For debate in the Standing Committee — see Rule 15 of the Rules of Procedure

Doc. 9502

15 July 2002

Ratification of the European Code of Social Security

Report

Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee

Rapporteur: Mr Mihai Tudose, Romania, Socialist Group

Summary

As early as 1950, the Parliamentary Assembly clearly expressed the will that the standard of social security be raised to an equally high level in every member state. Despite considerable progress, this objective has certainly not been met, and there are indications that the very concept of raising social security standards is under threat. The 1964 European Code of Social Security, revised in 1990, represents, together with its Protocol, one of the Council of Europe’s main instruments for promoting social cohesion and higher living standards in Europe. All the Council of Europe member states should therefore sign and ratify these instruments.

The report notes that too few have done so. It therefore recommends that the Committee of Ministers intensify its efforts to encourage the ratification process; step up its programme of assistance to countries seeking to bring their legislation into conformity with these instruments; and conduct a thorough review of the texts so as to ensure that they are adapted to contemporary requirements. The report also endorses certain proposals designed to improve the monitoring of these instruments.

I.       Draft recommendation

1.       The Parliamentary Assembly recalls that, as early as 1950, it clearly expressed the will that the standard of social security be raised to an equally high level in every member state. Despite considerable progress, this objective has certainly not been met, and there are indications that the very concept of raising social security standards is under threat. The Assembly strongly believes that the 1964 European Code of Social Security [European Treaty Series No. 48], revised in 1990 [ETS No. 139], represents, together with its Protocol [ETS No. 48A], one of the Council of Europe’s main instruments for promoting social cohesion and higher living standards in Europe and that all Council of Europe member states should therefore sign and ratify these instruments.

2.       The Assembly recalls that in the Action Plan of the Second Summit of the Council of Europe (Strasbourg, 10-11 October 1997), the Heads of State and Government “undertake to promote social standards as embodied in the Social Charter and in other Council of Europe instruments, and call for the widest possible adherence to these instruments”.

3.       The Assembly regrets that to date, only eighteen of the forty-four member states have ratified the 1964 Code, while three have signed but not ratified it. Seven member states have ratified the Protocol while six others have signed but not ratified it. As for the revised Code, fourteen member states have signed, but none has ratified it. The Assembly welcomes the efforts made by the Committee of Ministers to promote the ratification of these instruments, but considers that more should be done to accelerate the process.

4.       The Assembly is aware of the difficulties that member states may face in meeting the standards required for signature and ratification of these instruments, in particular economic and demographic pressures, the sustainability of insurance funds, the priority accorded preparation for entry into the European Union, and the perception that certain of their provisions may not be appropriate in countries whose social security systems have evolved significantly in recent years.

5.       Although the Assembly believes that the European Code of Social Security, its Protocol, and the revised Code are relevant even in today’s changing climate and provide a solid foundation on which to make further progress towards the ideal of a uniformly high level of social security in the member states, the Assembly considers that a thorough review should be made of these instruments so as to ensure that they are adapted to contemporary requirements.

6.       In the meantime the Assembly endorses the proposals recently suggested by the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers for improving the procedure for monitoring the implementation of the Code. In particular, the Committee of Experts on Standard-Setting Instruments in the Field of Social Security (CS-CO) should adopt the practice of holding an annual exchange of views on measures taken by the Contracting Parties to give effect to the resolutions addressed to them by the Committee of Ministers. The results of this exchange of views should be communicated to the Committee of Ministers for consideration of any necessary follow-up. The Committee of Ministers should also consider holding an annual exchange of views on the state of ratification of the European Code of Social Security, notably on the basis of reports from member states that have not ratified it or not ratified it fully, that have not ratified the Protocol, and that have not ratified the revised Code.

7.       The Assembly itself should play a greater part in this process, organising periodical debates on the application of these instruments in the member states.

