natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Competent authorities are required to assess such compliance where an institution first applies to use AMA, where an institution applies to extend the AMA in accordance with the approved sequential implementation plan, where an institution applies to extend or change the AMA it has been granted permission to use, and where an institution applies to return to the use of less sophisticated approaches in accordance with Article 313 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.
Pristojni organi morajo oceniti takšno izpolnjevanje zahtev, kadar institucija prvič vloži vlogo za uporabo pristopa AMA, kadar institucija vloži vlogo za razširitev pristopa AMA v skladu z odobrenim načrtom postopnega izvajanja, kadar institucija predloži vlogo za razširitev ali spremembo pristopa AMA, za katerega ji je bilo izdano dovoljenje za uporabo, in kadar institucija vloži vlogo za ponovno uporabo manj izpopolnjenih pristopov v skladu s členom 313 Uredbe (EU) št. 575/2013.
In addition, competent authorities should conduct an ongoing review of the use of the AMA by institutions.
Poleg tega bi morali pristojni organi izvajati redne preglede uporabe pristopa AMA s strani institucij.
Accordingly, competent authorities should conduct the assessment of an institution's compliance with the requirements to use AMA in accordance with the nature of the elements to be assessed corresponding to the relevant assessment methodology.
V skladu s tem bi morali pristojni organi oceniti, ali institucija izpolnjuje zahteve za uporabo pristopa AMA, v skladu z naravo elementov, ki jih je treba oceniti glede na zadevno metodologijo ocenjevanja.
Article 85(1) of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council requires institutions to articulate what constitutes operational risk for the purposes of implementing policies and processes to evaluate and manage the exposure to operational risk.
Člen 85(1) Direktive 2013/36/EU Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta določa, da morajo institucije določiti, kaj je operativno tveganje za namene izvajanja politik in postopkov za ovrednotenje in upravljanje izpostavljenosti operativnemu tveganju.
Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 provides a definition for ‘operational risk’ which includes both legal risk and model risk.
V Uredbi (EU) št. 575/2013 je opredeljeno „operativno tveganje“, ki vključuje pravno in modelsko tveganje.
In Article 3(1) of Directive 2013/36/EU, model risk refers to potential losses owed to errors in the development, implementation or use of internal models but does not include potential losses owed to valuation adjustments from model risk as referred to in Article 105 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 on prudent valuation or in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/101 and does not refer to model risk associated with using a possibly incorrect valuation methodology as referred to in Article 105(13) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.
V členu 3(1) Direktive 2013/36/EU se modelsko tveganje nanaša na morebitne izgube zaradi napak pri razvoju, izvajanju ali uporabi notranjih modelov, vendar ne vključuje morebitnih izgub zaradi prilagoditev vrednotenja iz tveganja, povezanega z uporabo modela, iz člena 105 Uredbe (EU) št. 575/2013 o preudarnem vrednotenju ali Delegirane uredbe Komisije (EU) 2016/101 ter se ne nanaša na tveganje, povezano z uporabo modela, povezano z morebitno uporabo nepravilne metodologije vrednotenja iz člena 105(13) Uredbe (EU) št. 575/2013.
Equally, Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 does not specify how competent authorities should verify compliance with the requirement to articulate any operational risk that relates to legal risk and model risk.
Prav tako v Uredbi (EU) št. 575/2013 ni določeno, kako bi morali pristojni organi preverjati izpolnjevanje zahteve za določitev morebitnega operativnega tveganja, ki je povezano s pravnim in modelskim tveganjem.
Rules specifying the assessment methodology to be used by competent authorities when assessing whether institutions may use the AMA should therefore include such specification.
Pravila, s katerimi je opredeljena metodologija ocenjevanja, ki jo morajo pristojni organi uporabljati pri ocenjevanju, ali lahko institucije uporabljajo pristop AMA, bi morala zato vključevati tako določitev.
It is also necessary to harmonise supervisory approaches with regard to the correct articulation of operational risk in financial transactions, including those related to market risk, as the operational risks of these transactions are proved to be sizeable and their drivers, typically of multifaceted nature, may be not consistently detectable and recordable as such throughout the Union.
Uskladiti je treba tudi nadzorne pristope v zvezi s pravilno opredelitvijo operativnega tveganja pri finančnih poslih, tudi tistih, povezanih s tržnim tveganjem, saj so se operativna tveganja teh poslov izkazala za precejšnja, njihovih povzročiteljev, ki so običajno raznovrstni, pa kot takih ni mogoče dosledno odkrivati in beležiti po vsej Uniji.
