EIOPA guidelines and Estonian insurance market self-regulation

In short. Two layers of soft law shape insurance conduct in Estonia. EIOPA guidelines set European supervisory expectations, many of which the Estonian Financial Supervision Authority (Finantsinspektsioon, FSA) has adopted as its own advisory guidelines. Market self-regulation consists of the Estonian Insurance Association's codes of good practice, the rules of procedure of the insurance conciliation bodies and the insurance arbitration rules. None of these is legislation, but in a dispute they serve as evidence of the standard of care and of good faith. Sources were checked on the websites of EIOPA, the Estonian Insurance Association and the Traffic Insurance Fund as at 3 November 2026.¹

1. EIOPA guidelines

1.1. Legal nature

EIOPA issues guidelines under Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010. National supervisors must state whether they comply or intend to comply and explain any non-compliance. The FSA has confirmed compliance with several guidelines and issued them as Estonian advisory guidelines (see FSA guidelines).

In a dispute between policyholder and insurer a guideline is not a rule of law. An Estonian court may nevertheless use it to give content to an intermediary's duty of care under § 177 of the Insurance Activities Act (kindlustustegevuse seadus, KindlTS) and to an insurer's obligations through the good-faith (VÕS § 6) and reasonableness (VÕS § 7) principles of the Law of Obligations Act (võlaõigusseadus, VÕS).

1.2. Guidelines that matter most in practice

All guidelines are listed in EIOPA's guidelines library. EIOPA withdrew the two ICT-related guidelines marked above with effect from 17 January 2025, because DORA fully covers their objectives and provisions.² The Estonian Financial Supervision Authority (Finantsinspektsioon, FSA) marks in its register the FSA guidelines issued on the basis of those two EIOPA guidelines as invalid from 21.10.2025. That does not affect the FSA's own recommended guideline on the requirements for the organisation of information technology and information security of supervised entities, an amendment of which entered into force on 21.10.2025; see FSA guidelines.³

Pending: IBIP sales processes. On 8 October 2026 EIOPA opened a consultation on a draft Supervisory Statement on outcomes-focused supervision of insurance-based investment product (IBIP) sales processes and pre-contractual disclosures. The statement is addressed to national competent authorities and, according to EIOPA, does not introduce new regulatory requirements, reporting obligations or prescribed supervisory methodologies; feedback is due by 4 January 2027, 23:59 CET.⁴ For insurers and distributors selling IBIPs in Estonia the applicable rules remain KindlTS and VÕS. In practice it is worth documenting how the product was explained to the customer and how the seller checked that the customer understood it.

1.3. Using a guideline in a dispute

1. Check whether the FSA has adopted it; adoption strengthens the argument.
2. Tie it to a statutory duty under VÕS or KindlTS; the guideline does not create a cause of action.
3. Check its date: where a later EU regulation covers the same ground (POG and 2017/2358, ICT and DORA), the regulation prevails.

2. Estonian Insurance Association codes of good practice

The Estonian Insurance Association (Eesti Kindlustusseltside Liit, EKsL) is the association of insurers operating in Estonia. Its codes of good practice are published under Kindlusta targalt (Estonian only):

Legal effect. A code is not part of the policy unless incorporated and does not bind a non-member insurer. It is, however, evidence of market practice, which Estonian law takes into account when assessing reasonableness (VÕS § 7(2) refers to the usages and practices of the relevant field). A foreign insurer writing Estonian retail business through a local partner should expect conciliators and courts to measure its claims handling against these codes, read together with the FSA's claims-handling advisory letter.

3. Insurance conciliation

Insurance conciliation is run jointly by EKsL and the Traffic Insurance Fund (Eesti Liikluskindlustuse Fond, LKF); applications are filed through LKF's website. Current documents:

• Rules of procedure of the insurance conciliation bodies (Kindlustuslepitusorganite menetluskord, approved by the EKsL council and the LKF supervisory board on 25.06.2025, in force 01.07.2025): commencement, conciliator, procedure, proposal and effect on time limits (points 18.1–18.2: suspension of limitation and of the one-year period under VÕS § 475 lg 3);
• the cost rules of the conciliation body and of the motor insurance conciliation body, published on LKF's rules page;
• the application form.

The conciliator's proposal is not binding. Under the rules of procedure, the one-year period for bringing suit under VÕS § 475(3) is suspended during conciliation, and from the filing of the application where a conciliation agreement exists, which is the case whenever the insurer is a member of EKsL or LKF (points 2.1 and 18.2); limitation of the claim is suspended from the filing of the application (point 18.1). Independently, suspension of limitation during agreed conciliation follows from § 167(3) of the General Part of the Civil Code Act (tsiviilseadustiku üldosa seadus, TsÜS). In each case the time that ran before the suspension still counts. See Insurance conciliation in Estonia.

Patient insurance disputes go to a separate state conciliation committee (TOKVS § 23; see Estonian regulations). Consumers may also use the Consumer Disputes Committee under the Consumer Protection Act (tarbijakaitseseadus, TKS) § 40.

4. Insurance arbitration

An insurance arbitration tribunal operates at EKsL and decides disputes where the parties have agreed to it. According to EKsL, it most often hears disputes between insurers, and arbitration may follow conciliation if the parties so decide. The procedure is set out in the insurance arbitration rules (Estonian). For international disputes see Arbitration of insurance disputes.

5. Limits of soft law

• Soft law cannot override statute: where a code or guideline is less favourable to the policyholder than a semi-mandatory VÕS provision, VÕS prevails (§ 427).
• Soft law does not replace the contract: first assess the validity of the standard term (VÕS §§ 35–44).
• Codes are amended without publication in Riigi Teataja; always check the current version on the issuer's website.

Related pages

• Legal framework overview
• FSA guidelines and advisory letters
• Insurance organisations
• Insurance conciliation in Estonia
• Claims handling practice in Estonia

References