8.       The Parliamentary Assembly therefore recommends that the Committee of Ministers:

i.       intensify its efforts to encourage the process of ratification of the European Code of Social Security, its Protocol, and the revised Code;

ii.       step up its programme of assistance to countries seeking to bring their legislation into conformity with these instruments;

iii.       instruct the Committee of Experts on Standard-Setting Instruments in the Field of Social Security (CS-CO) to adopt the practice of holding an annual exchange of views on measures taken by the Contracting Parties to give effect to the resolutions addressed to them by the Committee of Ministers, the results of this exchange of views to be communicated to the Committee of Ministers for consideration of any necessary follow-up;

iv.       consider holding an annual exchange of views on the state of ratification of the European Code of Social Security, notably on the basis of reports from member states that have not ratified it or not ratified it fully, that have not ratified the Protocol, and that have not ratified the revised Code;

v.       instruct the appropriate intergovernmental committees to conduct a thorough review of these instruments so as to ensure that they are adapted to contemporary requirements.

II.       Explanatory memorandum by Mr Tudose

1.       Introduction

1.       At its meeting on 29 May 2001 the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee decided to launch a campaign to promote the ratification of the 1964 European Code of Social Security [European Treaty Series No. 48], revised in 1990 [ETS No. 139], which, together with its Protocol [ETS No. 48A], is one of the Council of Europe’s main instruments for promoting social cohesion and higher living standards in Europe. The Committee firmly believes that all Council of Europe member states should ratify at least the Code and, if possible, the Protocol.

2.       To date, only eighteen Council of Europe member states have ratified the Code, while two have signed but not ratified it. Only seven member states have ratified the Protocol, while six have signed but not ratified it. As for the revised Code, fourteen member states have signed, but none has ratified it (see Charts in the Appendix).

3.       As part of the ratification campaign, the Chairman of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, Mrs Ragnarsdóttir, wrote on 6 September 2001 to the Chairmen of Parliamentary Assembly Delegations of the 25 member states that had not yet ratified the European Code of Social Security or its Protocol and the 11 member states having ratified the Code but not the Protocol, to ask whether their Governments envisaged ratifying them, what, if any, were the obstacles to ratification and what the Council of Europe could do to help overcome those obstacles.

4.       The replies were to provide the basis for the present report, which, it was hoped, could be debated by the Assembly’s Standing Committee in advance of the Conference of European Ministers responsible for Social Security to be held in Bratislava on 22-23 May 2002, at which it was anticipated that a significant step forward would be taken in the campaign for ratification of the European Code of Social Security and its Protocol. In the event, Romania signed the Code, whilst Moldova signed the European Convention on Social Security¹ and Portugal the Protocol to the Convention. However, despite a reminder sent on 27 November 2001, substantive replies were received only from Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Switzerland and the United Kingdom (10 out of 36 requested). The Rapporteur is grateful for these replies, which are summarised in section 8 below, but is disappointed that there has not been a greater response. To the extent that this reticence may betray a certain lack of acceptance of the Code and Protocol, the Assembly should ask the Committee of Ministers to undertake a thorough review of these instruments so as to ensure that they are adapted to contemporary requirements.

2.       History²

5.       The Council of Europe’s Consultative Assembly stated at its first session in 1949 that the development of social security had a key role to play in improving European standards of living.

6.       Having considered the methods likely to encourage the development of social security in Europe, in 1950 the Assembly proposed the drawing up of a European Code of Social Security that “would not necessarily result in uniform laws in the various countries, but would achieve, by different methods, an equally high level of social security”.

7.       While the Council of Europe’s experts began work on drafting the Code, the International Labour Conference adopted Convention N° 102 Concerning Minimum Standards of Social Security in 1952. The Council of Europe could have limited itself to recommending that its member states ratify this ILO Convention, but it decided that Europe should adopt higher standards, reflecting a level of welfare protection in line with its economic development. On 11 March 1964, the Committee of Ministers adopted the European Code of Social Security, containing minimum standards of social security, accompanied by a Protocol “implying a higher level of social security to which those member states that are in a position to do so may adhere, and which would represent the European level of social security which all members should strive to attain”.

8.       The Code and the Protocol were opened for signature on 16 April 1964.

9.       In 1973, the Council of Europe’s Committee of Experts in the field of social security, primarily on the basis of the annual reports produced by the states having ratified the Code, concluded that a number of provisions in the Code and the Protocol needed revising, at least in part, in the light of new trends in member states, for example the increasing number and variety of social benefits, the extension of the personal scope of social security legislation, the improvement in the level of benefits and the gradual disappearance of sex discrimination in society. This revision, which began in 1976, resulted in the adoption of the European Code of Social Security (revised) in 1990.

