| Abstract [eng] |
The objective of this study is to delve into and compare the legal regulation of the old-age pension systems in Lithuania and Estonia, precisely examining the rights and obligations of pension fund management companies, also of the participants in the funded pension. This paper reveals why the respective countries have opted for a three-pillar pension system regulation, also explains the reasons behind the most pressing issues and potential solutions for them in the regulation of second pillar pensions. As the provision for members of society facing social risks is a constitutional value, the legislator is obligated to prepare and implement such an old-age pension model that best meets the needs of society while ensuring the universality of the system over the long term. Estonia, having long relied on mandatory participation of residents in the second-pillar pension without the option to terminate it, adopted a contrary strategy from 2021 onwards, establishing a fully voluntary participation. These changes granted individuals the right to suspend contribution payments or completely cease pension accumulation. Additionally, a flexible regulation of pension payouts was instituted, creating the possibility to accumulate funds in a personal pension investment account. In Lithuania, there is an increasing number of discussions, public surveys, and proposals regarding the same systemic aspects that Estonia reformed. While accumulation in the second tier in Lithuania is often described as voluntary, the analysis of national legislation, specialized literature, and other sources suggests that voluntariness manifests only in the option to decline participation until it is fully enforced or in the right to independently enter into a pension accumulation agreement. The analysis of key systemic differences in this study will assist in understanding the possibilities and challenges of the positive and negative impacts of these changes on society. |