Standards to be respected by an institution's governance and risk management framework are laid down in Article 74 of Directive 2013/36/EU and Article 321 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.
Standardi, ki jih je treba spoštovati v okviru institucije za upravljanje in obvladovanje tveganj, so določeni v členu 74 Direktive 2013/36/EU in členu 321 Uredbe (EU) št. 575/2013.
As a result, the methodology for AMA assessment should provide for verification, by competent authorities, that an institution has a clear organisational structure for the governance and management of operational risk with well-defined, transparent and consistent lines of responsibility taking into account the nature, scale and complexity of the activities of the institution when assessing whether an institution may use the AMA approach.
Zato bi moralo biti v metodologiji za ocenjevanje pristopov AMA pri ocenjevanju, ali lahko institucija uporablja pristop AMA, predvideno preverjanje s strani pristojnih organov, ali ima institucija jasno organizacijsko strukturo za upravljanje in obvladovanje operativnega tveganja z natančno opredeljenimi, preglednimi in usklajenimi ravnmi odgovornosti, ob upoštevanju narave, obsega in zapletenosti dejavnosti institucije.
In particular, it should be confirmed that the operational risk management function plays a key role in identifying, measuring and assessing, monitoring, controlling and mitigating the operational risks faced by the institution and that it is sufficiently independent from the institution's business units so as to ensure that its professional judgement and recommendations are both independent and impartial.
Zlasti bi bilo treba potrditi, da ima funkcija upravljanja operativnega tveganja ključno vlogo pri ugotavljanju, merjenju in ocenjevanju, spremljanju, nadzoru in zmanjševanju operativnih tveganj, s katerimi se srečuje institucija, ter da je dovolj neodvisna od poslovnih enot institucije, da se zagotovi, da so njena strokovna presoja in priporočila neodvisni in nepristranski.
It should also be determined that senior management is responsible for developing and implementing the operational risk governance and management framework that has been approved by the management body and that such framework is consistently implemented throughout the institution's organisation.
Določiti bi bilo tudi treba, da je višje vodstvo odgovorno za razvoj in izvajanje okvira upravljanja in obvladovanja operativnega tveganja, ki ga je potrdil upravljalni organ, in da se tak okvir dosledno izvaja v celotni organizaciji institucije.
Competent authorities should also assess that adequate tools and information are provided at all staff levels so that all staff understand their responsibilities with respect to operational risk management.
Pristojni organi bi morali tudi oceniti, ali so zagotovljeni ustrezna orodja in informacije za zaposlene na vseh ravneh, tako da vsi zaposleni razumejo svoje odgovornosti glede upravljanja operativnega tveganja.
Effective internal reporting systems are a prerequisite of sound internal governance.
Učinkoviti sistemi notranjega poročanja so predpogoj za dobro notranje upravljanje.
Competent authorities should therefore ensure that an institution applying for AMA permission adopts effective risk reporting systems not only to the management body and senior management but also to all the functions responsible for the management of operational risks to which the institution is, or might be, exposed.
Zato bi morali pristojni organi zagotoviti, da institucija, ki zaprosi za dovoljenje za uporabo pristopa AMA, uvede učinkovite sisteme poročanja o tveganju ne le za upravljalni organ in višje vodstvo, ampak tudi za vse funkcije, odgovorne za upravljanje operativnih tveganj, ki jim je ali bi jim lahko bila institucija izpostavljena.
The reporting system should reflect the up-to-date status of operational risk issues at the institution and should include all material aspects of operational risk management and measurement.
Sistem poročanja bi moral izražati najnovejše stanje vprašanj v zvezi z operativnim tveganjem v instituciji ter vključevati vse pomembne vidike upravljanja in merjenja operativnega tveganja.
In accordance with Article 321(a) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, an institution's internal operational risk measurement system has to be closely integrated into its day-to-day risk management processes.
V skladu s členom 321(a) Uredbe (EU) št. 575/2013 mora biti sistem institucije za notranje merjenje operativnega tveganja tesno vključen v njene vsakodnevne procese upravljanja tveganj.
As a result, the methodology for AMA assessment should provide for competent authorities to ensure that an institution applying for an AMA permission actually uses its operational risk measurement system for its day-to-day business process and for risk management purposes on an on-going basis and not solely for the purpose of calculating the own funds requirements for operational risk.