3.       What are these instruments?

10.       The Code and the Protocol establish European standards in the field of social security. National social security legislation based on the standards of these two instruments ensures protection at a satisfactory level matching the standard of living in each individual country.

11.       A system of social security is based on a number of principles. Thus, the Code defines the scope of social security by setting out the risks which, should they materialise, ought to give rise to compensation. These risks are contingencies for which social security benefits are paid. There are nine contingencies in the three instruments (set out in Parts II-X): medical care, sickness benefit, unemployment benefit, old-age benefit, employment injury benefit, family benefit, maternity benefit, invalidity benefit, survivors’ benefit. For each contingency, the Code and the Protocol lay down the categories of persons to be protected (employees, independent workers, residents), the number of persons to be protected and the type of benefits to be awarded (e.g., health care, old-age pensions). It defines a standard beneficiary who, depending on the circumstances may be a single householder, a couple or a family. Should the risks materialise, this standard beneficiary should receive cash benefits, the level of which should be proportional to reference wages in the country. The Code also stipulates that such a system should be organised and financed in ways that ensure effective protection; this implies compulsory membership and solidarity mechanisms so as to guarantee equitable funding.

4.       Ratification

12.       To ratify the Code, it is necessary to apply only six of the nine parts covering the nine contingencies. Furthermore, part II (medical care) counts for 2 parts and part V (old age benefits) counts for 3. In this way, the instrument is extremely flexible and states developing their social security systems may accept new parts to the Code at a later date.

13.       Introducing greater flexibility as regards ratification was one of the aims of the revised Code. Contracting States are offered a wide range of solutions enabling them to fulfil the obligations entered into. For example, states that have ratified the Code or Article 12, paragraphs 1-3 of the European Social Charter³ can ratify the revised Code by accepting just one of the parts covering the contingencies (parts II to X). States which have not ratified the Code or are not bound by paragraphs 1-3 of Article 12 of the Charter must accept at least three parts from II to X in order to ratify the revised Code.

5.       The control mechanism

14.       The supervision of the Code relies on annual reports to be submitted by the Contracting Parties. In the first instance these reports are scrutinised by the International Labour Organisation’s Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations. This ILO committee submits its conclusions to the Council of Europe’s Committee of Experts on Standard-Setting Instruments in the Field of Social Security (CS-CO). The last instance is the Committee of Ministers. On the basis of the conclusions of the CS-CO, the Committee of Ministers decides by a two-thirds majority, whether each Contracting Party has fulfilled its obligations under the Code. If it reaches a negative conclusion, “it shall invite the state concerned to take the measures necessary to ensure that these obligations are met”.

15.       Every two years, under Article 76 of the Code, Contracting Parties submit to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe a report on developments in their social security legislation with regard to the non-ratified parts of the Code. These reports are then studied by a committee of experts that, after having discussed the possible compliance of Contracting Parties’ legislation with the non ratified parts of the Code, agree on conclusions and, in certain cases, recommend member states to ratify new parts of the Code. This information is distributed to the CS-CO.

6.       Possible extension of this procedure

16.       In his written communication of 23 July 2001 addressed to Mrs Ragnarsdóttir, Chairman of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, in response to her question put during the Assembly’s June 2001 part-session, the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, Mr Walch, noted some ideas that could lead to a strengthening of the procedure for following up the Committee of Ministers’ Resolutions. For example, the Committee of Experts on Standard-Setting Instruments in the Field of Social Security (CS-CO) might adopt the practice of holding an annual exchange of views on measures taken by the Contracting Parties to give effect to the Resolutions addressed to them by the Committee of Ministers. The results of this exchange of views could be communicated to the Committee of Ministers for consideration of any necessary follow-up. The Committee of Ministers could also consider holding an annual exchange of views on the state of ratification of the European Code of Social Security, notably on the basis of reports from member states that have not ratified it or not ratified it fully, that have not ratified the Protocol, and that have not ratified the revised Code. The Rapporteur encourages the Assembly to endorse these ideas.

17.       The Assembly itself should play a greater part in this process. It should, for example, organise periodical debates on the application of the Code, as well as the other social protection instruments, in the member states in the light of exchanges of views, seminars and colloquies organised by the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee.

