Report from the Commission to the Council - 1985-2005 Report on the financial situation of the Community unemployment benefit scheme for former temporary or contract agents who are unemployed after the termination of their service in a European Community institution (see Articles 28a and 96 of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the European Communities - CEOS)
Date: 2007-01-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU institution, contract staff, financial management, report, servant (EU), social-security benefit, termination of employment, unemployment insurance

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES  

Brussels, 16.1.2007 
COM(2007) 4 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL 

1985-2005 Report on the financial situation of the Community unemployment benefit 
scheme for former temporary or contract agents who are unemployed after the 
termination of their service in a European Community institution (see Articles 28a and 
96 of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the European Communities - 
CEOS) 

{SEC(2007) 13} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL 

1985-2005 Report on the financial situation the Community unemployment benefit 
scheme for former temporary or contract agents who are unemployed after the 
termination of their service in a European Community institution (see Articles 28a and 
96 of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the European Communities - 
CEOS) 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... 4 

PRELIMINARY REMARKS .................................................................................................... 4 

I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................................ 5 

A. Legal references .................................................................................................................... 5 

B. Summary of the remuneration schemes introduced by the various Regulations................... 6 

II. FINANCIAL SITUATION OF THE SCHEME – 1985-2005.............................................. 6 

A. Preliminary remarks .............................................................................................................. 6 

B. Overview of each five-year period, 1985-2005..................................................................... 7 

C. Annual charts showing expenditure and receipts for 2000-2005 .......................................... 9 

1. 2000-2002 Period ................................................................................................................... 9 

2. 2003-2005 Period ................................................................................................................... 9 

D. Table showing expenditure and receipts in relative terms (percentage in relation to annual 

totals) for the 2000-2005 period................................................................................. 10 

E. Change in average cost of individual cases – 2000-2005.................................................... 10 

F. Comments ............................................................................................................................ 11 

III. INFORMATION ABOUT CONTRIBUTORS AND BENEFICIARIES – 2000-2005.... 12 

A. Table showing the annual number of temporary and contract agents in service on 

31 December for the period 2000-2005, broken down by grade ............................... 12 

B. Table showing the number of unemployed agents (who were paid unemployment benefit 
for the month of December in the year in question) for 2000-2005, broken down by 
grade........................................................................................................................... 13 

C. Totals from tables A and B, with their relation to the respective total population expressed 

as a percentage ........................................................................................................... 14 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
D. Table showing number of dossiers handled (at least one payment calculated during the year 
in question) broken down by institution..................................................................... 15 

E. Number of unemployed who received benefit payments for at least one month during the 

year in question, broken down by country of residence for the 2000-2005 period ... 16 

F. Analysis of the length of contracts for CA and TA receiving unemployment benefits, 

broken down by institution......................................................................................... 17 

G. Analysis of the length of time during which unemployment benefits are paid, broken down 
by institution............................................................................................................... 18 

H. Comments............................................................................................................................ 18 

IV. THE SITUATION SINCE THE REFORM ENTERED INTO FORCE (2004 and 2005) 20 

A. Explanation.......................................................................................................................... 20 

B. Analysis of average cost per payment ................................................................................. 20 

C. Analysis of contributions paid to the unemployment fund.................................................. 20 

D. Analysis of the duration of contracts – broken down by institution ................................... 21 

E. Analysis of the duration of the payment period – broken down by institution ................... 22 

F. Comments ............................................................................................................................ 23 

V. FINAL COMMENTS AND CONCLUDING REMARKS ................................................ 24

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
SUMMARY 

This report corresponds to the request from the Council as formulated in Articles 28a(11) and 
96(11)  of  the  CEOS,  and  presents  the  financial  situation  of  the  Community  institutions 
unemployment fund since its creation in 1985. This is the first presentation of the figures. 

The  scheme  has  always  worked  well  in  the  past,  and  there  have  been  no  real  threats  to  its 
equilibrium. With the exception of a few years, the scheme has posted a surplus. The current 
reserves are amply sufficient to soak up a few deficit years. 

There is, however, now a case for launching a specific study of developments in the numbers 
of  temporary  and  contract  agents,  and  their  impact  on  future  unemployment  figures.  This 
would  enable  the  fund  to  be  balanced  in  the  medium  and  longer  term,  and  any  necessary 
adjustments to be made regarding receipts (i.e. contribution levels) and expenditure (benefit 
rights). 

