benefits 0,6% 0,2% 0,7% 0,2% 0,7% 0,2%

0,8% 1,0% 0,9% Scenario number of users and benefit on level of country of residence

Number of users (in thousand) 48 48 41 41 89 89 Administrative cost assessment (in thousand € - except unit cost) 60 60 20 2.892 2.460 820 5.340

Administrative cost reimbursement (in thousand € - except unit cost) 20 20 964 964 1.780 1.780 Total (in thousand €) 3.856 964 2.460 820 7.120 1.780 Grand total (in thousand €) 4.820 3.280 8.900 As % of Baseline scenario 100% 91% 96% Budget (in million €) 618 618 192 192 810 810 As share of budget for benefits 0,6% 0,2% 1,3% 0,4% 0,9% 0,2%

0,8% 1,7% 1,1% Scenario number of users and benefit on level of competent country

Number of users (in thousand) 58 58 45 45 103 103 Administrative cost assessment (in thousand € - except unit cost) 60 60 20 3.470 2.700 900 6.180

Administrative cost reimbursement (in thousand € - except unit cost) 20 20 1.157 1.157 2.060 2.060 Total (in thousand €) 4.626 1.157 2.700 900 8.240 2.060 Grand total (in thousand €) 5.783 3.600 10.300 As % of Baseline scenario 120% 100% 111% Budget (in million €) 900 900 376 376 1.277 1.277 As share of budget for benefits 0,5% 0,1% 0,7% 0,2% 0,6% 0,2%

0,6% 1,0% 0,8%

Source: Estimate based on data from LFS, 2012 Ageing Report, additional data delivered by DG ECFIN input from the work shops

9 Summary of the conclusions

9.1 Introduction

The objective of this study consisted in evaluating the social and economic impacts of a number of policy options in the light of a possible revision of the EU coordination rules in the area of free movements of workers and social security coordination. These rules concern in particularly Article 21, 45 and 48 of the Treaty and Regulations (EC) N°s 883/2004 and 987/2009. The study focused specifically on the rules on the coordination of LTC benefits and unemployment benefits.

This preparatory study may lead to an impact assessment and thus aimed to produce transparent and reliable evidence for the European Commission, in order to help it to choose the appropriate policy option(s).

The data collection and data analysis was focused on a representative sample of 14 Member States. The selection of the countries was primarily based on relevant mobility patterns and a balanced coverage in terms of types of the social security systems, more notably in the area of unemployment and LTC benefits. The 14 countries retained were: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Slovakia, Sweden and United Kingdom.

We used both secondary and primary data sourced during this study (both of them of a quantitative and qualitative nature). Concerning the secondary data sources used, we conducted an extensive review of relevant, available literature (particularly trESS reports), organised quantitative data collection of available administrative data in 14 Member States and requested additional data extractions from the LFS for EU-27. Also the use of ESSPROS, the Ageing Report 2012 (EC) and the Audit Board Report contributed to the quantifying the scope of the problem at stake and the impact of the reform. In terms of primary data, we organised an online survey targeting national administrations and executing bodies in the EU-27 and conducted face-to-face interviews with circa 120 different stakeholders, both at Member State level and EU level.

Also, an evaluation was made of the replies by a wide range of stakeholders to the EC public consultation.

Finally, we conducted a number of workshops, group interviews and phone interviews at Member State level in order to find specific data on the administrative burden imposed on national administrations by the current coordination rules.

9.2 Current situation

The table summarises our analysis with regard to the number of cross-border workers and pensioners in the EU-27 that are affected by the coordination rules, their main mobility patterns and their use of long-term care and unemployment benefits. The table below summarises the statistics that were described and discussed in detail.

Table 56: Synoptic overview of the scope of the cross border use of unemployment benefits and LTC benefits under scrutiny**

Indicator Year Unit Amount Type variable

Coordination of unemployment benefits

Cross-border workers within EU-27 2010-2011 in thousand 1.032,0 stock of which frontier workers 2010-2011 in thousand 701,0 stock

Migrant workers (from 15 to 64 years, within EU 27)*** 2011 in thousand 1.017,0 yearly flow

Posted workers (PD A1 issued) 2011 in thousand 1.508 yearly issued Estimated number of unemployed cross-border

workers 2010-2011 in thousand 73,7 stock

as share of total unemployment in % 0,35% of which frontier workers 2010-2011 in thousand 45,2 stock

Unemployed recent migrant workers 2011 in thousand 94,8 stock

Estimated number of proven period of insurance PD U1 2010 in thousand 341,2 stock

as share of total unemployment 2010 in % 1,60%

Estimated number of exported unemployment benefit

PD U2 2011 in thousand 23,7 stock

as share of total unemployment in % 0,11%

Coordination of long-term care benefits

Migrated pensioners*** 2011 in thousand 44,1 yearly flow

Total estimated number of persons insured for LTC (PD

S1) 2010-2011 in thousand 1.980,0 stock

as % of total population EU 27 in % 0,4%

Of which: cross border workers and family members 2010-2011 in thousand 1.239,0 stock

retired cross border workers and family members 2010-2011 in thousand 503,0 stock

mobile pensioners and family members 2010-2011 in thousand 238,0 stock

Estimate of mobile persons obtaining LTC 2010-2011 in thousand 144 stock

Outstanding reimbursement claims for health, Audit

Board 2011 in million € 3.607,3 stock

Reimbursement claims for health, Audit board 2011 in million € 3.590,9 flow

Estimated reimbursement claims for LTC benefits in

kind on figures Audit Board 2011 in million € 592,0 flow

Estimated health expenditures for mobile citizens on

LFS and Ageing Report * 2010 in million € 3.167,4 flow

Estimated reimbursement claims for benefits in kind

for mobile citizens based on LFS and Ageing Report 2010 in million € 618,3 flow

Estimated LTC benefits in cash for mobile citizens based

on LFS and Ageing Report 2010 in million € 376,4 flow

Total estimated expenditure LTC for mobile citizens 2010 in million € 994,7 flow based on LFS and Ageing Report

as % of total LTC spending in % 0,4%

as % of GDP in % 0,008%

*

Figure calculated in the interim report ** Figures described in detail in several chapters of this report *** No data for BE, BG, HU, MT, NL, PL and RO
9.3 Current problems

9.3.1 Coordination of LTC benefits

According to our interview and survey findings, a general complexity of the EU Law regulation on the coordination of long-term care is widely regarded as root problem of the current system, which results in and is at the same elicited by a number of more specific problems. The most recurrent problems were the lack of awareness of their rights under EU law among migrant workers, the incorrect or uneven application of rules by national administration, ineffective cross-border communication between Member States’ institutions and insufficient and incorrect information provided by national administrations to mobile citizens.

The root of the problem is perceived to be in the different manner in which the Member States recognise, consider and deal with LTC benefits. Four basic positions were identified: 1) specific, dedicated system of LTC; 2) LTC benefits considered as sickness benefits, 3) LTC as a complement to pensions and 4) LTC as social assistance. As a relatively recently identified new social risk, a huge risk of misunderstanding has been observed between stakeholders what LTC is, how it is insured and how it should be coordinated. This resulted also in a huge lack of statistics on precise coverage for LTC, so that we needed to make estimates of it based on several hypotheses. The hypothesis that the mobile worker or pensioner is entitled and is using LTC in the same way as nationals should be the implication of efficient coordination but can only anecdotally compared with the real use.

A large majority of the national administrations - evidence was found in all 14 Member States - consider the lack of a common definition of LTC benefits across Member States and/or of a precise list of benefits per country as the main obstacle to a smooth coordination of LTC benefits.

According to one third of the surveyed national administrations, the incorrect and uneven application of the EU rules is a major issue. Even within the group of national administrations who do not see a need to change the current coordination rules, 79% of them thought that the rules should be better explained or better applied in practice. It appears that the exchange of portable documents, the recognition of entitlement to LTC benefits in kind, and the claims for reimbursement significantly vary across countries. The administrative burden on national administrations is mainly attributed to these disparities across systems and the uncertainty faced by Member States and citizens.

Although most national administrations considered the risk of social tourism under the current rules to be rather low, concerns were raised which rather lied in the lack of operability of the system, the lack of transparency of Member States on the costs incurred into; and the reimbursements claims received or entitled to issue. The differences in the concept of LTC benefits and their treatment across Member States lead to a lack of operability of the reimbursement and mechanism of deduction for the avoidance of double payments set up by Article 34 of the Coordination Regulation.

In the lack of a comprehensive and coherent coordination regime well-suited to the particularities of LTC benefits, it is the CJEU which constantly has to make clarifications. The system can thus be altered at any moment by a CJEU ruling. Legal uncertainty was identified as an issue. Similarly, the level of complexity of the regulatory framework and the rulings of the CJEU render the issue not easily accessible for all the concerned staff public authorities.

The complexity of the legal framework results in a highly uneven application of the coordination rules. This results in a non-transparent, uncertain system, where citizens are not able to determine beforehand their entitlements in each country. Our findings confirm the lack of upfront visibility mobile citizens have on their entitlements. This lack of knowledge apparently affects public authorities as well.

9.3.2 Coordination of unemployment benefits

The coordination rules were generally perceived as complex during the interviews conducted with public authorities and other stakeholders. Different elements contribute to the complexity and lack of transparency of EU coordination rules.

These include:

1.

The distinction between frontier workers and other cross-border workers and the determination of cross-border workers’ country of residence

While wholly unemployed frontier workers 158 must register and ask for unemployment benefits in

their country of residence, other cross-border workers have the choice between their country of residence and the country of last activity. It was pointed out that the distinction between frontier workers and other cross-border workers is often rather complicated. In accordance with the views gathered, the determination of the country of residence remains difficult in practice, as it is subject to a high degree of interpretation. On one hand, this distinction might be confusing for the workers, who may not be aware of their own status. It might also be confusing for the public authorities.

2.

Rules on aggregation of periods of insurance, employment and self-employment
A second element of complexity is provided by the rules on the aggregation of periods. The conditions to consider certain periods as periods of insurance, employment and self-employment vary across countries. Since the acquisition, retention, recovery or duration of unemployment benefits are linked to the different periods of each type completed, and the consideration of the same periods might vary across countries, this makes it complicated for mobile workers to know their rights. This is also the case for public authorities (therefore, workers cannot always solve their doubts by asking to the administration). In particular, our findings pointed towards particular issues with the periods of self-employment.

158 Regulation 883/2004 i also establishes a distinction between wholly unemployed frontier workers and partially or intermittently unemployed frontier workers (art.65.1-2 Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004 i). Wholly unemployed frontier workers must register and apply for unemployment benefits in their country of residence, while partially or intermittently unemployed frontier workers must register in their country of last activity.

3.
Provisions on the export of unemployment benefits: minimum period of export of tree months with a possible extension to six months (discretionary decision of the competent institution)
A third element contributing to the lack of transparency is the regime for the exportation of unemployment benefits. The regulation foresees a minimum period of export of three months, with a possible extension to six months. However, there are not fixed criteria for the concession or refusal of the extension. The decision lies on the competent institution, which applies its own set of criteria or, in some cases, has no pre-defined criteria at all. This reduces, in practices, the transparency for the workers, who cannot know in advance the likely duration of their export period, which might in turn affect their mobility decision. In addition, some countries do not grant the export at all.
- 4.
  
  Reimbursement of unemployment benefits between Member States
Even though they do not impact EU citizens directly, the rules on reimbursement also add to overall complexity of the system and represent a source of administrative burden for Member States. Several claims were raised during the interviews pertaining the inefficiency and burdensome character of the reimbursement mechanism.

5.

Communication between institutions of Member States: Communication between institutions of Member States is clearly perceived as an area with substantial margin for improvement.

EU rules not sufficiently taking into account changing job market conditions

The rule mandating frontier workers to claim unemployment benefits in their country of residence is based on the assumption that they enjoy the most favourable conditions for seeking employment in their country of residence. Due to changing job market conditions, however, such assumption is nowadays questionable. Instead, they could have better chances of finding a job in their country of last activity. However, it was also noted during the interviews that it is not possible to generalise. Each case is different. The most relevant factors to determine the chances of finding a job are the educational background, qualifications and experience of the job-seeker as well and the conditions of the job market in the area concerned. Demand for specific skills and the economic conditions of a specific area are paramount (as evidenced particularly in times of economic crisis, were unemployment rates vary strikingly across countries and regions). Therefore, it is difficult to determine, on a general basis, whether frontier workers enjoy a better chance of finding a job in their country of residence or in their country of last activity.

Unfair sharing of financial burden

The Member State of residence must bear the costs of the unemployment benefits of frontier workers, even though it has not received any contribution from them. Furthermore, it also has to bear other social protection costs related to the unemployed worker and his family. In general terms, it was agreed that to provide for a fair sharing of burden, the country receiving contributions should be in charge of paying out the unemployment benefits.

It must be noted, however, that a reimbursement mechanism exists. As long as the unemployment spell of the concerned worker lasts for longer than the period of reimbursement, the current coordination rules impose an unfair burden on the Member State of residence.

Lack of return on contributions for migrant workers

Wholly unemployed frontier workers must currently claim unemployment benefits in their Member State of residence. These workers, however, paid contributions to Social Security, covering the contingency of unemployment, in their country of activity. Therefore, frontier workers receive unemployment benefits based on a different system than that to which they contributed. This leads to situations in which certain wholly unemployed frontier workers lose out on benefits, and receive unemployment benefits below what their contribution should have enabled them to.

Potential loss of rights to benefits

The shortcomings of communication between the institutions of Member States can cause a certain loss of rights to workers by unnecessarily depriving them temporarily of their rights. The slow or ineffective communication can affect the unemployed people insofar as they can lead to delays in the processing of documents. Since the payment of unemployment benefits depends upon the completion of the administrative procedures, unemployed workers are directly affected by issues in cross-border communication between institutions. Issues were reported in several Member States.

Uneven application of current coordination rules by Member States

Public authorities pointed problems of application of the current coordination rules consistently via the different data gathering activities conducted for the study. Considering specific rules where an uneven application has been noticed, the rules of the aggregation of periods (art.61 Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i) are a clear example. Furthermore, the uneven application of art.64 concerning the extension of the period of export of unemployment benefits has also been documented.

Different national practices concerning cross-border communication between institutions of Member States were discussed during the country interviews. This concerns in the first place the use of different portable documents. Secondly, it concerns the practices regarding the requests for specific information to fill out portable documents. Thirdly, there are different practices with regard to the claims for reimbursement.

9.4 Policy objectives

The objectives express the desired future state, towards which the policy options should contribute. The objectives that were defined are linked to the problem identified in the previous section. For the coordination of LTC and unemployment benefits, the following objectives have been identified at each level:

Level of

objective Coordination of LTC benefits Coordination of unemployment benefits

Level of

objective Coordination of LTC benefits Coordination of unemployment benefits

General  Free movement of workers  Free movement of workers

objectives  Protection of EU citizens rights  Protection of EU citizens rights (including social security (including social security rights)

rights)

 Fair distribution of the financial  Facilitation of job-seeking abroad burden between Member States  Fair distribution of financial burden

Specific  Stable coordination rules among Member States

objectives  Good awareness (by citizens  Good awareness (by citizens and and public authorities) of rights public authorities) of rights and

 Allow a clear classification of obligations long-term care benefits under

EU Law

 Only one Member State can be  Uniform application of EU rules by the competent Member State the Member States

 Simplified EU legal framework  Unemployed mobile workers

 Uniform application of the rules receiving adequate return on their

Operational by the Member States contributions

objectives  Rules reflecting the  Rules reflecting the particularities particularities of long-term care and employment possibilities of

benefits, and in particular their frontier workers similarities with sickness  Stronger links between the collection benefits of contributions and the provision of unemployment benefits  Simplified EU legal framework

9.5 Impact assessment of the options

9.5.1 Coordination of LTC benefits

OPTION A: baseline scenario - continuation of the current rules The baseline scenario implies no change of policy and a continuation of the current rules for coordination. Long-term care benefits in kind continue to be provided according to the legislation of the Member State of residence (if they exist) and reimbursed by the competent Member State (= where the person is insured). Long-term care benefits in cash (if they exist) continue to be provided by the competent Member State (= where the person is insured).

About half of the surveyed national administrations (52%) preferred to continue with the current coordination rules. A large part of this group of respondents however think that the rules should be better explained or better applied in practice. However, according to many civil society representatives and social partners, a continuation of the status quo will not solve the problem that a person reliant on care may be left without any protection in specific cases.

A continuation of the current coordination rules will not solve the problems that were outlined in the previous section.

OPTION B: Adoption of a safeguarding provision ensuring that a mobile person does remain without any protection

With this policy option, the safeguarding provision would ensure that all the mobile persons are protected: they would always be entitled to LTC benefits. Whenever a person would not be entitled to any LTC benefits under the current system (meaning the application of the Sickness Chapter’s rules), the Member State of residence would provide benefits in cash.

Most public authorities perceived this option as rather theoretical. No such cases as those intended to be covered by the safeguarding provision were reported, conveying the impression that the existent gap in protection does not represent a sizeable problem. This being said, the large majority of the national public authorities seemed receptive to the introduction of the provision, particularly in view of the negligible impacts that it would have.

Option B is likely to increase the administrative burden compared to the baseline scenario, as it requires a complex and potentially burdensome cooperation between national public authorities. This would be particularly the case if the obligation of the Member State of residence to provide LTC benefits depends on the actual granting of LTC benefits by the competent Member States (and not on the question whether or not such benefits are included in the legislation of the competent Member States). This option would also less clear than the status quo. Many questions could arise. It does also not reduce complexity of the coordination rules compared to the baseline scenario, as all situations would need to be explained in detail under which in addition to the obligations of the competent Member State, the Member State of residence has to grants its LTC benefits in cash.

In terms of financial impact, a large majority of the national public authorities considered that although logically an increase in public expenditure can be expected, the impact on their budgets of this option would be negligible.

OPTION C1: Member State of residence provides long-term care benefits on the basis of its legislation

In option C 1, the Member State of residence would provide the LTC benefits (regardless of their type) on the basis of its legislation, and the competent Member State would reimburse all LTC benefits provided by the country of residence. Option C1 includes two sub-options itself: in the first one, the competent Member State would provide a supplement to the beneficiary in the event that the benefits in the Member State of residence were at a lower level (C1.1). In the second sub-option, there would be no supplement even if the benefits in the Member State of residence were lower than those in the competent Member State (C.I.2).

Both options would ensure that mobile persons are always protected. Both sub-options give entitlements to all the benefits which are provided for the residents of a Member State. In terms of social protection, the sub-option with a supplement by the competent Member State (C.I.1) is without any doubt seen as better than the baseline scenario and (in many cases) also than C.I.2 (without supplement).

In terms of complexity of the rules, option C.I.1 option would open simultaneous entitlements under the legislations of more than one MS. This is perceived as more complex than the baseline scenario. The provision of supplements is always complex, as the legislator has to draft complex rules concerning priority, the benefits to be included into the calculation of the supplement and rules for procedures to settle these supplements. The option also requires an extensive exchange of information between national public authorities concerned. The complexity and the administrative burden of supplement system is generally the main reason for the low support for this option among national public authorities. Option C.I.2 (no supplement provided by the competent Member State) is likely to increase transparency and reduce complexity of the rules as it sets out clearly which Member State would provide LTC benefits. However, we expect a relative increase of the administrative burden.

Our estimation for the option without the supplement indicates an increase in total expenditure on

LTC benefits. When there is a supplement paid, the level of expenditure probably comes in the neighbour of scenario C2.

OPTION C2: Competent Member State provides LTC benefits to insured persons residing abroad

In Option C2, the competent Member State would provide LTC to insured persons residing abroad

(that is, the mobile persons would export their benefits). As, in this policy option, the competent

Member State would be “responsible” for all types of LTC benefits, including the benefits in kind (not “naturally” exportable as the benefits in cash). The following solution would be established: where the benefits in kind were only available in the form of services, the competent Member State would reimburse the services provided by the country of residence. This option allows mobile persons in need of LTC to be treated equally in the Member States where they are insured and not to have their care benefits reduced if they move to another Member State.

18% of the national public authorities that have responded to the public consultation are in favour of this option (second preferred option), compared to 33% of the responding social partners, 25% of the NGOs and 39% of the individuals (preferred option).

In terms of transparency, this option is expected to increase legal uncertainty because all LTC benefits will be provided on the basis of a single legislation: the one of the competent Member State. However, this does not mean that the coordination rules will be simplified, as always more than one Member State will be involved in the provision of LTC benefits. A large majority of the national administrations see significant feasibility challenges linked to this option, not in the least due to the need of communication and coordination between Member States. A comparison of the LTC benefits in kind available in both countries would be necessary, so as to provide in the Member State of residence benefits similar to those in the competent Member State. This calculation could be complex (e.g. due to differences in eligibility conditions across EU Member States) and to a large extent theoretical. That is also why findings from the face-to-face interviews reveal that this option is considered as more burdensome for national administrations than the status quo.

It is expected that this will increase also the total expenditure on LTC benefits, and especially in those countries where the level of protection is high. Our estimates reveal an increase of the total budget from 994 million EUR for the baseline scenario to 1,277 million in option C2.

Summary of the likely impacts

The table below summarizes the expected impact of each option alongside each objective, based on the analysis before.

Table 57: Comparison of the effectiveness of the options (baseline scenario = 1)

Option B: Option C1.1: Option C1.2: MS of Option A: Safe MS of residence residence provides

Option C2:

baseline guarding provides LTC LTC benefits

Competent

provision benefits (with (without

MS provides

supplement) supplement) LTC benefits

Specific objectives

1.

Fair distribution of financial

burden between MS 1 1 0,5 0,5 1,5

2.

Rules taking into account the

specific character of LTC benefits 1 1 1 1 1

3.

Facilitating classification of LTC

benefits under EU law 1 1 1 1 1

4.

Improve legal certainty and

stability of coordination regime 1 1,5 0,5 1,5 1,5

5.

Improved protection of mobile

citizens 1 1,5 1,5 1,5 1,5

6.

High awareness of rights on

side of mobile persons 1 0,5 1 1,5 1,5

Efficiency

Budgetary impact 1 1 1,5 1,5 0,5

Administrative burden on

administrations 1 0,5 0,5 0,5 1,5

Coherence 1 1 1 1 1 Total 9 9 8,5 10 11

Legend: 1= no impact (e.g. baseline scenario); 1.5 = positive impact; 0.5 = negative impact

Option C2 – the competent Member State provides the LTC benefits to mobile citizens abroad – is rated as the most effective option, most capable of tackling today’s challenges of the coordination regime. However, it is considered as an option with a likely negative budgetary impact (+28% compared to the baseline scenario).

Option C.1.2 generally comes out as an effective option. It is expected to generate a positive budgetary impact on the Member States (19% less costly than the baseline scenario) and to create a more stable and legally certain coordination regime, however with a somewhat higher relative administrative burden, compared to the baseline scenario.

The main advantage of option B lies in the fact that it would ensure that all the mobile persons are protected: they would always be entitled to LTC benefits.

Option A – a continuation of the status quo - is not seen as the worst-case scenario, despite the problems described earlier in this report.

9.5.2 Coordination of unemployment benefits

OPTION A: baseline scenario – continuation of the current coordination rules

Option A implies a continuation of the current coordination rules. This means that workers continue to claim unemployment benefits in the country of last activity, if they have not resided during their activity in another Member State. Periods of insurance completed abroad, as well as other periods of employment/self-employment, are taken into account for establishing the right to the unemployment benefits. Furthermore, unemployed workers have a limited possibility of export of unemployment benefits for three months, with the possible extension to six months (when he/she looks for work in another Member State). Frontier workers who become wholly unemployed must apply for unemployment benefits in their country of residence. They can in addition register with the employment services in the country of last activity. The country of last activity will reimburse the institution of the place of residence the full amount of the benefits provided by the latter institution during the first three months (extensible to five months in certain circumstances). Cross-border workers, other than frontier workers, may apply for unemployment benefits and register with the employment service either in the country of last activity or in the country of residence.

According to the public consultation findings, half of the national public authorities and social partners see no need to change the current rules. About one third of these respondents think that although the rules should not be changed, but that there is a need to better explain the rules. One third of national public authorities are explicitly in favour of changing the rules. Only 11% of NGOs that responded to the public consultation sees no need to change the current rules.

A continuation of the current coordination rules will not solve the problems that were outlined in the previous section on current problems.

OPTION B: Right of choice for frontier workers

Half of the national public authorities and individuals responding the public consultation preferred this option (results of the Deloitte survey of national public authorities show a significantly lower support for this option (27%)), compared to 31% of the social partners and 78% of the surveyed NGOs.

Under this policy option, unemployed frontier worker are likely to be better off in terms of social protection, as he has a right of choice (although conditional). Experience with Miethe cases show that frontier workers will likely choose the most beneficial and generous system of both countries. In general, stakeholders think that this option guarantees the best the protection of social security rights of all options. It gives frontier workers the possibility to be treated in the same way as their former work colleagues which live in the country of last employment. Furthermore, the right of choice is considered as fairer, as it ensures frontier workers a better return on the workers’ contributions which they have paid in the country of last activity before becoming unemployed. There is mixed evidence on whether this option would really make conditions for reintegration in the labour market less or more favourable for frontier workers, compared to the baseline scenario.

From an administrative point of view, adopting a right of choice for frontier workers will reduce the number of reimbursements between Member States and will eventually reduce the administrative burden on Member States’ administrations (as confirmed by our simulations), but for cases of people who will make use of the possibility to claim unemployment benefit in the country of last activity, several Member States expect that the administrative burden related to “control” of the job seeker abroad (and the legitimacy of the unemployment benefit provided) could increase.

In terms of impact on public finance of the Member State, it can be expected that the overall, aggregated cost of providing unemployment benefits in the EU would increase compared to the baseline scenario (an estimate is to be found in Table 42. This is because all cross-border workers (including frontier-workers) are likely to choose the Member State with the more advantageous system for them. In terms of fair burden sharing between Member States, a right of choice for frontier workers is seen as slightly better than the baseline scenario. There is even a substantial shift of the financial burden directly to the countries of last activity, but there remains also a burden in the country of last activity when benefits are higher. The right of choice option is generally seen as the option which would best stimulate intra-EU labour market mobility.

OPTION C: Unemployment benefits for all workers to be provided by the country of the last activity regardless of the person’s residence

C.I: The provision of the unemployment benefits from the competent State would last until the end of the entitlement for as long as the person fulfils the job-seeking obligations in the Member State where he is registered as a job-seeker.

C.II: The provision of the unemployment benefits would be limited.

40% of individuals, 41% of the national public authorities and 44% of social partners responding the public consultation preferred this option.

In terms of social security coverage, the probability of any worker being left without any unemployment benefits would diminish substantially, compared to the baseline scenario, as it would always be clear to which country request the unemployment benefits (which also increases awareness of rights). Furthermore, this option enhances equality and non-discrimination, as it ensures that frontier workers are treated in the same way as their former work colleagues which live in the country of last activity. This option is also considered as fairer than the baseline scenario as it ensures frontier workers a better return on the workers’ contributions.

There is no need for reimbursement between Member States anymore, which is expected to have a positive impact from an administrative point of view. However, on the other hand, public authorities considered that this option will also make it more difficult and costly for the country of last activity to follow-up the job seeking efforts and job status of beneficiaries of unemployment benefits who live in another Member State.

Many national public authorities see this option as a better alternative than the baseline scenario in terms of fair sharing of the financial burden between Member States. Nevertheless, for some countries with many incoming frontier workers, this option would have a significant negative impact on their public budget. The total budgetary cost for the country of last activity will increase, according to our simulations. Those simulations could however not take into account any hypothesis on the spell of entitlement, except that one year of unemployment is used as a standard cost.

In Table 42, also an alternative hypothesis F has been calculated, namely the unemployment benefit provided by the country of residence for all, placing a high burden on those countries, with exception of the standard reimbursement of 3 months.

OPTION D: Prolongation of the period of export from three months to minimum six months (D)

Option D foresees a general prolongation of the period of export of unemployment benefits for persons who look for work in another than the competent Member State to minimum six months.

20% of the national public authorities responding the public consultation preferred this option (third preferred option of public authorities). Analysing the replies to the Deloitte survey country-bycountry, option D seems the most preferred option in only one Member State. Two options are more popular: a period of export of 3 months with a possible extension to 6 months remains the preferred option, and prolonging the period of export until the person’s entitlement to unemployment.

Considering the qualitative input gathered during the interviews, it appears that the stay abroad provides certain benefits to facilitate job-seeking. While, once again, no hard figures were presented to back up the notion that the export of benefits, in general, leads to better employment prospects and, in particular, that staying abroad for longer increases the chances of finding employment, the public officials interviewed tended to side with the idea that physical presence in the country of job search (made possible by the opportunity to export the unemployment benefits) had, if any, certain positive effects.

In terms of transparency, the adoption of this option could have positive effects. The adoption of this option would eliminate the uncertainty derived from the degree of flexibility granted to public institutions by the current coordination rules.

In terms of administrative burden, this option would primarily have an impact in terms on the communication exchange between countries concerning the situation of the job-seekers exporting their benefits. While the implications are far from likely to apply regularly and homogeneously across all countries given the differences that exist in their way of operating, this communication is generally not a one-off effort, implying instead additional efforts the longer the period of export. For such reasons, it is expected that the adoption of this policy option would have a negative impact with regard to administrative costs and administrative burdens.

While in many cases reluctant to the extension (due to potential pitfalls such as the increase risk of misuse of the rights, as previously discussed), the interviewees coincided for the most in signalling that the extension of the period of export could have some favourable effects from the point of view of fostering cross-border mobility.

OPTION E: Clarification of the provision on the aggregation of periods of insurance, employment and self-employment

Periods of insurance, employment and self-employment completed abroad are taken into account for the acquisition, retention, recovery or duration of the rights to unemployment benefits. When the legislation of the competent Member State makes the entitlement conditional upon the completion of either periods of insurance, employment or self-employment, the competent institution shall take into account periods of insurance, employment or self-employment completed under the legislation of any other Member State as though they were completed under the legislation it applies.

When the applicable legislation makes the entitlement to benefits conditional upon the completion of periods of insurance, the periods of employment or self-employment completed on the completed under the legislation of another Member State shall only be taken into account if such periods would have been considered to be periods of insurance had they been completed in accordance with the applicable legislation.

While respecting these coordination rules, Member States remain competent to determine the conditions for insurance under their social security system and the entitlement to benefits under that system. Our findings point at the diversity in national systems, but also divergences in the interpretation of art.61 of Regulation (EC) No.883/2004 i. One possibility to tackle this problem would be to clarify the provisions on the aggregation of periods. The impacts are analysed under the consideration that the clarification of the provisions would ensure a consistent interpretation and application of the rules across countries (without implying any change in the way that each Member State considers, under its own legislation, different periods as periods of or equivalent to periods of insurance, employment and self-employment).

The clarification would bring positive effects in terms of the return that migrant workers receive on their contributions. By guaranteeing a consistent application of the rules, the clarification would ensure that no periods that should haven considered for establishing the entitlement to unemployment rights are left aside due to an uneven application of the rules across Member States.

The clarification should have a clearly positive impact in terms of transparency and provide as well a certain reduction in complexity of the rules. The diversity of national systems would not be impacted in any way by the adoption of this policy option. Member States will continue to regard different periods (periods of employment, of self-employment, of maternity, of education, of sickness, etc.) in different manners (as periods of or equivalent to periods of insurance, employment of selfemployment, or not). However, transparency and clarity will be improved by the adoption of a clarification by eliminating the complications introduced by the divergent interpretation and application of the rules.

Summary of the likely impacts

The table below summarizes the expected impacts of each option alongside each objective, based on the analysis in the section before.

Table 58: Comparison of the effectiveness, efficiency and coherence of the options (baseline=1)

Option A: Option B: Option C: UB Option D: baseline Right of provided by Prolongatio

Option E:

scenario choice country of last n period of

Clarification of

activity export aggr. rules

Specific objectives

1.

Consistent application of

coordination rules 1 1,5 1,5 1,5 1,5

2.

Simplified legal framework 1 1,5 1,5 1 1

3.

Facilitate reintegration in labour market & improved protection of job 1 1 1 1,5 1,5 seekers abroad

4.

Unemployed mobile workers

receiving return on their contributions 1 1,5 1,5 1 1,5

5.

Fair distribution of financial burden 1 1,5 1,5 1 1,5

6.

High awareness of rights 1 1,5 1,5 1,5 1,5

7.

Rules reflecting current job market

conditions 1 1,5 1,5 1,5 1

Efficiency

Budgetary impact 1 0,5 0,5 1 1

Administrative burden 1 1,5 1,5 0,5 1,5

Coherence 1 1 1 1 1

Total 10 13 13 11,5 13

Legend: 1= no impact (e.g. baseline scenario); 1.5 = positive impact; 0.5 = negative impact

Option E (clarification of the rules of aggregation) is generally considered as a good option, both in terms of effectiveness and efficiency. However, the positive impact of this option will largely depend on how the aggregation rules will exactly be clarified. A clarification of the aggregation rules will however not simplify these rules and the diversity of national systems will be continued.

Options B and C appear as the option that is most effective, best capable to address the wider variety of problems that are faced with the coordination of unemployment benefits (Problem definition).

Option C has consistently positive impacts with regard to almost all specific objectives. However, it is expected to have a negative budgetary impact (an increase in expenditure of 43% - cf. 8.1.2) on the Member compared to the baseline scenario.

Like option C, option B is expected to produce a negative budgetary impact compared to the baseline scenario (and is also costlier than option C – cf. Table 42). However, option B is considered as very effective (better off in terms of social protection, better return on the workers’ contributions). There is a substantial shift of the financial burden directly to the countries of last activity (cf. Table 45).

Option D (export of unemployment benefits for a period of minimum 6 months) is generally evaluated as better than the baseline scenario. There are indications that a prolongation of the period of export could facilitate the reintegration of unemployed in the labour market. From an administrative point of view, it could however generate higher administrative burden on public authorities, as unemployed abroad need to be followed up over a longer period than currently is the case.

Option A – a continuation of the status quo - is clearly the worst-case scenario in terms of effectiveness. All other options are expected to be more effective in tackling the current problems. However, the baseline scenario scores better than all other options (except option E) with regard to the efficiency criterion.

10 Annexes

10.1 Data collection: questionnaire

10.1.1 Coordination of unemployment benefits: data collection

Table 59: Number of unemployed persons that have been certified insurance or (self-)employment periods completed in another Member State taken – number of received forms (U1/E301) by Member State issuing a U1/E301 form

Question 2a: For how many unemployed persons were certified insurance or (self-)employment periods completed in another Member State taken into account? Number of received forms (U1/E301) by Member State issuing a U1/E301 form

Receiving country (competent country) Issuing country ↓ Belgium - 2012 * Slovak Republic - 2012 ** Poland - 2011 Estonia - 2010 Estonia - 2012 United Kingdom Row total Belgium 17 189 8 10 216 Bulgaria 0 2 6 1 2 10 Czech Republic 1 3.053 677 3.731 Denmark 2 19 329 16 16 366 Germany 109 438 1.965 29 57 2.569 Estonia 0 1 2 3 Greece 17 5 97 3 7 126 Spain 118 76 441 11 13 648 France 130 51 556 7 13 750 Ireland 7 442 1.987 64 56 2.492 Italy 60 606 394 18 23 1.083 Cyprus 0 118 111 21 31 260 Latvia 0 0 3 12 13 16 Lithuania 0 2 5 5 8 15 Luxembourg 765 78 20 6 2 865 Hungary 3 1.735 40 0 0 1.778 Malta 0 9 2 6 15 26 Netherlands 1.092 351 3.581 11 29 5.053 Austria 4 1.048 154 5 7 1.213 Poland 22 21 0 2 45 Portugal 32 4 11 0 1 48 Romania 2 8 1 11 Slovenia 0 46 8 0 0 54 Slovak Republic 0 0 33 1 1 34 Finland 0 23 135 793 1.114 1.272 Sweden 0 6 146 63 79 231 United Kingdom 33 2.408 8.112 189 233 10.786 Iceland 0 10 126 1 5 141 Liechtenstein 0 0 1 1 Norway 3 82 161 235 343 589 Switzerland 0 253 139 2 394

Not likely to be Total 2.400 10.912 19.432 1.505 2.082 above 300 35.126 Evolution 0

Average annual

unemployment 369.000 378.000 1.659.000 116.000 71.000 2.511.000 2.477.000 % 0,7% 2,9% 1,2% 1,3% 2,9% 0,0% 1,4%

*

Belgium: U1 was counted when period of insurance was taken into account to grant an unemployment benefit ** Slovak Republic: 2 387 frontier workers, 6 875 other crossborder workers and 1 295 migrant workers. However, total = 10 557

Source: Questionnaire on unemployment benefits

Table 60: Number of unemployed persons that have been certified insurance or (self-)employment periods completed in another Member State taken – number of unique unemployed persons by Member State issuing a U1/E301 form

Question 2b: For how many unemployed persons were certified insurance or (self-)employment periods completed in another Member State take into account? Number of unique unemployed persons by Member State issuing a U1/E301 form

Receiving country (competent country) Crossborder workers Migrant workers Total Issuing country ↓ Poland - 2011 Sweden - 2011 France - 2011 **** Poland - 2011 Sweden -2011 France - 2011 **** Romania - 2012 Poland -2011 Sweden -2011 * France - 2011 **** Belgium - 2012 ** Slovak Republic - 2012 *** Row total Belgium 132 2 7.390 33 3 4 165 5 7.394 0 17 7.581 Bulgaria 4 1 3 7 1 0 0 2 10 Czech Republic 413 4 106 1 519 5 0 1 3.053 3.578 Denmark 250 724 76 80 326 806 0 2 19 1.153 Germany 1.124 24 7.531 530 13 2 8 1.654 37 7.533 109 438 9.771 Estonia 2 1 3 1 1 5 2 1 0 1 9 Greece 45 4 27 6 72 10 0 16 5 103 Spain 256 35 526 97 15 3 61 353 50 529 118 76 1.126 France 339 15 134 11 473 26 0 127 51 677 Ireland 1.419 19 481 12 1 1.900 31 1 7 442 2.381 Italy 292 7 79 2 7 371 9 0 59 606 1.045 Cyprus 77 6 2 24 2 1 1 101 8 3 0 118 230 Latvia 0 1 1 1 3 1 1 4 0 0 6 Lithuania 1 1 7 3 4 1 7 0 2 14 Luxembourg 16 2 10.364 2 1 1 5 18 3 10.365 755 78 11.219 Hungary 5 32 5 1 37 5 0 3 1.735 1.780 Malta 0 5 2 2 1 1 2 6 3 0 9 20 Netherlands 2.880 10 439 4 8 1 3.319 14 8 1.078 351 4.770 Austria 78 9 6 63 4 141 13 6 4 1.048 1.212 Poland 2 1 0 3 0 21 21 45 Portugal 8 8 1 9 8 0 31 4 52 Romania 1 1 0 1 2 1 2 2 2 8 15 Slovenia 3 0 3 0 0 0 46 49 Slovak Republic 23 7 30 0 0 0 0 30 Finland 142 42 9 25 1 151 67 1 0 23 242 Sweden 103 21 7 124 0 7 0 6 137 United Kingdom 5.864 65 1.692 48 4 2 7.556 113 4 31 2.408 10.112 Iceland 183 4 3 16 3 199 7 3 0 10 219 Liechtenstein 7 3 0 2 7 0 5 0 0 12 Norway 105 756 8 79 184 184 944 8 3 82 1.221 Switzerland 112 12 24.118 20 4 1 6 132 16 24.119 0 253 24.520 Data missing 2 9 0 9 Total 13.884 1.762 49.961 3.980 427 42 92 17.864 2.202 50.003 2.367 10.912 83.348

Average annual

unemployed persons 1.659.000 390.000 2.801.000 369.000 378.000 5.597.000 % 1,1% 0,6% 1,8% 0,6% 2,9% 1,5%

*

Sweden: data missing for Denmark (2), Norway (4) and in general (7) ** Belgium: U1 was counted when period of insurance was taken into account to grant an unemployment benefit

*** Slovak Republic: Figures for this question are the same as for 2a. This is because person is not registered according to issued forms, but based on the unemployment benefits application. 2 387 frontier workers, 6 875 other crossborder workers and 1 295 migrant workers. However, total = 10 557

**** France: CLEISS - Statistical Report

Source: Questionnaire on unemployment benefits

Table 61: Number of unemployed persons that have been certified insurance or (self-) employment periods completed in another Member State – number of received forms (U1/E301) or number of unique unemployed persons by Member State issuing a U1/E301 form (summary)

Question 2a&2b: For how many unemployed persons were certified insurance or (self-)employment periods completed in another Member State taken into account? Number of received forms (U1/E301) OR number of unique unemployed persons by Member State issuing a U1/E301 form

Receiving country (competent country) Issuing country ↓ Belgium - 2012 * Slovak Republic - 2012 ** Poland - 2011 Estonia - 2012 Sweden -2011 * France - 2011 **** United Kingdom Row total (without UK) Belgium 17 189 10 5 7.394 7.615 Bulgaria 0 2 6 2 1 0 11 Czech Republic 1 3.053 677 5 0 3.736 Denmark 2 19 329 16 806 0 1.172 Germany 109 438 1.965 57 37 7.533 10.139 Estonia 0 1 2 2 1 6 Greece 17 5 97 7 10 0 136 Spain 118 76 441 13 50 529 1.227 France 130 51 556 13 26 0 776 Ireland 7 442 1.987 56 31 1 2.524 Italy 60 606 394 23 9 0 1.092 Cyprus 0 118 111 31 8 3 271 Latvia 0 0 3 13 1 4 21 Lithuania 0 2 5 8 1 7 23 Luxembourg 765 78 20 2 3 10.365 11.233 Hungary 3 1.735 40 0 5 0 1.783 Malta 0 9 2 15 6 3 35 Netherlands 1.092 351 3.581 29 14 8 5.075 Austria 4 1.048 154 7 13 6 1.232 Poland 22 21 2 3 0 48 Portugal 32 4 11 1 8 0 56 Romania 2 8 1 2 2 15 Slovenia 0 46 8 0 0 0 54 Slovak Republic 0 0 33 1 0 0 34 Finland 0 23 135 1.114 67 1 1.340 Sweden 0 6 146 79 0 7 238 United Kingdom 33 2.408 8.112 233 113 4 10.903 Iceland 0 10 126 5 7 3 151 Liechtenstein 0 0 1 0 5 6 Norway 3 82 161 343 944 8 1.541 Switzerland 0 253 139 2 16 24.119 24.529 Data missing 9 0 9

Not likely to be Total 2.400 10.912 19.432 2.082 2.202 50.003 above 300 87.031

Average annual

unemployed persons 369.000 378.000 1.659.000 71.000 390.000 2.801.000 2.511.000 5.668.000 % 0,7% 2,9% 1,2% 2,9% 0,6% 1,8% 0,012% 1,5% * Belgium: U1 was counted when period of insurance was taken into account to grant an unemployment benefit 1,7% ** Slovak Republic: 2 387 frontier workers, 6 875 other crossborder workers and 1 295 migrant workers. However, total = 10 557

Source: Questionnaire on unemployment benefits

Table 62: Number of unemployed persons that have been certified insurance or (self-)employment periods completed in another Member State – estimation EU-27

For how many unemployed persons were certified insurance or (self-)employment periods completed in another Member State taken into account? Estimation EU 27

Average annual U1 forms received unemployed persons Estimation U1 forms Total number of U1 (data available) (2012) (aged 15-74) received (average of 1,5%) forms received

Belgium 2.400 2.400 Bulgaria 410.000 6.150 6.150 Czech Republic 367.000 5.505 5.505 Denmark 219.000 3.285 3.285 Germany 2.316.000 34.740 34.740 Estonia 2.082 2.082 Greece 1.204.000 18.060 18.060 Spain 5.769.000 86.535 86.535 France 50.003 50.003 Ireland 316.000 4.740 4.740 Italy 2.750.000 41.250 41.250 Cyprus 52.000 780 780 Latvia 156.000 2.340 2.340 Lithuania 195.000 2.925 2.925 Luxembourg 13.000 195 195 Hungary 476.000 7.140 7.140 Malta 12.000 180 180 Netherlands 469.000 7.035 7.035 Austria 189.000 2.835 2.835 Poland 19.432 19.432 Portugal 860.000 12.900 12.900 Romania 701.000 10.515 10.515 Slovenia 90.000 1.350 1.350 Slovak Republic 10.912 10.912 Finland 207.000 3.105 3.105 Sweden 2.202 2.202 United Kingdom 2.511.000 37.665 37.665 EU 27 376.261

Source: Questionnaire on unemployment benefits

Table 63: Total yearly amount of unemployment benefits paid to unemployment persons who have certified periods from other Member States?

