Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Eleni De Becker Abstract: European Journal of Social Security, Ahead of Print. In this reporting period (October 2021 – February 2022), four cases before the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: ECtHR) will be presented. The first case is Šaltinytė v. Lithuania (application no. 32934/19), dealing with a housing subsidy only available to young families of low income. The Court had to review this benefit scheme in light of the prohibition of discrimination in Article 14 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the right to property in Article 1 Protocol no. 1 to the ECHR (hereinafter: P1 ECHR). The second section discusses a case concerning retrospective changes in the Italian survivors’ pension scheme having an impact on ongoing procedures against the Italian Government. The Court had to review whether this change in the legislation was compatible with the right to a fair trial in Article 6 ECHR (D’Amico v. Italy, application no. 46586/14). Hamzagić v. Croatia is the third case that will be discussed (application no. 68437/13). It concerns the refusal to grant a disability pension, where the applicant argued that no adequate legal framework was in place to review the opinions of experts concerning the applicant’s invalidity for a disability pension. Finally, this overview ends with a discussion of Botoyan v. Armenia (application no. 5766/17), where the ECtHR had to review the relevant legal framework in place in case of medical malpractice, taking into account the right to private life in Article 8 ECHR. Citation: European Journal of Social Security PubDate: 2022-05-20T08:16:14Z DOI: 10.1177/13882627221096170
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Ambreen Yousuf Abstract: European Journal of Social Security, Ahead of Print.
Citation: European Journal of Social Security PubDate: 2022-05-09T11:11:43Z DOI: 10.1177/13882627221092464
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Pauline Melin, Susanne Sivonennn Abstract: European Journal of Social Security, Ahead of Print. In Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld (C-205/20), the Court of Justice was asked to clarify whether a provision under Directive 2014/67 on the proportionality of penalties in the context of posting of workers has direct effect. In CJ v TGSS (C-389/20), the Spanish social security legislation excluding domestic workers from unemployment benefits was under scrutiny in light of the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of sex enshrined in Directive 79/7. In HR Rail (C-485/20), the Court of Justice interpreted the obligation for employers to provide for ‘reasonable accommodation’ for workers with disabilities, including trainees, under Article 5 of Directive 2000/78. In Koch Personaldienstleistungen GmbH (C-514/20), the Court determined whether for the purposes of calculating working time and overtime pay, account should be taken only of the hours actually worked or also of the hours from annual paid leave. Continuing on the importance of the right to annual leave, the Court ruled, in Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-217/20), on the remuneration of annual leave in situations of permanent incapacity of a worker due to illness. In VB (C-262/20), the Court considered the compatibility of Bulgarian law on the duration of night work for civil servants such as firefighters with Directive 2003/88 and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Finally, in MIUR et Ufficio Scolastico Regionale per la Campania (C-282/19), the Court assessed whether the systematic use of successive fixed-term contracts for Catholic education teachers in Italy could be justified by ‘objective reasons’ within the meaning of Clause 5(1) of the framework agreement. Citation: European Journal of Social Security PubDate: 2022-04-26T06:57:56Z DOI: 10.1177/13882627221094059
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Claudia Baumann Abstract: European Journal of Social Security, Ahead of Print.
Citation: European Journal of Social Security PubDate: 2022-04-11T02:07:25Z DOI: 10.1177/13882627221092463
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Primož Rataj Abstract: European Journal of Social Security, Ahead of Print.
Citation: European Journal of Social Security PubDate: 2022-04-04T08:24:40Z DOI: 10.1177/13882627221092046
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Radosław Mędrzycki Abstract: European Journal of Social Security, Ahead of Print.