Zato bi moralo biti v metodologiji za ocenjevanje pristopa AMA določeno, da morajo pristojni organi zagotoviti, da institucija, ki zaprosi za dovoljenje za uporabo pristopa AMA, dejansko redno uporablja svoj sistem merjenja operativnega tveganja za svoj vsakodnevni poslovni proces in za namene upravljanja tveganj, ne pa le za izračunavanje kapitalskih zahtev za operativno tveganje.
Rules on the AMA supervisory assessment should therefore include rules on the supervisory expectations to be met by the institution applying for an AMA permission as regards the ‘use test’.
Pravila o nadzorniški oceni pristopa AMA bi morala zato vključevati pravila o izpolnjevanju pričakovanj glede nadzora s strani institucije, ki zaprosi za dovoljenje za uporabo pristopa AMA, kar zadeva „test uporabnosti“.
In order to provide both institutions and competent authorities with evidence that an institution's operational risk measurement system is reliable and robust and generates more credible operational risk own funds requirements than a simpler operational risk regulatory methodology, competent authorities should verify that the institution has compared the operational risk measurement system against the Basic Indicator Approach or the Standardised Approach for operational risk laid down in Articles 315, 317, and 319 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 over a determined period of time.
Za zagotovitev dokazov institucijam in pristojnim organom, da je sistem institucije za merjenje operativnega tveganja zanesljiv in stabilen ter določa verodostojnejše kapitalske zahteve za operativno tveganje kot enostavnejša regulativna metodologija za operativno tveganje, bi morali pristojni organi preveriti, ali je institucija v določenem obdobju primerjala sistem merjenja operativnega tveganja z enostavnim pristopom ali standardiziranim pristopom za operativno tveganje iz členov 315, 317 in 319 Uredbe (EU) št. 575/2013.
That period of time should be sufficiently long for the competent authority to establish that the institution meets the qualitative and quantitative standards laid down in the Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 for the use of an AMA.
To obdobje bi moralo biti dovolj dolgo, da lahko pristojni organ ugotovi, ali institucija izpolnjuje kvalitativne in kvantitativne standarde za uporabo pristopa AMA iz Uredbe (EU) št. 575/2013.
According to Article 321(g) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, an institution's data flows and processes associated with the AMA measurement system are required to be transparent and accessible.
V skladu s členom 321(g) Uredbe (EU) št. 575/2013 morajo biti podatkovni tokovi in procesi institucije, ki so povezani s sistemom merjenja v okviru pristopa AMA, pregledni in dostopni.
Data relating to operational risk is not immediately available as it first needs to be identified within an institution's books and archives, and then properly gathered and maintained.
Podatki o operativnem tveganju niso takoj na voljo, saj jih je treba najprej ugotoviti v knjigah in arhivih institucije ter nato ustrezno zbirati in vzdrževati.
Furthermore, the measurement system is typically very sophisticated and envisages several logical and computational steps for the generation of the AMA own funds requirements.
Poleg tega je sistem merjenja običajno zelo izpopolnjen ter predvideva več logičnih in računskih korakov za določanje kapitalskih zahtev v okviru pristopa AMA.
The methodology for AMA assessment should therefore verify that the data quality and IT systems are properly designed and correctly implemented within an institution so as to serve the purpose for which they are built.
Z metodologijo za ocenjevanje pristopa AMA bi bilo treba zato preverjati, ali so kakovost podatkov in informacijski sistemi ustrezno zasnovani ter ali se pravilno izvajajo v instituciji, da služijo namenu, za katerega so bili vzpostavljeni.
The AMA framework of an institution is subject to internal validation and audit reviews in accordance with points (e) and (f) of Article 321 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.
Okvir pristopa AMA institucije je predmet notranje validacije in revizijskih pregledov v skladu s točkama (e) in (f) člena 321 Uredbe (EU) št. 575/2013.
Although the organisational structure of the internal validation and audit functions can vary depending on an institution's nature, complexity and business, it should be ensured that the methodology for AMA assessment of the reviews undertaken by these functions adheres to common criteria as to the terms and scope of such reviews.
Čeprav se lahko organizacijska struktura funkcij notranje validacije in revizije zelo razlikuje glede na naravo, kompleksnost in dejavnost institucije, bi bilo treba zagotoviti, da metodologija za ocenjevanje pregledov v okviru pristopa AMA, ki jih izvajata ti funkciji, izpolnjuje skupna merila glede pogojev in obsega takih pregledov.
