OpenLobby.EU
Explore

PensionsEurope

PensionsEurope represents national pension fund associations managing over 7 trillion euros in assets for 110 million citizens.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Eero Heinäluoma (Member of the European Parliament)

21 Jan 2026 · Ajankohtaiset asiat

Meeting with Dirk Gotink (Member of the European Parliament)

21 Jan 2026 · Supplementary pensions package

Meeting with Pascal Canfin (Member of the European Parliament)

24 Nov 2025 · Savings & Investments Union

PensionsEurope urges simpler digital resilience rules for pension funds

14 Oct 2025
Topic — This consultation concerns a digital omnibus package to simplify existing EU digital regulations.
Message — The organization seeks to simplify ICT incident reporting by reducing fields and extending deadlines. They recommend a principle-based approach to ensure proportionality and avoid duplicative regulatory layers.123
Why — These changes would lower compliance costs and ease administrative burdens for pension funds.45
Impact — Centralized EU reporting proponents lose support for a unified data collection hub.6
Read full response

Meeting with Larisa Dragomir (Cabinet of Commissioner Maria Luís Albuquerque)

14 Oct 2025 · Supplementary Pensions

Meeting with Elena Arveras (Cabinet of Commissioner Maria Luís Albuquerque)

13 Oct 2025 · SFDR

Response to Supplementary pensions – review of the regulatory framework and other measures to strengthen the sector

21 Jul 2025

PensionsEurope welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the call for evidence for supplementary pensions. We advocate adequate and secure pensions for people in Europe and are confident that pension funds can and should play a significant role in providing them. The pension landscape across Europe is very diverse, which is largely derived from and linked to national labour laws, tax laws, and social security systems. For this reason, we believe that actions on supplementary pensions by the EU must take into consideration the different characteristics of Member States and respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. PensionsEurope is currently working with its members on the targeted consultation on supplementary pensions. In our response to that consultation, we will go into much more detail than this general call for evidence allows, particularly given the short deadline. I. IORP II review The IORP II directive is rightly minimum harmonization legislation and this needs to continue and there is no need for delegated acts. Investment rules PensionsEurope believes that the prudent person principle and the fiduciary duty as expressed in Article 19 are sufficient and proper rules for diversification of investments. Existing limitations, particularly in investments considered riskier, such as private equity and venture capital, are based on national legislation. Pension funds in countries that have used a principle-based and qualitative approach the the prudent person rule are less constrained to invest in alternatives. Scale Consolidation of pension funds has happened in many countries for several years. Typical examples are the Dutch, Irish and Belgian pension funds. Often investments of pension funds are executed by specialised service providers which have adequate scale to perform investments efficiently. Therefore, we believe that no particular actions would be necessary or useful. The objective of the IORPII Directive should be to improve Europeans access to occupational pensions. Smaller and medium-sized pension funds are able to deliver decent returns and professionally managed pensions. Cross-border issues Cross-border activities of IORPs remain very limited. Efforts by EU institutions to facilitate and/or promote cross-border activities must not negatively affect non-cross-border IORPs. Scope of the directive The issue of the scope was central in IORP I but not in IORP II and no changes were proposed in IORP II. The scope remains a very sensitive issue and PensionsEurope believes that any proposal on the scope must take into consideration the limited EU competences in pensions and other political parameters as well as different technical aspects. Supervision On the supervision issue, we believe that NCAs should continue to supervise the IORPs and they are equipped with all the necessary tools to perform their duty efficiently. Transparency, information, and pension tracking systems Member States should have greater flexibility in how they line and target information. Making the Pension Benefit Statement (PBS) longer could make PBS less understandable and less usable by the members and beneficiaries. Member States should have the freedom to determine whether and how to use synergies between the Pension Tracking Services (PTS) and the PBS. Finally, scenarios on which projections are based should continue to be identified at the Member State level. Refer to our document for the rest of our feedback.
Read full response

PensionsEurope warns investment accounts must not undermine retirement savings

8 Jul 2025
Topic — The European Commission seeks to create a blueprint for savings and investment accounts.
Message — PensionsEurope urges a clear distinction between investment accounts and retirement vehicles. They argue tax incentives should remain targeted at long-term retirement savings. Furthermore, they oppose mandatory minimum percentages for investment within the European Union.123
Why — This protects the market share and tax status of existing pension funds.4
Impact — Individual savers may suffer from lower returns and inadequate income during retirement.56
Read full response