7.       Promotion

18.       In the Action Plan of the Second Summit of the Council of Europe (Strasbourg, 10-11 October 1997), the Heads of State and Government “undertake to promote social standards as embodied in the Social Charter and in other Council of Europe instruments, and call for the widest possible adherence to these instruments”.

19.       In line with this commitment, the Council of Europe initiated a programme of bilateral and regional assistance activities on the Code and the Protocol for Central and Eastern European member states. Under this programme the national authorities receive assistance in examining the conformity of current and planned social security legislation with the Code and the Protocol and, more generally, assistance in defining a national social security framework compatible with these European standards.

20.       Promotion of the European Code of Social Security is the most substantial element in the Council of Europe’s assistance programmes in the social security field.

21.       Activities aimed at paving the way for its ratification have taken or are taking place in: Albania, Armenia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Romania, Russia, Slovakia and Ukraine.

8.       Obstacles to ratification

Austria

22.       Austria signed the European Code of Social Security in 1970 but has never ratified it because at first there were certain (unspecified) problems with the interpretation of ILO Convention No. 102, and then the whole issue was put on hold pending the opening for signature of the revised Code. Austria duly signed this in 1991, but has not ratified it basically because civil servants were too involved firstly in the process of Austria’s joining the European Union, which meant concluding new treaties with the EU member states, and secondly with the revision of numerous bilateral treaties with central and eastern European countries. According to the Ministry of Social Security and Generations, such bilateral treaties are of greater interest and importance than standard-setting instruments like the Code because they have a direct effect on citizens, generally fulfil higher standards, and have more impact on the social security systems of the states concerned. Nevertheless, the fact that the Code has not yet been ratified is due to lack of administrative capacity rather than political will.

Bulgaria

23.       The conclusions of a feasibility study conducted in 1999-2000 were that economic and demographic pressures, including industrial adjustment, recent wars in the region and acquired early retirement rights, precluded immediate ratification, even of the 1964 Code. Although the percentage of its population enjoying social protection was close to the standard set by the Code, the country’s social security system did not correspond to the western European model on which the Code was based, for example concerning the level of benefits. Nevertheless, the Bulgarian Committee on the European Social Charter recommends that the Code should be signed, while ratification would depend on the financial sustainability of the insurance funds.

Croatia

24.       The Croatian government carried out a pilot study in 2000, together with an assessment of what had to be done to harmonise legislation and practice with the provisions of the Code. The opinions and comments of the European Institute for Social Security, the ILO and the Council of Europe were sought and will be taken into account by the government in undertaking the measures deemed necessary.

Estonia

25.       Estonia will ratify the Code in 2002, as soon as international experts have given their assessment of the social security situation in that country.

Lithuania

26.       In her reply to the Chairman of the Lithuanian Delegation, Mr Jonas Čekuolis, the Lithuanian Minister of Social Security and Labour, Mrs Vilija Blinkevičiūtė, explained that Lithuania had not signed or ratified the Code or its Protocol since it could not guarantee compliance with the minimum levels of benefit stipulated in terms of percentage of a typical beneficiary’s salary: for example, 40 per cent for old age, invalidity, and survivors’ benefit; 45 percent for sickness, maternity and unemployment benefit; and 50 percent for employment injury benefit. Under the Protocol, benefit rates were 5 percent higher. According to Mr Čekuolis, this position has been formally approved by the Lithuanian Parliament in not ratifying the revised Code, whose Article 12.2 stipulates that the Parties undertake “to maintain the social security system at a satisfactory level at least equal to that necessary for the ratification of the European Code of Social Security”. While understanding the importance of providing higher social security standards, “we cannot ratify this Code today, probably will not tomorrow, but, as Parliamentarians, we will work on this issue with an idea that this Code could be ratified by the Republic of Lithuania in due time.”The Rapporteur is impressed by the honesty of the Lithuanian reply, but ventures to hope that, given the right degree of political will, ratification might be sooner rather than later, since a positive assessment was recently given by ILO and Council of Europe experts.