Question 3: Total yearly amount of unemployment benefits paid to unemployed persons who have certified periods from other Member States?

Competent (paying) country Crossborder workers Migrant workers Total

Issuing country ↓ Sweden - 2011 * France - 2011 *** Sweden - 2011 * France - 2011*** Sweden - 2011 * Belgium - 2012** France - 2011 *** Row total Belgium 26.203 46.948.253 15.921 53.100 42.124 47.001.353 47.043.477 Bulgaria 4.697 0 4.697 0 0 4.697 Czech Republic 19.630 6.156 25.786 3.192 0 28.978 Denmark 10.527.405 539.691 11.067.096 11.053 0 11.078.149 Germany 197.929 81.032.118 71.629 26.148 269.558 542.316 81.058.266 81.870.140 Estonia 5.565 2.817 2.248 8.381 0 2.248 10.629 Greece 21.015 18.871 39.885 49.453 0 89.339 Spain 255.421 3.678.094 74.235 51.103 329.656 384.534 3.729.197 4.443.387 France 112.547 52.208 164.756 532.132 0 696.888 Ireland 104.324 34.941 3.831 139.265 24.995 3.831 168.091 Italy 56.206 25.743 81.949 232.184 0 314.134 Cyprus 41.351 28.114 5.401 49.299 46.751 0 77.413 124.164 Latvia 18.323 728 13.897 23.447 32.220 0 24.175 56.395 Lithuania 13.499 66.544 0 13.499 0 66.544 80.043 Luxembourg 21.797 79.187.591 0 2.765 21.797 3.338.528 79.190.356 82.550.681 Hungary 0 10.167 10.167 13.210 0 23.377 Malta 59.404 14.901 8.864 1.291 68.268 0 16.192 84.460 Netherlands 89.395 34.007 70.103 123.403 5.035.873 70.103 5.229.379 Austria 76.477 17.347 23.462 288 99.939 17.198 17.635 134.772 Poland 42.000 18.121 60.122 62.718 0 122.840 Portugal 13.635 0 9.684 13.635 85.595 9.684 108.914 Romania 6.615 3.026 15.527 9.641 12.904 15.527 38.072 Slovenia 6.132 0 6.132 0 0 6.132 Slovak Republic 1.195 1.390 2.585 0 0 2.585 Finland 545.579 107.880 43.075 653.459 0 43.075 696.534 Sweden 46.073 0 0 46.073 46.073 United Kingdom 420.242 234.998 85.034 655.240 168.969 85.034 909.243 Iceland 27.189 21.100 21.047 48.236 0 21.100 69.336 Liechtenstein 0 40.818 0 15.731 0 0 56.549 56.549 Norway 7.603.148 61.297 820.458 8.423.607 19.070 61.297 8.503.974 Switzerland 80.454 305.156.248 23.791 44.758 104.245 0 305.201.006 305.305.251 Missing 93.152 0 93.152 0 93.152 Total 20.490.528 516.253.153 2.168.721 543.505 22.659.249 10.533.926 516.796.658 549.989.834 Total amount full unemployment benefits (2010) 2.009.268.871 5.690.504.000 29.513.275.719 37.213.048.590 % 1,1% 0,2% 1,8% 1,5%

*

Sweden: exchange rate 1 SEK = 0,1272 EUR (May 3 2013) ** Belgium: U1 was counted when period of insurance was taken into account to grant an unemployment benefit. Amount for this population. *** France: CLEISS - Statistical Report

Source: Questionnaire on unemployment benefits

Table 64: Number of issued U1/E301 forms

Question 2 -bis Number of issued U1/E301 forms

Issuing country Romania - 2012 (only

Receiving country ↓ Luxembourg - 2010* Luxembourg - 2011* Luxembourg - 2012* Belgium - 2012 ** Estonia - 2010 Estonia - 2012 migrant workers) Row total (exc. Belgium) Belgium 1.596 2.029 3.008 2.640 4 4 3.012 Bulgaria 21 40 103 17 3 6 109 Czech Republic 153 122 96 25 1 0 96 Denmark 16 15 2 7 3 4 6 Germany 3.134 2.879 2.916 305 19 31 2.947 Estonia 6 9 1 0 Greece 4 1 4 10 0 0 4 Spain 24 23 18 173 10 9 27 France 12.227 12.262 11.922 7.057 7 6 11.928 Ireland 4 3 9 11 19 8 17 Italy 20 18 25 135 1 2 27 Cyprus 2 4 1 1 0 4 Latvia 1 7 2 9 4 6 Lithuania 3 1 3 4 10 4 7 Luxembourg 2 0 1 1 Hungary 91 156 120 28 9 1 121 Malta 1 4 7 0 0 7 Netherlands 71 117 84 510 2 2 86 Austria 47 49 43 34 1 5 48 Poland 85 162 180 307 15 2 182 Portugal 14 25 25 95 0 0 25 Romania 58 57 70 9 2 72 Slovenia 6 8 6 3 0 0 6 Slovak Republic 190 171 164 19 1 0 164 Finland 4 2 3 12 271 454 457 Sweden 5 7 9 11 17 16 25 United Kingdom 9 10 32 16 9 35 67 Iceland 2 1 0 0 0 Liechtenstein 1 0 Norway 2 16 24 24 Switzerland 9 17 19 6 2 21 Croatia 2 1 1 82 1 Total 17.805 18.197 18.875 11.522 428 622 5.067 19.497

2,2% 3,7% 45,3%

*

Luxembourg: source: Le gouvernement du Grand-duché de Luxembourg - Les activités de l'agence le developpement de l'emploi en 2012 ** Belgium: by nationality, data Feb. 2012 - Dec. 2012

Source: Questionnaire on unemployment benefits

Table 65: Number of unemployed persons who want to look for work in another Member State while continuing to receive unemployment benefits in the competent Member State – number of requests

Question 4 - part 1: How many unemployed persons went to look for work in another Member State while continuing to receive unemployment benefits in the competent Member State?

Issuing country Number of requests

Refused Accepted = Number of U2/E303 forms issued % requests refused

MS seek work Slovak the the the Row total (receiving Sweden - Sweden - Poland - Sweden - Sweden - Poland - Belgium - Republic - Denmark - Estonia - Estonia - Romania Luxembourg - Luxembourg - Luxembourg - Austria - Netherlands - Netherlands - Netherlands - (without Sweden - Sweden - Poland - country)↓ 2011 **** 2012 ***** 2011* 2011**** 2012 ***** 2011 2011 2012 2011 2010 2012 - 2012 2010** 2011** 2012** 2012*** 2000 **** 2010 ****** 2011 ****** United Kingdom UK) 2011 2012 2011 Belgium 4 1 1 2 0 19 0 2 7 11 7 37 94 125 80% 33% Bulgaria 0 0 0 1 1 0 13 0 0 1 16 0% Czech Republic 0 0 1 1 4 17 3 0 0 4 63 93 0% 0% Denmark 3 0 18 0 6 1 3 3 3 1 4 6 34 14% Germany 12 13 33 41 57 14 138 6 3 13 11 14 17 116 416 27% 24% Estonia 0 0 1 0 1 0 6 8 0% Greece 2 0 3 0 10 2 16 0 0 2 3 2 2 14 47 40% Spain 11 0 44 9 183 1 137 4 3 6 5 1 41 7 385 20% 0% France 6 1 31 5 501 3 54 5 2 41 35 48 6 52 696 16% 17% Ireland 1 1 0 11 9 7 6 1 3 1 2 23 61 100% 8% Italy 2 0 11 1 51 1 47 3 1 6 7 7 2 1 120 15% 0% Cyprus 2 0 2 1 2 0 3 1 0 1 1 9 50% 0% Latvia 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 0 0 2 10 Lithuania 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 0 1 1 1 10 Luxembourg 0 0 1 0 19 0 5 0 0 11 36 0% Hungary 1 0 6 0 2 0 7 0 0 4 19 14% Malta 1 0 1 0 1 0 10 0 0 1 13 50% Netherlands 4 3 6 0 76 2 37 1 1 1 122 40% 100% Austria 1 1 6 1 19 8 15 0 2 2 1 1 3 116 168 14% 50% Poland 2 9 17 2 55 0 0 2 1 9 93 18% Portugal 0 0 9 1 29 0 12 0 0 34 28 36 5 1 88 0% 0% Romania 0 0 2 0 2 0 12 1 1 8 25 0% Slovenia 0 0 1 0 3 1 3 0 0 2 10 0% Slovak Republic 0 0 0 0 2 9 0 0 63 74 Finland 5 0 25 1 7 1 9 23 24 2 1 1 12 79 17% 0% Sweden 0 1 0 3 17 2 98 3 3 5 2 3 5 22 148 25% United Kingdom 15 15 46 40 60 14 209 13 12 6 5 10 14 2 393 25% 27% EU 27 605 625 Iceland 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 2 62 Liechtenstein 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Norway 0 0 0 0 0 2 79 6 2 6 89 Switzerland 0 0 0 0 0 1 30 1 7 5 6 43

Not likely to be Total 72 98 36 298 264 118 1.081 79 1.108 69 64 11 137 115 148 1.186 138 637 above 300 a year 4.696 19% 37% 23% Evolution -7,2% -16,1% 28,7%

Average annual

unemployed persons 390.000 403.000 1.659.000 347.000 378.000 221.000 116.000 87.000 701.000 11.000 11.000 13.000 189.000 390000 389000 2511000 4387000 % 0,08% 0,07% 0,01% 0,31% 0,02% 0,50% 0,06% 0,07% 0,00% 1,25% 1,05% 1,14% 0,63% 0,16% 0,16% 0,01% 0,11%

0,29% weighted * Poland: counting together refused (5) and ineffective decisions (31)

** Luxembourg: source: Le gouvernement du Grand-duché de Luxembourg - Les activités de l'agence le developpement de l'emploi en 2012 *** Austria: AMS, answer to questionnaire Deloitte

*** the Netherlands: based on sample of received forms (Gak Nederland bv, 'Import en export van uitkeringen', 2001) **** Sweden: Detail by country on related to number of issued U2 forms and not E303 forms. More detailed information on the profile of the jobseeker is available (source: 'IAF, Vilka personer söker arbete i Europa med svensk arbetslöshetserättning?'). Between 1 May 2010 and 31 August 2011 381 E303/U2 forms were issued to unemployed persons living in Sweden. 87.4% of them (333 jobseekers) actual went abroad to look for a job. Jobseekers are mainly aged between 30 - 39 (44% of total number of jobseekers). More unemployed women (58%) than men (42%) went looking for a job abroad. 46% of the unemployed persons with an U2 form who are not born in Sweden are seeking a job in their country of birth.

***** Sweden: Evolution of number of requested and issued E303/U2 forms (2000-2012)

Year Number of E303 forms Number of PD U2 forms Total E303/PD U2 forms

Requested Issued % Requested Issued % Requested Issued % 2000 1282 919 1282 919

2001 1120 784 -15% 1120 784 -15% 2002 1109 824 5% 1109 824 5% 2003 1171 899 9% 1171 899 9% 2004 1306 1036 15% 1306 1036 15% 2005 1258 942 -9% 1258 942 -9% 2006 1030 743 -21% 1030 743 -21% 2007 705 521 -30% 705 521 -30% 2008 427 306 -41% 427 306 -41% 2009 495 336 10% 495 336 10% 2010 186 128 -62% 259 178 445 306 -9% 2011 65 42 -67% 335 256 44% 400 298 -3% 2012 20 13 -69% 349 251 -2% 369 264 -11%

****** the Netherlands: based on (UWV, Kwantitatieve informatie 2011)

Source: Questionnaire on unemployment benefits

Table 66: Number of unemployed persons who want to look for work in another Member State while continuing to receive unemployment benefits in the competent Member State – number of requests of prolongation

Question 4 - part 2: How many unemployed persons went to look for work in another Member State while continuing to receive unemployment benefits in the competent Member State?

Issuing country

Number of requests of prolongation

Refused Accepted % refused requests

MS seek work (receiving country) ↓ Sweden - 2011 Poland - 2011 Sweden - 2011 Poland - 2011 Belgium - 2011 Sweden - 2011 Poland - 2011 Belgium 0 0 0 0

Bulgaria 0 0 0 0 Czech Republic 0 0 0 1 1 0% Denmark 0 0 0 0

Germany 4 0 0 11 6 100% 0% Estonia 0 0 0 0

Greece 0 0 0 0 Spain 6 0 0 2 10 100% 0% France 2 0 0 2 26 100% 0% Ireland 1 0 0 3 100% Italy 6 0 0 0 1 100% Cyprus 0 0 0 0

Latvia 0 0 0 0 Lithuania 0 0 0 0

Luxembourg 0 0 0 0 Hungary 0 0 0 0

Malta 0 0 0 0 Netherlands 1 0 0 0 5 100% Austria 1 0 0 0 2 100% Poland 2 0 0 0 100% Portugal 2 0 0 0 2 100% Romania 0 0 0 0

Slovenia 0 0 0 0 1 Slovak Republic 0 0 0 0

Finland 2 0 0 0 100% Sweden 0 0 0 1 2 0% United Kingdom 8 0 0 0 1 100% Iceland 0 0 0 0

Liechtenstein 0 0 0 0 Norway 0 0 0 0

Switzerland 0 0 0 0 Total 35 0 0 20 57 100% 0%

Source: Questionnaire on unemployment benefits

Table 67: Number of unemployed persons who want to look for work in another Member State while continuing to receive unemployment benefits in the competent Member State – success rate

Question 4 - part 3: How many unemployed persons went to look for work in another Member State while continuing to receive unemployment benefits in the competent Member S ?

Issuing country Succes rate

Receiving UB first Receiving UB 2nd-6th Receiving UB before month after period of month after period of Number of persons who have found Success rate Number of U2 forms issued period of export export export work abroad

Sweden - May Sweden - May Sweden - May Belgium - Poland - 2010 and August Belgium - Poland - 2010 and Belgium - Poland - 2010 and August

2011 2011 2011*** Belgium - 2011 Belgium - 2011 Belgium - 2011 2011 2011* August 2011*** 2011**** 2011** 2011***

MS seek work % total (receiving jobseeker % total % total country) ↓ Number Number s Number jobseekers Number jobseekers Number % total jobseekers

Belgium 2 0 Bulgaria 1 1 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0 0%

Czech Republic 4 1 0 0% 1 25% 0 0% 3 0 75% Denmark 6 0 2 33% 0 0% 2 33% 2 0 33%

Germany 57 41 13 23% 12 21% 1 2% 31 3 54% Estonia 1 0 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0%

Greece 10 0 2 20% 1 10% 0 0% 7 0 70% Spain 183 9 35 19% 71 39% 11 6% 66 0 36%

France 501 5 107 21% 142 28% 20 4% 232 0 46% Ireland 9 11 0 0% 2 22% 0 0% 7 0 78%

Italy 51 1 9 18% 18 35% 1 2% 23 0 45% Cyprus 2 1 0 0% 2 100% 0 0% 0 1 0%

Latvia 1 0 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0% Lithuania 1 0 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0%

Luxembourg 19 0 4 21% 8 42% 0 0% 7 0 37% Hungary 2 0 0 0% 2 100% 0 0% 0 0 0%

Malta 1 0 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0 0% Netherlands 76 0 13 17% 22 29% 2 3% 39 0 51%

Austria 19 1 2 11% 7 37% 3 16% 7 0 37% Poland 17 4 24% 6 35% 1 6% 6 35%

Portugal 29 1 2 7% 12 41% 2 7% 13 0 45% Romania 2 0 0 0% 2 100% 0 0% 0 0 0%

Slovenia 3 0 1 33% 0 0% 0 0% 2 0 67% Slovak Republic 2 0 0 0% 1 50% 1 50% 0 0 0%

Finland 7 1 0 0% 4 57% 0 0% 3 0 43% Sweden 17 3 4 24% 4 24% 1 6% 8 0 47%

United Kingdom 60 40 12 20% 21 35% 2 3% 25 4 42% Iceland

Liechtenstein Norway

Switzerland Total 1.081 118 333 213 20% 340 31% 47 4% 481 8 40 44% 10% 12% * Poland: only information available from 11 Regional Unemployment Offices (Out of 16)

** Poland: extrapolation of results from 11 Regional Unemployment Offices *** Sweden: source: 'IAF, Vilka personer söker arbete i Europa med svensk arbetslöshetserättning?'.

**** Belgium: broad definition of 'succes rate' = Person is not longer registered with Belgian National employment office after period of export. However, different reasons are possible: found work abroad, found work in Belgium, moved to country where looking for a job, ...

Source: Questionnaire on unemployment benefits

Table 68: Number of U2/E303 forms received

Question 4 - bis: Number of U2/E303 forms received?

Receiving country Number of forms received Succes rate Returned Stayed No information Luxembourg - Luxembourg - Luxembourg - the Netherlands - the Netherlands - Estonia - Estonia - Sweden - Sweden - Sweden - Sweden - France - Issuing country ↓ 2010* 2011* 2012* 2000 ** 2012 *** 2010 2012 2008 **** 2009 *** 2011 2012 2011***** Row total the Netherlands - 2012 Belgium 9 19 10 27 62 1 1 1 73 Bulgaria 0 Czech Republic 1 1 1 Denmark 4 5 5 12 2 4 9 Germany 8 10 18 67 74 0 4 4 96 Estonia 0 Greece 8 0 Spain 3 3 12 10 127 2 1 2 140 France 19 27 26 12 45 1 1 72 Ireland 2 3 14 13 15 Italy 1 1 0 0 0 Cyprus 1 0 Latvia 1 0 0 0 Lithuania 1 3 0 0 Luxembourg 0 Hungary 1 0 0 0 Malta 0 Netherlands 1 0 0 0 Austria 4 3 3 0 1 4 Poland 1 1 Portugal 17 15 84 1 30 114 Romania 0 Slovenia 1 1 Slovak Republic 1 0 Finland 2 1 2 9 7 7 9 Sweden 1 16 1 1 1 United Kingdom 1 8 1 0 0 Iceland 2 2 1 7 3 Liechtenstein 0 Norway 1 4 2 7 15 8 Switzerland 2 3 76 3 Missing 0 Total 64 94 171 182 483 35 41 467 637 677 691 105 1386 110 477 269 72

46,9% 81,9% 17,1% 36,4% 6,3% 2,1% 22,8% 98,8% 55,7% 14,9%

*

Luxembourg: source: Le gouvernement du Grand-duché de Luxembourg - Les activités de l'agence le developpement de l'emploi en 2012 ** the Netherlands: based on sample of received forms (Gak Nederland bv, 'Import en export van uitkeringen', 2001) *** the Netherlands: only detailed information for the 5 'most important countries'

**** Sweden: Evolution number of E303 forms received (source: IAF)

E303 forms received U2 forms received U2/E303 forms received Year Number % Number % Number %

2000 397 397 2001 452 14% 452 14% 2002 502 11% 502 11% 2003 665 32% 665 32% 2004 732 10% 732 10% 2005 629 -14% 629 -14% 2006 588 -7% 588 -7% 2007 513 -13% 513 -13% 2008 467 -9% 467 -9% 2009 637 36% 637 36% 2010 2011 101 576 677 2012 30 661 15% 691 2%

Switzerland applies Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i as from 1 April 2012 and Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein as from 1 June 2012

***** France (source: CLEISS, Rapport Statistique 2011) - only E303 forms (old Regulation 1408/71 i)

Source: Questionnaire on unemployment benefits

Table 69: number of unemployed persons who went to look for work in another Member State while continuing to receive unemployment benefits in the competent Member State - estimation for the whole EU-27

How many unemployed persons went to look for work in another Member State while continuing to receive unemployment benefits in the competent Member State?? Estimation EU 27

Average annual U2 forms issued unemployed persons Estimation U2 forms Total number of U2 (data available) (2012) (aged 15-74) issued(average of 0,11%) forms issued

Belgium 1.081 1.081 Bulgaria 410.000 451 451 Czech Republic 367.000 404 404 Denmark 1.108 1.108 Germany 2.316.000 2.548 2.548 Estonia 64 64 Greece 1.204.000 1.324 1.324 Spain 5.769.000 6.346 6.346 France 3.006.000 3.307 3.307 Ireland 316.000 348 348 Italy 2.750.000 3.025 3.025 Cyprus 52.000 57 57 Latvia 156.000 172 172 Lithuania 195.000 215 215 Luxembourg 148 148 Hungary 476.000 524 524 Malta 12.000 13 13 Netherlands 637 637 Austria 1.186 1.186 Poland 118 118 Portugal 860.000 946 946 Romania 11 11 Slovenia 90.000 99 99 Slovak Republic 79 79 Finland 207.000 228 228 Sweden 264 264 United Kingdom 2.511.000 2.762 2.762 EU 27 27.463

Source: Questionnaire on unemployment benefits

Table 70: Numbers of U3 forms issued and received

Question 5: Number of U3 forms issued and received?

Number of U3 forms issued ? To … Number of U3 forms received ?

From … Denmark - Since Slovak Republic - Poland - Sweden - Slovak Republic - Poland -

March 2012 2012 * 2011** 2012 2012 2011** Belgium 0 3 1 0 Bulgaria 0 0 0 Czech Republic 0 17 0 3 84 0 Denmark 0 1 1 13 5 2 Germany 3 14 0 12 25 0 Estonia 0 5 1 0 Greece 0 2 0 27 1 0 Spain 2 1 0 29 7 0 France 0 3 4 8 0 Ireland 0 7 0 6 179 0 Italy 0 1 2 1 2 0 Cyprus 0 6 11 0 Latvia 3 41 5 0 Lithuania 2 0 4 1 Luxembourg 0 0 0 Hungary 0 0 1 0 Malta 0 0 0 Netherlands 1 2 0 8 6 0 Austria 0 8 0 6 11 0 Poland 0 2 35 2 Portugal 1 0 6 0 Romania 0 0 1 0 Slovenia 0 1 0 0 Slovak Republic 0 0 2 0 Finland 2 1 0 7 1 0 Sweden 0 2 0 0 United Kingdom 0 14 0 2 36 0 Iceland 2 0 3 5 0 Liechtenstein 0 0 0 Norway 0 2 9 4 13 3 Switzerland 0 1 0 4 0 Total 16 79 106 150 390 8

*

Slovak Republic: considering 'Number of U3 forms issued', they count the same numbers as for number of U2 forms.

This is because a person is not registered according to issued forms, but based on the unemployment benefits li i

** Poland: only information available from 11 Regional Unemployment Offices (Out of 16)

Source: Questionnaire on unemployment benefits

Table 71: Reimbursement of competent Member State to institutions of place of residence - claims paid (as debtor - amount in EUR

Question 6a: Reimbursement of competent Member State to institution of place of residence - claims paid (as debtor) (amount in €)

Debtor country

Reimbursement request (SED U020) Reimbursement full Reimbursement non Reimbursement partial Reimbursement receipt / closing notification acceptance (SED U021) acceptance (SED U022) acceptance (SED U023) Total (SED U025)

Germany - Poland - Slovak Republic - Romania - 2011-2012 Poland - Romania - Poland - Romania - Poland - Romania - 2011 Romania -

Belgium - 2011 Poland - 2011 2011 Denmark - 2011 2012 **** 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2012 Belgium - 2011 Poland - 2011 Romania - 2012

Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount No. cases Amount No. cases Amount (in No. cases Amount (in No. cases Amount Amount (in €)

Creditor ↓ No. cases (in €) No. cases (in €) No. cases (in €) No. cases (in €) (in €) No. cases (in €) €) €) (in €) Belgium 3 5.279 869 2 1 3.490 1 2 3.490 1380 Bulgaria 2 1.151 4 2.689 1.175 4 1.768 36 3 263 3 299 1.151 1275 300 Czech Republic 12 12.790 23 32.626 78.960 5 5.544 4 1 17 1.119 22 1.119 12.790 12886 1119 Denmark 0 0 Germany 121 449.409 33 142.624 2.041 1.105 22.163 32 884 32 884 388.588 20516 Estonia 1 718 0 0 Greece 0 0 Spain 0 0 France 3.100 8.301.349 1 0 0 Ireland 0 0 Italy 0 0 Cyprus 0 0 Latvia 0 0 Lithuania 0 0 Luxembourg 17 98.221 0 0 45.703 Hungary 3 5 380 6.350 24 11.443 33 795 2.251 0 3.079 Malta 0 0 Netherlands 368 2.340.163 3 5.404 3.416 3 1 1 0 670.953 388 Austria 2 4.315 3 6.126 4.323 6 1.119 411 0 411 3.905 Poland 30 14.812 5.217 161 0 0 13.798 Portugal 2 9.563 1 567 1 1 0 9.131 Romania 0 0 Slovenia 1 4.474 0 0 4.474 Slovak Republic 4 13.866 5 6.624 1 5.617 5 5 0 13.866 3875 Finland 0 0 Sweden 2 3.321 3 3.798 325 1.513 3 257 3 257 3.321 2062 257 United Kingdom 0 0 Iceland 0 0 Liechtenstein 0 0 Norway 0 0 Switzerland 0 0 Total 3.664 11.253.433 84 206.834 102.352 1.637 49.167 ±7000 5 69 3 4.285 61 5.185 69 9.539 1.167.680 41.001 1.676

7% 1% 4% 45% 88% 54% 100%

*

Bulgaria: exchange rate 1 BGN= 0,5113 EUR (May 8 2013) ** Czech Republic: exchange rate 1 CZK= 0,0389 EUR (May 8 2013)

*** Sweden: exchange rate 1 SEK= 0,1272 EUR (May 8 2013) *** Hungary: exchange rate 1 HUF= 0,0034 EUR (May 8 2013)

**** Germany: figures second semester 2011 and first semester 2012

Source: Questionnaire on unemployment benefits

Table 72: Reimbursement of competent MS to institutions of place of residence - claims received (as creditor) - amount in EUR

Question 6b: Reimbursement of competent Member State to institution of place of residence - claims received (as creditor) (amount in €)

Creditor country

Reimbursement request (SED U020) Reimbursement full Reimbursement non Reimbursement partial Reimbursement payment Reimbursement receipt / closing notification

acceptance (SED U021) acceptance (SED U022) acceptance (SED U023) Total notification (SED U024) (SED U025) Slovak Republic - Germany - Poland - Romania - Poland - Romania - Poland - Romania - Poland - Romania -

Belgium - 2011 Poland - 2011 2011 Denmark - 2011 Romania - 2012 2011 -2012 ** 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 Poland - 2011 Romania - 2012 Belgium - 2011 Poland - 2011 Romania - 2012

Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount (in €)* Debtor ↓ No. cases (in €) No. cases (in €)* No. cases (in €) No. cases (in €) Amount (in €) No. cases No. cases

Amount (in

€) No. cases

Amount

(in €) No. cases

Amount

(in €) No. cases

Amount (in

€) No. cases Amount (in €)

Belgium 59 31.460 13.866 0 0 24 12.258 Bulgaria 1 554 3 882 1 1 0 1 110 122 Czech Republic 2 6.209 307 177.565 1.028.122 162 162 0 162 1.593

Denmark 4.934 204 111.728 0 0 89.266 Germany 225 736.581 527 277.617 211.647 1 9.498 6.466 3032 4 4 9.498 154 6.466 730.037 78.478 6.466 Estonia 1 1.417 0 0 1.234

Greece 9 20.161 10 6.941 0 0 Spain 72 165.242 64 33.525 3 0 0

France 528 1.040.871 152 74.409 0 0 Ireland 4 9.024 917 553.815 32.279 0 0

Italy 18 29.433 144 512.608 3.575 72 72 0 Cyprus 5.776 75 47.438 6.039 0 0

Latvia 0 0 Lithuania 3 1.841 1 1 0

Luxembourg 1.327 2.905.038 11 6.601 10.784 0 0 Hungary 1 542 2.415 0 0

Malta 0 0 Netherlands 1.123 3.639.899 1.748 952.982 33.168 2.982 2.982 0 2.982 2.982 2.912.477 2.982 Austria 15 19.294 40 20.139 101.398 2 2.400 0 0 13.412

Poland 3 7.375 1.880 0 0 1.380 Portugal 16 33.185 1 752 0 0

Romania 933 0 0 Slovenia 2.689 1 125 12.810 1 1 0 1

Slovak Republic 1 1.298 15 8.466 0 0 869 Finland 4.969 117 76.245 228.284 58 58 0 0

Sweden 1 17.520 73 39.677 2.041 73 73 0 43 38.691 United Kingdom 7 59.709 3.127 1.772.713 722.054 2 1.491 644 644 0 3.284 382.608 Iceland 0 0

Liechtenstein 0 0 Norway 0 0

Switzerland 0 0 Total 3.353 8.711.178 7.599 4.708.070 2.394.520 8 33.145 ± 16000 294 9.448 717 3.032 5 0 1.016 12.480 385 9.448 3.664.396 601.422 9.448

29% 76% 71% 24% 0% 0% 100%

*

Poland: exchange rate 1 PLN = 0,2409EUR (May 7 2013) ** Germany: figures second semester 2011 and first semester 2012

Source: Questionnaire on unemployment benefits

10.1.2 Coordination of LTC benefits: data collection

Table 73: Number of persons (insured persons and family members) insured for LTC benefits in kind and in cash who are living in another MS than the competent MS - status

Question 2a & 2b: Number of persons (insured persons and family members) insured for LTC benefits in kind and in cash who are living in another Member State than the competent Member State

Competent country Status

Family member of insured Former frontier Insured person Pensioner person Family member of pensioner worker General Luxembourg - Belgium - Luxembourg Luxembourg - Luxembourg - Luxembourg - Belgium Slovak the Netherlands - Member State Situation Situation - Situation Belgium - Situation Belgium - Situation Belgium - Situation Belgium - Flanders Republic - 2005 & 2006 - of residence ↓ 31/03/2011 30/06/2012 31/03/2011 2011 31/03/2011 2011 31/03/2011 * 2011 Belgium - 2011 31/03/2011 * 2011 2012 ** 2012 *** AWBZ **** Row total Belgium 40.520 1.907 22.929 863 66.219 3 66.222 Bulgaria 35 2 19 6 56 25 59 140 Czech Republic 664 2 10 75 2 753 12 166 931 Denmark 9 3 3 29 5 7 56 10 66 Germany 40.142 1.271 1.638 1.299 15.413 55 590 292 1 60.700 2.918 63.618 Estonia 2 1 1 1 5 1 6 Greece 8 4 1.258 12 7 3 230 1.522 1.495 4 3.021 Spain 64 169 6.349 56 17 45 1.280 7.980 7.646 15.626 France 78.243 36.751 2.562 11.931 20.728 168 799 2.561 10 153.753 51.421 7 205.181 Ireland 12 1 21 7 2 2 7 52 30 82 Italy 108 343 4.427 67 14 66 751 5.776 5.192 46 11.014 Cyprus 2 10 1 4 13 14 16 43 Latvia 9 2 11 2 13 Lithuania 2 2 0 2 Luxembourg 426 437 2 84 865 949 76 1.890 Hungary 173 2 123 21 1 1 22 343 146 34 523 Malta 2 15 5 17 20 1 38 Netherlands 1.029 8.036 20 999 302 49 11 127 10.573 9.211 19.784 Austria 86 19 82 30 1 16 19 253 102 2 357 Poland 694 9 144 191 168 5 39 1.250 351 3 1.604 Portugal 56 880 583 710 18 360 132 2.739 733 3.472 Romania 176 1 39 8 30 254 69 14 337 Slovenia 1 1 25 1 1 1 30 26 56 Slovak Republic 379 1 12 38 2 4 436 16 452 Finland 4 2 6 9 1 1 23 7 30 Sweden 17 4 9 45 4 1 80 10 90 United Kingdom 89 20 152 80 9 9 31 390 192 30 612 Iceland 2 1 5 4 12 0 12 Liechtenstein 1 7 8 0 8 Norway 2 2 4 9 3 20 4 24 Switzerland 107 28 206 95 1 7 13 457 220 677 Frontier workers 46.484 46.484 13206 unknown 2787

125400 (2005); Total 162.638 7.622 28.166 60.868 512 2.798 5.649 11 262.604 34.338 15993 461 48600 (2006) 346.003 Croatia 46 1 47

Turkey 2300 35 610 2945 Algeria 167 1 7 175

Morocco 21 4 1 26 Tunisia 102 2 104

*

Luxembourg: Data may not be complete. Family members are only known by the luxembourgish system if a reimbursment was made. ** Belgium - Flanders: 2 781 unknown insured persons: actual or former frontier workers OR persons living in the Walloon Region

*** Slovak Republic: Numbers enclosed are those for issued S1 forms in general. **** the Netherlands: source: 'CBS, Geëxporteerde ziektewetuitkeringen in december 2010 en december 2011'

Source: Questionnaire on LTC benefits

Table 74: Number of persons (insured persons and family members) insured for LTC benefits in kind and in cash who are living in another MS than the competent MS

Question 2a & 2b bis :Number of persons (insured persons and family members) insured forLTC benefits in kind and in cash who are living in the reportering Member State which is not the

competent Member State

Country of residence

Status

Family Family Former

Insured member of member of frontier

person Pensioner insured person pensioner workers General

Belgium - Belgium - Belgium - Belgium -

Competent MS ↓ 30/06/2012 2011 Belgium -2011 Belgium -2011 2011 2011

Belgium 0

Bulgaria 34 20 54

Czech Republic 4 16 20

Denmark 47 14 8 69

Germany 5.933 1.341 122 46 23 7.465

Estonia 12 12

Greece 84 9 17 110

Spain 130 22 76 228

France 6.699 5.962 127 306 8 13.102

Ireland 16 11 27

Italy 483 38 48 569

Cyprus 1 1

Latvia 0

Lithuania 5 1 6

Luxembourg 37.703 4.975 141 276 43.095

Hungary 6 2 8

Malta 3 3

Netherlands 34.560 13.406 47 424 48.437

Austria 33 5 1 39

Poland 52 8 60

Portugal 109 5 15 129

Romania 60 5 12 77

Slovenia 0

Slovak Republic 4 2 6

Finland 17 2 4 23

Sweden 66 4 11 81

United Kingdom 475 65 59 599

Iceland 3 3

Liechtenstein 0

Norway 38 1 10 49

Switzerland 69 25 2 96

Frontier workers 84.895 84.895

Other 0

Total 27.419 687 1.336 31 29.473

Croatia 1

Turkey 12 4 Algeria 1

Tunisia 1

Source: Questionnaire on LTC benefits

Table 75: Number of persons (insured persons and family members) receiving LTC benefits in cash who are living in another MS than the competent MS – in cash

Question 3a: Number of persons (insured persons and family members) receiving LTC benefits in cash who are living in another Member State than the competent Member State

Competent Member State (export of benefit) In cash

Germany - 2006 Germany - 2010 Germany Luxembourg - Denmark - Austria - Austria - Austria - Austria - ***** ***** 2011 2011 2010* 2011* 2012 * February Belgium 2012 * United Kingdom - 2011

Name: Supplementary Name: Integration allowance for children with allowance and Name: Name:

Pflegeversicherung: Pflegeversicherung: Name: disabilities to child benefit - Name: Flemish allowance for personal Disability Name: Name: Member State Assessment for in Assessment for in Pflegeversicherung: Name: LTC Social Name: Name: Name: Name: proxy 2011 (number of Care Insurance - assistance to the assistance living Attendance Carers of residence ↓ cash benefit cash benefit entitled to Insurance Pension Pflegegeld Pflegegeld Pflegegeld Pflegegeld children) (only employees) ** 2011 elderly budgets allowance allowance allowance Belgium 52 50 68 78 2

Bulgaria 4 0 26 1 Czech Republic 16 12 0 30 12 1

Denmark 3 13 0 0 0 Germany 186 930 366 8

Estonia 1 0 12 0 Greece 322 237 0 96 6 2

Spain 638 569 0 2.376 22 13 France 93 87 94 1.271 4 649

Ireland 2 4 0 21 0 Italy 156 116 0 175 12 11

Cyprus 0 13 0 Latvia 5 1 0 15 0

Lithuania 1 3 0 8 0 Luxembourg 4 5 0 79 2

Hungary 37 36 0 40 25 2 Malta 0 5 0

Netherlands 49 26 0 54 5 123 Austria 496 522 2 69 1

Poland 45 48 1 97 13 61 Portugal 79 51 8 95 4 8

Romania 6 0 17 2 6 Slovenia 26 21 0 8 30 0

Slovak Republic 3 9 0 9 4 2 Finland 4 0 46 1 0

Sweden 7 9 0 2.126 1 1 United Kingdom 11 12 0 546 5 4

Iceland 0 55 0 Liechtenstein 0 0 1 0

Norway 4 0 334 1 0 Switzerland 27 30 0 167 7 2

Total 2.077 1.875 ± 5000 ****** 359 8.798 2.771 2.694 2.570 523 900 27 *** ± 30 0 **** 4.210 1.090 230 -9,7% -2,8% -4,6%

*

Austria: source: 'Bundespflegegeldbezieherinnen und -behiezer nach Bundesländern 2002-2012' * Austria - february 2012: Antworten auf den Fragebogen zur Koordinierung der Leistungen bei Pflegebedürftigkeit (AC 018/12)

** Belgium: 42242 children entitled and 2,1% children with disabilities. *** Belgium: home care (18) and residential care (9)

**** Belgium: Personal assitence budget is not exportable. Only allocated to persons who are residing in Belgium. ***** Germany: source: Vierter Berich über die Entwicklung der Pflegeversicherung; Bericht der Bundesregierung über die Entwicklung der Pflegeversicherung und den Stand der pflegerischen Versorgung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. "Bei ca. 1.5

Mio. Begutachtungen von Plegebedürftigkeit pro Jahr im Inland hätten die knapp 2000 Begutachtungen über alle EWR- Staaten einen Anteil von 0.1% eingenommen".

