ARCHIVESHISTORIQUES
DELACOMMISSION
COLLECTION RELIEEDES
DOCUMENTS "COM"
COM(80)703
Vol.1980/0222

Disclaimer
Conformément aurèglement(CEE,Euratom)n°354/83duConseildu1erfévrier1983
concernantl'ouvertureaupublicdesarchiveshistoriquesdelaCommunauté économique
européenne etdelaCommunauté européenne del'énergieatomique(JOL43du15.2.1983,
p.1),telquemodifiéparlerèglement(CE,Euratom)n°1700/2003du22septembre2003
(JOL243du27.9.2003,p.1),cedossierestouvertaupublic.Lecaséchéant,lesdocuments
classifiésprésentsdanscedossierontétédéclassifiés conformément àl'article5dudit
règlement.
Inaccordance withCouncilRegulation(EEC,Euratom)No354/83of1February1983
concerningtheopeningtothepublicofthehistoricalarchivesoftheEuropeanEconomic
Community andtheEuropeanAtomicEnergyCommunity (OJL43,15.2.1983,p.1),as
amendedbyRegulation(EC,Euratom)No1700/2003of22September2003(OJL243,
27.9.2003,p.1),thisfileisopentothepublic.Wherenecessary,classifieddocuments inthis
filehavebeendeclassified inconformitywithArticle5oftheaforementioned regulation.
InÜbereinstimmung mitderVerordnung(EWG,Euratom)Nr.354/83desRatesvom1.
Februar1983überdieFreigabederhistorischen ArchivederEuropäischen
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft undderEuropäischen Atomgemeinschaft (ABI.L43vom15.2.1983,
S.1),geändertdurchdieVerordnung (EG,Euratom)Nr.1700/2003vom22.September2003
(ABI.L243vom27.9.2003,S.1),istdieseDateiderÖffentlichkeit zugänglich.Soweit
erforderlich,wurdendieVerschlusssachen indieserDateiinÜbereinstimmung mitArtikel5
dergenanntenVerordnungfreigegeben.

COMMISSION OFTHEEUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COM(80 )703Final
Brussels ,18november 1980
STANDARDISATION OFTHE SYSTEM ..OFPAYING FAMILY BENEFITS
TOWORKERS THEMEMBERS OFWHOSE FAMILIES RESIDE INA
MEMBER STATE OTHER THAN THE COUNTRY OFEMPLOYMENT
Vc
C^ f\-V .
(Communication from the -Commission totheCouncil )■y.. , /
/ ν*
C0M(80 )703final

-3-
STANDARDIZATION OPTHESYSTEMOPPAYINGFAMILY
BENEFITSTOWORKERSTHEMEMBERSOPWHOSEFAMILIES
RESIDEINAMEMBERSTATEOTHERTHANTHECOUNTRYOPEMPLOYMENT
INTRODUCTION
Gince1975»whentheCommissionsubmittedtotheCouncilaproposalfor
thestandardization ofthepaymentoffamilybenefitsformembersofthe
familynotresidingintheworker*scountryofemployment,theCouncil
hasbeenunabletoobtaintheunanimityrequiredtoadopttheproposal^
aimedatabolishingtheexemptionschemefromwhichFrancebenefits.
Furthermore,themajorityoftheMemberStatesthatwereinfavourofthe
Commission*sproposalarenowinfavouroftheoppositesolution. *
Itisnotlikelythatthelattersolutionwillbeunanimously approved.
Inaddition,thelackofasolutiontotheproblemhascausedandiscausing
seriousdifficulties inrelatedfields.
Thenewsituationdemandsafreshappraisaloftheproblem,whichthe
Commissionundertooktodoatthe642ndCouncilmeeting(Employmentand
SocialAffairs)heldon9June1980.Thepurposeofthiscommunicationis
toinformtheCounciloftheresultsofthereappraisal.
FACTUALBACKGROUND ' .
I.TheprovisionsofRegulationNo1408/71
(io^lationNo1408/71(Artiole73)comprisestwodifferentrulesaccording
towhetheraworkerisemployedinPranceorinanotherMemberState:
-whenaworkerisemployedinFrance,themembersofhisfamilyreceive
thefamilyallowancesprovidedforbythelegislationofthecountry
inwhichtheyreside,whicharethenrefundedbyPrancetothe
institutionofthecountryofresidencewhichpaidthem.
Doc.CCM(75)132final.

