natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Kot je bilo že navedeno, člen 36 (člen 31 Direktive 92/96/EGS) zahteva, da države članice oblikujejo natančna pravila za zagotovitev, da zavarovanci pred sklenitvijo pogodbe o zavarovanju prejmejo ustrezne informacije.
As stated previously, Article 36 (Article 31 of Directive 92/96/EEC) requires Member States to lay down detailed rules in order to ensure that policyholders receive adequate information before the assurance contract is concluded.
Po sklenitvi pogodbe imajo zavarovanci pravico, da so med trajanjem pogodbe obveščeni o vseh spremembah pomembnih informacij, povezanih s pogodbo.
After the conclusion of the contract, policyholders have the right to be kept informed throughout the term of the contract of any change concerning relevant information related to the contract.
Ta člen je treba razlagati skupaj s Prilogo III k direktivi (Priloga II k Direktivi 92/96/EGS).
This Article should be read in combination with Annex III of the Directive (Annex II of Directive 92/96/EEC).
V Prilogi je navedeno, da se morajo zavarovancu informacije posredovati jasno in natančno, pisno in v uradnem jeziku države članice obveznosti.
The Annex states that the information to be communicated to the policyholder must be provided in a clear and accurate manner, in writing, in an official language of the Member State of the commitment.
V oddelku A Priloge so navedene vse informacije, ki jih je treba zavarovancu sporočiti pred sklenitvijo pogodbe, v oddelku B pa informacije, ki jih mora zavarovanec prejeti med veljavnostjo pogodbe.
Section A of that annex lists the information that must be communicated to the policyholder before the contract is concluded, whereas Section B lists the information that must be given to the policyholder during the term of the contract.
Člen 36(3) direktive določa, da lahko država članica obveznosti od zavarovalnic zahteva, da poleg informacij, naštetih v Prilogi III, pošljejo še druge informacije, " če je to potrebno, da zavarovanec pravilno razume bistvene elemente obveznosti ".
Under Article 36(3) of the Directive, the Member State of commitment may require the insurance company to furnish additional information to that specified in the Annex " only if it is necessary for a proper understanding by the policyholder of the essential elements of the commitment ".
ES 3 navaja
ES 3
Stran 88. , da so minimalne zahteve po razkritju iz direktive dovolj natančne in dajejo posamezniku pravico do ukrepanja proti zavarovalnicam ter se lahko izvajajo, ko se prenesejo v nacionalno zakonodajo.
Page 88. contends that the minimum disclosure requirements laid down in the Directive are sufficiently precise and thus grant rights to individuals vis-à-vis insurance companies, which may be enforced once implemented into national law.
Vendar Direktiva 2002/83/ES sama po sebi ne določa nobenih pogodbenih pravnih sredstev v korist zavarovancev.
However, Directive 2002/83/EC does not itself provide for any contractual remedies in favour of policyholders.
Zato „so pravna sredstva, ki so na voljo za primer kršenja člena 36, določena v nacionalni zakonodaji“ (ES 3
Hence, " the remedies available for breach of Article 36 are those provided by national law " (ES 3
Stran 89. ).
Page 89. ).
Iz točke VI 2 a.) je razvidno, da so zahteve po razkritju v Združenem kraljestvu obsežnejše in natančnejše kot zahteve iz člena 36 direktive.
As was shown under point VI 2 a.), UK disclosure requirements are more extensive and specific than Article 36 of the Directive.
Zadnja na primer sama po sebi ne zadostuje, da bi delovala kot podlaga za pravice zavarovancev družbe Equitable Life s policami brez zajamčenih rent, da bi bilo izključeno tveganje zajamčenih rent, če bi po zakonodaji Združenega kraljestva takšno tveganje moralo biti izključeno.
The latter for instance appears in itself insufficiently specific to serve as a basis for a right on the part of a non-GAR Equitable policyholder to have the GAR risk disclosed, whereas under UK law such risks ought to have been disclosed.
Vendar je v ES 3 jasno navedeno, da ima zavarovanec, če Združeno kraljestvo ni zahtevalo, da zavarovalnica razkrije informacije iz direktive, v teoriji pravico, da mu država izplača odškodnino, če je zaradi tega utrpel škodo.
