Social security data for posting of workers: Reform of cross-border coordination of social security

Kärcher, Anneliese; Walser, Manfred Working Paper Social security data for posting of workers: Reform of cross-border coordination of social security Working Paper Forschungsförderung, No. 293 Provided in Cooperation with: The Hans Böckler Foundation Suggested Citation: Kärcher, Anneliese; Walser, Manfred (2023) : Social security data for posting of workers: Reform of cross-border coordination of social security, Working Paper Forschungsförderung, No. 293, Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, Düsseldorf This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/273379 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/de/legalcode This Working Paper at a Glance The cross-border exchange of social security data in the case of postings requires reforms both in European social security coordination law and at national level. Digitalised and simplified procedures employing modern technologies, improvements around the Portable Document A1 (PD A1), better identification of the parties involved and other reform proposals would not only relieve companies from red tape and strengthen the European Internal Market, but also significantly increase the social protection of workers. Dipl. Jur. Anneliese Kärcher is a research assistant at Mainz University of Applied Sciences and a doctoral candidate at Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg. She studied law at the University of Göttingen. Prof. Dr. Manfred Walser, LL.M., is Professor of Labour Law and Private Business Law at Mainz University of Applied Sciences. Previously, he held a professorship for Labour Law with references to Social Security and Business law at City University of Applied Sciences, Bremen. Other professional career steps include Sozialkassen der Bauwirtschaft, the universities of Göttingen and Hamburg and the European Economic Area Coordination Unit of the Liechtenstein government. © 2023 by Hans-Böckler-Stiftung Georg-Glock-Straße 18, 40474 Düsseldorf, Germany www.boeckler.de “Social security data for posting of workers” by Anneliese Kärcher and Manfred Walser is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (BY). Provided that the author’s name is acknowledged, this license permits the editing, reproduction and distribution of the material in any format or medium for any purpose, including commercial use. The complete license text can be found here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en/legalcode The terms of the Creative Commons License apply to original material only. The use of material from other sources, such as graphs, tables, photographs and texts, may require further permission from the rights holder. ISSN 2509-2359 KÄRCHER/WALSER: CROSS-BORDER EXCHANGE OF SOCIAL SECURITY DATA | 3 Contents 1. Coordination of European Social Security Law .................................. 4 2. EU social security data exchange – need for reform .......................... 6 2.1 Existing European projects ......................................................... 6 2.1.1 “Your Europe" – Single Digital Gateway ............................. 6 2.1.2 ESSPASS – European Social Security Pass ...................... 6 2.1.3 EESSI system .................................................................... 8 2.2 Need for reform: data quality, acceleration, de-bureaucratisation ................................................................... 8 2.2.1 Procedure for applying for/issuing a PD A1 ........................ 9 2.2.2 Identification of workers, self-employed, employers and contractors ......................................................................... 10 2.2.3. Overview of PD A1s and posting notification as well as advance application .................................................. 13 2.2.4. Verification of PD A1 ....................................................... 16 2.2.5. Procedure for the correction/withdrawal of a PD A1 ........ 17 3. Conclusion ....................................................................................... 19 References ........................................................................................... 