Meeting with Stefan Olsson (Deputy Director-General Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion) and APG Groep NV and

1 Jul 2025 · High level delegation from boards of Dutch pension institutions

Meeting with Marco La Marca (Cabinet of Commissioner Dubravka Šuica) and Microsoft Corporation and

6 May 2025 · Demographic Policy

Meeting with Sirpa Pietikäinen (Member of the European Parliament)

29 Apr 2025 · Savings and Investments Union

Meeting with Dirk Gotink (Member of the European Parliament)

29 Apr 2025 · Pensions and SIU

Meeting with Tilman Lueder (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

10 Apr 2025 · Pensions Europe Annual Conference 2025 - The way to better pensions

Meeting with Maria Luís Albuquerque (Commissioner) and

28 Mar 2025 · Exchange on supplementary pensions

Meeting with Pascal Canfin (Member of the European Parliament)

5 Mar 2025 · Savings and Investment Union

PensionsEurope urges EU to cut excessive pension reporting burdens

29 Nov 2023
Topic — The Commission initiative seeks to reduce EU legislative reporting requirements by 25%.
Message — PensionsEurope requests exemptions from consumer disclosures and the removal of overlapping reporting requirements. They argue current standards lack proportionality and result in unnecessarily high administrative costs.123
Why — Cutting these costs would enhance the industry's capacity to invest and provide retirement incomes.45
Impact — Supervisory authorities would lose access to daily reports and detailed granular market data.6
Read full response

PensionsEurope demands specific data sharing rules for pension funds

31 Oct 2023
Topic — The European Commission proposes a framework to improve financial data access.
Message — PensionsEurope wants the framework to build on existing tracking services and exclude sensitive health-related data. They argue the implementation timeline is unrealistic and requires significant extension. The group also seeks flexibility in how often pension data is updated.123
Why — This strategy avoids expensive parallel investments and reduces administrative burdens for funds.45
Impact — Major technology firms would be restricted from using financial data for competition.6
Read full response

PensionsEurope Urges Simplified Tax Relief for Pension Funds

18 Sept 2023
Topic — This initiative proposes a standardized EU-wide system for withholding tax relief at source.
Message — PensionsEurope requests that transparent investment entities have access to these new tax procedures. They propose shifting legal liability for reporting information from financial intermediaries directly to investors. They also call for a harmonized definition of beneficial ownership to ensure legal certainty.123
Why — Standardized procedures would lower administrative costs and allow funds to reinvest tax savings.45
Impact — Smaller pension funds lose access if intermediaries refuse service due to liability risks.67
Read full response

PensionsEurope urges EU to include data in ESG regulations

1 Sept 2023
Topic — This initiative aims to improve the reliability and comparability of ESG ratings.
Message — The scope must cover ESG data alongside ratings to ensure market reliability. Pension funds should be allowed to continue relying on internal risk assessments. Mandatory transparency on fee structures is needed to ensure fair product pricing.123
Why — This prevents rising costs for pension funds and protects beneficiary pension payments.4
Impact — Large rating agencies lose market dominance through stricter competition and equivalence rules.5
Read full response

PensionsEurope urges stricter reporting rules for sustainability data gaps

7 Jul 2023
Topic — New EU rules specifying sustainability standards for company reporting across Europe.
Message — The organization wants companies to explicitly report immaterial indicators rather than omitting them entirely. They suggest using a "qualified 0" label to help investors consolidate sustainability data. This ensures pension funds can meet their own mandatory disclosure requirements for investment portfolios.12
Why — This would simplify data collection and lower costs for regulatory compliance.34
Impact — Reporting companies would face increased administrative burdens by disclosing immaterial data points.56
Read full response

Meeting with Axel Voss (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and BUSINESSEUROPE and

8 Mar 2023 · Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence

PensionsEurope seeks clarity on investor duties in sustainability rules

23 May 2022
Topic — This consultation covers a new directive on corporate sustainability due diligence and governance.
Message — The group requests clarification on whether investment activities fall within the directive's scope. They argue for alignment with international guidelines regarding the limited leverage of minority shareholders. They also want to use existing supervisory bodies rather than new authorities.123
Why — Clearer rules would save pension funds from a massive and costly administrative burden.4
Impact — Victims of corporate abuse might struggle to obtain compensation from institutional investors.5
Read full response

Meeting with Florian Denis (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

