However, it may be anticipated that there is some increase in administrative tasks for Member States who seek to verify whether or not a benefit available in another Member State should be considered a child-raising allowance.

There will no longer be any need to apply a hypothetical calculation in relation to a parent who does not have relevant income or earnings within the competent Member State but who asserts a derived right to benefits resulting in considerable simplification for those public administrations who recognise benefits on the basis of a derived right.

In relation to the horizontal option c, Member States will be entitled to award salary-related child-raising allowances to EU mobile citizens subject to the applicable legislation in accordance with the normal rules under national legislation regardless of whether they have primary or secondary competence for awarding family benefits. In particular, the secondary competent Member State will no longer be required to include such benefits (which can be subject to fluctuation) within the calculation of the differential supplement. Thereby simplifying the calculation procedure and avoiding need for periodic adjustments relating to changes in the families circumstances or salary or the need to arrange recovery of any overpayment that might arise from delays in communicating such changes of circumstance.

In relation to the baseline scenario, it is already anticipated that regulatory burdens may be mitigated by the implementation of EESSI, including the adoption of consistent protocols for administering exchanges of information on export of family benefits. The Administrative Commission Ad-Hoc Working Group for establishing the definition of data to be exchanged electronically under EESSI in the field of family benefits is currently working on stream-lining processes. The Structured Electronic Document (SED) F001 – Request for determining competences and F002 Reply for determining competences have been developed for establishing competence. Specific exchanges may also be applied where there is a need for detailed information on periods of employment and contribution or medical information related to family benefits for a child or young person with a disability or health condition.

The horizontal option c is in general likely to entail reduced administrative procedures for claimants as where the derogation is applied the process will be aligned to normal national procedures resulting in a predictable level of income, meaning citizens will be subject to fewer unexpected changes arising from periodic adjustments in benefit levels in another Member State with a reduced risk of recovery procedures. However, as it will be at the discretion of Member States whether or not they choose to disapply the anti-accumulation rules, these benefits will not be experienced by all families. Families will claim on the basis of the parent with direct entitlement meaning there is a simpler procedure with no need to supply data for hypothetical calculation of salary (although a small number of parents will lose derived rights).

The baseline scenario would have no direct impact on citizens and require no additional procedural steps. However, the introduction of a pan-European Electronic Exchange for Social Security Information (EESSI) is likely to increase the speed and efficiency of processing time to the benefit of citizens.

For administrations this option is likely to reduce litigation costs and legal advice costs as well as the number of requests for benefits.

For economically inactive EU mobile citizens and jobseekers this option would facilitate them to make an informed choice when exercising their rights to move to another Member State. At the same time it is likely to reduce litigation costs and legal advice costs.

The preferred option is the amendment of Article 4 of Regulation 883/2004 to make reference to the limitations in Directive 2004/38/EC. This option will merely codify existing case-law.

Unemployed persons have to register with the employment service of the State to whichthey went in order to look for employment and provide all relevant information as this has been the case so far. The only change is that the export can be granted for longer periods than before.

The employment services in the Member State to which the unemployed person went in order to look for employment will have to register those persons and assist them in their job-searching activities. Moreover, the reinforced cooperation mechanism will require them to report regularly on a monthly basisto the competent institution on the follow-up of the unemployed person’s situation, in particular whether the latter is still registered with the emplyoment services and is complying with organised checking procedures.

The employment services in the competent State can be expected to have to handle more situatoinis in whichthe unemployment benefit is exported. This does not necessarily result in an increase of the administrtaive burden, as they do not have to assume the task of controlng the person duringthe export period. As before, they will have to provide the unemployed persons with a Portable Document U2 and inform him or her about the duties to fulfil in the State to which they intend to go in order to look for employment.

The period for export of unemployment benefits is extended to a minimum period of 6 months with possibility of further extension up to the end of the entitlement period.

There is no change for the individuals as they continue to register in any case of unemployment with the employment service of the Member State of last activity. It is then the task of this institution to determine, whether it can provide the benefits based, if necessary, on aggregation or whether it has to refer the case to the employment service of the Member State of previous activity.

This option may result in more cases of export, whenever a mobile worker has not completed the required three-month period in the Member State of last activity. As the administrative procedures for the export of unemployment benefits are established, this would be the only change expected.

The number of cases handled by the employment services in the State of previous activity can be expected to increase while it will decrease in the State of last activity. The employment services will also have to take the necessary measures to provide for an export of their unemployment benefit to the Member State of last activity (e.g. provide the person with a Portable Document U2), while the employment service in the Member State of last activity will assume the task of assisting the worker in finding new employment. They will also have to assume the task of informing the employment services in the Member State of previous activity whenever a mobile worker registers with them, who has not yet been insured for the required minimum period of three months.

Mobile workers will no longer be able to rely on the aggregation of periods completed in the Member State of previous activity if they have worked for less than three months in the Member State of last activity. However, in this situation, the Member State of previous activity becomes competent. This means that the competence for paying unemployment benefits will switch from the State of last activity to the State of previous activity for mobile workers who have workerd less than 3 months in the State of last activity.

The length of insured employment will be certified by means of the PD U1 and this will also enable the worker and the employment services to determine the competent institution. There will be no need for them to provide additional information.

This option may result in more cases of export, whenever a frontier worker for whom the competence has switched from the State of residence to the State of last activity prefers to focus the search for employment in the State of residence and therefore wants to register with the employment service located in that State. The administrative procedures for the export of unemployment benefits are established and therefore the only change expected inthis respect is the potential number of cases.

The number of cases handled by the employment services in the State of last activity can be expected to increase while it will decrease in the State of residence. Except for the changes in the number of cases, no further changes in the administrative procedures/tasks are expected in comparison to baseline under which – as a rule – this information is anyway required for the purpose of determining whether the qualifying period for a right to benefits under the legislation of the State residence had been completed.

The competence for paying unemployment benefits will switch from the State of residence to the State of last activity, if the frontier and other cross-border workers have worked in that State for more than 12 months.

The clarification will enable EU mobile citizens to receive all the long-term care benefits to which they are entitled while exercising their right to free movement. It will also contribute to expediting the process by which persons that require care receive the benefits to which they are entitled, by removing much of the uncertainty or conflicts on the part of the Member States involved over the status of the various long-term care benefits.

The information obligations for administrations under this option will remain unchanged. The option could reduce disputes between institutions. In an initial phase the new legal definition and the in-or exclusion of long-term care benefits in the definition can increase the administrative burden for Member States and impact the exchange of information between Member States. In the long term, the clarification would save time and money spent per case by the Member States, especially in light of increasing demand for long-term care benefits.

The preferred option consists of coordination, following the same logic as with sickness benefits, but adding clarifications. The competent Member State provides long-term care benefits in cash and reimburses the cost of benefits in kind provided by the Member State of residence. This legislative proposal would have no impact on rights as such: it would merely reflect the already-applied rules on sickness, while complementing the sickness rules with some specific rules that take account of the characteristics of long-term care benefits.

The Annex is based on the preferred options (see section 8. of the main report) and presents the practical implications for individuals and public administration that will be the most affected by the initiative.

A number of comments and proposals for possible changes of the rules on the aggregation of unemployment benefits were also made:

As it can be seen in the table below, more than a third of the respondents believe that the current rules on the aggregation of unemployment benefits should be changed.

A number of comments and proposals for possible changes of the rules on the export of family benefits were also made:

As it can be seen in the table below, around a third of the respondents believe that the current rules on the export of family benefits should be changed.

DG EMPL launched an online consultation on the coordination of unemployment benefits (aggregation rules) and on the coordination of family benefits (export rules), which ran from 15 July 2015 until 7 October 2015.

There was consensus among respondents on behalf of organisations that all costs for care benefits provided to an insured person should be borne by the Member State where the migrant person is insured for healthcare or long-term care (67 %).

