This case law report examines three cases before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and two collective complaints before the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR). The ECtHR judgments concern, respectively, the allegedly discriminatory application of a cap on welfare benefits to lone parents with very young children, the exclusion of a self-employed person from income compensation during temporary incapacity for work, and the unlawful discontinuation of an old-age pension. The ECSR decisions concern, respectively, Italy's prolonged failure to establish a complementary pension scheme for members of the Armed Forces and the Military Police, the delayed implementation of salary and pension harmonisation for national firefighters, as well as the failure to remedy inequalities affecting firefighters during the transitional period.
Ensuring the effective implementation of the right to social security is an extremely important task, particularly in view of the freedom to take up employment in a globalised labour market. The cooperation of international organisations such as the Council of Europe and the European Union can assist their members in securing this protection. The aim of this article is to contrast the activities of these organisations and assess the effectiveness of the legal solutions they provide in order to prove they are international actors with equal opportunities to act. While previous research has focused on the extent of social rights protection provided by each of these organisations separately, the interplay between them in the area of social security has received minimal attention. This study highlights the existence of interdependence not only in the context of initiating specific actions but also in the exchange of good practices and in responding to current challenges. This is particularly important for those countries that are members of both organisations, although it is also relevant for others.
This editorial introduces the Special Issue of the European Journal of Social Security, A Social Security Perspective on Traineeships. As traineeships have become a structural feature of the transition between education and the labour market, the working conditions and social protection of trainees have been given regulatory attention. A good example are the proposals at the level of the EU to reinforce the existing Quality Framework for Traineeships with a new Recommendation and a Directive. Access of trainees to social protection, however, has not be given the same attention in the legal literature as their legal status, their working conditions and the quality of traineeships. The editorial presents the main objectives of the Special Issue and the different contributions it contains. Drawing on the latter, it also maps the social security coverage of trainees across seven jurisdictions (Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom). The mapping serves as a basis for discussing the access of trainees without employee status to formal, effective and adequate coverage, considering principally the Council Recommendation of 8 November 2019 on access to social protection for workers and the self-employed. Findings reveal a highly segmented regulatory model where inclusion is primarily determined by the category of the traineeship rather than the existence of remuneration. While formal coverage for healthcare and occupational risks is common, and a hesitant movement towards the extension of social security can be observed, significant gaps persist. The regulation of social protection of trainees reflects a model of transition from education to work based on exclusion and individuation, and contributes to a panorama of systemic discrimination against young workers. Insufficient justification of the model reinforces the need for binding instruments that guarantee equal treatment in social protection for all trainees.
Social security is a human right, which should mean that everyone at risk of losing their income is protected. Yet, many systems still exclude the self-employed. This article explores how the concepts of labour neutrality and labour specificity can give access to the self-employed in two contingencies (invalidity and unemployment). First, we explore labour neutrality and specificity from a theoretical perspective. Then, we compare the Dutch and Spanish systems to assess if and how these cover self-employed individuals. Lastly, we conclude with concrete proposals on how labour specificity can contain risks in a neutrally-designed system.
The focus of attention on internships in the United Kingdom has broadly been on the issue of pay, and on seeking an end to unpaid internships, given the evident risk of exploitation and exclusion of those from less privileged backgrounds. Less attention has been paid to access to social protections for interns.Unpaid internships not only undermine labour protections but also lead to exclusion from social protections. This is because the absence of earnings results in a loss of potential contributions to the social security system and of the opportunity to build up protections over time.Young people undertaking internships may face specific challenges in accessing paid internships and asserting their rights. The considerable underlying inequalities and barriers that some young people experience in their transition from education to work are unlikely to be addressed by one measure alone. However, given the link between earnings and social protection eligibility, effective enforcement of the minimum wage has an important role to play in securing improved rights for interns in the United Kingdom.
The equal treatment provision in Article 4 of the Social Security Regulation does not refer to the conditions for lawful residence in the Citizenship Directive. The CJEU has nevertheless applied lawful residence as a condition for the right to equal treatment in cases concerning economically inactive Union citizens claiming social security benefits in the host Member State. Critics contend that the requirement of lawful residence in respect of claims for social security benefits lacks a legal foundation and was motivated by political concerns about welfare tourism and the sustainability of national welfare systems. This article shows that the application of the requirement of lawful residence in this field is legally justifiable and principled. It is a matter of applying the fundamental principle of equal treatment, which is inherently linked to lawful residence. The article examines the relationship between the Regulation and the Directive, the compatibility of a national condition on lawful residence with the provisions on applicable legislation in the Regulation and the consistency of case law. It argues for a limited scope of the requirement of lawful residence in the field of social security.