26 Apr 2022 · clearing UK CCPs

Response to Fighting the use of shell entities and arrangements for tax purposes

6 Apr 2022

As the European umbrella organisation representing pensions in Europe, PensionsEurope would like to comment on the European Commission Proposal for a Council Directive laying down rules to prevent the misuse of shell entities for tax purposes and amending Directive 2011/16/EU. Please find our comments in the attached file.
Read full response

Response to New EU system for the avoidance of double taxation in the field of withholding taxes

25 Oct 2021

We welcomes the EC’s roadmap on the new EU system for the avoidance of double taxation and prevention of tax abuse in the field of withholding taxes (WHT). We support the current EC´s mandate call for removing all barriers to the completion of the CMU – particularly in the field of simplifying taxation. We agree with the important remarks of the EC on the current challenges with WHT procedures across Europe, and we have explained those challenges and obstacles from pension funds’ point of view in our position paper on the WHT refund barriers to cross-border investment in the EU. We agree with the objective that a standardised relief at source system becomes the principal mechanism for WHT relief procedures and their streamlining. We have stressed for a long time that the relief at source is the best practice for pension funds. We warmly welcome the action of the EC ‘Action Plan for fair and simple taxation supporting the recovery strategy’ to introduce a common, standardised EU-wide system for WHT relief at source. However, there are also many other recent WHT proposals which the EC should thoroughly consider. We have proposed to the EC to establish an EU tax register of recognised pension institutions in order that MSs can reciprocally and automatically recognise pension institutions. Furthermore, in many countries pension institutions invest cross border via specialised investments funds and/or vehicles to increase the economies of scale, and it is important to ensure a tax-neutral treatment of these investment structures as well. In PensionsEurope position paper on smoothing WHT procedures beyond Code of Conduct - EU tax register of recognised pension institutions, beyond our tax register proposal, we also proposed developing and using one (standardised) form across the EU to determine whether a pension institution qualifies for tax relief in a respective MS. Furthermore, the Next CMU High-Level Group proposed in its report developing a straightforward EU procedure for repayment of WHT to investors. There are also many other possible improvements including various possibilities and solutions for instance in the field of blockchain and cloud services. Regarding the suggested policy options in the EC roadmap, we find that the option 2 (establishment of a fully-fledged common EU relief at source system) combined with the option 3 (enhancing the existing administrative cooperation framework to verify entitlement to double tax convention benefits) would be the best solution for both market participants (efficient and low cost) and tax authorities (sufficient safeguards to mitigate abuse risks). The option 1 (improving WHT refund procedures to make them more efficient) would be the second-best solution, if there is not enough appetite amongst Member States for the options 2 and 3. In any case, the option 1 is always needed as a last resort if the option 2 does not work in practice for one reason or another. Finally, we believe that establishing a cross-border investment-friendly tax environment in the EU not only requires removing unfair tax treatment but also introducing tax incentives. The EC’s statement that “[…] Tax and other financial incentives, as well as collective bargaining play an important role […]” in “improving the cost-effectiveness, safety and equitable access to supplementary pension schemes” is still valid and should be considered as well. Regarding financial incentives, for instance the OECD report ‘Financial incentives for funded private pension plans OECD country profiles 2020’ is very helpful. Rather recently also the High-level group of experts on pensions recommended in its final report (December 2019) that “Member States should reserve tax and/or financial incentives in both the saving and the pay-out phase for supplementary pensions meeting minimum quality requirements. These incentives should reflect the diversity in characteristics of types of pensions and the related social policy of a MS".
Read full response

Response to Revision of Non-Financial Reporting Directive

14 Jul 2021

PensionsEurope welcomes the opportunity to comment on the proposal of the EU Corporate Sustainable Reporting Directive (CSRD). IORPs as investors are users of the data which companies will be required under the legislative proposal for a Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. An increasing number of pension funds have responsible investment policies using a wide array of techniques, such as ESG integration, engagement, exclusion or inclusion policies and impact investing. Whereas the focus traditionally was on listed equity, we observe that other types of assets are also being brought into the scope of the responsible investment policy, such as corporate debt, private equity, real estate, and private debt. Moreover, in some countries, a significant number of pension funds are categorized as a ‘light green’ financial product and will report principal adverse impacts under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR). These funds are also likely to fall under the reporting obligation of the Taxonomy Regulation. PensionsEurope is pleased that the intention is to create consistency between the Taxonomy Regulation and the SFDR on the one hand and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the future Sustainable reporting standards on the other. Please find in our document attached our observations.
Read full response