Malta

27.       In his reply to the Chairman of the Committee, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Social Policy Mr Lawrence Gonzi, wrote that in 2001 his Ministry had appointed an inter-Ministry Committee to evaluate the feasibility of ratifying the Code and Protocol. However, since Malta was already a Party to the European Social Charter, ratification of the Revised Social Charter was considered a priority, and Malta would be ready to sign it in 2002 after amending its labour, industrial and social security legislation. Given that Article 12 of the Revised European Social Charter referred to the Code as a standard setting instrument, the inter-Ministry Committee was now expected to proceed with the assessment of the full Code and Protocol and advise the Government on the steps to be taken prior to ratification. In the meantime, the Government had begun consultations with a view to proposing a totally new and updated labour law, amendments to the Industrial Relations Act, and a new Gender Equality Act in 2002.

Poland

28.       According to information provided by the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, the Polish Government would not be initiating the ratification process in the near future. However, in the first quarter of 2002, it intended to begin steps towards ratification of ILO Convention No. 102, equivalent to the European Code but setting lower social security standards. Ratification of the ILO Convention and subsequent assessment of its implementation carried out by the ILO Committee of Experts would lay the basis for possible ratification of the European Code.

Romania

29.       Following the entry into force of Law 19/2000 on the public system of pensions and other social insurance rights, Romania requested technical assistance to prepare for ratification of the European Code of Social Security. This activity was included in the Council of Europe’s Programme of Activities for the Development and Consolidation of Democratic Stability (ADACS) for 2000 and 2001.

30.       In this framework, several reports were prepared showing that Romania fulfilled the conditions for ratification of the European Code of Social Security in respect of Part II – Medical Care, Part III - Sickness benefit, Part V – Old-age benefit, Part VII – Family benefit, and Part VIII – Maternity benefit.

31.       The International Labour Office assessed the “zero governmental report” prepared in 2001 by the Romanian authorities in accordance with Article 74 of the European Code of Social Security, as if Romania were already party to the Code. The ILO concluded that Romanian social security legislation was to a large extent in accordance with the standards set by the European Code of Social Security and its Protocol.

32.       No obstacles remaining to the signature by Romania of the European Code of Social Security, the Minister of Labour and Social Solidarity, Mr. Marian Srbu, duly signed the Code while attending the 8^th Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Social Security (Bratislava 22-23 May 2002).

Switzerland

33.       Switzerland ratified the Code in 1977. Regarding the Protocol, the seventh report of the Swiss Federal Council concerning the state of ratification of Council of Europe Conventions has this to say: “To be in a position to ratify the Protocol, a state must accept at least eight [of] parts [II to X of the Code]. Swiss legislation satisfies the requirements of the Protocol as to old age (part V), invalidity (part IX) and survivors’ (part X) benefit. However, it does not satisfy the requirements as regards employment injury (part VI) or family benefit. Moreover, it has not been able to ratify parts II, III, IV, and VIII (medical care, sickness, unemployment and maternity benefit) as far as the Code is concerned. The same is true, a fortiori, for the Protocol. Thus Switzerland could at best accept five (part V counts for three parts) of the minimum eight parts required, which for the time being excludes ratification of this instrument.”

United Kingdom

34.       The Minister of State in the Department for Work and Pensions, Mr Nick Brown, replied that the United Kingdom had ratified the Code in 1968, but felt unable at the time to ratify the Protocol. “Since then, society has evolved dramatically. Social security systems have changed, especially in the UK, in a manner that would not have been predicted forty years ago. This renders the Protocol an inappropriate instrument for us today. This is not to say that the Code itself is not a valuable instrument, as it represents a sound basis on which to build a system of social security.”

9.       Conclusions

35.       From the beginning of its existence, the Assembly has clearly expressed the will that the standard of social security should be raised to an equally high level in every member state. Despite considerable progress, this objective has certainly not been met, and there are indications that the very concept of raising social security standards is under threat. The Rapporteur strongly believes that the European Code of Social Security, its Protocol, and the revised Code are relevant even in today’s changing climate and provide a solid foundation on which to make further progress towards the ideal outlined by the Assembly as early as 1949. He therefore urges the member states to continue to review their situation in respect of these instruments with a view to their ratification as soon as possible.

36.       In the meantime some improvements should be envisaged in the procedure for monitoring the implementation of the Code. The Rapporteur agrees with the suggestion made by the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers that the Committee of Experts on Standard-Setting Instruments in the Field of Social Security (CS-CO) should adopt the practice of holding an annual exchange of views on measures taken by the Contracting Parties to give effect to the Resolutions addressed to them by the Committee of Ministers. The results of this exchange of views should be communicated to the Committee of Ministers for consideration of any necessary follow-up. The Committee of Ministers should also consider holding an annual exchange of views on the state of ratification of the European Code of Social Security, notably on the basis of reports from member states that have not ratified it or not ratified it fully, that have not ratified the Protocol, and that have not ratified the revised Code.