The monitoring of public social expenditure in the European Union has gained renewed importance in light of fiscal constraints, demographic pressures, and the shift towards assessing the quality rather than the quantity of public spending. This article examines how Member States monitor and evaluate social expenditure, with particular focus on recent developments in linking spending levels to measurable social outcomes such as poverty reduction, social inclusion and equality. While monitoring practices remain heterogeneous, there has been a gradual evolution towards more systematic and outcome-oriented approaches. In some cases, spending reviews have been institutionalised, monitoring tools have become more data-driven, and new mechanisms have emerged to integrate evaluation processes into budgetary cycles. Despite remaining gaps and uneven progress, these developments mark a positive shift toward greater monitoring in social expenditure governance. Strengthened monitoring frameworks contribute not only to better fiscal management, but also to the effectiveness and legitimacy of social protection systems. As the new EU economic governance framework emphasises the quality of public spending, consolidating these evolutions is crucial. A more consistent evaluation of social spending can help balance fiscal discipline with social investment and social protection objectives, reinforce the protection of social rights and ensure that social policies deliver tangible and equitable outcomes for all.
In Spain, the so-called 'non-employment traineeships' are regulated by dispersed and varied legislation, depending on the specific area of the placement. Compounding this difficulty in determining the applicable regulations, some of the rules governing traineeships without a contract of employment in Spain have, over the last 15 years, been declared null or unconstitutional by various court judgments. Therefore, to define the regulatory framework for non-work placements, it is first necessary to define what we understand by this term and then to specify the type of placement. Once this initial conceptual and regulatory framework has been established, we can conduct a thorough analysis and also determine whether it complies with the relevant international and European frameworks.
Globalisation, ageing and structural changes challenge social security systems in high-income countries. We explore welfare accounts as a social policy innovation, addressing a gap in the literature by summarising how welfare accounts function across countries. We contribute to the theoretical discussion on social security reforms by asking: could welfare accounts help address the growing fiscal strain and the carrying-capacity challenges posed by ageing populations? The comparative literature and structured expert interviews suggest that welfare accounts offer a socially just solution, as they do not impact those receiving social assistance or last-resort benefits. The strength of welfare accounts lies in flexibility: while comprehensive adoption of welfare accounts is not necessarily sensible, selective implementation could potentially help to address the challenges of ageing welfare states.
A key theme of contemporary social security debate is the 'complexity' of means-tested benefits and the concomitant need for 'simplification' as a solution. One strategy for simplification has been to propose greater integration of such benefits, including their merger into 'universal' (comprehensive) minimum income schemes. This paper examines the case of France, where governments recently sought to integrate means-tested benefits by creating a Universal Activity Income (RUA). By 2022, after several years of policy work, the original reform proposal appeared to have been abandoned, although governmental initiatives seeking benefit integration via alternative means continue. We therefore consider two questions: what was the proposed RUA, and why was it not implemented? To facilitate our responses, we contrast the French example with the UK's Universal Credit (UC) as a secondary case. Approved in 2012, UC was one model for the RUA and also provided lessons for policymakers in France. We find that the RUA resembled UC in many respects, although there was some ambiguity among French policymakers about the desired nature of integration. We do not seek to assess UC as a policy reform. But we argue that for the RUA, unlike for UC, the necessary conditions of policy and political viability, as well as opportune circumstances, were not fulfilled to allow it to reach implementation. Paradoxically, while UC was in part an inspiration for the RUA, problems observed in the implementation of UC also undermined the policy case for the RUA. The case study provides: new insights into contemporary social security policy in France and the UK; a framework for comparative analysis of benefit integration proposals; and an understanding of causal conditions shaping the likelihood of policymakers (not) effecting radical benefit integration.