****** Germany: "Wie viele Versicherte der sozialen Pflegeversicherung, die in EU- und EWEE-Staaten leben, gegenwärtig Pflegegeld erhalten, wird statistisch nicht erfasst. Aufgrund der Zahlen über die durchgeführten Begutachtungen im Ausland (2010 waren es 1875 Begutachtungen) und der Annahme, dass eine durchschnittliche Pflegedauer von drei bis vier Jahren angenommen werden kann und nicht jede Begutachtung zur Anerkennung einer erheblichen Pflegebedürftigkeit führt, dürfte sich deren Anzahl auf schätzungsweise 5000 Leistungsempfänger belaufen" (Bericht der Bundesregierung über die Entwicklung der Pflegeversicherung und den Stand der Pflegerischen Versorgung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland)

Source: Questionnaire on LTC benefits

Table 76: Number of persons (insured persons and family members) receiving LTC benefits in kind who are living in another MS than the competent MS – reporting country=debtor – in kind

Question 3b: Number of persons (insured persons and family members) receiving LTC benefits in kind who are living in another Member State than the competent Member State. Reporting country = debtor

Competent Member State (debtor country responsible for reimbursement) In kind

Number of claims

Member State (E125/127) Number aged 65-80 % aged 65-80 Number aged 80+ % 80+ General of residence ↓ Belgium -2011* Luxembourg*

Belgium 2

Bulgaria Czech Republic

Denmark

Germany 31.806 6.372 20,0% 4.097 12,9% 36

Estonia Greece

Spain 94.724 57.598 60,8% 15.950 17% France 149.893 20.115 13,4% 9.918 7% 2

Ireland

Italy 10.667 4.592 43,0% 2.099 20%

Cyprus Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg 6.215 2.526 40,6% 861 14%

Hungary Malta

Netherlands 39.116 3.408 8,7% 688 2% Austria 4.264 625 14,7% 161 4%

Poland Portugal

Romania Slovenia

Slovak Republic Finland

Sweden United Kingdom

Iceland Liechtenstein

Norway Switzerland

Total 336.685 95.236 28,3% 33.774 10% 40

*

Belgium: Total number of received E125/E127 forms. Proxy LTC by age (between 65-80 and 80+) * Luxembourg: Data is not complete. Contains only patients for which the LTC gets individual bills from the AOK (Germany) as well as patients benefiting from a technical assistance provided by the luxembourgish LTC insurance with offical residence abroad (very few cases).

Source: Questionnaire on LTC benefits

Table 77: Number of persons (insured persons and family members) receiving LTC benefits in kind who are living in another MS than the competent MS – reporting country=creditor – in kind

Question 3b - bis: Number of persons (insured persons and family members) receiving LTC benefits in kind in the reporting country which is not the competent Member State. Reporting country =

creditor

Country of residence (creditor country receiving reimbursement) In kind

Number of claims Number aged Number aged

(E125) 65-80 % aged 65-80 80+ % 80+

Competent Member State ↓ Belgium -2011*

Belgium

Bulgaria 1.236 69 5,6% 15 1,2% Czech Republic 645 10 1,6% 1 0,2%

Denmark 858 54 6,3% 36 4,2% Germany 12.774 1.530 12,0% 673 5,3%

Estonia 328 5 1,5% 0 0,0% Greece 2.127 272 12,8% 114 5,4%

Spain 3.812 520 13,6% 241 6,3% France 72.068 9.811 13,6% 10.313 14,3%

Ireland

Italy 11.436 1.559 13,6% 993 8,7% Cyprus 42 5 11,9% 1 2,4%

Latvia 245 1 0,4% 2 0,8% Lithuania 145 7 4,8% 5 3,4%

Luxembourg 121.608 2.334 1,9% 561 0,5% Hungary 599 19 3,2% 9 1,5%

Malta 54 4 7,4% 0 0,0% Netherlands 120.700 18.538 15,4% 4.214 3,5%

Austria 450 44 9,8% 33 7,3% Poland 3.204 275 8,6% 66 2,1%

Portugal 1.998 318 15,9% 143 7,2% Romania 1.683 202 12,0% 37 2,2%

Slovenia 508 0 0,0% 0 0,0% Slovak Republic 749 6 0,8% 5 0,7%

Finland 611 15 2,5% 3 0,5% Sweden 930 118 12,7% 53 5,7%

United Kingdom 6.312 855 13,5% 597 9,5% Iceland 113 5 4,4% 0 0,0%

Liechtenstein 8 0 0,0% 0 0,0% Norway 773 36 4,7% 3 0,4%

Switzerland 1.182 234 19,8% 93 7,9% Total 367.198 36.846 10,0% 18.211 5,0%

*

Belgium: Total number of issued E125/E127 forms. Proxy LTC by age (between 65-80 and 80+)

Source: Questionnaire on LTC benefits

Table 78: Yearly cross-border expenditure related to LTC in cash? Reporting country = debtor – in cash

Question 4a: Yearly crossborder expenditure related to LTC in cash ? Reporting country = debtor

Competent Member State (debtor country) In cash

Luxembourg Germany Belgium United Kingdom Name: Supplementary Name:

allowance for children Integration with disabilities to child allowance and

Name: Flemish benefit - proxy 2011 allowance for Name: Name: Member State Name: LTC Pflegeversicherung Care Insurance - (number of children) assistance to the Disability living Attendance Name: Carers of residence ↓ Insurance - 2011*** 2011 * (only employees) ** elderly allowance allowance allowance Belgium 651.396

Bulgaria 4.580 Czech Republic 3.722

Denmark 429 Germany 1.819.521 27.625

Estonia 215 Greece 6.441

Spain 43.156 France 1.040.622 2.181.750

Ireland 859 Italy 37.430

Cyprus 0 Latvia 859

Lithuania 143 Luxembourg 7.801

Hungary 5.153 Malta 0

Netherlands 414.236 Austria 17.845 2.219

Poland 13.688 205.329 Portugal 81.991 28.341

Romania 20.898 Slovenia 787

Slovak Republic 5.582 Finland 358

Sweden 3.364 United Kingdom 13.598

Iceland 0 Liechtenstein 0

Norway 573 Switzerland 7.729

Total 3.625.063 3.000.000 42.120 3.023.175 £ 11000000 £ 3000000 £ 1000000

*

Estimation: 27 cases paid every month 130 euro ** Estimation: number of cases multiplied by average amount of supplement (280 euro) every month

*** Germany: source: 'Statistisches Bundesamt, Gesundheid - Ausgaben 2011'

Source: Questionnaire on LTC benefits

Table 79: Yearly cross-border expenditure related to LTC in kind – reporting country = debtor – in kind

Question 4b: Yearly crossborder expenditure related to LTC in kind ? Reporting country = debtor

Competent Member State (debtor country responsible for reimbursement) In kind

Amount of claims Amount aged % aged General (sickness benefits in General - living (E125/E127) 65-80 65-80 Amount of 80+ % 80+ kind - pensioners) abroad - AWBZ

Member State the Netherlands - of residence ↓ Belgium -2011* Luxembourg - 2011** 2005*** Belgium ±1.100.000 1.930.833

Bulgaria Czech Republic

Denmark

Germany 25.369.878 6.828.797 26,9% 3.236.701 12,8% ±1.300.000 812.693

Estonia Greece

Spain 33.253.413 18.054.755 54,3% 6.678.581 20,1% 6.376.791 France 127.126.816 28.062.539 22,1% 21.475.591 16,9% 480.742

Ireland

Italy 2.217.214 827.350 37,3% 309.807 14,0%

Cyprus Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg 12.689.094 4.230.404 33,3% 3.926.458 30,9%

Hungary Malta

Netherlands 20.431.840 3.810.224 18,6% 1.061.784 5,2% Austria 2.222.921 586.420 26,4% 105.007 4,7%

Poland Portugal

Romania Slovenia

Slovak Republic Finland

Sweden

United Kingdom 619.208

Iceland Liechtenstein

Norway Switzerland

Total 223.311.176 62.400.490 27,9% 36.793.930 16,5% 2.426.458 11.092.665

*

Belgium: Total amount of received E125/E127 forms. Proxy LTC by age (between 65-80 and 80+) ** Luxembourg: total amount of sickness benefits received by pensioners

*** the Netherlands: 'AWBZ-zorg in het buitenland'

Source: Questionnaire on LTC benefits

Table 80: Yearly cross-border expenditure related to LTC in kind - reporting country=creditor - in kind

Question 4b - bis: Yearly crossborder expenditure related to LTC in kind? Reporting country = creditor

Member State of residence (creditor country receving reimbursement) In kind

Amount of claims (E125) Amount aged 65-80 % aged 65-80 Amount of 80+ % 80+ Competent

Member State ↓ Belgium -2011

Belgium

Bulgaria 1.263.708 144.152 11,4% 14.503 1,1% Czech Republic 422.677 11.149 2,6% 274 0,1% Denmark 507.509 38.624 7,6% 102.538 20,2% Germany 10.120.062 2.485.067 24,6% 2.229.349 22,0% Estonia 134.069 26.125 19,5% 0 0,0% Greece 1.579.001 437.530 27,7% 143.446 9,1% Spain 3.629.068 863.605 23,8% 392.935 10,8% France 110.046.769 22.447.640 20,4% 45.985.332 41,8%

Ireland

Italy 11.539.616 2.577.991 22,3% 2.979.192 25,8% Cyprus 52.857 2.344 4,4% 1.579 3,0% Latvia 154.893 96 0,1% 550 0,4% Lithuania 94.634 4.129 4,4% 984 1,0% Luxembourg 65.384.089 4.380.341 6,7% 1.482.985 2,3% Hungary 396.015 26.931 6,8% 21.059 5,3% Malta 14.963 3.330 22,3% 0 0,0% Netherlands 111.343.859 30.264.272 27,2% 12.807.592 11,5% Austria 471.654 124.875 26,5% 145.559 30,9% Poland 3.774.029 658.179 17,4% 285.127 7,6% Portugal 2.103.890 613.386 29,2% 404.526 19,2% Romania 2.746.741 510.317 18,6% 190.337 6,9% Slovenia 305.208 0 0,0% 0 0,0% Slovak Republic 636.637 18.090 2,8% 22.370 3,5% Finland 326.553 32.629 10,0% 15.245 4,7% Sweden 817.603 282.180 34,5% 141.099 17,3% United Kingdom 6.527.408 1.997.785 30,6% 1.238.162 19,0% Iceland 49.551 2.246 4,5% 0 0,0% Liechtenstein 6.212 0 0,0% 0 0,0% Norway 395.121 42.460 10,7% 651 0,2% Switzerland 1.131.425 359.701 31,8% 211.866 18,7% Total 335.975.821 68.355.174 20,3% 68.817.260 20,5%

*

Belgium: Total amount of issued E125/E127 forms. Proxy LTC by age (between 65-80 and 80+)

Source: Questionnaire on LTC benefits

10.2 Labour Force survey and other survey data

Table 81: Number of cross-border workers (in .000), 2011

Row Labels Outgoing cross Outgoing (country of border workers crossborder residence) AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK EU-27 HR CH IS NO MK TR workers AT 4089,1 0,4 0,2 0,8 22,9 0,1 0,2 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,0 1,1 0,1 0,0 0,6 0,1 0,6 0,1 1,1 2,7 1,2 32,6 0,3 11,3 0,2 0,0 44,4 BE 4409,6 0,2 5,1 0,3 0,1 12,2 0,2 0,2 38,1 35,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,6 92,4 0,1 0,9 0,1 93,5 BG 0,5 2924,0 1,3 0,3 3,7 2,6 0,9 7,5 0,2 2,3 1,2 0,2 0,2 0,2 0,3 2,4 23,7 0,5 0,5 24,6 CY 398,2 0,0 0,0 CZ 5,4 0,6 4876,6 9,5 0,5 0,5 0,2 0,2 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,3 2,3 3,8 24,5 0,2 0,3 24,9 DE 34,4 6,1 1,2 2,5 39435,9 5,4 8,7 5,7 4,0 1,2 3,6 42,9 36,1 2,6 5,5 12,8 172,9 66,4 239,3 DK 0,2 0,1 1,8 2692,6 0,1 0,4 0,1 0,0 0,0 1,9 0,1 0,7 5,5 0,1 0,1 1,8 7,5 EE 0,1 0,1 587,4 0,1 15,3 0,2 0,3 0,1 1,2 0,8 18,2 0,1 1,5 19,7 ES 0,4 0,3 1,5 18075,8 1,7 3,3 0,5 1,4 2,2 0,1 0,4 1,5 7,2 20,4 0,9 0,5 0,3 22,1 FI 0,2 0,2 2470,7 0,2 0,2 0,2 1,1 0,2 0,5 1,7 FR 0,5 38,0 46,0 0,3 3,2 25383,1 1,0 1,9 52,3 1,6 1,5 0,5 0,0 3,4 150,1 195,1 0,3 345,6 GR 4090,7 0,0 0,0 HU 23,5 1,2 0,2 0,1 14,2 0,5 0,0 0,2 0,5 1,8 3748,0 1,5 2,7 0,1 1,7 0,1 0,4 0,1 0,1 1,5 8,9 59,2 1,6 0,2 61,0 IE 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,5 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 1829,2 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,2 9,5 10,9 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,1 11,2 IT 1,3 1,5 0,1 6,5 0,2 0,9 0,0 4,6 0,5 0,2 0,2 22878,8 0,1 0,2 1,2 0,2 0,1 4,3 21,9 0,2 37,7 0,6 60,5 LT 0,2 0,3 0,1 1252,9 0,1 0,4 0,3 0,2 1,6 1,7 3,3 LU 0,0 0,9 0,0 0,8 0,1 0,0 0,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 218,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 2,7 0,1 0,0 2,8 LV 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,8 0,2 0,2 0,0 0,2 0,4 0,1 0,1 852,8 0,0 0,5 0,2 2,8 5,9 0,1 1,3 7,3 MT 0,0 0,2 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 166,5 0,0 0,6 1,1 0,0 0,0 1,1 NL 0,4 10,2 14,5 0,2 0,3 0,1 8300,6 0,1 0,2 25,9 0,1 25,9 PL 3,2 2,9 0,9 8,2 44,7 2,8 0,7 0,6 3,3 0,2 0,5 1,3 0,1 0,4 14,8 16022,3 0,1 0,1 3,4 0,0 0,8 7,0 96,0 1,0 8,0 104,9 PT 0,7 0,4 12,4 6,1 0,1 0,0 0,3 0,1 4807,1 0,2 0,2 0,5 21,0 1,5 0,5 23,0 RO 0,7 1,1 0,5 8,2 0,6 14,5 1,4 1,3 0,2 0,1 56,2 0,2 1,1 9047,1 3,5 89,4 0,1 89,5 SE 0,3 0,1 0,6 20,7 0,1 0,4 1,0 0,3 0,4 0,1 0,1 0,3 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,2 4592,0 2,1 26,9 0,2 0,1 19,4 0,0 46,7 SI 5,7 0,7 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 2,2 0,0 0,1 925,1 0,1 0,1 9,2 0,9 0,1 10,2 SK 26,0 0,7 43,9 5,8 0,5 1,9 0,2 1,8 0,1 10,0 1,9 3,1 0,1 0,1 5,9 0,1 0,4 0,2 2234,9 9,9 112,4 1,0 0,7 0,7 114,8 UK 3,5 0,8 0,7 1,8 7,0 0,6 29002,7 14,3 0,7 5,1 20,1 Incoming crossborder workers

EU-27 102,0 65,7 1,9 2,9 56,0 191,9 32,5 0,5 47,6 19,9 45,3 14,2 12,9 14,8 78,5 0,2 134,3 0,4 0,3 100,3 3,9 4,5 3,2 13,8 1,9 7,5 82,6 1039,6 HR 3,3 0,6 0,3 5,9 0,7 0,2 3,4 0,2 0,4 4,1 0,4 1465,2 0,9 0,2 0,1 20,6 CH 1,2 6,6 1,8 1,8 4334,6 11,4 IS 166,0 0,0 NO 2535,5 0,0 MK 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,2 0,0 0,1 0,8 0,0 0,2 0,6 0,2 0,2 640,9 2,6 TR 24099,3 0,0 Incoming

Crossborder workers 106,5 66,4 2,1 2,9 56,3 204,6 32,5 0,5 47,6 19,9 47,8 14,3 13,1 14,8 84,6 0,2 134,3 0,4 0,3 100,5 3,9 4,5 3,2 14,5 6,6 7,5 82,9 2,0 320,2 0,6 42,7 0,1 2,3 1440,5

*

Row totals for Cyprus, Finland, Greece, Lithuania, Iceland, Norway, Macedonia and Turkey are not reliable (under reliability limits for 2011). For an overview of the LFS reliability limits see http://circa.europa.eu/irc/dsis/employment/info/data/eu_lfs/LFS_MAIN/Related_documents/reliab_annual_average.htm Source: LFS

Table 82: Number of cross-border workers (in .000), 2010

Column Labels (working country) Outgoing

Row Labels Outgoing crosscross- (country of border workers border residence) AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK EU-27 HR CH IS NO MK TR workers AT 4045,2 0,1 0,1 0,3 25,4 0,1 0,5 0,4 0,1 0,8 0,0 1,4 0,1 0,1 0,3 0,8 0,1 0,2 0,7 0,1 31,6 0,1 9,5 0,1 41,4 BE 0,2 4381,4 0,1 0,2 8,8 0,1 0,6 0,1 14,8 0,3 0,3 0,2 0,3 36,2 0,2 36,5 0,3 0,2 0,1 1,5 100,8 0,9 0,5 102,2 BG 0,2 0,2 3033,6 0,7 0,6 2,8 3,6 0,8 4,9 0,2 2,1 0,2 0,3 0,3 1,8 18,7 0,1 18,8 CY 385,1 0,0 0,0 CZ 4,4 1,0 0,0 4858,5 9,0 0,1 0,8 0,2 0,4 1,0 0,6 0,8 1,3 0,2 0,0 0,3 2,1 1,6 23,8 0,5 0,1 24,4 DE 40,4 1,3 6,2 38573,2 7,9 3,7 1,2 7,1 1,1 19,3 56,5 8,6 2,3 2,5 157,9 65,9 1,1 225,0 DK 0,2 0,9 2697,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,4 0,6 3,2 0,1 0,1 1,1 0,1 4,5 EE 0,0 0,4 548,8 14,6 0,2 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,3 0,1 0,9 0,6 18,0 0,2 1,9 20,0 ES 1,3 2,0 18413,1 4,3 1,0 1,0 1,7 2,2 11,2 24,7 1,1 0,2 0,2 26,3 FI 0,2 0,3 0,2 2444,6 1,6 2,3 0,2 2,5 FR 38,2 0,0 45,9 0,0 3,5 1,1 25362,7 0,7 1,3 68,9 1,0 0,5 0,4 1,0 0,8 5,9 169,2 113,4 0,0 0,2 282,8 GR 4388,6 0,0 0,0 HU 18,2 0,8 0,0 0,3 0,2 11,4 0,7 0,4 0,0 1,9 3729,9 1,2 1,1 0,0 0,0 1,6 0,1 0,2 0,0 0,1 1,1 8,3 47,7 0,4 0,2 48,2 IE 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 1834,6 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,2 8,2 9,2 0,0 0,1 9,2 IT 1,3 1,1 0,1 0,0 6,7 2,6 6,1 1,7 0,1 0,3 22779,6 0,3 0,4 2,2 0,3 3,7 26,9 0,2 35,7 0,5 0,1 63,4 LT 0,1 0,2 0,2 0,0 0,3 0,3 1339,6 0,0 0,3 0,1 0,2 0,6 2,3 0,1 1,3 3,7 LU 0,1 0,6 0,0 0,0 0,8 0,0 0,0 0,8 0,0 0,0 217,2 0,0 0,2 0,1 0,2 2,9 0,1 0,0 3,0 LV 0,3 0,8 0,1 0,7 0,3 0,0 0,3 0,4 0,1 0,2 928,9 0,4 0,4 0,7 0,0 3,1 7,9 1,4 9,3 MT 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,1 163,1 0,1 0,4 0,6 0,0 0,0 0,7 NL 6,2 9,3 0,5 0,2 8311,5 0,4 16,7 16,7 PL 4,2 3,1 0,9 6,6 38,3 3,4 0,3 0,3 3,4 0,6 0,8 2,5 0,1 0,3 0,1 11,9 15862,4 0,3 2,3 0,4 7,7 87,5 0,2 0,8 6,3 94,8 PT 4931,5 0,0 0,0 RO 1,6 0,8 0,8 0,1 8,1 12,7 0,4 0,8 0,7 0,2 56,9 0,1 0,2 1,3 9152,7 1,5 86,1 0,2 0,1 86,3 SE 0,5 0,2 0,0 0,2 0,6 24,2 0,2 0,5 0,9 0,4 0,1 0,1 0,4 0,1 0,0 0,2 0,2 4491,4 2,2 31,0 0,0 0,2 20,4 0,0 51,6 SI 4,4 0,1 0,8 0,1 2,0 0,0 956,6 0,6 0,1 8,2 0,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 8,8 SK 23,9 0,6 0,9 52,4 6,3 0,2 1,5 0,6 1,0 11,6 3,4 3,0 5,0 0,5 0,2 0,1 2190,8 10,6 121,8 1,4 1,3 0,6 125,1 UK 0,6 2,6 1,5 0,6 1,6 7,3 9,4 0,9 1,7 28875,2 26,2 0,8 1,7 0,6 29,3 Incoming crossborder workers

EU-27 99,8 57,4 1,6 4,2 66,9 180,3 37,5 1,0 33,0 19,5 49,3 9,0 14,9 19,9 73,1 0,4 125,7 0,5 1,3 119,4 11,5 4,6 4,3 11,1 1,0 5,0 72,7 1024,9 HR 3,1 0,5 0,4 4,4 0,2 0,3 0,1 6,4 0,5 2,5 0,1 1517,9 0,6 0,3 19,5 CH 0,4 6,8 1,1 1,9 4251,0 10,2 IS 165,8 0,0 NO 2500,8 0,0 MK 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,6 0,1 0,0 0,6 0,0 0,1 635,0 0,0 2,0 TR 22592,7 0,0

Incoming crossborder workers 103,3 57,9 1,8 4,2 67,4 191,7 37,8 1,0 33,0 19,5 50,7 9,2 15,0 19,9 82,0 0,4 125,7 0,5 1,3 119,4 11,5 4,6 4,4 11,6 4,2 5,0 72,8 1,8 232,6 0,4 37,0 0,1 2,0 1329,5

*

Row totals for Cyprus, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Lithuania, Norway, Macedonia and Turkey are not reliable (under reliability limits for 2010). For an overview of the LFS reliability limits see

http://circa.europa.eu/irc/dsis/employment/info/data/eu_lfs/LFS_MAIN/Related_documents/reliab_annual_average.htm

Source: LFS

Table 83: Average number of cross-border workers EU-27 (in 000), Average 2011 and 2010

Outgoing Row Labels (country crossborder % of of residence) AT BE BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HR HU IE IS IT LT LU LV MK MT NL NO PL PT RO SE SI SK TR UK Grand Total workers employment AT 4.067,2 0,2 0,2 10,4 0,0 0,6 24,1 0,1 0,0 0,3 0,0 0,3 0,0 0,2 0,6 0,0 0,0 1,3 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,1 0,2 0,0 0,7 0,1 0,6 1,7 0,1 0,7 4.110,1 42,9 1,0% BE 0,1 4.395,5 0,1 0,9 0,1 0,1 7,0 0,0 0,0 0,4 0,1 13,5 0,2 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,2 0,0 37,1 0,0 0,0 0,1 35,8 0,0 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,3 1,1 4.493,4 97,9 2,2% BG 0,1 0,3 2.978,8 0,0 1,0 0,5 3,2 0,0 0,0 3,1 0,0 0,9 6,2 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,2 2,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,6 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,0 0,3 2,1 3.000,5 21,7 0,7% CH 0,8 0,0 0,0 4.292,8 0,0 0,0 6,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 4.303,6 10,8 0,3% CY 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 391,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 391,7 0,0 0,0% CZ 4,9 0,8 0,0 0,3 0,0 4.867,6 9,2 0,0 0,0 0,6 0,0 0,4 0,3 0,1 0,1 0,7 0,0 0,5 0,0 0,4 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,8 0,1 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 2,2 0,0 2,7 4.892,2 24,6 0,5% DE 37,4 3,1 1,3 66,2 0,0 4,3 39.004,6 6,7 0,0 6,2 0,6 6,4 2,0 0,0 1,2 0,0 0,0 1,8 0,0 31,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 46,3 0,5 5,6 0,0 0,0 3,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 7,7 39.236,7 232,1 0,6% DK 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 1,3 2.695,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,4 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,7 2.701,1 6,0 0,2% EE 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 568,1 0,0 15,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,1 1,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,7 588,0 19,9 3,4% ES 0,2 0,8 0,0 1,0 0,0 0,0 1,7 0,0 0,0 18.244,4 0,8 3,8 0,0 0,0 0,2 1,2 0,0 1,6 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,1 0,4 0,0 1,8 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,3 9,2 18.268,7 24,2 0,1% FI 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,1 0,1 2.457,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 2.459,8 2,1 0,1% FR 0,2 38,1 0,0 154,3 0,0 0,0 46,0 0,1 0,0 3,3 0,5 25.372,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,8 0,0 1,6 0,0 60,6 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,3 0,0 0,2 1,0 0,8 0,4 0,0 0,0 0,3 4,6 25.687,1 314,2 1,2% GR 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 4.239,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 4.239,7 0,0 0,0% HR 3,2 0,5 0,0 0,8 0,0 0,4 5,2 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,5 0,0 1.491,5 0,2 0,0 0,0 4,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,5 3,3 0,0 0,1 0,2 1.511,6 20,1 1,3% HU 20,9 1,0 0,0 1,0 0,2 0,2 12,8 0,6 0,0 0,3 0,2 1,8 0,0 0,0 3.738,9 1,4 0,0 1,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,7 0,2 0,1 0,0 0,3 0,1 0,1 1,3 0,0 8,6 3.793,6 54,6 1,4% IE 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1.831,9 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 8,8 1.842,1 10,2 0,6% IS 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 165,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 165,9 0,0 0,0% IT 1,3 1,3 0,1 36,7 0,0 0,0 6,6 0,1 0,0 1,8 0,0 5,3 1,1 0,2 0,2 0,3 0,0 22.829,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,6 0,3 0,0 1,7 0,0 0,3 0,0 0,0 4,0 22.891,1 61,9 0,3% LT 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,3 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 1.296,3 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,4 1,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,4 1.299,7 3,5 0,3% LU 0,0 0,7 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,8 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 217,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 220,6 2,9 1,3%

LV 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,0 0,8 0,2 0,5 0,0 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,4 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,0 890,9 0,0 0,0 0,4 1,3 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 3,0 899,1 8,3 0,9% MK 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 638,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,6 0,0 0,0 0,0 640,3 2,3 0,4% MT 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 164,8 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,5 165,7 0,9 0,6% NL 0,2 8,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 11,9 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 8.306,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,3 8.327,4 21,3 0,3% NO 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 2.518,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 2.518,1 0,0 0,0% PL 3,7 3,0 0,0 0,9 0,9 7,4 41,5 3,1 0,0 0,5 0,5 3,4 0,4 0,1 0,0 0,6 0,0 1,9 0,1 0,3 0,1 0,0 0,0 13,4 7,1 15.942,3 0,2 0,0 2,8 0,0 0,6 0,0 7,3 16.042,2 99,9 0,6% PT 0,0 0,3 0,0 0,7 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 6,2 0,0 3,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,3 0,0 4.869,3 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 4.880,8 11,5 0,2% RO 1,1 0,9 0,0 0,0 0,6 0,0 8,2 0,3 0,0 13,6 0,0 0,9 1,0 0,0 0,4 0,1 0,0 56,6 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,2 0,1 0,0 1,2 9.099,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 2,5 9.187,8 87,9 1,0% SE 0,4 0,2 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,1 0,6 22,4 0,1 0,4 1,0 0,4 0,2 0,0 0,1 0,3 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,1 19,9 0,2 0,0 0,0 4.541,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 2,1 4.590,8 49,1 1,1% SI 5,1 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,8 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 2,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 940,9 0,3 0,0 0,1 950,4 9,5 1,0%

SK 24,9 0,7 0,0 1,2 0,5 48,2 6,0 0,3 0,0 1,7 0,4 1,4 0,0 0,0 10,8 2,6 0,0 3,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 5,4 1,0 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,2 2.212,8 0,7 10,2 2.332,8 120,0 5,1% TR 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 23.346,0 0,0 23.346,0 0,0 0,0% UK 0,3 1,3 0,0 1,2 0,0 0,0 2,5 0,7 0,0 1,2 0,0 4,5 0,0 0,4 0,0 8,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,5 1,2 2,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 28.938,9 28.963,6 24,7 0,1% Grand Total 4.172,1 4.457,7 2.980,7 4.569,2 395,2 4.929,4 39.202,7 2.730,2 568,9 18.284,7 2.477,4 25.422,2 4.251,4 1.493,4 3.753,0 1.849,3 166,4 22.912,5 1.296,5 347,7 891,3 638,1 165,6 8.416,0 2.558,0 15.950,0 4.873,8 9.103,7 4.554,7 946,2 2.219,0 23.348,1 29.016,8 248.942,1 1.385,0 0,6% EU-27 4.168,0 4.457,1 2.980,6 275,5 395,2 4.929,0 39.190,7 2.730,1 568,9 18.284,7 2.477,4 25.420,2 4.251,3 1,8 3.752,8 1.849,3 0,5 22.905,0 1.296,5 347,7 891,3 0,1 165,6 8.415,9 39,6 15.950,0 4.873,8 9.103,6 4.554,2 942,3 2.219,0 2,0 29.016,6 216.456,6

Incoming Crossborder workers 104,9 62,2 1,9 276,4 3,6 61,8 198,1 35,2 0,8 40,3 19,7 49,3 11,7 1,9 14,1 17,3 0,5 83,3 0,3 130,0 0,4 0,1 0,8 110,0 39,8 7,7 4,5 3,8 13,0 5,4 6,2 2,1 77,9 1.385,0 % of employment 2,5% 1,4% 0,1% 6,0% 0,9% 1,3% 0,5% 1,3% 0,1% 0,2% 0,8% 0,2% 0,3% 0,1% 0,4% 0,9% 0,3% 0,4% 0,0% 37,4% 0,0% 0,0% 0,5% 1,3% 1,6% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 0,3% 0,6% 0,3% 0,0% 0,3% 0,6% Incoming Crossborder workers only from EU27 100,9 61,6 1,8 3,6 61,4 186,1 35,0 0,8 40,3 19,7 47,3 11,6 13,9 17,3 75,8 0,3 130,0 0,4 0,8 109,8 7,7 4,5 3,7 12,5 1,5 6,2 77,6 1.032,3 % of employment 2,4% 1,4% 0,1% 0,9% 1,2% 0,5% 1,3% 0,1% 0,2% 0,8% 0,2% 0,3% 0,4% 0,9% 0,3% 0,0% 37,4% 0,0% 0,5% 1,3% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 0,3% 0,2% 0,3% 0,3% 0,5%

*

Row totals for Cyprus, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Norway, Macedonia and Turkey are not reliable (under reliability limits for 2011). For an overview of the LFS reliability limits see

http://circa.europa.eu/irc/dsis/employment/info/data/eu_lfs/LFS_MAIN/Related_documents/reliab_annual_average.htm

Source: LFS

Table 84: Share in total number of incoming cross-border workers (as % of column total), by country of residence, top 3 of incoming MS, average of 2011 and 2010, EU-27

Column Labels (country of employment) Outgoing

Row Labels cross(country of border residence) AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK workers # in top 3 AT 0,0% 0,4% 10,3% 0,0% 0,9% 13,0% 0,2% 0,0% 0,8% 0,2% 0,6% 0,3% 4,2% 0,2% 1,7% 9,9% 0,1% 0,0% 2,5% 0,3% 2,7% 0,0% 18,0% 0,7% 43,3% 27,2% 0,9% 3,1% 7 BE 0,1% 0,0% 6,5% 1,9% 0,1% 3,7% 0,1% 0,0% 1,1% 0,6% 28,5% 2,0% 1,0% 0,7% 0,3% 0,0% 28,6% 0,0% 11,4% 32,6% 2,2% 3,1% 1,7% 0,5% 0,0% 0,0% 1,4% 9,4% 5 BG 0,1% 0,5% 0,0% 27,3% 0,7% 1,7% 0,0% 0,0% 7,8% 0,0% 1,8% 53,1% 0,7% 0,6% 2,9% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,6% 0,0% 4,3% 2,8% 1,9% 20,0% 0,0% 2,7% 2,0% 4 CY 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0 CZ 4,8% 1,3% 0,0% 0,6% 0,0% 5,0% 0,1% 0,0% 1,6% 0,0% 0,8% 2,6% 0,8% 4,0% 0,6% 0,0% 0,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,8% 2,8% 0,0% 0,4% 1,3% 0,0% 36,0% 3,5% 2,3% 1 DE 37,1% 5,0% 71,6% 0,0% 7,1% 0,0% 19,1% 0,0% 15,4% 3,0% 13,5% 17,1% 8,4% 0,0% 2,4% 0,0% 23,9% 0,0% 0,0% 42,2% 72,3% 0,0% 0,0% 31,3% 0,0% 0,0% 9,9% 16,0% 14 DK 0,1% 0,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,7% 0,0% 0,0% 0,2% 0,0% 0,4% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,5% 13,5% 0,0% 0,4% 0,9% 0,4% 1 EE 0,0% 0,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,1% 76,1% 0,2% 0,0% 0,0% 1,7% 0,2% 0,0% 0,1% 70,9% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 8,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,9% 1,7% 2 ES 0,2% 1,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,9% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 4,3% 8,1% 0,0% 1,7% 6,9% 2,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 1,0% 0,0% 39,9% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 11,8% 2,2% 3 FI 0,0% 0,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 10,4% 0,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 7,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,2% 1 FR 0,2% 61,8% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 24,7% 0,4% 0,0% 8,3% 2,7% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 4,9% 2,1% 0,0% 46,6% 0,0% 0,0% 1,2% 3,0% 21,3% 20,3% 3,2% 0,0% 0,0% 6,0% 15,5% 6 GR 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0 HU 20,7% 1,6% 0,8% 6,1% 0,3% 6,9% 1,6% 1,6% 0,7% 1,2% 3,9% 0,0% 0,0% 7,8% 2,5% 6,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 1,5% 1,2% 0,0% 7,4% 0,5% 5,9% 21,4% 11,1% 5,2% 3 IE 0,0% 0,2% 1,9% 0,8% 0,1% 0,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,2% 0,1% 0,1% 0,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 1,4% 0,1% 1,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 11,4% 1,0% 1 IT 1,3% 2,1% 6,2% 0,0% 0,0% 3,6% 0,3% 0,0% 4,3% 0,0% 11,2% 9,3% 1,3% 1,5% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,2% 3,9% 0,0% 45,1% 0,0% 18,6% 0,6% 5,1% 2,4% 5 LT 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,1% 0,8% 10,0% 0,0% 0,7% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 1,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 12,5% 0,0% 0,4% 0,6% 0,0% 0,0% 2,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,5% 0,2% 1 LU 0,0% 1,2% 0,8% 0,6% 0,0% 0,4% 0,1% 2,1% 0,0% 0,1% 1,4% 0,0% 0,2% 0,1% 0,0% 3,8% 0,0% 2,8% 0,0% 0,1% 0,1% 0,0% 0,6% 0,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,2% 0,3% 0 LV 0,0% 0,0% 1,9% 6,1% 0,0% 0,4% 0,5% 57,2% 0,0% 0,8% 0,3% 1,3% 0,0% 2,2% 0,1% 48,4% 0,0% 0,0% 2,0% 0,4% 2,9% 0,0% 0,0% 3,8% 0,0% 0,2% 3,8% 0,7% 2 MT 0,0% 0,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,1% 3,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,6% 0,1% 0 NL 0,2% 13,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 6,4% 0,0% 0,0% 0,7% 0,5% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 6,2% 0,0% 0,8% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,4% 2,1% 1 PL 3,7% 4,9% 0,0% 25,9% 12,1% 22,3% 8,8% 0,0% 1,2% 2,5% 7,1% 3,4% 0,0% 3,6% 2,5% 28,3% 0,3% 13,5% 0,0% 12,2% 0,0% 5,3% 0,8% 22,6% 1,0% 9,1% 9,4% 8,9% 8 PT 0,0% 0,6% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 0,0% 15,4% 0,0% 6,4% 0,0% 0,0% 0,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 2,4% 0,7% 0,0% 0,0% 0,3% 1,0% 1 RO 1,1% 1,5% 0,0% 17,7% 0,1% 4,4% 0,8% 0,0% 33,7% 0,0% 1,9% 8,7% 3,2% 0,8% 74,6% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 6,4% 0,1% 0,0% 26,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 3,2% 8,5% 4 SE 0,4% 0,3% 0,0% 0,3% 0,1% 0,3% 64,0% 18,0% 1,1% 5,0% 0,8% 1,9% 0,6% 1,5% 0,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 9,3% 0,1% 2,7% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 2,8% 2,8% 4 SI 5,0% 0,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,4% 0,0% 0,7% 0,0% 0,0% 0,3% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 2,8% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 5,2% 0,1% 0,8% 0 SK 24,7% 1,1% 0,0% 12,7% 78,4% 3,2% 0,9% 0,0% 4,2% 2,1% 3,0% 0,2% 77,9% 15,2% 4,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 3,3% 4,9% 3,6% 0,0% 0,0% 2,3% 11,2% 0,0% 13,2% 11,3% 8 UK 0,3% 2,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 1,3% 1,9% 0,0% 2,9% 0,0% 9,5% 0,0% 0,0% 47,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 57,4% 1,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 2,0% 2 Incoming cross-border workers 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 84

Source: LFS

Table 85: Share in total number of outgoing cross-border workers (as % of row total), by country of employment, top 3 of outgoing MS, average of 2011 and 2010, EU-27

Column Labels (country of employment) Outgoing

Row Labels cross(country of border residence) AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK workers AT 0,0% 0,7% 0,6% 0,0% 1,8% 75,1% 0,2% 0,0% 1,0% 0,1% 0,9% 0,1% 1,8% 0,1% 4,0% 0,1% 0,2% 0,0% 0,1% 1,0% 0,7% 0,0% 2,1% 0,3% 2,0% 5,3% 2,1% 100,0% BE 0,1% 0,0% 0,1% 0,1% 0,1% 7,2% 0,1% 0,0% 0,4% 0,1% 14,0% 0,2% 0,1% 0,1% 0,2% 0,0% 38,4% 0,0% 0,1% 37,0% 0,2% 0,1% 0,1% 0,1% 0,0% 0,0% 1,1% 100,0% BG 0,5% 1,5% 0,0% 4,6% 2,1% 15,2% 0,0% 0,0% 14,8% 0,0% 4,0% 29,2% 0,5% 0,5% 10,4% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 2,9% 0,0% 0,9% 0,5% 1,1% 1,4% 0,0% 9,9% 100,0% CY

