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 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 României 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 Österreichische Zahnärztekammer 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.

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.

In this case report, five judgments will be discussed. In C-421/23 ONSS , the contentious issue of fraudulent A1 certificates for posting returned to the Court. In this case, the Court was essentially asked to determine whether the dialogue and conciliation procedure was applicable in the event that the A1 certificates were forged and never issued by the competent institution of the sending State. Case C-329/23 Sozialversicherungsanstalt concerns the determination of the applicable law in cases of activities in an EU Member State (Austria), an EEA Member State (Liechtenstein) and Switzerland. Another two judgments concern the interpretation of the equal treatment provision for third-country nationals lawfully residing in the EU. In case C-112/22 CU , the question was whether equal treatment as enshrined in Article 11(1)(d) of the Long-term Residence Directive, read in conjunction with Article 34 of the Charter, precludes a national rule which makes the grant of a basic income conditional on lawful residence of minimum 10 years. For the first time, the Court, in its Grand Chamber composition, was invited to assess a national rule that was indirectly discriminatory towards third-country nationals. In case C-664/23 Caisse d’allocations familiales des Hauts-de-Seine v TX , the Court was asked whether equal treatment under Article 12(1)(e) of the Single Permit Directive precludes refusal to take into account, for the purpose of calculation of family benefits, children born outside the Member State's territory and for whom there is no proof of lawful entry into the territory. Finally, the last case discussed is C-277/23 Ministarstvo financija (Bourse Erasmus+) concerning the loss of a tax advantage because the dependent child of an EU citizen received an Erasmus+ mobility allowance during the period of exchange in another EU Member State.

This special issue of the European Journal of Social Security explores the complexities of extending unemployment insurance to the self-employed and platform workers in the EU Member States and the steps taken at EU level to enforce the protection offered at national level. Traditionally, social security systems have been designed for standard employment relationships, leaving a typical workers and the self-employed inadequately protected. The European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR), adopted in 2017, and the subsequent 2019 Recommendation on access to social protection have marked a shift towards more inclusive social security frameworks. However, significant gaps in coverage remain, in particular with regard to unemployment protection for the self-employed and platform workers. The special issue is divided into three parts: national perspectives, comparative studies and EU-level discussions.

Whether they are self-employed, atypical employees, or self-employed using an umbrella company, there is still almost no social protection against unemployment or partial loss of activity in Switzerland for platform workers. The same can be said for the self-employed in general. This contribution shows that platform workers, irrespective of their exact legal status, and the self-employed in general, risk sanctions for taking on unsuitable work, for being insufficiently available for decent work or unable to prove a loss of income. However hard they try, they cannot even contribute to a voluntary unemployment insurance scheme. We show that the Swiss social protection scheme, a product of years of federal direct democracy, is hardly able to adapt to the fast-moving platform work environment, thus increasing the risks of precariousness and the burden on the cantons’ social assistance for the next generation.

Improving the social security protection of atypical workers has been high on the EU agenda in recent years. With the adoption of the European Pillar of Social Rights in 2017, the EU wished to break away from a decade of austerity measures. The EU further developed the right to adequate social protection in the Pillar through the Recommendation on access to social protection for workers and the self-employed. This instrument urges EU Member States to ensure adequate access to social protection for workers, regardless of their employment relationship, and the self-employed. As part of the EU's recovery strategy during and after the Covid-19 crisis, several financial instruments were developed to support EU Member States. Through the Temporary Support to Mitigate Unemployment Risks in an Emergency, EU Member States received support for job retention schemes. The EU also adopted the Recovery Resilience Facility, which provided grants and loans. Another support instrument was the European Social Fund Plus. This article discusses those recent EU initiatives, focusing on unemployment and the protection of atypical workers and the self-employed. With the introduction of the European Employment Strategy (1997), a closer link was made at EU level between unemployment, increasing labour market participation and activation measures. Less attention was paid to ensuring adequate unemployment protection. In recent years, however, it appears that the EU has been playing an increasing role in providing funding for temporary support and in introducing changes to EU Member States’ policies.

While critical political economy (CPE) has yet to play a prominent role in eco-social policy research, this paper argues that a deeper engagement with CPE and a better understanding of the global political economy can enhance eco-social policy debates. CPE can help us to see the contradictions in and impediments to integrating environmental and social policies, and particularly why both of these categories continue to be mediated and shaped by economic logics. In order to develop these arguments, we analyse recent international discourses on agricultural subsidies promoted by key policy actors such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the World Bank, and the International Fund for Agricultural Development. By examining agriculture as a nodal point between diverse scales and domains such as the local, global, environmental, social, and economic spheres, we explore how certain positions are prioritised over others. We argue that the discourse on ‘repurposing subsidies’ in global agricultural policy expresses a ‘new critical orthodoxy’ that recognises the need for transformation but fails to address the structural conditions of the global political economy responsible for environmental and social crises. Instead, the proposed solutions rely on existing institutions and capitalist logics to resolve current crises, even if the latter are underpinned by these logics. Our analysis underlines the need for eco-social policy scholarship to be cognizant of how environmental and social policy integration is always embedded within a particular global political economy that reproduces certain inequalities and is not a neutral policy terrain.