Considered per type of stakeholders, the current rules were the preferred option by national administrations (53% of replies). Preference among social partners and trade unions were quite spread among the different options, with some slight preference for the entitlements to be equal to those in the country of insurance. Civil society organisations and NGOs also showed some divergent opinions among them, with the most often-selected option for the entitlement to be equal to those in the country of residence. More insights could not be gained directly from the consultation, since there was no possibility to elaborate on the arguments for selecting each option.

Opinions among organisations were also divided. The most-selected option was that the current rules be maintained (supported by 36% in total), but based largely on national administrations’ opinions (they accounted for 75% of these replies).

Should get 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).

Should get care benefits in cash from the Member State of insurance, supplemented by the Member State of residence in case of more advantageous conditions (top-up).

Should be treated equally in the Member State where he/she lives and receive the care benefits there (including the cash benefits), in accordance with the national legislation.

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 moves to another Member State.

Should continue receiving benefits as it is today (depending on the Member States' legislation the person might end up in a win or in a lose situation).

For individuals, the preferred option was for entitlements to be equal to those in the country of insurance (39%), but two other options (namely: entitlement to be equal to those in the country of residence; maintenance of the current rules) gathered almost 20% of the support. Options where the introduction of a supplement to the long-term care cash benefits is foreseen gathered respectively: 14% if benefits provided by the competent State and 6% if provided by the Member State of residence.

A total of 127 individual responses and 45 responses on behalf of national authorities, an organisation or as a specialist were received for the part covering the coordination of long-term care benefits. The results of the public consultation highlight the diversity of opinions regarding the Member State competent for providing long-term care benefits. Opinions on these questions varied both across individuals and among stakeholders.

Therefore, for both questions making the country of residence competent for paying unemployment benefits an export unemployment benefits for at least six month where the least preferred options and opinions were fairly divided among two other options.

Until the end of the person's entitlement to unemployment benefits, according to the rules of the Member State which provides them

With regard to the export of unemployment benefits, individuals favoured the export until the end of the person’s entitlement (59%) of them. This option also received support among organisations (34% of national administrations and 56% of civil society organisations and NGOs), although less than the maintenance of the current rules, which were the preferred option by national administrations (42% of them) and social partners and trade unions (76%). One option received less support across the respondents (export for at least six months).

Individuals and organisations at large shared some views with regard to which Member State should be the Member State competent for the provision of unemployment benefits. Only a small share of both groups (and, within organisations, of each type of stakeholder) considered that the country of residence should be the competent Member State. Individuals were rather divided between preferring a right of choice for mobile workers (49% of replies) and making the country of last activity competent (40%). The same two options were clearly preferred by organisations, but in reverse order. National administrations (47% of them) and civil society organisations and NGOs (78%) were more often in favour of making the country of last activity competent, while social partners and trade unions (47%) preferred the right of choice option).

The 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 has lived (if these Member States were different).

Almost half of the respondents (49%) were in favour of giving the unemployed person the right to choose to claim unemployment benefits in the Member State of last employment, or in the Member State where the person lived during his/her last period of employment (where these Member States were different). The second most commonly chosen option (40% of the individual respondents) was that the unemployed person should have to apply for unemployment benefits in the Member State where he/she last worked and paid contributions, even if he/she lived in another Member State. In third most commonly chosen option (far behind the first two in terms of percentage of respondents), selected by 7% of the participants, was the option where unemployed workers should claim unemployment benefits in their country of residence, even if they last worked and paid social security contributions in another Member State.

In relation to the coordination of unemployment benefits, the consultation provided some evidence of the diversity of opinions among individuals and different types of stakeholders. National administrations often had different opinions than the social partners, trade unions, civil society and non-governmental organisations. The combination of all opinions allows for a comprehensive view of the current system of coordination of unemployment benefits in the EU, including what are perceived to be the main problems and shortcomings perceived, and what the possible options are for reform.

By nationality, Spanish were the most numerous among individual respondents, accounting for 26.6% of the responses. No replies were received from persons from Cyprus, Denmark, Iceland, Luxembourg and Malta.

The content of these replies has been taken into account in the overall analysis and included in the statistics whenever possible (they did not contain full replies to all questions in the consultation). Not all respondents gave full replies to the consultation and the replies are only reflected in the results to the extent that a reply was received to a particular question.

The European Commission launched an online consultation on the coordination of long-term care benefits and unemployment benefits (export of unemployment benefits and coordination of unemployment benefits for frontier workers) on 5 December 2012 to which 299 replies were received. 199 of the replies received were from individuals and 100 on behalf of an organisation or as specialists. Both individuals as well as organisations (including Member States' authorities, trade unions and non-governmental organisations and private companies) from the EU and EEA-EFTA States replied to the public consultation.

Relevant results of the public consultation on the extenstion of the right to unemployment benefits in the framework of the EU Citizenship Report have also been taken into account with regard to the export of unemployment benefits.

Written contributions were also received from EURODIACONIA, recommending to extend the duration of the export of unemployment benefits; and from ECAS, recommending to provide explicitely for the exportability of long-term benefits; to extend the duration of the export of unemployment benefits; to ensure full respect for the principle of equal treatment give in the reform of the rules on family benefits.

In relation to long-term care benefits, participants expressed support to the idea of creating a specific chapter for their coordination, underlining that they should be exportable, but also warning against endangering the important link between healthcare and social care.

In relation to export of family benefits, some participants recognised the need for some compromise in view of the position of some MS opposing export, which would entail the (dynamic) adaptation of exported family benefits to the living conditions of the country where the children of the workers reside. Others underlined the unfairness of adaptation, since the workers concerned pay the same taxes, but also the fact that, for the competent MS, adapting family benefits may prove anti-economical if the concerned families were to move to the MS as a result. In this sense, it was mentioned that the biggest challenge for local authorities is represented by pressure on public services, and not by "benefit tourism".

In relation to unemployment benefits, participant expressed their support to the extension of the period of their exportability, in view of the time needed to find a job, and of existing administrative barriers.

Access to the labour market for mobile EU workers and jobseekers was mentioned as a specific issues that the Commission needs to look at: specific examples were provided by participants about administrative barriers (notably for jobseekers in Scandinavian countries), and recognition of professional qualifications was also mentioned as a barrier. Also, the issue of destitution of migrant workers was mentioned as a major issue, often resulting in homelessness.

Also, participants underlined the importance of adopting non-legislative measures, arguing that several barriers to free movement of workers linked to social security coordination are the result of incorrect/non application of existing rules, or to the fact that the cooperation between Member States, envisaged by the 2010 reforms of SSC rules, has not been strengthened enough yet.

Participants highlighted the importance for the Commission of looking at the definition of worker, of ensuring that existing gaps in social security protection for mobile citizens are addressed, and of strengthening the collection of statistics on intra-EU mobility. They also acknowledged the importance of addressing the issues in the current debate on labour mobility to avoid that free movement becomes an even more contentious issue that it already is. However, they insisted on the importance of preserving the principle of equal treatment, especially for those more vulnerable.

Representatives from 11 NGOs were consulted in relation to the coordination of long-term care benefits, export of unemployment benefits, aggregation of unemployment benefits, coordination of unemployment benefits for frontier workers, export of family benefits, and access to special non-contributory cash benefits for non-active mobiel EU citizens during a meeting on 17 June 2015.

EFBWW (European Federation of Building and Woodworkers) stated that the proposals by the Commission appeared to focus mainly on some national concerns about "benefit tourism", and it underlined that only European problems, and not national ones, should be addressed at European level.

TUC (Trades Union Congress, UK) highlighted that the right to family benefits is attached to the worker and not to the place of residence of the family. In their view lowering the family benefits for mobile workers would in any event constitute unequal treatment.