20 KÄRCHER/WALSER: CROSS-BORDER EXCHANGE OF SOCIAL SECURITY DATA | 4 1. Coordination of European Social Security Law The European Internal Market and in particular the freedom to provide services under Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) enable companies to provide their services in other EU Member States 1 than their country of establishment. For this purpose, they may use their own staff employed in the state in which they have their registered office. This is referred to as posting of workers. In principle, the labour (cf. Article 8 para. 2 Rome I Regulation 2 ) and social security law (cf. Article 12 Regulation 883/2004 3 ) conditions of the home state apply to posted workers. To date, there is no uniform social security law within the EU, nor is there any comprehensive harmonisation in this area – and this will not change in the foreseeable future. 4 However, there is comprehensive coordination of the social security systems within the EU – and beyond – with Regulation 883/2004 and the implementing Regulation 987/2009. 5 Coordination is based on the principle of exclusivity, aggregation and export. This means that only one Member State is responsible for a person at a time and that contribution and employment periods completed in another Member State must also be taken into account when calculating benefits. In addition, cash benefits from the social security system of one or more Member States must in principle also be provided where a Union citizen resides (cf. Article 7 of Regulation 883/2004). 6 In primary EU law, these principles are laid down in Article 48 TFEU. This brief summary of coordinating social security law already shows that data knowledge across national borders is necessary for this system to work. This is particularly obvious in the case of the posting of workers, which is why it is used as an example for this study. 1 The acronym EU is used in this document for the sake of simplification. It refers to the states in which the stipulations of Regulation 883/2004 apply, i.e. the EU and the other contracting states to the European Economic Area Agreement (Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein) and partly the United Kingdom. 2 Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations of 17/6/2008, OJ 2008 L 177/6. 3 Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems of 29/4/2004, OJ 2004, L 166/1 ff. 4 Cf. for example Behrend, NZA Beilage 2020, 65. 5 Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of 16/9/2009, OJ 2009 L 284/1. 6 Behrend, NZA-Beilage 2020, 65. KÄRCHER/WALSER: CROSS-BORDER EXCHANGE OF SOCIAL SECURITY DATA | 5 In practice, the cross-border exchange of social security data for posting proves to be a complex and evolved system, which not only has the technical function of mutual information on the existence or non-existence of an insurance relationship and the existence or non-existence of benefit claims. It is also an essential factor for the functioning of the Internal Market on the one hand and the fight against undeclared work on the other. It is all the more problematic if this data exchange does not function properly. Companies complain of a high bureaucratic burden and the authorities complain of insufficient or unreliable information. In order to solve this problem, several projects exist at European level, of which the SDG (cf. chapter 2.1.1), the ESSPASS (cf. chapter 2.1.2) and the EESSI (cf. chapter 2.1.3) will be examined in particular below. The focus will be on the Portable Document A1 (in the following: PD A1) certificate, as it is of particular importance for the issue at hand. In order to be able to prove affiliation to the social security system of the home country in the case of posting, workers and self-employed persons must in principle apply for and receive a PD A1 in advance for every crossborder work-related activity, cf. Article 19 para. 2 of Regulation 987/2009. According to Article 15 para. 1 and 19 para. 2 of Regulation 987/2009, the social security authority of the home country is responsible for issuing the document. 7 In addition to confirming membership of a national social security system, the document also contains a statement on the employment status – i.e. in particular the question of whether the person is a worker or selfemployed. 8 This assessment refers exclusively to the evaluation in the country of origin. 9 In addition, it certifies whether the other conditions for their issuance are also met, such as whether the posting company usually operates in the home state and that other workers are not simply being replaced as part of “chain posting”. 7 Cf. also HdbArbR-Appel/Callsen, § 87 para. 87. 