CZ 20,2% 3,3% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 38,2% 0,2% 0,0% 2,6% 0,0% 1,6% 1,3% 0,4% 2,8% 2,0% 0,0% 1,6% 0,0% 0,0% 3,5% 0,9% 0,0% 0,1% 0,7% 0,0% 9,3% 11,2% 100,0% DE 22,6% 1,9% 0,8% 0,0% 2,6% 0,0% 4,0% 0,0% 3,8% 0,4% 3,9% 1,2% 0,7% 0,0% 1,1% 0,0% 18,8% 0,0% 0,0% 28,0% 3,4% 0,0% 0,0% 2,4% 0,0% 0,0% 4,6% 100,0% DK 2,2% 3,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 30,7% 0,0% 0,0% 1,9% 0,0% 4,8% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 1,7% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,5% 0,0% 0,0% 0,4% 38,5% 0,0% 0,6% 15,4% 100,0% EE 0,0% 0,5% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 1,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,3% 83,1% 0,5% 0,0% 0,0% 1,6% 0,7% 0,0% 0,5% 1,7% 0,0% 0,5% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 5,6% 0,0% 0,0% 3,7% 100,0% ES 0,8% 3,6% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 7,7% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 3,7% 17,1% 0,0% 1,1% 5,3% 7,1% 0,0% 0,2% 0,0% 0,0% 4,7% 0,0% 8,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 40,7% 100,0% FI 0,0% 10,6% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 9,9% 0,0% 5,0% 5,5% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 6,4% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 7,5% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 55,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 100,0% FR 0,1% 23,8% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 28,8% 0,1% 0,0% 2,1% 0,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,5% 1,0% 0,0% 38,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,8% 0,1% 0,6% 0,5% 0,3% 0,0% 0,0% 2,9% 100,0% GR

HU 39,0% 1,8% 0,0% 0,4% 0,3% 24,0% 1,1% 0,0% 0,5% 0,5% 3,4% 0,0% 0,0% 2,5% 3,5% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 0,0% 3,2% 0,2% 0,0% 0,5% 0,1% 0,2% 2,5% 16,1% 100,0% IE 0,3% 1,1% 0,3% 0,3% 0,7% 3,4% 0,2% 0,0% 0,9% 0,3% 0,4% 0,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,9% 0,0% 0,3% 0,0% 0,1% 1,5% 1,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 88,2% 100,0% IT 5,2% 5,2% 0,4% 0,0% 0,1% 27,1% 0,4% 0,0% 7,2% 0,0% 21,8% 4,4% 0,8% 1,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,7% 1,2% 0,0% 6,9% 0,0% 1,1% 0,1% 16,2% 100,0% LT 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 7,2% 13,7% 4,1% 0,2% 7,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 9,9% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 2,8% 0,0% 20,2% 2,2% 0,0% 0,0% 13,1% 0,0% 0,0% 19,3% 100,0% LU 1,3% 26,2% 0,5% 0,7% 0,4% 29,6% 1,4% 0,6% 0,0% 0,7% 24,0% 0,0% 1,1% 0,3% 0,4% 0,4% 0,0% 0,4% 0,0% 3,1% 0,4% 0,0% 0,8% 1,0% 0,0% 0,0% 6,3% 100,0% LV 0,0% 0,3% 0,5% 3,1% 0,3% 11,3% 2,4% 6,6% 0,0% 2,3% 1,9% 2,1% 0,0% 5,5% 1,7% 2,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,2% 6,4% 3,2% 0,0% 0,0% 6,9% 0,0% 0,2% 43,0% 100,0% MT 2,8% 13,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 4,9% 0,0% 0,0% 4,1% 1,4% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 9,0% 1,1% 0,7% 0,0% 0,0% 6,6% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 56,2% 100,0% NL 0,8% 38,5% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 56,0% 0,0% 0,0% 1,3% 0,4% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 1,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,2% 0,0% 0,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 1,3% 100,0% PL 4,0% 3,3% 0,0% 1,0% 8,1% 45,3% 3,4% 0,0% 0,5% 0,5% 3,7% 0,4% 0,0% 0,7% 2,1% 0,1% 0,4% 0,1% 0,0% 14,6% 0,0% 0,3% 0,0% 3,1% 0,0% 0,6% 8,0% 100,0% PT 0,0% 3,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 1,9% 0,0% 0,0% 59,2% 0,0% 28,8% 0,0% 0,0% 0,4% 0,2% 0,0% 1,6% 0,0% 0,0% 0,5% 0,0% 0,0% 0,9% 0,9% 0,0% 0,0% 2,3% 100,0% RO 1,3% 1,1% 0,0% 0,7% 0,1% 9,3% 0,3% 0,0% 15,5% 0,0% 1,0% 1,2% 0,5% 0,2% 64,5% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,1% 0,2% 0,0% 1,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 2,9% 100,0% SE 1,3% 0,6% 0,0% 0,0% 0,3% 2,0% 77,5% 0,5% 1,5% 3,4% 1,3% 0,8% 0,3% 0,9% 0,7% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 0,3% 0,5% 0,7% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 7,4% 100,0% SI 58,6% 0,4% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 8,7% 0,0% 0,1% 0,2% 0,0% 1,7% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 24,8% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,4% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 3,7% 1,1% 100,0% SK 21,3% 0,6% 0,0% 0,4% 41,1% 5,2% 0,3% 0,0% 1,5% 0,3% 1,2% 0,0% 9,2% 2,3% 2,6% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 4,6% 0,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,2% 0,1% 0,0% 8,7% 100,0% UK 1,5% 6,4% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 12,3% 3,4% 0,0% 5,7% 0,0% 22,2% 0,0% 0,0% 40,5% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 2,2% 5,9% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 100,0% Incoming cross-border workers 9,8% 6,0% 0,2% 0,3% 6,0% 18,0% 3,4% 0,1% 3,9% 1,9% 4,6% 1,1% 1,3% 1,7% 7,3% 0,0% 12,6% 0,0% 0,1% 10,6% 0,7% 0,4% 0,4% 1,2% 0,1% 0,6% 7,5% 100,0% # in top 3 5 6 0 0 2 17 2 0 3 2 6 1 1 1 4 0 4 0 0 6 0 1 0 4 0 1 12 78

Source: LFS

Table 86: PD A1 issued in reporting countries by destination, 2010, EU-27 (without SE as sending country)

Source: EC (2012), Posting of workers in the European Union and EFTA countries: Report on A1 portable documents issued in 2010 and 2011

Table 87: PD A1 issued in reporting countries by destination (as % of row total), top 3 of sending countries, 2010, EU-27 (without SE as sending country)

Source: EC (2012), Posting of workers in the European Union and EFTA countries: Report on A1 portable documents issued in 2010 and 2011

Table 88: PD A1 issued in reporting countries by destination (as % of column total), top 3 of destination countries, 2010, EU-27 (without SE as sending country)

Source: EC (2012), Posting of workers in the European Union and EFTA countries: Report on A1 portable documents issued in 2010 and 2011

10.3 Detailed tables on unemployment benefits

10.3.1 Estimated annual expenditure baseline scenario and different options

Table 89: Baseline scenario: frontier workers return to country of residence and other cross-border workers have right to choose, scenario: 50% register in country of residence and 50% register in country of employment, in € .000

Baseline scenario: frontier workers return to country of residence and cross-border workers (50% register in country of residence and 50% register in country of employment) Column Labels (country of employment)

Row Labels Outgoing Outgoing (country of crossborder frontier residence) AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK EU-27 workers workers

AT 2.171.898 306 122 0 514 21.772 58 0 556 32 311 29 816 54 1.309 33 58 0 9 261 132 0 332 56 578 2.982 349 2.202.567 30.669 27.971 BE 53 6.722.007 115 49 57 9.469 48 0 1.011 168 23.215 304 149 269 222 0 30.534 0 57 27.349 158 175 46 57 0 0 785 6.816.296 94.289 90.566

BG 29 257 138.017 116 29 1.072 0 0 1.582 0 500 350 7 99 557 0 0 0 0 355 0 44 3 57 21 0 193 143.290 5.272 354 CY 0 0 0 82.271 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82.271 0 0

CZ 284 650 0 3 478.963 907 18 0 381 0 243 68 13 742 142 0 215 0 0 511 28 0 1 45 0 431 336 483.982 5.018 1.650 DE 14.001 2.186 605 0 2.753 24.698.596 4.111 0 8.257 541 5.125 1.378 629 0 1.085 0 11.911 0 0 16.528 4.763 0 0 2.121 0 0 2.946 24.777.536 78.940 61.378

DK 45 158 0 0 0 895 1.748.004 0 115 0 208 0 0 0 45 0 0 1 0 18 0 0 7 1.154 0 18 269 1.750.937 2.933 2.049 EE 0 77 0 0 0 70 0 69.201 26 842 57 0 0 308 34 0 50 42 0 54 0 0 0 249 0 0 68 71.079 1.878 884

ES 68 784 0 0 0 847 0 0 16.844.845 637 1.639 0 74 1.548 683 0 23 0 0 706 0 951 0 0 0 0 2.204 16.855.008 10.163 2.590 FI 0 239 0 0 0 139 0 204 174 2.818.163 0 0 0 0 89 0 0 0 0 109 0 0 0 989 0 0 0 2.820.106 1.942 1.193

FR 126 38.307 0 0 0 41.043 111 0 8.192 556 28.721.285 0 0 1.533 1.638 0 32.772 0 0 1.084 142 868 371 271 0 0 2.371 28.850.669 129.384 121.951 GR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.146.889 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.146.889 0 0

HU 729 767 1 29 13 4.430 202 2 151 148 1.110 0 345.607 1.412 510 2 18 0 0 999 6 0 17 16 5 154 906 357.234 11.627 905 IE 15 152 26 17 43 288 13 0 180 30 47 21 0 3.619.917 79 0 26 0 6 130 73 0 0 0 0 0 9.133 3.630.195 10.278 9.133

IT 312 1.269 35 0 6 3.458 54 0 1.801 8 2.784 537 68 348 10.752.890 0 0 0 0 121 90 0 408 0 114 15 1.097 10.765.414 12.523 3.210 LT 0 0 0 0 0 46 90 7 2 82 0 0 0 195 0 92.550 0 4 0 228 2 0 0 59 0 0 34 93.300 750 6

LU 30 1.466 18 18 11 1.470 47 35 0 31 1.508 0 45 25 16 24 234.470 29 0 93 14 0 21 32 0 0 166 239.571 5.101 4.444 LV 0 15 2 27 2 264 57 44 0 95 79 25 0 386 29 14 0 96.707 1 259 11 0 0 114 0 1 287 98.418 1.712 59

MT 8 96 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 23 8 0 0 0 25 2 4 0 21.794 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 22.086 292 0 NL 153 18.840 0 0 0 24.299 0 0 879 153 0 0 0 0 347 0 0 0 46 9.558.139 88 0 0 0 0 0 299 9.603.242 45.103 43.139

PL 1.022 2.342 0 109 209 1.171 1.048 0 242 286 1.957 62 0 627 476 6 189 5 0 7.790 607.647 53 1 655 1 31 662 626.591 18.944 1.416 PT 0 310 0 0 0 88 0 0 4.401 0 2.207 0 0 48 8 0 104 0 0 35 0 1.960.678 15 32 0 0 50 1.967.977 7.299 4.401

RO 322 748 0 82 3 2.825 101 0 7.323 0 548 187 39 143 15.161 0 0 0 5 97 0 289 533.123 0 0 0 261 561.258 28.136 39 SE 146 161 0 3 21 310 9.258 80 461 449 323 113 34 354 96 0 19 0 18 104 63 0 0 1.982.084 0 0 606 1.994.705 12.621 9.707

SI 328 29 0 0 0 281 0 1 9 0 96 0 1 0 267 0 4 0 0 22 0 3 0 0 104.122 44 12 105.219 1.098 596 SK 424 529 0 54 1.385 1.999 110 0 851 241 818 4 487 2.684 771 0 19 0 2 3.171 11 0 0 66 11 124.628 927 139.192 14.564 2.307

UK 92 1.108 0 0 0 984 274 0 783 0 3.000 0 0 2.402 0 0 0 0 60 737 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.431.337 4.440.778 9.441 2.402 EU-27 2.190.086 6.792.804 138.940 82.778 484.011 24.816.724 1.763.621 69.574 16.882.221 2.822.486 28.767.068 1.149.968 347.970 3.633.095 10.776.480 92.631 310.415 96.788 21.998 9.618.935 613.226 1.963.061 534.346 1.988.057 104.852 128.303 4.455.373 120.645.809 539.976 392.351

Incoming Crossborder workers 18.188 70.797 923 507 5.047 118.128 15.616 373 37.376 4.322 45.783 3.079 2.363 13.178 23.590 81 75.944 82 204 60.796 5.580 2.383 1.223 5.973 730 3.674 24.035 539.976

Incoming frontier workers 16.079 60.800 0 0 4.861 101.026 13.369 248 12.592 1.292 34.271 350 1.343 2.402 3.214 20 75.216 46 0 43.877 4.804 951 20 2.144 697 3.597 9.133 392.351

Source: Own calculations based on data LFS and 2012 Ageing Report

Table 90: Baseline scenario: frontier workers return to country of residence and other cross-border workers have right to choose, scenario: rational decision, in € .000

Baseline scenario: frontier workers have to return while cross-border workers have right to choose (rational decision)

Row Labels Outgoing Outgoing (country of crossborder frontier residence) AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK EU-27 workers workers

AT 2.171.898 368 235 0 514 21.772 67 0 810 35 313 49 816 59 1.309 63 77 0 15 362 255 0 625 76 578 2.982 594 2.203.872 31.975 27.971 BE 64 6.722.007 224 84 107 9.469 64 0 1.620 189 23.215 546 285 302 341 0 30.534 0 103 27.349 310 295 88 87 0 0 1.407 6.818.687 96.680 90.566

BG 57 501 138.017 204 44 2.040 0 0 2.887 0 965 350 9 191 1.034 0 0 0 0 698 0 79 3 105 32 0 321 147.540 9.523 354 CY 0 0 0 82.271 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82.271 0 0

CZ 284 1.212 0 4 478.963 907 32 0 589 0 438 83 17 1.359 230 0 407 0 0 974 28 0 2 72 0 431 413 486.446 7.483 1.650 DE 14.001 2.186 1.151 0 2.753 24.698.596 4.111 0 10.788 676 5.125 2.217 1.151 0 1.314 0 11.911 0 0 16.528 4.763 0 0 2.539 0 0 4.718 24.784.529 85.932 61.378

DK 52 212 0 0 0 895 1.748.004 0 153 0 238 0 0 0 55 0 0 2 0 27 0 0 12 1.154 0 34 434 1.751.274 3.270 2.049 EE 0 148 0 0 0 130 0 69.201 45 842 108 0 0 588 60 0 98 42 0 105 0 0 0 444 0 0 103 71.913 2.713 884

ES 98 1.257 0 0 0 1.107 0 0 16.844.845 966 1.639 0 125 2.352 753 0 38 0 0 1.212 0 951 0 0 0 0 3.002 16.858.346 13.501 2.590 FI 0 269 0 0 0 173 0 204 263 2.818.163 0 0 0 0 128 0 0 0 0 143 0 0 0 989 0 0 0 2.820.334 2.170 1.193

FR 127 38.307 0 0 0 41.043 127 0 8.192 603 28.721.285 0 0 1.666 1.638 0 32.772 0 0 1.508 275 1.347 698 367 0 0 4.030 28.853.985 132.700 121.951 GR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.146.889 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.146.889 0 0

HU 729 1.470 1 46 17 8.103 372 2 256 281 2.082 0 345.607 2.675 892 3 35 0 0 1.942 8 0 17 27 5 154 1.318 366.042 20.435 905 IE 16 171 50 29 78 361 16 0 273 30 51 37 0 3.619.917 114 0 32 0 10 172 142 0 0 0 0 0 9.133 3.630.631 10.714 9.133

IT 312 1.947 65 0 9 4.186 67 0 1.985 11 2.784 783 119 501 10.752.890 0 0 0 0 201 168 0 717 0 114 29 1.588 10.768.475 15.584 3.210 LT 0 0 0 0 0 89 172 10 4 160 0 0 0 379 0 92.550 0 4 0 451 2 0 0 111 0 0 57 93.989 1.439 6

LU 39 1.466 36 31 21 1.470 68 68 0 39 1.508 0 88 31 25 48 234.470 57 0 100 27 0 42 52 0 0 306 239.994 5.524 4.444 LV 0 29 2 45 2 495 108 44 0 182 150 39 0 743 54 14 0 96.707 2 507 13 0 0 208 0 1 454 99.799 3.093 59

MT 13 172 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 40 14 0 0 0 37 4 7 0 21.794 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 22.247 453 0 NL 212 18.840 0 0 0 24.299 0 0 1.509 202 0 0 0 0 576 0 0 0 85 9.558.139 174 0 0 0 0 0 555 9.604.592 46.453 43.139

PL 1.983 4.588 0 194 209 1.171 2.010 0 447 557 3.794 105 0 1.222 891 6 373 6 0 15.368 607.647 96 2 1.229 2 31 1.122 643.052 35.405 1.416 PT 0 521 0 0 0 126 0 0 4.401 0 3.426 0 0 78 10 0 182 0 0 62 0 1.960.678 24 40 0 0 62 1.969.609 8.932 4.401

RO 606 1.435 0 132 4 5.184 187 0 12.524 0 1.030 273 39 272 26.645 0 0 0 7 189 0 474 533.123 0 0 0 383 582.506 49.383 39 SE 199 245 0 4 35 371 9.258 142 515 449 438 166 60 506 97 0 31 0 26 172 119 0 0 1.982.084 0 0 884 1.995.801 13.718 9.707

SI 328 54 0 0 0 480 0 1 13 0 172 0 1 0 267 0 7 0 0 42 0 4 0 0 104.122 69 15 105.575 1.453 596 SK 424 1.036 0 95 1.385 3.825 210 0 1.569 469 1.584 7 487 5.226 1.442 0 37 0 3 6.254 11 0 0 123 18 124.628 1.568 150.402 25.774 2.307

UK 157 1.985 0 0 0 1.576 443 0 1.067 0 5.100 0 0 2.402 0 0 0 0 61 1.369 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.431.337 4.445.497 14.160 2.402 EU-27 2.191.600 6.800.427 139.782 83.140 484.142 24.827.868 1.765.343 69.672 16.894.754 2.823.896 28.775.459 1.151.546 348.804 3.640.469 10.790.801 92.688 311.009 96.818 22.107 9.633.940 613.941 1.963.923 535.353 1.989.710 104.871 128.357 4.463.879 120.744.297 638.464 392.351

Incoming Crossborder workers 19.702 78.420 1.764 869 5.179 129.271 17.338 471 49.909 5.732 54.174 4.657 3.196 20.552 37.911 138 76.539 111 313 75.800 6.294 3.245 2.230 7.626 749 3.729 32.541 638.464

Incoming frontier workers 16.079 60.800 0 0 4.861 101.026 13.369 248 12.592 1.292 34.271 350 1.343 2.402 3.214 20 75.216 46 0 43.877 4.804 951 20 2.144 697 3.597 9.133 392.351

Source: Own calculations based on data LFS and 2012 Ageing Report

Table 91: Right to choose: All cross-border workers have right to choose, scenario: 50% register in country of residence and 50% register in country of employment, in € .000

Scenario right of choice (also for frontier workers): 50% return - 50% stay Column Labels (country of employment)

Row Labels Outgoing Outgoing (country of crossborder frontier residence) AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK EU-27 workers workers

AT 2.171.898 306 122 0 285 18.522 58 0 556 32 311 29 435 54 954 33 58 0 9 261 132 0 332 56 324 1.538 349 2.196.654 24.756 22.058 BE 53 6.722.007 115 49 57 6.943 48 0 1.011 168 19.244 304 149 269 222 0 35.271 0 57 34.254 158 175 46 57 0 0 785 6.821.442 99.436 95.712

BG 29 257 138.017 116 29 1.072 0 0 1.582 0 500 1.009 7 99 557 0 0 0 0 355 0 44 5 57 21 0 193 143.950 5.933 1.014 CY 0 0 0 82.271 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82.271 0 0

CZ 1.447 650 0 3 478.963 3.372 18 0 381 0 243 68 13 742 142 0 215 0 0 511 18 0 1 45 0 278 336 487.447 8.484 5.116 DE 16.981 3.436 605 0 1.590 24.698.596 4.222 0 8.257 541 6.177 1.378 629 0 1.085 0 22.681 0 0 34.920 2.488 0 0 2.121 0 0 2.946 24.808.653 110.056 92.495

DK 45 158 0 0 0 872 1.748.004 0 115 0 208 0 0 0 45 0 0 1 0 18 0 0 7 944 0 18 269 1.750.704 2.700 1.816 EE 0 77 0 0 0 70 0 69.201 26 9.021 57 0 0 308 34 0 50 38 0 54 0 0 0 249 0 0 68 79.253 10.052 9.058

ES 68 784 0 0 0 847 0 0 16.844.845 637 2.997 0 74 1.548 683 0 23 0 0 706 0 839 0 0 0 0 2.204 16.856.255 11.410 3.836 FI 0 239 0 0 0 139 0 107 174 2.818.163 0 0 0 0 89 0 0 0 0 109 0 0 0 693 0 0 0 2.819.713 1.549 800

FR 126 48.264 0 0 0 35.074 111 0 5.638 556 28.721.285 0 0 1.533 1.197 0 49.018 0 0 1.084 142 868 371 271 0 0 2.371 28.867.908 146.623 139.191 GR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.146.889 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.146.889 0 0

HU 5.932 767 1 29 13 4.430 202 2 151 148 1.110 0 345.607 1.412 510 2 18 0 0 999 6 0 17 16 7 114 906 362.400 16.792 6.071 IE 15 152 26 17 43 288 13 0 180 30 47 21 0 3.619.917 79 0 26 0 6 130 73 0 0 0 0 0 5.244 3.626.306 6.389 5.244

IT 497 1.269 35 0 6 3.458 54 0 1.801 8 4.403 537 68 348 10.752.890 0 0 0 0 121 90 0 408 0 72 15 1.097 10.767.176 14.285 4.972 LT 0 0 0 0 0 46 90 7 2 82 0 0 0 195 0 92.550 0 5 0 228 2 0 0 59 0 0 34 93.301 751 7

LU 30 1.293 18 18 11 997 47 35 0 31 1.133 0 45 25 16 24 234.470 29 0 93 14 0 21 32 0 0 166 238.549 4.079 3.422 LV 0 15 2 27 2 264 57 50 0 95 79 25 0 386 29 12 0 96.707 1 259 11 0 0 114 0 1 287 98.421 1.715 62

MT 8 96 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 23 8 0 0 0 25 2 4 0 21.794 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 22.086 292 0 NL 153 15.679 0 0 0 15.916 0 0 879 153 0 0 0 0 347 0 0 0 46 9.558.139 88 0 0 0 0 0 299 9.591.699 33.560 31.595

PL 1.022 2.342 0 109 469 13.735 1.048 0 242 286 1.957 62 0 627 476 6 189 5 0 7.790 607.647 53 1 655 1 31 662 639.416 31.769 14.241 PT 0 310 0 0 0 88 0 0 5.072 0 2.207 0 0 48 8 0 104 0 0 35 0 1.960.678 15 32 0 0 50 1.968.648 7.970 5.072

RO 322 748 0 82 3 2.825 101 0 7.323 0 548 187 40 143 15.161 0 0 0 5 97 0 289 533.123 0 0 0 261 561.259 28.136 40 SE 146 161 0 3 21 310 11.907 80 461 784 323 113 34 354 96 0 19 0 18 104 63 0 0 1.982.084 0 0 606 1.997.689 15.605 12.692

SI 1.520 29 0 0 0 281 0 1 9 0 96 0 1 0 639 0 4 0 0 22 0 3 0 0 104.122 44 12 106.783 2.661 2.160 SK 6.866 529 0 54 3.062 1.999 110 0 851 241 818 4 744 2.684 771 0 19 0 2 3.171 11 0 0 66 11 124.628 927 147.567 22.939 10.682

UK 92 1.108 0 0 0 984 274 0 783 0 3.000 0 0 9.302 0 0 0 0 60 737 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.431.337 4.447.678 16.341 9.302 EU-27 2.207.249 6.800.677 138.940 82.778 484.556 24.811.130 1.766.381 69.482 16.880.339 2.830.999 28.766.750 1.150.627 347.846 3.639.995 10.776.056 92.629 342.168 96.785 21.998 9.644.232 610.941 1.962.950 534.347 1.987.551 104.558 126.668 4.451.483 120.730.114 624.281 476.657

Incoming Crossborder workers 35.351 78.670 923 507 5.592 112.533 18.376 282 35.494 12.836 45.465 3.738 2.239 20.078 23.166 79 107.698 78 204 86.093 3.294 2.272 1.224 5.467 437 2.039 20.146 624.281

Incoming frontier workers 33.242 68.673 0 0 5.406 95.431 16.129 157 10.710 9.805 33.953 1.009 1.220 9.302 2.790 18 106.970 43 0 69.174 2.518 839 21 1.638 403 1.962 5.244 476.657

Source: Own calculations based on data LFS and 2012 Ageing Report

Table 92: Right to choose: All cross-border workers have right to choose, scenario: rational decision, in € .000

Scenario right of choice (also for frontier workers): Rational decision Column Labels (country of employment)

Row Labels Outgoing Outgoing (country of crossborder frontier residence) AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK EU-27 workers workers

AT 2.171.898 368 235 0 514 21.772 67 0 810 35 313 49 816 59 1.309 63 77 0 15 362 255 0 625 76 578 2.982 594 2.203.872 31.975 27.971 BE 64 6.722.007 224 84 107 9.469 64 0 1.620 189 23.215 546 285 302 341 0 40.008 0 103 41.159 310 295 88 87 0 0 1.407 6.841.971 119.964 113.850

BG 57 501 138.017 204 44 2.040 0 0 2.887 0 965 1.668 9 191 1.034 0 0 0 0 698 0 79 6 105 32 0 321 148.861 10.843 1.674 CY 0 0 0 82.271 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82.271 0 0

CZ 2.610 1.212 0 4 478.963 5.838 32 0 589 0 438 83 17 1.359 230 0 407 0 0 974 28 0 2 72 0 431 413 493.701 14.738 8.906 DE 19.960 4.686 1.151 0 2.753 24.698.596 4.333 0 10.788 676 7.228 2.217 1.151 0 1.314 0 33.452 0 0 53.313 4.763 0 0 2.539 0 0 4.718 24.853.638 155.041 130.487

DK 52 212 0 0 0 895 1.748.004 0 153 0 238 0 0 0 55 0 0 2 0 27 0 0 12 1.154 0 34 434 1.751.274 3.270 2.049 EE 0 148 0 0 0 130 0 69.201 45 17.199 108 0 0 588 60 0 98 42 0 105 0 0 0 444 0 0 103 88.270 19.069 17.241

ES 98 1.257 0 0 0 1.107 0 0 16.844.845 966 4.355 0 125 2.352 753 0 38 0 0 1.212 0 951 0 0 0 0 3.002 16.861.061 16.216 5.305 FI 0 269 0 0 0 173 0 204 263 2.818.163 0 0 0 0 128 0 0 0 0 143 0 0 0 989 0 0 0 2.820.334 2.170 1.193

FR 127 58.221 0 0 0 41.043 127 0 8.192 603 28.721.285 0 0 1.666 1.638 0 65.264 0 0 1.508 275 1.347 698 367 0 0 4.030 28.906.392 185.107 174.358 GR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.146.889 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.146.889 0 0

HU 11.136 1.470 1 46 17 8.103 372 2 256 281 2.082 0 345.607 2.675 892 3 35 0 0 1.942 8 0 17 27 10 154 1.318 376.453 30.846 11.316 IE 16 171 50 29 78 361 16 0 273 30 51 37 0 3.619.917 114 0 32 0 10 172 142 0 0 0 0 0 9.133 3.630.631 10.714 9.133

IT 682 1.947 65 0 9 4.186 67 0 1.985 11 6.022 783 119 501 10.752.890 0 0 0 0 201 168 0 717 0 114 29 1.588 10.772.082 19.192 6.817 LT 0 0 0 0 0 89 172 10 4 160 0 0 0 379 0 92.550 0 6 0 451 2 0 0 111 0 0 57 93.991 1.441 8

LU 39 1.466 36 31 21 1.470 68 68 0 39 1.508 0 88 31 25 48 234.470 57 0 100 27 0 42 52 0 0 306 239.994 5.524 4.444 LV 0 29 2 45 2 495 108 55 0 182 150 39 0 743 54 14 0 96.707 2 507 13 0 0 208 0 1 454 99.810 3.103 69

MT 13 172 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 40 14 0 0 0 37 4 7 0 21.794 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 22.247 453 0 NL 212 18.840 0 0 0 24.299 0 0 1.509 202 0 0 0 0 576 0 0 0 85 9.558.139 174 0 0 0 0 0 555 9.604.592 46.453 43.139

PL 1.983 4.588 0 194 729 26.300 2.010 0 447 557 3.794 105 0 1.222 891 6 373 6 0 15.368 607.647 96 2 1.229 2 32 1.122 668.702 61.055 27.066 PT 0 521 0 0 0 126 0 0 5.744 0 3.426 0 0 78 10 0 182 0 0 62 0 1.960.678 24 40 0 0 62 1.970.953 10.275 5.744

RO 606 1.435 0 132 4 5.184 187 0 12.524 0 1.030 273 41 272 26.645 0 0 0 7 189 0 474 533.123 0 0 0 383 582.507 49.385 41 SE 199 245 0 4 35 371 14.556 142 515 1.119 438 166 60 506 97 0 31 0 26 172 119 0 0 1.982.084 0 0 884 2.001.770 19.686 15.676

SI 2.711 54 0 0 0 480 0 1 13 0 172 0 1 0 1.011 0 7 0 0 42 0 4 0 0 104.122 69 15 108.702 4.581 3.723 SK 13.307 1.036 0 95 4.738 3.825 210 0 1.569 469 1.584 7 1.001 5.226 1.442 0 37 0 3 6.254 11 0 0 123 18 124.628 1.568 167.152 42.524 19.057

UK 157 1.985 0 0 0 1.576 443 0 1.067 0 5.100 0 0 16.202 0 0 0 0 61 1.369 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.431.337 4.459.297 27.960 16.202 EU-27 2.225.927 6.822.842 139.782 83.140 488.015 24.857.927 1.770.863 69.682 16.896.098 2.840.922 28.783.515 1.152.865 349.319 3.654.269 10.791.545 92.688 374.516 96.820 22.107 9.684.534 613.941 1.963.923 535.355 1.989.710 104.875 128.358 4.463.879 120.997.416 891.583 645.470

Incoming Crossborder workers 54.029 100.835 1.764 869 9.052 159.331 22.859 482 51.253 22.759 62.230 5.976 3.712 34.352 38.655 138 140.046 113 313 126.395 6.294 3.245 2.233 7.626 753 3.730 32.541 891.583

Incoming frontier workers 50.406 83.214 0 0 8.734 131.085 18.889 259 13.935 18.318 42.327 1.668 1.859 16.202 3.958 20 138.723 48 0 94.472 4.804 951 23 2.144 701 3.597 9.133 645.470

Source: Own calculations based on data LFS and 2012 Ageing Report

Table 93: Stay in country of employment: All cross-border workers stay in the country of last employment, in € .000

Option 100% register in country of employment Column Labels (country of employment)

Row Labels Outgoing Outgoing (country of crossborder frontier residence) AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK EU-27 workers workers

AT 2.171.898 368 8 0 56 15.272 50 0 302 35 309 8 53 59 599 2 77 0 3 362 8 0 39 36 70 95 104 2.189.812 17.915 16.145 BE 42 6.722.007 5 14 8 4.418 32 0 401 147 15.274 62 12 236 104 0 40.008 0 12 41.159 6 56 4 27 0 0 163 6.824.198 102.191 100.859

BG 57 501 138.017 204 44 2.040 0 0 2.887 0 965 1.668 9 191 1.034 0 0 0 0 698 0 79 6 105 32 0 321 148.861 10.843 1.674 CY 0 0 0 82.271 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82.271 0 0

CZ 2.610 1.212 0 4 478.963 5.838 32 0 589 0 438 83 10 1.359 230 0 407 0 0 974 8 0 1 72 0 126 413 493.369 14.406 8.581 DE 19.960 4.686 59 0 428 24.698.596 4.333 0 5.727 676 7.228 538 107 0 857 0 33.452 0 0 53.313 212 0 0 1.702 0 0 1.174 24.833.048 134.452 123.611

DK 52 212 0 0 0 849 1.748.004 0 77 0 238 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 1 734 0 1 103 1.750.334 2.329 1.583 EE 0 148 0 0 0 130 0 69.201 45 17.199 108 0 0 588 60 0 98 34 0 105 0 0 0 444 0 0 103 88.261 19.061 17.233

ES 98 1.257 0 0 0 1.107 0 0 16.844.845 966 4.355 0 22 2.352 753 0 38 0 0 1.212 0 728 0 0 0 0 1.407 16.859.141 14.296 5.083 FI 0 269 0 0 0 104 0 10 84 2.818.163 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 143 0 0 0 397 0 0 0 2.819.220 1.057 407

FR 127 58.221 0 0 0 29.104 95 0 3.084 603 28.721.285 0 0 1.666 757 0 65.264 0 0 1.508 9 389 45 175 0 0 711 28.883.041 161.756 156.430 GR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.146.889 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.146.889 0 0

HU 11.136 1.470 1 46 17 8.103 372 2 256 281 2.082 0 345.607 2.675 892 1 35 0 0 1.942 4 0 16 27 10 75 1.318 376.367 30.760 11.236 IE 13 171 2 6 7 215 10 0 86 29 43 5 0 3.619.917 44 0 32 0 1 172 4 0 0 0 0 0 1.354 3.622.112 2.195 1.354

IT 682 1.947 5 0 2 4.186 67 0 1.616 11 6.022 291 17 501 10.752.890 0 0 0 0 201 11 0 99 0 30 2 606 10.769.187 16.297 6.734 LT 0 0 0 0 0 89 172 10 4 160 0 0 0 379 0 92.550 0 6 0 451 2 0 0 111 0 0 57 93.991 1.441 8

LU 20 1.119 1 4 1 523 26 2 0 23 757 0 3 19 6 1 234.470 1 0 100 0 0 1 12 0 0 27 237.117 2.647 2.400 LV 0 29 2 45 2 495 108 55 0 182 150 39 0 743 54 10 0 96.707 2 507 8 0 0 208 0 1 454 99.800 3.094 65

MT 13 172 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 40 14 0 0 0 37 1 7 0 21.794 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 22.244 450 0 NL 94 12.519 0 0 0 7.533 0 0 248 105 0 0 0 0 117 0 0 0 7 9.558.139 2 0 0 0 0 0 43 9.578.806 20.667 20.052

RO 606 1.435 0 132 4 5.184 187 0 12.524 0 1.030 273 41 272 26.645 0 0 0 7 189 0 474 533.123 0 0 0 383 582.507 49.385 41 SE 199 245 0 2 8 371 14.556 17 408 1.119 438 60 8 506 95 0 31 0 10 172 8 0 0 1.982.084 0 0 328 2.000.666 18.582 15.676

SI 2.711 54 0 0 0 480 0 1 13 0 172 0 1 0 1.011 0 7 0 0 42 0 4 0 0 104.122 18 15 108.650 4.529 3.723 SK 13.307 1.036 0 95 4.738 3.825 210 0 1.569 469 1.584 7 1.001 5.226 1.442 0 37 0 3 6.254 10 0 0 123 18 124.628 1.568 167.152 42.524 19.057

UK 157 1.985 0 0 0 1.576 443 0 1.067 0 5.100 0 0 16.202 0 0 0 0 60 1.369 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.431.337 4.459.297 27.959 16.202 EU-27 2.225.765 6.816.173 138.099 83.019 485.008 24.816.463 1.770.732 69.297 16.882.023 2.840.767 28.774.812 1.150.031 346.892 3.654.191 10.788.609 92.570 374.516 96.754 21.899 9.684.534 607.940 1.962.503 533.342 1.987.528 104.283 124.978 4.443.223 120.875.954 770.121 560.962

Incoming Crossborder workers 53.868 94.166 82 748 6.045 117.867 22.728 96 37.178 22.604 53.527 3.142 1.285 34.274 35.719 20 140.046 48 105 126.395 293 1.825 219 5.444 162 350 11.885 770.121

Incoming frontier workers 50.406 76.546 0 0 5.951 89.837 18.889 65 8.828 18.318 33.636 1.668 1.096 16.202 2.367 15 138.723 40 0 94.472 232 728 22 1.131 110 327 1.354 560.962

Source: Own calculations based on data LFS and 2012 Ageing Report

Table 94: Return to country of residence: All cross-border workers return to their country of residence, in € .000

Option 100% going back to country of residence Column Labels (country of employment)

Row Labels Outgoing Outgoing (country of crossborder frontier residence) AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK EU-27 workers workers

AT 2.171.898 245 235 0 514 21.772 67 0 810 30 313 49 816 50 1.309 63 39 0 15 160 255 0 625 76 578 2.982 594 2.203.495 31.597 27.971 BE 64 6.722.007 224 84 107 9.469 64 0 1.620 189 23.215 546 285 302 341 0 30.534 0 103 27.349 310 295 88 87 0 0 1.407 6.818.687 96.680 90.566

BG 2 12 138.017 28 15 104 0 0 277 0 35 350 5 6 81 0 0 0 0 11 0 10 3 8 10 0 66 139.039 1.022 354 CY 0 0 0 82.271 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82.271 0 0

CZ 284 88 0 2 478.963 907 5 0 172 0 48 53 17 126 55 0 23 0 0 47 28 0 2 17 0 431 258 481.525 2.562 1.650 DE 14.001 2.186 1.151 0 2.753 24.698.596 4.111 0 10.788 405 5.125 2.217 1.151 0 1.314 0 11.911 0 0 16.528 4.763 0 0 2.539 0 0 4.718 24.784.258 85.661 61.378

DK 38 104 0 0 0 895 1.748.004 0 153 0 178 0 0 0 55 0 0 2 0 9 0 0 12 1.154 0 34 434 1.751.074 3.070 2.049 EE 0 6 0 0 0 11 0 69.201 7 842 6 0 0 29 7 0 3 42 0 3 0 0 0 54 0 0 34 70.244 1.043 884

ES 37 311 0 0 0 588 0 0 16.844.845 307 1.639 0 125 744 613 0 7 0 0 199 0 951 0 0 0 0 3.002 16.853.369 8.524 2.590 FI 0 209 0 0 0 173 0 204 263 2.818.163 0 0 0 0 128 0 0 0 0 74 0 0 0 989 0 0 0 2.820.205 2.042 1.193

FR 125 38.307 0 0 0 41.043 127 0 8.192 509 28.721.285 0 0 1.400 1.638 0 32.772 0 0 659 275 1.347 698 367 0 0 4.030 28.852.775 131.490 121.951 GR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.146.889 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.146.889 0 0

HU 729 64 1 12 10 757 33 2 45 16 138 0 345.607 149 128 3 1 0 0 56 8 0 17 4 5 154 495 348.432 2.825 905 IE 16 134 50 29 78 361 16 0 273 30 51 37 0 3.619.917 114 0 19 0 10 89 142 0 0 0 0 0 9.133 3.630.499 10.582 9.133

IT 312 592 65 0 9 2.729 41 0 1.985 4 2.784 783 119 195 10.752.890 0 0 0 0 41 168 0 717 0 114 29 1.588 10.765.164 12.274 3.210 LT 0 0 0 0 0 4 7 5 0 4 0 0 0 10 0 92.550 0 4 0 6 2 0 0 7 0 0 10 92.611 61 6

