natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
V skladu s temi pooblastili lahko ministrstvo zahteva, da imenovani aktuar naredi preiskavo finančnega stanja zavarovalnice ali imenuje osebo, ki bo preučila, ali so bila izpolnjena merila dobrega in preudarnega upravljanja.
Under those powers, the Secretary of State may request the appointed actuary to make an investigation into the company’s financial condition or he can appoint a person to investigate whether the criteria of sound and prudent management has been fulfilled.
Ministrstvo ali oseba, ki jo ministrstvo pooblasti, lahko od zavarovalnice zahteva, da mu priskrbi informacije o posebnih zadevah ali predloži knjige, listine ali druge dokumente, kot so opredeljeni.
The Secretary of State, or a person authorised by him, may require a company to furnish him with information about specific matters and to produce books, papers or other documents as may be specified.
Če ministrstvo meni, da obstaja razlog za utemeljen sum, da se dokumenti, katerih predložitev je bila zahtevana, niso pa bili predloženi, zadržujejo v katerih koli prostorih, lahko zahteva, da mirovni sodnik izda nalog, ki pooblašča policijskega uradnika, da vstopi v prostore in jih preišče.
If the Secretary of State considers there are reasonable grounds for believing that documents whose submission has been required and which have not been produced are held on any premises, he may request a justice of the peace to issue a warrant authorising a constable to enter and search the premises.
Pooblastila za sredstva družbe : Ministrstvo lahko zahteva, da se sredstva družbe, ki se uporabljajo za kritje obveznosti, zadržijo v Združenem kraljestvu.
Powers over the company’s assets : The Secretary of State may require the assets of a company used to cover its liabilities to be maintained in the UK .
Prav tako lahko zahteva, da celoto ali določen del teh sredstev zadrži oseba, ki jo ministrstvo potrdi kot skrbnika za družbo.
He can also require the whole or a specified proportion of those assets to be held by a person approved by him as trustee for the company.
Končno lahko sodišče zaprosi za sodno prepoved, ki bi omejila družbo pri prostem razpolaganju s temi sredstvi.
Finally, he can apply before a court for an injunction to restrict the company’s freedom to dispose of its assets.
Ta pooblastila se lahko izvajajo le na podlagi zelo posebnih razlogov.
These powers can only be exercised on the basis of a narrower set of grounds.
Ta pooblastila, zlasti pooblastilo za omejevanje družbe pri prostem razpolaganju s sredstvi, se tudi izvajajo v skladu s strožjimi uradnimi postopki.
The exercise of these powers, in particular the power to restrict a company’s freedom to dispose of its assets, is also subject to more stringent formalities.
Ministrstvo prav tako lahko določi zahteve v zvezi z naložbami (če vrednost njenih sredstev ne presega zneska obveznosti), omeji premijski dohodek ter zahteva dodatne in prej predložene informacije.
The Secretary of State may also impose requirements on investments (in so far as the value of its assets does not exceed the amount of its liabilities), limit premium income and require further and earlier information.
Seznam pooblastil, ki jih našteva zakon, se končuje z obsežnimi preostalimi pooblastili, ki ministrstvu dajejo pravico, da od družbe zahteva sprejetje takšnih ukrepov, ki so primerni za zaščito zavarovancev pred tveganjem, da družba morda ne bo mogla izpolniti svojih obveznosti ali razumnih pričakovanj zavarovancev ali potencialnih zavarovancev, ter za zagotovitev, da družba spoštuje načela dobrega in preudarnega upravljanja.
The list of powers enumerated by the Act closes with a broad residual power which entitles the Secretary of State to require a company to take such action as appears appropriate to him for the purpose of protecting policyholders against the risk that the company may be unable to meet its liabilities or to fulfil the reasonable expectations of policyholders or potential policyholders and for the purpose of ensuring that the company observes sound and prudent management principles.
Neizpolnjevanje zahtev, naloženih z izvajanjem katerih koli navedenih pooblastil, je kršitev.
Failure to comply with a requirement imposed in the exercise of any of the powers mentioned above is an offence.