8 Cf. Recommendation No A1 of 18/10/2017 on the issuing of the certificate referred to in Article 19(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ 2018 C 183/5. 9 Also EuArbRK-Krebber, Art. 2 RL 96/71/EG para. 3. KÄRCHER/WALSER: CROSS-BORDER EXCHANGE OF SOCIAL SECURITY DATA | 6 2. EU social security data exchange – need for reform 2.1 Existing European projects 2.1.1 “Your Europe” – Single Digital Gateway The online portal “Your Europe” 10 based on Regulation 2018/1724 11 combines digital European and national administrative procedures, among other things, and is thus referred to as the “Single Digital Gateway” (SDG). 12 There are links to the websites of the competent national social security authorities, where it is possible to apply online for a PD A1, for example, see Article 2(2)(b) of the SDG Regulation. The result is that the application remains on the national level, the European SDG website only serves as a guide. 2.1.2 ESSPASS – European Social Security Pass The European Social Security Pass (ESSPASS) is a pilot project that has been running since 2021 and is intended to improve the cross-border claiming and assertion of social security rights by means of digital proof. The ESSPASS also offers potential with regard to the PD A1 if a PD A1 issued electronically (or, if applicable, already the proof of application for a PD A1) can be transferred by the worker to the ESSPASS. The ESSPASS is to become part of a European Digital Identity (“EUiD”) 13 . To this end, the ESSPASS is to be integrated into a “digital wallet”, the “EUiDwallet” 14 , which is to be ready for use by the end of 2024. 15 The EUiD10 Available at https://europa.eu/youreurope/ (4/6/2023). 11 Regulation on the establishment of a single digital gateway to information, procedures, assistance and resolution services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 of 2/10/2018, OJ 2018, L 295/1 et seq. 12 Currently being implemented in Germany through the Online Access Act (Onlinezugangsgesetz – OZG) (BGBl. I 2017, p. 3122); cf. on the implementation status https://dashboard.ozg-umsetzung.de (4/6/2023). 13 For details on European digital identity: European Commission, https://tinyurl.com/ dh93hyjb; and https://tinyurl.com/ycxtckzn (both 4/6/2023). 14 European Commission, https://tinyurl.com/46cw27r6; and https://tinyurl.com/vza8fwxt (both 4/6/2023). 15 Project homepage: https://www.dc4eu.eu/outputs/ (4/6/2023); in addition: ESV Editorial Office Law, https://tinyurl.com/yhyz4y97 (4/6/2023). KÄRCHER/WALSER: CROSS-BORDER EXCHANGE OF SOCIAL SECURITY DATA | 7 wallet is an app that will enable EU citizens to access official documents (driving licences, educational qualifications, etc.) 16 and to identify themselves with public authorities and private service providers throughout Europe. 17 In order to enable secure identification as well as forgery protection, the pan-European blockchain infrastructure – “EBSI” for short (“European Blockchain Services Infrastructure”) – is to be used. 18 If, for example, a PD A1 has been applied for or issued, a corresponding “hash” is stored in the EBSI. No other personal data is recorded. The verification of the data in the ESSPASS and its authenticity is to be carried out with the help of a QR code generated either by the worker’s EUiD-wallet or the app of a verifier. 19 Currently, however, Regulation 910/2014 on electronic identification and trust services (eIDAS Regulation) 20 does not provide a legal basis for the introduction of a European digital identity recognised throughout Europe by both public and private providers. 21 For this reason, the Commission made a proposal to amend Regulation 910/2014 in June 2021, 22 which has not yet been adopted. However, a “web wallet” was already completed in November 2022 and a “mobile wallet” in December 2022. 23 By mid-2025, a technical solution for the issuing, updating, revoking and (cross-border) verification of PD A1s and the European Health Insurance Card in particular is to be tested as part of the “DC4EU” (Digital Credentials for Europe) project. 24 In addition, “VECTOR” (“Verifiable Credentials and Trusted Organizations Registries”) as an EBSI 25 project forms the basis for the (further) development of a trustworthy system for the exchange and real-time control of 16 European Commission, https://tinyurl.com/ycxtckzn (4/6/2023). 