Initial figures for the modified scheme (introduced as part of the May 2004 Reform) indicate 
that the picture is unchanged, and may even be more solid, although it must be remembered 
that the modified scheme will only hit its stride in a few years’ time, in 2007-2008. 

The number of people eligible for Community unemployment benefit has doubled since the 
Reform entered into force, as everyone in the contract agent category (which almost entirely 
replaced  the  auxiliary  agent  category)  is  eligible,  whereas  auxiliary  agents  were  not.  The 
potential  number  of  eligible  unemployed  people  has  therefore  increased  considerably,  and 
there  is  now  a  clear  case  for  stepping  up  electronic  exchanges  of  information  between  the 
Commission  and  national  administrations.  This  should  certainly  be  the  case  for  countries 
where significant numbers of former agents are registered as jobseekers. 

PRELIMINARY REMARKS 

- This report is intended to supply information that is as correct and relevant as possible for 
the period 1985-2005. It is not intended to make any forecasts about the future equilibrium of 
the scheme, nor does it claim to do so. That matter will be addressed in a separate document. 

- Between 1985 and 1998, the fund was managed in Belgian francs. To facilitate comparisons 
and ensure standardisation, amounts for the period in question have been converted into euros 
at the fixed rate of EUR 1.00 = BEF 40.3399. 

-  The  report  looks  mainly  at  the  financial  situation  of  the  unemployment  fund  for  former 
temporary and contract staff. Each specific year is considered in terms of all expenditure and 
receipts  for  that  year,  even  if  the  accounting  process  was  carried  out  during  a  previous  or 
subsequent  year.  This  enables  the  balance  of  the  Community  unemployment  scheme  to  be 
assessed. 

- An overview of the accounting situation – reflecting bookings for the funds as historically 
recorded  –  is  included  in  Annex  III  (current  account  open  in  Commission  books)  and  IV 
(investment of surpluses). 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
-  Between  1994  and  1999,  the  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the 
Regions  entrusted  a  number  of  administrative  and  other  tasks  to  a  Common  Organisational 
Structure.  Staff  employed  under  that  structure  contributed  to  and  benefited  from  the 
complementary Community unemployment benefit scheme. Receipts and expenditure related 
to  former  staff  of  the  structure  have  been  divided  equally  between  the  Committee  of  the 
Regions and the Economic and Social Committee. 

- The Reform, which entered into force on 1 May 2004, had a significant influence on fund 
receipts  and  expenditure.  Chapter  IV  analyses  the  2004-2005  period,  making  a  distinction 
between dossiers where the previous regulations were applied and those where the new ones 
are used. A calculation is included for average cost per type. 

- The Reform's introduction of contract agents added a new category of staff who contribute 
to  and  benefit  from  the  unemployment  benefit  scheme,  and  who  therefore  influence  its 
equilibrium. 

-  Another  consequence  of  the  Reform  has  been  that  large  numbers  of  temporary  staff  in 
permanent  positions  (temporary  agents  who  had  contracts  of  indefinite  duration),  mainly  in 
the field of Research, were given permanent contracts. This resulted in a considerable loss of 
revenue for the fund (see the Commission figures for 2003-2004-2005). 

-  A  vade-mecum  has  been  drawn  up  for  future  recipients  of  complementary  Community 
unemployment  benefits,  clearly  indicating  their  rights  and  obligations.  It  also  contains 
practical instructions and general information to enable the smooth and efficient handling of 
dossiers, which is in the mutual interest of both beneficiaries and the Institutions. 

I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 

A. Legal references 

-  Article  28a  of  the  Conditions  of  Employment  of  Other  Servants  of  the  European 
Communities  (CEOS)  introduced  by  Article  33  of  Council  Regulation  No 2799/85  of  27 
September 1985 (OJ L 265, 8/10/1985); amended by Council Regulation No 723/2004 of 22 
March 2004 (OJ L 124, 27/4/2004). 

-  Commission  Regulation  No  91/88  of  13  January  1988  laying  down  provisions  for 
implementing  article  28a  (2)  of  the  Conditions  of  Employment  of  Other  Servants  of  the 
European Communities (OJ L 11, 15/1/1989). 