Response to Supervisory data strategy

14 Jun 2021

We have appreciated the recent fitness check of supervisory reporting, and we would like to thank EC for a good and constructive dialogue over the past years on our concerns and suggestions. We agree with fitness check conclusions that the current way of defining the reporting requirements and collecting data can be complex and lead to inefficiencies in the reporting process. As a direct follow-up to the fitness check, we also welcome the EC roadmap on supervisory data strategy, and we would be happy to provide our technical expertise to the EC how the strategy could be best implemented regarding pension funds. Over the past years, we have closely worked particularly with the ECB and EIOPA when they have been aligning their reporting standards for pension funds. We welcome that in many MSs EIOPA, ECB, and national reporting requirements have been integrated into one reporting data stream. However, in some MSs, there have been certain challenges in the co-ordination between some of the institutions/authorities. PFs must comply data from various sources to fulfil many (new) reporting requirements, and the provision and cost of this data is an important cost issue. Availability and cost of ESG data is a growing concern that needs to be urgently resolved taking into consideration the new disclosure requirements of the SFDR. Another concern is that for instance rating information mostly originates from the US companies, and this information might be biased in the EU context (there is recognition that availability of data is jurisdiction-dependent). We have welcomed that pension funds by themselves are not required to use the XBRL formats when reporting to the NCAs, but the NCAs are free to choose their required reporting formats. However, now in practice, also many PFs must report using the XBRL taxonomy, and repeated adjustment thereto, the XBRL has generated significant costs and administrative burdens to them. While aiming for stable reporting templates and a stable taxonomy, we believe it is also important to carry out post-implementation reviews of new requirements to keep them fit for purpose. It is right to assess on an on-going basis whether there is room to make reporting requirements and tools more efficient, whether all information requested is necessary and whether potentially overlapping requirements can be streamlined. Currently pension funds are concerned that their reporting deadlines to EIOPA/NCAs shall be brought forward in 2022 and 2024, and PFs do not see any further need to shorten the deadlines and/or extend the scope of requirements. We agree with the roadmap that supervisory reporting has grown substantially over the past years. Since reporting always comes at a cost, we welcome the objective to streamline and improve data collection. The envisaged Communication should make it clear that the differences between different financial market participants (for instance, pension funds are often smaller than insurance companies) should be considered when data collection is streamlined and/or modernised. In general, we find proportionality of the utmost importance when introducing any new requirements to PFs. Differences in reporting relationships between ESAs and financial entities should be taken duly into account. We have welcomed the initiative of establishing an ESAP, a platform that should primarily be meant to provide useful information for investors, particularly to comply with the SFDR, the Taxonomy Regulation and the NFRD. We recommend the EC to adopt a phased in approach for the ESAP, firstly focusing on ESG data. Finally, we find that the EC could also consider how the EU data strategy could reflect on the good work done by FinDatEx. PensionsEurope has also recently joined FinDatEx and its ESG workstream to try to reduce the reporting costs and burden to pension funds e.g. by creating the European ESG Templates.
Read full response

Meeting with Mairead McGuinness (Commissioner)

4 May 2021 · Advancing the Sustainable Finance Agenda CMU

Response to Commission delegated act on the extension of the exemption from the clearing obligation for pension scheme arrangements

