natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
W. der henviser til, at Kommissionen allerede i 1977 ikke var helt tilfreds med den manglende gennemførelse af direktivet, og at der på det tidspunkt blev udarbejdet et udkast til en formel åbningsskrivelse, og at Det Forenede Kongerige i stedet for at gennemføre direktivet i national lov i 1978, som det burde have gjort, først gennemførte det (korrekt eller ej) med loven om forsikringsselskaber i 1982,
W. Considering that already in 1977 the Commission was not entirely satisfied with the transposition of the Directive and a draft letter of formal notice had been prepared at that time and that instead of transposing the directive in 1978 as should have been the case, the UK only transposed it (correctly or not) in the 1982 Insurance Companies Act;
X. der erindrer om, at det første andragende om dette emne nåede frem til Europa-Parlamentet i 1997, og at spørgsmålet for længst skulle have være løst,
X. Bearing in mind the fact that the first petition on this subject reached the European Parliament in 1997 and that a resolution of the issue is long overdue;
3. insisterer på, at Kommissionen skriftligt underretter Europa-Parlamentet og dets kompetente udvalg om enhver form for fejl og undladelser, der ifølge Kommissionen er forekommet i perioden 1973-1995 i forbindelse med gennemførelsen og anvendelsen af de i denne betænkning nævnte direktiver;
Insists that a specific response is provided in writing by the Commission to the European Parliament and its competent committee regarding any shortcomings and omissions the Commission believe to have occurred in the proper transposition and application of the Directives referred to in this Report, for the period 1973 - 1995;
5. pålægger sin formand at sende denne beslutning og begrundelsen til Kommissionen og Rådet, andragerne, Underhusets formand og Det Forenede Kongeriges myndighed for finansielle tjenesteydelser.
Instructs its President to forward this resolution and accompanying explanatory statement to the Commission and Council, to the petitioners, to the Speaker of the House of Commons and to the United Kingdom Financial Services Authority.
"ET INDVIKLET" ELLER "ET MEGET SIMPELT SPØRGSMÅL"?
"A COMPLEX ISSUE" or "VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD”?
Der var ét ord, der dominerede kommissær Fritz Bolkesteins indlæg under mødet i Europa-Parlamentets Udvalg for Andragender i juni 2001 vedrørende andragenderne om forsikringsselskabet Lloyd's, og det var ordet "indviklet".
If there was one word that dominated Commissioner Bolkestein's presentation to the European Parliament's Petitions Committee in June 2001, on the matter of the “Lloyd's Petitions”, it was the word "complex".
Andragerne har sagt, at det er meget simpelt.
Petitioners have said it is very straightforward.
Det centrale spørgsmål er, om den britiske regering har gennemført Rådets direktiv 73/239/EØF korrekt i britisk lovgivning og håndhævet det konsekvent.
The central issue is whether the British Government properly transposed into British law and then consistently applied Council Directive 73/239/EEC.
Hvis dette er tilfældet, hvornår gjorde den det, og gennemførte og håndhævede den dernæst direktivet konsekvent?
If it has so done - when did it do so, and did it subsequently consistently apply and enforce the directive?
Havde andragerne en legitim ret til at forvente, at den britiske regering efterlever de i direktivet omhandlede krav, og at Kommissionen efterprøver efterlevelsen heraf?
Did the petitioners have a legitimate right to expect the British Government to observe the requirements of the Directive and for the Commission to check for that compliance?
På det tidspunkt, hvor ordføreren udarbejdede denne betænkning, var han ude af stand til kategorisk at hævde, at alt er, som det skal være, af den simple grund, at den britiske regering og Europa-Kommissionen – om end af forskellige årsager – begge resolut nægter Europa-Parlamentets medlemmer adgang til den britiske regerings svar på Kommissionens forskellige spørgeskemaer.
At the time of drafting this report your rapporteur is unable to assert categorically that all is as it should be, if for no better reason than, the British Government and the European Commission, albeit for different reasons, both resolutely refuse to allow members of the European Parliament to have access to the British Government's response to the Commission's various questionnaires.
Medlemmerne af Europa-Parlamentet har end ikke adgang til de spørgsmål , Kommissionen fremsatte i 2001 og 2002.
Even the Commission’s questions posed in 2001 and 2002 are not freely made available to MEPs.
Medlemmerne af Udvalget for Andragender er de eneste, der har fået lov til at se spørgeskemaerne, og kun på betingelse af streng kontrol og uden mulighed for at undersøge dem med henblik på ekspertrådgivning.
Members of the Petitions Committee alone have been allowed to see the questionnaires but then only under conditions of stringent control and with no ability to examine them with the benefit of expert advice.