-whenaworkerisemployed ,inanotherMemberState,hereceivesthe•
'familybenefitofthecountryofemploymentforthemembersofhis
•„, .1familyfevenwhentheyresideinanotherMemberState.
Thisdoubleformulaistheresultofacompromiseadoptedin1971by
theCouncilafterlengthydiscussions.Itsauthors,however,intendedit
onlyiasatemporarysolution.Thus,Article98oftheRegulation,
adoptedatthesametime,providesthattheCouncilshall,onaproposal
fromtheCommission ,re-examinethewholeprobleminordertoreacha
uniformsolutionforallMemberStates.
II.TheCommissionproposal * -
2TheCommissionforwardeditsproposaltotheCouncilon10April1975•
AsaresultofamendmentsputforwardbytheEuropeanParliamentandthe
EconomicandSocialCommittee,anamendmenttoitsproposalwassent
totheCouncilon15January1976^.
ThesolutionadvocatedbytheCommissioninitsproposalconsistsin
extendingtoallCommunityworkerstherighttofamilybenefitsfromthe
countryofemployment,regardlessoftheMemberStateinwhichtheworker
isemployedandregardlessoftheMemberStateinwhichthemembersofhis
familyreside.Thesolutionthusmeansthattherulesalreadyappliedin
eightMemberStatesalsoapplytoworkersemployedinFrance.
"Familyallowances"meansregularallowancesgrantedsolelyaccording
tothenumberand,whereappropriate,theageofthechildreninvolved.
"Familybenefits"isageneric,termwhichreferstofamilyallowances
andotherallowancesdesignedtocompensatefamilycharges,i.e.:special
birthgrants,allowancesforhandicappedminors,allowanceformothers
workinginthehome,etc.
20JNoC96,29April1975,P.4. 1
^Doc.CCM(75)648finalof15December1975.

-5-%
/
III .Position adopted bythe other insitutions r .
1•Thecountry ofemployment formula wasapproved bytheEuropean
1, 2Parliament and the Economic and Sooial Committee intheir
Opinions ontheproposal from theCommission .
2.Theposition adopted bytheCounoil .
TheCommission proposal wasdiscussed bytheCouncil ontwo
>occasions (18December 1975 and9December 1976). .<
; •
Two-thirds ofthedelegations approved theCommission proposal ,namely ,the
general application ofthesolution which consisted inthecountry
ofemployment granting benefits totheworker . .
Only athird ofthedelegations were notinfavour oftheproposal ;they
recommended thesolution which consisted ingranting the
benefits ofthechildren 'scountfy ofresidence ,thecost of
such benefits being borne trythecountry ofemployment .
AsArticle 51oftheEECTreaty stipulates that theCouncil should
actunanimously ,theCouncil wasunable toadopt theproposal from
the Commission .
\ \ '
'' ' ' ' • , \
IV.Recent developments
1.Standardization ofthe system
Theresumption ofdiscussions by ,theCouncil showed that itwas
impossible toadopt either ofthesolutions inquestion .'Itappears
tobeoutofthequestion that thestandardization ofthecountry of
residence system could beunanimously approved ,even ifthemajority
ofthedelegations were infavour .Ontheother hand ,the
«
European Parliament ,inaResolution unanimously adopted on
17June 1980 »repeated itspreference forthecountry ofemployment
solution .
2.Related subiects
Thelaok ofasolution totheproblem isalso giving rise to
increasing difficulties inacertain number ofrelated fields .
^Opinion of14October 1975 »OJNoC257»10November 1975*
^Opinion of24September 1975•OJHo286,15December 1975 *

Thesituation inwhich aflyextension ofthesystem inforce would
mean strengthening thecountry of .employment system prevents the
Council tvw takiog decisions involving such anextension .
Thisiswhys
–theCommunity offer toTurkey ,concerning theimplementation
ofArticle 39 "theAdditional Protocol totheAnkara Agreement ,
does notinclude anyprovisions onfamily benefits ;
-within theframework oftheaccession ofGreece ,thematter was
solved only Ijyadopting atransitional period ofthree years in
which Greek workers will hesubject tothesystem ofthecountry
1
-ofresidence .
Inregard toQiirrent situations :
–theimplementation oftheAgreements between theEECandthe
Mahgreb countries andtheEECandPortugal inthefield ,of
social security isrunning into the same difficulties asthe
question oftheTurkish workers ;
–itisvery probable that theproblem will also arise inthe
enlargement negotiations with Portugal andSpain ;
–lastly ,theproblem offamily benefits isoneoftheobstaoles .
totheadoption oftheCommission proposal ontheextension of
Regulation Uo1408/71toself-employed persons andnon-employed
insured persons .
B. SEARCH FOR ACCMPRCMISE SOLUTION
Inview ofthe above and inaccordance with the statement made atthe
Council meeting on9June 1980 ,theCommission hasre-examined the
problem inorder toobtain apossible compromise solution .
There-examination hasshown tha'i thefacts ofthematter have not
changed since 1975 *when the Comiliission first submitted itsproposal .
TheCommunity patrimony will beapplied tothem attheendofthis period .

