natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det opnåede kompromis gik ud på, at eksplicitte aktiver under alle omstændigheder kan medregnes, og at implicitte aktiver — alt afhængig af den enkelte medlemsstat — kan medregnes efter visse nærmere fastsatte regler og op til en bestemt grænse.
(ii) or is the insurance undertaking free to operate under the control of its home State, this being recognized by the destination State as replacing its own controls (home country control with mutual recognition of standards)?
I henhold til direktivet kan medlemsstaterne indgå en fælles aftale om, hvorledes de implicitte aktiver, som nogle af landene lægger til grund, beregnes. Efter langvarige
As soon as the first nonlife coordination Directive was adopted in the summer of 1973, the Commission embarked on a new step.
drøftelser af teknisk art nåede man omsider frem til en sådan aftale.
Coinsurance means the covering of a risk under a single contract of direct insurance in which several insurers participate, each assuming responsibility for a separate part.
Dette er et slående eksempel på gensidig anerkendelse af standarder, endnu inden dette tillagdes prioritet i Kommissionens hvidbog fra 1985.
The lead insurer will commonly take a larger proportion of the risk than any of the others, but not necessarily so: he may occupy the lead position because of his recognized skill in the type of insurance in question or because of a long-standing business relationship with the policyholder.
Artiklen er opdelt i fem litraer, der hver især omhandler en af de hovedaktiviteter, som livsforsikringsselskaber udøver, og disse litraer er igen opdelt i underafsnit.
The view at the time was that freedom of services, as a Community right, would not exist until the Directive called it into being, and then only to the extent that the Directive provided.
Anvendelsen af disse bestemmelser på et livsforsikringsselskab, der udøver alle de forskellige former for aktiviteter samtidig, må i sandhed være kompliceret.
It was therefore envisaged that the lead insurer would be established in the State where the risk was situated, whilst one or more of the other coinsurers would be established in other States and would thus be operating under freedom of services.
Hele dette store regelkompleks afspejler klart den indbyrdes forskelligartede karakter af livsforsikringsselskabers aktiviteter til forskel fra de ret ensartede skadesforsikringsaktiviteter.
Since it is the lead insurer who agrees the premium rate and conditions, the State of the risk would have been able to use the mechanisms applied to insurers established in its territory to ensure that the insurance product contained in the coinsurance contract matched in every way what locally established insurers provided.
Men den bagvedliggende tanke er dog helt klart, at solvensmargenen ved livsforsikringsvirksomhed både skal tage højde for investerings- og dødsrisikoen. Dette illustreres af den forsikringstype, hvor der er tale om livsforsikring af den art, hvor forsikringssummen traditionelt udbetales i levende live ved opnåelsen af en bestemt alder eller ved dødsfald forinden dette tidspunkt, og hvor forsikringssummen gradvist forøges ved, at der tilskrives bonus.
The participation of insurers from other States would thus have had no effect, from the customer's point of view, apart from making it easier to find direct cover (without recourse to reinsurance) for large risks.
Her består solvensmargenen af summen af to elementer, hvoraf det ene er en procentdel af præmiereserverne og det andet en procentdel af risikokapitalen, der er lig med det beløb, der skal udbetales ved dødsfald, minus præmiereserven for hovedrisikoen.
Indeed, so cautious was the approach that it was proposed that at least 25% of the risk must be covered by insurers established in the State where it was situated.
Direktivet blev meddelt medlemsstaterne den 15. marts 1979. Det skulle have været gennemført i national lovgivning den 15. september 1980, og denne lovgivning skulle senest bringes i anvendelse den 15. september 1981.
There was general agreement that, in the light of that judgment, it would no longer be appropriate for the proposed Directive to require that any particular proportion of the risk should be retained in the country where that risk was situated.
Men en række medlemsstater vedtog rent faktisk først de nødvendige foranstaltninger længe efter fristens udløb, hvilket måske nok til dels kan undskyldes med emnets ekstremt tekniske og kom plicerede karakter.
It soon became apparent, however, that there were deep divergences in the understanding of the full scope of the judgment.
Hvorom alt er, må det nok siges at være for tidligt at drage konklusioner med hensyn til direktivets virkninger i praksis.