Den britiske regering fastholder på både ministerielt og administrativt plan, at den fuldt ud er i god tro i denne sag, men den er ikke i så god tro, at den vil offentliggøre sin sag!
The British Government, at ministerial and civil service level, claims to be absolutely confident in its case but it is not so confident that it will make its case public!
Kommissionen er bundet af rammeaftalen mellem Europa-Parlamentet og Kommissionen (artikel 1.5 i bilag III) om offentlig adgang til dokumenter, men den britiske regering er ikke pålagt en sådan forpligtelse.
The Commission is bound by the framework agreement between the European Parliament and the Commission ( Article 1.5 Annex III) on public access to documents but there is no such obligation on the British Government.
Den kan offentliggøre sit svar, hvis den ønsker det.
They could make their responses public if they chose.
Det, at den nægter at gøre det, giver anledning til spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt dens svar kunne klare en parlamentarisk eller offentlig prøve.
That they refuse to do so begs the question of whether their responses would stand up to parliamentary or public scrutiny.
Fra de i øjeblikket foreliggende kendsgerninger fremstår der imidlertid to meget klare punkter:
However from the facts currently known two points are very clear:
Kravene i Rådets direktiv 73/239/EØF blev først fuldt indarbejdet i britisk lov i 1982, hvilket er i modstrid med EF-traktatens krav.
The requirements of EEC Directive 239/73 were not fully transcribed into UK law until 1982, contrary to EC Treaty requirements.
Direktivets revisionskrav vedrørende Names' og som følge heraf Lloyd's solvens blev ganske vist gennemført i 1982 med "Lloyd's Act", men blev ikke håndhævet korrekt.
The Directives audit requirements in respect of Names and consequently Lloyd’s solvency, whilst being transcribed in 1982, by the Lloyd's Act, were not correctly applied.
Sagen forholder sig i øjeblikket (august 2002) således, at Kommissionen har fremsendt en åbningsskrivelse (december 2001) med meddelelse om, at den har til hensigt at indlede overtrædelsesprocedure mod den britiske regering.
As things stand (August 2002), the Commission has issued a formal letter of notice (Dec 2001) of its intention to launch infringement proceedings against the UK government.
Kommissionen behandler i øjeblikket den britiske regerings seneste svar, der blev modtaget i april 2002.
The Commission is currently considering the UK government's latest response, received in April 2002.
Et svar, som både Kommissionen og den britiske regering fortsat holder hemmeligt.
A response which both the Commission and the UK government continue to keep secret.
Udvalget for Andragender behandler i øjeblikket 6 andragender:
The Petitions Committee currently has under consideration 6 petitions:
Andragende 1273/1997 af X
Petition 1273/1997 Mme X
Andragende 71/1999 af Michael Anstey og 111 medunderskrivere
Petition 71/1999 M. M Anstey +111 others
Andragende 207/2000 af Richard Harrisson
Petition 207/2000 M. R Harrisson
Andragende 318/2000 af Catherine Mackenzie-Smith
Petition 318/2000 Mme. Mackenzie-Smith
Andragende 709/2000 af George Stamp
Petition 709/2000 M.G Stamp
Andragende 127/2002 af dr. Franz Schleicher
Petition 127/2002 Dr F Schleicher
Endvidere er et antal separate klager blevet fremsendt direkte til Kommissionen.
Additionally there are quite separate complaints that have been addressed directly to the Commission
Et af andragenderne blev indgivet for fem år siden og burde for længst være behørigt besvaret.
One petition stretches back some 5 years and a proper response is long overdue.
I et tidligere midlertidigt svar til Parlamentet vedrørende andragende 71/1999 angav Kommissionen, at den havde indledt overtrædelsesprocedure om dette spørgsmål så langt tilbage som i 1978.
In an earlier interim response to the Parliament on petition 71/99, the Commission indicated that it had opened infringement proceedings on this matter as long ago as 1978.
Den har senere indrømmet, at den begik en fejl, da den fremsatte denne erklæring, og at der på det pågældende tidspunkt ikke var indledt formelle procedurer.
It has subsequently admitted it was in error in making that statement and that no formal proceedings were launched at that stage.
Kommissionen har dog i et bilag til en skrivelse, den fremsendte i 2002 til ordføreren, bekræftet, at Kommissionen allerede i 1977 ikke var tilfreds med implementeringen af Rådets direktiv 73/239/EØF.
However, the Commission has confirmed in an annex to a letter sent in 2002 to the rapporteur, that in 1977 the Commission was not, at that time, satisfied with the transposition of Directive 73/239/EEC.