37.       The Assembly itself should play a greater part in this process, organising periodical debates on the application of these instruments in the member states in the light of exchanges of views, seminars and colloquies organised by the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee.

38.       The Assembly has been encouraged by the success of its campaigns to promote the ratification of the Council of Europe’s impressive series of standard-setting instruments for social protection, first the European Social Charter and now the European Code of Social Security, although much remains to be done. Let us maintain the pressure, continuing to strongly urge our member states to ratify them to the greatest possible extent. We should also step up the pressure for ratification of the European Convention on Social Security and the other coordination instruments, launching a new campaign to this end. The citizens of the wider Europe, their social progress, social cohesion and standard of living, can only benefit.

APPENDIX

Opening for signature: Place: Strasbourg Date: 16/04/64

Entry into force: Conditions: 3 Ratifications. Date: 17/03/68

Member States of the Council of Europe:

States	Date of signature	Date of ratification	Date of entry into force	Notes	R.	D.	A.	T.	C.	O.
Albania
Andorra
Armenia
Austria	17/02/70
Azerbaijan
Belgium	13/05/64	13/08/69	14/08/70			X
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus	15/04/92	15/04/92	16/04/93			X
Czech Republic	10/02/00	08/09/00	09/09/01			X
Denmark	16/04/64	16/02/73	17/02/74			X		X
Estonia	24/01/00
Finland
France	04/10/76	17/02/86	18/02/87			X
Georgia
Germany	16/04/64	27/01/71	28/01/72			X		X
Greece	21/04/77	09/06/81	10/06/82			X
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland	16/02/71	16/02/71	17/02/72			X
Italy	16/04/64	20/01/77	21/01/78			X
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg	16/04/64	03/04/68	04/04/69			X
Malta
Moldova
Netherlands	15/07/64	16/03/67	17/03/68			X
Norway	16/04/64	25/03/66	17/03/68			X		X
Poland
Portugal	19/11/81	15/05/84	16/05/85			X
Romania	22/05/02
Russia
San Marino
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain	12/02/93	08/03/94	09/03/95			X
Sweden	16/04/64	25/09/65	17/03/68			X
Switzerland	01/12/76	16/09/77	17/09/78			X
the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Turkey	13/05/64	07/03/80	08/03/81		X	X
Ukraine
United Kingdom	14/03/67	12/01/68	13/01/69			X

Non-member States of the Council of Europe:

States

Date of signature

Date of  ratification

Date of entry into force

Notes

R.

D.

A.

T.

C.

O.

Notes:
a: Accession - s: Signature without reservation as to ratification - su: Succession - r: Signature "ad referendum".
R.: Reservations - D.: Declarations - A.: Authorities - T.: Territorial Application - C.: Communication - O.: Objection.

Source: Treaty Office on http://conventions.coe.int

Opening for signature: Place: Strasbourg Date: 16/04/64

Entry into force: Conditions: 3 Ratifications. Date: 17/03/68

Member States of the Council of Europe:

States	Date of signature	Date of ratification	Date of entry into force	Notes	R.	D.	A.	T.	C.	O.
Albania
Andorra
Armenia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belgium	13/05/64	13/08/69	14/08/70
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic	10/02/00
Denmark	16/04/64
Estonia
Finland
France	04/10/76
Georgia
Germany	16/04/64	27/01/71	28/01/72
Greece	25/05/78
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy	16/04/64
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg	16/04/64	03/04/68	04/04/69
Malta
Moldova
Netherlands	15/07/64	16/03/67	17/03/68
Norway	16/04/64	25/03/66	17/03/68
Poland
Portugal	19/11/81	15/05/84	16/05/85
Romania
Russia
San Marino
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden	16/04/64	25/09/65	17/03/68
Switzerland
the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Turkey	13/05/64
Ukraine
United Kingdom

Non-member States of the Council of Europe:

States

Date of signature

Date of  ratification

Date of entry into force

Notes

R.

D.

A.

T.

C.

O.