Did it mean that even without further harmonization Member States could no longer require an insurer, including of course the lead insurer in a coinsurance operation, to be established in the country where that risk was situated?
Så vidt det kan ses, har livsforsikringsselskaberne ikke haft noget hastværk med at etablere agenturer eller filialer i andre medlemsstater.
An attempt was made to paper over the cracks by amending the text so that the envisaged coordination would apply only in those circumstances where the leading insurer was in fact so established, whilst leaving open the question of the legal position in other cases.
Hvis forsikringsselskaber ønsker at ekspandere og udøve aktiviteter i andre lande, gør de det stadig normalt ved at opkøbe eksisterende selskaber (hvilket har den fordel, at man da kan overtage et distributionsnet) eller ved at etablere et nyt datterselskab frem for en filial.
The idea was that freedom of services would at least, with the agreement of all, have become a commercially exploitable reality in a
De første direktiver: kun det første skridt på vejen
particular circumscribed area, whatever controversy surrounded the rest.
Men uanset hvor fundamental betydning dette har, er der dog dermed langtfra skabt et fælles marked.
Article 2(3)(a) of the Directive, finally adopted by the Council on 30 May 1978, states that 'this Directive shall apply only to those Community coinsurance operations which satisfy the following conditions:
Paradoksalt nok har de to direktiver endog snarere haft den virkning, at adskillelserne mellem de nationale markeder er trådt endnu tydeligere frem, fordi den kontrol, der udøves af de nationale tilsynsmyndigheder, er kommet til at spille en større rolle.
(c) For the purpose of covering this risk, the leading insurer is authorized in accordance with the conditions laid down in the first coordination Directive, i.e. he is treated as if he were the insurer covering the whole risk'.
Forsikringsselskaberne har ganske vist fået lettere adgang til disse adskilte nationale markeder, men når de først er kommet ind på dem, må de følge de lokale regler. Kontrollen med forsikringsprodukter er helt og holdent den enkelte medlemsstats anliggende, og der er store forskelle fra det ene land til det andet på dette felt.
This was interpreted by the majority of Member States as meaning that the lead insurer must be established in the State where the risk (or was it the policyholder?) was situated; by others, and by the Commission, as meaning that the lead insurer might be anywhere in the Community provided that he was authorized, in some Member State, in accordance with the provisions of the first nonlife coordination Directive.
Et forsikringsselskab med hjemsted i ét land, der ønsker at oprette en filial i et andet land, kan derfor komme i den situation, at det ikke kan operere på samme måde som i sit hjemland, og specielt vil det ofte opdage, at det ikke kan markedsføre samme type forsikringer i det andet land.
Further controversy was provided by the statement in Article 1(2) that the Directive applied 'to risks ... which by reason of their nature or size call for the participation of several insurers for their coverage'.
Dette kan i høj grad begrænse, og måske helt udelukke, selskabets muligheder for at skabe sig en position på markedet ved at udvikle nye produkter eller ved at udnytte sine erfaringer fra hjemmemarkedet.
No clear meaning could be extracted from this phrase and it was not surprising that the Commission and Member States were unable to agree upon an interpretation.
Og heller ikke forsikringstagerne får de fordele ved større valgmuligheder, et fælles marked ville give.
The amount of coordination provided by the Directive, for whatever might fall within its scope, was of no great extent but, as it later turned out, nevertheless of great importance.
Det er stadig sådan, at f.eks. multinationale selskaber, der har fabrikker og lagre i alle medlemsstater, og som sælger deres produkter i hele EF, i henhold til de nationale lovgivninger er nødt til at tegne særskilte forsikringer i hver af de medlemsstater, hvor de har risici, som de ønsker at forsikre sig imod.
In particular, the Directive made clear which State's rules were to apply to the technical provisions and the assets representing them, and moreover which State was actually to apply those rules.
Dette resulterer i større omkostninger og gør det vanskeligere for dem at iværksætte en samlet risikostyring.
It also set out machinery for collaboration between the supervisory authorities of the States concerned.
Det er derfor klart, at Kommissionen var nødt til at søge nye veje til at ændre denne situation.
Other questions, settlement of which might have done much to ease the path of insurers engaging in international business, such as guidance on the choice of the law to be applied to the contract, were not taken into account.
Er fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser vejen frem?