LU 39 1.466 36 31 21 1.470 68 68 0 39 1.508 0 88 31 25 48 234.470 57 0 87 27 0 42 52 0 0 306 239.981 5.511 4.444 LV 0 1 2 8 1 33 7 44 0 7 7 11 0 29 5 14 0 96.707 1 10 13 0 0 20 0 1 121 97.042 336 59

MT 2 20 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 14 4 1 0 21.794 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 21.928 134 0 NL 212 18.840 0 0 0 24.299 0 0 1.509 202 0 0 0 0 576 0 0 0 85 9.558.139 174 0 0 0 0 0 555 9.604.592 46.453 43.139

PL 62 95 0 23 209 1.171 85 0 37 15 120 19 0 32 61 6 6 4 0 212 607.647 11 1 82 0 31 201 610.130 2.483 1.416 PT 0 99 0 0 0 51 0 0 4.401 0 988 0 0 19 6 0 26 0 0 8 0 1.960.678 24 24 0 0 62 1.966.386 5.708 4.401

RO 38 60 0 32 3 466 16 0 2.123 0 66 101 39 15 3.677 0 0 0 2 5 0 105 533.123 0 0 0 139 540.011 6.888 39 SE 94 77 0 4 35 249 9.258 142 515 449 208 166 60 202 97 0 7 0 26 36 119 0 0 1.982.084 0 0 884 1.994.712 12.628 9.707

SI 328 4 0 0 0 83 0 1 4 0 21 0 1 0 267 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 104.122 69 10 104.915 793 596 SK 424 22 0 12 1.385 174 9 0 134 13 51 1 487 141 100 0 1 0 1 88 11 0 0 8 5 124.628 286 127.982 3.354 2.307

UK 27 230 0 0 0 392 105 0 500 0 900 0 0 2.402 0 0 0 0 61 106 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.431.337 4.436.060 4.722 2.402 EU-27 2.188.733 6.785.181 139.782 82.537 484.103 24.805.796 1.762.029 69.668 16.878.654 2.821.231 28.758.688 1.151.224 348.799 3.625.798 10.763.504 92.688 309.820 96.816 22.098 9.603.930 613.941 1.963.397 535.352 1.987.574 104.833 128.357 4.459.743 120.584.275 478.442 392.351

Incoming Crossborder workers 16.835 63.174 1.764 266 5.140 107.200 14.025 467 33.809 3.068 37.403 4.335 3.192 5.881 10.613 138 75.350 109 304 45.791 6.294 2.719 2.229 5.490 712 3.729 28.406 478.442

Incoming frontier workers 16.079 60.800 0 0 4.861 101.026 13.369 248 12.592 1.292 34.271 350 1.343 2.402 3.214 20 75.216 46 0 43.877 4.804 951 20 2.144 697 3.597 9.133 392.351

Source: Own calculations based on data LFS and 2012 Ageing Report

10.3.2 Estimated reimbursement claims baseline scenario and different options

Table 95: Baseline scenario: frontier workers return to country of residence and other cross-border workers have right to choose, scenario: 50% register in country of residence and 50% register in country of employment – reimbursement claim of 3 months, in € .00

Baseline scenario: frontier workers return to country of residence and cross-border workers (50% register in country of residence and 50% register in country of employment)- 3 Months Column Labels (country of employment)

Row Labels Outgoing Outgoing (country of crossborder frontier residence) AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK EU-27 workers workers

AT 271.487 31 29 0 129 5.443 8 0 101 4 39 6 204 6 327 8 5 0 2 20 32 0 78 10 145 745 74 278.933 7.446 6.993 BE 8 840.251 28 11 13 2.367 8 0 202 24 5.804 68 36 38 43 0 7.633 0 13 6.837 39 37 11 11 0 0 176 863.657 23.406 22.642

BG 0 1 17.252 4 2 13 0 0 35 0 4 88 1 1 10 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 8 17.424 172 88 CY 0 0 0 10.284 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.284 0 0

CZ 71 11 0 0 59.870 227 1 0 22 0 6 7 2 16 7 0 3 0 0 6 7 0 0 2 0 108 32 60.397 527 413 DE 3.500 547 144 0 688 3.087.325 1.028 0 1.348 51 1.281 277 144 0 164 0 2.978 0 0 4.132 1.191 0 0 317 0 0 590 3.105.705 18.380 15.345

DK 5 13 0 0 0 224 218.501 0 19 0 22 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 289 0 4 54 219.140 640 512 EE 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 8.650 1 211 1 0 0 4 1 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 4 8.891 241 221

ES 5 39 0 0 0 73 0 0 2.105.606 38 410 0 16 93 77 0 1 0 0 25 0 238 0 0 0 0 375 2.106.995 1.389 647 FI 0 26 0 0 0 22 0 51 33 352.270 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 247 0 0 0 352.675 404 298

FR 16 9.577 0 0 0 10.261 16 0 2.048 64 3.590.161 0 0 175 409 0 8.193 0 0 82 34 168 87 46 0 0 504 3.621.841 31.680 30.488 GR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48.319 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48.319 0 0

HU 182 8 0 1 1 95 4 0 6 2 17 0 43.201 19 16 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 4 0 1 38 62 43.667 466 226 IE 2 17 6 4 10 45 2 0 34 4 6 5 0 452.490 14 0 2 0 1 11 18 0 0 0 0 0 2.283 454.954 2.464 2.283

IT 78 74 8 0 1 341 5 0 248 1 696 98 15 24 1.344.111 0 0 0 0 5 21 0 90 0 28 4 198 1.346.047 1.935 802 LT 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 11.569 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 11.577 8 1

LU 5 367 5 4 3 367 9 9 0 5 377 0 11 4 3 6 29.309 7 0 11 3 0 5 6 0 0 38 30.553 1.244 1.111 LV 0 0 0 1 0 4 1 11 0 1 1 1 0 4 1 4 0 12.088 0 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 15 12.138 49 15

MT 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2.724 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 2.741 17 0 NL 26 4.710 0 0 0 6.075 0 0 189 25 0 0 0 0 72 0 0 0 11 1.194.767 22 0 0 0 0 0 69 1.205.966 11.199 10.785

PL 8 12 0 3 52 293 11 0 5 2 15 2 0 4 8 1 1 1 0 27 75.956 1 0 10 0 8 25 76.443 487 354 PT 0 12 0 0 0 6 0 0 1.100 0 124 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 245.085 3 3 0 0 8 246.348 1.264 1.100

RO 5 8 0 4 0 58 2 0 265 0 8 13 10 2 460 0 0 0 0 1 0 13 66.640 0 0 0 17 67.506 866 10 SE 12 10 0 1 4 31 2.314 18 64 112 26 21 7 25 12 0 1 0 3 4 15 0 0 247.760 0 0 111 250.552 2.792 2.427

SI 82 1 0 0 0 10 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.015 9 1 13.189 174 149 SK 106 3 0 1 346 22 1 0 17 2 6 0 122 18 13 0 0 0 0 11 3 0 0 1 1 15.579 36 16.286 708 577

UK 3 29 0 0 0 49 13 0 62 0 112 0 0 600 0 0 0 0 8 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 553.917 554.808 891 600 EU-27 275.601 855.748 17.473 10.317 61.120 3.113.353 221.925 8.739 2.111.406 352.815 3.599.120 48.904 43.768 453.525 1.345.840 11.588 48.130 12.108 2.762 1.205.976 77.343 245.543 66.921 248.715 13.191 16.494 558.610 15.027.036 108.849 98.088

Incoming Crossborder workers 4.114 15.497 221 33 1.250 26.028 3.424 89 5.800 545 8.959 586 567 1.035 1.728 20 18.821 19 38 11.208 1.387 459 281 954 176 916 4.692 108.849

Incoming frontier workers 4.020 15.200 0 0 1.215 25.256 3.342 62 3.148 323 8.568 88 336 600 803 5 18.804 11 0 10.969 1.201 238 5 536 174 899 2.283 98.088

Source: Own calculations based on data LFS and 2012 Ageing Report

Table 96: Baseline scenario: frontier workers return to country of residence and other cross-border workers have right to choose, scenario: 50% register in country of residence and 50% register in country of employment – actual payment, in € .000

Row Labels Outgoing Outgoing (country of crossborder frontier residence) AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK EU-27 workers workers

AT 271.487 31 1 0 14 3.818 6 0 38 4 39 1 13 6 150 0 5 0 0 20 1 0 5 4 17 24 13 275.698 4.210 4.036 BE 5 840.251 1 2 1 1.104 4 0 50 18 3.819 8 2 30 13 0 7.633 0 1 6.837 1 7 0 3 0 0 20 859.811 19.560 19.394

BG 0 1 17.252 4 2 13 0 0 35 0 4 88 1 1 10 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 8 17.424 172 88 CY 0 0 0 10.284 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.284 0 0

CZ 71 11 0 0 59.870 227 1 0 22 0 6 7 1 16 7 0 3 0 0 6 2 0 0 2 0 31 32 60.315 444 331 DE 3.500 547 7 0 107 3.087.325 1.028 0 716 51 1.281 67 13 0 107 0 2.978 0 0 4.132 53 0 0 213 0 0 147 3.102.271 14.947 13.626

DK 5 13 0 0 0 218.501 0 10 0 22 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 184 0 0 13 218.752 252 184 EE 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 8.650 1 211 1 0 0 4 1 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 4 8.889 239 219

ES 5 39 0 0 0 73 0 0 2.105.606 38 410 0 3 93 77 0 1 0 0 25 0 182 0 0 0 0 176 2.106.727 1.121 592 FI 0 26 0 0 0 13 0 2 10 352.270 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 99 0 0 0 352.437 167 102

FR 16 9.577 0 0 0 7.276 12 0 771 64 3.590.161 0 0 175 189 0 8.193 0 0 82 1 49 6 22 0 0 89 3.616.681 26.520 26.006 GR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 143.361 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 143.361 0 0

HU 182 8 0 1 1 95 4 0 6 2 17 0 43.201 19 16 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 4 0 1 19 62 43.646 446 206 IE 2 17 0 1 1 27 1 0 11 4 5 1 0 452.490 6 0 2 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 338 452.917 427 338

IT 78 74 1 0 0 341 5 0 202 1 696 36 2 24 1.344.111 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 12 0 8 0 76 1.345.674 1.563 781 LT 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 11.569 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 11.577 8 1

LU 2 280 0 1 0 131 3 0 0 3 189 0 0 2 1 0 29.309 0 0 11 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 29.938 629 600 LV 0 0 0 1 0 4 1 11 0 1 1 1 0 4 1 2 0 12.088 0 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 15 12.136 48 14

MT 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2.724 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 2.741 16 0 NL 12 3.130 0 0 0 1.883 0 0 31 13 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 1 1.194.767 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1.199.857 5.090 5.013

PL 8 12 0 3 52 293 11 0 5 2 15 2 0 4 8 1 1 1 0 27 75.956 1 0 10 0 8 25 76.443 487 354 PT 0 12 0 0 0 6 0 0 1.100 0 124 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 245.085 1 3 0 0 5 246.343 1.258 1.100

RO 5 8 0 4 0 58 2 0 265 0 8 13 10 2 460 0 0 0 0 1 0 13 66.640 0 0 0 17 67.506 866 10 SE 12 10 0 0 1 31 2.314 2 51 112 26 8 1 25 12 0 1 0 1 4 1 0 0 247.760 0 0 41 250.414 2.654 2.427

SI 82 1 0 0 0 10 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.015 2 1 13.182 167 149 SK 106 3 0 1 346 22 1 0 17 2 6 0 122 18 13 0 0 0 0 11 3 0 0 1 1 15.579 36 16.286 707 577

UK 3 29 0 0 0 49 13 0 62 0 112 0 0 600 0 0 0 0 8 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 553.917 554.808 890 600 EU-27 275.581 854.080 17.262 10.302 60.397 3.102.801 221.908 8.667 2.109.008 352.796 3.596.946 143.593 43.369 453.515 1.345.274 11.573 48.130 12.099 2.736 1.205.976 76.022 245.338 66.670 248.315 13.043 15.663 555.055 15.096.120 82.891 76.749

Incoming Crossborder workers 4.094 13.830 10 18 526 15.477 3.408 17 3.402 526 6.785 231 168 1.026 1.163 4 18.821 10 12 11.208 66 253 29 555 28 84 1.138 82.891

Incoming frontier workers 4.020 13.533 0 0 519 14.732 3.342 14 1.871 323 6.395 88 145 600 406 4 18.804 9 0 10.969 58 182 5 283 26 82 338 76.749

Source: Own calculations based on data LFS and 2012 Ageing Report

Table 97: Baseline scenario: frontier workers return to country of residence and other cross-border workers have right to choose, scenario: rational decision – reimbursement claim of 3 months, in € .000

Baseline scenario: frontier workers have to return while cross-border workers have right to choose (rational decision)- 3 Months Row Labels Outgoing Outgoing (country of crossborder frontier residence) AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK EU-27 workers workers AT 0 0 59 0 129 5.443 17 0 202 0 78 12 204 0 327 16 0 0 4 0 64 0 156 19 145 745 149 7.768 7.768 6.993 BE 16 0 56 21 27 2.367 16 0 405 47 5.804 136 71 75 85 0 7.633 0 26 6.837 77 74 22 22 0 0 352 24.170 24.170 22.642 BG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 88 88 88 CY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CZ 71 0 0 0 0 227 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 108 0 417 417 413 DE 3.500 547 288 0 688 0 1.028 0 2.697 0 1.281 554 288 0 328 0 2.978 0 0 4.132 1.191 0 0 635 0 0 1.179 21.314 21.314 15.345 DK 0 0 0 0 0 224 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 289 0 8 109 685 685 512 EE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 211 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 221 221 221 ES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 410 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 238 0 0 0 0 750 1.429 1.429 647 FI 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 51 66 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 247 0 0 0 440 440 298 FR 0 9.577 0 0 0 10.261 32 0 2.048 0 0 0 0 0 409 0 8.193 0 0 0 69 337 174 92 0 0 1.008 32.199 32.199 30.488 GR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HU 182 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 1 38 0 230 230 226 IE 4 0 13 7 20 90 4 0 68 7 13 9 0 0 28 0 0 0 3 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 2.283 2.585 2.585 2.283 IT 78 0 16 0 2 0 0 0 496 0 696 196 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 179 0 28 7 397 2.168 2.168 802 LT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 LU 10 367 9 8 5 367 17 17 0 10 377 0 22 8 6 12 0 14 0 0 7 0 10 13 0 0 76 1.356 1.356 1.111 LV 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 19 15 MT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 NL 53 4.710 0 0 0 6.075 0 0 377 50 0 0 0 0 144 0 0 0 21 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 139 11.613 11.613 10.785 PL 0 0 0 0 52 293 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 354 354 354 PT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 15 1.122 1.122 1.100 RO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 SE 0 0 0 1 9 0 2.314 35 129 112 0 42 15 0 24 0 0 0 7 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 221 2.939 2.939 2.427 SI 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 167 167 149 SK 106 0 0 0 346 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 122 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 577 577 577 UK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 616 616 600 EU-27 4.102 15.200 441 37 1.278 25.390 3.428 115 7.627 438 8.659 1.037 797 684 1.466 34 18.804 26 75 10.969 1.574 648 557 1.316 174 932 6.678 112.488 112.488 98.088 Incoming

Crossborder workers 4.102 15.200 441 37 1.278 25.390 3.428 115 7.627 438 8.659 1.037 797 684 1.466 34 18.804 26 75 10.969 1.574 648 557 1.316 174 932 6.678 112.488 Incoming frontier workers 4.020 15.200 0 0 1.215 25.256 3.342 62 3.148 323 8.568 88 336 600 803 5 18.804 11 0 10.969 1.201 238 5 536 174 899 2.283 98.088

Source: Own calculations based on data LFS and 2012 Ageing Report

Table 98: Baseline scenario: frontier workers return to country of residence and other cross-border workers have right to choose, scenario: rational decision – actual payment, in € .000

Baseline scenario: frontier workers have to return while cross-border workers have right to choose (rational decision)- 3 Months - actual payment Row Labels Outgoing Outgoing (country of crossborder frontier residence) AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK EU-27 workers workers AT 0 0 2 0 14 3.818 12 0 75 0 77 2 13 0 150 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 10 9 17 24 26 4.253 4.253 4.036 BE 11 0 1 4 2 1.104 8 0 100 37 3.819 15 3 59 26 0 7.633 0 3 6.837 2 14 1 7 0 0 41 19.727 19.727 19.394 BG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 88 88 88 CY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CZ 71 0 0 0 0 227 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 31 0 334 334 331 DE 3.500 547 15 0 107 0 1.028 0 1.432 0 1.281 135 27 0 214 0 2.978 0 0 4.132 53 0 0 426 0 0 293 16.167 16.167 13.626 DK 0 0 0 0 0 212 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 184 0 0 26 450 450 396 EE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 211 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 219 219 219 ES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 410 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 182 0 0 0 0 352 949 949 592 FI 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 2 21 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 0 0 0 161 161 102 FR 0 9.577 0 0 0 7.276 24 0 771 0 0 0 0 0 189 0 8.193 0 0 0 2 97 11 44 0 0 178 26.361 26.361 26.006 GR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HU 182 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 1 19 0 208 208 206 IE 3 0 0 2 2 54 2 0 22 7 11 1 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 338 455 455 338 IT 78 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 404 0 696 73 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 25 0 8 0 151 1.444 1.444 781 LT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 LU 5 280 0 1 0 131 6 0 0 6 189 0 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 7 637 637 600 LV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 16 14 MT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NL 23 3.130 0 0 0 1.883 0 0 62 26 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 11 5.167 5.167 5.013 PL 0 0 0 0 52 293 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 354 354 354 PT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 9 1.111 1.111 1.100 RO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 SE 0 0 0 1 2 0 2.314 4 102 112 0 15 2 0 24 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 82 2.663 2.663 2.427 SI 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 154 154 149 SK 106 0 0 0 346 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 122 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 577 577 577 UK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 615 615 600 EU-27 4.062 13.533 20 7 526 15.024 3.395 19 4.108 399 6.483 329 190 664 732 5 18.804 10 23 10.969 73 293 54 771 26 87 1.514 82.122 82.122 76.961 Incoming

Crossborder workers 4.062 13.533 20 7 526 15.024 3.395 19 4.108 399 6.483 329 190 664 732 5 18.804 10 23 10.969 73 293 54 771 26 87 1.514 82.122 Incoming frontier workers 4.020 13.533 0 0 519 14.944 3.342 14 1.871 323 6.395 88 145 600 406 4 18.804 9 0 10.969 58 182 5 283 26 82 338 76.961

Source: Own calculations based on data LFS and 2012 Ageing Report

Table 99: Baseline scenario: frontier workers return to country of residence and other cross-border workers have right to choose, 50% register in country of residence and 50% register in country of employment – reimbursement claim of 3 months, in € .000

Scenario right of choice (also for frontier workers): 50% return - 50% stay Column Labels (country of employment)

Row Labels Outgoing Outgoing (country of crossborder frontier residence) AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK EU-27 workers workers AT 271.487 31 29 0 64 2.721 8 0 101 4 39 6 102 6 164 8 5 0 2 20 32 0 78 10 72 373 74 275.437 3.950 3.496 BE 8 840.251 28 11 13 1.184 8 0 202 24 2.902 68 36 38 43 0 3.817 0 13 3.419 39 37 11 11 0 0 176 852.336 12.085 11.321 BG 0 1 17.252 4 2 13 0 0 35 0 4 44 1 1 10 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 8 17.380 128 44 CY 0 0 0 10.284 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.284 0 0 CZ 36 11 0 0 59.870 113 1 0 22 0 6 7 2 16 7 0 3 0 0 6 4 0 0 2 0 54 32 60.191 320 206 DE 1.750 273 144 0 344 3.087.325 514 0 1.348 51 641 277 144 0 164 0 1.489 0 0 2.066 595 0 0 317 0 0 590 3.098.032 10.708 7.672 DK 5 13 0 0 0 112 218.501 0 19 0 22 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 144 0 4 54 218.884 384 256 EE 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 8.650 1 105 1 0 0 4 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 4 8.781 130 111 ES 5 39 0 0 0 73 0 0 2.105.606 38 205 0 16 93 77 0 1 0 0 25 0 119 0 0 0 0 375 2.106.671 1.065 324 FI 0 26 0 0 0 22 0 25 33 352.270 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 124 0 0 0 352.526 255 149 FR 16 4.788 0 0 0 5.130 16 0 1.024 64 3.590.161 0 0 175 205 0 4.096 0 0 82 34 168 87 46 0 0 504 3.606.597 16.436 15.244 GR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 143.361 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 143.361 0 0 HU 91 8 0 1 1 95 4 0 6 2 17 0 43.201 19 16 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 2 0 1 19 62 43.554 353 113 IE 2 17 6 4 10 45 2 0 34 4 6 5 0 452.490 14 0 2 0 1 11 18 0 0 0 0 0 1.142 453.812 1.323 1.142 IT 39 74 8 0 1 341 5 0 248 1 348 98 15 24 1.344.111 0 0 0 0 5 21 0 90 0 14 4 198 1.345.646 1.534 401 LT 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 11.569 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 11.576 8 1 LU 5 183 5 4 3 184 9 9 0 5 189 0 11 4 3 6 29.309 7 0 11 3 0 5 6 0 0 38 29.998 689 555 LV 0 0 0 1 0 4 1 6 0 1 1 1 0 4 1 2 0 12.088 0 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 15 12.130 42 7 MT 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2.724 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 2.741 17 0 NL 26 2.355 0 0 0 3.037 0 0 189 25 0 0 0 0 72 0 0 0 11 1.194.767 22 0 0 0 0 0 69 1.200.574 5.807 5.392 PL 8 12 0 3 26 146 11 0 5 2 15 2 0 4 8 1 1 1 0 27 75.956 1 0 10 0 4 25 76.266 310 177 PT 0 12 0 0 0 6 0 0 550 0 124 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 245.085 3 3 0 0 8 245.798 714 550 RO 5 8 0 4 0 58 2 0 265 0 8 13 5 2 460 0 0 0 0 1 0 13 66.640 0 0 0 17 67.501 861 5 SE 12 10 0 1 4 31 1.157 18 64 56 26 21 7 25 12 0 1 0 3 4 15 0 0 247.760 0 0 111 249.339 1.579 1.213 SI 41 1 0 0 0 10 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.015 9 1 13.114 99 75 SK 53 3 0 1 173 22 1 0 17 2 6 0 61 18 13 0 0 0 0 11 1 0 0 1 1 15.579 36 15.998 419 288 UK 3 29 0 0 0 49 13 0 62 0 112 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 8 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 553.917 554.507 590 300 EU-27 273.592 848.148 17.473 10.317 60.513 3.100.725 220.254 8.708 2.109.832 352.654 3.594.836 143.903 43.600 453.225 1.345.438 11.586 38.727 12.102 2.762 1.200.491 76.743 245.425 66.919 248.447 13.104 16.045 557.468 15.073.034 59.805 49.044 Incoming

Crossborder workers 2.104 7.897 221 33 642 13.400 1.753 58 4.226 383 4.675 542 399 735 1.327 17 9.419 14 38 5.724 787 340 279 686 89 466 3.551 59.805 Incoming frontier workers 2.010 7.600 0 0 608 12.628 1.671 31 1.574 161 4.284 44 168 300 402 2 9.402 6 0 5.485 600 119 3 268 87 450 1.142 49.044 Source: Own calculations based on data LFS and 2012 Ageing Report

Table 100: Right to choose: All cross-border workers have right to choose, scenario: 50% register in country of residence and 50% register in country of employment – actual payment, in € .000

Scenario right of choice (also for frontier workers): 50% return - 50% stay - actual payment Column Labels (country of employment)

Row Labels Outgoing Outgoing (country of crossborder frontier residence) AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK EU-27 workers workers AT 271.487 31 1 0 7 1.909 6 0 38 4 39 1 7 6 75 0 5 0 0 20 1 0 5 4 9 12 13 273.679 2.192 2.018 BE 5 840.251 1 2 1 552 4 0 50 18 1.909 8 2 30 13 0 3.817 0 1 3.419 1 7 0 3 0 0 20 850.114 9.863 9.697 BG 0 1 17.252 4 2 13 0 0 35 0 4 44 1 1 10 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 8 17.380 128 44 CY 0 0 0 10.284 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.284 0 0 CZ 36 11 0 0 59.870 113 1 0 22 0 6 7 1 16 7 0 3 0 0 6 1 0 0 2 0 16 32 60.149 279 166 DE 1.750 273 7 0 53 3.087.325 514 0 716 51 641 67 13 0 107 0 1.489 0 0 2.066 27 0 0 213 0 0 147 3.095.458 8.134 6.813 DK 5 13 0 0 0 106 218.501 0 10 0 22 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 92 0 0 13 218.767 266 198 EE 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 8.650 1 105 1 0 0 4 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 4 8.780 129 110 ES 5 39 0 0 0 73 0 0 2.105.606 38 205 0 3 93 77 0 1 0 0 25 0 91 0 0 0 0 176 2.106.431 825 296 FI 0 26 0 0 0 13 0 1 10 352.270 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 352.386 116 51 FR 16 4.788 0 0 0 3.638 12 0 385 64 3.590.161 0 0 175 95 0 4.096 0 0 82 1 49 6 22 0 0 89 3.603.678 13.517 13.003 GR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 143.361 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 143.361 0 0 HU 91 8 0 1 1 95 4 0 6 2 17 0 43.201 19 16 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 2 0 1 9 62 43.543 342 103 IE 2 17 0 1 1 27 1 0 11 4 5 1 0 452.490 6 0 2 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 169 452.748 258 169 IT 39 74 1 0 0 341 5 0 202 1 348 36 2 24 1.344.111 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 12 0 4 0 76 1.345.284 1.172 391 LT 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 11.569 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 11.576 8 1 LU 2 140 0 1 0 65 3 0 0 3 95 0 0 2 1 0 29.309 0 0 11 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 29.638 329 300 LV 0 0 0 1 0 4 1 6 0 1 1 1 0 4 1 1 0 12.088 0 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 15 12.129 41 7 MT 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2.724 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 2.741 16 0 NL 12 1.565 0 0 0 942 0 0 31 13 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 1 1.194.767 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1.197.351 2.583 2.506 PL 8 12 0 3 26 146 11 0 5 2 15 2 0 4 8 1 1 1 0 27 75.956 1 0 10 0 4 25 76.266 310 177 PT 0 12 0 0 0 6 0 0 550 0 124 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 245.085 1 3 0 0 5 245.793 708 550 RO 5 8 0 4 0 58 2 0 265 0 8 13 5 2 460 0 0 0 0 1 0 13 66.640 0 0 0 17 67.501 861 5 SE 12 10 0 0 1 31 1.157 2 51 56 26 8 1 25 12 0 1 0 1 4 1 0 0 247.760 0 0 41 249.201 1.441 1.213 SI 41 1 0 0 0 10 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.015 2 1 13.108 93 74 SK 53 3 0 1 173 22 1 0 17 2 6 0 61 18 13 0 0 0 0 11 1 0 0 1 1 15.579 36 15.998 419 288 UK 3 29 0 0 0 49 13 0 62 0 112 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 8 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 553.917 554.507 590 300 EU-27 273.571 847.314 17.262 10.302 60.137 3.095.542 220.237 8.660 2.108.072 352.634 3.593.748 143.549 43.297 453.215 1.345.071 11.571 38.727 12.094 2.736 1.200.491 75.993 245.247 66.667 248.174 13.030 15.622 554.886 15.057.852 44.622 38.480 Incoming

Crossborder workers 2.084 7.063 10 18 267 8.217 1.737 10 2.467 364 3.588 188 96 725 960 3 9.419 5 12 5.724 37 162 27 414 15 44 969 44.622 Incoming frontier workers 2.010 6.766 0 0 260 7.472 1.671 7 936 161 3.197 44 73 300 203 2 9.402 5 0 5.485 29 91 2 141 13 41 169 38.480

Source: Own calculations based on data LFS and 2012 Ageing Report

Table 101: Right to choose: All cross-border workers have right to choose, scenario: rational decision – reimbursement claim of 3 months, in € .000

Scenario right of choice (also for frontier workers): rational choice Column Labels (country of employment)

Row Labels Outgoing Outgoing (country of crossborder frontier residence) AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK EU-27 workers workers AT 0 0 59 0 129 5.443 17 0 202 0 78 12 204 0 327 16 0 0 4 0 64 0 156 19 145 745 149 7.768 7.768 6.993 BE 16 0 56 21 27 2.367 16 0 405 47 5.804 136 71 75 85 0 0 0 26 0 77 74 22 22 0 0 352 9.699 9.699 8.171 BG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 108 0 119 119 115 DE 0 0 288 0 688 0 0 0 2.697 0 0 554 288 0 328 0 0 0 0 0 1.191 0 0 635 0 0 1.179 7.848 7.848 1.879 DK 0 0 0 0 0 224 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 289 0 8 109 685 685 512 EE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 ES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 238 0 0 0 0 750 1.019 1.019 238 FI 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 51 66 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 247 0 0 0 440 440 298 FR 0 0 0 0 0 10.261 32 0 2.048 0 0 0 0 0 409 0 0 0 0 0 69 337 174 92 0 0 1.008 14.429 14.429 12.718 GR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 38 0 46 46 43 IE 4 0 13 7 20 90 4 0 68 7 13 9 0 0 28 0 0 0 3 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 2.283 2.585 2.585 2.283 IT 0 0 16 0 2 0 0 0 496 0 0 196 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 179 0 28 7 397 1.394 1.394 28 LT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LU 10 367 9 8 5 367 17 17 0 10 377 0 22 8 6 12 0 14 0 0 7 0 10 13 0 0 76 1.356 1.356 1.111 LV 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 4 MT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 NL 53 4.710 0 0 0 6.075 0 0 377 50 0 0 0 0 144 0 0 0 21 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 139 11.613 11.613 10.785 PL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 15 21 21 0 RO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SE 0 0 0 1 9 0 0 35 129 0 0 42 15 0 24 0 0 0 7 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 221 512 512 0 SI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 18 18 0 SK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 UK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 0 EU-27 83 5.077 441 37 879 24.870 85 104 6.527 115 6.272 950 665 83 1.399 33 0 25 75 0 1.574 648 556 1.316 173 924 6.678 59.591 59.591 45.191 Incoming

Crossborder workers 83 5.077 441 37 879 24.870 85 104 6.527 115 6.272 950 665 83 1.399 33 0 25 75 0 1.574 648 556 1.316 173 924 6.678 59.591 Incoming frontier workers 0 5.077 0 0 817 24.737 0 51 2.048 0 6.181 0 204 0 737 4 0 10 0 0 1.201 238 4 536 173 891 2.283 45.191

Source: Own calculations based on data LFS and 2012 Ageing Report

Table 102: Right to choose: All cross-border workers have right to choose, scenario: rational decision – actual payment, in € .000

Scenario right of choice (also for frontier workers): rational choice - actual payment Column Labels (country of employment)

Row Labels Outgoing Outgoing (country of crossborder frontier residence) AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK EU-27 workers workers AT 0 0 29 0 129 5.443 8 0 101 0 39 6 204 0 327 8 0 0 2 0 32 0 78 10 145 745 74 7.381 7.381 6.993 BE 8 0 28 11 13 2.367 8 0 202 24 5.804 68 36 38 43 0 0 0 13 0 39 37 11 11 0 0 176 8.935 8.935 8.171 BG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 108 0 117 117 115 DE 0 0 144 0 688 0 0 0 1.348 0 0 277 144 0 164 0 0 0 0 0 1.191 0 0 317 0 0 590 4.864 4.864 1.879 DK 0 0 0 0 0 224 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 289 0 4 54 599 599 512 EE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 ES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 238 0 0 0 0 375 629 629 238 FI 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 51 33 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 247 0 0 0 369 369 298 FR 0 0 0 0 0 10.261 16 0 2.048 0 0 0 0 0 409 0 0 0 0 0 34 168 87 46 0 0 504 13.574 13.574 12.718 GR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 38 0 44 44 43 IE 2 0 6 4 10 45 2 0 34 4 6 5 0 0 14 0 0 0 1 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 2.283 2.434 2.434 2.283 IT 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 0 248 0 0 98 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 90 0 28 4 198 711 711 28 LT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LU 5 367 5 4 3 367 9 9 0 5 377 0 11 4 3 6 0 7 0 0 3 0 5 6 0 0 38 1.233 1.233 1.111 LV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 4 MT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NL 26 4.710 0 0 0 6.075 0 0 189 25 0 0 0 0 72 0 0 0 11 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 69 11.199 11.199 10.785 PL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 8 11 11 0 RO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SE 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 18 64 0 0 21 7 0 12 0 0 0 3 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 111 256 256 0 SI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 9 9 0 SK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 UK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 EU-27 41 5.077 221 19 848 24.804 43 78 4.287 57 6.226 475 435 42 1.068 18 0 18 38 0 1.387 443 280 926 173 908 4.481 52.391 52.391 45.191 Incoming

Crossborder workers 41 5.077 221 19 848 24.804 43 78 4.287 57 6.226 475 435 42 1.068 18 0 18 38 0 1.387 443 280 926 173 908 4.481 52.391 Incoming frontier workers 0 5.077 0 0 817 24.737 0 51 2.048 0 6.181 0 204 0 737 4 0 10 0 0 1.201 238 4 536 173 891 2.283 45.191

Source: Own calculations based on data LFS and 2012 Ageing Report

Table 103: Return to country of residence: All cross-border workers return to their country of residence – reimbursement claim of 3 months, in € .000

Option 100% going back to country of residence Column Labels (country of employment)

Row Labels Outgoing Outgoing (country of crossborder frontier residence) AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK EU-27 workers workers AT 542.974 61 59 0 129 5.443 17 0 202 7 78 12 204 12 327 16 10 0 4 40 64 0 156 19 145 745 149 550.874 7.899 6.993 BE 16 1.680.502 56 21 27 2.367 16 0 405 47 5.804 136 71 75 85 0 7.633 0 26 6.837 77 74 22 22 0 0 352 1.704.672 24.170 22.642 BG 1 3 34.504 7 4 26 0 0 69 0 9 88 1 1 20 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 2 2 0 16 34.760 255 88 CY 0 0 0 20.568 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20.568 0 0 CZ 71 22 0 0 119.741 227 1 0 43 0 12 13 4 31 14 0 6 0 0 12 7 0 0 4 0 108 65 120.381 640 413 DE 3.500 547 288 0 688 6.174.649 1.028 0 2.697 101 1.281 554 288 0 328 0 2.978 0 0 4.132 1.191 0 0 635 0 0 1.179 6.196.064 21.415 15.345 DK 10 26 0 0 0 224 437.001 0 38 0 45 0 0 0 14 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 3 289 0 8 109 437.769 767 512 EE 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 17.300 2 211 2 0 0 7 2 0 1 10 0 1 0 0 0 14 0 0 8 17.561 261 221 ES 9 78 0 0 0 147 0 0 4.211.211 77 410 0 31 186 153 0 2 0 0 50 0 238 0 0 0 0 750 4.213.342 2.131 647 FI 0 52 0 0 0 43 0 51 66 704.541 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 247 0 0 0 705.051 510 298 FR 31 9.577 0 0 0 10.261 32 0 2.048 127 7.180.321 0 0 350 409 0 8.193 0 0 165 69 337 174 92 0 0 1.008 7.213.194 32.872 30.488 GR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96.637 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96.637 0 0 HU 182 16 0 3 3 189 8 0 11 4 34 0 86.402 37 32 1 0 0 0 14 2 0 4 1 1 38 124 87.108 706 226 IE 4 33 13 7 20 90 4 0 68 7 13 9 0 904.979 28 0 5 0 3 22 35 0 0 0 0 0 2.283 907.625 2.645 2.283 IT 78 148 16 0 2 682 10 0 496 1 696 196 30 49 2.688.223 0 0 0 0 10 42 0 179 0 28 7 397 2.691.291 3.069 802 LT 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 23.138 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 23.153 15 1 LU 10 367 9 8 5 367 17 17 0 10 377 0 22 8 6 12 58.618 14 0 22 7 0 10 13 0 0 76 59.995 1.378 1.111 LV 0 0 1 2 0 8 2 11 0 2 2 3 0 7 1 4 0 24.177 0 3 3 0 0 5 0 0 30 24.261 84 15 MT 1 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 5.448 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 5.482 33 0 NL 53 4.710 0 0 0 6.075 0 0 377 50 0 0 0 0 144 0 0 0 21 2.389.535 43 0 0 0 0 0 139 2.401.148 11.613 10.785 PL 15 24 0 6 52 293 21 0 9 4 30 5 0 8 15 1 1 1 0 53 151.912 3 0 20 0 8 50 152.532 621 354 PT 0 25 0 0 0 13 0 0 1.100 0 247 0 0 5 2 0 7 0 0 2 0 490.169 6 6 0 0 15 491.597 1.427 1.100 RO 10 15 0 8 1 117 4 0 531 0 16 25 10 4 919 0 0 0 1 1 0 26 133.281 0 0 0 35 135.003 1.722 10 SE 23 19 0 1 9 62 2.314 35 129 112 52 42 15 51 24 0 2 0 7 9 30 0 0 495.521 0 0 221 498.678 3.157 2.427 SI 82 1 0 0 0 21 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 67 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 26.030 17 3 26.229 198 149 SK 106 5 0 3 346 43 2 0 34 3 13 0 122 35 25 0 0 0 0 22 3 0 0 2 1 31.157 72 31.995 838 577 UK 7 58 0 0 0 98 26 0 125 0 225 0 0 600 0 0 0 0 15 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.107.834 1.109.015 1.181 600 EU-27 547.183 1.696.295 34.945 20.634 121.026 6.201.449 440.507 17.417 4.219.663 705.308 7.189.672 97.721 87.200 906.449 2.690.876 23.172 77.455 24.204 5.524 2.400.982 153.485 490.849 133.838 496.894 26.208 32.089 1.114.936 29.955.984 119.610 98.088 Incoming

Crossborder workers 4.209 15.793 441 66 1.285 26.800 3.506 117 8.452 767 9.351 1.084 798 1.470 2.653 34 18.837 27 76 11.448 1.574 680 557 1.373 178 932 7.101 119.610 Incoming frontier workers 4.020 15.200 0 0 1.215 25.256 3.342 62 3.148 323 8.568 88 336 600 803 5 18.804 11 0 10.969 1.201 238 5 536 174 899 2.283 98.088

Source: Own calculations based on data LFS and 2012 Ageing Report

Table 104: Return to country of residence: All cross-border workers return to their country of residence – actual payment, in € .000

Option 100% register in country of employment: actual payment Column Labels (country of employment)

