The Ministry of Finance and the Law Office have identified ambiguities, contradictory formulas, misinterpretations, and implementation difficulties in proposals put forward by political parties to abolish multiple pensions and the simultaneous payment of pensions and salaries to state officials.
In a letter to members of the parliamentary Finance Committee, revealed by philenews, the Ministry of Finance and Law Office outline their concerns regarding a package of twelve legislative proposals set to be discussed again on Monday.
These objections suggest a high likelihood that the proposals could be referred back if approved by a parliamentary majority.
Among other measures, the party proposals stipulate that existing officials’ pension rights will be fully secured until June 1, 2026 (from their 60th year). After this date, these rights would apply from age 65.
The proposals also provide for pension eligibility at age 65 instead of 60 and include provisions for voluntary pension renunciation.
On June 19, regulations concerning state officials’ pension rights are expected to be brought before the parliamentary plenary. These regulations include both the party legislative proposals and two government bills for providing gratuity payments to state officials.
In a letter from the Director General of the Ministry of Finance, Andreas Zachariadis, to the Finance Committee, the Attorney General’s positions and supplementary comments from the Ministry of Finance are included regarding both legal aspects of the proposals and practical problems arising from their implementation.
The Ministry of Finance argues that the legislative proposals contain ambiguities and provisions open to misinterpretation. It notes that the formulas for calculating and limiting benefits are contradictory and practically unenforceable.
The ministry also points out that the wording of the legislative proposals is unclear in several instances.
The ministry emphasises that the party proposals include regulations of great complexity, noting that these affect pensions earned from June 2026 onwards.
“Even if these succeeded in resolving the issues of simultaneously receiving pension and salary and multiple pensions, this would only occur over a very long-term horizon,” the letter adds.
It also underlines that the pension cap proposed by the parties only manages to limit very high-level pensions, thus affecting only isolated cases (the existing legal framework’s formulas for calculating pension benefits have been maintained).
The Ministry of Finance goes further, stressing that the party proposals do not affect in any way the lump-sum amounts granted to officials, which will continue to be paid cumulatively for each position the official assumes.
Additionally, it notes that the pension calculation method would yield an excessive pension amount as it is based on a formula that adds pensionable earnings rather than pensions themselves.
In its observations, the Law Office argues that the proposals present constitutional problems.
Referring to the suspension of an official’s pension when they assume a function, office, or position in a European Union institution (for service from June 1, 2026, onwards), it points out that this would result in complete deprivation of the pension.
The Law Office also notes that suspending benefits at a future time presupposes that the official has already crystallised a right to a pension. However, the pension cannot be suspended due to the Koutselini court decision.
“There are also existing officials who, after completing 30 months, have already secured maximum pension benefits. Consequently, after June 1, 2026, no additional benefit is earned that could be suspended,” it adds.
Regarding the provision to extend pension payments for service established from June 2026, the Law Office emphasises that this does not affect existing officials.
