Somewhere along the way they either lied or innocently failed to fully declare their working history.
Is this old debate still raging 
Well I fully declared my French and UK pensions to the Irish authorities to bolster my overall working contributions, and I have an S1 from them.
As to fairness, if someone has, for example, worked and contributed for thirty years to the UK system and then works one year in France and retires, the UK gets to wash their hands of them?
Look at the context, not individual words. Article 23 is about RIGHTS to benefits in kind, one of which is pensions. Not about drawing them down.
My understanding, albeit from the specialist groups on FB, is that it’s the entitlement that counts.
anyone know how many trimesters one needs to be entitled to any sort of French pension??
If one works in France for just 1 year, is that enough to entitle a pension ?
That’s kinda my view too. Call me naive, but ime welfare systems (be they benefits, health, tax or retirement) tend to be fair. Bend over backwards even to allow you choice where they can and enable you to take the best option, the most profitable or cost effective or whatever. They intend to look after you by design. They don’t try to diddle you or catch you out. At their core, they are just. That ethos underpins a social welfare system.
So to my mind, it’s entirely consistent with that ethos to enable you to weigh up the pros and cons, make your spreadsheet calcs, etc and decide which your best option is. I get not allowing you both, it’s either one or the other, but letting you choose rather striking one option out.
You can get something even if you’ve contributed for one term, but I expect it is tiny and you get eg 6€ paid once a year.
This is France! So not as simple as that. FIrst off to get a trimestre you need to earn 150 times the hourly net SMIC, which is €12.02. If you don’t earn that you won’t get a trimestre. The maximum trimestres you can get a year is 4, and I think that is also the minimum for any sort of pension - but it will be miniscule.
This is all dancing on the head if a pin IMO. As I used to say to the corporate layers in my team “ tell me solution not the problem”. They were mostly useless to be fair, all jobsworths.
But the one I had for the last few years of my career, Fiona, was independently wealth and had the courage to battle Corporate. We did some great, profitable and fun deals 
This is all dancing on the head if a pin IMO. As I used to say to the corporate layers in my team “ tell me solution not the problem”. They were mostly useless to be fair, all jobsworths.
But the one I had for the last few years of my career, Fiona, was independently wealth and had the courage to battle Corporate. We did some great, profitable and fun deals
The issues with the platform SF moved to yonks ago and IOS/Safari still haven’t been resolved. It’s a still a nightmare 
At least, that’s what Fiona said I should say when that happened.
I worked here from August 1981 until January 1983 and I get a little pension every three months, I think. I don’t remember how much but it’s reasonable for my contributions.
User error 
or design feature
I’m sure Jane and John are right and what is meant is “Are you entitled to a French pension”, not “Are you drawing a French pension” but in that case they seriously need to tighten up the wording of the questions put to applicants. This is from the S1 online application process:
To my mind “in receipt of” is unambiguous. Many people have benefit entitlement but are not paid them, or in receipt of them. So, yes, if that’s not what is intended by the wording then the wording does need to be changed.
I was quite struck by your comment, as I had you down as a bit of a stickler for the rules, after you liked M. Paul Robsons reply to my comment
“However, France wants the tax from UK pensions, however arising, and may be happy to take the 6.5% on large amounts no questions asked - it is after all 13.5K they get on 200K. Though after doing the cashing in one is committed - nasty if they then impose the tax at scale rates - 80K. So maybe checks might be made by them in any case ‘just in case’.
His comment being -
“Hmmm. Given most of us are “guests” here with cartes de sejour, taking aggressive tax treatments may not be the wisest approach if we wish the guest status to continue…”
I agree with Paul about taking ‘aggressive tax treatments (though not necessarily we are ‘guests’ if we have an international treaty backing our rights) and to my mind the ‘does working in france’ S1 debate might fall into ‘aggressive tax treatment’.
Now, to be fair, my comment was speculating about the likelihood of a tax ‘control’, and not taking something to which one might not be entitled. However, I agree with you and Roger that it doesn’t seem fair if one works only 1 year in france.
Nevertheless, that is the position as seems set out in @JaneJones ‘s posts.
What is clear is that compliance checks for S1 holders with France pensions are not being carried out by France - and it is absolutely easy to do so - French pensions are declared in a specific box and the S1 box is ticked - on the same form! And even if France pensions aren’t declared in the correct box , the fisc has a list of them!
So, here is an issue where the Franc tax authorities may not ‘see a problem’ never mind ‘a solution’ (to paraphrase Roger).
Also, you previously mentioned -
I hope I’m not coming across as having a go, it’s just there are various changing thoughts in various places within the topic - and quite rightly, moral values and ideas evolve - and there’s a range from ‘no this can never happen’ to ‘well maybe’.
And here’s the maths on it -
If France loss of social security payments for S1 holders with France pensions is greater that money received from those S1 countries for healthcare then yes, it may well be that France authorities should ‘crack down’ - after all they will get the last 3 years in back dated social security contributions.
However, (there always seems to be a however) such an action might have other effects (e.g. people upping sticks and going elsewhere so a future loss of tax revenue).
These are of course simply thoughts in a wider (interesting?) debate…
Yes, as I recall there is certainly a question ‘have you ever worked in another country’ - or something similar.
Such classic corporate management speak! That sort of drivel tended to make me reply that you’re the one paid to sort problems, so off you pop matey.
The Myth
A persistent claim appears regularly in fiscal communities: “If you have enough trimestres to be entitled to a French pension, you are no longer eligible for an S1. France is now responsible for your healthcare.”
The entire European and bilateral social security coordination framework hinges on which state is actually paying a pension, not which state you might be “entitled” to claim one from. Entitlement to a French pension that has not been claimed is legally irrelevant to the S1 question based on the information below.