Row Labels Outgoing Outgoing (country of crossborder frontier residence) AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK EU-27 workers workers AT 542.974 61 2 0 14 3.818 12 0 75 7 77 2 13 12 150 0 10 0 1 40 2 0 10 9 17 24 26 547.359 4.384 4.036 BE 11 1.680.502 1 4 2 1.104 8 0 100 37 3.819 15 3 59 26 0 7.633 0 3 6.837 2 14 1 7 0 0 41 1.700.228 19.727 19.394 BG 1 3 34.504 7 4 26 0 0 69 0 9 88 1 1 20 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 2 2 0 16 34.760 255 88 CY 0 0 0 20.568 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20.568 0 0 CZ 71 22 0 0 119.741 227 1 0 43 0 12 13 2 31 14 0 6 0 0 12 2 0 0 4 0 31 65 120.298 557 331 DE 3.500 547 15 0 107 6.174.649 1.028 0 1.432 101 1.281 135 27 0 214 0 2.978 0 0 4.132 53 0 0 426 0 0 293 6.190.917 16.268 13.626 DK 10 26 0 0 0 212 437.001 0 19 0 45 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 184 0 0 26 437.533 532 396 EE 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 17.300 2 211 2 0 0 7 2 0 1 8 0 1 0 0 0 14 0 0 8 17.559 259 219 ES 9 78 0 0 0 147 0 0 4.211.211 77 410 0 6 186 153 0 2 0 0 50 0 182 0 0 0 0 352 4.212.862 1.651 592 FI 0 52 0 0 0 26 0 2 21 704.541 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 99 0 0 0 704.773 232 102 FR 31 9.577 0 0 0 7.276 24 0 771 127 7.180.321 0 0 350 189 0 8.193 0 0 165 2 97 11 44 0 0 178 7.207.356 27.035 26.006 GR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 286.722 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 286.722 0 0 HU 182 16 0 3 3 189 8 0 11 4 34 0 86.402 37 32 0 0 0 0 14 1 0 4 1 1 19 124 87.087 685 206 IE 3 33 0 2 2 54 2 0 22 7 11 1 0 904.979 11 0 5 0 0 22 1 0 0 0 0 0 338 905.495 516 338 IT 78 148 1 0 1 682 10 0 404 1 696 73 4 49 2.688.223 0 0 0 0 10 3 0 25 0 8 0 151 2.690.567 2.345 781 LT 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 23.138 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 23.153 15 1 LU 5 280 0 1 0 131 6 0 0 6 189 0 1 5 1 0 58.618 0 0 22 0 0 0 3 0 0 7 59.276 658 600 LV 0 0 0 2 0 8 2 11 0 2 2 3 0 7 1 2 0 24.177 0 3 2 0 0 5 0 0 30 24.258 82 14 MT 1 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 5.448 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 5.481 33 0 NL 23 3.130 0 0 0 1.883 0 0 62 26 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 2 2.389.535 1 0 0 0 0 0 11 2.394.701 5.167 5.013 PL 15 24 0 6 52 293 21 0 9 4 30 5 0 8 15 1 1 1 0 53 151.912 3 0 20 0 8 50 152.532 621 354 PT 0 25 0 0 0 13 0 0 1.100 0 247 0 0 5 2 0 7 0 0 2 0 490.169 1 6 0 0 9 491.586 1.416 1.100 RO 10 15 0 8 1 117 4 0 531 0 16 25 10 4 919 0 0 0 1 1 0 26 133.281 0 0 0 35 135.003 1.722 10 SE 23 19 0 1 2 62 2.314 4 102 112 52 15 2 51 24 0 2 0 2 9 2 0 0 495.521 0 0 82 498.402 2.881 2.427 SI 82 1 0 0 0 21 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 67 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 26.030 5 3 26.216 185 149 SK 106 5 0 3 346 43 2 0 34 3 13 0 122 35 25 0 0 0 0 22 3 0 0 2 1 31.157 72 31.995 838 577 UK 7 58 0 0 0 98 26 0 125 0 225 0 0 600 0 0 0 0 15 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.107.834 1.109.015 1.181 600 EU-27 547.143 1.694.628 34.525 20.604 120.274 6.191.083 440.475 17.320 4.216.145 705.269 7.187.496 287.098 86.593 906.430 2.690.142 23.143 77.455 24.188 5.472 2.400.982 151.985 490.494 133.335 496.348 26.060 31.244 1.109.772 30.115.703 89.245 76.961 Incoming

Crossborder workers 4.168 14.126 20 36 533 16.434 3.474 20 4.934 728 7.175 375 191 1.451 1.919 5 18.837 11 24 11.448 73 325 54 827 30 87 1.937 89.245 Incoming frontier workers 4.020 13.533 0 0 519 14.944 3.342 14 1.871 323 6.395 88 145 600 406 4 18.804 9 0 10.969 58 182 5 283 26 82 338 76.961

Source: Own calculations based on data LFS and 2012 Ageing Report

10.4 Detailed tables on long-term care

10.4.1 Estimated number of insured persons living in another country than the competent country

Table 105: Number of insured incoming cross-border workers and their family members (20%), in 000, average 2010 and 2011

Incoming Cross-border workers + 20% family members Column Labels (working country)

Row Labels (country of residence) AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK Total AT 0,3 0,2 0,0 0,7 28,9 0,1 0,0 0,4 0,0 0,3 0,0 0,7 0,0 1,5 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,4 0,3 0,0 0,8 0,1 0,8 2,0 0,8 38,5 BE 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 8,4 0,1 0,0 0,5 0,2 16,2 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,3 0,0 44,6 0,0 0,1 42,9 0,2 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 1,3 116,0 BG 0,1 0,4 1,2 0,5 3,9 0,0 0,0 3,8 0,0 1,0 7,4 0,1 0,1 2,6 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,7 0,0 0,2 0,1 0,3 0,4 0,0 2,5 25,4 CY 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 CZ 5,9 1,0 0,0 0,0 11,1 0,1 0,0 0,8 0,0 0,5 0,4 0,1 0,8 0,6 0,0 0,5 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 2,7 3,2 29,0 DE 44,9 3,7 1,5 0,0 5,2 8,0 0,0 7,4 0,7 7,7 2,4 1,4 0,0 2,2 0,0 37,3 0,0 0,0 55,6 6,7 0,0 0,0 4,7 0,0 0,0 9,2 198,5 DK 0,1 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,6 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 2,0 0,0 0,0 0,8 5,2 EE 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,1 18,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,4 0,2 0,0 0,1 0,4 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,2 0,0 0,0 0,8 21,7 ES 0,2 1,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 2,1 0,0 0,0 1,0 4,6 0,0 0,3 1,4 1,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,3 0,0 2,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 11,0 27,1 FI 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 2,0 FR 0,3 45,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 55,2 0,2 0,0 4,0 0,6 0,0 0,0 1,0 1,9 0,0 72,7 0,0 0,0 1,6 0,3 1,2 0,9 0,5 0,0 0,0 5,6 191,6 GR 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 HU 25,0 1,2 0,0 0,3 0,2 15,4 0,7 0,0 0,3 0,3 2,2 0,0 1,6 2,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 2,0 0,1 0,0 0,3 0,1 0,1 1,6 10,3 64,1 IE 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,4 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 10,6 12,0 IT 1,5 1,5 0,1 0,0 0,0 7,9 0,1 0,0 2,1 0,0 6,4 1,3 0,2 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,4 0,0 2,0 0,0 0,3 0,0 4,7 29,3 LT 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,3 0,1 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,5 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,5 2,3 LU 0,0 0,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,8 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 3,3 LV 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,0 0,9 0,2 0,5 0,0 0,2 0,2 0,2 0,0 0,5 0,1 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,5 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,6 0,0 0,0 3,6 8,3 MT 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,6 1,0 NL 0,2 9,8 0,0 0,0 0,0 14,3 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,3 25,5 PL 4,5 3,6 0,0 1,1 8,9 49,8 3,7 0,0 0,6 0,6 4,0 0,5 0,0 0,7 2,3 0,1 0,4 0,1 0,0 16,0 0,3 0,0 3,4 0,0 0,7 8,8 110,1 PT 0,0 0,4 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 7,5 0,0 3,6 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,3 12,6 RO 1,4 1,1 0,0 0,8 0,1 9,8 0,3 0,0 16,3 0,0 1,1 1,2 0,5 0,2 67,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,0 1,4 0,0 0,0 0,0 3,0 105,3 SE 0,4 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,7 26,9 0,2 0,5 1,2 0,5 0,3 0,1 0,3 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 2,6 34,8 SI 6,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 2,6 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,4 0,1 10,4 SK 29,9 0,8 0,0 0,5 57,8 7,2 0,4 0,0 2,0 0,5 1,7 0,0 13,0 3,2 3,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 6,5 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,2 12,3 140,5 UK 0,4 1,6 0,0 0,0 0,0 3,0 0,8 0,0 1,4 0,0 5,4 0,0 0,0 9,8 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,5 1,4 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 24,3 EU-27 121,0 73,6 1,9 4,3 73,0 194,4 42,0 0,9 47,9 23,6 56,4 13,9 16,0 20,8 89,5 0,3 155,9 0,5 0,9 131,4 9,0 5,4 3,7 14,9 1,0 5,4 92,3 1238,7

Source: Own calculations based on data LFS

Table 106: Number of insured retired cross-border workers and their family members (25%), in 000

(cross-border) Pensioners according to present country of living + 25% family members Column Labels (former working country)

Row Labels (country of residence) AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK EU-27 AT 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,2 15,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,3 0,0 0,8 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,4 0,0 0,6 0,9 0,3 19,4 BE 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 4,3 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,1 7,6 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 14,3 0,0 0,0 13,9 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,5 41,8 BG 0,1 0,2 0,0 0,3 0,2 2,0 0,0 0,0 1,4 0,0 0,5 3,8 0,1 0,0 1,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,3 0,0 1,0 11,8 CY 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 CZ 2,7 0,4 0,0 0,0 0,0 5,7 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,0 0,2 0,2 0,1 0,3 0,3 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 1,1 1,3 13,3 DE 20,3 1,7 0,8 0,0 1,8 0,0 2,7 0,0 2,9 0,3 3,6 1,2 0,7 0,0 1,2 0,0 12,0 0,0 0,0 18,0 2,3 0,0 0,0 1,9 0,0 0,0 3,6 75,0 DK 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,8 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,8 0,0 0,0 0,3 2,3 EE 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 7,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,5 0,0 0,0 0,3 8,6 ES 0,1 0,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,4 2,2 0,0 0,1 0,4 1,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,4 0,0 0,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 4,3 11,5 FI 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,4 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,9 FR 0,1 21,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 28,5 0,1 0,0 1,5 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,3 1,1 0,0 23,3 0,0 0,0 0,5 0,1 0,5 0,4 0,2 0,0 0,0 2,2 80,6 GR 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 HU 11,3 0,5 0,0 0,1 0,1 7,9 0,2 0,0 0,1 0,1 1,0 0,0 0,0 0,5 1,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,7 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,7 4,1 29,0 IE 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 4,2 4,8 IT 0,7 0,7 0,1 0,0 0,0 4,1 0,0 0,0 0,8 0,0 3,0 0,7 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,9 0,0 0,2 0,0 1,9 13,5 LT 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,9 LU 0,0 0,4 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,4 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 1,6 LV 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,5 0,1 0,2 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 1,4 3,3 MT 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,4 NL 0,1 4,6 0,0 0,0 0,0 7,4 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 12,6 PL 2,0 1,7 0,0 0,3 3,1 25,8 1,2 0,0 0,2 0,2 1,9 0,2 0,0 0,2 1,3 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 5,2 0,0 0,1 0,0 1,4 0,0 0,3 3,5 48,9 PT 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 2,9 0,0 1,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 5,2 RO 0,6 0,5 0,0 0,2 0,0 5,1 0,1 0,0 6,3 0,0 0,5 0,6 0,3 0,1 37,6 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,6 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,2 53,7 SE 0,2 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,4 9,0 0,1 0,2 0,5 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,0 12,3 SI 2,8 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,4 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 5,0 SK 13,5 0,4 0,0 0,2 20,0 3,7 0,1 0,0 0,8 0,2 0,8 0,0 6,2 1,0 2,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 2,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,0 4,8 56,3 UK 0,2 0,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,5 0,3 0,0 0,5 0,0 2,5 0,0 0,0 3,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 9,5 EU-27 54,8 34,6 1,0 1,2 25,2 100,6 14,0 0,4 18,4 9,4 26,5 7,2 7,6 6,4 49,5 0,2 50,0 0,2 0,3 42,6 3,1 2,2 1,6 6,1 0,7 2,3 36,4 522,2

Source: Own calculations based on data LFS and 2012 Ageing Report

Table 107: Number of insured migrant pensioners (number of persons aged 60 and older at arrival and retired by country of birth), in 000, 2011

Migrant pensioners Column Labels (country of birth) Row Labels (country of residence) AT BE BG CY (n.a) CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT (n.a) NL PL PT RO (n.a) SE SI SK UK EU-27 AT 0,9 6,3 0,0 0,1 0,4 0,5 0,1 0,1 0,3 8,8 BE 0,4 0,9 6,5 0,1 2,8 11,1 0,6 1,5 17,8 0,3 10,3 1,4 0,2 0,9 54,6 BG 0,2 0,2 CY 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 3,5 4,0 CZ 0,3 0,3 0,9 1,5 DE (n.a)

DK 0,3 0,9 0,0 0,2 0,6 0,0 0,3 2,4 EE 0,0 ES 0,7 0,3 11,3 2,6 0,6 0,6 2,6 7,8 34,8 61,4 FI 0,2 0,4 0,6 FR 1,6 3,6 0,3 0,4 0,0 0,0 0,4 2,7 0,3 1,2 0,8 22,8 34,1 GR 0,3 0,4 0,1 0,0 0,7 1,5 HU 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,1 0,3 IE 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,2 0,0 5,3 5,7 IT 0,2 0,4 0,0 1,8 0,1 0,2 0,4 0,1 0,4 0,0 0,1 0,4 4,2 LT 0,0 0,1 0,1 LU 0,3 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,4 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 1,4 LV 0,1 0,2 0,2 MT 0,0 0,4 0,4 NL 0,9 0,3 0,2 1,3 PL 0,6 0,0 0,2 0,8 PT 0,1 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,5 0,0 0,0 0,7 1,6 RO (n.a)

SE 2,9 0,5 0,1 0,1 0,3 0,2 0,6 0,2 5,0 SI 0,1 0,2 0,3 SK 0,1 0,1 UK

EU27 0,6 4,0 1,0 0,0 1,8 35,2 0,7 0,1 3,4 0,1 15,1 1,2 2,6 1,1 21,5 0,3 0,8 0,0 0,0 22,7 3,4 1,5 0,0 1,5 0,2 1,2 70,5 190,5

Source: Own calculations based on data LFS; For an overview of the LFS reliability limits see http://circa.europa.eu/irc/dsis/employment/info/data/eu_lfs/LFS_MAIN/Related_documents/reliab_annual_average.htm

Table 108: Number of insured migrant pensioners and their family members (25%), in 000, 2011

Migrant pensioners and family members

(25%) Column Labels (country of birth) Row Labels (country of residence) AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV NL PL PT SE SI SK UK EU-27 AT 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,1 7,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,6 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,4 11,0 BE 0,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,1 8,1 0,1 0,0 3,5 0,0 13,9 0,7 1,8 0,0 22,3 0,0 0,4 0,0 0,0 12,8 1,8 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,1 68,2 BG 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 CY 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 4,4 5,0 CZ 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,4 0,0 0,4 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,1 0,0 1,8 DE 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 DK 0,0 0,0 0,4 0,0 0,0 1,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,3 3,0 EE 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ES 0,0 0,9 0,3 0,0 0,0 14,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 3,3 0,0 0,7 0,8 3,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 9,8 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 43,5 76,7 FI 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,7 FR 0,0 2,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 4,4 0,0 0,0 0,4 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,5 0,0 0,0 0,5 0,0 0,0 3,4 0,4 1,5 0,0 1,1 0,0 0,0 28,5 42,7 GR 0,0 0,0 0,4 0,0 0,0 0,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,8 1,8 HU 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,1 0,4 IE 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 6,6 7,2 IT 0,3 0,5 0,1 0,0 0,0 2,3 0,1 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,5 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,5 5,2 LT 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 LU 0,0 0,4 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,7 LV 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,3 MT 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,5 0,5 NL 0,0 1,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,4 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 1,7 PL 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,1 PT 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,6 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,8 2,0 RO 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 SE 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 3,6 0,7 0,1 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,4 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,8 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 6,2 SI 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,4 SK 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 UK 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 EU-27 0,7 5,0 1,3 0,0 2,2 44,0 0,9 0,2 4,2 0,2 18,9 1,5 3,3 1,4 26,9 0,4 1,0 0,0 0,0 28,3 4,3 1,9 0,0 1,9 0,2 1,5 88,1 238,1

Source: Own calculations based on data LFS For an overview of the LFS reliability limits see

http://circa.europa.eu/irc/dsis/employment/info/data/eu_lfs/LFS_MAIN/Related_documents/reliab_annual_average.htm

Table 109: Share in total number of persons insured in another country than the country of residence (as % of row total), top 3 of competent MS

Column Labels (competent country) Row Labels Absolute (country of numbers residence) AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK EU-27 (in .000) AT 0,0% 0,6% 0,5% 0,0% 3,1% 75,1% 0,2% 0,0% 0,8% 0,1% 0,8% 0,1% 1,8% 0,1% 4,2% 0,1% 0,2% 0,0% 0,0% 1,7% 0,6% 0,0% 1,7% 0,2% 1,6% 4,3% 2,3% 100,0% 66 BE 0,3% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 0,5% 9,0% 0,1% 0,0% 1,9% 0,1% 16,7% 0,5% 0,9% 0,1% 10,1% 0,0% 26,3% 0,0% 0,1% 30,9% 0,9% 0,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 1,3% 100,0% 225 BG 0,5% 1,6% 0,0% 4,0% 2,0% 15,7% 0,0% 0,0% 14,0% 0,0% 4,1% 30,4% 0,5% 0,4% 11,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 2,6% 0,0% 0,9% 0,5% 1,1% 1,3% 0,0% 9,5% 100,0% 37 CY 0,4% 0,0% 2,5% 0,0% 0,0% 2,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 4,9% 0,0% 0,8% 0,5% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,4% 0,8% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 87,6% 100,0% 5 CZ 19,8% 3,3% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 37,3% 0,2% 0,0% 2,5% 0,0% 2,4% 1,3% 1,3% 2,5% 2,1% 0,0% 1,4% 0,0% 0,0% 3,1% 0,8% 0,0% 0,1% 0,7% 0,0% 10,7% 10,5% 100,0% 43 DE 23,9% 2,0% 0,8% 0,0% 2,6% 0,0% 3,9% 0,0% 3,8% 0,4% 4,1% 1,3% 0,7% 0,0% 1,2% 0,0% 18,0% 0,0% 0,0% 26,9% 3,3% 0,0% 0,0% 2,4% 0,0% 0,0% 4,7% 100,0% 273 DK 1,6% 2,3% 4,0% 0,0% 0,0% 33,5% 0,0% 0,0% 1,3% 0,0% 4,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 1,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 2,5% 7,1% 0,0% 0,3% 27,6% 0,0% 0,4% 14,0% 100,0% 10 EE 0,0% 0,6% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 1,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,3% 83,0% 0,6% 0,0% 0,0% 1,5% 0,8% 0,0% 0,5% 1,8% 0,0% 0,5% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 5,7% 0,0% 0,0% 3,7% 100,0% 30 ES 0,3% 2,1% 0,3% 0,0% 0,0% 14,9% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 1,2% 8,7% 0,0% 1,0% 2,3% 5,4% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 9,9% 0,0% 2,6% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 51,1% 100,0% 115 FI 0,0% 8,7% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 8,0% 0,0% 3,9% 4,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 5,5% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 5,6% 5,6% 0,0% 0,0% 58,4% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 100,0% 4 FR 0,1% 22,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 27,2% 0,1% 0,0% 1,9% 0,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,6% 1,0% 0,0% 31,0% 0,0% 0,0% 1,8% 0,2% 1,0% 0,4% 0,6% 0,0% 0,0% 11,7% 100,0% 311 GR 0,0% 0,0% 19,6% 0,0% 0,0% 27,5% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 5,4% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 2,5% 0,0% 0,0% 44,9% 100,0% 2 HU 39,5% 1,8% 0,0% 0,4% 0,3% 24,2% 1,0% 0,0% 0,5% 0,4% 3,5% 0,0% 0,0% 2,3% 3,8% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 0,0% 2,9% 0,2% 0,0% 0,5% 0,1% 0,2% 2,5% 15,7% 100,0% 92 IE 0,2% 0,8% 0,2% 0,2% 0,5% 2,8% 0,1% 0,1% 0,6% 0,2% 0,3% 0,2% 0,8% 0,0% 0,7% 0,0% 0,2% 0,1% 0,1% 2,0% 0,8% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 89,1% 100,0% 24 IT 5,3% 5,8% 0,5% 0,0% 0,1% 29,2% 0,5% 0,0% 6,6% 0,0% 20,9% 4,3% 0,7% 0,8% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 1,7% 1,0% 0,0% 5,9% 0,0% 1,3% 0,1% 15,1% 100,0% 47 LT 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 8,5% 12,7% 4,0% 0,2% 7,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 9,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 2,9% 0,0% 18,6% 5,6% 0,0% 0,0% 12,9% 0,0% 0,0% 18,7% 100,0% 3 LU 1,0% 25,3% 0,4% 0,5% 0,3% 24,6% 2,4% 0,4% 0,5% 0,5% 25,9% 0,6% 0,8% 0,2% 3,7% 0,3% 0,0% 0,3% 0,0% 2,9% 0,7% 2,5% 0,6% 0,7% 0,0% 0,0% 5,0% 100,0% 7 LV 0,0% 0,3% 0,5% 2,8% 0,3% 11,5% 2,2% 6,5% 0,0% 2,3% 2,0% 2,2% 0,0% 5,0% 1,8% 2,8% 0,0% 0,0% 0,2% 5,9% 3,0% 0,0% 0,0% 8,5% 0,0% 0,2% 41,9% 100,0% 12 MT 2,1% 9,9% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 3,4% 0,0% 0,0% 2,9% 1,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 7,2% 0,8% 0,5% 0,0% 0,0% 5,6% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 66,4% 100,0% 2 NL 0,8% 39,9% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 54,3% 0,0% 0,0% 1,1% 0,4% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 1,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,2% 0,0% 0,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 1,8% 100,0% 39 PL 4,1% 3,4% 0,0% 0,9% 7,6% 46,7% 3,2% 0,0% 0,5% 0,5% 3,8% 0,5% 0,0% 0,6% 2,2% 0,3% 0,4% 0,1% 0,0% 13,6% 0,0% 0,3% 0,0% 3,0% 0,0% 0,6% 7,8% 100,0% 156 PT 0,0% 3,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 2,2% 0,0% 0,0% 52,3% 0,0% 28,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,5% 0,2% 0,0% 1,6% 0,0% 0,0% 3,7% 0,2% 0,0% 0,8% 0,9% 0,0% 0,0% 6,3% 100,0% 20 RO 1,3% 1,0% 0,0% 0,6% 0,0% 9,0% 0,3% 0,0% 14,3% 0,0% 1,0% 1,2% 0,5% 0,1% 66,5% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,1% 0,2% 0,0% 1,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 2,6% 100,0% 158 SE 1,2% 0,5% 0,0% 0,0% 0,2% 8,7% 68,7% 0,7% 1,4% 3,4% 1,3% 1,6% 0,3% 0,8% 1,2% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 0,2% 0,4% 2,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 7,1% 100,0% 53 SI 56,5% 0,4% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 8,9% 0,0% 0,1% 0,2% 0,0% 1,7% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 27,3% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,4% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 3,2% 1,0% 100,0% 16 SK 22,2% 0,7% 0,0% 0,4% 39,6% 5,4% 0,3% 0,0% 1,4% 0,3% 1,3% 0,0% 9,7% 2,1% 2,9% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 4,4% 0,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,2% 0,1% 0,0% 8,7% 100,0% 196 UK 1,5% 6,8% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 12,9% 3,3% 0,0% 5,7% 0,0% 23,6% 0,0% 0,0% 38,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 2,2% 5,6% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 100,0% 34 EU-27 8,9% 5,7% 0,2% 0,3% 5,1% 18,6% 2,9% 0,1% 3,6% 1,7% 5,2% 1,1% 1,4% 1,4% 8,5% 0,0% 10,5% 0,0% 0,1% 10,2% 0,8% 0,5% 0,3% 1,2% 0,1% 0,6% 11,0% 100,0% 1.980 # in top 3 competent countries 5 5 2 0 1 20 1 0 3 1 5 2 1 1 4 0 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 5 0 2 16 84

Source: Own calculations based on data LFS

Table 110: Share in total number of persons living in another country than the competent country (as % of column total), top 3 of MS of residence

Column Labels (competent country)

# in top 3 Row Labels countries (country of of residence) AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK EU-27 residence AT 0,0% 0,4% 7,2% 0,0% 2,0% 13,6% 0,2% 0,0% 0,8% 0,2% 0,5% 0,2% 4,3% 0,2% 1,7% 5,5% 0,1% 0,0% 2,5% 0,5% 2,6% 0,0% 18,0% 0,6% 39,9% 25,1% 0,7% 3,4% 5 BE 0,3% 0,0% 4,6% 1,9% 1,2% 5,5% 0,3% 0,0% 6,0% 0,6% 36,9% 4,9% 7,5% 0,7% 13,6% 0,0% 28,6% 0,0% 11,4% 34,3% 12,4% 4,8% 1,7% 0,5% 0,0% 0,0% 1,3% 11,4% 8 BG 0,1% 0,5% 0,0% 27,3% 0,7% 1,6% 0,0% 0,0% 7,3% 0,0% 1,5% 49,6% 0,6% 0,5% 2,4% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,5% 0,0% 3,5% 2,8% 1,8% 18,4% 0,0% 1,6% 1,9% 3 CY 0,0% 0,0% 2,8% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 1,1% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 2,0% 0,3% 0 CZ 4,8% 1,2% 0,0% 0,6% 0,0% 4,4% 0,1% 0,0% 1,5% 0,0% 1,0% 2,5% 2,0% 3,8% 0,5% 0,0% 0,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,7% 2,1% 0,0% 0,4% 1,2% 0,0% 40,9% 2,1% 2,2% 1 DE 36,9% 4,8% 50,4% 0,0% 6,9% 0,0% 18,8% 0,0% 14,5% 3,0% 11,0% 16,0% 7,4% 0,0% 2,0% 0,0% 23,8% 0,0% 0,0% 36,3% 53,7% 0,0% 0,0% 28,7% 0,0% 0,0% 5,9% 13,8% 14 DK 0,1% 0,2% 9,5% 0,0% 0,0% 1,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,2% 0,0% 0,4% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,3% 0,0% 0,1% 4,5% 0,0% 0,5% 12,6% 0,0% 0,4% 0,7% 0,5% 2 EE 0,0% 0,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,1% 75,7% 0,2% 0,0% 0,0% 1,6% 0,1% 0,0% 0,1% 68,1% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 7,5% 0,0% 0,0% 0,5% 1,5% 2 ES 0,2% 2,1% 7,8% 0,0% 0,0% 4,7% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 4,3% 9,8% 0,0% 4,2% 9,3% 3,7% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 5,6% 0,0% 32,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 27,0% 5,8% 6 FI 0,0% 0,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 9,2% 0,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,1% 1,2% 0,0% 0,0% 9,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,2% 1 FR 0,2% 60,8% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 22,9% 0,4% 0,0% 8,4% 2,7% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 6,3% 1,8% 0,0% 46,6% 0,0% 0,0% 2,7% 4,7% 32,8% 20,3% 7,5% 0,0% 0,0% 16,6% 15,7% 7 GR 0,0% 0,0% 8,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,4% 0,1% 1 HU 20,6% 1,5% 0,6% 6,1% 0,3% 6,1% 1,6% 1,4% 0,6% 1,2% 3,2% 0,0% 0,0% 7,4% 2,1% 3,4% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 1,3% 0,9% 0,0% 7,4% 0,5% 7,7% 20,6% 6,6% 4,7% 2 IE 0,0% 0,2% 1,3% 0,8% 0,1% 0,2% 0,0% 1,6% 0,2% 0,1% 0,1% 0,2% 0,7% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 0,0% 3,9% 1,4% 0,2% 1,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 9,8% 1,2% 1 IT 1,4% 2,4% 5,7% 0,0% 0,0% 3,7% 0,4% 0,0% 4,4% 0,0% 9,7% 9,0% 1,2% 1,4% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,4% 3,0% 0,0% 45,1% 0,0% 22,7% 0,5% 3,3% 2,4% 3 LT 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,1% 0,7% 8,8% 0,0% 0,7% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 1,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 12,0% 0,0% 0,3% 1,1% 0,0% 0,0% 1,9% 0,0% 0,0% 0,3% 0,2% 1 LU 0,0% 1,5% 0,6% 0,6% 0,0% 0,4% 0,3% 1,8% 0,0% 0,1% 1,7% 0,2% 0,2% 0,1% 0,1% 2,1% 0,0% 2,7% 0,0% 0,1% 0,3% 1,7% 0,6% 0,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,1% 0,3% 0 LV 0,0% 0,0% 1,3% 6,1% 0,0% 0,4% 0,5% 50,8% 0,0% 0,8% 0,2% 1,2% 0,0% 2,1% 0,1% 37,5% 0,0% 0,0% 2,0% 0,3% 2,1% 0,0% 0,0% 4,4% 0,0% 0,2% 2,3% 0,6% 1 MT 0,0% 0,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,1% 1,8% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,6% 0,1% 0 NL 0,2% 13,7% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 5,7% 0,0% 0,0% 0,6% 0,5% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 6,2% 0,0% 0,6% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,3% 2,0% 1 PL 3,7% 4,7% 0,0% 25,9% 11,8% 19,8% 8,7% 0,0% 1,1% 2,5% 5,8% 3,1% 0,0% 3,4% 2,1% 49,7% 0,3% 13,0% 0,0% 10,5% 0,0% 4,2% 0,8% 20,7% 0,9% 7,9% 5,6% 7,9% 8 PT 0,0% 0,5% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,1% 0,0% 0,0% 14,5% 0,0% 5,5% 0,0% 0,0% 0,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,4% 0,2% 0,0% 2,4% 0,8% 0,0% 0,0% 0,6% 1,0% 1 RO 1,1% 1,5% 0,0% 17,7% 0,1% 3,9% 0,8% 0,0% 31,7% 0,0% 1,6% 8,1% 2,8% 0,8% 62,6% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 6,4% 0,1% 0,0% 20,8% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 1,9% 8,0% 4 SE 0,4% 0,2% 0,0% 0,3% 0,1% 1,3% 64,2% 25,6% 1,0% 5,4% 0,7% 3,7% 0,6% 1,4% 0,4% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 9,3% 0,1% 6,7% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 1,7% 2,7% 5 SI 5,0% 0,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,4% 0,0% 0,6% 0,0% 0,0% 0,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 2,6% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 4,5% 0,1% 0,8% 0 SK 24,6% 1,2% 0,0% 12,7% 76,7% 2,9% 0,9% 0,0% 4,0% 2,1% 2,4% 0,2% 68,6% 14,5% 3,4% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 3,3% 4,3% 2,6% 0,0% 0,0% 2,1% 10,3% 0,0% 7,9% 9,9% 4 UK 0,3% 2,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 1,2% 1,9% 0,0% 2,7% 0,0% 7,8% 0,0% 0,0% 45,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 57,4% 0,9% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 1,7% 2

EU-27 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Absolute numbers (in .000) 177 113 4 5 101 368 57 2 71 33 102 23 28 29 167 1 207 1 1 203 17 10 6 23 3 11 218 1980

Source: Own calculations based on data LFS

10.4.2 Estimations based on data from the Audit Board

Table 111: Claims on health introduced in 2011 by creditor countries Creditor country Claims introduced in 2011 (in € 000)

DE 640.849 AT 208.356 BE 378.053 BG 403 CY 21.432 DK 3.418 ES 608.295 EE 1.109 FI 7.122 FR 930.662 GR 123.766 HU 9.837 IE 0 IC 392 IT 156.237 LT 72 LIE 255 LI 1.222 LU 25.950 MT 866 NO 8.676 NL 86.774 PL 22.857 PT 118.950 RO 593 UK 38.278 SK 24.328 SI 19.238 SE 20.624 CH 124.751 CZ 23.887 TOTAL 3.607.252

Source: Audit Board

Table 112: Outstanding health claims on 31/12/2011 by creditor and debtor country as new health claims introduced in 2011, in € .000

New claims introduced in 2011 (health,

Debtor DE AT BE BG CY DK ES EE FI FR GR HU IE IC IT LT LIE LI LU MT NO NL PL PT RO UK SK SI SE CH CZ TOTAL including LTC) Creditor

DE ===== 100.882 29.945 13.163 185 21.117 23.376 636 2.229 98.199 55.290 4.137 1.086 117 58.815 2.846 193 922 75.210 53 894 127.670 24.931 5.371 31.244 32.494 1.060 2.441 2.734 42.986 6.313 766.539 640.849 AT 104.504 ===== 2.261 2.295 78 268 1.754 28 147 6.573 4.591 3.018 258 19 13.742 67 602 37 232 23 312 12.751 3.258 1.252 15.575 6.179 1.123 2.708 522 4.297 1.880 190.354 208.356

BE 14.638 443 ===== 2.473 36 971 10.181 47 227 92.180 10.402 274 0 65 11.441 114 3 1 68.472 31 342 147.609 2.553 7.028 4.376 18.224 371 302 269 1.050 328 394.451 378.053 BG 69 0 6 ===== 13 0 63 0 0 10 110 1 5 0 124 0 0 0 1 2 6 29 10 6 20 126 9 1 7 4 34 656 403

CY 114 32 4 554 ===== 2 8 11 51 47 1.256 4 106 0 124 32 0 1 0 3 14 24 13 8 329 5.498 31 1 24 35 42 8.368 21.432 DK 2.786 28 14 23 0 ===== 562 15 0 0 0 15 0 0 342 24 0 21 42 57 3 248 224 0 34 0 80 8 0 36 4 4.566 3.418

ES 58.744 1.424 12.339 2.301 22 12.880 ===== 31 1.621 40.689 684 200 14.843 161 15.786 104 78 67 170 12 2.808 5.865 650 20.558 5.633 26.761 183 114 4.732 3.408 473 233.341 608.295 EE 44 9 2 1 0 9 6 ===== 213 13 2 1 16 0 52 123 0 21 0 0 20 11 18 3 2 0 1 0 25 6 1 599 1.109

FI 1.219 16 86 28 6 0 2.389 1.236 ===== 797 128 41 144 0 563 26 0 34 4 1 23 274 93 119 202 6 2 28 3 134 10 7.612 7.122 FR 125.982 2.484 107.717 5.083 120 2.964 22.036 476 983 ===== 18.209 746 2.657 133 58.395 132 3 298 121.847 42 2.408 26.548 5.083 50.316 14.499 30.305 1.045 384 6.653 9.032 2.487 619.067 930.662

GR 88.370 1.168 5.377 1.008 1.575 181 152 0 125 4.281 ===== 7 184 0 4.540 9 18 0 19 1 299 4.163 92 81 214 8.352 10 0 5.878 1.058 175 127.337 123.766 HU 3.598 3.609 197 108 3 34 69 6 10 365 36 ===== 19 0 254 2 0 0 10 0 37 507 108 1 4.498 4 285 46 249 329 46 14.430 9.837

IE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ===== 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IC 126 21 39 0 0 0 93 4 0 81 3 6 7 ===== 116 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 27 25 0 91 2 6 4 10 46 712 392

IT 135.018 3.400 77.714 2.234 27 1.096 2.014 180 164 18.409 5.564 423 1.611 11 ===== 68 41 117 4.110 106 466 11.353 3.134 1.192 29.473 23.667 465 1.852 721 4.546 4.431 333.607 156.237 LT 19 0 0 6 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 8 ===== 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 20 0 0 4 0 2 72 72

LIE 51 5 0 0 0 4 9 0 0 23 2 0 0 0 6 0 ===== 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 12 0 0 0 0 1 119 255 LI 61 0 0 0 0 11 8 11 1 19 1 0 22 -1 7 111 0 ===== 0 0 6 14 10 2 2 47 2 3 7 1 14 359 1.222

LU 2.374 129 16.255 85 1 68 414 11 52 10.377 790 24 0 0 3.753 0 0 26 ===== 0 0 1.484 154 20.964 270 380 29 7 0 83 56 57.786 25.950 MT 172 48 80 10 1 4 75 0 6 223 10 0 164 5 504 8 0 0 0 ===== 26 631 6 4 17 0 2 0 461 25 1 2.483 866

NO 2.112 129 146 121 4 12 1.073 127 0 869 105 22 0 0 394 395 2 290 0 0 ===== 1.287 1.081 0 230 3 91 6 1 243 227 8.970 8.676 NL 44.415 842 15.712 1.554 47 100 3.000 15 299 4.667 2.656 318 1.247 65 5.795 69 3 57 1.577 18 837 ===== 1.669 3.834 902 14.528 333 356 468 755 420 106.558 86.774

PL 7.198 673 341 232 11 323 526 26 0 743 152 7 2.006 72 1.443 37 0 206 71 0 1.104 2.653 ===== 83 41 4.821 43 22 680 52 2.037 25.603 22.857 PT 15.467 120 1.288 33 0 0 3.491 6 130 88.389 74 14 589 18 1.135 10 6 17 18.382 0 0 4.066 106 ===== 123 2.776 2 20 900 2.708 67 139.937 118.950

RO 226 36 76 14 3 2 82 0 2 27 19 89 24 0 563 0 0 0 1 0 6 19 22 12 ===== 43 5 1 17 2 8 1.299 593 UK 1.778 3.923 84 84 182 0 6.534 0 0 3.683 2.936 0 14.549 0 8.177 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 243 2.895 609 ===== 36 246 -1 53 207 46.220 38.278

SK 629 9.646 16 20 5 2 106 6 3 66 55 1.888 373 0 308 9 1 8 22 0 129 316 146 12 107 354 ===== 63 25 37 6.667 21.019 24.328 SI 5.994 4.801 74 64 5 19 59 2 13 639 49 129 44 0 4.264 1 0 0 12 0 2 232 69 20 98 379 19 ===== 56 93 91 17.228 19.238

SE 3.131 381 181 245 17 322 548 12 108 2.653 7.552 156 1.894 0 1.287 150 2 18 0 247 0 1.465 3.341 641 1.203 2.342 48 22 ===== 967 197 29.130 20.624 CH 40.342 3.165 2.772 593 19 110 8.303 31 177 9.884 10.384 595 1.057 8 35.022 41 519 103 499 0 745 12.247 637 13.368 1.268 7.214 299 565 439 ===== 577 150.983 124.751

CZ 6.356 1.938 96 327 21 16 235 1 8 439 286 37 394 1 928 12 0 16 145 14 37 889 1.034 137 422 585 6.748 39 248 220 ===== 21.629 23.887 TOTAL 665.537 139.352 272.822 32.659 2.381 40.515 87.170 2.918 6.569 384.346 121.346 12.152 43.302 674 227.888 4.390 1.472 2.260 290.828 610 10.524 362.361 48.714 127.938 111.392 185.211 12.324 9.241 25.126 72.170 26.842 3.331.034 3.607.252

Source: Audit Board

Table 113: Estimate of new claims introduced in 2011 (health including LTC) by debtor and creditor countries (based on outstanding claims), in €. 000

Health spending total newly

Debtor DE AT BE BG CY DK ES EE FI FR GR HU IE IC IT LT LIE LI LU MT NO NL PL PT RO UK SK SI SE CH CZ introduced claims Creditor TOTAL DE ===== 84.340 25.035 11.005 155 17.654 19.543 532 1.864 82.097 46.224 3.459 908 98 49.171 2.379 161 771 62.878 44 747 106.736 20.843 4.490 26.121 27.166 886 2.041 2.286 35.938 5.278 640.849 AT 114.387 ===== 2.475 2.512 85 293 1.920 31 161 7.195 5.025 3.303 282 21 15.042 73 659 40 254 25 342 13.957 3.566 1.370 17.048 6.763 1.229 2.964 571 4.703 2.058 208.356 BE 14.029 425 ===== 2.370 35 931 9.758 45 218 88.348 9.970 263 0 62 10.965 109 3 1 65.626 30 328 141.473 2.447 6.736 4.194 17.466 356 289 258 1.006 314 378.053 BG 42 0 4 ===== 8 0 39 0 0 6 68 1 3 0 76 0 0 0 1 1 4 18 6 4 12 77 6 1 4 2 21 403 CY 292 82 10 1.419 ===== 5 20 28 131 120 3.217 10 271 0 318 82 0 3 0 8 36 61 33 20 843 14.081 79 3 61 90 108 21.432 DK 2.086 21 10 17 0 ===== 421 11 0 0 0 11 0 0 256 18 0 16 31 43 2 186 168 0 25 0 60 6 0 27 3 3.418 ES 153.139 3.712 32.166 5.998 57 33.577 ===== 81 4.226 106.072 1.783 521 38.694 420 41.152 271 203 175 443 31 7.320 15.289 1.694 53.593 14.685 69.763 477 297 12.336 8.884 1.233 608.295 EE 81 17 4 2 0 17 11 ===== 394 24 4 2 30 0 96 228 0 39 0 0 37 20 33 6 4 0 2 0 46 11 2 1.109 FI 1.141 15 80 26 6 0 2.235 1.156 ===== 746 120 38 135 0 527 24 0 32 4 1 22 256 87 111 189 6 2 26 3 125 9 7.122 FR 189.393 3.734 161.934 7.641 180 4.456 33.127 716 1.478 ===== 27.374 1.121 3.994 200 87.787 198 5 448 183.176 63 3.620 39.910 7.641 75.642 21.797 45.558 1.571 577 10.002 13.578 3.739 930.662 GR 85.892 1.135 5.226 980 1.531 176 148 0 121 4.161 ===== 7 179 0 4.413 9 17 0 18 1 291 4.046 89 79 208 8.118 10 0 5.713 1.028 170 123.766 HU 2.453 2.460 134 74 2 23 47 4 7 249 25 ===== 13 0 173 1 0 0 7 0 25 346 74 1 3.066 3 194 31 170 224 31 9.837 IE =====