13 Apr 2021

PensionsEurope thanks the EC for the opportunity to comment on the draft delegate providing 1-year extension of pension scheme arrangements (PSAs) exemption from clearing obligation. We welcome this delegated act, and we expect that another extension of a year will be still needed (i.e. until June 2023), as implementation of market-based solutions and preparation for the clearing market for the end of the pension fund clearing exemption will take time. As an integral part of their investment approach, many PSAs use OTC derivatives to manage their financial solvency risk as their liabilities are often long-dated, one-directional and linked to interest rates. The PSAs are substantially invested in assets and the return on these assets must be maximised to meet future pension liabilities (pensioners’ retirement income). They typically invest in high-quality European government bonds to hedge their (euro) liability risks, but their ability to hedge such risks completely with these bonds is limited as the amount of bonds that can be used to match long-dated liabilities is unavailable in the capital markets. Derivatives have the advantage of being available, and for longer maturities. Moreover, they can also be tailored to match the dates of PSAs’ liabilities more accurately, which is not generally possible with government bonds. Furthermore, derivatives (such as interest rate swaps) are also the best matching asset for PSAs’, as their pension liabilities are discounted using swap rates. Finally, they also may manage currency risk through derivatives. The current bank capital rules have led to a dramatic reduction in the number of banks willing to provide liquidity to PSAs on non-cleared derivatives where PSAs post high-quality government bonds as margin. Due to this development, in combination with the fact that the clearing exemption will expire in 2023 at the latest, PSAs have started to prepare for clearing. The ESMA report of December 2020 finds that significant volumes of trades are being cleared (for example 32% of Dutch pension funds and 42% of Danish pension funds). Nevertheless, most trades are not cleared centrally because the negative consequences of cash VM remain. It therefore remains of the utmost importance that a long-term robust solution is found for the cash VM issue. In its report, ESMA sets out a market-based solution for the cash VM issue. While PensionsEurope is disappointed that ESMA does not see a way forward for our preferred solution with some form of central bank liquidity as a backstop for normal market-based access to cash (reverse repo), we do recognise that the solutions proposed by ESMA would be a step in the right direction. ESMA notes that the EU could support these market-based solutions by making regulatory changes, but it is not clear if and when these changes will happen. The discussions in the PSA stakeholder group are also still ongoing. Even when this uncertainty about how the exact solution (or combination of solutions) will look like is resolved, PSAs will need time to prepare both for the solution for the cash VM issue and clearing itself. PensionsEurope and its members are committed to raising awareness amongst members about the necessary steps that will have to be taken to prepare. Nevertheless, we believe that more than one year is needed to fully prepare the entire sector for clearing and to gain access to the relevant liquidity and collateral transformation mechanisms.
Read full response

Response to COM Delegated Regulation specifying the information referred to in art. 65.9 of the PEPP Regulation

17 Dec 2020

PensionsEurope highlights that, among the criteria and factors to be applied when considering the existence of a significant PEPP saver protection “concern” or a “threat” to the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or to the stability of the whole or part of the financial system in the Union - which are both prerequisites for the intervention by EIOPA - the possibility of horizontal assessments on the evidence provided by PEPP providers is of utmost relevance. To this end, a common framework for the evaluation of risk-mitigation techniques, the cost of guarantee and the risk-performance relationship, is crucial to avoid different standards at national level that would create room for artificial barriers to the single market for the PEPP. In our view, the exclusion of the cost of guarantees from the cost cap for Basic PEPP, without fostering supervisory convergence on how to define the price of long-term guarantees to ensure the fair access of providers to the European market of the Basic PEPP, may create issues with respect to the protection of PEPP savers. PEPP providers may, for example, be incentivized to shift a portion of the other costs to the cost of the guarantee (which is excluded from the cost cap). We acknowledge that in the text of this delegated act the following factor is correctly foreseen among those to be considered for a possible product intervention by EIOPA: Art 1. m) ii) the pricing and associated costs of PEPP, taking into account the following: (i) the use of hidden or secondary charges; (ii) charges that do not reflect the level of service provided; (iii) the costs of guarantees or costs that do not reflect the actual cost or the fair value of the capital guarantee in the case of a Basic PEPP However, in order to enhance transparency on the pricing elements by the PEPP providers and distributors we see the urgency of developing a common methodology that would enable EIOPA and NCAs to check the fairness of the pricing of the capital guarantee provided. This would ensure the above mentioned supervisory convergence and fair access of providers to the European market of the Basic PEPP. Finally, to ensure a consistent application of the product intervention powers across by Member States we consider fundamental that the same factors and criteria are used by NCAs in the PEPP product intervention assessment.
Read full response