Notes:
a: Accession - s: Signature without reservation as to ratification - su: Succession - r: Signature "ad referendum".
R.: Reservations - D.: Declarations - A.: Authorities - T.: Territorial Application - C.: Communication - O.: Objection.

Source: Treaty Office on http://conventions.coe.int

Opening for signature: Place: Rome Date: 06/11/90

Entry into force: Conditions: 2 Ratifications. Date:

Member States of the Council of Europe:

States	Date of signature	Date of ratification	Date of entry into force	Notes	R.	D.	A.	T.	C.	O.
Albania
Andorra
Armenia
Austria	19/02/91
Azerbaijan
Belgium	06/11/90
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus	06/11/90					X
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland	06/11/90
France	06/11/90
Georgia
Germany	06/11/90
Greece	06/11/90
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy	06/11/90
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg	06/11/90
Malta
Moldova
Netherlands	01/06/93
Norway	06/11/90
Poland
Portugal	27/03/91
Romania
Russia
San Marino
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden	06/11/90
Switzerland
the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Turkey	06/11/90
Ukraine
United Kingdom

Non-member States of the Council of Europe:

States

Date of signature

Date of  ratification

Date of entry into force

Notes

R.

D.

A.

T.

C.

O.

Notes:
a: Accession - s: Signature without reservation as to ratification - su: Succession - r: Signature "ad referendum".
R.: Reservations - D.: Declarations - A.: Authorities - T.: Territorial Application - C.: Communication - O.: Objection.

Source: Treaty Office on http://conventions.coe.int

Reporting committee: Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee

Reference to committee: Doc. 9165 and Reference No. 2643 of 25 September 2001

Draft recommendation unanimously adopted on 24 June 2002.

Members of the committee: Mrs Ragnarsdóttir (Chairman), Mr Hegyi, Mrs Gatterer, Mr Christodoulides (Vice-Chairmen), MM. Alís Font, Arnau, Mrs Belohorská, Mr Berzinš, Mrs Biga-Friganović, Mrs Björnemalm (alternate: Ms Zetterberg), Mrs Bolognesi, MM. Brînzan, Brunhart, Cerrahoğlu, Cox, Dees, Dhaille, Dos Santos, Evin, Floros, Flynn (alternate: Mr Hancock), Ms Gamzatova, MM. Giertych, Glesener, Goldberg, Gönül, Gregory, Gusenbauer, Güstafsson, Haack, Herrera, Hladiy, Høie, Hörster, Ms Jäger, Mrs Jirousová, Mr Klympush, Baroness Knight, MM. Kontogiannopoulos, Lomakin-Rumiantsev, Ms Lotz, Ms Luhtanen, MM. Makhachev, Małachowski, Manukyan, Mrs Markovska, MM. Marty (alternate: Mr Schmied), Mattei, Mrs Milotinova, MM. Mladenov, Monfils, Ms Nowiak (alternate: Mr Wikinski), MM. Olekas, Ouzký (alternate: Ms Palečková), Padilla, Podobnik, Popa, Poty, Provera, Pysarenko, Rigoni (alternate: Mr Piscitello), Rizzi, Mrs Roseira, Mr Seyidov, Mrs Shakhtakhtinskaya, MM. Slutsky, Surján, Telek, Ms Tevdoradze, MM. Truu, Tudor (alternate: Mrs Ionescu), Turjačanin, Vella, Mrs Vermot-Mangold, MM. Vesselbo, Vis, Vos, Mrs Zafferani, Mr Zidu.

NB : The names of those members present at the meeting are printed in italics.

Secretaries to the committee: Mr. Newman, Ms Meunier and Ms Karanjac

¹ The European Convention on Social Security [ETS No. 078], in force since 1977, is an instrument for the co-ordination of social security legislation designed to ensure that migrant workers do not suffer as a result of being subject to two or more social security systems during their professional career. It has been ratified by 8 member States.

² The Rapporteur is grateful for the assistance of Directorate General III – Social Cohesion, in providing the descriptive information given here.

³ “With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right to social security, the Contracting Parties undertake:

1. to establish or maintain a system of social security;

2. to maintain the social security system at a satisfactory level at least equal to that required for ratification of International Labour Convention (No. 102) Concerning Minimum Standards of Social Security;

3. to endeavour to raise progressively the system of social security to a higher level”.