IC 69 12 21 0 0 0 51 2 0 45 2 3 4 ===== 64 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 15 14 0 50 1 3 2 6 25 392 IT 63.233 1.592 36.396 1.046 13 513 943 84 77 8.621 2.606 198 754 5 ===== 32 19 55 1.925 50 218 5.317 1.468 558 13.803 11.084 218 867 338 2.129 2.075 156.237 LT 19 0 0 6 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 8 ===== 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 20 0 0 4 0 2 72 LIE 109 11 0 0 0 9 19 0 0 49 4 0 0 0 13 0 ===== 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 2 26 0 0 0 0 2 255 LI 208 0 0 0 0 37 27 37 3 65 3 0 75 -3 24 378 0 ===== 0 0 20 48 34 7 7 160 7 10 24 3 48 1.222 LU 1.066 58 7.300 38 0 31 186 5 23 4.660 355 11 0 0 1.685 0 0 12 ===== 0 0 666 69 9.414 121 171 13 3 0 37 25 25.950 MT 60 17 28 3 0 1 26 0 2 78 3 0 57 2 176 3 0 0 0 ===== 9 220 2 1 6 0 1 0 161 9 0 866 NO 2.043 125 141 117 4 12 1.038 123 0 841 102 21 0 0 381 382 2 280 0 0 ===== 1.245 1.046 0 222 3 88 6 1 235 220 8.676 NL 36.169 686 12.795 1.265 38 81 2.443 12 243 3.801 2.163 259 1.015 53 4.719 56 2 46 1.284 15 682 ===== 1.359 3.122 735 11.831 271 290 381 615 342 86.774 PL 6.426 601 304 207 10 288 470 23 0 663 136 6 1.791 64 1.288 33 0 184 63 0 986 2.368 ===== 74 37 4.304 38 20 607 46 1.819 22.857 PT 13.147 102 1.095 28 0 0 2.967 5 111 75.133 63 12 501 15 965 9 5 14 15.625 0 0 3.456 90 ===== 105 2.360 2 17 765 2.302 57 118.950 RO 103 16 35 6 1 1 37 0 1 12 9 41 11 0 257 0 0 0 0 0 3 9 10 5 ===== 20 2 0 8 1 4 593 UK 1.472 3.249 70 70 151 0 5.411 0 0 3.050 2.432 0 12.049 0 6.772 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 201 2.398 504 ===== 30 204 -1 44 171 38.278 SK 728 11.165 19 23 6 2 123 7 3 76 64 2.185 432 0 356 10 1 9 25 0 149 366 169 14 124 410 ===== 73 29 43 7.717 24.328 SI 6.693 5.361 83 71 6 21 66 2 15 714 55 144 49 0 4.761 1 0 0 13 0 2 259 77 22 109 423 21 ===== 63 104 102 19.238 SE 2.217 270 128 173 12 228 388 8 76 1.878 5.347 110 1.341 0 911 106 1 13 0 175 0 1.037 2.365 454 852 1.658 34 16 ===== 685 139 20.624 CH 33.333 2.615 2.290 490 16 91 6.860 26 146 8.167 8.580 492 873 7 28.937 34 429 85 412 0 616 10.119 526 11.045 1.048 5.961 247 467 363 ===== 477 124.751 CZ 7.020 2.140 106 361 23 18 260 1 9 485 316 41 435 1 1.025 13 0 18 160 15 41 982 1.142 151 466 646 7.452 43 274 243 ===== 23.887 TOTAL 720.725 123.960 287.889 35.951 2.339 58.466 88.589 2.940 9.309 397.356 116.046 12.260 63.900 944 262.319 4.451 1.509 2.240 331.949 502 15.499 348.395 45.258 169.343 106.332 228.127 13.297 8.254 34.468 72.119 26.190 3.590.927

Source: Audit Board

10.4.3 Annual cross-border expenditure LTC benefits in kind and in cash

10.4.3.1 In kind

Table 114: Cross-border expenditure LTC benefits in kind, based on LTC spending per capita of the country of residence, in € 000

Total LTC spending (only in kind) Column Labels (competent country)

Grand total LTC spending residence

Row Labels (country state of residence) AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK (creditor) AT 0 115 89 0 555 14.066 33 0 147 14 136 15 325 13 766 14 31 0 9 300 117 0 318 38 359 832 424 18.714 BE 372 0 127 65 739 12.762 105 0 2.605 132 23.170 681 1.269 116 13.947 0 36.420 0 91 42.813 1.266 278 67 65 0 0 1.757 138.848 BG 2 5 0 12 6 49 0 0 42 0 12 91 1 1 33 0 0 0 0 8 0 3 1 3 5 0 28 303 CY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 11 CZ 330 54 0 1 0 650 3 0 41 0 41 22 21 42 35 0 23 0 0 52 13 0 1 11 0 191 175 1.707 DE 19.568 1.624 684 0 2.107 0 3.209 0 3.094 297 3.381 1.088 618 0 1.018 0 14.778 0 0 22.107 2.695 0 0 1.984 0 0 3.851 82.102 DK 176 255 434 0 0 3.766 0 0 144 0 438 0 0 0 140 0 0 2 0 269 775 0 33 3.015 0 46 1.526 11.019 EE 0 4 0 0 0 8 0 0 2 543 4 0 0 10 5 0 3 12 0 3 0 0 0 37 0 0 24 655 ES 50 373 53 0 0 2.713 0 0 0 221 1.572 0 182 418 977 0 9 0 0 1.789 0 477 0 0 0 0 9.220 18.054 FI 0 230 0 0 0 221 0 104 112 0 0 0 0 0 147 0 0 0 0 146 148 0 0 1.538 0 0 0 2.645 FR 226 37.773 0 0 0 48.139 128 0 3.256 481 0 0 0 990 1.637 0 52.737 0 0 3.008 424 1.708 721 949 0 0 19.796 171.972 GR 0 0 73 0 0 103 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 167 372 HU 927 43 1 9 7 594 23 1 12 10 83 0 0 54 90 1 1 0 0 68 4 0 12 3 6 64 369 2.382 IE 17 75 23 17 45 268 9 9 59 16 25 14 69 0 67 0 18 12 7 183 69 0 0 0 0 0 8.136 9.140 IT 667 737 68 0 10 3.840 66 0 841 4 2.650 547 87 107 0 0 0 0 0 216 133 0 787 0 192 16 1.922 12.892 LT 0 0 0 0 0 24 35 11 1 19 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 8 0 51 15 0 0 35 0 0 51 275 LU 48 1.212 19 22 14 1.225 114 20 23 25 1.241 28 41 11 178 14 0 16 0 139 33 120 29 35 0 0 238 4.844 LV 0 1 3 15 2 63 12 34 0 12 10 12 0 26 9 15 0 0 1 31 16 0 0 45 0 1 219 526 MT 4 20 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 14 2 1 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 199 NL 275 13.963 0 0 0 19.811 0 0 402 137 0 0 0 0 415 0 0 0 73 0 91 0 0 0 0 0 632 35.801 PL 216 176 0 47 398 2.543 165 0 27 27 198 24 0 32 117 15 18 3 0 707 0 13 2 159 1 32 408 5.330 PT 0 30 0 0 0 23 0 0 516 0 279 0 0 4 2 0 16 0 0 36 2 0 8 9 0 0 62 988 RO 69 58 0 34 3 521 16 0 788 0 56 64 27 8 3.689 0 0 0 3 9 0 69 0 0 0 0 146 5.562 SE 892 387 0 23 181 6.415 50.161 534 1.006 2.457 936 1.145 219 552 872 0 62 0 166 327 1.528 0 0 0 0 0 5.219 73.081 SI 1.400 10 0 0 0 231 0 2 4 0 42 0 2 0 681 0 2 0 0 9 0 2 0 0 0 87 25 2.497 SK 1.181 36 0 19 2.113 299 14 0 77 19 67 1 521 113 155 0 1 0 1 235 12 0 0 13 9 0 465 5.351 UK 198 882 0 0 0 1.744 421 0 739 0 3.059 0 0 4.958 0 0 0 0 287 728 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.015

Grand total LTC spending competent state (debtor) 26.614 58.064 1.574 263 6.179 120.077 54.521 715 13.938 4.421 37.403 3.732 3.383 7.479 25.015 60 104.120 53 638 73.246 7.341 2.671 1.979 7.948 572 1.270 55.003 618.281

Source: Own calculations based on data LFS and 2012 Ageing Report

Table 115: Cross-border expenditure LTC benefits in kind, based on LTC spending per capita of the competent country, in € 000

Total LTC spending (only in kind) Column Labels (competent country)

Grand total LTC spending residence

Row Labels (country of state residence) AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK (creditor)

AT 0 261 3 0 79 15.553 127 0 85 38 274 12 30 18 757 4 83 0 3 995 14 0 41 190 209 83 601 19.460 BE 164 0 2 0 47 6.235 179 0 664 159 20.597 227 53 72 6.089 0 43.190 0 15 62.694 69 23 4 145 0 0 1.101 141.725

BG 50 356 0 3 28 1.819 0 0 814 0 821 2.301 5 58 1.097 0 0 0 0 868 0 17 6 561 96 0 1.350 10.251 CY 6 0 1 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 51 0 16 6 0 0 0 0 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 1.691 1.822

CZ 2.314 859 0 0 0 5.039 83 0 166 0 576 115 14 411 244 0 436 0 0 1.211 11 0 1 385 0 134 1.738 13.737 DE 17.697 3.323 18 0 272 0 11.128 0 1.614 731 6.152 742 52 0 909 0 35.871 0 0 66.260 299 0 0 9.065 0 0 4.937 159.071

DK 46 151 3 0 0 1.086 0 0 22 0 230 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 232 25 0 1 3.973 0 1 564 6.370 EE 0 105 0 0 0 112 0 0 13 18.597 92 0 0 178 63 0 105 24 0 130 0 0 0 2.365 0 0 433 22.217

ES 87 1.463 3 0 0 5.200 0 0 0 1.045 5.482 0 30 1.016 1.674 0 41 0 0 10.280 0 152 0 0 0 0 22.658 49.130 FI 0 191 0 0 0 90 0 3 24 0 0 0 0 0 53 0 0 0 0 178 7 0 0 2.852 0 0 0 3.397

FR 112 42.492 0 0 0 26.457 244 0 933 652 0 0 0 690 804 0 70.352 0 0 4.955 26 156 46 2.384 0 0 13.948 164.252 GR 0 0 3 0 0 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 0 0 314 556

HU 9.873 1.043 0 1 11 7.004 954 0 72 303 1.772 0 0 810 948 3 38 0 0 2.414 5 0 17 145 38 68 5.576 31.094 IE 12 121 0 0 5 212 25 1 24 32 36 7 5 0 47 0 35 1 2 432 6 0 0 0 0 0 8.227 9.230

IT 675 1.687 2 0 1 4.298 255 0 491 12 5.396 418 8 152 0 0 0 0 0 726 17 0 103 0 113 2 2.758 17.112 LT 0 0 0 0 0 89 442 3 1 173 0 0 0 115 0 0 0 4 0 560 6 0 0 592 0 0 242 2.227

LU 18 1.022 0 0 1 505 163 1 5 25 930 8 1 6 66 2 0 1 0 171 2 8 1 66 0 0 126 3.127 LV 0 20 0 1 1 427 276 17 0 197 128 54 0 225 57 28 0 0 3 630 12 0 0 1.387 0 1 1.908 5.372

MT 12 122 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 43 12 0 0 0 39 1 7 0 0 101 0 0 0 0 0 0 512 920 NL 83 9.536 0 0 0 6.610 0 0 70 113 0 0 0 0 124 0 0 0 8 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 270 16.817

PL 1.758 3.254 0 3 463 22.918 5.163 0 126 603 3.248 145 0 370 946 36 400 5 0 19.100 0 20 2 6.545 5 26 4.720 69.855 PT 0 369 0 0 0 135 0 0 1.619 0 3.053 0 0 34 11 0 231 0 0 657 1 0 6 244 0 0 479 6.838

RO 537 1.018 0 2 3 4.475 479 0 3.529 0 877 377 20 82 28.289 0 0 0 8 235 0 99 0 0 0 0 1.611 41.640 SE 176 174 0 0 5 1.404 38.064 8 115 1.325 373 171 4 153 171 0 33 0 12 214 37 0 0 0 0 0 1.464 43.904

SI 2.404 39 0 0 0 439 0 0 4 0 146 0 0 0 1.155 0 7 0 0 52 0 1 0 0 0 15 61 4.324 SK 11.798 817 0 2 3.012 3.302 541 0 442 507 1.348 10 489 1.582 1.531 0 39 0 4 7.773 15 0 0 657 54 0 6.592 40.514

UK 140 1.408 0 0 0 1.361 1.138 0 301 0 4.341 0 0 4.903 0 0 0 0 74 1.701 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.366

Grand total LTC spending competent state (debtor) 47.961 69.829 36 12 3.927 114.948 59.331 33 11.133 24.556 55.885 4.638 711 10.889 45.141 74 150.866 35 129 182.590 556 476 228 31.618 516 330 83.879 900.327

Source: Own calculations based on data LFS and 2012 Ageing Report

10.4.3.2 In cash

Table 116: Cross-border expenditure LTC benefits in cash, based on LTC spending per capita of the country of residence, in € 000

Total LTC spending (only in cash) Column Labels (competent country)

Grand total LTC spending residence

Row Labels (country state of residence) AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK (creditor) AT 0 120 92 0 576 14.593 34 0 153 14 141 16 337 13 794 14 32 0 9 312 122 0 329 39 372 863 440 19.415 BE 88 0 30 15 175 3.023 25 0 617 31 5.488 161 301 27 3.303 0 8.626 0 21 10.140 300 66 16 15 0 0 416 32.885 BG 3 8 0 21 10 87 0 0 74 0 21 161 3 2 58 0 0 0 0 14 0 5 3 6 9 0 50 535 CY 1 0 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 146 167 CZ 625 103 0 2 0 1.231 6 0 78 0 77 41 40 79 67 0 44 0 0 99 25 0 2 21 0 361 331 3.230 DE 8.985 746 314 0 968 0 1.474 0 1.421 136 1.553 499 284 0 467 0 6.786 0 0 10.151 1.237 0 0 911 0 0 1.768 37.700 DK 146 212 360 0 0 3.123 0 0 120 0 363 0 0 0 117 0 0 2 0 223 643 0 27 2.500 0 38 1.265 9.138 EE 0 6 0 0 0 13 0 0 3 896 6 0 0 17 8 0 5 19 0 5 0 0 0 61 0 0 40 1.081 ES 10 77 11 0 0 558 0 0 0 46 324 0 38 86 201 0 2 0 0 368 0 98 0 0 0 0 1.898 3.717 FI 0 32 0 0 0 31 0 15 16 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 21 21 0 0 217 0 0 0 373 FR 42 7.056 0 0 0 8.993 24 0 608 90 0 0 0 185 306 0 9.852 0 0 562 79 319 135 177 0 0 3.698 32.127 GR 0 0 25 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 58 129 HU 2.067 96 2 19 16 1.326 52 1 26 23 184 0 0 121 201 2 3 0 0 152 9 0 27 6 14 142 823 5.314 IE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IT 546 603 56 0 8 3.145 54 0 689 4 2.170 448 72 88 0 0 0 0 0 177 109 0 645 0 158 13 1.574 10.559 LT 0 0 0 0 0 6 8 3 0 4 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 2 0 12 4 0 0 8 0 0 12 64 LU 5 123 2 2 1 124 12 2 2 3 125 3 4 1 18 1 0 2 0 14 3 12 3 4 0 0 24 490 LV 0 0 1 3 0 14 3 7 0 3 2 3 0 6 2 3 0 0 0 7 3 0 0 10 0 0 48 115 MT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NL 140 7.120 0 0 0 10.101 0 0 205 70 0 0 0 0 212 0 0 0 37 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 322 18.254 PL 222 181 0 48 409 2.613 170 0 28 28 204 24 0 33 121 15 19 4 0 727 0 14 2 163 1 33 420 5.478 PT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RO 1 1 0 1 0 8 0 0 13 0 1 1 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 90 SE 38 17 0 1 8 276 2.157 23 43 106 40 49 9 24 38 0 3 0 7 14 66 0 0 0 0 0 224 3.143 SI 824 6 0 0 0 136 0 1 2 0 25 0 1 0 401 0 1 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 51 15 1.470 SK 268 8 0 4 480 68 3 0 17 4 15 0 118 26 35 0 0 0 0 53 3 0 0 3 2 0 106 1.216 UK 79 350 0 0 0 693 167 0 293 0 1.215 0 0 1.969 0 0 0 0 114 289 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.169

Grand total LTC spending competent state (debtor) 14.090 16.865 897 118 2.651 50.201 4.189 52 4.408 1.458 11.955 1.415 1.206 2.684 6.437 36 25.372 28 189 23.346 2.671 516 1.188 4.144 555 1.504 13.681 191.857

Source: Own calculations based on data LFS and 2012 Ageing Report

Table 117: Cross-border expenditure LTC benefits in cash, based on LTC spending per capita of the competent country, in € 000

Total LTC spending (only in cash) Column Labels (competent country)

Grand total LTC spending

Row Labels (country of residence residence) AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK state

AT 0 62 5 0 150 7.142 106 0 18 5 51 4 68 0 620 1 8 0 0 508 15 0 1 8 123 19 239 9.150 BE 170 0 3 3 88 2.863 148 0 137 22 3.848 79 117 0 4.987 0 4.367 0 0 31.966 71 0 0 6 0 0 437 49.314 BG 52 84 0 49 53 835 0 0 168 0 153 797 10 0 899 0 0 0 0 442 0 0 0 24 57 0 536 4.162 CY 6 0 2 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 672 728 CZ 2.400 204 0 1 0 2.314 69 0 34 0 108 40 31 0 200 0 44 0 0 617 12 0 0 17 0 30 690 6.810 DE 18.360 787 33 0 515 0 9.228 0 332 103 1.149 257 117 0 745 0 3.627 0 0 33.785 307 0 0 390 0 0 1.961 71.696 DK 48 36 6 0 0 499 0 0 4 0 43 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 119 25 0 0 171 0 0 224 1.204 EE 0 25 0 0 0 51 0 0 3 2.621 17 0 0 0 52 0 11 5 0 66 0 0 0 102 0 0 172 3.124 ES 91 347 5 0 0 2.388 0 0 0 147 1.024 0 66 0 1.371 0 4 0 0 5.242 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.999 19.683 FI 0 45 0 0 0 41 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 91 7 0 0 123 0 0 0 360 FR 116 10.064 0 0 0 12.149 202 0 192 92 0 0 0 0 658 0 7.114 0 0 2.527 27 0 1 103 0 0 5.540 38.784 GR 0 0 5 0 0 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 125 223 HU 10.243 247 0 11 20 3.216 791 1 15 43 331 0 0 0 776 1 4 0 0 1.231 5 0 0 6 22 15 2.214 19.194 IE 12 29 1 2 9 97 21 1 5 4 7 3 10 0 38 0 3 0 0 220 6 0 0 0 0 0 3.268 3.736 IT 700 400 4 0 3 1.973 211 0 101 2 1.008 145 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 370 17 0 2 0 67 0 1.095 6.116 LT 0 0 0 0 0 41 367 5 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 286 6 0 0 25 0 0 96 851 LU 18 242 0 1 1 232 135 1 1 4 174 3 3 0 54 0 0 0 0 87 2 0 0 3 0 0 50 1.012 LV 0 5 1 11 3 196 229 28 0 28 24 19 0 0 47 6 0 0 0 321 12 0 0 60 0 0 758 1.746 MT 12 29 0 0 0 0 58 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 32 0 1 0 0 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 203 396 NL 86 2.258 0 0 0 3.035 0 0 14 16 0 0 0 0 101 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 107 5.622 PL 1.824 771 0 47 877 10.524 4.281 0 26 85 607 50 0 0 775 8 40 1 0 9.739 0 0 0 282 3 6 1.875 31.819 PT 0 87 0 0 0 62 0 0 333 0 570 0 0 0 9 0 23 0 0 335 1 0 0 10 0 0 190 1.623 RO 557 241 0 32 5 2.055 397 0 727 0 164 131 45 0 23.170 0 0 0 0 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 640 28.283 SE 183 41 0 1 10 645 31.565 14 24 187 70 59 9 0 140 0 3 0 0 109 38 0 0 0 0 0 582 33.679 SI 2.494 9 0 0 0 202 0 0 1 0 27 0 1 0 946 0 1 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 3 24 3.735 SK 12.241 193 0 23 5.700 1.516 448 0 91 71 252 4 1.090 0 1.254 0 4 0 0 3.963 15 0 0 28 32 0 2.618 29.545 UK 145 333 0 0 0 625 944 0 62 0 811 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 868 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.787

Grand total LTC spending competent state (debtor) 49.760 16.538 64 181 7.434 52.782 49.202 54 2.292 3.460 10.440 1.607 1.586 0 36.973 17 15.256 8 0 93.099 571 0 4 1.360 304 75 33.314 376.381

Source: Own calculations based on data LFS and 2012 Ageing Report

10.4.3.3 Total

Table 118: Cross-border expenditure LTC benefits in cash, based on LTC spending per capita of the country of residence, in € 000

Total LTC spending Column Labels (competent country) Grand total LTC spending residence

Row Labels (country state of residence) AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK (creditor) AT 0 235 181 0 1.130 28.659 68 0 300 28 278 31 661 26 1.560 28 63 0 18 612 239 0 647 77 730 1.696 863 38.129 BE 460 0 157 80 914 15.784 130 0 3.222 163 28.658 842 1.570 143 17.251 0 45.046 0 112 52.953 1.566 344 83 80 0 0 2.174 171.733 BG 4 13 0 33 16 136 0 0 116 0 34 252 4 3 92 0 0 0 0 22 0 7 4 9 14 0 79 837 CY 1 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 156 178 CZ 955 157 0 3 0 1.881 9 0 119 0 118 63 61 121 102 0 67 0 0 151 39 0 3 31 0 552 506 4.937 DE 28.553 2.369 999 0 3.075 0 4.683 0 4.514 433 4.934 1.587 902 0 1.485 0 21.564 0 0 32.258 3.932 0 0 2.895 0 0 5.619 119.801 DK 322 467 794 0 0 6.888 0 0 264 0 801 0 0 0 257 0 0 4 0 492 1.418 0 60 5.515 0 84 2.791 20.157 EE 0 10 0 0 0 21 0 0 5 1.439 10 0 0 27 14 0 8 31 0 8 0 0 0 99 0 0 64 1.736 ES 61 450 64 0 0 3.271 0 0 0 267 1.895 0 220 504 1.178 0 11 0 0 2.158 0 575 0 0 0 0 11.118 21.771 FI 0 262 0 0 0 252 0 118 127 0 0 0 0 0 167 0 0 0 0 167 168 0 0 1.755 0 0 0 3.017 FR 268 44.829 0 0 0 57.132 152 0 3.864 571 0 0 0 1.175 1.943 0 62.589 0 0 3.570 503 2.027 856 1.127 0 0 23.494 204.099 GR 0 0 98 0 0 138 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 225 501 HU 2.993 140 2 28 23 1.921 75 2 38 34 267 0 0 175 291 3 4 0 0 221 13 0 40 9 20 206 1.193 7.696 IE 17 75 23 17 45 268 9 9 59 16 25 14 69 0 67 0 18 12 7 183 69 0 0 0 0 0 8.136 9.140 IT 1.213 1.340 124 0 18 6.986 119 0 1.530 8 4.820 996 159 194 0 0 0 0 0 394 242 0 1.432 0 350 30 3.497 23.451 LT 0 0 0 0 0 30 43 14 1 24 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 10 0 63 19 0 0 43 0 0 63 339 LU 52 1.335 21 24 15 1.348 126 22 25 27 1.366 31 45 12 196 16 0 17 0 153 36 132 32 38 0 0 262 5.334 LV 0 2 3 18 2 77 14 41 0 14 13 14 0 32 11 18 0 0 1 38 19 0 0 54 0 1 267 641 MT 4 20 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 14 2 1 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 199 NL 416 21.083 0 0 0 29.913 0 0 607 208 0 0 0 0 627 0 0 0 110 0 138 0 0 0 0 0 954 54.055 PL 437 358 0 95 807 5.156 335 0 54 55 402 48 0 66 238 30 37 7 0 1.434 0 27 4 322 2 65 828 10.807 PT 0 30 0 0 0 23 0 0 516 0 279 0 0 4 2 0 16 0 0 36 2 0 8 9 0 0 62 988 RO 70 59 0 34 3 530 16 0 801 0 57 65 28 8 3.749 0 0 0 3 9 0 70 0 0 0 0 149 5.651 SE 930 404 0 24 189 6.691 52.318 557 1.050 2.563 976 1.194 228 576 909 0 64 0 173 341 1.593 0 0 0 0 0 5.443 76.224 SI 2.224 16 0 0 0 367 0 2 6 0 67 0 3 0 1.081 0 3 0 0 15 0 4 0 0 0 139 40 3.967 SK 1.449 44 0 23 2.593 367 17 0 94 23 82 2 640 139 190 0 2 0 1 288 15 0 0 16 11 0 571 6.567 UK 276 1.232 0 0 0 2.437 588 0 1.032 0 4.274 0 0 6.927 0 0 0 0 401 1.017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18.184

Grand total LTC spending competent state (debtor) 40.705 74.929 2.470 381 8.831 170.278 58.710 767 18.346 5.879 49.358 5.147 4.589 10.163 31.452 96 129.493 81 827 96.592 10.013 3.187 3.167 12.092 1.127 2.773 68.685 810.137

Source: Own calculations based on data LFS and 2012 Ageing Report

Table 119: Cross-border expenditure LTC benefits in kind and in cash, based on LTC spending per capita of the competent country, in € 000

Total LTC spending Column Labels (competent country) Grand total LTC spending

Row Labels (country of residence residence) AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK state

AT 0 323 7 0 229 22.694 233 0 103 43 326 16 98 18 1.376 5 91 0 3 1.503 29 0 42 199 332 102 839 28.610 BE 335 0 5 4 135 9.098 327 0 801 181 24.445 306 170 72 11.077 0 47.557 0 15 94.660 139 23 4 151 0 0 1.538 191.039 BG 103 440 0 53 82 2.655 0 0 981 0 975 3.098 15 58 1.996 0 0 0 0 1.310 0 17 6 585 153 0 1.886 14.413 CY 11 0 3 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 68 0 16 12 0 0 0 0 30 3 0 0 0 0 0 2.362 2.550 CZ 4.714 1.063 0 1 0 7.353 151 0 200 0 683 154 45 411 443 0 481 0 0 1.828 23 0 1 402 0 164 2.428 20.546 DE 36.057 4.110 51 0 787 0 20.356 0 1.946 834 7.302 999 170 0 1.654 0 39.498 0 0 100.044 606 0 0 9.455 0 0 6.897 230.767 DK 94 186 9 0 0 1.585 0 0 26 0 273 0 0 0 66 0 0 0 0 351 50 0 1 4.144 0 1 788 7.574 EE 0 130 0 0 0 164 0 0 15 21.218 109 0 0 178 115 0 115 29 0 196 0 0 0 2.466 0 0 605 25.341 ES 178 1.810 8 0 0 7.587 0 0 0 1.192 6.507 0 96 1.016 3.044 0 45 0 0 15.522 0 152 0 0 0 0 31.656 68.812 FI 0 236 0 0 0 131 0 8 28 0 0 0 0 0 97 0 0 0 0 269 13 0 0 2.975 0 0 0 3.757 FR 229 52.555 0 0 0 38.606 446 0 1.126 744 0 0 0 690 1.462 0 77.467 0 0 7.482 52 156 47 2.486 0 0 19.488 203.036 GR 0 0 8 0 0 219 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 439 780 HU 20.116 1.290 1 12 31 10.220 1.745 1 87 346 2.103 0 0 810 1.724 3 41 0 0 3.644 10 0 17 152 61 84 7.790 50.288 IE 24 150 1 2 13 309 46 1 29 36 43 10 15 0 85 0 38 2 2 652 12 0 0 0 0 0 11.495 12.966 IT 1.375 2.087 6 0 4 6.271 466 0 592 14 6.404 563 27 152 0 0 0 0 0 1.096 33 0 104 0 180 2 3.853 23.228 LT 0 0 0 0 0 129 809 8 1 198 0 0 0 115 0 0 0 5 0 846 13 0 0 617 0 0 337 3.078 LU 36 1.264 1 1 2 736 299 2 6 29 1.104 11 5 6 119 2 0 1 0 259 3 8 1 69 0 0 176 4.139 LV 0 25 1 12 4 623 505 44 0 225 152 73 0 225 103 34 0 0 3 952 24 0 0 1.447 0 1 2.665 7.119 MT 24 151 0 0 0 0 129 0 0 50 14 0 0 0 71 2 8 0 0 153 0 0 0 0 0 0 716 1.316 NL 169 11.794 0 0 0 9.645 0 0 84 129 0 0 0 0 225 0 0 0 8 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 378 22.439 PL 3.582 4.024 0 50 1.340 33.442 9.444 0 152 688 3.855 196 0 370 1.720 45 440 6 0 28.838 0 20 2 6.827 8 32 6.595 101.674 PT 0 457 0 0 0 197 0 0 1.952 0 3.623 0 0 34 20 0 254 0 0 992 3 0 6 254 0 0 669 8.461 RO 1.095 1.259 0 34 8 6.530 876 0 4.256 0 1.040 507 65 82 51.459 0 0 0 8 355 0 99 0 0 0 0 2.250 69.923 SE 360 215 0 1 15 2.048 69.630 22 139 1.512 442 230 13 153 310 0 36 0 12 324 75 0 0 0 0 0 2.046 77.582 SI 4.898 48 0 0 0 641 0 1 5 0 173 0 1 0 2.101 0 8 0 0 79 0 1 0 0 0 18 85 8.059 SK 24.039 1.010 0 25 8.712 4.818 989 0 533 579 1.600 14 1.579 1.582 2.785 0 43 0 4 11.736 30 0 0 686 86 0 9.210 70.059 UK 284 1.741 0 0 0 1.985 2.082 0 362 0 5.152 0 0 4.903 0 0 0 0 74 2.569 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19.154

Grand total LTC spending competent state (debtor) 97.721 86.368 100 193 11.361 167.730 108.533 87 13.425 28.017 66.325 6.245 2.297 10.889 82.114 91 166.122 43 129 275.690 1.127 476 231 32.978 819 405 117.193 1.276.709

Source: Own calculations based on data LFS and 2012 Ageing Report

10.5 Eurostat: inactivity rates

Table 120: Inactivity rates (inactive population as a percentage of the total population, from 20 to 64 years, quarterly figures

GEO/TIME 2011Q1 2011Q2 2011Q3 2011Q4 2012Q1 2012Q2 2012Q3 2012Q4 2013Q1

EU-28 24,7 24,4 24,4 24,2 24,3 23,8 23,7 23,7 :

EU-27 24,6 24,3 24,3 24,1 24,2 23,8 23,6 23,6 :

EU-15 23,5 23,2 23,2 23,0 23,0 22,7 22,6 22,5 :

Euro area (17 MS) 24,3 24,0 24,1 23,8 23,8 23,4 23,4 23,3 :

Euro area (13 MS) 24,3 24,0 24,1 23,7 23,8 23,4 23,4 23,2 : Belgium 28,5 27,4 27,6 27,4 28,0 27,9 27,1 26,9 27,2

Bulgaria 29,9 29,6 28,5 29,0 30,0 28,8 27,0 27,8 28,6

Czech Republic 24,4 24,0 24,0 24,2 24,2 23,5 22,8 22,7 22,7

Denmark 18,8 18,7 18,2 18,6 18,6 18,6 18,8 19,5 19,0

Germany 19,4 18,9 18,8 18,7 19,2 18,9 18,7 18,7 18,8

Estonia 20,0 19,8 19,0 19,9 19,8 19,7 19,3 20,6 19,8

Ireland 26,1 25,1 25,3 25,4 25,8 25,5 25,3 25,8 25,6

Greece 27,2 27,3 27,5 27,5 27,3 27,2 27,1 27,0 27,2

Spain 22,1 21,8 21,9 21,7 21,6 21,4 21,3 21,4 21,4 France 24,2 24,2 24,0 23,9 23,9 23,5 23,2 23,0 :

Croatia 33,9 34,6 34,5 35,0 35,3 34,1 33,5 35,5 36,6

Italy 33,5 33,5 34,0 32,7 32,1 31,7 32,6 31,5 31,8

Cyprus 19,7 19,7 21,2 20,8 21,0 20,3 20,4 20,1 20,0

Latvia 21,6 20,5 21,0 20,6 21,0 19,9 19,7 19,5 20,9

Lithuania 21,0 20,6 20,7 21,3 21,4 20,6 20,2 20,9 21,0

Luxembourg 25,2 26,8 26,5 27,0 25,3 25,7 23,7 24,6 25,3

Hungary 32,7 32,0 31,4 31,4 31,4 30,4 29,7 29,9 30,7 Malta 34,4 34,8 35,0 35,0 33,9 33,7 32,9 32,3 32,1

Netherlands 19,9 20,1 20,0 19,1 19,0 19,1 19,0 18,7 18,6

Austria 22,4 21,5 21,6 21,5 22,2 20,8 20,4 21,2 21,5

Poland 28,8 28,4 28,1 28,1 28,7 28,2 27,7 27,9 28,4

Portugal 20,5 20,4 20,9 21,2 21,1 20,6 20,8 21,3 21,6

Romania 32,4 31,9 31,8 32,7 32,6 30,9 30,4 31,7 32,7 Slovenia 25,8 25,7 25,6 24,8 25,3 25,8 24,9 24,3 25,2

Slovakia 25,4 25,3 25,0 24,8 24,7 24,7 24,5 24,8 24,3

Finland 21,5 19,7 20,1 21,0 21,2 19,6 19,7 21,3 21,3

Sweden 15,5 14,2 14,3 15,1 15,4 14,0 14,0 14,8 14,7

United Kingdom 20,9 20,9 20,7 20,8 20,8 20,5 20,0 19,9 20,0

Iceland 14,1 12,3 14,1 15,1 14,6 12,2 13,2 14,5 15,0 Norway 18,5 17,8 17,7 18,0 18,0 17,4 17,6 18,1 18,3

Switzerland 15,0 14,8 15,0 14,6 14,7 14,7 14,2 14,2 14,1

Source: Eurostat

10.6 List of national experts for the statistical data collection

Table 121: Statistical data collection: list of national experts

Name Institution Country

Jozef Pacolet

Frederic De Wispelaere HIVA – KU Leuven Belgium

Frederic De Wispelaere HIVA – KU Leuven France

Norman Wagner Social Policy Unit in the Chamber of Labour Austria

Roland Eisen

Hans-Christian Mager Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universität

Jürgen Faik Frankfurt am Main

Germany

Jan Edling Flexicurity Sweden

Franz Clément Centre d'Etudes de Population, de Pauvrété et de Politiques Socio-Economiques Luxemburg

Frederic De Wispelaere HIVA – KU Leuven The Netherlands

Eigil Boll Hansen KORA, Danish Institute for Local and Regional Government Research Denmark

Raphael Wittenberg London School of Economics and Political United Science Kingdom

Gregorio Rodríguez Cabrero University of Alcalá Spain

Dorota Kawiorska Krakow University of Economics Poland

Catalin Ghinararu National Research Institute for Labour and Social Protection Romani Romania

Jüri Kore Tartu University Estonia

Marek Radvansky Institute of Economic Research (EU SAV) Slovakia

10.7 Reliability limits LFS

Table 122: Reliability limits Labour Force Survey, 2012 Country Lowest reliability limit

(Limit_A) EU 6 500

BE 2 000 BG 3 500 CZ 500 DK 2 000 DE 5 000 EE 1 100 IE 1 000 GR 1 300 ES 1 000 FR 5 500 IT 1 500 CY 500 LV 1 800 LT 4 500 LU 500 HU 2 600 MT 375 NL 1 500 AT 3 000 PL 5 000 PT 4 500 RO 6 500 SI 500 SK 2 000 FI 2 000 SE 1000 UK 4 000 IS 500 NO 500 CH 1 000 HR 1 000

MK 500 TR 2 000

Source: Eurostat http://circa.europa.eu/irc/dsis/employment/info/data/eu_lfs/LFS_MAIN/Related_documents/reliab_an nual_average.htm

10.8 Analysis of the administrative burden

Figure 8: Current and future flow of documents applicable to the aggregation of periods

Source Own figure based on current and future documents

Figure 9: Current and future flow of documents applicable to the export of UB

Source Own figure based on current and future documents Figure 10: Current and future flow of documents applicable to LTC

Source Own figure based on current and future documents

Table 123: Administrative burden – aggregation of periods – baseline scenario - Case: Belgium

Source Based on workshop in Belgium

Table 124: Administrative burden – export of UB – baseline scenario - Case: Belgium

Source Based on workshop in Belgium

Table 125: Administrative burden – LTC benefits in kind – baseline scenario - Case: Belgium

Source Based on workshop in Belgium

Table 126: Administrative burden – LTC benefits in cash – baseline scenario - Case: Belgium

Competent Member State BE Member State of residence BE Insured person

LTC in cash: Vlaamse Zorgverzekering (Flemish care insurance) - home and residential care Option A 1 (baseline scenario)

Number of cases / Total handling time (in Competent Member State Frequency Standard time (min.) hours) Waiting time - performance* Additional comments

(a) (b) (c= a*b) Issue E106, E109, E121

Issue S1 form SED S072 'Entitlement document -residence' (answer to SED S071)

Process request LTC benefits in cash 240 to 360 min. 108 to 162 hours * Verification of National (includes also the (number of cases = 27) Institute for Health and

treatment of request Disability Insurance (asked Medical Examination - by the Flemish care see below) insurance fund) if doctor or nursing home is certified in the MS of residence: Up to 6 months * Filling in necessary documents by applicant

SED S061 'Request for Medical Examination - Long Term Care' 120 min. 54 Home care: Doctor in country of (number of cases = 27) residence has to fill in a

questionnaire. This enables an authorised assessor to give point on the BEL scale. Residential care: Nursing home has to send a certificate which proves the stay of the applicant.

SED S001 'Information of Payment of Cash Benefits - Long Term' SED S004 'Acknowledgment of receipt Information of Reimbursement Rates -

Long Term Care (answer to S003) Payment LTC benefit in cash to insured person 27 (in 2011)

Other

Number of cases / Total handling time (in Member State of residence Frequency Standard time (min.) hours or FTE) Waiting time - performance* Additional comments

(a) (b) (c= a*b) Process E106, E109, E121

Process S1 form SED S071 'Request for entitlement document - residence'

SED S073 'Information of registration - residence' SED S057 'Acknowledgement of receipt Application for Cash Benefits - Long

Term Care' (answer to SED S056) Home care: Doctor in country of residence has to fill in a questionnaire of 12 pages. Residential care: Nursing home has to send a certificate which proves

SED S062 'Reply to Medical Examination - Long Term Care' (answer to SED S061) 45 to 60 min. the stay of the applicant.

SED S002 'Acknowledgment of receipt Information of Payment of Cash benefits - Long Term' (answer to SED S001)

SED S003 'Entitlement to Benefits in Kind - Long Term Care' SED S005 ' Information on change of Entitlement to benefits in kind - Long Term

Care' Other

Number of cases / Total handling time (in Insured person Frequency Standard time (min.) hours or FTE) Waiting time - performance* Additional comments Request PD S1 form from healthcare institution

Provide PD S1 form to healthcare institution in Member State of residence Request LTC benefit in cash 60 min. Medical examination Doctor in country of residence has to

45 to 60 min. fill in a questionnaire. Other

Source Based on workshop in Belgium

10.9 Analysis of online survey of national administrations and social security institutions

10.9.1 Coordination of unemployment benefits

Introduction

This annex contains an analysis of the online survey of national administrations and social security institutions that was set up and launched by Deloitte. In order to expand the scope of our analysis to all

EU and EEA countries, we launched a web-based survey among the responsible national public authorities and other key actors with regard to both topics. The Commission sent an invitation to the members of the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security systems in December

2012. After several reminders and prolongation of the deadlines, we finally closed the survey on the 28 February 2013.

We would like to note that the analysis of the survey cannot be considered as a stand-alone document, like the public consultation analysis. We have primarily used the survey findings to support statements and other findings in our main report. The aim of this annex is to provide the reader with some more background about the attitudes of consulted parties.

