(Voluntary) Collective Supplementary Pension Insurance: New Rules, Unchanged Prospects
The latest amendment to the Pension and Disability Insurance Act introduces, among other changes, a mandatory requirement to conduct negotiations on the establishment of collective supplementary pension insurance. However, even with this amendment, the introduction of such schemes remains discretionary, meaning a significant increase in their overall uptake is unlikely.
In September 2025, the Pension and Disability Insurance Act amendment (“ZPIZ-2O”) was adopted, introducing several changes to the pension system – ranging from higher pension accrual rates to the introduction of a winter supplement – and adding a further change in the field of collective supplementary pension insurance. Although this amendment attracted little public attention, it touches on a policy area long recognised as crucial for the long-term financial security of employees and the broader ageing population.
Under the current regime, an employer independently decides whether to enter collective negotiations on establishing collective supplementary pension insurance. If the social partners reach agreement, the employer fully finances the insurance premium, while employees have the option – but not the obligation – to make additional voluntary contributions. A mandatory obligation to establish such insurance schemes exists only in limited circumstances, most commonly through sectoral collective agreements, leaving the majority of employees outside this form of pension coverage.
At least on paper, the ZPIZ-2O amendment changes this starting point: employers who, on 1 January 2026, employ at least ten employees and do not have collective supplementary pension insurance in place must initiate collective bargaining on its introduction by 1 January 2028. At the same time, the Act retains the existing minimum annual premium (EUR 404.31), which the employer must pay for the benefit of each employee.
The central challenge of the new regime lies in its limited substantive effect. The Act expressly allows the bargaining process to end without an agreement on establishing a pension plan. In such cases, the employer’s only remaining obligation is to issue a joint statement on the unsuccessful negotiations and submit it to the Labour Inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia. Because the Act does not require an agreement to be reached, an employer may fulfil its statutory obligation simply by participating in the negotiations, without any genuine intention of financing such insurance. In practice, this mechanism does not grant employees any new rights or access to collective insurance; instead, it primarily imposes a procedural requirement on employers.
During the early drafting stages of the amendment, an alternative approach was considered – one that would have imposed a substantive obligation on employers to establish collective supplementary pension insurance, while leaving it to the parties to negotiate whether the employer would finance the premium in full, in part, or not at all. Such a model would have been more consistent with the objective of broader participation in retirement-related savings.
Although the initial draft of the amendment took a far more pragmatic approach, the legislator ultimately opted for a solution that may seem ambitious at first glance but, in practice, offers no tangible improvement in employees’ position.