Kommissionen undlod dog øjensynlig på det tidspunkt at iværksætte formelle foranstaltninger, fordi den var tilfreds med, at de britiske myndigheder foretog tilsyn "i overensstemmelse med" direktiverne.
Although the Commission apparently held back from formal action at that stage because it was satisfied that the UK authorities were operating supervision "in line with" the directives.
Selv om 1978 var slutfristen for indarbejdelsen af direktivet i britisk lovgivning, blev det første implementeret i 1982 med "Insurance Companies Act", dvs. hele fire år efter de oprindelige fem års ekstra frist for implementeringen.
Although 1978 was the final date for the transposition of the Directive into UK law, actual transposition did not take place until the 1982 Insurance Companies Act. ie a further 4 years after the initial 5 years tolerance allowed for transposition.
Et relevant spørgsmål er, hvorvidt der blev givet meddelelse om denne forlængelse til forsikringsselskaberne eller potentielle Names, som kunne have troet, at når de tilsluttede sig Lloyd's, var de dækket af EU's forordninger.
A pertinent question is whether any notification of this extension was given to insurance companies, or to potential names who may have thought they were joining Lloyd's under the cover of EU regulations.
Hele denne historie er karakteriseret af forsinkelse og uklarhed, hvilket leder ordføreren til den konklusion, at Kommissionen for meget lang tid siden skulle have fundet en endelig løsning på problemet.
This whole saga is characterised by delay and obfuscation leading your rapporteur to the conclusion that time is long overdue for a clear resolution of the issue on the part of the Commission.
Ganske vist er den britiske regering hovedansvarlig for implementering og håndhævelse af direktivet, men med sine langtrukne procedurer gør Kommissionen sig modtagelig for beskyldninger om fejl og forsømmelser, hemmelige aftaler og strafskyldighed.
Whilst the British Government has prime responsibility for transposition and application of the Directive, by its long drawn out procedures the Commission is laying itself open to charges of maladministration, possible collusion and culpability.
Lloyd's blev oprettet i det 17. århundrede, og på mange måder er dets procedurer gammeldags.
Lloyd's was established in the 17th century, and in many respects its procedures are archaic.
Det beskriver sig selv som et "marked", og det skal snarere forstås i dette lys end som et konventionelt forsikringsselskab.
It describes itself as a "market" and it must be understood in this light rather than as a conventional insurance company.
For at tegne en forsikring gives en kunde adgang til markedet via en mægler.
To place insurance a client must access the market via a broker.
Alle Names udpeger en "Members Agent", der tager sig af individuelle Names' forretninger i Lloyd's, og bl.a. foreslår, hvilket Syndicate han eller hun bør tilslutte sig og i hvilket omfang.
All Names appoint a "Members Agent" who acts for individual Name's affairs at Lloyd's, inter alia recommending to which syndicate he or she should subscribe and to what extent.
Lloyd's Syndicates ledes af "Managing Agents", der udnævner assurandørerne.
Lloyd's syndicates are run by Managing Agents who appoint the Underwriters.
Assurandørerne foretager det pågældende Syndicates' aktuelle forsikringsforretninger og beskæftiger sig med spørgsmål som f.eks. spørgsmålet om, hvor meget det pågældende Syndicate er rede til at sætte på spil i forbindelse med en særlig risiko, eller om, hvor store præmier der skal opkræves.
The Underwriters conduct the actual insurance business of their Syndicate dealing with such issues as the exposure the syndicate is prepared to accept in respect of a particular risk and the premium to be levied.
I henhold til Underhusets finansudvalg ("Treasury Select Committee") steg antallet af individuelle Names i perioden fra 1970-1980 fra ca. 6 000 til 17 000 i 1979 og nåede i 1988 helt op på 32 433.
According to the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee between 1970 and the late 1980s the number of individual Names rose from approx 6000 to 17000 in 1979 and peaking at 32,433 in 1988.
I 1994 var det faldet til lige over 17 000, og antallet af aktive Names var lidt over 3 000.
By 1994 it had fallen back to just over 17000 and the number of active names is now just over 3000.
I begyndelsen af 1990'erne, da Lloyd's var i åbenlyse økonomiske vanskeligheder, accepterede hovedparten af de tidligere Names (over 90 %) den såkaldt genopbygnings- og fornyelsesplan, ("Reconstruction and Renewal Plan" (R&R)), i henhold til hvilken erstatningsansvar fra 1992 og de forudgående år blev genforsikret i et nyt organ kaldet "Equitas".
In the early 1990’s when Lloyd’s clearly faced financial difficulties, most of the former names( over 90%) accepted the so-called “Reconstruction and Renewal plan” under which 1992 and prior year liabilities were reinsured into a new body named "Equitas".