V skladu z Zakonom o zavarovalnicah iz leta 1982 ima ministrstvo obsežna pooblastila za opravljanje svojih dolžnosti in niti uradni postopki, ki jih mora spoštovati, niti razlogi, na katere se mora sklicevati, ne pomenijo velikih omejitev za njegovo izvajanje teh pooblastil.
According to the ICA 1982, the Secretary of State is equipped with comprehensive powers to discharge his duties and neither the formalities he has to observe nor the set of grounds that he must invoke may impose severe restrictions on him in exercising those powers.
Nasprotno, za izvajanje večine pooblastil (razen omejevanja družbe pri prostem razpolaganju s sredstvi) velja prilagodljiva in nejasno opredeljena omejitev, tj. zaščita razumnih pričakovanj zavarovancev ali potencialnih zavarovancev.
On the contrary, the exercise of most powers (other than the restriction of a company’s freedom to dispose of its assets) is subject to a flexible and vaguely defined threshold, i.e. the protection of the reasonable expectations of policyholders or potential policyholders.
Končno lahko ministrstvo posreduje ob skoraj vsaki priložnosti, ki se mu zdi primerna (ne pa nujna) za zaščito zavarovancev in ne le, če so bile ugotovljene posebne kršitve ali pomanjkljivosti.
Ultimately, the Secretary of State may intervene on almost any occasion he considers desirable (rather than necessary) for the protection of policyholders and not just when specific infringements or shortcomings have been identified.
Trije elementi tega člena so povezani s primerom ELAS.
Three elements of this article link it to the ELAS case.
Prvič, vprašanje „pooblastil in sredstev“ zakonodajalcev; drugič, vprašanje „čezmerno spoštljivega obravnavanja“; tretjič, obveznost zakonodajalcev, da so zagotovili, da je družba ELAS ravnala skladno z nacionalno zakonodajo, ki kot rečeno vključuje koncept razumnih pričakovanj zavarovancev.
First, the issue of the "powers and means” of the regulators; secondly, the question of ‘excessive respectful treatment’; thirdly, the obligation of regulators to ensure that ELAS complied with national law, which, as explained previously, includes the concept of PRE.
Pooblastila in sredstva
Powers and means
Najprej je treba ugotoviti, ali je zakonodajalec Združenega kraljestva takrat imel „pooblastila in sredstva, potrebna“ za opravljanje svojih nalog.
It is necessary to ask, first of all, whether the UK regulator had the "powers and means necessary" to perform its functions at the time.
Več dokazov opozarja na pomanjkljivosti v smislu „sredstev“, na drugi strani pa prejeti dokazi jasno kažejo, da so imeli zakonodajalci brez dvoma dovolj „pooblastil“.
Numerous pieces of evidence point to weaknesses in terms of ‘means’; on the other hand, the evidence received clearly demonstrates that, as far as ‘powers’ were concerned, the regulators had clearly enough.
Po mnenju LAKA v H1 je bilo „ v devetdesetih letih 20. stoletja zakonodajalcem na področju zavarovanja dodeljenih veliko premalo sredstev “.
According to Mr. LAKE in H1, the " insurance regulators were seriously under-resourced throughout the 1990s ".
Svojo trditev podpira z navajanjem Bairdovega poročila (WE 17), ki ga je navedel tudi HOLMES (WE 84 ) pri sklicevanju na zmanjšanje števila osebja, ki dela na področju zakonodaje za zavarovalništvo, 1. januarja 1999: “... skupno število osebja, ki je sodelovalo pri bonitetnih ureditvi približno 200 zavarovalnic (...), je bilo manj kot 135.
He supports his claim by citing the Baird report (WE 17), likewise cited by Mr. HOLMES (WE 84 ) when referring to the breakdown of staff involved in insurance regulation on 1 January 1999: “... the total number of staff involved in the prudential regulation of approximately 200 insurance companies (…) was less than 135.