Citation: European Journal of Social Security PubDate: 2022-04-04T08:24:11Z DOI: 10.1177/13882627221091587
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Jaan Paju First page: 21 Abstract: European Journal of Social Security, Ahead of Print. From a standpoint of fundamental rights, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) can be considered as having taken a restrictive approach to social security ever since it ruled in case C-333/13, Dano. The ECJ ruled that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union does not apply because Regulation 883/2004 only coordinates member states’ social security systems. This has since been raised by national courts in seven further preliminary rulings: case C-647/13, Melchior; case C-408/14, Wojciechowski; case C-284/15, M; case C-89/16, Szoja; case C-447/18, UB; case C-243/19, A; and case C-243/19, CG. In the light of these rulings, this article provides an analysis of social security from a rights perspective. This includes considering and analysing the inherent limitations of the Charter in view of the principle of conferral. The author asks: the Charter and social security rights – time to stand and deliver' If so: deliver what' If not: why not' Citation: European Journal of Social Security PubDate: 2022-02-28T12:21:11Z DOI: 10.1177/13882627221075643
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Luke Martinelli, Yannick Vanderborght First page: 40 Abstract: European Journal of Social Security, Ahead of Print. Is a social investment strategy compatible with the provision of an unconditional basic income' Prima facie, these two scenarios look like incongruent policy alternatives. While social investment – an influential policy paradigm at the level of the European Union – aims at promoting public services and maximum labour market participation, basic income is paid in cash and has sometimes been presented as the key component of a post-work future. In this article, we explore this apparent incongruence and show that these two visions for welfare reform are not necessarily incompatible. We argue that they may share a number of substantial points of agreement, and indeed may reinforce one another according to a logic of institutional complementarity. In particular, we claim that a partial basic income (i.e., a modest unconditional income guarantee, whose amount would be insufficient if one lives alone) could enhance or complement the key functions of a social-democratic version of the social investment strategy. By doing so, we conclude that the integration of a basic income into a social investment package could contribute to overcoming criticisms of the social investment agenda. At the same time, it could rescue basic income from the numerous critics who see it as an unrealistic policy proposal. Citation: European Journal of Social Security PubDate: 2022-03-04T12:25:47Z DOI: 10.1177/13882627221085019
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Pauline Melin, Susanne Sivonen First page: 58 Abstract: European Journal of Social Security, Ahead of Print. The concept of ‘working time’ for a period of stand-by time according to a stand-by system applicable to firefighters was interpreted by the Court in MG (C-214/20). In the Y case (C-636/19), the Court interpreted the concept of ‘insured person’ for the purpose of reimbursement of healthcare costs under Directive 2011/24. In the TS case (C-538/19), the Court dealt with another cross-border healthcare case. This time the question was whether a Member State can require an authorisation for cross-border healthcare to be subject to the submission of a medical report drawn up by a doctor from its national public health insurance system in light of Article 20 of Regulation 883/2004 and Article 56 TFEU. In ASGI and APN (C-462/20), the exclusion of third-country nationals from the eligibility to the Italian family card was under scrutiny. In SC (C-866/19), the Court clarified that the principle of aggregation applies to the calculation of the theoretical amount of benefit but not to the calculation of the actual amount of benefit under Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation 883/2004. In K (C-285/20), the Court held that being on sick leave and receiving sickness benefits can be considered as equivalent to the pursuit of an economic activity for the purpose of applying the rules on unemployment benefits for wholly unemployed frontier workers under Article 65(2) and (5) of Regulation 883/2004. Citation: European Journal of Social Security PubDate: 2022-02-19T10:43:28Z DOI: 10.1177/13882627221076869
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Ane Aranguiz First page: 68 Abstract: European Journal of Social Security, Ahead of Print.
Citation: European Journal of Social Security PubDate: 2022-03-09T04:21:01Z DOI: 10.1177/13882627211069671
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Kristina Koldinská First page: 69 Abstract: European Journal of Social Security, Ahead of Print.
Citation: European Journal of Social Security PubDate: 2022-02-16T06:53:08Z DOI: 10.1177/13882627221077122
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Martin Seeleib-Kaiser First page: 3 Abstract: European Journal of Social Security, Ahead of Print. Tensions surrounding internal migrants’ access to welfare and the associated politicisations about who should shoulder the ‘fiscal burden’ are not unique to the European Union (EU). Based on a Most Different Systems Design and following an institutionalist approach, this article analyses the developments associated with freedom of movement and access to poor relief/social assistance in four economically and politically diverse jurisdictions. It also considers the implications of these developments for the EU. The four cases analysed are industrialising England, contemporary China, Germany, and the United States. Although economic integration was a necessary, it was not a sufficient condition for the abolishment of residence requirements for internal migrants in all four jurisdictions. Moreover, it took political power, various coalitions, or the leadership of actors to overcome the barriers and hurdles on the path to social citizenship in the wider territorial jurisdictions. Solidarity as a precondition did not play a significant role. Citation: European Journal of Social Security PubDate: 2021-12-21T10:18:54Z DOI: 10.1177/13882627211064637
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Jörgen Lundälv First page: 71 Abstract: European Journal of Social Security, Ahead of Print.
Citation: European Journal of Social Security PubDate: 2021-11-29T03:31:49Z DOI: 10.1177/13882627211061419
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Effrosyni Bakirtzi First page: 73 Abstract: European Journal of Social Security, Ahead of Print.
Citation: European Journal of Social Security PubDate: 2021-08-30T01:10:37Z DOI: 10.1177/13882627211037698
Subscription journal