Response to Green Paper on Ageing

10 Dec 2020

PensionsEurope praise the launch of a wide policy initiative on the impact of demographic changes and welcome that the upcoming Green Paper on Ageing (GPA) will be subject to public consultation. As representative of national associations of pension funds and similar institutions for workplace and other funded pensions, we believe one of the main needs of people is to enjoy an adequate standard of living in retirement, which imply having good pensions. The Roadmap correctly notes that demographic changes have a long-term impact on pensions. Indeed, population ageing, coupled with the COVID-19 crisis, is increasingly putting pressure on pension systems and public budgets, the latter being heavily affected by growing public spending and debt. We believe occupational and personal pensions are essential for the adequacy and sustainability of our pensions systems and hope that their strengthening/support will be an important part of the new GPA. This could boost sustainable growth and improve the adequacy and the fiscal sustainability of social protection. The demographic challenges of an aging society imply that a shrinking working population will need to support an ever-increasing number of retirees. The costs associated to the alarming figures on the old-age dependency ratio will have significant economic, budgetary and fiscal impacts. PAYG systems alone cannot cope with this demographic shift and increasingly need to be complemented by funded supplementary pensions. Europeans need to be made aware and to be able to understand these challenges. They also need to be informed about their overall expected retirement income, considering all pension pillars. As half of them are not saving for retirement, many will find that they need more supplementary pensions to enjoy an adequate standard of living in retirement. We promote multi-pillar pension systems and believe that MSs are best positioned to design their pension system according to the own specific economic and social circumstances and to the role played by social partners. MSs must take a holistic approach that also considers the interplay between labour markets and pensions and between public and supplementary pensions. Given the heterogeneity of national economic and social conditions vis-a-vis pensions, it is important to acknowledge that, at the EU level, there are no one-size-fits-all solutions on pensions. It should be noted that countries with a well-developed multi-pillar pension system experience significantly lower levels of old-age poverty and social exclusion. The EC is often highlighting the need to save more for retirement and to have more supplementary pensions. The current discussions at EU-level demonstrates a continued interest in supplementary pensions, e.g. in the recent developments around the recommendations put forward by the HLG on Pensions, the CMU action plan, and the PEPP. However, more can be done. Europe has an important role to play in supporting the national efforts to ensure a high-level of social protection, e.g. by facilitating mutual learning and exchange of best practices. The establishment of new multi-stakeholder forum is therefore necessary. EU competences cover important aspects related to pensions, such as the single market for supplementary pensions, the protection of rights in case of cross border mobility, consumer protection, and gender equality. The EU could also play a much larger role in improving awareness of pension’s challenges and improving financial literacy Last but not least, the EU recognition of the importance of supplementary pensions is relevant in the field of the CMU, as pension funds can play an important role as investors in the real economy, in listed and private equity, venture capital and infrastructure. With more than €4 trillion assets under management, they provide capital to SMEs, corporates and infrastructure projects to grow and create jobs. It is important that EU policies coherently support them
Read full response

Response to Review of the VAT rules for financial and insurance services

19 Nov 2020

Read attached PensionsEurope's complete feedback. In summary: PensionsEurope supports the EC’s objective to simplify the life of taxpayers operating in the Single Market and we welcome the review of the VAT rules. In our position paper (November 2018) on the necessary steps to relieve pension fund participants from unnecessary VAT burden, we called for an amendment to the VAT Directive that provides more clarity with respect to the legal basis of the VAT exemption for pension funds and occupational pensions, is non-discriminative with regard to pension schemes, and is up-to-date. We believe all pension fund participants should be protected from unnecessary VAT burdens, regardless the character of the schemes (DB / DC / hybrid) as well as the Member State in which the services are being received. This exemption is especially relevant since pension plans (i) are in essence cost-sharing arrangements of beneficiaries with a clear public interest of preventing poverty among the elderly, as well as providing for survivor pensions, and (ii) they deliver services themselves that are being exempt meaning their VAT on purchases of services or goods cannot be recovered. Thus, we speak out for the retention of relevant VAT exemptions and are clearly against a general abolition of the system of VAT exemptions or relevant VAT exemptions as we do not see the stated advantages in the Roadmap. The current exemption, in the light of the case law, seems to work for pension funds in most countries. Nevertheless, there is some ambiguity as to the application of the VAT Directive to pension schemes. In the landmark Wheels and ATP cases, the ECJ has set out the conditions for the application of the exemption for special investment funds to pension schemes. The most crucial test is to assess whether the pension fund participants bear the investment risk. Whereas this differentiation is useful when distinguishing between ’pure’ DC and DB schemes, there also exist many types of ’hybrid’ schemes that combine elements of both systems. It is unclear how the case law relates to these hybrid schemes. The legal uncertainty and the mass of relevant case law thus arises most from the fact that pension schemes have to qualify under Art. 135 (1) g VAT Directive that emphasises certain characteristics from investment funds. To reduce this kind of legal uncertainty and resulting complexity in arrangements a clear and undisputable legal exemption from VAT for pension schemes is needed and would be much more effective than disrupting the system of relevant VAT exemptions in total. Furthermore, regarding the Article 135 of VAT Directive, we suggest adding on the Par. 1 (letter f) the management and the safekeeping in shares, interests in companies or associations, debentures and other securities, so as also the services provided by the custodian banks would be exempted from VAT. We recommend providing certainty irrespective the MSs in which the management services are rendered. Even though MSs have organised their pension system differently, economically these pension systems are comparable in essence. Regardless of the type of commitment, all pension plans should be treated the same for VAT purposes. Therefore, we believe the current exemption for special investment funds should be extended to all pension schemes. The EC’s Roadmap states that “Existing distortions linked to the exemption and its diversified application across the MSs should be reduced.” Even though the VAT exemption is in place, in some countries there is a stamp duty (for instance 4%) that is not subject or exempt from VAT and there is no possibility of any deduction. We urge the EC to recommend MSs to exempt (at least) pension schemes from this duty (or decrease their duty to no more than 1%). Finally, we believe that establishing a cross-border investment-friendly tax environment in the EU not only requires removing unfair tax treatment but also introducing tax incentives.
Read full response