- Commission Rules of 14 July 1988, common accord having been recorded by the President 
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 July 1989, laying down the detailed 
arrangements for applying the provisions relating to the grant of the unemployment allowance 
to  members  of  the  temporary  staff,  implementing  Article  28a(10)  of  the  Conditions  of 
Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities. 

-  Council  Regulation  No  2458/98  of  12  November  1998  (OJ  L  307,  17/11/1998)  on  the 
introduction of the euro. 

-  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  other  institutions  concerning  the  conversion 
into  euro  of  the  amounts  provided  for  in  the  Staff  Regulations  No 1999/C  60/09  (OJ  C  60, 
3/02/1999). 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
-  Article  96  of  the  Conditions  of  Employment  of  Other  Servants  of  the  European 
Communities introduced by Council Regulation No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 (OJ L 124, 
27/4/2004). 

- Article 5 of the Annex to the CEOS introduced by Council Regulation No 723/2004 of 22 
March 2004 (OJ L 124, 27/4/2004). 

-  Remuneration  eligible  for  annual  adjustment  (cf.  annually  adjusted  remuneration)  last 
amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2104/2005 of 20 December 2005 (OJ L 
337, 22/12/2005).  

B. Summary of the remuneration schemes introduced by the various Regulations 

NB 

(1) 

(2) 

A  more  detailed  description  of  the  remuneration  schemes  can  be  found  in  Annex  1 
below. 

Contracts which began before 1 May 2004 and finished after that date are covered by 
transitional arrangements.  

The original scheme, which ran from 1985 to April 2004, covered temporary agents against 
the risk of unemployment at the end of their duties. The Community unemployment benefit 
complemented any national benefits that former agents could claim. Temporary staff who had 
worked a minimum of six months could claim benefits for up to two years. Complementary 
Community unemployment benefits had both a lower limit and an upper limit. Neither limit 
changed over the years the scheme was operational. The scheme –  in  fact a genuine fund – 
was funded by contributions from employees and employers. 

The  modified  scheme  applicable  since  May  2004  also  provides  cover  against  the  risk  of 
unemployment at the end of duties, this time for the new category of contract agents. 

Eligibility is now limited to a third of the period spent effectively working as a temporary or 
contract agent, and may not exceed 36 months. The upper limit (which only applies from the 
seventh month of unemployment) and the lower limit have been revised, and will be adjusted 
annually from now on (like salaries). 

II. FINANCIAL SITUATION OF THE SCHEME – 1985-2005 

A. Preliminary remarks 

The  amounts  recorded  under  “unemployment  benefits”  systematically  include  the  basic 
unemployment benefit, any family allowances and, for the original scheme only, the effect of 
the  weighting.  Any  social  benefits  received  at  a  national  level  (including  unemployment 
benefits, family allowances, sickness benefits, maternity benefits, etc.) are deducted. 

JSIS contributions are covered in their entirety by the Community unemployment scheme (see 
also Annex I). Personal contributions to the JSIS are not therefore deducted from Community 
unemployment benefit. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
B. Overview of each five-year period, 1985-2005 

Remarks: 

(a) 

Financial  information  about  expenditure  (unemployment  benefits  and  JSIS 
contributions), broken down by institution, for each year, is not available for 
the 1985-1999 period. The tables therefore show total unemployment benefits 
booked for each year in question. For the JSIS contributions, the figures show 
the expenditure for each year indicated; 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

To facilitate comparisons over the whole period covered by the report, the table 
below  follows  the  same  approach  for  2000  to  2004  and  2005.  This  enables  a 
clear  overview  of  the  balance  of  the  scheme  over  the  first  21  years  of  its 
existence; 

The  data  below  is  broken  down  into  five-year  periods  (other  than  for  2005, 
which is presented separately). Annex II contains an annual breakdown of each 
year inside these five-year periods; 

The lower section of the table demonstrates changes in the financial assets of 
the fund (on current account in the European Commission's accounting and in 
the  investment  accounts  managed  by  DG  ECFIN).  The  figures  shown  reflect 
the accounting position on 31 December for the period in question. The annual 
result is reflected in a increase or decrease in the size of the assets. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
1) Table 

2) Chart 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
C. Annual charts showing expenditure and receipts for 2000-2005 

Information shown indicates unemployment benefit paid for each year in question. 

Differences between the charts in point II.B. (and Annex II) and point II.C. are due to the fact 
that  there  is  no  direct  IT  connection  between  the  programme  that  calculates  Community 
unemployment  benefits  (created  using  Access)  and  the  actual  payments.  Some  calculations 
are therefore also made not using the programme. 