However, ES 3 makes clear that in theory, had the UK failed to require an insurance company to make a disclosure required under the Directive, the policyholder may have a right to reparation against the state, if he/she has suffered loss as a consequence of that failure.
Pogoji za nadzorno odgovornost iz zakonodaje EU bodo dodatno razloženi.
The conditions for supervisory liability under EU law will be further explored below.
Opozoriti je treba, da " ureditve za obravnavanje pritožb zavarovalcev v zvezi s pogodbami, življenjskimi zavarovanci ali upravičenci po pogodbah, po potrebi vključno z obstojem organa za reševanje pritožb, brez poseganja v pravico do uporabe pravnih sredstev " (Priloga III, del A, točka (a)15 Direktive 2002/83/ES).
It is worthwhile noting that the information to be provided includes " the arrangements for handling complaints concerning contracts by policyholders, lives assured or beneficiaries under contracts including, where appropriate, the existence of a complaints body without prejudice to the right to take legal actions " (Annex III, Section A, point (a)15 of Directive 2002/83/EC).
Zato bi se moralo v skladu s temi določbami od družbe Equitable Life zahtevati, da obvešča zavarovance, vključno s strankami nemških in irskih podružnic, o ureditvi in organih, pristojnih za obravnavo njihovih pritožb.
Hence, according to these provisions, Equitable Life should have been obliged to inform policyholders, including customers of German and Irish branches, of arrangements and bodies responsible for handling their complaints.
Odbor je preučil, ali je družba ELAS to zahtevo izpolnila na vseh stopnjah.
The committee has sought to examine whether ELAS complied with this requirement in all instances.
Vedno sem menil in dejansko tudi verjamem, da je družba ELAS tako kot druge zavarovalnice v Združenem kraljestvu svojim strankam dajala prave informacije “.
I always understood, and in fact I believe it to be true, that Equitable was as good as any UK life office sales force in giving the right information to our clients ".
Vendar je odbor zaradi negotovosti zavarovancev iz Irske in Nemčije, kam naj naslovijo svoje pritožbe, želel preiskati, ali jim je družba ELAS dala vse ustrezne informacije.
However, given the confusion among policyholders from Ireland and Germany about which body they could turn to with their complaints, the committee sought information as to whether they have been given all relevant information by ELAS.
THOMSON je v H8 odgovoril: „ Postopek družbe ELAS, kar zadeva irske pritožnike, je bil zagotoviti informacije irskega varuha človekovih pravic na zavarovalniškem področju, ko je družba ELAS pritožniku poslala končni odgovor.
Mr THOMSON in H8 gave the following reply: " The Society’s procedure as regards Irish complainants was to provide details of the Insurance Ombudsman of Ireland when the Society issued its final response to the complainant.
Kar zadeva nemške zavarovance, družba ELAS ni imela informacij o kakšni podobni službi varuha človekovih pravic, zato je pritožbe obravnavala sama.
As regards German policyholders, the Society is not aware of there being any equivalent ombudsman service, so complaints were dealt with by the society ".
“ V WE-CONF 21 je dodal, da v Nemčiji „ pogoji police tudi določajo, da se zavarovanci lahko obrnejo na lokalna sodišča, če želijo vložiti zahtevek“ .
WE-CONF 21 informs that in Germany, " policy terms also state that policyholders may have recourse to the local courts should they wish to bring a claim ".
Vendar je KNOWDOVA (H3) zatrdila, da „ je družba Equitable Life irske zavarovance obvestila, da ne morejo uporabiti storitev Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve“ , hkrati pa je dokazala, da to ne drži (predvsem v njenem primeru).
By contrast, Ms KNOWD (H3) claimed that " Equitable informed Irish members that [they] could not avail of the services of the FOS " while it proved that this was not true (at least in her case).
Kot sem že povedal, je bila naša običajna praksa, da smo irske zavarovance, ki so bili nezadovoljni z našim odgovorom, na njihovo pritožbo napotili na irskega varuha človekovih pravic za zavarovalniško področje.