Za primerjavo približno 135 uslužbencev je sodelovalo pri pravni ureditvi 400 pooblaščenih bank v Združenem kraljestvu, stanovanjskih hipotekarnih zadrug in podružnic institucij, ki niso institucije EU, v Združenem kraljestvu“ (WE 17, odstavek 2.23.5).
By way of comparison, there were approximately 135 staff involved in the regulation of 400 authorised UK banks, building societies and UK branches of non-EU institutions” (WE 17, paragraph 2.23.5).
NASSIM (WE 7) podobno trdi, da „ zakonodajalci niso vedno imeli dovolj sredstev in niso vsi imeli potrebnega znanja in spretnosti, da bi učinkovito prispevali k pravni ureditvi in odgovorno izvajali diskrecijska pooblastila, kot je predvideval parlament od leta 1973 naprej.
Mr. NASSIM (WE7) similarly claims that "the regulators were not always sufficiently resourced and did not all possess the necessary skills to make an effective contribution to the regulatory process and responsibly exercise discretionary powers as intended by Parliament from 1973 onwards.
Zato niso ustrezno opravljali svojih nalog“.
As a consequence, they did not properly undertake their functions."
Osebje ministrstva je bilo neprimerno in zlasti tisti, ki so sodelovali na ravni nadzora, niso bili usposobljeni, da bi lahko znatno prispevali k postopku.
It had inadequate staff and those involved at line supervisor level in particular were not qualified to make any significant contribution to the process.
Zakonodajalci oddelka za zavarovanje so bili povsem odvisni od vladnega oddelka za zavarovalniško statistiko glede nasvetov o matematičnih rezervacijah, implicitnih postavkah, tehničnih zadevah na splošno in razumnih pričakovanjih zavarovancev ter kot posamezniki niso imeli posebnih ustreznih znanj in spretnosti ali izkušenj, da bi v zvezi s tem neodvisno ocenili položaj družbe (...).
Insurance division regulators were fundamentally dependent on GAD for advice on the mathematical reserves, implicit items, technical matters generally and PRE and were not individually equipped with specific relevant skills or experience to assess independently the Society's position in these respects (…).
Za vse praktične namene je preiskavo aktuarskega delovanja življenjskih zavarovalnic izvajal vladni oddelek za zavarovalniško statistiko, dokler ni bila opravljena reorganizacija v okviru Organa za finančne storitve“.
For all practical purposes, scrutiny of the actuarial functioning of life offices was in the hands of GAD until the reorganisation under FSA was in place".
Poročilo dodaja, da „ se je kadrovska zasedba, ki je bila na voljo zakonodajalcu za področje bonitetnih ureditev, spreminjala, vendar sta število osebja, ki je bilo neposredno odgovorno za družbo, in njihov položaj v državni upravi na splošno ostala enaka ...
It adds that " the staffing levels available to the prudential regulators varied but the number of staff with direct responsibility for the Society and their grades within the civil service remained broadly constant ...
Več sredstev bi morda lahko izboljšalo možnosti za opredelitev težav, vendar ...
Increased resources might have improved the chances of identifying problems but...
Na koncu HOLMES (WE 84) sklene, „ da mora biti tudi v zvezi z diskrecijskimi pravicami, ki jih imajo države članice pri odločanju glede ustrezne ravni zakonodajnih sredstev, prostor za dvom, ali je Združeno kraljestvo svojim pristojnim organom zagotovilo sredstva, ki so potrebna za nadzor, standard, ki je izrecno določen v zakonodaji Skupnosti od novembra 1992.
Finally, Mr. HOLMES (WE 84) concludes by stating that “ even allowing for the discretion which Member States possess in deciding upon an appropriate level of regulatory resources, it must be open to doubt whether the UK provided its competent authorities with the means necessary for supervision, the standard explicitly laid down in the Community legislation since November 1992.
Na eni strani se je treba vprašati, ali je pri nalogi v številčnem smislu sodelovalo dovolj osebja.
On the one hand, it must be asked whether in numerical terms sufficient staff were devoted to the task.
Po drugi strani pa se je treba vprašati, ali je bilo razpoložljivo osebje ustrezno usposobljeno za zagotavljanje učinkovitega nadzora“.