17 European Commission, https://tinyurl.com/46cw27r6 (4/6/2023) with comments on further components of the EUiD. 18 Detailed information on the EBSI: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-building-blocks/wikis/display/EBSI/Home (4/6/2023); on the functioning: Mienert/Gipp, ZD 2017, 514, 517. 19 On the whole subject: European Commission, European Social Security Pass – Pilot project, April 2021. 20 Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of 23/7/2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing Directive 1999/93/EC, OJ 2014, L 257/73. 21 See also Deutsche Sozialversicherung Europavertretung, Digitalisierung der sozialen Sicherheit, p. 9. 22 COM(2021) 281 fin. 23 D’Angelo/Santoro, in: European Commission, ESSPASS, 2023, p. 9. 24 European Commission, https://tinyurl.com/pxuruxyz; https://www.dc4eu.eu/outputs/ (both 4/6/2023). 25 For more on the Verifiable Credentials Framework, see European Commission see https://tinyurl.com/nzdef5h4 (4/6/2023). KÄRCHER/WALSER: CROSS-BORDER EXCHANGE OF SOCIAL SECURITY DATA | 8 verified social security data in the context of the digitisation of social security systems. 26 2.1.3 EESSI system Since January 2021, all Member States have been connected to the Electronic Exchange of Social Security Information system (“EESSI” for short), 27 an IT platform for the exchange of social security data. 28 By the end of 2024, it is expected that all social security institutions in these states will also be connected; the obligation to do so results from Regulation 883/2004. 29 The system is also used for communication regarding PD A1s. The issuing authority informs not only the applicant but also the competent social security authority in the host country in real time about the issuing of the PD A1. Queries and the discussion of divergent assessments can also be clarified via the system. 2.2 Need for reform: data quality, acceleration, de-bureaucratisation Even if the above-mentioned selection of initiatives at EU level represent considerable improvements in the coordination of social security systems or could bring about such improvements if successfully implemented, they are not sufficient, as will be illustrated again using the example of the PD A1. There is potential for improvement both at national and European level. 26 See for this Abeloos, in: MoveS 24/04/2023, p. 18; according to Volker Schörghofer (Austrian Social Security) in: MoveS, Webinar Presentation – The digitalisation of social security coordination, 24/4/2023, p. 17. 27 Orak, NZS 2021, 914, 917. 28 In detail: Bauer/Hilmar, SozSi 2019, 116, 116; on the status in Germany: BMAS, Machbarkeitsstudie zu den IT-technischen Anforderungen einer weitergehenden Digitalisierung im Bereich Soziale Sicherheit, p. 36; on the not yet complete implementation in the statutory health insurance system Orak, NZS 2021, 914, 917. 29 Abeloos, in: MoveS, Webinar Presentation – The digitalisation of social security coordination, 24/4/2023, p. 11. KÄRCHER/WALSER: CROSS-BORDER EXCHANGE OF SOCIAL SECURITY DATA | 15 The introduction of corresponding administrative simplifications would justify all the more a compulsory prior application requirement for the PD A1 as well. While the posting notification under labour law must be made in advance anyway (cf. e.g. § 18 para. 1 AEntG), the advance application is also provided for in principle for the PD A1 (cf. Article 15 para. 1 of Regulation 987/2009). However, according to the case law of the ECJ, a subsequent application must also be possible if on-time application was not possible (also codified in Article 15 (1) of Regulation 987/2009) – therefore an application is even possible after a control. 64 The potential for abuse is obvious and the effectiveness of controls is thus considerably weakened. 65 The European Commission's reform proposal for Regulation 883/2004 and Regulation 987/2009 would not change this. 66 The compromise proposal within the framework of the trialogue only provides for an improvement to the effect that a fixed period of a maximum of three days after the start of the activity is to be introduced for the application. While this proposal still provides for mandatory prior notification at least for the construction industry 67 , such a sector-specific requirement is no longer provided for in the compromise proposal of the current Swedish Council Presidency. 