Social security law has traditionally been designed to regulate a specific exchange: work performed in return for remuneration. Since the primary purpose of traineeships is not remuneration, applying social security law to trainees is often difficult or ineffective. This contribution explores the challenge of ensuring adequate social security protection for trainees in the absence of (sufficient) remuneration, with a particular focus on the Belgian context. We begin by examining a recent decision of the European Committee of Social Rights concerning the right to fair remuneration for trainees in Belgium. Based on this decision, we conclude that unpaid or poorly paid traineeships are not prohibited under the European Social Charter, provided they include a genuine educational component. Given that unpaid or underpaid traineeships are not outlawed, we then assess how the lack of (sufficient) remuneration affects trainees' access to social security. In Belgium, the social security scheme for salaried workers applies only to those who work for pay, which excludes trainees. Furthermore, the two specific branches that have been extended to include trainees - covering occupational accidents and occupational diseases - were originally intended to protect paid employment. To adapt these branches to trainees, the minimum wage, which is denied to them under labour law, paradoxically re-emerges as a reference point for calculating the economic loss resulting from an accident or illness. A comparison of the Belgian case with the systems in France and Spain shows that the more social security coverage is detached from remuneration, the more the financial burden of that coverage shifts to the collectivity. Finally, we consider whether international and European law require Belgium to extend the social security coverage of trainees to include other branches (unemployment, pensions, etc.). In this regard, we conclude that, like national legislation, international and European legal frameworks remain primarily focused on paid employment.
This article critically examines the legal frameworks governing the social protection of traineeships in the European Union, with a focus on their ambiguous status between training and employment. While traineeships have become a widespread and a growing feature of labour market entry for young people, they often fall outside the scope of labour law and social security protections, particularly when not undertaken under a formal employment contract. Drawing on EU legal instruments and national case studies from Germany, France, Finland and Spain, the article explores the extent to which traineeships are treated as non-productive yet socially useful activities deserving of protection. It argues that, despite their educational framing, many traineeships involve economically valuable work and should be reclassified accordingly. The analysis reveals that most of the analysed regulatory approaches reinforce a productivist logic, granting protection primarily when traineeships resemble standard employment. This also reinforces the use of traineeships as precarious forms of work, impacting upon the ability of young persons to access decent work.
This case law report (August-December 2025) discusses six judgments of the Court of Justice. The two first judgments concern issues relating to reimbursement for cross-border healthcare. In C-489/23 AF v Guvernul Rom & acirc;niei and Others, the Court clarified whether a Member State can make the reimbursement of the costs of cross-border healthcare conditional upon possessing a medical assessment from a professional of the public healthcare system of that State. C-115/24 UJ v & Ouml;sterreichische Zahn & auml;rztekammer deals with the topical issue of cross-border telemedicine. The case law report then turns to the Joined Cases C-296/24 to C-307/24 Jouxy, dealing with the never-ending family benefits saga in Luxembourg and the question of how to account for different forms of families. Continuing with the topic of families, the report discusses C-397/23 FL v Jobcenter Arbeitplus Bielefeld, where the Court seems to have created a new type of residence under Article 24 of Directive 2004/38 for parents of EU children, with associated consequences for claims on social assistance. The case law report ends with two more technical social security judgments, both concerning the questions of whether and where a person pursues a 'substantial part' of their working activities in order to determine the applicable legislation. While C-743/23 GKV-Spitzenverband relates to the question of whether activities carried out in third countries can be excluded from that assessment, C-203/24 Hakamp concerns the discretion awarded by the Member States to take into account different criteria.
The Polish legal regulation of traineeships, similarly to that of most other EU countries, is not uniform. It covers many types of traineeships, resulting in differentiation of the legal status of persons undertaking them. Trainees may have the status of an employee - with full coverage by labour law. Alternatively, however, they may not be treated as employees, provided that they are guaranteed certain basic employee rights (e.g. the right to healthy and safe working conditions). For this latter group, the issue of the admissibility of unpaid traineeships, as well as the scope of other employee rights - especially in the area of social protection, which trainees should be covered by - remains controversial. The article examines to what extent the type of traineeship justifies the differentiation of the scope of social protection to which trainees are entitled. Is it justified to grant full social protection to trainees while depriving them of employee status? Does limiting social protection and other rights, such as the right to annual leave, encourage the treatment of trainees as unpaid (cheap) labour, an alternative to employing workers? In order to answer these research questions, the article analyses the Polish legal regulation of traineeships, taking into account both existing and planned EU regulations.
Sometimes democratic societies draft adult citizens to perform a task. Many states draft young adults to the military. From a Rawlsian perspective, conscription is justified only if it is needed for the protection of basic liberties. Military service is a very stressful life event that leaves conscripts disadvantaged for the remainder of their lives. Conscripts must use private resources and time, as well as mental and physical capacity, to produce a public good - national defence. I argue that conscripts are owed, as a matter of justice, earlier access to retirement to compensate for the disadvantage they experience and the free time they lose. Public pension schemes are suitable instruments of distributive justice as they distribute financially supported free time to individuals.
