The Council of State has no fundamental issues with the government’s plans to stop unemployment benefits after two years. If it has any concerns, these have to do with the exceptions to the stricter measures.
The ABVV trade union federation, which wants to challenge the reform in court, has found little ammunition with which to do so, De Tijd wrote on Tuesday.
The ABVV argues that the reform violates Article 23 of the constitution, which guarantees everyone “the right to lead a life with human dignity,” including “the right to social security.” Courts interpret these provisions as a standstill obligation that prohibits the government from reducing social protection arbitrarily.
However, the Council of State advises that the government can reduce social protection if pursuing a legitimate aim and if the reduction is not excessive.
The government has cited three legitimate goals: a more efficient labour market, financially healthy social security, and a stronger budget. The Council of State agrees that halting unemployment benefits after two years aligns with these goals.
This does not mean the reform is flawless. There are questions about shortening the integration allowance, and concerns about exceptions to the reform. For instance, harbour workers, fishermen, and those under the artist statute retain benefits beyond two years.
The decision to suspend the two-year limit for nursing students, due to the high vacancy rates in healthcare, also raises concerns, as shortages exist in other sectors too.
The possibility of suspending the two-year limit for other reasons, such as remand or illness, is being questioned, potentially providing the union with some leverage.
The socialist union initially responded that the “Council of State itself said it had little time for providing advice and formulated many questions and concerns in its opinion.”
The ABVV points out that the Constitutional Court, not the Council of State, will assess the constitutionality of the government’s proposal.