The proposal for a second nonlife Directive
Kommissionen erkendte, at hvis det skulle lykkes at opnå andet og mere end blot lettere adgang til adskilte nationale markeder, måtte man udnytte retten til fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser. Men ville dette være nok i sig selv?
It envisaged that an insurer established in one Member State but wishing to cover risks situated in another, would have to apply to the supervisory authority of his own State for permission to do so.
Fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser betyder groft sagt, at et forsikringsselskab med hjemsted i én medlemsstat har ret til at tegne forsikringer i en anden medlemsstat uden at være etableret i denne anden stat.
Regardless of what the views of the destination State might be, it was the home State which alone had power to grant or refuse authorization for the envisaged extension of business.
Om dette udelukkende giver adgang til adskilte nationale markeder, som det er tilfældet med etableringsretten, eller om det vil kunne bane vej for et fælles, indre marked i hele EF, afhænger af:
The destination State was not deprived of all power and influence, because the
(i) om det forsikringsselskab, som benytter sig af retten til fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser, i det andet land (hvor risikoen er beliggende) er underkastet samme tilsyns- og andre kontrolbestemmelser, som ville gælde for filialer etableret i dette land, eller
insurer would have to obey many of its rules in the course of carrying on business, in particular those relating to fair competition and sales literature and methods. But except in extreme cases its contact with the insurer was to be effected through the home supervisory authority.
(ii) om forsikringsselskabet frit kan udøve virksomhed under hjemlandets tilsyn, således at det andet land anerkender hjemlandets tilsyn som erstatning for sit eget tilsyn (princippet om hjemlandstilsyn med gensidig anerkendelse af tilsynsnormer).
The main objection raised by the European Parliament, in its opinion delivered at the beginning of 1978, was that freedom of choice of contract law, as set out in the original proposal, would inevitably mean that smaller policyholders would find themselves committed to contracts governed by an unfamiliar law, which often might not provide as many safeguards as in their domestic law.
Umiddelbart efter vedtagelsen af 1. skadesforsikringsdirektiv i sommeren 1973 tog Kommissionen et nyt initiativ med fremlæggelsen af et direktivforslag om coassurance.
In the case of small risks, the contract law to be applied was that of the country where the risk was situated, but only until a harmonization of contract law had been achieved, which was to be done rapidly through another directive (described later).
Ved coassurance er der tale om, at en risiko ved en enkelt direkte tegnet forsikringsaftale dækkes af flere forsikringsselskaber, som hver især hæfter for en del af risikoen.
Contentious though the choice of contract law was, it soon became apparent, in meetings of a Council working group reviewing the whole text, that it was a side issue.
Den ledende assurandør vil normalt — men ikke nødvendigvis altid — påtage sig en større del af risikoen end de andre.
The main question concerned the very concept of freedom of services.
Hans stilling som ledende assurandør kan f.eks. bero på, at han er anerkendt som specialist i den pågældende type forsikring, eller at han har en mangeårig forretningsforbindelse med den pågældende forsikringstager.
The Commission took the simple view that, following the Van Binsbergen judgment, an insurer based in one Member State had a Treaty-given right to sell in another State any insurance which he could sell at home.
Formålet med dette direktiv var oprindeligt, at det skulle være et første, ret begrænset, forsøg på at åbne adgang til fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser på tværs af landegrænserne i EF som forløber for et mere generelt 2. skadesforsikringsdirektiv, der da skulle åbne helt op for fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser.
These two countries traditionally admitted freedom of services on their own territory and had export-orientated insurance industries. The professed attitude of the other Member States may be summarized as follows: 'We accept that freedom of services is a right under the Treaty, but it cannot override the duty we have to protect our residents, who are almost always the weaker party in any transaction with an insurance company.
Den fremherskende opfattelse var på det tidspunkt, at fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser ikke ville bestå som en EF-rettighed, før den blev indført ved et direktiv, og da kun i det omfang, det blev fastsat i direktivet.
We can only exercise this duty if the insurer is subject to our laws; and we can only apply those laws if the insurer is authorized and physically established in our country'.
Tanken var derfor at kræve, at den ledende assurandør skulle være etableret i risikolandet — dvs. det land, hvor risikoen var beliggende — medens en eller flere af de øvrige coassurandører kunne være hjemmehørende i andre medlemsstater og således ville udøve virksomhed inden for rammerne af den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser.