Operational risk modelling is a relatively new and evolving discipline.
Modeliranje operativnega tveganja je razmeroma nova in razvijajoča se disciplina.
Accordingly, Article 322 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 grants significant flexibility to institutions in building the operational risk measurement system for calculating the AMA own funds requirements.
Člen 322 Uredbe (EU) št. 575/2013 tako institucijam zagotavlja precejšnjo prožnost pri oblikovanju sistema za merjenje operativnega tveganja za izračun kapitalskih zahtev v okviru pristopa AMA.
Such flexibility, however, should not result in significant differences across institutions with regard to the key components of the measurement system, including the use of internal data, external data, scenario analysis and business environment and internal control factors (known and referred to as ‘the four elements’), the core modelling assumptions that permit capturing severe tail events and the related risk drivers (the building of the calculation data set, the granularity, the identification of the loss distributions and the determination of aggregated loss distributions and risk measures) or the expected loss, the correlation and the criteria for capital allocation which should ensure a measurement system's internal consistency.
Vendar taka prožnost ne bi smela povzročati velikih razlik med institucijami, kar zadeva ključne elemente sistema merjenja, vključno z uporabo notranjih podatkov, zunanjih podatkov, analize scenarijev ter dejavnikov poslovnega okolja in notranjih kontrol (znanih kot in imenovanih „štirje elementi“), osnovne predpostavke o modeliranju, ki omogočajo zajetje resnih dogodkov z repa statistične porazdelitve in povezanih dejavnikov tveganja (oblikovanje podatkovnega niza za izračun, razdrobljenost, opredelitev porazdelitev izgube ter določitev porazdelitev skupne izgube in mer tveganja) ali pričakovano izgubo, korelacijo in merila za dodelitev kapitala, ki bi morala zagotoviti notranjo doslednost sistema merjenja.
Therefore, with the view to ensuring that the risk measurement system is methodologically well founded, comparable across the institutions, effective in capturing the institutions' actual and potential operational risk and reliable and robust in generating AMA regulatory capital requirements, the methodology for AMA assessment should provide that the same criteria and requirements are applied by the competent authorities across the Union.
Za zagotovitev, da je sistem merjenja tveganja metodološko dobro zasnovan, primerljiv med institucijami, učinkovit pri zajemanju dejanskega in morebitnega operativnega tveganja institucij ter zanesljiv in stabilen pri določanju regulativnih kapitalskih zahtev v okviru pristopa AMA, bi morala metodologija za ocenjevanje pristopa AMA tako zagotavljati, da pristojni organi po vsej Uniji uporabljajo enaka merila in zahteve.
The AMA assessment methodology should also take into consideration the idiosyncratic components of operational risk that are related to the institutions' different size, nature and complexity.
Pri metodologiji ocenjevanja pristopa AMA bi bilo treba upoštevati tudi posebne elemente operativnega tveganja, ki so povezani z različno velikostjo, naravo in kompleksnostjo institucij.
With particular regard to the internal data, consideration should be given to the fact that even though an operational risk loss can arise only from an operational risk event, its occurrence may be revealed by different items, including direct charges, expenses, provisions, uncollected revenues.
Zlasti glede notranjih podatkov bi bilo treba upoštevati dejstvo, da čeprav lahko izguba zaradi operativnega tveganja izhaja le iz dogodka operativnega tveganja, lahko njen pojav razkrijejo različne postavke, vključno z neposrednimi pristojbinami, odhodki, rezervacijami in nepobranimi prihodki.
Whilst some operational risk events have a quantifiable impact and are reflected in the institution's financial statements, others are not quantifiable and do not affect the institution's financial statements and are therefore detectable from other sources including managerial archives and incidents dataset.
Nekateri dogodki operativnega tveganja imajo količinsko opredeljiv vpliv in se izražajo v računovodskih izkazih institucije, drugi pa niso količinsko opredeljivi in ne vplivajo na računovodske izkaze institucije ter jih je zato mogoče odkriti v drugih virih, vključno z arhivi vodstva in naborom podatkov o incidentih.
Therefore, rules specifying the assessment methodology for competent authorities in order to permit institutions to use the AMA should specify what constitutes an operational risk loss and the amount to be recorded for AMA purposes and, more generally, all the potential items that could reveal the occurrence of operational risk events.