Information  under  this  point  shows  the  best  available  estimates,  breaking  down  expenditure 
by institution. 

The  information  in  this  point  would  seem  however  to  be  a  more  reliable  gauge  of  the  true 
equilibrium of the scheme. 

1. 2000-2002 Period 

2. 2003-2005 Period 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
D.  Table  showing  expenditure  and  receipts  in  relative  terms  (percentage  in  relation  to 

annual totals) for the 2000-2005 period 

On the basis of data from C: 

E. Change in average cost of individual cases – 2000-2005 

Average  cost  is  calculated  as  follows:  total  expenditure  (unemployment  benefits  +  JSIS 
contributions) is divided by the total number of payments. 

A payment can be defined as a right to Community unemployment benefit linked to a certain 
calendar  month.  This  right  might  be  paid  in  full  (30/30ths)  or  partially  (a  fraction  thereof), 
depending on the supporting documents supplied each month. 

The average monthly cost of unemployment benefits in any given year can then be calculated. 

The  table  shows  the  total  number  of  payments  made  –  divided  up  by  institution  –  for  each 
year indicated. 

A more detailed analysis of the average monthly cost of unemployment benefits for 2004 and 
2005 can be found in Chapter IV of this document. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
F. Comments 

–  When  all  the  receipts  and  expenditure  related  to  the  scheme  is  taken  into  account,  it 
appears that the scheme has been in deficit four times (in 1991, 2000, 2001 and 2004) over 
the course of its existence. If receipts from interest on invested surpluses are not included, 
the scheme can also be considered to have been in deficit in 1990 and 2002. 

–  There was a marked surplus for 2005 of more than 11% compared to receipts (excluding 

interest). 

–  The current assets of EUR 9.2 million are sufficient to fund: 

–  more than a year and a half of expenditure (reference year 2005: EUR 5.9 million) 

–  six  times  the  largest  recorded  annual  operating  deficit,  excluding  receipts  from 

interest (EUR 1.46 million, in 2001). 

–  Table C clearly demonstrates a systematic disparity between receipts and expenditure for 
the  Economic  and  Social  Committee.  The  total  cost  of  unemployment  benefits  paid  to 
former agents of this institution is several times larger than their respective contributions. 
The  reverse  is  true  for  expenditure  on  former  agents  from  Agencies  and  Offices.  These 
observations  are  confirmed  by  figures  on  the  numbers  of  contributors  and  beneficiaries 
(see III.C) 

–  Average cost tended to fall between 2000 and 2003. This phenomenon can be explained by 
the fact that the Community maximum and minimum unemployment benefit payments are 
unchanged since 1985, while national social benefit payments, which are indexed and have 
risen in line with the cost of living, are deducted from Community payments. Community 
family benefits have been indexed, but this only compensates partly for the fall.  

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
III. INFORMATION ABOUT CONTRIBUTORS AND BENEFICIARIES – 2000-2005 

A.  Table  showing  the  annual  number  of  temporary  and  contract  agents  in  service  on 

31 December for the period 2000-2005, broken down by grade 

Annex VI below breaks down the agents employed by the different offices and agencies. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
B.  Table  showing  the  number  of  unemployed  agents  (who  were  paid  unemployment 
benefit  for  the  month  of  December  in  the  year  in  question)  for  2000-2005, 
broken down by grade 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
C.  Totals  from  tables  A  and  B,  with  their  relation  to  the  respective  total  population 

expressed as a percentage 

1) Table 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
2) Chart 

D.  Table  showing  number  of  dossiers  handled  (at  least  one  payment  calculated  during 

the year in question) broken down by institution 

These  statistics  complement  the  statistics  presented  under  point  B  above,  and  are  a  better 
indication  of  the  management  required.  Opening  new  dossiers  –  even  if  relatively  few 
payments  are  ultimately  involved  –  represents  an  administrative  burden  that  is  far  from 
negligible. 

The  figures  also  illustrate  the  true  number  of  unemployed  actually  paid  by  each  of  the 
institutions. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
 
E. Number of unemployed who received benefit payments for at least one month during 
the  year  in  question,  broken  down  by  country  of  residence  for  the  2000-2005 
period 

1) Table 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
2) Chart 

F. Analysis of the length of contracts for CA and TA receiving unemployment benefits, 

broken down by institution 

This table breaks down benefit recipients (expressed as a percentage for each year 2000-2005) 
according to the length of the contract or contracts that made them eligible for complementary 
unemployment benefits (up to one year, up to two years, etc). 

