{"id":6677,"date":"2026-05-12T16:29:44","date_gmt":"2026-05-12T14:29:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/industrynews.ro\/?p=6677"},"modified":"2026-05-12T16:30:09","modified_gmt":"2026-05-12T14:30:09","slug":"planul-paneuropean-de-pensii-personale-pepp-relansare-intr-un-moment-critic-pentru-europa","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/industrynews.ro\/en\/planul-paneuropean-de-pensii-personale-pepp-relansare-intr-un-moment-critic-pentru-europa\/","title":{"rendered":"The Pan-European Personal Pension (PEPP): A relaunch at a critical moment for Europe"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Pan-European Personal Pension Product \u2013 PEPP \u2013 returns to the European agenda at a time when two realities are overlapping and simultaneously impacting the labor market: an aging population (with a direct effect on the sustainability of public pensions) and professional mobility \u2013 both internal and cross-border \u2013 which has already become the \u201enew normal.\u201d In short, demographic pressure and mobility meet precisely where systems are hardest to adapt. This is not a minor detail: by 2025, the number of immigrants in the EU reached a record level of 64.2 million.Migration and asylum in Europe \u2013 2025 edition \u2013 Interactive publications \u2013 Eurostat<\/a>), supporting Claudia Sofianu, Partner, Head of People Advisory Services, and Dan R\u0103u\u021b, Senior Manager, People Advisory Services, EY Romania, in a new analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Currently, there is a form of \u201eportability\u201d at the EU level for Pillar I contributions and rights (public pension) through the coordination of social security systems rules. In contrast, for supplementary pensions and voluntary pension products, this portability is not yet consistently offered, and national differences remain a barrier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201dAlmost three years since our first material<\/a> Regarding PEPP, the conclusion remains, pragmatically, the same: success will not come from European architectural niceties, but from how the product is \u201eanchored\u201d in national policies. It's worth saying directly: without a credible fiscal anchor, interest remains rather theoretical. And especially through incentives that truly matter for long-term savings,\u201d say the study's authors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The problem is, in fact, structural. Without additional long-term savings, retirement incomes will shrink \u2013 and the discussion is no longer about \u201eif,\u201d but \u201ehow quickly.\u201d The pressure is first seen where careers are fragmented or cross-border: portability and continuity of contributions remain difficult to manage, even when the intention exists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Against this backdrop, the EU is accelerating supplementary pension reforms, and PEPP \u2013 a standardized, digital, and portable product \u2013 is undergoing a broad review. The stated goal is to bridge the gap between the initial ambition and the modest adoption so far. Why has it lagged behind? In practice, two brakes consistently reappear: limited supply (few providers and products actually available) and uneven tax incentives, which in many markets have made PEPP less competitive than local alternatives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

PEPP Review<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In November 2025, the European Commission proposed amendments to the PEPP Regulation, with a goal that is simple to state (but difficult to achieve): a wider range of options and real benefits for savers. The package aims to provide more diverse investment options, more flexible risk management mechanisms, and a more attractive framework for providers. Taxation, however, remains a sensitive issue. Taxes fall under national jurisdiction, but the Commission insists on a basic principle: PEPPs should not be treated less favorably than comparable local products.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If there isn't a cohesive approach, the differences in incentives will continue to fragment the market \u2013 and the product will remain \u201efair\u201d on paper and difficult to sell in practice. The \u201eSavings and Investments Union\u201d (SIU) initiative also fits into this logic: directing private savings towards investments and, in parallel, strengthening the pillars of retirement income beyond the public system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ECOFIN and institutional positions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the ECOFIN Council (in the first half of 2026), broad support emerged for the Commission's direction: richer offerings, portability, and simplification. But there is also a red line that states are repeating: taxation must be carefully calibrated. It is worth mentioning here too: no one wants an advantage granted to PEPP to distort competition with already-functioning national products.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The signals in 2025 were, essentially, convergent. The European Court of Auditors critically assessed the product's development and showed that PEPP had not achieved its objectives. And from the perspective of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (\u201eEIOPA\u201d), the conclusion is similar: without a more coherent internal market for supplementary pensions \u2013 applicable rules, better distribution, and real competition \u2013 PEPP risks remaining marginal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Status (2025\u20132026)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On November 20, 2025, the European Commission published the package revising Regulation (EU) 2019\/1238 on PEPPs (COM\/2025\/840). The approach is threefold: (i) a broader range of options (providers and products), (ii) greater appeal to contributors (options and risk), and (iii) true comparability with local products\u2014including through clarifications regarding non-discriminatory tax treatment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The link with SIU matters for a pragmatic reason: the EU seeks to shift some private savings towards productive investments and, in parallel, strengthen multi-pillar pension systems. In other words, the public pillar remains essential, but it cannot be the only one we rely on for predictable retirement income.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Policy directives<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Beyond the legislative text, the question is simple: can PEPP become easy to understand, easy to compare, and easy to buy? If so, it has a chance to move from a \u201eEuropean project\u201d to a used product. In short, its usefulness must be evident in the purchasing experience, not just in regulations. In operational terms, the directions currently discussed can be summarized as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n