Indtil nu har Lloyd's traditionelt opereret med et regnskabssystem, der går tre år bagud, med henblik på at afslutte et Syndicate's regnskabsår ved udgangen af det tredje år, idet der tegnes en afslutningsreassurance ("reinsurance to close" (RITC)).
Up to the present day, Lloyd's has traditionally operated a three years in arrears accounting system for the purpose of closing a syndicated year of account at the end of the third year, through purchase of a reinsurance to close.(RITC).
Det var på baggrund heraf, at andragerne accepterede deres ubegrænsede hæfte for risici, idet de troede, at der ikke var nogle skjulte forpligtelser.
It was on that basis that petitioners accepted their unlimited liability risk, believing there were no undisclosed liabilities.
Systemet synes dog at have muliggjort, at gamle uafsluttede regnskaber kom til live igen, og appelretten for England og Wales har nu anerkendt, at der var utilstrækkelige henlæggelser i disse regnskaber.
The system appears to have allowed however, for old, closed years of accounts to come back into life, and it is now recognised by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, that there was underreserving within those accounts.
Dette system er nu ved at blive ændret.
This system is now undergoing a change.
Reguleringen af Lloyd's
Regulation of Lloyd's
Traditionelt har Lloyd's været selvregulerende jf. dets egne på hinanden følgende love.
Traditionally Lloyd's has been self regulated, under its own successive Acts of Parliament.
Den sidste i rækken heraf er Lloyd's Act af 1982.
The latest of these being the Lloyd's Act of 1982.
Denne lov medførte, at det for første gang blev muligt for personer uden for Lloyd's at blive medlem af en ledende bestyrelse.
For the first time, this brought in persons from outside Lloyd's to sit on a governing council.
Bestyrelsen består af medlemmer, hvis udnævnelser er bekræftet af direktøren for Bank of England, og den har beføjelse til at overvåge og forvalte hele Lloyd's marked.
The Council includes members whose appointments are confirmed by the Governor of the Bank of England and has power to supervise and manage the whole Lloyd's market.
For at beskytte selskabet, dets bestyrelse og ansatte mod erstatningskrav er der i loven fra 1982 et kapitel, der giver en begrænset beskyttelse mod erstatningskrav i visse typer sager i forbindelse med udøvelsen af funktioner i henhold til loven.
In order to protect the Society, the Council and its employees from damages claims, the 1982 Act included a section granting limited protection against liability to damages in certain types of case arising in relation to the exercise of functions under the Act.
Det har skiftevis været det britiske handels- og industriministerium, finansministerium og nu kontoret for finansielle tjenesteydelser ("Financial Services Authority" (FSA)), som har haft ansvar for at føre tilsyn med sammenslutningen af assurandører, kendt som Lloyd's, i overensstemmelse med gældende EU-ret.
It has been the successive responsibility of the UK Department of Trade and Industry, HM Treasury and now the Financial Services Authority to undertake the prudential supervision of the association of underwriters known as Lloyd's in accordance with applicable EC Directives.
Som led i dette tilsyn anmodedes den regelfastsættende instans om at kontrollere selskabets solvens i henhold til britisk ret.
As part of this supervision, the regulator was required to monitor the solvency of the Society in accordance with UK Law.
Kommissionen bekræftede i sit svar på skriftlig forespørgsel E-0334/01 af John Bowis, at den mener, at hovedkravene i Rådets direktiv 73/239/EØF blev gennemført i britisk lovgivning med loven af 1982.
The Commission has confirmed, in response to parliamentary question E-0334/00 by Mr John Bowis MEP, that it considers the requirements of Directive 73/239 were eventually transposed into UK Law by the 1982 Act.
Spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt direktivets bestemmelser blev korrekt håndhævet, står stadigvæk åbent.
The bigger question remains of whether the terms of the Directive were then properly applied.
Ansvaret for håndhævelsen af EF's bestemmelser påhviler i sidste ende Finansministeriet, men loven om finansielle tjenesteydelser og markeder af 2000 ("Financial Services and Markets Act 2000") udpegede FSA som den kompetente myndighed for tilsyn med britiske finansielle tjenesteydelser (herunder Lloyd's) med virkning fra midnat den 30. november 2001.
Responsibility for application of EC regulation ultimately rests with HM Treasury but the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 designated the Financial Services Authority as the competent authority for the supervision of UK financial services business (including Lloyd's), with effect from midnight on 30th November 2001.
Hvad angår den kritiske periode mellem 1973 og 2001, synes der at herske tvivl om, hvilket ministerium eller hvilket kontor der var ansvarligt for hvad.