A more detailed analysis of the situation during 2004 and 2005 can be found in Chapter IV 
below. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
 
G. Analysis of the length of time during which unemployment benefits are paid, broken 

down by institution 

This  table  shows  the  average  duration  of  payments  made  between  2000-2005.  Taking  the 
number  of  unemployment  dossiers  handled  in  the  year  in  question  (for  which  at  least  one 
payment was calculated during the year in question) as its base, the total number of days from 
the opening of a dossier until 31 December in the year in question is divided by the number of 
dossiers and then again by 30 to arrive at an average number of payments. 

A more detailed analysis of the situation during 2004 and 2005 can be found in Chapter IV 
below. 

H. Comments 

–  For many years, more than half of all temporary agents working for the Institutions were 
employed  by  the  Commission.  To  a  large  extent,  this  could  be  explained  by  the 
considerable number  (> 700) of temporary  agents who were contracted “for an indefinite 
duration” to carry out research. Since 2004, persons employed under such contracts have 
been given permanent contracts instead, and by the end of 2005 the Commission employed 
less than a third of all temporary agents. 

–  The  numbers  of  staff  employed  in  the  agencies  and  offices  are  constantly  rising.  Staff 
numbers in these bodies now represent a considerable proportion (> 1/3) of all temporary 
agents. 

–  In addition to the above, it should be noted that the number of Agencies and Offices has 

grown almost exponentially in recent years. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
 
–  Over the last 6 years, the highest number of temporary agents in service are A grade (35 to 
45%), while the highest proportion of unemployed former agents receiving benefits are C 
grade  (also  35  to  45%).  Confirming  the  evidence  of  the  previous  Chapter  (see  II.E.),  the 
proportion  of  unemployed  receiving  benefits  from  ECOSOC  is  several  times  higher  than 
the number of agents actually working there. 

–  The number of unemployed receiving benefits (former contract agents) is still too small for 

any reliable conclusions to be drawn. 

–  The  number  of  contributors  to  the  fund  employed  by  the  Agencies  and  Offices  is 
considerably  larger  than  the  number  of  unemployed  who  receive  benefits  from  these 
bodies.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  figures  on  expenditure  and  receipts  (see  II.D).  This  is 
partly because many of these Agencies and Offices were created fairly recently, and many 
contracts are therefore still ongoing. 

–  The  difference  between  the  number  of  unemployed  who  received  benefits  in  December 
(see III.B) and the number of unemployment dossiers handled during the year indicates a 
considerable  rise  in  the  numbers  of  dossiers  to  be  handled.  The  figures  are  a  good 
indication of the real administrative burden. 

–  The  figures  showing  the  place  of  residence  of  recipients  of  Community  unemployment 
benefits  confirm  that  more  than  half  of  them  register  as  jobseekers  in  Belgium.  The 
numbers – which have risen constantly (except for in 2005) – give no indication of such 
people's nationality. In other words, people who register in Belgium may originate in any 
EU Member State and are certainly not exclusively Belgian. If the numbers from the five 
countries  with  the  highest  registered  numbers  of  unemployed  are  added  together  (i.e. 
Belgium,  France,  Spain,  Luxembourg  and  Italy),  this  accounts  for  more  than  80%  of  the 
total  number  of  dossiers  that  are  handled.  This  proportion  has  remained  more  or  less 
constant for the last six years. It also emerges that former staff from Agencies and Offices 
who register as jobseekers are significantly more likely to come from countries other than 
those listed above.  

–  The following points can be made regarding the table in III.F. (duration of contracts): 

–  There is a trend towards shorter contracts in recent years: in 2000 more than 75% 
of contracts were for a period exceeding two years. That proportion fell to 45% in 
2005. It is, however, still too soon for the impact of the Reform to be discerned; 

–  ECOSOC  stands  out  here  again:  half  of  their  contracts  are  for  one  year  at  the 
most.  In  2005,  ECOSOC  accounted  for  8.1%  of  all  unemployed;  4.8%  of  all 
unemployed had had contracts of no more than one year from this institution. 