As I have just said, our normal practice was to refer Irish policyholders who are dissatisfied with our response to their complaint to the Insurance Ombudsman of Ireland .
Zdelo se nam je, da je to najustreznejši organ za obravnavo pritožb irskih zavarovancev glede polic, prodanih na Irskem“ (H8).
That is because we believed that to be the most suitable body to deal with complaints from Irish policyholders about policies that were sold in Ireland " (H8).
Država članica obveznosti je zato pristojna in odgovorna za izvajanje zahtev po informacijah iz člena 36 v zvezi s Prilogo III k direktivi.
The implementation of the information requirements laid down in Article 36 in connection with Annex III of the Directive falls within the competence and responsibility of the Member State of the commitment.
Irski regulativni organ za finančne storitve je odbor v WE 80 obvestil, da „je bila Priloga III k Direktivi 2002/83/ES v irsko zakonodajo prenesena s podzakonskim aktom št. 360 iz leta 1994.
IFSRA informs the committee in WE 80 that " Annex III of Directive 2002/83/EC was transposed into Irish legislation by way of Statutory Instrument 360 of 1994.
Člen 45 iz dela 5 določa, da mora zavarovalnica zavarovancu pred sklenitvijo pogodbe zagotoviti nekatere informacije, ki so natančneje opredeljene v Prilogi III predpisom.
Article 45 of Part 5, requires that an insurer should provide to a policyholder before the conclusion of a contract certain information, specified in greater detail in Annex III of the Regulations.
Informacije o obravnavi pritožb ... so vključene v točko 15 Priloge III.
The complaints handling information ... is included at point 15 of Annex III.
Ta določba je veljala tudi za družbo ELAS “.
The Equitable Life Society was bound by this provision. "
Kar zadeva položaj v Nemčiji, je WESTPHAL v WS 2 navedel, da nemška zakonodaja ni bila v skladu z zahtevami iz Priloge III h konsolidirani direktivi o življenjskem zavarovanju.
As regards the situation in Germany, Mr WESTPHAL, claims in WS 2 that German law had not been in compliance with the requirements laid down in Annex III of the consolidated Life Directive.
To je v nasprotju z načelom iz direktive, ki določa, da morajo biti zavarovanci pred nastopom pogodbenih obveznosti ustrezno obveščeni.
This would be contrary to the principle laid down in the Directive stating that policyholders must be duly informed before they enter into a contractual obligation.
Po navedbah WESTPHALA je nemško združenje potrošnikov zato leta 1994 vložilo pritožbo na Komisijo, ki pa po njegovem mnenju ni bila obravnavana.
According to Mr WESTPHAL, the German consumer association therefore lodged a complaint to the Commission in 1994, which he claimed was not pursued further.
WESTPHAL je odbor obvestil, da je Komisija začela postopke za ugotavljanje kršitev proti Nemčiji šele, ko je bila 11 let pozneje, tj. leta 2005, druga pritožba vložena zaradi istega razloga.
A Commission press release of 12 October 2006 indicates that the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to the German Government. against Germany only after another complaint was lodged for the same reasons 11 years later in 2005.
Komisija je nemški vladi oktobra 2006 poslala obrazloženo mnenje.
The Commission sent a reasoned opinion to the German Government in October 2006.
WESTPHAL je dejal, da bo nemška zakonodaja zdaj usklajena z zahtevami direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju.
Mr WESTPHAL indicated that German legislation will now be brought into compliance with the requirements of the Life Directive.
Ker zahteve po razkritju informacij iz Priloge III k direktivi niso pomembne v zvezi z glavnimi obtožbami glede zlorab pri prodaji družbe ELAS, se v tem delu poročila ne obravnavajo več.
Since the disclosure requirements in Annex III of the Directive are not relevant in connection with the main mis-selling allegations against ELAS, this point is not examined further in this part of the report.
Medtem ko morajo biti zavarovanci obveščeni o pritožbenih postopkih in organih, kjer obstajajo, direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju ali druga zakonodaja EU ne zahtevajo, da države članice dejansko zagotovijo mehanizem odškodnine, ne glede na to, ali so to domače stranke ali stranke podružnic v EU.
