24 September 2025
The new Dutch pension system is in a major reform. A key part of this reform is 'invaren': the transfer of accrued pension rights into the new system based on contributions and investment results.
However, the individual right of objection – the possibility to protest against this transfer – has been abolished. This raises both legal and societal concerns. Agnes Joseph (NSC) has submitted an amendment to restore the right of objection. Unfortunately this amendment was not approved by the Dutch parliament. In this article we will explain that this is a missed opportunity to restore the low trust the participants have in the new Dutch system.
Abolishing the right of objection conflicts with the right to property. Legal scholars disagree on whether such an infringement can be justified.
‘Invaren‘ changes existing pension contracts retroactively, from a stable benefit to a more uncertain outcome. This may be considered an infringement of property rights, especially since participants have no choice in the matter. It also conflicts with the European right to effective legal protection. Without an objection right, participants cannot properly defend their rights. In addition, the European Commission is currently investigating whether mandatory participation in sectoral pension funds complies with EU law, including the freedom to provide services and competition law.
This investigation follows a complaint by a Dutch citizen, and the European Commission has launched an EU Pilot procedure. It may result in infringement proceedings against the Netherlands.
The traditional justification of solidarity is under pressure in what appears to be an increasingly individualised system.
Restoring the right of objection would give participants back a voice. This not only respects property rights but also strengthens trust in the system. Individuals could choose what suits their situation: a more stable but possibly lower pension, or a riskier arrangement with potentially higher returns. This aligns with the fiduciary duty of pension funds to consider individual interests.
A practical solution could be the Pensioenbewaarder, an existing structure that allows participants who object to retain their old rights. In this way, collectively is maintained while choice and flexibility are introduced.
Mandatory participation in pension funds is under scrutiny in Brussels. The EU Pilot examines whether this obligation disadvantages foreign providers, potentially constituting nationality-based discrimination – a red line in EU law. A right of objection would mitigate this problem: participants ho object could potentially opt for an alternative (including foreign) provider, making the market more open.
This also fits with European trends such as the Pan-European Personal Pension Product (PEPP), which emphasises freedom of choice and transparency.
The new Dutch pension system aims to deliver more tailored solutions, but by abolishing the right of objection it removes individual control. This is not only legally risky but also undermines public support. Reintroducing the right of objection makes mandatory participation more sustainable. It protects property rights, strengthens legal protection and allows individual choice without undermining solidarity. With solutions such as the Pensioenbewaarder, this is practically feasible.
Let us take participants seriously and make the pension system truly future-proof.
Do you have questions about the right of objection or the new Dutch pension system? Please contact us for more information.