ETUC, during the meeting and in a written statement, stressed the need to base the discussion on labour mobility on proper analysis instead of copying populist propaganda from some Member States. On the coordination of unemployment benefits for frontier workers, ETUC supports the possibility for frontier workers and/or mobile workers who are seeking new employment in another Member State to receive their unemployment benefit for up to six months. On the export of unemployment benefits, ETUC supports the possibility to pay between three and six months. In relation to the aggregation of rights and the level of salary which should be calculated for the unemployment benefit, ETUC is of the opinion that full entitlement to unemployment benefits should be assured and that qualifying periods could be accumulated across Member States. In relation to long-term care benefits, ETUC is of the opinion that a rights based approach to long term care across the EU is urgently needed and calls upon the EU institutions to develop a coherent approach to long term care. In general, ETUC underlined that the principle of full equal treatment in the host country is indispensable, and considers it unacceptable if amendments to the Regulation would touch upon this principle and are guided by the concept of residence. ETUC also stated that if exceptions are considered they should be limited to cases which constitute clear abuses and must be based on sufficient evidence about abuses and / or for reasonable motivations.

The trade unions warned that caution should be applied when discussing so-called 'social security tourism' and possible abuses as it might end up in some unilateral action of Member States that are not in line with EU law. Before engaging in a debate on a possible change of the rules, proper analysis should be conducted to assess if the problems are a result of shortages in implementation, or problems that call for legislative action. A holistic approach should be applied to tackle issues such as possible unequal treatment, involuntary mobility and brain drain.

CEC (Confederation of European Managers), during the meeting and in a written contribution, highlighted the necessity to make sure that public authorities designated for the enforcement of the different provisions (and limitations to the enjoyment of benefits) apply rigorously the current legislation and adopt all necessary measures to ensure that workers no longer satisfying the conditions set by legislation are excluded from the benefits.

DA (Confederation of Danish Employers) mentioned that electronic data exchange can also be used to combat issues like lacking payments of contributions in the country of origin.

PEARLE (Performance Arts Employers Association Europe), during the meeting and in a written contribution, emphasised that employers in the live performance sector are confronted with specific issues on social security and posting and need instruments such as one-stop-shop or national centres where they can obtain guidance to comply with the requirements in different countries.

UEAPME (European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises) stated, during the meeting and in written contributions following the meeting, that the provision that the export of unemployment benefits to a second Member State can take place for 3 months (and optionally extended to 6 months, Art. 64.c) should remain and not be extended. UEAPME considers it important that workers are activated to find a job in the Member State of destination as soon as possible, in the interest of both employers and the unemployed. In relation to the coordination of unemployment benefits for frontier workers, UEAPME does not consider the current situation, where an exception is made to the principle that the country of employment is normally responsible for the payment of unemployment benefits, as problematic since a real frontier worker has generally a stronger relationship with the country of residence than the country of employment, which provides good grounds for this Member State to pay the benefits. In relation to the aggregation of unemployment benefits, UEAPME would be in favour of introducing a minimum waiting period in the Member State of last employment before entitlement to social security coverage and notably access to unemployment benefits in that Member State. In relation to export of family benefits, UEAPME considers that the principle of the country of employment being responsible for the payment of family benefits should be maintained. However, if this family lives in another Member State, UEAPME considers it fair to adapt the amount of benefits to the cost of living in that Member State.

BUSINESSEUROPE stated, during the workshop and in written statements, that respecting the equal treatment principle and ensuring access to information is key. The package should take a comprehensive approach by also addressing issues like e.g. linguistic skills and EURES. The difference in perspectives between origin and destination countries was also underlined. They also suggested that sectoral approaches may be necessary. Mobile workers should not have access to unemployment benefits after one day of work and article 61 of Regulation 883/04 should be adapted. In relation to export of unemployment benefits, there is no change needed in the current period of export of unemployment benefit for a minimum of 3 months. BUSINESSEUROPE recognised the link with the sustainability of social protection systems and the need to combat fraud and abuse. The Dano case was welcomed as a clarification in this respect.

A dedicated hearing with social partners was also organised on 10 June 2015 to allow for collecting views on the coordination of long-term care benefits, export of unemployment benefits, aggregation of unemployment benefits, coordination of unemployment benefits for frontier workers, export of family benefits, and access to special non-contributory cash benefits for non-active mobiel EU citizens.

ETUC underlined the pressing need to focus on defending and improving the rights of workers. In particular, if a mobile worker has been employed and paid contributions in another Member State to that in which they are resident, it seems right that the Member State of last activity should pay their unemployment benefits.

BUSINESS EUROPE commented on the need to strike the right balance taking account of potential costs to Member States and businesses. BUSINESSEUROPE considered that unemployment benefits should be time-limited for those seeking employment in another Member State, and deciding the specific time period left as a national competence.

ETUC (European Trade Union Confederation) noted that in this work the Commission should take into account the experience of cross-border workers – the ETUC has found that these workers are often the first to lose their jobs during an economic downturn and can then be refused unemployment benefits in their Member State of residence. The ETUC's research showed this to be a persistent and spreading problem. ETUC also noted that the current Regulations do not cater sufficiently for certain groups of mobile workers, like apprentices. ETUC also expressed surprise at questions in the public consultation on whether the current regime was abused by migrant workers, given that the document was aimed at finding out how the rights of migrant worker can be improved.

In relation to the coordination of long-term care benefits, export of unemployment benefits and coordination of unemployment benefits for frontier workers, social partners were consulted in the framework of the Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Social Security Systems on 24 October 2013.

On 7 October 2015, a group of five national organisations in charge of the payment of family benefits from Belgium, France and the Netherlands, issued a position paper in relation to the possible revision of rules on the export of family benefits, strongly supporting the status quo.

Almost half of the national administrations are of 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.

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.

In terms of social security coverage, national administrations have a preference for the option in which 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).

The options where a person in need of care is treated equally in the Member State where he is insured or where he/she lives 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 relation to the coordination of long-term care benefits, 17% of the national administrations and social security institutions would like to keep the current coordination rules for long-term care benefits. About 28% of the respondents believe that people should be treated equally in the Member State where they are insured and should not have their care benefits reduced if they move to another Member State.

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 job-seekers (who exported their unemployment benefit) had found a job.

oIn 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 (Germany, Netherlands).

oOne 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.

oAll jobseekers who have exported their unemployment benefits should be obliged to report about their job seeking activities to the competent Member State (Czech Republic, Germany, Malta, Lithuania and France). Some countries are in favour of monthly reporting by the jobseeker to the competent institution (Germany, Malta and Lithuania); other Member States say that a 3-monthly reporting would be sufficient (FR).

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 (Austria, Belgium, Ireland). Several Member States would like to enhance the role of the receiving 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, Estonia, Czech Republic and France).

The receiving 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, Austria, Czech Republic, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Slovenia). However, more control of jobseekers by the guest Member State will also increase the administrative burden and costs on Member States (Denmark).

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:

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.

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.

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 (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Switzerland). In 9 countries (HU, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, 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.

In relation to the 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.

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. The reasons why respondents say to favour this option are: it would put 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 (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland), 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(Czech Republic, Estonia, Romania, Slovakia, 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).

In relation to the coordination of unemployment benefits for frontier workers, 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 if 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 or the country of residence. About 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 2nd and 3rd preferred option. In 11 countries (Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia), the most popular option among public authorities is 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 lives in another Member State.