While policyholders have to be informed about complaints procedures and bodies, where they exist, neither the Life Directives nor any other piece of EU legislation requires Member States to provide for redress mechanisms, be it for domestic or EU branch customers.
TERTÁK je to poudaril v svoji izjavi pred odborom: „V evropski zakonodaji zdaj ni obveznosti po ustanovitvi službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve, ki lahko zahteva plačilo odškodnine, ali uvedbi sheme jamstev za izplačilo zahtevkov v primeru propada zavarovalnice“ (H1).
Mr TERTÁK underlined this in his statement before the committee: " There is currently no obligation under European law to have either a financial services ombudsman service that can require the payment of compensation or a guarantee scheme to pay claims in the event of the failure of an insurance undertaking " (H1).
Zato so organi Združenega kraljestva pred odborom poudarili, da je Združeno kraljestvo „vodilno na področju zagotavljanja mehanizmov odškodnine za zavarovance in je znatno preseglo evropske zahteve po zagotavljanju službe varuha človekovih pravic in odškodninskih shem“ (MAXWELL, H4), čeprav se zdi, da niso na voljo strankam podružnic, ustanovljenih v drugih državah članicah.
Therefore, the UK authorities stressed before the committee that the UK " has been at the forefront of providing redress mechanisms for policyholders and has consistently gone beyond European requirements in providing ombudsmen and compensation schemes " (Mr MAXWELL, H4), even though they do not seem to be available to customers of branches established in other Member States.
Kot je bilo že omenjeno, sheme varuha človekovih pravic obstajajo tudi na Irskem in v Nemčiji.
As stated previously, Ombudsman schemes also exist in Ireland and Germany.
MERRIKS je v WE 56 poudaril, da so sedanje sheme varuha človekovih pravic v Združenem kraljestvu in na Irskem bolj obsežne in podeljujejo širše pristojnosti kot večina primerljivih shem v drugih državah članicah EU, vključno z Nemčijo.
Mr MERRICKS emphasises in WE 56 that current Ombudsmen schemes in the UK and Ireland are more comprehensive and have more extensive powers to adjudicate than most comparable schemes in other EU Member States, including Germany.
Kot je že omenjeno, odškodninske sheme zdaj obstajajo v Združenem kraljestvu in Nemčiji, ne pa na Irskem.
As mentioned above, compensation schemes currently exist in the UK and Germany but not in Ireland.
SEYMOUR navaja, da „je to resna kršitev tretje in četrte direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju“.
According to Mr SEYMOUR this " is a serious violation of the Third and Fourth Life Directives ".
Predstavnik Komisije BEVERLY je v odgovoru na to pojasnil, da sklicevanje na „pravno sredstvo“ v tem členu ne pomeni izplačila odškodnine: „Zadevni člen obravnava nadzorne pristojnosti.
Responding on this point, Mr BEVERLY from the Commission made it clear that the reference to 'remedy' in this Article does not mean the payment of compensation: " The Article in question deals with powers of the supervisors.
Pristojni organi morajo imeti pristojnosti, da preprečijo, odpravijo ali popravijo vse nepravilnosti, ki ogrožajo interese zavarovancev.
The competent authorities must have the power to prevent, stop, or put right any irregularities prejudicial to the interest of the assured persons.
Preprosto rečeno ta določba ne obravnava plačila odškodnine.
Put simply, that provision does not deal with the payment of compensation.
Po mojem mnenju v direktivah o življenjskem zavarovanju ni določb, ki bi zadevale povračilo škode ali izplačilo odškodnine.
To my knowledge, there are no provisions in any of the Life Directives that are concerned with the payment of damages or compensation.
To sedaj ureja nacionalna zakonodaja.“ (H7).
That is currently a matter for national law " (H7).
Komisar McCREEVY je na to točko opozoril v H8: „ Direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju ne obravnavajo odškodnine in se nanjo tudi ne sklicujejo. “
Commissioner McCREEVY reiterated this point in H8: " The insurance Directives do not deal with or make any reference to the question of compensation. "
ALEXANDER je menil, da „je treba v evropski zakonodaji v prihodnje določiti pravna sredstva za zavarovance, da bodo zoper družbe tretjih strank lahko vlagali odškodninske zahtevke zaradi kršitev zakonodaje EU“.