Meeting with Maria Elena Scoppio (Cabinet of Commissioner Paolo Gentiloni)

12 Feb 2020 · PensionsEurope general proposal

Meeting with Astrid Dentler (Cabinet of Vice-President Dubravka Šuica)

21 Jan 2020 · pensions, Green Paper on Ageing, demography, and even the Conference on the Future of Europe

Response to Review of the European Supervisory Authorities

23 Jan 2018

PensionsEurope key messages on the review of the European Supervisory Authorities Pension institutions are embedded in national social and labour law. Occupational pensions are also built on the foundation of first pillar pensions and therefore closely linked to Member States’ social security systems. PensionsEurope encourages EU policy-makers to take into account these specificities in the Review of the European Supervisory Authorities PensionsEurope supports a balanced approach to the convergence of capital market supervision. A vibrant Capital Markets Union, which provides European pension funds with long-term investment opportunities to achieve good returns for members and beneficiaries, requires robust supervision of market participants. At the same time, it is necessary to recognise the important role that national capital market supervisors will continue to play, due to their in-depth knowledge of local markets and providers. Moreover, ESMA’s empowerment means that it will need to increase its engagement with supervised entities and have adequate representation of institutional investors such as pension funds in its Stakeholder Groups. PensionsEurope questions the need for the enforcement of supervisory convergence in the area of occupational pensions. Under the IORP II Directive, pension funds do not fall under a European framework that aims at full harmonisation, like Solvency II for insurers. As such, there is no European supervisory and prudential framework around which convergence can take place. The proposals would entail new powers for EIOPA to set the policy priorities of national supervisory authorities, to review their supervisory activities and to obtain information directly from pension funds. Pension funds are concerned EIOPA would employ these tools to urge national supervisors to adopt its view of how pension funds should be regulated. The proposed Executive Board would not have sufficient expertise in the area of pensions. There is already a greater focus and expertise on insurance than pensions within EIOPA. We believe at least one of the members of the Executive Board should be shortlisted specifically for their expertise in the area of pensions. EIOPA should not disclose individual stress test results and the Board of Supervisors should remain the decision-making body for the stress tests. Due to the differences between national and EIOPA’s valuation methods, EIOPA’s stress test could come to very different conclusions on a fund’s coverage ratio compared to the national supervisor, which can be very confusing for its members. Furthermore, it is not the objective of EIOPA’s stress test to provide information to individual members. Pension funds are not directly supervised by the ESAs and therefore oppose industry fees, which ultimately would be paid by current and prospective European pensioners. There is also the concern that the EU institutions and Member States will exercise less oversight over the budget when it is to a lesser degree funded by national and EU contributions. PensionsEurope welcomes a stronger mandate for the Stakeholder Groups to scrutinise recommendations and guidelines. This should not be a reason to change the composition of the stakeholder groups. Stakeholders have limited resource, so an absence of a challenge should not be understood as an absence of concern. The European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) should avoid having a bank-bias in its approach to other financial sectors. With the ECB President as the permanent ESRB chair, pension funds are concerned that a bank-centric view on financial stability would unduly categorise them as systemic. Due to their long-term investment perspective, pension funds pose a low risk to global financial stability and their investment decisions are not significantly affected by market fluctuations. At the time of submission PensionsEurope is still finalising its position, so additional topics may yet be included.
Read full response