68 In our opinion, it would nevertheless be advisable to make prior notification a general obligation, not only to counteract the abuse risk described above. Also systematically, the possibility of a subsequent application contradicts the intention of Regulation 883/2004 to enable an unambiguous assignment to the social security system of a Member State (cf. e.g. Recital 6 of Regulation 987/2009). In view of the possibility of electronic applications, such a provision would no longer unduly impair the internal market. If applicants have a sufficiently simple digital application system at their disposal, the issue of an excessive bureaucratic burden no longer arises. After all, it is about ensuring the social protection of workers by correctly assigning them to a social security system. Such a provision would also ensure the functioning of the internal market, it would likewise create fair competitive conditions and wouldn’t seem disproportionate at all. Because of the consistent case law of the ECJ and the codification in Regulation 987/2009, any possible amendment would have to be passed at European level, however. 64 ECJ, 30/3/2000 – C-178/97, ECR 2000, I-2005 (Banks); ECJ, 6/9/2018 – C-527/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:669 (Alpenrind and others). 65 Bokeloh, ZESAR 2021, 35 ff., 40; Hamann/Rathmann, EuZA 2022, 280, 290; Mankowski, EuZA 2018, 473, 474. 66 Cf. COM(2016) 815 final. 67 As defined in the Annex to the Posting of Workers Directive. 68 Council document 7489/23 ADD 1 of 17/3/2023. KÄRCHER/WALSER: CROSS-BORDER EXCHANGE OF SOCIAL SECURITY DATA | 16 Some also demand that short-term postings should generally be exempted from the requirement of a PD A1. 69 While in the area of labour law Article 3 para. 3 of the Posting of Workers Directive (apart from the construction industry) excludes certain short-term activities such as initial assembly and installation work from the validity of the “hard core” of the binding labour law requirements, such a restriction is unknown to social security coordination law. This system is quite consistent, since it should be clear at all times which social security system a person belongs to. It is proposed both in the trialogue negotiations on the reform of coordination law and by the current Swedish Council Presidency that for one no PD A1 should be required for business trips, and that, at least according to the current proposal, “activities with a duration of no more than three days within a calendar month” should even be generally excluded – without any sectoral restriction. The unspecific inclusion of activities of less than three days coupled with the possibility of a subsequent notification after three days would further widen already existing “loopholes”. The purpose of Regulation 883/2004 – to ensure the correct allocation of a person to a certain social security system and to make it transparent for the social security institutions – cannot be achieved in this way. 2.2.4. Verification of PD A1 The basis of coordination law is the principle of cooperation based on trust. 70 However, this trust is obviously not sufficiently guaranteed at present. Errors that start with different transliterations of names and extend to fraudulent misrepresentations are problematic. Digital procedures offer considerable potential for improvement, simplification and cutting red tape. This applies in particular to the ESSPASS already mentioned above (B.I.2) which would facilitate both the application and the proof in the event of a check. It should be possible to declare the ESSPASS mandatory in the Member States (if necessary limited to risk sectors). In our opinion, Member States already today could at least make carrying the corresponding proof mandatory. In future, however, it should be 69 Cf. in particular the criticism formulated by employers, for example by Hadeler (Gesamtmetall) FAZ, 30/4/2019, available at https://tinyurl.com/544vjakp (18/5/2023); on the discussion also Roßbach, RVaktuell 1/2020, 2, 5; BMAS Referat VIa1, Bescheinigung A 1 bei kurzfristig anberaumten Tätigkeiten, p. 3; Hamann/Rathmann, EuZA 2022, 280, 287. 