A web-based survey among the responsible national public authorities and other key actors with regard to the coordination of unemployment benefits for frontier workers, the export of unemployment benefits and the coordination of long-term care benefits was launched in December 2012 by Deloitte consulting.

twelve delegations supported the option of amending Article 4 as a first or second choice (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia, France, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, UK) although there was no general consensus on the changes needed and some of these views are provisional as it includes Member States who were in favour of awaiting the outcome of the pending court cases before adopting a fixed position;

nine delegations (Czech Republic, Germany, France, Lithuania, Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Sweden and UK) made clear that they preferred to wait for the outcome of the judgments of Alimanovic and Garcia Nieto before any firm action is taken;

In relation to non-contributory cash benefits providing for a minimum subsistence level, during a Reflection Forum within the framework of meeting of the Administrative Commission meeting on 23-25 June 2015, Member States delegations (sharing their opinions as experts) expressed their views on the options under consideration:

three delegations (Czech Republic, Germany, Sweden) were opposed to specific coordinating measures to address the gap because the numbers of potentially affected unemployed persons were very low and any changes to the rules to address the gap would be administratively burdensome to apply and may risk mobile workers being treated more favourably than nationals.

six Member States (Austria, France, Greece, Ireland, Malta and Romania) all of whom supported the introduction of a 3 month period of insured employment to qualify for aggregation proposed that the gap should be addressed by extending the application of Article 65(5)(a) to mobile workers who have worked for less than 3 months in the country of new employment allowing them to "reactivate" entitlement in the former country of employment. This proposal was opposed by the delegates from Germany, Spain, Sweden, Hungary and Portugal. The UK delegate also had concerns about the practicalities;

During a second meeting on 23-25 June 2015, delegations were consulted on how to deal with the coverage of unemployed persons in case of introduction of a waiting period for the aggregation of unemployment benefits:

The supporters of the status-quo as regards the calculation of unemployment benefits felt the need to ensure that benefits are paid quickly without additional administrative complications. The supporters of a change, i.e. of also taking into account foreign salaries for the calculation of benefits, felt that this would lead to fairer results.

in relation to those Member States who were open to change in the current rules (so that the calculation of unemployment benefits would also take into account salaries earned in another MS), the positions of delegations regarding the policy options concerning were less clear, because many favoured such a change without time limitation. Open for such a change were the following delegations: Denmark, Greece, Germany, Malta, UK, Finland, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Italy, Austria.

the majority of delegations were in favour of maintaining the status quo (i.e. benefits should be calculated solely on the basis of salaries earned in the competent MS) (Czech Republic, Ireland, Portugal, Bulgaria, Estonia, Slovakia, Romania, Latvia, Hungary, Poland, France, Slovenia, Croatia, Lithuania and Italy) – however, a number of delegations caveated their position to make clear it may vary depending on the policy adopted in respect of aggregation. For example, some pointed out that a strengthening of the precondition for aggregation (three-month rule) would make a change of the calculation method superfluous;

The supporters of the one-day rule (option 1) rather focused on the needs of (returning) migrant workers and felt the need to ensure that there are no gaps in their protection. The supporters of option 2 (aggregation only after one or three months of work) rather focused on the needs of their institutions and wanted to ensure that unemployment benefits are only paid to those who had made a "substantial" contribution to their own schemes.

In relation to the aggregation of unemployment benefits, during a Reflection Forum within the framework of the Administrative Commission meeting on 10-12 March 2015, Member States delegations (sharing their opinions as experts) expressed their views on the options under consideration. The discussion revealed widely divergent views of the delegates with a slight majority, however, favouring the maintenance of the status quo. However, some delegations had rather strong views on the issues (in particular Denmark and Greece, who had submitted notes in favour of the 'three-month' option), whereas others were more flexible or declared that they could support more than one option:

In the discussions concerning export of family benefits, a number of delegations raised concerns about the application of the family benefit rules to child-raising allowances. This concern was expressed by Denmark, Finland, Austria and Sweden. The development of the horizontal option was developed at a later stage as a result of the feedback from Member States and other stakeholders.

ten delegations indicated support for this option as a first or second choice (Austria, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Sweden, Slovenia, UK) although Sweden indicated they preferred changes in classification of benefits before considering changes in priority and the UK indicated their support for this option was conditional on not having to pay the differential supplement;

In light of the feedback from national experts following consultation within the Reflection Forum of the Administrative Commission, the Commission has developed a new option concerning the priority rules for the payment of family benefits. During a second meeting on 23-25 June 2015, the new option according to which the Member State of residence of the child should always be primarily competent to award family benefits was discussed:

a minority of delegations favoured adjustment of the amount of family benefits to reflect the living standards in the Member State of Residence of the child (Denmark, France, Ireland and Norway);

a significant majority of delegations favoured maintaining the status quo for ensuring that family benefits were exported at the same rate payable in the state of employment (Bulgaria, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Estonia, Spain, Finland, Croatia, Italy, Lithuania, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Slovakia and Slovenia);

In relation to export of family benefits, during a Reflection Forum within the framework of the Administrative Commission meeting on 10-12 March 2015, Member States' delegations (sharing their opinions as experts) expressed their views on the options under consideration:

In relation to the export of unemployment benefits, during the Working Party of the Administrative Commission on the revision of EU provision on coordination of long term care benefits and unemployment benefit of 10 October 2013, Member States delegations (some representing their governments' positions, other sharing their opinions as experts) expressed their views on the options under consideration:

In relation to the coordination of unemployment benefits for frontier workers, during the Working Party of the Administrative Commission on the revision of EU provision on coordination of long term care benefits and unemployment benefit of 10 October 2013, Member States delegations (some representing their governments' positions, other sharing their opinions as experts) expressed their views on the options under consideration:

A better coordination seems to be necessary (it is not yet clear which one): Belgium.

LTC benefits granted under the accidents at work and industrial diseases scheme should remain coordinated under the relevant chapter, as this is more favourable for the persons concerned: Austria, Germany, Latvia.

Special family allowances for handicapped children shall remain coordinated as family benefits: Austria, Latvia; same opinion concerning medical care allowances for children and supplement to family benefits which are treated as family benefits: Poland.

Social assistance benefits cannot be coordinated as other LTC benefits: Austria (at least this has to be further examined), Poland, Germany (this also applies to LTC benefits for victims of war), Slovakia, Lithuania.

 LTC benefits should remain coordinated as today under the various chapters of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004: Italy, Hungary (new coordination only for the rest not covered by these special chapters), some MSs refer to some of these cases explicitly.

Finally, to the question as whether all LTC benefits should be coordinated in the same way (i.e. one set of coordination rules), or should it be still possible to coordinate them under different Chapters, MS answered as follows:

A better coordination seems to be necessary (it is not yet clear which one): Belgium.

Whatever solution is sought, it must be stable, easy to administer and transparent for the citizens, and social tourism must be avoided: Austria.

Benefits granted to the carer should be regarded as income and so Title II should apply to the carer: Poland, Ireland (also the existing system seems to focus more on direct benefits than on the provision of services), Hungary.

Competence only of the MS of residence: Austria (if safeguarded that no differential payments or subsidiary competence of any other MS – some parameters are elaborated in the note), Lithuania.

A specialised questionnaire was also launched by the Commission at the beginning of 2012 on the coordination of long-term care benefits: on the basis of a report prepared in 2012 by the trESS (Training and Reporting on European Social Security) Network, Member States were asked to describe their policy approach with regards to persons in need of LTC, to assess a new definition for LTC benefits, to identify further challenges than those presented in the report.

In relation to the coordination of long-term care benefits, during the Working Party of the Administrative Commission on the revision of EU provision on coordination of long term care benefits and unemployment benefit of 10 October 2013, Member States delegations (some representing their governments' positions, other sharing their opinions as experts) expressed their views on the options under consideration. A majority of delegations supported the creation of a specific definition and/or specific chapter and/or list of benefits (Luxembourg, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Lithuania, Poland, Belgium, Malta, Sweden, Czech Republic, Hungary and Latvia explicitly supported the option, whilst Austria, Germany, France, Ireland, Slovenia, Slovakia and Greece, without taking definite position, supported some elements of this option or did not object it). Others were in favour of the status quo (Belgium, Greece, Spain, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Sweden, Estonia as well as the United Kingdom and France without declaring their definite position).

Discussions with the Member States on coordination of long-term care benefits, export of unemployment benefits and coordination of unemployment benefits for frontier workers took place at the meetings of the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems in the period 2009 to 2013.

It has to be noted that the different consultations presented different degrees of specifity in relation to the options assessed, and due to the high level of complexity of some topics, and the late definition of some options, some consultations have been kept very wide (e.g. the publis consultation on aggregation of unemployment benefits; export of family benefits and social security coordination rules on the posting of employed and self-employed persons). A summary of these consultations is given in the sections below.

10.Two online consultations were also launched, one on the coordination of long-term care benefits, export of unemployment benefits and coordination of unemployment benefits for frontier workers; the other one on the coordination of unemployment benefits and the coordination of family benefits.

8.Social partners were consulted on the coordination of long-term care benefits, coordination of unemployment benefits for frontier workers and export of unemployment benefits in the framework of the Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Social Security Systems, and on the coordination of family benefits, long-term care benefits, and unemployment benefits during a dedicated hearing.