–  The following should be noted regarding table III.G. (duration of payments): 

–  In  the  past,  under  the  initial  scheme,  payments  were  received  for  approximately 
one year. The years 2000 and 2004 were exceptional: in 2000, a large number of 
dossiers  were  opened  due  to  staff  changes  in  Commissioners'  cabinets.  The 
dossiers  were  open  for  a  short  period.  It  is  unclear  why  payments  were  for 
markedly  shorter  periods  in  2004.  The  phenomenon  appears  most  clearly  with 
contracts originating in the Commission. The modified scheme has yet to make a 
significant impact. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
–  The shortened payment period for 2005 may perhaps be explained by a rise in the 
number of the unemployed who were covered by the modified scheme, and were 
therefore eligible for a shorter time (1/3 of the time spent working). 

IV.  THE  SITUATION  SINCE  THE  REFORM  ENTERED  INTO  FORCE  (2004  AND 

2005) 

A. Explanation 

The  Reform  changed  the  eligibility  for  complementary  Community  unemployment  benefit. 
Details of these changes can be found in Annex I below. 

The two schemes are to run side-by-side over a transitional period, the duration of which is 
hard  to  predict.  Agents  who  are  eligible  for  complementary  Community  unemployment 
benefits  on  account  of  a  temporary  agent  contract  signed  before  1 May 2004  may  choose 
between  the  two  schemes.  Provided  such  people  have  continued  to  acquire  rights  since  30 
April  2004  without  interruption,  they  may  opt  for  either  scheme  when  they  qualify  for 
unemployment benefit. Their choice is however irrevocable. 

B. Analysis of average cost per payment 

This table analyses average cost per monthly payment for temporary agents (TA) and contract 
agents (CA), broken down by scheme applicable to each dossier. 

C. Analysis of contributions paid to the unemployment fund 

The data in the table below is taken from the new application pay (NAP) payroll system. The 
figures include all institutions, agencies and offices. 

For  each  month  shown,  the  figure  given  is  the  number  of  dossiers  for  which  a  salary  was 
calculated  even  if  the  calculation  was  made  during  a  subsequent  month.  Personal 
contributions and contributions from employers have been added together for each dossier. 

This means that an average contribution per agent can be calculated, which can be compared 
among the different months. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
D. Analysis of the duration of contracts – broken down by institution 

This  table  breaks  down  benefit  recipients  for  whom  at  least  one  benefit  was  calculated 
(expressed  as  a  percentage  for  2004  and  2005)  according  to  the  length  of  the  contract  or 
contracts that made them eligible for complementary Community unemployment benefits (up 
to one year, up to two years, etc). 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
E. Analysis of the duration of the payment period – broken down by institution 

This table shows the average length of time for which unemployment payments were received 
during 2004 and 2005. Using the number of unemployed who were handled during the year in 
question  as  a  base  (i.e.  for  whom  at  least  one  payment  was  calculated  during  the  year  in 
question), it shows the total number of days for which payments were made, from the opening 
of the dossier until 31 December for the year in question. This total is divided by the number 
of dossiers handled, and again by 30 to give an average number of monthly payments. 

The figures are also broken down by contract type and scheme. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
F. Comments 

–  It  is  clear  that  the  monthly  cost  –  for  former  temporary  agents  –  of  complementary 
Community  unemployment  benefits  is  markedly  higher  under  the  modified  scheme. 
However, the monthly cost for 2004 (under the modified scheme) is somewhat distorted by 
the  fact  that  many  of  the  recipients  were  still  inside  the  initial  six-month  benefit  period 
during  which  the  ceiling  is  not  applied  to  the  basic  unemployment  benefit.  By  2005,  the 
cost had already fallen, although the scheme had still not reached cruising speed. Average 
cost should therefore continue to fall.  

–  2005 was the first year in which the average cost of unemployment benefit paid to a former 
contract agent could be calculated. Despite the fact that the figures are artificially inflated 
(see the preceding paragraph), the cost is still 60% lower than for former temporary agents. 

