Requirement for retroactive enrollment in a pension plan expires pursuant to the general rules of the statute of limitations

In case HR-2023-1637, the Supreme Court has addressed an important legal principle regarding the statute of limitations for claims related to retroactive enrollment (and premium payments) in pension plans.

The issue at hand was whether Tromsøysund (church) parish was obligated to retroactively enroll a musician in the parish’s pension plan, effective from January 1, 2013. The dispute arose because the Court of Appeals had ruled that the musician should be considered an employee of the parish and, therefore, should have been enrolled in the parish’s pension plan from January 2013. The Court of Appeals had also determined that the parish’s duty to enroll the musician in the pension plan, including the obligation to pay pension premiums, was not a claim subject to the statute of limitations under the Limitation Act. In principle, such claims could never expire as time-barred, according to the Court of Appeals.

The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals was mistaken and that the parish’s obligation to enroll employees in the pension plan expires continuously under the Limitation Act § 3, cf. § 1. The Supreme Court placed significant emphasis on the wording of the statute, which states that the law applies to “claims for money or other benefits (…).” The Supreme Court particularly emphasized that the dominant effect of the enrollment was that the parish became obligated to retroactively pay pension premiums covering the membership period in the past, and that the payment of pension premiums constitutes a monetary benefit. The Supreme Court’s position is in line with a Supreme Court decision from 2001 (Rt-2001-905) and a decision in the Labor Court (ARD-2003-181).

The judgement of the Supreme Court will have implications beyond the specific case. It is now clarified that employees’ claims for employers to pay pension premiums as a general rule are subject to the statute of limitations under the general rules of the Limitation Act, which is typically three years. There is still some uncertainty regarding statutory pension plans (e.g., the nursing pension plan), but it is likely that the same principle applies to them. For pension plans without premium payments, such as under the State Pension Fund Act (lov om Statens Pensjonskasse), members’ rights are directly governed by the law. Therefore, the Supreme Court’s decision will not affect employees’ rights in such plans.