Freedom of movement for workers is a fundamental principle of the EU, enshrined in Article 45 of the TFEU and confirmed by its derivative legislation and by Luxembourg case law.

Various rulings by the Court of Justice have stated that the objective of European legislation on freedom of movement would be compromised if a worker who had taken advantage of this right then received a lower payment (e.g. social security) than a worker who had remained in the Member State of origin (see, among others, Case C‑24/75 Petroni v ONPTS [1975] ECR I‑1149; Case C‑807/90 Gravina v Landesversicherungsanstalt Schwaben [1980] ERC I‑2205; Case C‑293/88 Winter-Lutzins v Bestuur Van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank [1990] ERC I‑1623).

In Italy, Laws 291/2004 and 166/2008 have been adopted in respect of staff (including flight crew) employed by airlines and spin-off companies created as a result of corporate reorganisation or transformation processes.

These laws contain provisions relating to the extraordinary Earnings Supplement Fund and unemployment benefits, and make the National Institute of Social Security (INPS) responsible for monitoring earnings supplement authorisations and applications for unemployment or social security benefits.

On 8 July 2011, the INPS issued Circular No 94, which states that ‘unemployment benefit [appropriately suspended during any period of fixed-term employment] is no longer payable if the beneficiary relocates to or is re-employed in another country during the period of eligibility for the benefit’. This produces serious discrimination against workers who decide to take up temporary employment abroad compared with those working on a temporary basis in Italy, who can claim the benefit again when their employment ends.

Does the Commission not think that this rule is a real and unreasonable hindrance to freedom of movement for workers in the internal market?