70 ECJ, 6/9/2018 – C-527/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:669, para. 45 (Alpenrind and others). KÄRCHER/WALSER: CROSS-BORDER EXCHANGE OF SOCIAL SECURITY DATA | 17 possible to check the validity of the PD A1 or the card in real time. This verification could be based on data in the home country. A European social security register should also be considered, in which PD A1s would be listed 71 and kept, for example, by the European Labour Authority (ELA). The automated notification by the institutions of the home state to the host state might no longer require this for the authenticity check. However, if it were to be used to evaluate the risk of systematic cross-border illegal employment, it could certainly offer added value in terms of combating illegal employment – or, in other words, in terms of ensuring the correct allocation under social security law – especially if the posting notification under labour law was also included. An obligation to carry the PD A1 could already be introduced at national level to improve controls, even if such a requirement is not prescribed at European level. 72 This could be modelled on other countries such as France, Austria, Italy or Switzerland. 73 2.2.5. Procedure for the correction/withdrawal of a PD A1 In its numerous decisions on the PD A1 the ECJ has emphasised that its mandatory effect for all courts and authorities within the EU is an essential principle inherent to it. 74 Together with the principle of exclusivity laid down in Regulation 883/2004 with regard to the jurisdiction of a social security system, it therefore follows that the jurisdiction of a state documented in the PD A1 always excludes the jurisdiction of other states. 75 According to the legal concept, the binding effect of the certificate continues unless it is revoked or corrected (Article 5(1) of Regulation 987/2009). This basic concept appears not to be questioned, but there is often a need for legislative reform. 76 71 Demands to this end, e.g. from the DGB, available at https://tinyurl.com/2ca95fwr; IG BAU, https://tinyurl.com/33rwuu8u (both 4/6/2023); SPD, Resolutions of the Party Convention 2019, p. 12; Die Linke, Election Programme European Election 2019, p. 19. 72 See also Vierzehnter Bericht der Bundesregierung über die Auswirkungen des Gesetzes zur Bekämpfung der illegalen Beschäftigung, BT-Drs. 19/31265, p. 11. 73 BMAS Referat VIa1, Bescheinigung A 1 bei kurzfristig anberaumten Tätigkeiten, p. 3; cf. Hidalgo/Ceelen, NZA 2021, 19, 22. 74 Exemplary ECJ, 11/7/2018 – C-356/15, ECLI:EU:C:2018:555, para. 107 (Commission v Belgium); on the history and background Fuchs/Janda, EuSozR-Spiegel, Art. 76 Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 para. 25. 75 Cf. ECJ, 26/1/2006 – C-2/05, [2006] ECR I-1079, 21 (Herbosch Kiere); ECJ, 27/4/2017 – C-620/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:309, para. 38 (A-Rosa Flussschiff GmbH). 76 Cf. Deinert, FS Pfeil, 2022, p. 351, 360; Klengel, jurisPR-ArbR 17/2019 note 2, under D; Ulber, ZESAR 2015, 3; Klumpp, DB 2018, 2540, 2540; Fuchs, ZESAR 2019, 105 ff., KÄRCHER/WALSER: CROSS-BORDER EXCHANGE OF SOCIAL SECURITY DATA | 18 Up until to now, the procedure for correcting or revoking a PD A1 has proved particularly problematic if the host state and the home state come to different assessments with regard to the information documented in the PD A1. This is because the host states must comply with a PD A1 even if it is based on an obvious error of assessment. 77 They must then approach the home state within the framework of the dialogue and conciliation procedure developed by the ECJ and codified in Article 5 and 6 of Regulation 987/2009. 78 In the event that the Member States involved do not reach a consensus by way of dialogue at the first stage, they must attempt to find a solution via the Administrative Commission at the second stage. 79 Only after the procedure has been completed, and in the case of PD A1s that have obviously been obtained in a fraudulent or abusive manner, may they be disregarded by the host states under strict conditions. 80 The procedure in its complexity is not practical overall. 81 This is also due to the fact that the Administrative Commission only mediates in cases of conflict, but does not make a binding decision. In addition, in the event of a disagreement, the procedure lasts at least seven months, often longer in fact. This does not help an effective enforcing the provisions of the law on posting in social and labour law, especially in view of the fact that the posting has usually already been completed by this time. 82 In our opinion, it is therefore advisable to set up a review procedure at European level, which could, for example, be established at the ELA. Alternatively, the possibility of judicial determination of the validity and correctness of a PD A1 by the authorities of the host state should be ensured in the courts of the issuing state. 