Saturday, 19 September 2026
Rīga TV

World and Latvian news in one place

BalticsPublished: 19 September 2026 at 08:48

Estonia's justice chancellor challenges new retirement age system over fairness concerns

Estonia's justice chancellor Ülle Madise is questioning whether it is constitutional for the retirement age system taking effect in 2027 to set different pension eligibility ages for people born in the same year, depending on birth month.

Foto: ERR News

Estonia's justice chancellor, Ülle Madise, has asked the Riigikogu's Social Affairs Committee to review a new retirement age system due to take effect in 2027, warning that it could raise constitutional concerns. Under the system, the official retirement age would be recalculated separately for each calendar year based on changes in life expectancy among 65-year-olds.

Madise said the underlying principle — tying retirement age to life expectancy trends — is consistent with section 28, paragraph 2 of Estonia's Constitution. However, she questioned whether it is constitutional to set that age by calendar year, since this could mean people born in the same year become eligible for a pension at different ages depending on their birth month.

Differences of several months possible

As an example, Madise noted that some people born in the same year could reach retirement age at 65 years and three months, while others born the same year might have to wait until 65 years and six months. She referenced Tallinn University demographer Lauri Leppik, who described the issue last year in the university's demography blog: people born in January could have a retirement age one to three months lower than those born in December of the same year, with the dividing line shifting from year to year.

The gap carries real financial consequences. Based on the average old-age pension, Leppik calculated that a one-month difference in retirement age would amount to roughly one extra monthly pension payment, or €825, while a two- or three-month difference would mean €1,650 or €2,475 respectively.

Madise said the state should be able to provide convincing evidence to justify such differences — for instance, proof that people born in December 1962 have a two-month longer average life expectancy than those born earlier that same year. She has asked the Social Affairs Committee to promptly discuss the matter and explain why, starting next year, people born in the same year could face different retirement ages depending on their month of birth.

Comments

0/1500

Comments are automatically moderated. No hate, threats, personal data or spam.

Loading comments…

More in this category