11

result(s)

Word(s)
Publication type
Policy area
Author
Keyword
Date

Study in focus: Employment barriers in border regions

15-05-2019

The note summarises key results from a study prepared at reqest of the Employment and Social Affairs Committee. It concludes with a set of policy recommendations including the design of EU funding post-2020.

The note summarises key results from a study prepared at reqest of the Employment and Social Affairs Committee. It concludes with a set of policy recommendations including the design of EU funding post-2020.

Employment barriers in border regions: Strategies and EU funding

15-01-2019

This study draws primarily on available literature, as well as on information gathered from interviews to examine barriers to employment in border regions. The study first outlines cross-border labour mobility trends and drivers. It then looks at barriers to cross-border labour mobility before assessing measures - including legislation, key programmes and initiatives, and funding structures - adopted at EU-level to address them. The study concludes by presenting a series of recommendations on ways ...

This study draws primarily on available literature, as well as on information gathered from interviews to examine barriers to employment in border regions. The study first outlines cross-border labour mobility trends and drivers. It then looks at barriers to cross-border labour mobility before assessing measures - including legislation, key programmes and initiatives, and funding structures - adopted at EU-level to address them. The study concludes by presenting a series of recommendations on ways to facilitate cross-border labour mobility going forward. This analysis has been produced by Policy Department A at request of the EMPL Committee to feed into its work on the European Social Fund Plus.

The revision of the Posting of Workers Directive

12-10-2017

This briefing provides an update on the revision of the posting of workers directive in the European Parliament, and thus a follow up to the June 2016 study prepared for the EMPL Committee ‘Posting of Workers Directive - current situation and challenges’, the May 2016 EPRS appraisal of the Commission Impact Assessment ‘Revision of the Posting of Workers Directive’, and the March 2017 EPRS briefing ‘Posting of Workers Directive’.

This briefing provides an update on the revision of the posting of workers directive in the European Parliament, and thus a follow up to the June 2016 study prepared for the EMPL Committee ‘Posting of Workers Directive - current situation and challenges’, the May 2016 EPRS appraisal of the Commission Impact Assessment ‘Revision of the Posting of Workers Directive’, and the March 2017 EPRS briefing ‘Posting of Workers Directive’.

Occupational pensions: Revision of the Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provision Directive (IORP II)

23-01-2017

In 2014, the European Commission proposed a revision (‘IORP II’) of the existing Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provision (IORP) Directive of 2003, which covers certain occupational pension savings. These are overwhelmingly in the United Kingdom (55.9% of IORP assets) and the Netherlands (30.7%). The proposed revision aims to improve the governance, risk management, transparency and information provision of IORPs and help increase cross-border IORP activity. Stakeholders generally welcomed ...

In 2014, the European Commission proposed a revision (‘IORP II’) of the existing Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provision (IORP) Directive of 2003, which covers certain occupational pension savings. These are overwhelmingly in the United Kingdom (55.9% of IORP assets) and the Netherlands (30.7%). The proposed revision aims to improve the governance, risk management, transparency and information provision of IORPs and help increase cross-border IORP activity. Stakeholders generally welcomed the focus of the proposal and the lack of new prudential rules, but felt the revision was overly detailed and prescriptive and did not respect national competences, nor reflect the variety of IORPs and their position as social (not just financial) entities. Following trilogue discussions, the compromise text was adopted at first reading in the European Parliament’s plenary on 24 November, an then adopted by the Council on 8 December. It came into effect on 12 January 2017 and Member States have two years from then to transpose it into national law. This briefing updates an earlier edition, from September 2016: PE 589.800.

Recast occupational pensions directive (IORP II)

15-11-2016

The Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provision (IORP) Directive, from 2003, covers certain occupational pension savings. IORPs hold assets worth €2.5 trillion on behalf of around 75 million Europeans and are found mainly in the United Kingdom (55.9 % of IORP assets) and the Netherlands (30.7 %). Around a further 10 % of IORP assets are in Germany (4.5 %), Italy (2.8 %) and Ireland (2.4 %). The proposed revision (known as IORP II), to be debated during the Parliament's November plenary session ...

The Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provision (IORP) Directive, from 2003, covers certain occupational pension savings. IORPs hold assets worth €2.5 trillion on behalf of around 75 million Europeans and are found mainly in the United Kingdom (55.9 % of IORP assets) and the Netherlands (30.7 %). Around a further 10 % of IORP assets are in Germany (4.5 %), Italy (2.8 %) and Ireland (2.4 %). The proposed revision (known as IORP II), to be debated during the Parliament's November plenary session, aims to improve the governance, risk management, transparency and information provision of IORPs and help increase cross-border IORP activity.

Cost of Non-Schengen: The Impact of Border Controls within Schengen on the Single Market

16-05-2016

The study lists currently applied measures re-introducing temporary border controls within Schengen area and evaluates them in the light of different policy options and smart Single Market regulation criteria. The study highlights the added value of free movement within the Schengen area for the Single Market and quantifies the costs of re-establishing internal border controls, with particular reference to the transportation sector. Welfare of consumers is affected by “non-Schengen”, as the prices ...

