KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Sosyal Güvence / 2025 / Sayı: Özel Sayı Özel Sayı

Yeni Riskler Karşısında Avrupa Birliği Sosyal Güvenlik Hukukunun Evrimi: COVID‑19’un Ardından 21. Yüzyıl Çözümleri

The Evolution Of European Union Social Security Law In The Face Of New Risks: 21st-Century Solutions In The Aftermath Of Covid-19

Soner Akın

Sayfa
37–63
Yayın Tarihi
2025-06-10
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗

Özet

21. yüzyılda dijitalleşme, esnek istihdam biçimleri, artan göç hareketliliği ve iklim krizi gibi yeni sosyal riskler, Avrupa Birliği sosyal güvenlik sistemlerini hem ulusal hem de birlik düzeyinde yeniden yapılandırma ihtiyacını gündeme getirmiştir. COVID-19 pandemisi ise bu kırılganlıkları görünür kılarak, sosyal güvenlik hukukunun kriz koşullarında nasıl işlemesi gerektiğine dair kapsamlı bir sınama sunmuştur. Bu çalışma, pandemi sonrası dönemde Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı'nın (ABAD) sosyal güvenlik hukukuna ilişkin kararlarını tematik olarak analiz ederek, normatif yapının içtihat yoluyla nasıl evrildiğini incelemektedir. Sosyal yardım ve aile ödenekleri alanında verilen Martinez Sala, Grzelczyk ve Dano gibi temel kararlar ile INPS v WS ve XI v Caisse gibi yeni nesil kararlar, sınır ötesi sosyal hakların kapsamının genişletildiğine işaret etmektedir. Esnek çalışma modellerine ilişkin D.J. ve R.J. kararlarında ise “stand-by” süresinin çalışma süresi olarak değerlendirilmesi, pandemiyle yaygınlaşan uzaktan çalışmanın hukuki boyutuna ışık tutmaktadır. Devlet yardımları bağlamında görülen Ryanair v Komisyon kararı, sosyal amaçlı desteklerin rekabet hukuku ile çatışabileceği durumları analiz etmek açısından dikkat çekicidir. İnceleme sürecinde her bir karar, normatif ilkelerle uyumu, yaratıcı içtihat kapasitesi ve kriz sonrası sosyal güvenlik rejimlerine katkısı açısından değerlendirilmiştir. ABAD kararlarının sosyal güvenlik hukukunun yönünü belirlemede oynadığı rol, çok düzeyli sosyal koruma yapılarının inşasında yargısal yorumun belirleyici etkisini ortaya koymaktadır.

Abstract

In the 21st century, new social risks such as digitalization, flexible employment patterns, increased migration, and the climate crisis have necessitated a restructuring of European Union social security systems at both national and supranational levels. The COVID-19 pandemic has further exposed these vulnerabilities, serving as a comprehensive stress test for how social security law should operate under crisis conditions. This study thematically analyzes the post-pandemic case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning social security, examining how the normative framework has evolved through judicial interpretation. Foundational rulings such as Martinez Sala, Grzelczyk, and Dano, alongside more recent decisions like INPS v WS and XI v Caisse, point to a broadening of cross-border social rights. In cases such as D.J. and R.J., the classification of "stand-by" time as working time reflects the legal implications of the widespread shift to remote work during the pandemic. The Ryanair v Commission judgment is particularly noteworthy for illustrating the tensions between socially motivated state aid and EU competition law. Each decision is assessed in light of its consistency with EU legal principles, its capacity for interpretive innovation, and its contribution to the post-crisis transformation of social security regimes. The role of the CJEU in shaping the trajectory of EU social security law highlights the pivotal function of judicial interpretation in constructing multi-level social protection frameworks.

Anahtar kelimeler
🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Akın, S. (2025). Yeni Riskler Karşısında Avrupa Birliği Sosyal Güvenlik Hukukunun Evrimi: COVID‑19’un Ardından 21. Yüzyıl Çözümleri. Sosyal Güvence, Sayı: Özel Sayı Özel Sayı, 37–63. https://doi.org/10.21441/sosyalguvence.1691495

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

Kaynakça (39)