On the other hand, it must also be asked whether the personnel that were available were appropriately qualified to provide supervision which was effective.”
(Glej tudi oddelek II.2.
(See also section II.2.
Dodatni dokazi o prenosu.)
‘Further evidence on transposition’)
Glede pooblastil, dodeljenih zakonodajalcem Združenega kraljestva, večina dokazov prikazuje zadovoljiv položaj, v katerem so imeli pristojni organi obsežna, prilagodljiva in zadostna pooblastila.
In terms of the powers allocated to the UK regulators, most evidence points to a satisfactory situation where the competent authority had ample, flexible and sufficient powers.
Izvedbene določbe Združenega kraljestva, ki prenašajo člen 10, dajejo ministrstvu zelo obsežna pooblastila za izvajanje nadzornih nalog, in sicer so njegova pooblastila načeloma vsaj enakovredna tistim, ki jih zahteva direktiva.
The UK's implementing provisions transposing Article 10 give the Secretary of State very comprehensive powers to perform his supervisory functions, his powers in principle at least equivalent to those required by the Directive.
Ta pooblastila vključujejo možnost, da se družbo prisili v zaščito zavarovancev pred tveganjem, da družba ne bi mogla izpolniti svojih obveznosti ali razumnih pričakovanj zavarovancev ali potencialnih zavarovancev
These powers include the possibility to force a company to protect policyholders against the risk that the company may be unable to meet its liabilities or to fulfil policyholders' and potential policyholders' reasonable expectations (PRE)
Kot je bilo že navedeno v oddelku, ki obravnava člen 8, v Združenem kraljestvu zakonodaja vključuje koncept razumnih pričakovanj zavarovancev. , za zagotovitev, da družba spoštuje načela dobrega in preudarnega upravljanja.
As has been mentioned in the section covering article 8, in UK law includes the concept of policy-holders reasonable expectations (PRE). for the purpose of ensuring that the company observes sound and prudent management principles.
V zvezi z zadevo ELAS ni toliko pomembno vprašanje, ali je imelo ministrstvo dovolj pooblastil, saj jih je domnevno imelo, ampak, ali je ta široka pooblastila dobro uporabilo: Nekateri od do zdaj zbranih dokazov očitno slednje zavračajo (za podrobnosti glej pripombe k oddelku 3 o razumnih pričakovanjih zavarovancev).
The question that arises in the ELAS case is not so much whether the Secretary of State had enough powers, which he ostensibly did, but whether he made good use of these extensive powers: Some of the evidence collected so far seems to negate the latter (for detail, see comments on section 3 on PRE).
Glej tudi oddelek II.2.
See also section II.2.
Dodatni dokazi o prenosu.
‘Further evidence on transposition’.
Zato je mogoče trditi, da so zakonodajalci Združenega kraljestva dejansko imeli vsaj „pooblastila“, ki jih zahteva direktiva, če že ne „sredstev“.
It can therefore be argued that the UK regulators did indeed have at least the ‘powers’ required by the Directive, if not necessarily the ‘means’.
Spoštljivo obravnavanje in blag pristop
Respectful treatment and light touch
Drugo ključno vprašanje v zvezi s členom 10 je, ali se je zakonodajalec Združenega kraljestva natančno seznanil s stanjem zavarovalnice tako, da je zahteval predložitev dokumentov ali opravil preglede na kraju samem.
The second key issue relating to Article 10 is whether the UK regulator made detailed enquiries, by requiring the submission of documents or carrying out on-the-spot investigations.
Navedeno je bilo, da so bile preiskave dejansko opravljene, vendar so zakonodajalci vedno čezmerno spoštovali vodstvo družbe ELAS in se ga celo bali.
It has been alleged that investigations were indeed carried out but that regulators were always excessively respectful and even fearful of the ELAS management.
V WE 51 KWANTESOVA pravi: „Mislim, da zakonodajalci v resnici niso bili pri stvari.
In WE 51, Mrs KWANTES says: "I think the truth was the regulators were asleep at the wheel.