The study lists currently applied measures re-introducing temporary border controls within Schengen area and evaluates them in the light of different policy options and smart Single Market regulation criteria. The study highlights the added value of free movement within the Schengen area for the Single Market and quantifies the costs of re-establishing internal border controls, with particular reference to the transportation sector. Welfare of consumers is affected by “non-Schengen”, as the prices of imports increase relative to domestic goods due to higher trade costs. A failure of Schengen would not only reduce the future benefits of the Single Market, but also undermine other aspects of EU integration. The study was prepared for Policy Department A and EAVA at the request of the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee.

External author

Tim Breemersch, Filip Vanhove (Transport & Mobility Leuven) ; Matthias Luecke (Kiel Istitute for the World Economy)

The economic impact of suspending Schengen

04-03-2016

The suspension of the Schengen Agreement and re-establishment of permanent border controls would lead to a restriction of the four freedoms of the Single Market and have a negative economic impact. Estimates show that the costs of rolling back Schengen would – depending on region, sector and alternative trade channels – be between €5 billion and €18 billion per year. Please click here for the full publication in PDF format

The suspension of the Schengen Agreement and re-establishment of permanent border controls would lead to a restriction of the four freedoms of the Single Market and have a negative economic impact. Estimates show that the costs of rolling back Schengen would – depending on region, sector and alternative trade channels – be between €5 billion and €18 billion per year. Please click here for the full publication in PDF format

Occupational pensions: Revision of the Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provision Directive (IORP II)

11-12-2015

In 2014, the European Commission proposed a revision (‘IORP II’) of the existing Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provision (IORP) Directive of 2003, which covers certain occupational pension savings. These are overwhelmingly in the United Kingdom (55.9% of IORP assets) and the Netherlands (30.7%). The proposed revision aims to improve the governance, risk management, transparency and information provision of IORPs and help increase cross-border IORP activity, strengthening the single market ...

In 2014, the European Commission proposed a revision (‘IORP II’) of the existing Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provision (IORP) Directive of 2003, which covers certain occupational pension savings. These are overwhelmingly in the United Kingdom (55.9% of IORP assets) and the Netherlands (30.7%). The proposed revision aims to improve the governance, risk management, transparency and information provision of IORPs and help increase cross-border IORP activity, strengthening the single market. The proposal did not include new prudential rules (i.e. capital requirements) for IORPs following a long and controversial debate. Stakeholders have in general welcomed the focus of the proposal and the lack of new prudential rules, but feel the revision is overly detailed and prescriptive and does not respect national competences, nor reflect the variety of IORPs and their position as social (not just financial) entities. The EESC and some national parliaments have made similar comments on the proposal. The Council has agreed on its negotiating mandate, while the ECON Committee is expected to vote on its draft report in early 2016. A more recent edition of this document is available. Find it by searching by the document title at this address: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/home.html

Coordination of social security systems: Implementation Appraisal

15-01-2015

According to the report of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) there are around 10.5 million migrant workers in the EU, one million people crossing EU borders for work every day and about 250,000 people who have worked in more than one Member State and need to export a part of their pension rights every year. The way social security is organised differs among European countries, since every Member State remains free to design its social security system independently. European rules determine ...

According to the report of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) there are around 10.5 million migrant workers in the EU, one million people crossing EU borders for work every day and about 250,000 people who have worked in more than one Member State and need to export a part of their pension rights every year. The way social security is organised differs among European countries, since every Member State remains free to design its social security system independently. European rules determine however under which country's system a person should be insured when two or more countries are involved - for instance, if that person lives or works abroad in the EU. In principle, social security coverage must be ensured by the country of employment and for economically non-active EU citizens, the country of residence. The complex system of EU rules on social security coordination has a long history of contributing to the labour mobility in Europe and requires intensive cooperation between the Member States' authorities. Numerous provisions are subject to problems in implementation, or rather their application in specific cases continues to raise controversies. The opportunity of proposing a legislative revision within a broader package on citizens' and workers' rights would provide the occasion for improvements to the rules.

Registration of Motor Vehicles Previously Registered in Another Member State: Choice of Number Plates in Union colours. Impact Assessment of a Substantive Amendment

15-11-2013

This Impact Assessment evaluates the potential benefits and costs of the introduction of a voluntary choice at a re-registration for EU businesses and citizens to have motor vehicle number plates in Union colours, rather than carrying colours determined by national law. The assessment includes a review of secondary evidence, consumer studies as well as interviews with key industry stakeholders. The findings indicate that while there are some possible tangible benefits from the proposed amendments ...

This Impact Assessment evaluates the potential benefits and costs of the introduction of a voluntary choice at a re-registration for EU businesses and citizens to have motor vehicle number plates in Union colours, rather than carrying colours determined by national law. The assessment includes a review of secondary evidence, consumer studies as well as interviews with key industry stakeholders. The findings indicate that while there are some possible tangible benefits from the proposed amendments they are highly uncertain. It is unknown what the level of consumer take-up of the vehicle plates in Union colours is likely to be or what the impact the choice of plates might have on vehicle value or citizens perceptions of the EU over time. Hence, the cost-benefit analysis concludes that any net benefit is likely to be marginal at best, considering the uncertainties involved.

External author

ICF GHK

Upcoming events

03-06-2020
EPRS online Book Talk | One of Them: From Albert Square to Parliament Square
Other event -
EPRS
11-06-2020
CONT Public Hearing: Implementation of EU funds
Hearing -
CONT
15-06-2020
EPRS online Book Talk | A Certain Idea of France: The life of Charles de Gaulle
Other event -
EPRS

Partners