Profile of respondents

We received 73 complete answers (and 42 incomplete answers) to the online survey that was sent to the national administrations and social security institutions in all EU Member States and EFTA/EEA countries. We received no answers from the following countries: Liechtenstein, Bulgaria, Greece, Iceland and Norway. For several countries, only 1 answer was received for each topic. This is mainly due to the fact that the national administrations and social security institutions aimed to coordinate their answers.

16.4% of the respondents were Portuguese, 13.7% were German and 8.2% were Romanian. In order to circumvent the problem of some Member States being overrepresented in the results and other countries being underrepresented, a country-by-country analysis of the replies was made for many questions (where relevant).

Table 127: Profile of respondent – unemployment benefits survey - by MS

Answer Options Response Response Percentage Count

Austria 6,8% 5 Belgium 1,4% 1 Bulgaria 0,0% 0 Cyprus 1,4% 1 Czech Republic 2,7% 2 Denmark 1,4% 1 Estonia 1,4% 1 Finland 1,4% 1 France 1,4% 1 Germany 13,7% 10 Greece 0,0% 0 Hungary 4,1% 3 Iceland 0,0% 0 Ireland 1,4% 1 Italy 5,5% 4 Latvia 1,4% 1 Liechtenstein 0,0% 0 Lithuania 4,1% 3 Luxembourg 1,4% 1 Malta 1,4% 1 Netherlands 4,1% 3 Norway 0,0% 0 Poland 8,2% 6 Portugal 16,4% 12 Romania 8,2% 6 Slovakia 2,7% 2 Slovenia 4,1% 3 Spain 1,4% 1 Sweden 1,4% 1 Switzerland 1,4% 1 United Kingdom 1,4% 1 answered question 73

61% of the respondents are national institutions, 26% are regional organisations and the remaining 12% are local authorities. Almost 18% of the respondents are organisations situated in cross-border regions.

66% of the respondents are dealing with individual claims for unemployment benefits. Almost all of them (98%) have to contact other Member States to confirm the workers’ employment or insurance record.

With which countries do you mostly exchange information (top-3) – cf. table below

Table 128: With which countries do you mostly exchange information (top-3)?

Horizontal/row=answers / Vertical = responding countries

Answer

Options AT BE BG CY CZ DK EE FI FR DE GR HU IE IT LV LT LU MT NL PL PT RO SI SK ES SE CH UK

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Czech

Republic

Cyprus

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

United

Kingdom

Opinions on the competent Member State for the provision of unemployment benefits

43% of all respondents think that the competent Member State should be the one in which the person last worked and paid social security contribution, even a person lives in another Member

State. About 27% of the respondents favour a right of choice for workers to claim their unemployment benefits either in the country of last activity either the country of residence. About the 25% say that the country of residence should be the competent Member State, even if a person last worked and paid social contributions in another Member State.

Applying a country-by-country analysis, the results are slightly different with regard to the 2 nd rd and 3 preferred option.

In 11 countries (CY, CZ, FI, FR, HU, IT, LV, MT, NL, PT, SI), the most popular option among public authorities remains that unemployment benefits should be provided by the Member State in which the person last worked and paid social security contributions, even if he/she lived in another

Member State. In several of these countries, there is also strong support for the option where workers would have a right of choice with regard to where to claim their unemployment benefits.

Reasons why respondents say to favour this option are: it would make an end to the reimbursement of unemployment benefits between Member States and it is fairer that the Member State which receives the social security contributions is also competent to provide the unemployment benefits.

However, several respondents warn that this option entails risks of abuse/fraud. The country of residence may lack an incentive to check the legitimacy of the benefits provided by the competent country and to follow-up the unemployed person during the job-seeking process.

In 9 countries (AT, BE, DK, DE, IE, LU, ES, SE, CH), most public authorities are in favour of the Member State in which the person lived being the competent Member State, even if he/she last worked and paid social security contributions in another Member State. These countries are also generally against a thorough revision of the coordination rules.

In 5 countries(CZ, EE, RO, SK, UK), the most popular option is that a person should be allowed to choose to claim the benefit either in the Member State of last employment or in the Member State where the person lived (if these Member States are different).

Likely impact of these options - from 4 (=best/highest impact) to 1 (=least ensuring):

Table 129: Opinions on likely impacts of the options - unemployment benefits

Impact on fair

Options Impact on labour

Impact on sharing of financial Impact on

market mobility social administrative protection burden between

MS burden and costs

a)

Member State in which the person last worked and paid social security

contributions, even if he/she lived in 2,57 2,67 3,19 2,49

another Member State. b) Member State in which the person lived, even if he/she last worked and paid

social security contributions in another 2,61 2,53 2,29 2,36

Member State c) Person should be allowed to choose to

claim the benefit either in the Member 2,75 2,79 2,28 2,58

State of last employment or in the

Member State where the person has lived

(if these Member States are different).

d)

Other solution 2,07 2,01 2,24 2,57

Export of unemployment benefits

Almost 45% of all respondents are in favour of giving the possibility of “exporting unemployment benefits” (going to another country to look for a job while continuing to receive the unemployment benefits from the competent institution) until the end of the person’s entitlement to unemployment benefits, according to the rules of the Member State which provides them. 34% of all respondents would like to maintain the current period of export of 3 months with a possible extension of the export of unemployment benefits to 6 months. About 12% would like to extend the period of export in the entire EU to at least six months.

Analysing the replies on a country-by-country basis, the results look differently. The current rule of a three-month period of export with a possible extension to 6 months is the most chosen option among public authorities in 11 countries (AT, BE, CY, DK, EE, FI, FR, DE, LI, LU, NL, CH). In 9 countries

(HU, IT, LV, MT, PL, RO, SK, SI, ES, UK), exporting the unemployment benefit until the end of the person's entitlement to unemployment benefits, according to the rules of the Member State which provides them, is the most preferred option. Only in one Member State (PT), public authorities favour a general period of export of minimum 6 months.

Likely impact of the options - from 4 (=best/highest impact) to 1 (=least ensuring)

Table 130: Opinions on impacts of options (export of unemployment benefits) - unemployment benefits

Options Impact on labour Impact on reintegration Impact on fair sharing market mobility of unemployed people in of financial burden the labour market between MS

a)

Three months, with a possible extension up

to six months 2,47 2,64 2,72

b)

At least six months prolongation 2,54 2,46 2,43 c) Until the end of the person's entitlement to unemployment benefits, according to the

rules of the Member State which provides 2,72 2,57 2,42

them d) Other solution 2,26 2,33 2,43

52% of all respondents think that the export of unemployment benefits could lead to increased risk of misuse or abuse of rights. This is also the opinion of most public authorities in 15 Member States.

79% of this group of respondents think that the risk of misuse or abuse of rights is particularly high when the unemployment benefits would be provided until the end of a persons’ entitlement to unemployment benefits, according to the rule of the Member State which provides them. 33% of the respondents also believe that there would be an increased risk of abuse if the period of export would be generally extended to minimum 6 months.

45% of the respondents do not think that misuse or abuse of rights is a risk in cases of export of unemployment benefits. This is also the most dominant position among public authorities in 8 countries.

Public authorities who believe that the export of unemployment benefits could lead to increased risk of misuse of rights, propose the following mitigation measures to reduce this risk:

The guest Member State should feel more responsible for jobseekers who have exported their unemployment benefit from another Member State. Agreements should be made between Member States about the control and the provision of active assistance to jobseekers (HU, AT, CZ, IE, IT, LI, NL, PL, PT and SI). However, more control of jobseekers by the guest Member State will also increase the administrative burden and costs on Member States (DK).

Some Member States say that the keeping the period of export generally limited to maximum 3 months will limit the risk of abuse and misuse of rights. Extension may be possible, if there is a high probability that the jobseeker will find work at short term (AT, BE, IE). Several Member States would like to enhance the role of the "guest" Member State in providing information to the competent Member State about the chances of a person to find a job at short-term, so that the competent Member State can take a well-argumented decision about extending the period of export in a specific case (BE, EE, CZ and FR).

o All jobseekers who have exported their unemployment benefits should be

obliged to report about their job seeking activities to the competent Member State (CZ, DE, MT, LT and FR). Some countries are in favour of monthly reporting by the jobseeker to the competent institution (DE, MT and LT); other Member States say that a 3-monthly reporting would be sufficient (FR).

o One respondent suggests making language courses compulsory in the "guest"

country, as language is often the most important barrier to integration in the labour market. Also reducing the height of unemployment benefit over time could provide an incentive to jobseekers abroad to actively apply for a job.

o In the long-run, it should be possible to introduce an EU-Job pass for every EU

citizen which contains his/her social data. Every public employment service should be able to access these data, based on a single European social database (DE, NL).

When people are exporting their unemployment benefit abroad, 40% of the organisations that deal with claims for exportation of unemployment benefits say that they receive information about the status of these job-seekers from the country of residence, but only on request. About 19% automatically receives information from country of residence. About 10% of the respondents say that this information is not needed. The majority of these respondents cannot say if these jobseekers (who exported their unemployment benefit) had found a job.

Under the current rules, Member States have the possibility to extend the period of export of unemployment benefits from 3 months to 6 months. The table below gives an insight about for how long the authorisation for export is given in the countries (TABLE INCOMPLETE – no data for all countries):

Table 131: Export of unemployment benefits - current practices

Three months Three months with a possibility of prolongation up to six months

Austria

Belgium

Cyprus

Czech republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

Germany

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

Lithuania

Malta

Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Slovenia

Spain

Switzerland

Sweden

Need for physical presence for job-seeking

The majority (52%) of the public authorities think that, in order to actively look for a job, it is necessary for the unemployed person to be physically present in the Member State in which she/he is searching for a job. This is the most common point of view in 12 countries (AT, CY, DE, DK, EE, FI, LT, LV, PL, PT, SI and UK). These respondents consider unemployment benefits different from other social security benefits, because of the particular "availability” element which is linked to receiving an unemployment benefit. Unemployed people must be available to the labour market of the country of residence every single day. If a person resides abroad, it is difficult for the public authorities of the country of residence to check the criteria of entitlement for receiving an unemployment benefit.

Almost 17% of all respondents do not consider physical presence necessary (most common point of view in 3 countries: MT, SK and CH). They argument that ICT tools have made it possible to find a job, without having to be physically present in the country of the potential employer. Finally, 30 % stated that it depends on the stage in the application, the skills and background of a person whether physical presence is necessary to actively look for a job (most common point of view in 8 countries: BE, CZ, FR, IE, LU, NL, ES and SE. The respondents say that the early stage of a job application procedure (e.g. identifying vacancies, first contact, phone interview) with employers abroad does not require physical presence of the jobseeker, whereas further stages of the application procedure probably require physical presence of the jobseekers. Furthermore, the need for physical presence also depends on the required skills and background of jobseekers. In some countries, employers are so desperately looking for engineer or technicians that they do not expect from candidates to be physically present in their country.

Under the current EU rules, an unemployed person can register with the employment services in the Member State paying the unemployment benefits and, in addition, in the Member State where the person lives (if this is a different Member State). A person ‘exporting’ his/her unemployment benefit to another Member State must register, for that period, with the employment services of that Member State. Almost 42% of all surveyed public authorities would like to maintain the current rules. 36% of respondents would like to revise the current rules, so that a person could register with the employment services anywhere in the EU, regardless of where the person has lived or worked, with a possibility to register in more than one Member State. Only 16% say that a person should be able to register with the employment services anywhere in the EU, but only in one Member State.

Likely impact of these options - from 4 (=highest impact) to 1 (=least/least ensuring):

Table 132: Opinions on the need for physical presence while job seeking

Options Impact on labour Impact on reintegration of Impact on market mobility unemployed persons in the administrative labour market burden and costs

a)

Anywhere in the EU, regardless of where 2,36 2,25 2,18 the person has lived or worked, but only in one Member State at a time b) Anywhere in the EU, regardless of where 2,58 2,56 2,64 the person has lived or worked, with a possibility to register in more than one

Member State c) As it is under the current EU rules 2,76 2,81 2,63 d) Other solution 2,29 2,39 2,18

Communication between Member States

Only 10% thinks that the communication with other Member States in dealing with individual claims for unemployment benefits is effective and smooth. About 25% of the respondents describe the communication is ineffective and slow. The majority of the respondents think that there is room for improvement but that in general, communication works well.

Many respondents say that there is a long waiting time before documents (particularly U2 forms and the confirmation of periods of insurance) are sent back in the exchange with a number of Member

States. There is anecdotic evidence that it regularly takes two-three months when a request for information is being replied by another Member State and exceptionally, even up to one or two years. The following countries are regularly mentioned as problematic in terms of processing time, bureaucratic behaviour and communication: France, Italy, Spain and United Kingdom.

The long processing time of a case is seen as very problematic for claimants of unemployment benefits, because as long as a Member State does not have the required information about a claimant, it is not able to make a decision about the unemployment benefit.

Some Member States also ask for more information than it is usually the case (for example, the reason for termination of employment). This creates additional burden and require more time from public authorities. There are also no clear instructions how the U2 forms or other portable documents and SED forms have to be filled in, what information goes under what section, etc. The specialists, dealing with these forms, should receive better training and better instructions. A good practice is the Austrian national authorities who have elaborated in detail how the rules should be interpreted and which information should be filled in per form. Some requests (for example the confirmation of periods of insurance/employment requires) also require much background information of a person, which causes delays in a case.

Furthermore, the regulation was designed for electronic exchange but almost all Member States are still working in paper format. Several respondents expect that the introduction of the ESSI system can partly solve existing communication problems

Some public authorities say that the names and addresses of competent institutions are often not correct or not updated in Master Directory (EESSI).

Exceptionally, there are problems with public authorities reporting in their own language instead of English.

Table 133: Opinions on communication with other MS – unemployment benefits

How does the communication with other Member States work?

10,6% Usually, the cross-border

communication is fast, efficient and effective

25,5% Usually, the cross-border communication is slow, burdensome

and/or ineffective. 63,8%

It works well in general, but there are

problems with specific Member

States

Opinions on need to reform

Almost 45% of the surveyed public authorities think that current EU rules of coordination need to be changed. 14% of them find it difficult to say if there is a need to revise the current rules. About 10% of the respondents do not say any reason to change, clarify or better apply the EU rules. Respondents’ answers differ from country to country. The table below gives an overview of the most given answer per country:

Table 134: Opinions on need to reform coordination rules - unemployment benefits Based on your administration's experience, you conclude that EU rules on coordination of unemployment benefits

Do neither need to be Do not need to be Do not need to be

Member State Difficult to

changed, nor better

say explained and are

changed, but should changed, but Need to be

correctly applied in be better applied in should be better changed

practice. practice explained

Austria

Belgium

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

United Kingdom

For the group of respondents who see a need to change the rules:

o 72% of them think that the current rules are not uniformly understood and

applied by the Member States. A recurrent concern is the reimbursement procedure between Member States which are not sufficiently detailed and clear. In some cases, Member States let national legislation interfere with the EU coordination rules during reimbursement procedures.

o About 60% of public authorities said that migrant workers are not sufficiently

aware of their rights and informed about the rules. Those respondents say that migrant workers are unaware which institution could support them. As the regulation is quite unspecific (for example, how long do you need to work in a foreign country to be entitled for unemployment benefit) each country adds its own rules which make it difficult for jobseekers.

o 47% stated that the communication between Member States is burdensome and

ineffective.

o Almost 40% see a problem in the administrative burden that is imposed on

public authorities by the current rules. In addition the calculation of the reimbursement amount for cases where no entitlement exists in the Member State of last employment is not only difficult but administratively cumbersome. Last but not least the time lag between the payment of unemployment and the time of reimbursement has proven to be another administrative burden.

o About 20% think that the current EU rules are too complicated. o 10% mention the inadequate social protection of citizens as a concern. o Legal uncertainty associated with the current rules is not a problem (0%). o Furthermore, some respondents say that the current rules, particularly Article

65 of the Regulation, does not allow for the fairest sharing of the financial burden as it requires Member States to reimburse regardless of the insurance/employment period.

Opinions on administrative burden

Regarding the administrative burden related to handling cross-border cases, respondents particularly describe the following processes are burdensome (high workload):

o Handling requests for information from another country about employment or

self-employment periods of a claimant

o Carrying out checks and informing the competent institutions o Implement measures to facilitating job-seeking abroad.

10.9.2 Coordination of LTC benefits

Profile of respondents

We received 22 complete to the online LTC survey that was sent to the national administrations and social security institutions in all EU Member States and EFTA/EEA countries. We received no answers from the following countries: Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Switzerland and United Kingdom. It should be noted that this makes the exported data not fully representative and only useful to a limited extent.

Table 135: Profile of respondent – LTC benefits survey - by MS

Answer Options Response Response Percentage Count

Austria 9,1% 2 Belgium 0,0% 0 Bulgaria 0,0% 0 Cyprus 0,0% 0 Czech Republic 4,5% 1 Denmark 0,0% 0 Estonia 4,5% 1 Finland 0,0% 0 France 0,0% 0 Germany 9,1% 2 Greece 0,0% 0 Hungary 0,0% 0 Iceland 0,0% 0 Ireland 0,0% 0 Italy 9,1% 2 Latvia 4,5% 1 Liechtenstein 0,0% 0 Lithuania 9,1% 2 Luxembourg 9,1% 2 Malta 4,5% 1 Netherlands 4,5% 1 Norway 0,0% 0 Poland 4,5% 1 Portugal 0,0% 0 Romania 0,0% 0 Slovakia 9,1% 2 Slovenia 4,5% 1 Spain 9,1% 2 Sweden 4,5% 1 Switzerland 0,0% 0 United Kingdom 0,0% 0 Answered question 22

73% of the respondents are national institutions, 14% are regional organisations and the remaining 14% are local authorities. Half of the respondents are organisations situated in cross-border regions.

56% of the respondents are dealing with individual claims for unemployment benefits; all of them have to contact other Member States to confirm the workers’ employment or insurance record.

Opinions on the competent Member State for the provision of LTC benefits

Keeping the status quo is only the 4 th preferred option among national administrations. 17% (3 replies) of the national administrations and social security institutions would like to keep the current coordination rules for long-term care benefits. About 28% (5 replies) of the respondents believe that people should be treated equally in the Member State where he/she is insured and should not have his/her care benefits reduced if he moves to another Member State.

Table 136: options on competent MS for provision of LTC benefits

Options Response Response Percent Count

a)

Should continue receiving benefits as it is today – and depending on the Member State’s legislation the person might end up in a win or in a 16,7% 3 lose situation. b) Should be treated equally in the Member State where he/she is insured and should not have his/her care benefits reduced if he/she 27,8% 5 moves to another Member State. c) Should be treated equally in the Member State where he/she lives and receive the care benefits there (including the cash benefits), in 22,2% 4 accordance with national legislation. d) Should receive care benefits in cash from the Member State of insurance, supplemented by the Member State of residence in case of 22,2% 4 more advantageous conditions (top-up). e) Should receive care benefits in cash from the Member State of residence, supplemented by the Member State of insurance in case of 0,0% 0 more advantageous conditions (top-up). f) Other (please describe briefly) 11,1% 2 answered question 18 skipped question 4

The options where a person in need of care is treated equally in the Member State where he is insured (option b) or where he/she lives (option c) are considered by national administrations as the best ones to stimulate free movement of persons. The current coordination rules are seen as the worst option to stimulate mobility of persons.

In terms of social security coverage, national administrations have a preference for option c), where a person in need of care is treated equally in the Member State where he/she lives and receives LTC benefits there in accordance with national legislation. Also the option where a person receives care benefits in cash from the Member State of residence, supplemented by the Member State of insurance in case of more advantageous conditions (top-up).

Making the competent Member State fully responsible for the provision of the LTC benefits is seen as the best option to ensure a fair share of the financial burden between Member States (option b)).

On a 1 to 5 scale (1=negative impact; 5=positive impact)

Table 137: Opinions on impacts of the different LTC options

Free Best Fairest Admin.

Options movement protection of sharing of

of persons social rights financial

burden

burden & costs

a)

A person in need of care should continue receiving benefits as it is today, and depending on the Member State’s 2,94 2,83 3,66 3,50 legislation the person might end up in a win or in a lose situation. b) A person in need of care should be treated equally in the Member State where he/she is insured and should not 3,94 3,83 4,06 3,50 have his/her care benefits reduced if he/she moves to another Member State. c) A person in need of care should be treated equally in the Member State where he/she lives and receive the care

benefits there (including the cash 3,94 4,28 3,5 3,61

benefits), in accordance with national legislation. d) A person in need of care should receive care benefits in cash from the Member

State of insurance, supplemented by the 3,61 3,44 3,83 3,33 Member State of residence in case of more advantageous conditions (top-up) e) A person in need of care should receive care benefits in cash from the Member

State of residence, supplemented by the 3,89 4,00 3,39 3,61 Member State of insurance in case of more advantageous conditions (top-up). f) Other solution 2,67 2,61 2,61 3,44

Almost half of the national administrations have the opinion that all costs for LTC benefits should be borne by the competent Member States (where the migrant person is insured). About one third prefers a system where those costs are shared between the Member State of residence and the competent Member State. The latter option however is seen as the most burdensome in terms of administration.

Table 138: Opinions on fair burden sharing of the financial burden between Member States

Regarding the distribution of costs between Member States :

Answer Options Response Response Percent Count

a)

All costs for care benefits provided to an insured person should be borne by the Member State in which the migrant person is insured for 44,4% 8 healthcare or long-term care. b) Each Member State should bear its own expenses for benefits provided to a migrant person under its own legislation, without any 16,7% 3 reimbursement between them. c) The Member State of residence and the Member State of insurance

should share the costs for the care benefits provided to a migrant person. 33,3% 6

d)

Other solution (please describe briefly) 5,6% 1 answered question 18 skipped question 4
Fairest sharing Admin. burden of financial and costs

burden a) All costs for care benefits provided to an insured person should be borne by the Member State in which the migrant 2,83 2,50 person is insured for healthcare or long-term care. b) Each Member State should bear its own expenses for benefits provided to a migrant person under its own 2,33 1,94 legislation, without any reimbursement between them. c) The Member State of residence and the Member State of insurance should share the costs for the care benefits provided 2,61 2,89 to a migrant person. d) Other solution 2,22 2,67

About 40% of the national administrations who are in contact with administrations in other Member States think that the communication works well in general, but that they are problems with specific Member States. One third says that cross-border communication is fast, efficient and effective; another 30% finds the communication slow, burdensome and ineffective.

Table 139: Opinion on functioning of communication between MS - LTC

How does the communication with other Member States work?

Answer Options Response Response Percent Count

Usually, the cross-border communication is fast, efficient and

effective 30,0% 3

Usually, the cross-border communication is slow, burdensome

and/or ineffective (please specify briefly) 30,0% 3

It works well in general, but there are problems with specific

Member States (please specify briefly) 40,0% 4

Half of the national administrations that are dealing with claims for LTC benefits provision (10) think that the current rules need to be changed. 40% of national administrations do not want to see the rules changed.

Table 140: Opinions on the need to reform the current LTC coordination rules

Based on your administration’s experience, would you conclude that EU rules on coordination of long-term care benefits:

Answer Options Response Response Percent Count

Do neither need to be changed, nor better explained and are

correctly applied in practice. 20,0% 2

Do not need to be changed, but should be better clarified and

explained (please specify briefly). 20,0% 2

Do not need to be changed, but should be better applied in

practice (please specify briefly). 0,0% 0

Need to be changed (please specify briefly). 50,0% 5

Difficult to say (please specify briefly). 10,0% 1 answered question 10 skipped question 12

The main problems with the current coordination rules are the fact that there is no common understanding and incorrect application of the coordination rules, the complexity of the coordination rules, the fact that the rules do not take into account new mix-types of LTC benefits.

Table 141: Main problem regarding application of LTC coordination rules

What are the main problems you have noticed regarding the application of EU law in the area of long-term care benefits? (choose max. three options)

Answer Options Response Response Percent Count

Migrant citizens are not sufficiently aware about their rights under EU law

(please specify briefly). 16,7% 1

EU law is not uniformly understood and applied by Member States (please

specify briefly). 100,0% 6

The cross-border communication between institutions of Member States

is too slow and/or ineffective (please specify briefly). 33,3% 2

Migrant citizens are abusing the possibilities offered by EU law (please

specify briefly). 0,0% 0

EU rules are too complicated (please specify briefly). 33,3% 2

EU rules face legal uncertainty and are unstable (under influence of ECJ

rulings) (please specify briefly). 16,7% 1

EU rules create significant administrative costs and burdens for national

administrations (please specify briefly). 16,7% 1

EU rules do not take into account new mixed-types of benefits, which are blurring the distinction between benefits in kind and cash (please specify 33,3% 2 briefly).

EU rules do not provide for the effective protection of social rights of

migrant citizens (please specify briefly). 16,7% 1

Other (please specify briefly). 0,0% 0

(Please specify) 4 answered question 6 skipped question 16

10.10 List of strategic interviews

Name Function

Legal Officer, Coordination of Social Security Mrs. Miroslava Hajkova Schemes, Free Movement of Workers (B4), DG

EMPL

Mrs. Barbara Lipszyc DG ECFIN (on health expenditure and ageing projections)

Mr. Laurent Aujean Policy Officer, Unit A1, DG EMPL (on statistics on mobility of EU citizens)

Mr. Rob Cornelissen Advisor to the Director B, DG EMPL

Mr. Jackie Morin Head of Unit B4, DG EMPL

Mr. Jörg Tagger Deputy Head of Unit B4, DG EMPL

10.11 List of face-to-face interviews

Country LTC/UB Organisation Name Date

Inspection générale de la sécurité LU LTC & UB sociale, Direction du service Claude Ewen 01/02/2013 1 juridique et international

Cellule d'évaluation et d'orientation LU LTC de l'assurance dépendance, IGSS- Andrée Kerger 14/02/2013 2 CEO

Cellule d'évaluation et d'orientation LU LTC de l'assurance dépendance, IGSS- Jacques Luck 14/02/2013 3 CEO

Ministère du Travail et de l'Emploi, Agence pour le développement de

LU UB l'emploi, Agence de Luxembourg, Nathalie Dock 11/02/2013 Cellule des travailleurs frontaliers

4 (Règl. 883)

Inspection générale de la sécurité

LU LTC sociale (IGSS), Caisse Nationale de Santé (CNS), Département Romain Schaul 14/03/2013

5 International

Inspection générale de la sécurité

LU LTC sociale (IGSS), Caisse Nationale de Vanessa Di 14/03/2013

6 Santé (CNS) Bartolomeo

Inspection générale de la sécurité

LU LTC sociale (IGSS), Caisse Nationale de Santé (CNS), Départemente de Pierre Besler 14/03/2013

7 l'Assurance Dépendance

ADEM (Agence pour le

LU UB développement de l’emploi, Jean Hoffmann 16/4/2013 &

8 Ministère du Travail et de l’Emploi) 9/7/2013

ADEM (Agence pour le

LU UB développement de l’emploi, Monique

9 Ministère du Travail et de l’Emploi) Trierweiler

9/7/2013 Country LTC/UB Organisation Name Date

ADEM (Agence pour le LU UB développement de l’emploi, Isabel Schlesser 9/7/2013

10 Ministère du Travail et de l’Emploi)

Ministry of Employment and Social Security (Ministerio de Empleo y Matilde

ES LTC & UB Seguridad Social - Subdirección Vivancos 13/02/2013 General de Relaciones Pelegrín

11 Internacionales Sociolaborales)

Ministry of Employment and Social Security (Ministerio de Empleo y Patricio Augusto

ES LTC & UB Seguridad Social - Subdirección Rodríguez 13/02/2013 General de Relaciones García

12 Internacionales Sociolaborales)

Ministry of Employment and Social

ES LTC & UB Security (Dirección General de

Ms Marta

Ordenación Ministerio de Empleo y Morano 13/02/2013

13 Seguridad Socia) Larragueta

14 ES UB

Public Employment Service (Servicio

Público de Empleo Estatal) Alfredo Novales 12/02/2013

15 ES UB

Public Employment Service (Servicio

Público de Empleo Estatal) Ana Pedro Viejo 12/02/2013

16 ES UB

Public Employment Service (Servicio Fernando Majan

Público de Empleo Estatal) del Río 12/02/2013

Socorro

ES UB Public Employment Service (Servicio

17 Público de Empleo Estatal)

Montoya 12/02/2013

Poyato

Institute for the Elderly and Social

ES LTC Services (IMSERSO, Instituto de María José 14/02/2013

18 Mayores y Servicios Sociales) Javaloyes

Institute for the Elderly and Social

ES LTC Services (IMSERSO, Instituto de José María

19 Mayores y Servicios Sociales) Alonso

14/02/2013

20 ES LTC National Institute for Social Security Laura Molins 24/04/2013

21 UK LTC & UB Department for Work and Pensions Fiona Kilpatrick 22/03/2013 Country LTC/UB Organisation Name Date

22 UK LTC & UB Department for Work and Pensions Lindsay Park 22/03/2013

23 UK UB Department for Work and Pensions Eamonn Davern 22/03/2013

24 UK LTC Department for Work and Pensions Geraldine Dacey 22/03/2013

25 UK LTC Department of Health

David

Pennington 21/03/2013

26 UK LTC Department of Health Neil Moors 21/03/2013

Lena

27 UK UB

CBI (Confederation of British

Industry) Tochtermann 22/03/2013

Marie Beck

28 DK UB

Danish Agency for Labour Retention

and International Recruitment Jense 28.02

Danish Agency for Labour Retention

29 DK UB and International Recruitment Camilla Clevin 28.02

Johan

30 DK UB/LTC Oresund cross-border region Tindemann 24.04

Marie-Louise

31 DK UB

Danish Agency for Labour Retention

and International Recruitment Outzen 28.02

25.02

DK LTC National Agency for Patients' Rights Vibeke B.

(coordinated

and Complaints Lemche answer with Karin Mohl

32 Larsen)

Arbejdsmarkedsstyrelsen /National

33 DK UB labour market authority Vibeke Dalbro 27.02

Social-OG Integrationsministeriet/

DK LTC Ministry of Social Affairs and Karin Møhl

34 Integration Larsen

25.02

35 DK UB AK-Samvirke

Ingmar

Jørgensen 27.02

36 DK UB AK-Samvirke

Michael

Rosenby 27.02

37 NL LTC College van Zorgverzekeringen

R.G. van der

Wissel 28.01

Country LTC/UB Organisation Name Date

38 NL LTC College van Zorgverzekeringen Gert Jan Velders 28.01

Directie Inkomensverzekeringen en – voorzieningen

NL UB Afdeling Ouderen, Onderzoek en Hans Pijnenburg 29.01

Grensoverschrijdende Sociale

39 Zekerheid

Directie Inkomensverzekeringen en – voorzieningen

NL UB Afdeling Ouderen, Onderzoek en Jos Kester 29.01

Grensoverschrijdende Sociale

40 Zekerheid

41 NL UB UWV Johan De Jong 17.04

42 NL UB UWV

Hans

Brieuwsma 17.04

43 NL LTC/UB

Former Eures adviser in cross-border

region Ger Essers 18.04

44 RO UB

Ministry of Labour, Family and Social

Protection Adriana Stoinea 08.02.2013

Ministry of Labour, Family and Social

45 RO UB Protection Cristina Abagiu 08.02.2013

46 RO UB National Labour Office Adriana Perț 08.02.2013

Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Monica

47 RO UB Protection Mateescu 08.02.2013

48 RO LTC National Health Insurance House

Andreea

Gărăiacu 13.02.2013

49 RO LTC

National Agency for Payments and

Social Inspections Raluca Weber 20.02.2013

50 RO LTC

Ministry of Labour, Family and Social

Protection Cristina Abagiu 19.02.2013

51 RO LTC National Health Insurance House Larisa Mezinu 13.02.2013

52 RO LTC National Health Insurance House

Dana

Contineanu 13.02.2013

Country LTC/UB Organisation Name Date

53 RO LTC National Health Insurance House

Ana-Maria

Georgescu 13.02.2013

54 RO LTC National Health Insurance House Roxana Radu 13.02.2013

55 RO LTC National Health Insurance House Bogdan Popescu 13.02.2013

56 RO LTC National Health Insurance House

Mihaela

Stoienescu 13.02.2013

57 BE UB/LTC Administratieve Commissie Greet Van Gool Done

58 BE UB/LTC Administratieve Commissie Marc Morsa Done

59 BE LTC RIZIV Chris Segaert TBD

60 BE LTC RIZIV Linda De Clercq TBD

61 BE LTC

Landsbond der Christelijke

Mutualiteiten Philippe Loncke TBD

62 BE UB RVA

Marc Van

Damme Done

63 BE UB Werkloosheidsbureau Gent Nadine Pauwels Done

64 BE UB VDAB Kjille Vanhoutte TBD

65 BE UB ACV Koen Meesters TBD

66 SE UB

Inspektionen för

arbetslöshetsförsäkringen (IAF) Mona Karlsson

15/03/2013

67 SE UB

Inspektionen för Parthen 15/03/2013

arbetslöshetsförsäkringen (IAF) Hantzaridou

Flexicurity expert – former 16/03/2013

SE LTC economist from Sweden's largest labour union and now working for Jan Edling

68 VINNOVA

Christina 14/03/2013

69 SE LTC Forsakringskassan Jantzon

Arbetsmarknadsdepartementet Ricky Ifwarsson

SE UB &Jenny Oretun 23/04

70 (Ministry for Employment) Wilnier

Country LTC/UB Organisation Name Date

Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting SE LTC (Swedish Association of Local Catharina Bäck 13/03/2013 71 Authorities and Regions (SALAR)).

Bundesministerium für Arbeit, Soziales und Konsumentenschutz (Federal Ministry of labour, social Bernhard

72 AT LTC/UB affairs and consumer protection) Spiegel 15/03

Bundesministerium für Arbeit, Soziales und Konsumentenschutz Brigitte (Federal Ministry of labour, social Juraszovich

73 AT LTC affairs and consumer protection) Szirota 14/03

Insurance Association, Railway and

AT LTC Mining (Versicherungsanstalt für Reinhard Canceled

74 Eisenbahnen und Bergbau) Beiglböck

Sozialversicherungsanstalt der 75 AT LTC gewerblichen Wirtschaft (SVA) Bernd Plaschka 13/03

Bundesministerium für Arbeit, Soziales und Konsumentenschutz (Federal Ministry of labour, social Manfred

76 AT UB affairs and consumer protection) Clemenz 12/03

Arbeitsmarktservice Österreich 77 AT UB (AMS) Günther Leitner 12/03

Bundesministerium für Arbeit, Soziales und Konsumentenschutz (Federal Ministry of labour, social Dr. Margarethe

78 AT LTC affairs and consumer protection) Grasser 14/03

12/03,; additional meeting on admin

Arbeitsmarktservice Österreich burden held 79 AT UB (AMS) Bettina Urschler on 14/03

Bundesministerium für Arbeit, Soziales und Konsumentenschutz (Federal Ministry of labour, social Johannes

80 AT UB affairs and consumer protection) Schweighofer 12/03

Country LTC/UB Organisation Name Date

Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales (Federal Ministry of labour 22/02

81 DE LTC/UB and social affairs) Helmut Weber

Deutsche Gesetzliche Helmut

82 DE LTC Unfallversicherung Maxeiner 22/02

GKV - Deutsche Verbindungsstelle Burchard

83 DE LTC Krankenversicherung Ausland Osterholz 22/02

Mechthild

84 DE UB Arbeitsagentur für Arbeit Schenk 22/02

Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales (Federal Ministry of labour 22/02

85 DE UB and social affairs) Albrecht Otting

Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales (Federal Ministry of labour 22/02

86 DE UB and social affairs) Beate Geiss

Bundesministerium für Arbeit und

UB/LTC Soziales (Federal Ministry of labour Dr. Sophie 15/04

87 DE and social affairs) Germont

88 PL UB Ministry of Labour and social policy Robert Wójcik 09/04

Michał 89 PL UB Ministry of Labour and social policy Drozdowicz 09/04

Grażyna 90 PL UB Ministry of Labour and social policy Sypniewska 09/04

Ministry of Health Department of 91 PL LTC Health Insurance Tomasz Pawlęga 08/04

92 PL LTC National Health Fund Anna Rusiecka 08/04

Foreign Pensions Department, Social

93 PL LTC Insurance Institution ZUS Andrzej Szybkie 08/04

Ministry of Health Department of Elżbieta 94 PL LTC Health Insurance Tomaszewska 08/04

Ministry of Health Department of Rafał 95 PL LTC Health Insurance Bulanowski 08/04

Country LTC/UB Organisation Name Date

Head of Department of Migration

SK UB and Integration, Ministry of Labour Mr. Jaroslav 09.04.2013

96 & Social Affairs Kováč

EURES coordinator, Central Office of

SK UB Labour, Social Affairs and Family of Mrs. Alena 10.04.2013

97 the Slovak Republic Házašova

Department of Unemployment

SK Ms. Martina UB Insurance Methodology and

98 Moyzesová, ,

10.04.2013

Guarantee Insurance

Department of Unemployment

SK UB Ms. Božena Insurance Methodology and

99 Pakánová,

10.04.2013

Guarantee Insurance

Department of Unemployment

SK UB Ms. Andrea Insurance Methodology and

100 Ondračková

10.04.2013

Guarantee Insurance

Department of Unemployment

SK UB Insurance Methodology and Ms. Janette

101 Guarantee Insurance Trudmanová

10.04.2013

Diplomat, Permanent

SK UB/LTC Representation of the Slovak Xenia Mala

102 Republic to the EU

Head of Tartu county office, EE UB Estonian Unemployment Insurance Jane Väli 29.04.2013 103 Fund, Tartu county

Head of Valga county office, EE UB Estonian Unemployment Insurance Merike Metsvas 30.04.2013 104 Fund, Vaga County

MTÜ Johannes Mihkelsoni keskus EE UB (NGO Johannes Mihkelson Center), Ingrid Purje 20.04.2013 105 Tartu county

106 EE LTC

Senior official, Ministry of Social

Affairs Reeli Sirotkina 18.04.2013

Head of Board, Ministry of Social

107 EE LTC Affairs Uku Turjus 18.04.2013

Country LTC/UB Organisation Name Date

Head of Financial Policy Social

EE LTC Security Departement, Ministry of Agne Nettan

108 Social Affairs Sepp

27.04.2013

Chief specialist international EE LTC relations department, Estonia Health Linda Sassian 26.04.2013 109 Insurance Fund

François

110 FR LTC & UB Direction de la Sécurité Sociale Brillanceau 16/5/2013

111 FR LTC & UB Direction de la Sécurité Sociale

Geneviève

Nguyen 16/5/2013

CLEISS (Centre des Liaisons FR LTC & UB Européennes et Internationales de Françoise Roger 16/5/2013 112 Sécurité Sociale ) (Retired)

origineel bericht: 'COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMEN...'

3. Behandeld document

16 dec
'16

Voorstel voor een VERORDENING VAN HET EUROPEES PARLEMENT EN DE RAAD tot wijziging van Verordening (EG) nr. 883/2004 betreffende de coördinatie van de socialezekerheidsstelsels en Verordening (EG) nr. 987/2009 tot vaststelling van de wijze van toepassing van Verordening (EG) nr. 883/2004 (Voor de EER en Zwitserland relevante tekst)
PROPOSAL

Secretary-General of the European Commission
15642/16

4. Meer informatie

COM(2016)815 - Wijziging van Verordening 883/2004 over de coördinatie van de socialezekerheidsstelsels en Verordening 987/2009 over de toepassing van Verordening 883/2004

5. EU Monitor

Met de EU Monitor volgt u alle Europese dossiers die voor u van belang zijn en bent u op de hoogte van alles wat er speelt in die dossiers. Helaas kunnen wij geen nieuwe gebruikers aansluiten, deze dienst zal over enige tijd de werkzaamheden staken.

De EU Monitor is ook beschikbaar in het Engels.