6.Member States were consulted on coordination of long-term care benefits, export of unemployment benefits, aggregation of unemployment benefits, coordination of unemployment benefits for frontier workers, export of family benefits and access to special non-contributory cash benefits for economically inactive persons, within the framework of the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Schemes (Administrative Commission).

As the preparatory work for the "Revision of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2010" began in 2009, stakeholders were consulted on several occasions on the different elements which are now subject to revision:

Finally, the revision package will include a proposal for a governance change concerning the procedure to amend the country-specific annexes to the coordination Regulations, with which the Commission proposes a simpler and faster legislative procedure to adapt the annexes. This element of the proposal is not expected to have social, economic or environment impacts and is therefore also excluded from the scope of this impact assessment. Its limited effects will be outlined in an explanatory note to the proposal.

The proposals for these technical amendments are based either on the proposal of a Member State, or a group of Member States, or of the Commission services. They were discussed and agreed by at least of qualified majority of Member States in the Administrative Commission on the Coordination of Social Security Systems.

Moreover, the package will also include a 'periodic update' of the Regulations to reflect developments in national legislation that have an effect on the coordination of social security systems in the EU. The aim is to ensure legal certainty for institutions and citizens by making technical amendments the wording of EU provisions or by amending certain annexes. This is, for instance, the case where a benefit ceases to exist in a Member State and has to be deleted from a specific annex to the EU Regulation, or where a wording of a specific article has to be corrected or clarified to avoid misinterpretation.

Outside the scope of this impact assessment report, but included in the revision package are a number of proposals for technical amendments to the EU coordination rules. These amendments aim to bring clarification to a number of coordination provisions, but not to substantially revise them. These amendments will not have a substantial impact and hence their estimated effects will be explained in explanatory notes to the legislative proposal.

The network of independent experts in the fields of free movement of workers and social security coordination in the European Union (FreSsco) evaluated the potential legal impacts of the Revision of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 with regard to the coordination of family benefits, the aggregation of unemployment benefits, and access to special non-contributory cash benefits for economically inactive persons. The three studies were completed in June 2015.

The training and reporting on European Social Security (trESS) network of independent experts in the field of social security coordination evaluated the coordination of long-term care benefits, export of unemployment benefits and coordination of unemployment benefits for frontier workers and the potential legal impacts of the revision of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 with regard to coordination of long-term care benefits. These three studies were presented in 2011 and 2012 to the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems. The evaluations looked into the current legal framework of coordination of long-term care and unemployment benefits, identified the challenges that stem from the application of the current EU rules in these areas and identified possible areas for improvement.

Six studies supporting the Impact Assessment for the further elements of the revision (coordination of family benefits and aggregation of unemployment benefits) were carried out by a consortium under the lead of Fondazione Giacomo Brodolini and by HIVA – KU Leuven Research Institute for Work and Society (HIVA), and the final reports were delivered in August 2015. Administrative data from Member States and EU available data were used to model economic impact and administrative burden for Member States.

A study supporting the Impact Assessment for the elements of the proposal initially scheduled for adoption in spring 2014 (coordination of long-term care benefits; export of unemployment benefits; coordination of unemployment benefits for frontier workers) was carried out by Deloitte Consulting and a final report was delivered on 6 December 2013. Available data (principally through Labour Force Survey and 2012 Ageing Report) was used to model budgetary impacts for all Member States. Further data was collected in a representative sample of 14 Member States, and additional quantitative information to support problem definition and assessment of options was delivered by the HIVA KU Leuven Research Institute for Work and Society (HIVA).

An Inter-Service Steering Group (ISSG) was set up on 19 December 2014 to discuss the Labour Mobility Package, and concerned the following elements of the proposal: coordination of family benefits, aggregation of unemployment benefits, and access to special non-contributory cash benefits for economically inactive persons, with representatives of the following Commission’s services: SG, EMPL, MOVE, JUST, CNCET, ESTAT, HOME, NEAR, GROW, SJ, ENER, REGIO, TAXUD, SANTE, TRADE. The ISSG met 6 times between January 2015 and September 2015.

The adoption of the proposal was originally scheduled for spring 2014. However, in view of the European Parliament elections and the changes in political level playing field, the initiative was put ‘on hold’ and action to follow it up was left to the new Commission.

An Impact Assessment Steering Group (IASG) was set up to discuss the elements of the proposal initially scheduled for adoption in Spring 2014 (coordination of long-term care benefits; export of unemployment benefits; coordination of unemployment benefits for frontier workers) with representatives of the following Commission’s services: SG, SJ, ECFIN, MARKT, HOME, ENTR, SANCO, COMM, JUST, RTD, EAC, TAXUD, REGIO and BEPA. The IASG met six times between June 2012 and November 2013. The minutes of the IASG meeting of 25 November 2013, as well as comments received on the draft Impact Assessment Report after the meeting, are annexed to this report in Annex XXIV.

In 2013 and 2014 the preparatory work on a revision of 883/2004 continued, involving an impact assessment and a draft proposal for legislation. The proposal was drafted in response to the 2011 Council’s call for a revision of the rules on unemployment benefits in order to strengthen the link between contributions and benefits, and in view of the need to respond to the introduction of a new type of “long-term care benefit” at national level in view of population change.

The preparatory work started in 2009 with the establishment of an ad hoc expert group on long-term care benefits under the auspices of the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems.

The "Revision of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2010" forms part of the Labour Mobility Package, included in the Commission's 2015 Work Programme. The lead DG for this initiative is EMPL.

It is anticipated that the Commission submits to the European Parliament, the Council and the Economic and Social Committee, 5 years after the date of implementation of the amended Regulations, and every 5 years thereafter at the latest, an evaluation report on the application of the new instrument.

Increase the number of cases in which parents are able to export child-raising benefits and reduce the number of complaints concerning their export ensure clarity and consistency in applying these rules

For all Member State: Unemployment rate of cross-border and frontier workers, total yearly expenditure on unemployment benefits for frontier and cross-border workers having worked in that Member State and distribution effects between national and cross-border workers

Reduce administrative costs for public administrations between Member States connected the administrative cooperation and control mechanism for monitoring the fulfilment of rights and obligations of unemployed persons who are exporting their unemployment benefits.

Number of exchanges between Member States in the EESSI system concerning the monitoring of rights and obligations of unemployed person, report on delays and other communication problems

Establish common ground for extending the period of export of unemployment benefits and establish a systematic cooperation and control mechanism to monitor the fulfilment of rights and obligations by the unemployed person when exporting benefits.

Reduce the number of conflict situations between institutions, resulting in l individual complaints, and fewer preliminary or infraction procedures to be dealt with by the CJEU.

Reduce administrative costs and cases of double payments by providing clear rules of when long-term care benefits in cash and in kind are provided for the same purpose and for the same time frame.

Bring legal clarity and transparency for citizens, institutions and stakeholders by introducing a definition for long-term care benefits, group the rules under a separate Chapter and establish a list of long-term care benefits under Regulation (EC) No 883/2004.

Mechanisms for gathering data in relation to the indicators at both EU level and National Level are already in place with capacity for informing the review on at least and annual basis and therefore there is no need for development of new mechanisms for data collection or to envisage that such methods will entail additional costs for the European Commission or for the Member States to achieve. Indicators based on the data collection consortium HIVA, Milieu Ltd, IRIS University Ghent are foreseen to be monitored on an annual basis, while surveys on the application of the Regulation are envisaged to be less frequent (every 2-3 years).

The informal Social Security Coordination Communication Network, composed of Member States' representatives dealing with communication issues on EU social security coordination rules, provides feedback to the Commission about the challenges faced in communicating EU rules on social security coordination at national level, and advance proposals in order to improve the quality and availability of information on EU rules on social security coordination. For instance, the revision of the guides on Member States national security systems published by the European Commission to make them more simple, user friendly and adaptable to national website, was based also on a feedback received from the network. The network can thus play a positive role in monitoring the awareness of the rules on long-term care, unemployment benefits, family benefits and access of economically inactive citizens and mobile jobseekers to certain social benefits.