Očitno so se bali družbe Equitable in delali z njo v rokavicah.
They appeared to stand in awe of Equitable and handled it with kid gloves.
Če se je zakonodajalec zavedal, da ima družba Equitable težave, zakaj ni ničesar rekel?
If the regulator was aware that Equitable had problems, why didn't they say something?
Če se težav niso zavedali, potem niso dobro opravljali svojega regulativnega dela.“
If they were not aware, they were not doing their job of regulation properly."
V zvezi s krizo družbe ELAS BAYLISS v H5 navaja: „ Mislim, da ne bo več nobene krize, ki bi bila v celoti povezana z aroganco vodstva in dopuščanjem te arogance.
Referring to the ELAS collapse, Mr. BAYLISS in H5 states that " I do not think there will be another one entirely related to the arrogance of the management and the tolerance of that arrogance.
Ravnanje družbe Equitable in njen odnos do zakonodajalca sta bila zares precej nenavadna.“
The way in which Equitable behaved and treated the regulator was really quite extraordinary."
Vlagatelj peticije BELLORD (H2) prav tako vztraja pri „ zelo domačih odnosih med zakonodajalci in družbo Equitable Life “, pri čemer poudarja nekatere ugotovitve poročila lorda Penrosa, ki kažejo, da so poročila iz konca osemdesetih let 20. stoletja, ki so bila na voljo vladnemu oddelku za zavarovalniško statistiko, že namigovala na nevarne poslovne prakse družbe ELAS, vendar jih ta oddelek sploh ni upošteval.
Another petitioner, Mr. BELLORD (H2) also insists on the " very cosy relationship between regulators and EL ", highlighting some findings by the Penrose Report that suggest that reports available to the GAD dating back to the late 1980s had already hinted at ELAS' dangerous business practices but had remained totally unheeded by the GAD.
Več dokazov prav tako zelo namiguje na to, da se je zakonodajalec zavestno in namerno odločil, da ne posega v primer družbe ELAS.
More evidence also strongly suggests that the regulator adopted a conscious and deliberate ‘hands-off’ approach with regards to the ELAS case.
Če se dokaže, da je to resnica, bi to pomenilo kršitev obveznosti zakonodajalca, da zagotovi spoštovanje razumnih pričakovanj zavarovancev, s čimer je kršil obliko in cilj člena 10 tretje direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju.
If this were proven to be the case, it would constitute a breach of the regulators’ obligation to ensure the respect of PRE and therefore a breach of the letter and aim of Article 10 of the 3LD.
Bairdovo poročilo (WE 17) in poročilo lorda Penrosa (WE 16) kritizirata pomanjkanje „ proaktivnega pristopa “ zakonodajalca.
Both the Baird (WE 17) and Penrose (WE 16) reports contain criticisms of the regulator’s lack of a " pro-active approach" .
LAKE v H1 trdi, da je zaradi „ pretiranega zanašanja na agencije, ki jih vodi industrija, in tradicionalnega blagega pristopa “ Združeno kraljestvo nasprotovalo sprejetju cilja direktiv o življenjskem zavarovanju ter je bilo zato neuspešno pri njihovem izvajanju in izvrševanju.
M. LAKE claims in H1 that an “over-reliance on industry-led agencies and the traditional 'light touch' approach " made the UK reluctant to adopt the aim of the life directives, thus failing in their implementation as well as in their execution.
Nekatere od teh trditev, zlasti „ pomanjkanje izziva za vodstvo družbe ELAS s strani zakonodajalcev Združenega kraljestva “, so bile izrecno zavrnjene z WE-CONF8.
Some of these allegations, in particular the " lack of challenge to ELAS' senior management by the UK regulators" are emphatically rejected by WE-CONF8.
Ugotovitve prvega poročila parlamentarne varuhinje človekovih pravic prav tako zanikajo te trditve z navedbami, da Organ za finančne storitve (skupaj z vladnim oddelkom za zavarovalniško statistiko) ni mogel obravnavati vprašanja rezerv zajamčenih rent in kakršne koli napačne razlage finančnega položaja družbe ELAS „ na manj odločen način “, da njegov pristop ne more biti opisan kot ‚pasiven‘ ter da „ je Organ za finančne storitve še naprej vztrajal, da družba Equitable izpolnjuje svoje celotne zahteve glede rezerv, ob velikem odporu družbe Equitable “.