-7-4
Itit:quite clear from lengthy discussions within theCouncil that there are
noarguments likely tochange theCommission 'schoice ofthesolution ofthe
country ofemployment .Atthevery most ,itcould beconsidered that the
arguments forandagainst thesolutions cancel eaoh other out •
I
Under such conditions ,thesocial motivations must become thedetermining
factors .Inthis respect ,itshould benoted that family benefits are
much higher inthecountry ofimmigration (country ofemployment ofthe
worker )than inthecountry ofemigration (country ofresidence ofmembers
ofthefamily ).Theadoption ofasolution based ontheaward ofbenefits
bythecountry ofresidence would therefore mean that themajority ofthe
persons concerned ,i.e. ,members ofthe family residing inItaly orin
Ireland ,would suffer aconsiderable drop inthe level ofbenefits .
TheCommission also examined several compromise solutions ,including one
which would provide fortheaward ofbenefits andasupplement bythe
country ofresidence .None ofthese solutions were likely both tomaintain
<thelevel ofbenefits currently guaranteed byCommunity lawandtosatisfy
thepartisans ofthecountry ofresidence .Atthevery most ,these
solutions could diminish thelosses entailed bythepure andsimple adoption
ofth<?country ofresidence system .
Theopinion oftheCommission ,however ,according towhich "therights of
migrant workers aretobedetermined bythesame principles inwhichever
Member State they areemployed ,such auniformization maynotresult in
1areduction oftherights most ofthepersons concerned areentitled to",
hasnotchanged .
Inthis respect ,theCommission would like torecall theobjectives the
Council setitself in1974 and1976 respectively ,namety :
"-toimprove theconditions offree movement within theCommunity of
2workers from Member States ,including social seourity ..." ;
"-tocontinue andenhance thehumanization offreedom ofmovement
forworkers provided forinArtioles 48 "to51'OftheTreaty . •
Itdoes notappear tobepossible toreconoile thedemands ofsocial
progress with theadoption ofasolution that would lead totheloss
ofrights afforded tomigrant workers under Community law.
gSeetheverydetailed tabled given inCouncil document 8014/80SOC226.
^Explanatory memorandum totheCommission proposal -doc.COM(75)l32 final .
.Council Resolution of21January 1974 concerning asocial action programme .
Council Resolution of9Februaiy 1976 .

Furthermore ,achange intheeconomic andsocial situation oftheCommunity
could notheinvoked tojustify such measures .Even ifthesituation were
tolead Member States toeconomize inthis sector ,themeasures should
affect migrant workers inthe same wayasnationals andshould notaffect
migrant workers alone . N '
' , i
C.CONCLUSIONS
,1.Theexamination carried outbytheCommission shows that :
–thefundamental data relating tothe standardization ofthe system
ofpaying family benefits toworkers themembers ofwhose families
reside inaMember State other than thecountry ofemployment ,
have notchanged since theCommission presented itsproposal to
theCouncil in1975 ;
–essentially ,thesolution consisting intheaward offamily
benefits bythecountry ofresidence andthesolutions deriving
therefrom oanonly result inareduction oftherights that most <
ofthepersons concerned enjoy atpresent ;
,–that the "only solution which would beinaccordance both with the
aimofstandardizing theCommunity rules andwith themaintenance
ofthebenefits acquired under these provisions would bethe
- payment byallMember States offamily benefits provided forunder
1:heir legislations toworkers whoare subject tothose legislations
1andtomembers oftheir families residing inother Member States ."
2.TheCommission ,inaccordance moreover with theEuropean Parliament
Resolution of17June 19°0 tdoes notplan toamend itsproposal of
10April 1975and thus maintains itsposition infavour ofthespeedy
adoption ofthecountry ofemployment system andtheabolition ofthe
exemption scheme applied byPrance .
Doc,CGM(75)132 final .