110; Scupra/Kuhn, DB 2018, 2054, 2054; Preis/Sagan, European Labour Law-Heuschmid/Schierle para. 16.39. 77 ECJ, 6/2/2018 – C-359/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:63, para. 46 (Altun and others); ECJ, 10/2/2000 – C-202/97, [2000] ECR I-883, para 55 (FTS). 78 ECJ, 11/7/2018 – C-356/15, ECLI:EU:C:2018:555, para. 107 (Commission v Belgium). 79 ECJ, 10/2/2000 – C-202/97, ECR 2000, I-883, para. 59 (FTS); ECJ, 26/1/2006 – C2/05, ECR 2006, I-1079, 28 (Herbosch Kiere); ECJ, 27/4/2017 – C-620/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:309, para. 45 (A-Rosa Flussschiff GmbH). 80 ECJ, 6/2/2018 – C-359/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:63, para. 48 (Altun and others); Hlava, AuR 2019, 84, 85; Brand, EuZA 2020, 440, 45 ff. 81 Cf. also Klein, SRa Sonderheft 2015, 76, 88 f. on the practical problems. 82 On the usually short duration of postings Walser, SR Sonderheft 2022, 29, 33. KÄRCHER/WALSER: CROSS-BORDER EXCHANGE OF SOCIAL SECURITY DATA | 19 3. Conclusion In its current form, the exchange of social security data between EU Member States for the posting of workers neither sufficiently ensures the protection of workers nor guarantees a sufficient level of effective controls and thus the enforcement of the provisions of posting legislation. As shown, there is considerable potential for simplifying procedures. Improving cross-border data exchange would enable effective monitoring of the provisions of the law on posting workers and thus facilitate the enforcement of existing workers' rights. 83 Measures on both the technical and legal side could bring improvements. From a technical point of view, a uniform design of the application for the PD A1 and the posting notification in an easy-to-use digital system is particularly recommended. In terms of legislation, the binding nature of the PD A1 should be enhanced by making it obligatory to apply for and carry it prior to deployment. Other digital technical solutions such as the planned ESSPASS are also suitable for the latter. It is important that workers, employers and contractors can be clearly identified and assigned. 83 Also: European Commission (fn. 34), p. 25. KÄRCHER/WALSER: CROSS-BORDER EXCHANGE OF SOCIAL SECURITY DATA | 20 References Bauer, Gerd / Brunner, Alexandra / Scharl, Claudia (2022): Digitale soziale Sicherung in Europa – ein wichtiger Schritt in die Zukunft. In: SozSi 68, issue 2, pp. 68–71. Bauer, Gerd / Hilmar, Katharina (2019): Die umfassende Einführung des elektronischen grenzüberschreitenden Datenaustauschs von Sozialversicherungsdaten in Österreich. In: SozSi 65, issue 3, pp. 116–124. Behrend, Nicola (2020): Aktuelle Entwicklungen der Rechtsprechung im europäischen Sozialrecht. Arbeitslosenunterstützung, Familienleistungen und Entsenderecht. In: NZA-Beilage, pp. 65–71. BMAS (2019): Handhabung der Bescheinigung A1 bei kurzfristig anberaumten und kurzzeitigen Tätigkeiten im EU-Ausland, den EWRStaaten Island, Liechtenstein und Norwegen sowie der Schweiz, Berlin, www.bmas.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/ DE/Internationales/handhabung-bescheinigunga1.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1 (last checked on 18/5/2023). BMAS (2022): Machbarkeitsstudie zu den IT-technischen Anforderungen einer weitergehenden Digitalisierung im Bereich Soziale Sicherheit. Studienvorlage durch das NEGZ in Kooperation mit den Unterauftragnehmern DFKI und ERCIS, Berlin, www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/suche/machbarkeitsstudie-zu-denit-technischen-anforderungen-einer-weitergehenden-digitalisierungim-bereich-soziale-sicherheit-2065946 (last checked on 18/5/2023). Bokeloh, Arno (2021): Wanderarbeitnehmer: Bescheinigungen E 101 und A 1 / Schwarzarbeit / Strafverfahren. In: ZESAR 20, pp. 40–42. Brand, Christian (2020): Strafbarkeitsrisiken des Arbeitgebers durch den Einsatz von Arbeitnehmern aus dem EU-Ausland. In: EuZA 13, pp. 440–463. Buelen, Werner (2015): Sozialversicherungsausweise in der Europäischen Bauwirtschaft, Brussels, https://www.fiec.eu/ download_file/force/261/401 (last checked on 10/6/2023). Däubler, Wolfgang (ed.) (2022): Tarifvertragsgesetz. Mit ArbeitnehmerEntsendegesetz. 