V pravilih, s katerimi je opredeljena metodologija ocenjevanja za pristojne organe, da se institucijam dovoli uporaba pristopa AMA, bi moralo biti zato opredeljeno, kaj je izguba zaradi operativnega tveganja, znesek, ki ga je treba zavesti za namene pristopa AMA, ter, splošneje, vse morebitne postavke, ki bi lahko razkrivale pojav dogodkov operativnega tveganja.
Sometimes, institutions are able to quickly recover emerging operational risk losses.
Včasih lahko institucije hitro povrnejo nastajajoče izgube zaradi operativnega tveganja.
Rapidly recovered losses should not be considered for the purposes of calculating the AMA own funds requirements, although they may be useful for management purposes.
Hitro povrnjene izgube se ne bi smele upoštevati pri izračunu kapitalskih zahtev v okviru pristopa AMA, čeprav so lahko koristne za namene upravljanja.
Since there are various criteria that institutions use to qualify losses as rapidly recovered, rules on the AMA assessment methodology should include rules specifying the appropriate criteria for qualifying losses as rapidly recovered.
Ker obstajajo različna merila, ki jih institucije uporabljajo za opredelitev izgub kot hitro povrnjenih, bi morala pravila za metodologijo ocenjevanja pristopa AMA vključevati pravila o ustreznih merilih za opredelitev izgub kot hitro povrnjenih.
Risk mitigation techniques may be recognised by competent authorities within the AMA provided that certain conditions are fulfilled, as referred to in Article 323 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.
Pristojni organi lahko v okviru pristopa AMA priznajo tehnike za zmanjševanje tveganja, če so izpolnjeni določeni pogoji iz člena 323 Uredbe (EU) št. 575/2013.
In order to effectively apply the rules relating to these mitigation techniques, specific standards should be followed by competent authorities when assessing the application of these rules by an institution.
Za učinkovito uporabo pravil v zvezi s temi tehnikami za zmanjševanje tveganja bi morali pristojni organi pri ocenjevanju uporabe teh pravil s strani institucije upoštevati posebne standarde.
In particular, where those mitigation techniques are in the form of insurance, it is necessary to ensure that such insurance is provided by insurance firms authorised in the Union or in jurisdictions with equivalent regulatory standards for insurance firms, as those applicable in the Union.
Zlasti če so navedene tehnike za zmanjševanje tveganja v obliki zavarovanja, je treba zagotoviti, da tako zavarovanje zagotovijo zavarovalnice, ki so pridobile dovoljenje v Uniji ali v jurisdikcijah z enakovrednimi regulativnimi standardi za zavarovalnice, kot so tisti, ki se uporabljajo v Uniji.
Where risk mitigation techniques are in the form of other risk transfer mechanisms than insurance, competent authorities should ensure that such mechanisms are actually transferring risk and are not used to circumvent the AMA own funds requirements.
Če so tehnike za zmanjševanje tveganja v obliki drugih oblik prenosa tveganja, ki ni zavarovanje, bi morali pristojni organi zagotoviti, da taki mehanizmi dejansko prenašajo tveganje in se ne uporabljajo za izogibanje kapitalskim zahtevam v okviru pristopa AMA.
This condition is essential in light of the peculiarities of operational risk, where there are no clear underlying assets of reference and where unexpected losses play a greater role than in other types of risk.
Ta pogoj je bistvenega pomena z vidika posebnosti operativnega tveganja, če ni jasnih referenčnih osnovnih sredstev in če imajo nepričakovane izgube večjo vlogo kot pri drugih vrstah tveganja.
This is further exacerbated in light of the lack of an efficient, liquid, and structured market for operational risk ‘products’ which thus far have been traded outside the banking sector, including catastrophe bonds and weather derivatives.
To je še toliko pomembnejše z vidika pomanjkanja učinkovitega, likvidnega in strukturiranega trga za „produkte“ operativnega tveganja, s katerimi se je doslej trgovalo zunaj bančnega sektorja, vključno s katastrofnimi obveznicami in izvedenimi finančnimi instrumenti na vremenske dejavnike.
Finally, there is often great difficulty in assessing the legal risk of such mechanisms, even where the terms and conditions of these contracts are clearly and carefully spelled out.
Ne nazadnje, pogosto je zelo težko oceniti pravno tveganje takih mehanizmov, tudi če so pogoji teh pogodb jasni in natančno opredeljeni.