Over the critical period between 1973 and 2001 there seems to be a lack of clarity over just which Department and office was responsible for what.
Under henvisning til perioden fra 1. januar 1999 til 30. november 2001 erklærede formanden for FSA, sir Howard Davies, i en skrivelse til ordføreren af 15. november 2001 følgende:
The FSA chairman, Sir Howard Davies, in a letter to the rapporteur, dated 15.11.2001, stated, referring to the period 1.1.1999 until 30.11.01 only, that,
"I henhold til de oplysninger, vi har, har Lloyd's i denne periode opfyldt de lovbestemte krav, det er underlagt, og for hvilke FSA er ansvarlig.
"In this period, based on the information available to us, Lloyd's has complied with the statutory requirements to which it is subject and for which the FSA is responsible.
Disse omfatter bl.a. kravet om hvert år at forelægge en lovformelig driftsberetning ("Statutory Statement of Business"), der bekræfter, at Lloyd's fortsat opfylder sine lovpligtige solvenskrav."
These include, for example, the requirement to submit annually a Statutory Statement of Business, certifying that Lloyd's continues to meet its statutory solvency requirements."
I samme skrivelse gøres det klart, at FSA ikke dengang var ansvarlig for gennemførelsen i Det Forenede Kongerige af Fællesskabets forsikringsdirektiver eller andre direktiver.
The same letter makes clear that the FSA was not then responsible for the implementation by the UK of EC Insurance Directives or any others.
Det synes dog, at selv om en sådan driftsberetning visse gange er blevet modtaget af FSA og andre gange af Handels- og Industriministeriet, så har deres eneste ansvar været at modtage beretningerne uden en tilsvarende forpligtelse til at foretage en validitetskontrol.
It would seem however that whilst such a statement of business has been received by the FSA at times and by the Department of Trade and Industry at other times, the only obligation on them has been to receive the statements but with no corresponding obligation to check their validities.
Dette blev bekræftet i et vidnesbyrd, Handels- og Industriministeriet afgav i Underhusets udvalg med ansvar for finanser og offentlig administration ("Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee") i 1995.
This point was confirmed in evidence given by the DTI in 1995 to the UK House of Commons Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee.
I den årlige beretning, der er undertegnet af formanden for Lloyd's, hedder det:
The Annual statement, signed by the Chairman of Lloyd’s states
"Et certifikat, der opfylder bestemmelserne i undersektion 5 i sektion 83 i forsikringsselskabsloven af 1982, er blevet forelagt Lloyd's bestyrelse og ministeren, jf. undersektion 4 i den pågældende sektion, for hver enkelt af Lloyd's assurandører."
“A certificate complying with sub section 5 of section 83 of the Insurance Companies Act of 1982 has been furnished to the Council of Lloyd’s and the Secretary of State pursuant to subsection 4 of that section in respect of every underwriting member of Lloyd’s.”
Ordføreren stiller spørgsmålstegn ved, om især denne procedure er blevet håndhævet korrekt.
Your rapporteur questions whether this procedure, in particular, has been properly applied.
I sine konklusioner erklærede Underhusets finansudvalg følgende:
In its conclusions the House of Commons Treasury Select committee stated,
"Der er tydeligt bevis for, at reguleringsindsatsen i Lloyd's i den seneste tid er faldet til langt under acceptable standarder".
"there is much evidence to suggest that the performance of the regulation at Lloyd's in the recent past has fallen well below acceptable standards".
En sådan yderligere undersøgelse har ikke fundet sted, og det pågældende udvalg behandlede heller ikke spørgsmålet om håndhævelsen af Fællesskabets direktiver, selv om Handels- og Industriministeriet i sit vidnesbyrd til udvalget bekræftede, at Lloyd's havde foretaget for få hensættelser (§ 3196), og tillige bekræftede, at de bestemmelser om solvensmargen, der anvendes i Det Forenede Kongerige, var dem, der var fastlagt af Fællesskabet, og gik tilbage til 1970'erne (§ 3224).
No such wider investigation has taken place nor did that Committee consider the question of application of EU directives, although in its evidence to the Select Committee, the DTI confirmed that Lloyd's has been under-reserved(cl 3196) and also confirmed that the solvency margin rules in use in the UK were those set down by the EC going back to the 1970's. (cl 3224).
Kommissionen har i øjeblikket helt klare forbehold, hvilket fremgår af den formelle åbningsskrivelse af 20. december 2001. ii.
i At present, the Commission clearly has reservations, as evidenced by their formal letter of notice, dated December 20th 2001.