The Administrative Commission may set up working parties and study groups for special problems. A 'Reflection Forum' was set up in June 2014, consisting of a collective brain storming exercise within the framework of the Administrative Commission on the future challenges for social security coordination. The discussions in the Reflection Forum will provide a platform for analysing, and clarifying issues of common concern on an administrative level and for openly discussing them in the context of social security coordination as part of a wider challenge, irrespective of whether some may be more controversial than others in their political context. The purpose of the Reflection Forum is to frame the discussion of the topics, draw parallels between them and identify specific issues that warrant further action in the future.

Moreover, the Member States are under the obligation to compile statistics on the application of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and (EC) No 987/2009 and forward them to the Secretariat of the Administrative Commission including in relation to the payment of unemployment benefits; on the coordination of long-term care benefits and the coordination of family benefits to be analysed by the Network of experts on statistics on Free movement of Workers and Social Security Coordination, a consortium of HIVA- KU Leuven, Milieu Ltd, IRIS University Ghent, whose tasks is to collect and analyse the statistical data on an annual basis. Reports are compiled annually on these topics and published on the DG EMPL website.

The Commission can request the Member States represented in the Administrative Commission to report on the effective application of the coordination rules in the Member States, especially on the close and effective cooperation between the authorities and institutions in different Member States as one of the key factors for an efficient functioning of the EU rules on the coordination of national social security systems. It is supported by associated networks such as the informal Social Security Coordination Communication Network and National Contact Points on Fraud & Error also comprised of representatives from Member States who are also able to monitor effectiveness of the proposed measures and identify any potential difficulties in application in specific fields.

foster and develop cooperation between Member States and their institutions in social security matters and facilitate the realisation of actions of cross border cooperation activities in the area of coordination of social security systems;

The second level consists of the monitoring by the Administrative Commission to assess the application of the proposed changes at national level. The Administrative Commission has the specific tasks to :

Monitoring will take place on two levels. The first level consists of monitoring the implementation of the proposed action by the Commission at EU Level. In its role as the guardian of the Treaties, the Commission closely monitors and assists Member States and citizens in the implementation of the EU social security coordination and of free movement of workers rules by regularly assessing the national legislations and/or practices in place, investigating potential infringements of EU rules in the Member States, filing observations in preliminary references made by the national courts on questions on the interpretation and application of the EU social security rules and responding to individual questions, complaints, petitions or citizens’ queries. For example, the Commission's Your Europe Advice and SOLVIT citizens' advice services publish annual reports identifying the number and nature of citizens concerns on particular topics within EU competence including EU social security coordination.

In accordance with the Better Regulation Guidelines, this section provides an outline of the proposed arrangements for monitoring and evaluation (including the proposed indicators). Final monitoring and evaluation arrangements will be approved at a later stage.

For family benefits the most efficient and effective combination responding to the objectives is the combination of the status quo with the horizontal option c. This combination will ensure that primary responsibility for family benefits is retained by the Member State of economic activity where a parent pays taxes and social security contributions in a manner, while the Member State which has secondary competence will pay a differential supplement if its family benefits are higher. This maintains protection for family members and upholds the best interests of the child. By introducing the horizontal option c, it is also possible to protect the individual interests of parents who seek to maintain a balance between work and family life during periods of child-raising by placing a greater emphasis on individual rights and supporting those Member States who are actively promoting flexible and family friendly working practices without imposing this obligation. This option has the potential to be effective at achieving the General and Specific EU objectives and also the wider EU objectives, the Fresh Start to address the challenges of work-life balance faced by working families and is simple to apply. This flexible approach will thereby increasing sustained labour market participation by parents during periods of child-raising. However, as the derogation from the anti-accumulation rules is optional rather than mandatory in practice it is likely to be less effective at achieving the goals and the problems identified concerning disincentives to ongoing labour market participation may continue to subsist. It is anticipated in light of measures already foreseen outside the scope of the revision (the launch of EESSI and implementation of Decision F2) that the aim of improving efficiency of processing family benefit claims will also be achieved.

This option will increase legal clarity and transparency on the rights of economically inactive mobile EU citizens and jobseekers and also on the extent to which Member States’ social security institutions are permitted to limit the equal treatment principle for such persons in relation to access to certain social benefits. It is anticipated to thereby improve the administrative simplicity and enforceability of the rules.

For access to social benefits for economically inactive EU mobile citizens and jobseekers the most efficient option responding to the objectives is the amendment of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 to make reference to the limitations in Directive 2004/38/EC. To increase the effectiveness of this option it could be combined with option 3, which would allow for a more detailed explanation of the rules. This option would increase legal certainty and clarity and transparency while, at the same time, allowing room for a dynamic interpretation of the Regulation as the case-law of the CJEU concerning the relationship between the Regulation and the Directive develops.

They are also aligned with the general and specific objectives and wider EU policy objectives on active labour market policy such as the 2013 citizenship report (COM(2013)269) which as its key action 1 refers to the proposal to extend the export of unemployment benefits to six months.

f) Cash benefits are exported, i.e. are paid to unemployed persons looking for a job in another Member State than the competent one for an extended period of at least six months in order to provide sufficient time for an effective job search and increasing access to employment opportunities throughout the Union.

e) The Member State of previous activity becomes competent and has to export the benefit whenever this condition has not been satisfied;

d) The Member State of last activity becomes competent in all other cases for those who have been insured there for at least three months as regards the aggregation of periods;

c) Periods completed in another Member State are only taken into account, where those periods would also have been considered as periods of insurance in that Member State where they have been completed;

b) The Member State of residence becomes competent for those who have not satisfied this requirement and thus have not established such a strong link;

a) The Member State of last activity would remain competent for providing unemployment benefits to frontier and other cross-border workers in all cases where those persons have been insured there for at least 12 months, because it can be assumed that this suffices to create a strong link to the labour market of this State;

For the coordination of unemployment benefits, the best compromise would be a combination of option 3a for competence and registration of frontier workers, option 1 for the export of unemployment benefits, and of option 2b for the aggregation of periods in combination with the horizontal option regarding the recognition of periods for the purpose of aggregation.

By introducing a legal basis for the already applicable rules, this option introduces a regime appropriate to long-term care benefits, while maintaining continuity with the current system. In parallel, it achieves legal clarity and transparency on the rules applicable both for citizens and institutions as well as other stakeholders. Although benefits in kind are provided by the residence State, costs of all cash and in kind benefits provided are at the expense of the competent Member State which ensures a fair distribution of the financial burden. This option however will not solve existing mismatches in case the competent Member State has no benefits in cash and the State of residence has no benefits in kind.

The amendment of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 to make reference to the limitations in Directive 2004/38/EC. This could be combined with guidance to provide a more detailed explanation of the rules.

Frontier workers: Provide for the payment of unemployment benefits by the Member State of last activity only in situations where the cross-border worker has worked there for a sufficiently representative period (12 months). The unemployed person shall register with the employment services in the State of last activity

The likely economic impact on the individual budgets of Member States is set out on the table opposite. As previously highlighted in the methodology, this analysis is limited to the actual social security costs for Member States for providing social security benefits. It has not been possible to analyse the corresponding receipt of 'contributions' (levies earmarked for social security purposes) into national social security schemes before the contingency occurs. The impact on income taxation is also left aside, as under Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 only contributions are coordinated, while general taxation is not. Analysis has been based on administrative data provided by Member States, it has to be underlined that not all Member States were able to provide data on the different benefits, nor was all data complete. Therefore analysis is provided to the extent possible. No economic impact has been provided where it is assumed that these measures are financially neutral as they either do not confer or limit rights or obligations beyond those already existing under national legislation or EU law.

The removal of derived rights is likely to reduce administrative burden and the risk of fraud and abuse as Member States will be able to assess and verify entitlement to child raising allowances according to their national legislation and normal procedures.

Where applied, there would be a shift in the burden to the Member State of work as child-raising allowances benefits will be paid in full by the secondary competent Member State.

