Yes you can. If you are a wholly unemployed frontier worker who resided outside the competent State during your last (self-)employment, you are entitled to unemployment benefits in the State in which you reside, by making yourself available to the employment services of that State. These benefits include assistance for vocational training intended to enable unemployed persons to retrain and to find new employment. As a supplementary step, you can make yourself available to the employment services of the Member State in which you last pursued your activity as an employed or self-employed person. In that case, you must also comply with the obligations applicable in that State, which may include activating measures. However, the obligations and/or job-seeking activities in the Member State of residence have priority.
Moreover, by virtue of the principle of equal treatment in the field of the free movement of workers, persons who go to the territory of another Member State to seek employment are entitled to receive the same assistance there as that afforded by the employment services in that State to their own nationals seeking employment. However, you are only entitled to have your unemployment benefit paid while looking for work in a State other than the competent State of last (self-)employment (or than the State of residence, seequestion 69.10) under very specific conditions (see questions 69.3 and 69.4). These include the obligation to register as a person seeking work with the employment services of the Member State to which you have gone, to be subject to the control procedure organised there and to adhere to the conditions (such as participating in job-seeking activities and other activating measures) laid down under the legislation of that State.
Legislation
Legal basis: article 3 Regulation 883/2004
No, the scope of the regulation is not, or not necessarily, confined to first pillar old-age pension schemes. In fact, whether a national old-age pension scheme belongs to the first or second pillar – or is considered as such by the Member State in question – is irrelevant for the purposes of its inclusion in the scope of the coordination regulation. What is relevant is the origin of the scheme. If an old-age pension scheme is established by legislation, it comes within the scope of the coordination regulation, even if it presents characteristics which tend to be associated with supplementary, second pillar systems. This is the case, for instance, for the Hungarian or Swiss second pillar schemes, which are mandatory funded defined-contribution schemes.
Conversely, old-age pension schemes introduced by collective labour agreements are outside the scope of the coordination regulation, unless a Member State concerned has made a declaration that they fall within the scope of the regulation (see the keyword collective labour agreement and the exception mentioned there).
Long-term care benefits for the purposes of the regulation are benefits intended to improve the state of health and quality of life of persons reliant on care and as such, have as their essential purpose the supplementing of sickness insurance benefits (although under national legislation this could be a system totally separated from the sickness insurance or health care system). If these benefits are granted objectively and on the basis of a legally defined position (i.e. in a non-discretionary way), they are covered by the regulation, for which they constitute sickness benefits. This implies that they are coordinated according to the regulation’s rules governing sickness benefits (see the keywords benefits, sickness benefits, material scope and social security risks). As a rule, long-term care benefits are designed to develop the independence of persons reliant on care, in particular from the financial point of view. Typically, they promote home care in preference to care provided in hospital but could also consist in granting aids or cost sharing for people staying in homes for people with disabilities.
The conditions for the grant of the benefit and the way in which it is financed do not affect the classification of a benefit as a long-term care benefit. The fact that the grant of the benefit is not necessarily linked to payment of a sickness insurance benefit, or the circumstance that the benefit is non-contributory, is of no importance for the qualification as a long-term care benefit.
Long-term care benefits can take different forms. Like sickness benefits, they can be in kind or in cash. Benefits consisting in the provision of home care services or the direct payment or reimbursement of the costs of a specialised home entailed by the insured person’s reliance on care, constitute long-term care benefits in kind. Long-term care benefits in cash include allowances (of a fixed or differential amount) to compensate for the additional expenditure resulting from the recipients’ condition of reliance on care, in particular the cost of the assistance it is necessary to provide them with (independently of the costs actually incurred by the persons concerned). An example would be financial aid which recipients may use to remunerate a member of their family or entourage who is assisting them on a voluntary basis. The payment of the old-age insurance of a third person to whom a person in need of care resorts for assistance at home is also to be categorised as a long-term care benefit in cash.
The answer to this question essentially depends on whether the legislations of the States concerned provide for long-term care benefits in kind or in cash (see the answer to the previous question).
In principle, you are entitled to have a long-term care benefit in cash exported by the institution of Member State B, as if it were a sickness cash benefit (see the keyword sickness benefit in cash). Please note, however, that if the legislation of Member State A provides for long-term care benefits in kind, and you claim and receive these benefits, the amount of the cash benefit you receive from the institution of State B may be reduced by the amount of the benefit in kind you receive from the institution from State A (and the cost of which is to be borne by the institution of State B, see the keyword medical care). This is an application of the principle that overlapping of benefits is in principle prohibited. The institution of State B must inform you of this rule. Its application should not result in your benefits being lower than those to which you would be entitled if you resided in State B. The Member States which provide for such benefits in kind and/or in cash concerned by this provision are included on the list drawn up by the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems. Please note that this list is indicative and not binding, and that the fact that a benefit is not included cannot be used as an argument for non-exportability.
In case the legislation of the State paying the pension, i.e. State B, does not provide for long-term care benefits in cash, you can nevertheless claim the long-term care benefits in kind provided for by the legislation of the State of residence, State A. The cost of these benefits will be reimbursed to the institution of the State A by its counterpart in State B. However, if no such benefits are provided for under the legislation of State A, you have no claim to long-term care benefits.
If only the legislation of the State where you reside provides for long-term care benefits, and these benefits are in cash and not subject to conditions of insurance, employment or self-employment, you might be able to rely on your status of EU citizen to claim a right to equal treatment as regards this long-term care benefit outside the rules of the regulation which would not allow that. However, caution is needed. As the law on this point is still developing, the extent of the rights attached to the status of EU citizen is not yet clear. It is certain, however, that the social benefit rights stemming from EU citizenship are not unlimited.