The findings of the First Parliamentary Ombudsman's report also deny these allegations, saying that the FSA (together with GAD) could not be said to have addressed the GAR reserving issue and any misrepresentation of ELAS' financial position " in anything less than a resolute manner", that their approach could not be described as 'passive' and that the " FSA continued to insist throughout that Equitable conform to their full reserving requirements in the face of strong resistance from Equitable ".
Kot je že bilo navedeno v oddelku, ki pokriva člen 8, zakonodaja Združenega kraljestva daje ministrstvu pooblastila, da družbo prisili v zaščito zavarovancev pred tveganjem, da družba ne bi mogla izpolniti svojih obveznosti ali razumnih pričakovanj zavarovancev.
As was mentioned earlier in the section covering Article 8, UK law gives power to the Secretary of State to force a company to protect policyholders against the risk that the company may be unable to meet its liabilities or to fulfil PRE.
Ministrstvo lahko sprejme kakršne koli ukrepe, ki se mu zdijo primerni (razen omejevanja družbe pri prostem razpolaganju s sredstvi), proti tveganju, da družba ne bi mogla izpolniti teh obveznosti.
The Secretary of State can take any action that appears to him to be appropriate (other than restricting the company’s freedom to dispose of its assets) against the risk that the company may be unable to fulfil those expectations.
V tem smislu zakonodaja Združenega kraljestva spoštuje zahteve člena 10 tretje direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju, ki zahteva, da organi sprejmejo kakršne koli ukrepe, ki so ustrezni in potrebni za zagotovitev, da poslovanje družbe ostane usklajeno z zakonodajo Združenega kraljestva in da se preprečijo ali odpravijo vse nepravilnosti, ki ogrožajo interese zavarovancev.
In this sense, UK law respects the requirements of Article 10 of the 3LD, which requires authorities to take any measures that are appropriate and necessary to ensure that the company's business continues to comply with the laws of the UK and to prevent or remedy any irregularities prejudicial to the interests of the assured persons.
Če povzamemo, člen 10 tretje direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju zahteva, da organi Združenega kraljestva dobijo pooblastila in sredstva, da zagotovijo spoštovanje razumnih pričakovanj zavarovancev.
To summarize, Article 10 of the 3LD required that UK authorities be given the powers and means to ensure that the PRE were respected.
Ugotovljeno je že bilo, da so bila sredstva verjetno nezadostna, pooblastila pa so bila ustrezna.
It has already been established that the means were possibly insufficient but that the powers were adequate.
Vprašanje, ki se postavlja v zadevi ELAS, je, ali državni sekretar dobro uporabil ta široka pooblastila: ali so bila ta pooblastila uporabljena za zaščito zavarovancev pred tveganjem?
The question that arises in the ELAS case is whether the Secretary of State made good use of these extensive powers: were these powers used to protect PRE?
Prejeti dokazi
Evidence received
WE 84, 72, 69, 51-54, 42, 36, 33, 26. kažejo, da so dejansko obstajale morebitne nepravilnosti, ki so ogrožale interese zavarovancev, vendar zakonodajalec Združenega kraljestva ni sprejel ustreznih ukrepov, da bi jih odpravil.
WE 84, 72, 69, 51-54, 42, 36, 33, 26 claims that there were indeed possible irregularities prejudicial to the interests of the assured persons but that the UK regulator did not take the appropriate measures to correct them.
Ti dokazi očitno namigujejo, da zakonodajalci v Združenem kraljestvu več let niso izvajali svojih obsežnih pooblastil v zvezi z družbo ELAS, čeprav so se zavedali bližajoče se katastrofe.
This evidence seems to suggest that for many years the regulators in the UK did not exercise their extensive powers with respect to ELAS, despite having knowledge about the impending catastrophe.