The maximum financial impact would be an average increase in expenditure on exported child-raising benefits for secondary competent Member States of 84% (in practice this is expected to be more limited as not all Member States will apply the derogation).

In cases where a Member State applies the derogation, entitlement will be aligned to national law, making it clearer for parents to understand. However, this advantage is limited as not all Member States will apply the derogation.

Where Member States choose to disapply the anti-accumulation rules, workers will not experience deductions to child-raising benefits facilitating the right for both parents to share child-raising responsibilities.

The codification of existing case-law combined with clear guidance would clarify the rights of EU mobile citizens and would enable citizens to make an informed choice when exercising their rights to move to another Member State.

Greater uniformity in the application of rules by Member States and the ability of citizens to enforce their rights thanks to more clarity in the application of the CJEU case law, leading to greater legal certainty.

Additional information exchanges are needed between the Member State of last activity and the State of residence as regards the reference period of 12 months. However, in combination with the annulment of the reimbursement procedure, this option has an overall positive impact on administrative burden (-50%).

It contributes to a shift in burden sharing as the cost of the unemployment benefits will be reallocated in a way that is proportionate to level of contributions or income tax received.

Across the EU-28, there will be an increase of 6% of the overall expenses for unemployment benefits from € 416 million to € 442 million. This is because frontier workers tend to work in countries with (on the average) higher wages and higher benefits.

It will also contribute towards an even stronger link between benefits and contributions, creating better chances for the worker to reintegrate into labour market.

The introduction of a reinforced cooperation mechanism will reduce the risk of fraud and abuse by ensuring that the jobseeker remains subject to supervision in the host State and so cases of non-compliance with activation measures may be detected.

The extension of the export period is not expected to have any significant financial impact on the Member States, either at individual or aggregate level, as it only maintains an existing right to unemployment benefits in case of job search in another Member State.

Clearer and uniform standards for all persons wishing to take their unemployment benefits with them when looking for a job in another Member State.

About 24,000 persons will have the possibility to retain their rights to unemployment in case of job search in another Member State for a period of six instead of three months.

Slight increase of expenditure for the Member State of previous employment, but corresponding decrease of expenditure on unemployment benefits for Member States of last activity. Overall decrease of expenditure amounting to approximately € 29 million is expected.

No substantive loss of rights. Approximately 10,082 mobile EU workers will receive export of unemployment benefits from the Member State of previous activity instead of the last State of activity.

The option facilitates the comparison of benefits in kind and in cash and could lead to fewer cases of duplication and also fewer disputes between institutions concerning reimbursement.

No fundamental changes in burden sharing, but some benefits not currently coordinated as Long-Term Care Benefits could become subject to the rules. This may lead to some additional cases of export, but also contribute to greater efficiencies by avoiding duplication in the allocation of benefits.

This option takes into account the specific characteristics of long-term care benefits, distinguishing them from sickness benefits and other branches of social security, while maintaining the current method of coordination.

Receipt of benefits will remain subject to national conditions of entitlement and so a move to another Member State may be more or less advantageous depending on the allocation of benefits in kind and cash in the Member States concerned.

Each of these options has been assessed in relation to their social, economic and regulatory impact as well as their effectiveness and efficiency in meeting the general and specific policy objectives. An overview of the impact in relation to the preferred options is set out below:

Option 1b Amendment of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 to make a dynamic reference to the limitations to equal treatment in Directive 2004/38/EC and to extend these limitations by analogy to other tax-financed benefits

Option 2a : Member State of residence provides all long-term care benefits (in cash and in kind) with reimbursement by the competent State, at the level of the state of residence without supplement by the competent Member State

Option 1: The competent Member State provides long-term care benefits in cash and reimburses the cost of benefits in kind provided by the Member State of residence. New definition of LTC benefits to facilitate coordination√

Baseline: No specific provisions for long-term care benefits. Competent Member State provides long-term benefits in cash and reimburses the cost of benefits in kind provided by the Member State of residence

In each area, the Report has identified a number of policy options to address the problems identified outlined below against the baseline (preferred options identified in yellow).

This report has carefully reviewed the existing rules, taking into account the views of stakeholders to identify actions that may be necessary to achieve this overall objective. This impact assessment report has considered the impact of possible improvements to the rules in four distinct areas:

Finally the rules should be effective in relation to meeting the overall goals of coordination in particular safeguarding the continuity of social security protection as citizens move from from one Member State to another.

It is important the rules are fair (in particular in relation to the relative balance of responsibility between Member States who receive or have received social security contributions and the obligation to pay benefits) and that perceptions of unfairness are properly investigated so that they can be addressed where such views are well grounded but challenged where a perception is misplaced. Further the rules should be efficient in terms of cost, administrative burden and risk of fraud or administrative error.

Achieving a system of social security coordination that responds to the social and economic reality in Member States has been one of the central drivers for the Commission to continue the modernisation process of social security coordination that started more than a decade ago.

Achieving greater clarity over the social security coordination system is an important step to face the challenges and controversies that exist over intra-EU mobility and to address demographic challenges ahead of us.

This initiative serves to facilitate the exercise of the right to free movement by ensuring the social security coordination is effective and efficient and therefore does not act as a deterrent to free movement. It is in the interests of all parties to design co-ordination rules that allow full exercise of rights of citizens whilst ensuring coordination requirements for both citizens and Member States are clear and transparent and thereby easy to apply and enforce.

The key policy objective of this initiative is to continue the modernisation of the EU Social Security Coordination Rules by further facilitating the exercise of citizens' rights while at the same time ensuring legal clarity, a fair and equitable distribution of the financial burden among the institutions of the Member States involved and administrative simplicity and enforceability of the rules.

The horizontal options provide greater protection for mobile EU parents in the field of child-raising allowances (either calculated by reference to salary/professional income or all types of such benefit), and by exempting these benefits from the application of derived rights and the anti-accumulation rules will also decrease regulatory costs for public authorities in administering these benefits and reduce delays for families in processing claims. By preventing claims on the basis of derived rights to be made in respect of family benefits intended to replace an individual worker's income during periods of child-raising the aim of achieving a clear and transparent link between the Member State issuing the benefit and the recipient is achieved. These options will entail a significant economic impact for Member States as by disapplying the anti-accumulation rules, Member States with secondary competence will experience an increase in expenditure of on average increase of 62-81% in relation to Horizontal Option a and 58-84% for Horizontal Option b. This financial impact may be mitigated by allowing Member States to derogate from the anti-overlapping rules on an optional basis although this option is less effective at reducing disincentives to labour market participation. There is therefore a trade-off between cost and effectiveness. The risk of a loss of protection for parents currently relying on derived rights to such benefits is assessed as low due to the current low levels of compliance with the existing EU law requirement to award family benefits calculated with reference to salary or professional income on the basis of a derived right.

Option 2 introduces legal clarity and simplicity for families and public administrations by establishing a closer alignment between the EU rules and national legislation which generally require residence of a child as a condition of entitlement for family benefits. However, it may be regarded as less effective in achieving the general objective of fair and equitable distribution of financial burden between Member States as the effect of this option is to redistribute financial burden away from the Member State of economic activity (which receives a mobile worker's tax and social security contributions) towards the Member State of Residence. The rights of families are respected as they will receive the same level of benefits as under the current rules although there may be a moderate budgetary impact for those Member States which currently have secondary competence for family benefits in particular those that do not currently have to pay the differential supplement because the level of family benefits in the primary competent Member State is higher. In cases where there is only one economically active parent, the increase in economic burden for the Member State of residence of the child and away from the Member State of employment is contrary to the relative distribution of taxes and social security paid by the family to these Member States. Therefore although in many respects this is an effective option, in light of the anticipated increase in costs for the Member State of residence of the child it is not the most efficient.

