Pensions in Central & Eastern Europe

Allianz Global Investors has published a 96-pages comprehensive report about the pension systems and markets in Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, and Slovakia with individual country profiles. This report is very useful due to the changing landscape in that region of the continent, combined with the unconventional pillar terminology utilised.

Discriminatory dividend taxation

The EU Commission has sent letters of formal notice to Italy and Finland about their rules under which dividends paid to foreign pension funds may be taxed more heavily than dividends paid to domestic pension funds. Italy and Finland are asked to reply within two months. These letters constitute the first step of the infringement procedure of Article 226 of the EC Treaty. Similar letters have been sent to the Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and Sweden on 7 May.

Commission addresses differential taxation of investment income

Following complaints by the EFRP, the Commission has initiated Treaty infringement proceedings against a number of member states which do not grant the same preferential tax treatment of investment income (interest, dividends) to pension funds resident abroad as domestic funds receive. Even though there is no direct reference to the Pensions Directive in the text, the relevance of this step to an efficient investment regime of cross-border pension funds is obvious. (FT)

Regulatory risk in Poland

Sometimes, Poland can be a confusing country, especially when it comes to pensions. Therefore, it is valuable to have the occasional helicopter view paper, such as the IMF's recently published Technical Note on Competition & Performance in the Polish Second Pillar. The paper contains a description of the structure & function of the Polish retirement provision system in general and the second pillar in particular. That's where appearances can be confusing: The Polish second pillar is evidently not equivalent to occupational pensions in the sense of the Pensions Directive, which is why the Directive's investment guidelines are not directly applicable. Nevertheless, the systemic home bias of the Polish second pillar remains an issue, probably even a self-re?nforcing one thanks to the considerable asset accumulation in the industry. epn also has an interesting piece covering that issue.

EU Commission sues Italy [IT] [CZ] [HU] [PL]

Following action against the UK and Slovenia, the Commission has decided to refer Italy to the European Court of Justice for non-transposition of the Pensions Directive. Apparently Italy has also not responded to the Commission's reasoned opinion - why it has taken the Commission four months longer than in the case of the UK and Slovenia to discover that they had not received a response is not quite clear.

IPE adds, although it is unclear on what source this information is based, that the Commission has sent letters of formal notice to the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. At any rate, the latter two countries have not been involved in infringement proceedings regarding the Pensions Directive to date, even though Poland definitely deserves attention as we noted earlier.

Investment regulation in Poland [PL]

If this recent story about regulatory constraints in Poland is confirmed, it would mean that the Pensions Directive is not materially implemented there, yet. The fact that Poland is not among those countries that the Commission has decided to take action against would seem to have to be interpreted along the lines that the Commission has not yet assessed the material compatibility of Polish regulation. It will be interesting to observe further developments in this important market.