Response to Technical elements of the definitions set out in the Benchmark Regulation

20 Jul 2017

PensionsEurope welcomes the draft Delegated Regulation specifying the definition of ‘making available to the public’ of indices under the Benchmarks Regulation. The wording of the draft Delegated Regulation will ensure that pension funds are not inadvertently regulated as administrators of benchmarks. Throughout the legislative process, pension funds have been concerned with the scope of the definitions, which risked bringing users of benchmarks into scope as administrators. This draft Delegated Regulation now confines the definition of “making indices available to the public” to situations where the figure is “made accessible to a potentially indeterminate number of legal and natural persons other than the index provider or other than a determined number of recipients connected or related to the index providers”. We are satisfied that the fashion in which pension funds use indices means that they are outside the scope of the rules and requirements that fall upon benchmark administrators. This avoids unintended and burdensome rules that would eventually weigh upon returns for beneficiaries.
Read full response

Response to EMIR Amendment

18 Jul 2017

PensionsEurope supports the aims of the 2009 G20 Pittsburgh agreement to improve financial stability in derivative markets through the central clearing of standardised and relevant over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives. However, posting cash as variation margin in cleared transactions, as currently required by CCPs, would reduce returns for beneficiaries of pension funds, whilst creating liquidity risk. We welcome that the European Commission continues to acknowledge these potentially adverse impacts by extending the temporary exemption for pension scheme arrangements (PSAs) in its recent EMIR Refit proposal. This would give more time to find a solution amongst market participants in order to post high quality government bonds as variation margin with CCPs. However, to provide more certainty to PSAs, we call for an open-ended exemption that would be revoked by the European Commission once this solution has been achieved. The decision to revoke the exemption would need to follow thorough consultation of the sector and the solution would need to available on reasonable terms and be resilient to stressed market conditions. We support the exemption from small financial counterparties that will keep small PSAs out of scope from the clearing obligation. Finally, we urge European policy-makers to ensure that capital requirements do not disincentive banks to accept high quality government bonds as margin in the bilateral markets.
Read full response

Meeting with Vasiliki Kokkori (Cabinet of Commissioner Marianne Thyssen)

21 Jun 2017 · European Pillar of Social Rights

Response to Financial Markets Infrastructure: Further one-year extension of the central clearing exemption for pension funds

22 Nov 2016

First and foremost, Pension Scheme Arrangements (PSAs, which in this document we use as a synonym of pension funds) need a stable financial system. PensionsEurope supports regulation which reinforces the stability of the financial system. PensionsEurope sees the benefits of EMIR, however it is crucial that PSAs get an appropriate treatment. Pension funds need to have access to liquid derivatives market, both cleared and non-cleared, using high quality government bonds as margin. Consequently, a robust solution needs to be found for the cash variation margin (VM) issue in both cleared and non-cleared markets. Otherwise, applying EMIR towards PSAs will not increase the stability of the financial system, but will affect long term investments by PSAs and hence will increase the costs of pensions. PensionsEurope welcomes the extension of the exemption for PSAs until August 2018, and calls on the Commission to maintain the exemption for PSAs from the central clearing obligation in place until a suitable clearing solution has been found as the market has not yet developed a practicable and efficient process for central clearing of pension scheme’s OTC derivative transactions. The long-term solutions for clearing are needed and PensionsEurope stands ready to engage with CCPs and authorities to find suitable ways to allow pension funds to post government bonds as variation margin in both markets. PensionsEurope represents national associations of pension funds and similar institutions for workplace pensions. Some members operate purely individual pension schemes. PensionsEurope Members are large institutional investors representing the buy-side on the financial markets. PensionsEurope has 24 member associations in EU Member States and other European countries with significant – in size and relevance – workplace pension systems.
Read full response

Meeting with Valdis Dombrovskis (Vice-President) and

29 Sept 2016 · Current Pension issues, review ESAs; Personal Pensions

Meeting with Valérie Herzberg (Cabinet of Vice-President Jyrki Katainen)

9 Sept 2015 · EFSI + Capital markets union

Meeting with Paulina Dejmek Hack (Cabinet of President Jean-Claude Juncker)

16 Mar 2015 · Priorities of the new Commission

Meeting with Valérie Herzberg (Cabinet of Vice-President Jyrki Katainen)

16 Mar 2015 · Pension industry issues