It will be seen that this conflict was closely linked to the disagreement in interpretation of the coinsurance Directive, which was adopted amid misunderstanding and suspicion at roughly the same time as discussions on the proposed second nonlife coordination Directive began.
Ud fra forsikringstagerens synspunkt ville det således være ligegyldigt, om der deltog forsikringsselskaber fra andre lande, bortset fra, at det nok ville være lettere at skaffe sig direkte dækning for store risici (dvs. uden genforsikring).
Discussions continued for many years in all hitherto known kinds of Council working groups. When this failed, other groups constituted on a novel basis were tried.
om et temmelig stort skridt.
The starting positions had been totally opposed.
Man gik endda så forsigtigt til værks, at man foreslog, at mindst 25% af risikoen skulle dækkes af forsikringsselskaber med hjemsted i risikolandet.
As negotiations continued the gap was narrowed, mainly by recognition on both sides that a distinction had to be made between the treatment of the larger and the smaller cases, but no bridge was built.
Men alt dette var før dommen i van Binsbergen-sagen1), hvori det blev fastslået, at eftersom overgangsperioden i henhold til Traktaten udløb den 31. december 1969, var det ikke længere nødvendigt at vedtage direktiver til gennemførelse af EØF-Traktatens artikel 59.
First Denmark and France, and then Ireland and Germany, modified their legislation in a way which left each of the countries concerned empowered to insist that the lead insurer in a coinsurance operation covering a risk situated in its territory must be authorized and established there.
Direktivernes formål ville herefter blot være at »lette udøvelsen« af en ret til fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser, som er hjemlet i selve Traktaten.
This went directly against the Commission's view, which was that such an interpretation of the Directive was contrary to the Treaty itself.
Der var almindelig enighed om, at det i lyset af denne dom ikke længere ville være nogen god idé, hvis det i direktivet blev fastsat, at en bestemt del af risikoen skulle dækkes i risikolandet.
The Commission therefore instituted infringement procedures against the four States concerned, an unavoidable action which nevertheless did nothing to sweeten the atmosphere of negotiations on the proposed second Directive.
Det blev imidlertid snart meget tydeligt, at der var vidt forskellige opfattelser af dommens fulde rækkevidde.
At this point something unforeseen happened which was to give a new twist to the development of the common market in insurance.
Betød dommen, at medlemsstaterne selv uden nogen yderligere harmonisering ikke længere kunne kræve, at et forsikringsselskab — herunder naturligvis også den ledende assurandør ved coassurance — for at kunne tegne en forsikring skulle være etableret i det land, hvor den pågældende risiko var beliggende?
Mr Schleicher was an insurance broker in Bavaria. Over a number of years he arranged for the insurance of stocks of furs held by clients in Germany to be placed through a British broker with a number of insurers established in London who did not hold a German authorization.
Der blev gjort forsøg på at glatte meningsforskellene ud ved at ændre direktivteksten således, at den påtænkte samordning kun skulle gælde i de tilfælde, hvor den ledende assurandør rent faktisk var etableret i landet, medens man lod spørgsmålet stå åbent i andre tilfælde.
A condition for the granting of such an authorization would have been that the insurer should be established in Germany.
Man endte med et vælge en notorisk tvetydig formulering.
The Federal Insurance Supervisory Authority (BAV) sought to impose a fine upon him, which was confirmed by a tribunal on 30 June 1982.
I artikel 2, stk. 3, litra a), i det direktiv, der omsider blev vedtaget i Rådet den 30. maj 1978, hedder det således, at »dette direktiv omfatter kun coassurancevirksomhed inden for Fællesskabet, som opfylder følgende betingelser:
Schleicher then appealed to a superior court, the Kammergericht, pleading that the law in question was contrary to the EEC Treaty and in particular to Article 59.
Yderligere kontroverser opstod omkring bestemmelsen i artikel 1, stk. 2, om, at direktivet fandt anvendelse på »risici, som på grund af deres art eller betydning kun kan dækkes ved deltagelse af flere assurandører«.
adopted to implement that Directive, in other Member States. Since not all aspects of insurance supervision were harmonized by Community law, Germany was entitled to maintain its own provisions.
