Pöördumine

Ministry of Social Affairs Suur -Amerika 1 10122 Tallinn ESTONIA [email protected] Our ref: 26/482 Your ref: TIME \@ "d. MMMM yyyy" 5. June 2026 Request regarding structure, organisation and design of national social security legislation in Estonia The Norwegian Government has appointed a public committee to examine possible changes to Norwegian social security legislation . The examination is aimed at facilitating large-scale administration, digitalisation and fully or partly automated case processing, as well as improving and possibly simplifying the structure of the legislation and achieving a legal framework that is appropriately designed in light of Norway’s obligations under the EEA Agreement. The committee is appointed partly because it has now been almost 30 years since the adoption of the National Insurance Act, which regulates the majority of Norwegian social security benefits. Since its adoption, the Act has not undergone any major structural revisions and is therefore less consistent than when it was first enacted. It also reflects, to some extent, having been adopted at a time when large-scale administration, digitalisation and facilitation of automated case processing was less relevant than today. According to its mandate , the committee shall consider and describe relevant features of social security legislation in other countries. In particular when it comes to enabling more automated case processing and organize the regulatory framework and legislation in an appropriate manner, it is of great interest to map how our neighbouring countries have designed their social security legislation. We therefore hope that you are able to respond to a number of questions that may assist the committee in its process : Questions concerning facilitation of large-scale administration, digitalisation and automation (item a of the mandate): Have amendments been made to national legislation to facilitate increased digitalisation and automated processing of claims for social security benefits? Could you describe the specific adjustments that you consider most significant? (for example: amendments to entire Acts/legislative frameworks, individual provisions/parts of provisions, conditions/effects, basis for calculating benefits) What are the key experiences you have gained from these adjustments? Both positive and negative experiences are of interest. We would also welcome web addresses/links to documents or websites providing further details of the considerations underlying any adaptations made, as well as links to evaluations, reports, research or other material assessing the changes implemented. Questions concerning structure (item d of the mandate): Is legislation adopted by the legislature supplemented by provisions issued administratively, such as regulations, circulars, guidelines or similar instruments? What considerations have been made regarding whether rules should be set out in Acts, secondary legislation or other instruments? Are provisions concerning different social security benefits, administrative rules and possibly other relevant regulatory frameworks combined in a single Act, or divided across several Acts? What premises have been taken as the basis for structuring the single Act, or for dividing the legislation into several Acts, where multiple Acts have been adopted? For example, has emphasis been placed on the types of risks the benefits are intended to cover, on administrative responsibilities for legislation and implementation, on the structure of EU Regulation 883/2004, or on other considerations? In addition, the committee has questions as to whether other countries’ social security schemes contain membership conditions similar to those in the Norwegian National Insurance Act (Chapter 2), and, if so, their significance: Do national legislation or other national rules lay down conditions for individuals to be entitled to social security coverage under your schemes? What is the content of these conditions? Do they apply before the contingency arises (qualification/accrual period), at the time the contingency arises, or after a benefit has been granted? Are there different conditions for different benefits (risks)? Are such national conditions designed with regard to the conflict-of-law rules under Regulation (EC) No 883/2004? Are there rules on the termination of social security coverage, and if so, what do they contain? Do you have examples of national rules that do not confer social security coverage in situations where individuals are nevertheless subject to your social security legislation according to Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 ? Please do not hesitate to contact us if further clarification of the questions is required. Please note that the responses may be referred to or reproduced in the committee’s report, which will be published as part of the Official Norwegian Reports (NOU) series at the end of 2027. In view of the deadline set for the committee’s work, we would be very grateful to receive your response to this inquiry by 10 August 2026. We would appreciate confirmation that this letter has been received, and, if appropriate, that it has been forwarded to the relevant person if you are not the correct recipient. We would also appreciate the name and email address of a contact person at your organization in case we wish to ask follow-up questions or request further clarification. Yours sincerely, Eivind Helland Marienborg Head of Secretariat Saatja: "AID-Folketrygdlovutvalget" <[email protected]> Saaja: "Info - SOM" <[email protected]> Teema: Request regarding structure, organisation and design of national social security legislation in Estonia Kuupäev: 2026-06-05 09:58 Tähelepanu! Tegemist on välisvõrgust saabunud kirjaga. Tundmatu saatja korral palume linke ja faile mitte avada. The Norwegian Government has appointed a public committee to examine possible changes to Norwegian social security legislation. The examination is aimed at facilitating large-scale administration, digitalisation and fully or partly automated case processing, as well as improving and possibly simplifying the structure of the legislation and achieving a legal framework that is appropriately designed in light of Norway’s obligations under the EEA Agreement. Please find submitted a request for information on structure, organisation and design of national security legislation. We would appreciate it if you could forward this request to the appropriate recipient. Yours sincerely, Eivind Helland Marienborg Head of Secretariat