The number of citizens receiving an early retirement pension via their supplementary pension in the Czech Republic is 22 times higher today than when it was introduced in 2013, data has revealed, with proposed pension reforms set to increase this further.

As of June 2025, 6,641 Czechs were in receipt of an early retirement benefit through their supplementary pension savings, the Association of Pension Companies (APS), rising from below 300 applicants when the system was introduced in 2013.

This trend shows a growing interest among Czechs in early retirement options outside the traditional state pension system.

Early retirement through the supplementary pension system allows individuals to retire before the official retirement age without permanently reducing their state pension, provided they have accumulated sufficient savings in their account.

The scheme offers considerable flexibility, allowing participants to retire up to five years earlier than the standard retirement age, provided they meet the savings requirements. The average payout for early retirees in June 2025 was CZK 16,059.

However, the option is only available under the new supplementary pension system (DPS). Those invested in older, transformed funds must transfer to the new system to benefit from early retirement.

The scheme’s long-term future remains uncertain, particularly given ongoing debates over pension reform and the potential for policy changes if the opposition wins the next election.

These debates reflect broader discussions in the Czech Republic about how to balance multiple priorities in retirement policy.

The early retirement debate in the Czech Republic is currently focused on how to provide workers, particularly those in high-risk occupations, with opportunities to retire earlier without undermining the sustainability of the state pension system.

Recent legislation introduced mandatory employer contributions to private third-pillar pensions for employees in hazardous jobs, allowing access to these funds for early retirement.

However, the proposal has seen broader calls for reform with arguments that it is administratively complex, inadequately prepared, and potentially unfair to workers who may struggle to accumulate sufficient savings to benefit.

Meanwhile, others see it as a step toward providing more flexible retirement options outside the public system.

---