5th ed., Baden-Baden: Nomos (cited: Däubler, TVGauthor). Deinert, Olaf (2022): Sozialkostenwettbewerb und Bindungswirkung von A1-Bescheinigungen. In: Auer-Mayer, Susanne/Felten, Elias/Mosler, Rudolf/Schrattbauer, Birgit (eds.): Festschrift Walter Pfeil. Vienna: Manz, pp. 351–361. KÄRCHER/WALSER: CROSS-BORDER EXCHANGE OF SOCIAL SECURITY DATA | 21 Deinert, Olaf / Heuschmid, Johannes / Zwanziger, Bertram (eds.) (2019): Arbeitsrecht. Handbuch für die Praxis, 10th ed., Frankfurt am Main: Bund-Verlag (cited: HdbArbR-author). Deutsche Sozialversicherung Europavertretung (2021): Digitalisierung der sozialen Sicherheit – Notwendiges Übel oder überfälliger Segen? https://dsv-europa.de/de/themenletter/ed-nr.-03-2021.html (last checked on 18/5/2023). European Commission (2013), Practical Guide to Applicable Law in the European Union (EU), the European Economic Area (EEA) and Switzerland, Luxembourg. European Commission (2021), European Social Security Pass – Pilot project, Brussels. European Commission (2023), ESSPASS, Demonstration of the end-toend flow of a PDA1 Verifiable Credential, Brussels. Franzen, Martin / Gallner, Inken / Oetker, Hartmut (eds.) (2022): Kommentar zum europäischen Arbeitsrecht, 4th ed., Munich: C.H.Beck (cited: EuArbRK-author). Fuchs, Maximilian (2019): Licht und Schatten des europäischen Entsenderechts. In: ZESAR 18, pp. 105-110. Fuchs, Maximilian / Janda, Constanze (eds.) (2022): Europäisches Sozialrecht. 8th ed., Baden-Baden: Nomos; Manz; Helbing Lichtenhahn (cited: Fuchs/Janda, EuSozR-author). Hamann, Wolfgang / Rathmann, Leander (2022): A1-Bescheinigung bei Entsendungen – Zwischen Binnenmarktförderung und integrationshemmender Wirkung. In: EuZA 15, pp. 280–306. Hidalgo, Martina / Ceelen, Christoph (2021): Homeoffice im EU-Ausland – Relevanz des Sozialversicherungsrechts für Arbeitgeber. In: NZA 38, pp. 19–24. Hlava, Daniel (2019): Arbeitnehmerentsendung ins Ausland – Ausstellung von A1-Bescheinigungen durch den Herkunftsmitgliedstaat – Stellungnahme der Verwaltungskommission – Bindungswirkung und Rückwirkung dieser Bescheinigungen – Begriff einer Person, die „eine andere Person ablöst“. In: AuR 67, pp. 84–86 Iudicone, Feliciano (2022): European market environment in the construction sector. Abschlussbericht, Brussels, https://emecsproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/EU-Handbook.pdf (last checked on 10/6/2023). Klein, Stefanie (2015): Verbindlichkeit von Entsendebescheinigungen – Anspruch und Wirklichkeit. In: SRa Sonderheft 19, pp. 76–90. Klengel, Ernesto (2019): Voraussetzungen und Wirkungen der A1Entsendebescheinigung bei grenzüberschreitendem Fremdpersonaleinsatz. In: jurisPR-ArbR 17/2019 note. 2. KÄRCHER/WALSER: CROSS-BORDER EXCHANGE OF SOCIAL SECURITY DATA | 22 Klumpp, Catharina (2018): Ablöseverbot gilt auch bei Entsendung durch verschiedene Arbeitgeber. In: DB 71, p. 2540. Knickrehm, Sabine / Kreikebohm, Ralf / Waltermann, Raimund (eds.) (2021): Kommentar zum Sozialrecht. VO (EG) Nr. 883/2004, SGB I bis SGB XII, SGG, BEEG, Kindergeldrecht (EStG), UnterhaltsvorschussG. 7th ed., Munich: C.H. Beck (cited: KKWauthor). Körner, Anne / Krasney, Martin / Mutschler, Bernd / Rolfs, Christian (eds.) (2022): Kasseler Kommentar zum SGB IV. Munich: C.H.Beck (cited: KassKomm-author). Mankowski, Peter (2018): Formelle Selbständige und Bescheinigung A1 (früher E 101): Vorsicht, Gestaltungskünstler – die Realität bricht doch durch! In: EuZA 11, pp. 473–483. Mienert, Heval / Gipp, Bela (2017): Dashcam, Blockchain und der Beweis im Prozess. Kriterien für einen Privacy by DesignLösungsansatz bei Dashcams. In: ZD 7, pp. 514–519. MoveS (24/4/2023), Webinar Presentation, The digitalisation of social security coordination, Brussels. Orak, Berna (2021): EESSI – elektronischer Sozialversicherungsdatenaustausch. In: NZS 20, pp. 914–918. Preis, Ulrich / Sagan, Adam (eds.) (2019): Europäisches Arbeitsrecht. Grundlagen, Richtlinien, Folgen für das deutsche Recht. 2nd ed., Köln: Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt. Roßbach, Gundula (2020): Neue Impulse für ein soziales Europa. In: RVaktuell, issue 1, pp. 2–6. Scupra, Cornelia-Cristina / Kuhn, Jörn (2018): Auslandsentsendungen innerhalb der EU-Praxisfragen zur A1Bescheinigung. In: DB 71, pp. 2054–2055. Thym, Daniel (2006): Umfang nationaler Kontrollmöglichkeiten bei der Arbeitnehmerentsendung. In: NZA 27, pp. 713–715 Ulber, Daniel (2015): Die Bindungswirkung von A1-Bescheinigungen. In: ZESAR 14, pp. 3–9. Walser, Manfred (2022): Grenzüberschreitende Dimension – Der Weg der Sozialkassenverfahren nach Europa. In: SR Sonderheft 12, pp. 29–43. Zentralverband Deutsches Baugewerbe (2022): Geschäftsbericht 2021/2022. Berlin. ISSN 2509-2359