  1. ABAD. (1998). Martinez Sala v Freistaat Bayern (C-85/96). Court of Justice of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu
  2. ABAD. (2001). Grzelczyk v Centre public d’aide sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve (C-184/99). Court of Justice of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu
  3. ABAD. (2004). Trojani v Centre public d’aide sociale de Bruxelles (C-456/02). Court of Justice of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu
  4. ABAD. (2009). Buck v Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen Bühnen (C-73/08). Court of Justice of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu
  5. ABAD. (2010). Lair v Université Catholique de Louvain & Others (C-41/09). Court of Justice of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu
  6. ABAD. (2014a). Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig (C-333/13). Court of Justice of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu
  7. ABAD. (2014b). The Queen v Secretary of State (C-396/13). Court of Justice of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu
  8. ABAD. (2017). Wall v Institut national d’assurance maladie-invalidité (C-670/15). Court of Justice of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu
  9. ABAD. (2018). Houeidi v Ministre (C-718/17). Court of Justice of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu
  10. ABAD. (2020). Eurowings Luftverkehrs AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (C-55/18). Court of Justice of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu
  11. ABAD. (2021a). D.J. v Radiotelevizija Slovenija (C-344/19). Court of Justice of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu
  12. ABAD. (2021b). INPS v WS (C-302/19). Court of Justice of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu
  13. ABAD. (2021c). Ryanair v Komisyon (T-123/21). Court of Justice of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu
  14. ABAD. (2021d). X v Minister for Social Protection (C-302/19). Court of Justice of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu
  15. ABAD. (2022a). R.J. v Stadt Offenbach (C-580/19). Court of Justice of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu
  16. ABAD. (2022b). XI v Caisse nationale des allocations familiales de Meurthe-et-Moselle (C-129/20). Court of Justice of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu
  17. Barnard, C., & Ludlow, A. (2016). Enforcement of employment rights by EU-8 migrant workers in employment tribunals. Industrial Law Journal, 45(1), 1–28.
  18. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. (2012). Official Journal of the European Union, C 326, 391–407.
  19. Court of Justice of the European Union. (2022). Malta Air Travel Ltd v Commission (T-124/21). https://eur-lex.europa.eu
  20. Court of Justice of the European Union. (2022). Ryanair DAC v Commission (T-123/21). https://eur-lex.europa.eu
  21. European Commission. (2020a). COVID-19 and Occupational Diseases. Publications Office. https://ec.europa.eu
  22. European Commission. (2020b). Guidelines on occupational safety and health risks during the COVID-19 pandemic (COM(2020) 354 final). https://ec.europa.eu
  23. European Commission. (2021a). Communication from the Commission: Guidelines on State aid measures to support the economy in the current COVID-19 outbreak (C(2020) 1863 final). https://ec.europa.eu
  24. European Commission. (2021a). The Just Transition Mechanism. Official Journal of the EU. https://ec.europa.eu
  25. European Commission. (2021b). Interpretative communication on the Commission’s enforcement priorities in applying Articles 107 and 108 TFEU to measures in the context of the COVID 19 outbreak (C(2020) 2215 final). https://ec.europa.eu
  26. European Commission. (2021b). State Aid: Temporary Framework. Official Journal of the EU. https://ec.europa.eu
  27. European Commission. (2021c). State Aid Scoreboard 2021 edition. Directorate General for Competition. https://ec.europa.eu
  28. European Commission. (2023). State Aid Modernisation Package. Official Journal of the EU. https://ec.europa.eu
  29. European Parliament. (2022). Digitalisation of Social Security Coordination. Publications Office. https://www.europarl.europa.eu
  30. European Union. (2012a). Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (2012/C 326/01). Official Journal of the European Union.
  31. Eurostat. (2021). Occupational diseases statistics. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat
  32. GDPR. (2018). General Data Protection Regulation. Official Journal of the EU. https://eur-lex.europa.eu
  33. ILO. (1993). Convention No. 171 on Night Work. International Labour Organization. https://ilo.org
  34. ILO. (2021). World Employment and Social Outlook: The Role of Digital Labour Platforms. International Labour Organization. https://ilo.org
  35. International Labour Organization. (1993). Convention No. 1: Hours of Work (Industry) Convention. ILO. https://ilo.org
  36. Jones, A., & Kavanagh, J. (2020). The competition–social welfare paradox: State aid in the EU. European Law Review, 45(2), 158–178.
  37. Regulation (EC) No 883/2004. (2004). Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems. Official Journal of the European Union, L 166, 1–123.
  38. Regulation (EC) No 987/2009. (2009). Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004. Official Journal of the European Union, L 284, 1–46.
  39. TFEU. (2012). Consolidated Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Union, C326, 47–200.