Option 1a and 1b may be the most effective options in achieving a greater correlation between family benefits and the cost of living, however, they do not fully achieve the aim of maintaining a clear and transparent link between the Member State issuing a benefit and the families in receipt of such benefits as mobile workers as the transparency of the award of family benefits will be reduced compared to the baseline particularly in relation to employment-related benefits. These options may increase rather than reduce disincentives to parents' ongoing participation in the labour market during periods of child-raising leave in the field of child-raising allowances related to salary or professional income as such benefits will not only be subject to the anti-accumulation rules but also subject to reductions based on place of residence of the child. They may also increase delays in processing family benefits. Workers and their families will generally be provided with an inferior level of protection compared to the status quo (in particular in relation to option 1b) as workers will receive lower level of family benefits than nationals notwithstanding the fact they pay the same level of tax and social security contributions. Therefore not withstanding the potential cost savings (particularly in the case of option 1b) these considerations these options are not considered the most effective at achieving the objectives and therefore are not the most efficient options.

The baseline scenario, from a merely administrative point of view, is the easiest option to implement and it has the support of a large number of stakeholders. It also offers the same or superior levels of protection to workers and their families as the other options. This option maintains a clear and transparent link between the Member State issuing a benefit and the place where a mobile worker pays taxes and social security contributions. It is anticipated in light of the launch of EESSI and implementation of Decision F2 that efficiency and effectiveness of processing family benefit claims will also be increased.

This option has the potential to be just as effective at achieving the General and Specific EU objectives and also the wider EU objectives, the Fresh Start to address the challenges of work-life balance faced by working families as horizontal option b with slightly increased simplicity as it does not entail any additional administrative tasks, meaning it is even more simple to apply. However, as the derogation from the anti-accumulation rules is optional rather than mandatory in practice it is likely to be less effective at achieving the goals and the problems identified concerning disincentives to ongoing labour market participation may continue to subsist.

Continue the modernisation of the EU Social Security Coordination Rules by further facilitating the exercise of citizens' rights while at the same time ensuring legal clarity, a fair and equitable distribution of the financial burden among the institutions of the Member States involved and administrative simplicity and enforceability of the rules.

The maximum impact would be the similar to horizontal option b, although it may be anticipated that not all Member States will choose to derogate from the anti-overlapping rules.

The impact would be the similar to horizontal option b, although the effects would be mixed depending on whether a member state chooses to disapply the anti-accumulation rules or not. However, no additional administrative tasks are envisaged under this option as competent authorities will not be required to exchange information about the duration of claim for child-raising allowances taken by a parent in another Member State.

The impact would be the similar to horizontal option b, although the effects would be mixed depending on whether a Member State chooses to disapply the anti-accumulation rules or not

The maximum impact would be the similar to horizontal option b, although it may be anticipated that not all Member States will choose to derogate from the anti-overlapping rules. In cases where there is no derogation there will be no change from the baseline.

The impact would be the similar to horizontal option b, although the effects would be mixed depending on whether a member state chooses to disapply the anti-accumulation rules or not. In addition, as this option does not envisage a measure to ensure that where only one parent in a family is subject to the legislation of a Member State, that parent shall be able to claim the allowances for the maximum duration, some mobile families may face disadvantages in national systems which are designed to incentivise parents to share child-raising allowances by limiting the duration that an individual parent can claim a benefit.

The impact would be the similar to horizontal option b, although the effects would be mixed depending on whether a Member State chooses to disapply the anti-accumulation rules or not. Some citizens may find this confusing.

The impact would be the similar to horizontal option b, although the effects would be mixed depending on whether a member state chooses to disapply the anti-accumulation rules or not. Some citizens may find this confusing.

For the same reasons as horizontal option a this option may be considered effective at achieving the General and Specific EU objectives and also the wider EU objectives, the Fresh Start to address the challenges of work-life balance faced by working families. Further, as this horizontal option encapsulates both salary-related and flat rate child-raising allowances it is slightly more effective at achieving these aims.

Continue the modernisation of the EU Social Security Coordination Rules by further facilitating the exercise of citizens' rights while at the same time ensuring legal clarity, a fair and equitable distribution of the financial burden among the institutions of the Member States involved and administrative simplicity and enforceability of the rules.

The impact would be the same as horizontal option a, although the benefits would be greater as this would apply to all child-raising allowances.

The impact would be the same as horizontal option a, although the advantages would be greater as this would apply to all child-raising allowances

The impact would be the same as horizontal option a, although the anticipated reduction in regulatory burden would be greater as this would apply to all child-raising allowances (and conversely the scope of additional administrative tasks to verify duration of leave taken in another Member State could increase for both national authorities and citizens)

The impact would be the same as horizontal option a, although the impact would be greater as this would apply to all child-raising allowances

Based on ESSPROS data for Member State expenditure on parental benefits it may be anticipated that this option will lead to an average increase in expenditure for secondary competent Member States with child-raising allowances of 58% exporting benefits to the EU-28 (increasing to an average increase of 84% if only the Member States of residence which have an salary-related, flat rate or mixed child-raising benefit are selected).

The financial impact is similar to horizontal option a, however, the number of Member States affected and the range of economic costs is likely to be greater as a result of the extension to all child-raising allowances.

The impact would be the same as horizontal option a, although the costs and benefits would be greater as this would apply to all child-raising allowances.

The impact would be the same as horizontal option a, although the advantages would be greater as this would apply to all child-raising allowances.

The impact would be the same as horizontal option a, although the advantages would be greater as this would apply to all child-raising allowances (both salary-related and flat rate)

The horizontal options provide greater protection for mobile EU parents in the field of child-raising allowances (calculated by reference to salary/professional income). In general, exempting these benefits from the application of derived rights and the anti-accumulation rules is likely to remove disincentives for parents to share child-raising responsibilities increasing ongoing labour market participation. Other potential disadvantages for EU transnational families concerning duration of a right to benefit are also mitigated (with safeguards to protect over-compensation of families). This option is also likely to decrease regulatory costs for public authorities in administering these benefits by removing the need to calculate the differential supplement and calculate claims on the basis of derived rights increasing administrative simplicity and reducing delays for families in processing claims. By preventing claims on the basis of derived rights to be made in respect of family benefits intended to replace an individual worker's income during periods of child-raising the aim of achieving a clear and transparent link between the Member State issuing the benefit and the recipient is achieved. Although there may be an increase in the economic costs for secondary competent Member States, such an increase is aligned to costs that would otherwise be incurred under national legislation. This option supports the wider EU objectives including in relation to the Fresh Start on maternity and parental leave.

Continue the modernisation of the EU Social Security Coordination Rules by further facilitating the exercise of citizens' rights while at the same time ensuring legal clarity, a fair and equitable distribution of the financial burden among the institutions of the Member States involved and administrative simplicity and enforceability of the rules.

As this option was developed after commissioning the analysis of regulatory costs at the time of drafting this report it has not possible to draw direct comparisons with the status quo in the same manner as with Options 1a, 1b and 2.

This option may have a slight impact on mobility by removing potential disincentives for parents to move to a different Member State because of the risks that a change in primary competence may have a negative impact on the level of their salary-related child-raising allowances. As noted above there are a range of variables that may influence a family's decision about whether or not to relocate and this prediction needs to be viewed accordingly.

This option shifts the burden in cases child-raising allowances to the Member State of work as benefits will be required to be paid in full and for the maximum duration permitted under national legislation (except in cases where there is simultaneous entitlement in another Member State meaning increases to duration may be limited). However, such a change in burden may be considered consistent with the economic logic that assigns the obligation to pay the family benefits to the Member State receiving the contributions and taxes.

Removal of derived rights is likely to reduce the risk of fraud and abuse as Member States will be able to assess and verify entitlement to salary-related child raising allowances according to their national legislation and normal procedures. However, there will be a need to establish clear policies and procedures to ensure exchanges of information to assess the other parent's entitlement to a benefit in order to apply anti-accumulation principles to the duration of a benefit.

As this option was developed after commissioning the analysis of regulatory costs at the time of drafting this report it has not possible to draw direct comparisons with the baseline scenario in the same manner as with Options 1a, 1b and 2.

However, it may be anticipated that there will be some increase in administrative tasks for Member States who seek to verify whether or not a benefit available in another Member State should be c