Ingen klar mening kunne udledes heraf, og der var derfor ikke noget mærkeligt i, at Kommissionen og medlemsstaterne ikke kunne enes om en fortolkning.
The only way in which it could enforce them was through the requirement of establishment.
Den samordning, der blev opnået med dette direktiv på de punkter, der kunne siges at falde inden for dets anvendelsesområde, var ikke særlig omfattende, men dog — som det senere viste sig — ikke desto mindre af stor betydning.
Insurers having their head office in other Member States could become established in Germany under laws giving effect to the first nonlife coordination Directive, so there was really nothing to complain about.
Specielt blev det med dette direktiv fastslået, hvilket lands lovgivning der gælder for tekniske reserver og de aktiver, der må medregnes til dækning heraf, samt hvilket land der rent faktisk kan håndhæve disse bestemmelser.
If the requirement of establishment did not exist, there would be discrimination against German insurers, since insurers from other States who were subject to less stringent rules would be able to charge lower rates.
Der blev desuden indført en samarbejdsprocedure mellem tilsynsmyndighederne i de berørte medlemsstater. EF-Domstolen kom imidlertid ikke ind på visse andre spørgsmål, hvis afklaring ville have gjort det langt lettere for forsikringsselskaberne at operere på internationalt plan, f.eks. spørgsmålet om lovvalg i forbindelse med forsikringsaftaler.
The Kammergericht quoted, apparently with approval, the argument that if the existing German legislation was not in accordance with Articles 59 and 60, it would not be for national courts to recast it: if Germany was not respecting its obligations to realize freedom of services in the area of insurance, it should be brought to fulfilment of its duty through action under Articles 169 or 170 of the EEC Treaty.
Forslaget til 2. skadesforsikringsdirektiv
It did so by enlarging the scope of the action in which it was already engaged against Germany.
I en alt for optimistisk tiltro til, at dommen i van Binsbergen-sagen havde fjernet de vigtigste hindringer for at nå videre mod målet, havde Kommissionen i mellemtiden — allerede i 1975 — fremlagt forslag om 2. skadesforsikringsdirektiv.
From now on, however, the Commission was to attack all those provisions in German legislation which required an insurer covering a German risk to be established and authorized in Germany.
I sin oprindelige form byggede forslaget allerede på dette tidlige stadium på princippet om hjemlandstilsyn med gensidig anerkendelse af tilsynsnormer.
The Commission was probably not pleased to have this new strategy imposed on it.
Efter dette princip skulle et forsikringsselskab med hjemsted i én medlemsstat, der ønskede at dække risici beliggende i en anden medlemsstat, forinden indhente godkendelse hertil fra hjemlandets tilsynsmyndigheder. Hjemlandsmyndighederne skulle da give det andet land nærmere oplysninger om disse planer og anmode om en udtalelse, men det var også det hele.
Its original plan had been to attack on a narrow front, on the basis of an already existing Directive which covered an area of business where, in the nature of things, consumer protection would not be a major issue (because coinsurance, both as a matter of commercial practice and by virtue of the wording of the Directive, only applied in larger cases where policyholders needed no protection and could afford good advice).
Uanset hvordan det andet land stillede sig til disse planer, var det hjemlandet, der alene kunne godkende eller nægte at godkende den planlagte udvidelse af virksomheden.
The Commission no doubt expected to win these cases, and could then build on them either to reinforce its position in the negotiations still proceeding on the second Directive or to take further legal action, going step by cautious step into ever more difficult areas.
Men dette lands kontakt med forsikringsselskabet skulle gå via hjemlandets tilsynsmyndigheder, undtagen i ekstreme tilfælde.
Even life insurance, the area where consumer protection arguments seemed strongest, was brought in, because the German legislation which the Commission was now arguing to be incompatible with the Treaty, applied to life and nonlife insurance alike.
Det må bemærkes, at den fremherskende opfattelse på det tidspunkt var, at fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser ikke ville få nogen reel betydning, medmindre forsikringsselskabet var i stand at gennemtvinge, at forsikringsaftalen skulle fortolkes på basis af lovgivningen i dets eget land.
One unsurprising consequence of the Commission's legal actions was the suspension of the Council discussions on the second nonlife Directive. The last meeting before the judgments took place early in 1985.