–  The following can be noted about contributions to the scheme: 

–  The new method for calculating contributions has brought an increase of around 

80% (51.13 in April 2004; 91.00 in May 2004); 

–  In 2005, it took 27.50 working temporary agents (contributing €88.11 per month) 
to  fund  one  unemployed  former  temporary  agent  (costing  €2420.74  per  month). 
Under  the  initial  scheme,  it  took  29.15  working  agents  to  fund  one  unemployed 
person (i.e. with a contribution of €51.13 per month, compared to an average cost 
of  €1490.53  per  month).  The  proportion  has  therefore  changed  little  under  the 
modified scheme, and if anything, is now slightly lower; 

–  In  2005,  it  took  28.60  working  contract  agents  (making  contributions  of  €35.85 
per  month)  to  fund  one  former  contract  agent  who  was  unemployed  (costing 
€1026.15 per month); 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
–  It can therefore be concluded that the funding for each category of agent is more 

or less in equilibrium. 

–  Regarding 

the  duration  of  contracts 

in  eligibility  for  Community 
unemployment benefit, the only discernible differences between those drawn up under the 
initial scheme and those governed by the modified scheme appear in 2005. Contracts seem 
to  have  been  for  longer  periods  of  time  for  the  latter.  It  should  however  be  remembered 
that this is a transitory scheme: agents who worked before and after 1 May 2004 are still 
entitled to choose either scheme, and this may have an impact on these figures. 

that  resulted 

–  The following can be noted about the table in point IV.E. (duration of payments): 

–  The  figures  confirm 

that 

in  2004,  Commission  unemployed  enjoyed  a 

considerably shorter payment period; 

–  from  2005,  by  which  time  the  number  of  unemployed  former  temporary  agents 
covered by the modified scheme had increased considerably, it can be concluded 
that  the  payment  period  for  such  dossiers  will  in  all  probability  be  considerably 
shorter than under the initial scheme; 

–  the  initial  indications,  although  sketchy  and  far  from  complete,  show  the  same 
tendency  for  unemployed  former  contract  agents,  although  it  should  be 
remembered that the first dossiers were only opened in 2005. 

V. FINAL COMMENTS AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 

-  Following  the  Reform,  and  therefore  after  contract  agents  were  introduced,  principally  to 
replace  auxiliary  agents,  the  number  of  workers  eligible  for  Community  unemployment 
benefits  nearly  doubled.  Auxiliary  agents  were  covered  exclusively  by  the  national  social 
security  system.  They  were  not  therefore  eligible  for  social  security  payments  from  the 
European Community. 

- As a general rule, for three-quarters of the time it has been in existence, the complementary 
Community unemployment benefit scheme has posted a surplus in its operating budget. 

-  The  current  reserves  are  sufficient  to  cope  with  approximately  six  years  of  deficit 
functioning. 

- There is a continuing disparity between receipts from the Economic and Social Committee 
and unemployment payments to former agents from that body. 

-  Occasional  events  like  a  change  of  Commission  and  therefore  of  staff  in  Commissioners' 
cabinets  and  changes  among  the  staff  of  political  groupings  in  Parliament  in  the  wake  of 
elections have a significant impact on the financial equilibrium of the fund over the years. 

- The number of Agencies and Offices, and the numbers of staff they employ, are constantly 
growing, and now account for more staff than temporary and contract agents employed by the 
Commission. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
- A large majority of Community unemployed are concentrated in a small number of Member 
States. There is a strong case for optimising electronic information exchanges for calculating 
complementary Community unemployment benefits. 

-  It  is  likely  that  the  Reform,  and  therefore  the  implementation  of  the  complementary 
Community  unemployment  benefit  scheme,  will  be  fully  operational  by  2007-2008.  Early 
data on the operational equilibrium of the scheme is available already. The data shows that: 

–  contributions from temporary agents have risen considerably; 

–  although  the  cost  of  unemployment  payments  is  now  considerably  higher  than 
under  the  initial  scheme,  there  are  reliable  indications  that  the  current 
contributions cover more or less the same proportion of expenditure as before; 

–  the schemes applicable to former temporary agents and former contract agents do 
not seem to incur a level of expenditure that differs significantly from the level of 
receipts from these two categories of agents; 

–  if  the  shortened  payment  period  continues  under  the  modified  scheme  over  the 
coming years (and  initial  indications  seem to point  clearly in  that  direction), the 
equilibrium of the scheme would seem to be ensured. 

- A question remains regarding the situation of the scheme during 2007-2008, as the contracts 
of a large number of contract agents will end during that period. 

-  A  prospective  study  is  in  order  to  assess  the  longer-term  equilibrium  of  the  modified 
scheme, and the possible need to adapt the size of contributions and/or rights. 

EN 

25 

   EN