Mr ALEXANDER expresses the view that " European law should have a role to play in further defining the remedies available to policyholders to bring claims for losses arising from breach of EU legislation against third party firms ".
Takšna pravna sredstva ne bi nadomestila sedanjih pravnih sredstev v nacionalni zakonodaji, ampak bi jih dopolnila (WE-FILE 31
Such remedies would not replace but complement existing remedies under national law.(WE-FILE 31
Page 2. ).
Page 2. ).
Po njegovem mnenju je treba natančno opredeliti, kdaj se odškodnina izplača in kako se izračuna.
According to him, it should be defined exactly what losses should be compensated and how compensation is calculated.
Zakonodaja mora „obravnavati tudi elemente, zahtevane za vlaganje zahtevka zavarovanca, ali opredeliti zahteve, v skladu s katerimi lahko vloži ... civilno tožbo zoper družbo ali posameznika, ki krši zakonodajo EU“ ( WE-FILE 31).
Legislation should also " address the elements required for a policyholder to bring a claim or define requirements for a policyholder to bring ... civil action against a firm or an individual in breach of EU law " (WE-FILE 31).
KERN navaja, da „bi evropska zakonodaja lahko spremenila sedanje direktive in tako zagotovila pravna sredstva za zasebnike, da bodo lahko vložili civilne tožbe na sodiščih držav članic ...
Mr KERN suggests that " European legislation could amend existing directives to provide remedies for private individuals to bring civil claims in Member State courts ...
Druga možnost bi bila, da se sprejme nova direktiva, ki bo opredelila pravna sredstva za škodo, storjeno zaradi kršitev več sedanjih direktiv EU ..., ki bolj splošno urejajo zavarovalništvo in finančne storitve “ (WE-FILE 31
Alternatively, a separate directive could be adopted that provides for remedies for losses suffered from violations of any number of existing EU directives ... that govern life assurance and financial services more generally " (WE-FILE 31
a) Pravica do peticij in pritožb Evropski Komisiji
The right to petition and complaints to the European Commission
Na podlagi člena 194 Pogodbe ES lahko vsi državljani Evropske unije ali tisti, ki zakonito prebivajo v državi članici, samostojno ali z drugimi naslovijo na Evropski parlament peticijo glede vprašanj, ki sodijo na področje delovanja Evropske unije in ki jih neposredno zadevajo.
Under Article 194 of the EC Treaty, any citizen of the European Union, or resident in a Member State, may, individually or in association with others, submit a petition to the European Parliament on a subject which comes within the European Union's fields of activity and which affects them directly.
Peticija lahko predstavlja posamezno zahtevo, pritožbo ali opombo o izvajanju zakonodaje EU ali poziv Evropskemu parlamentu, naj sprejme stališče o določeni zadevi.
The petition may present an individual request, a complaint or observation concerning the application of EU law or an appeal to the European Parliament to adopt a position on a specific matter.
V nekaterih izjemnih primerih lahko odbor predloži Parlamentu poročilo, o katerem se glasuje na plenarni seji, ali izvede obisk za ugotavljanje dejstev.
In some exceptional cases, the committee may submit a report to Parliament to be voted upon in plenary or conduct a fact-finding visit.
Prizadeva si lahko tudi za sodelovanje z nacionalnimi ali lokalnimi organi v državah članicah za reševanje vprašanj, ki jih je sprožil vlagatelj peticije.
It may also seek to cooperate with national or local authorities in Member States to resolve an issue raised by a petitioner.
Vendar Odbor za peticije ne more razveljaviti odločitev, ki so jih sprejeli pristojni organi v državah članicah.
The Petitions Committee cannot, however, override decisions taken by competent authorities within Member States.
Ker Evropski parlament ni sodni organ, ne more sprejemati sodnih odločb ali razveljaviti sklepov sodišč v državah članicah.
As the European Parliament is not a judicial authority, it cannot pass judgement on, nor revoke decisions taken by the Courts of law in Member States.
Evropski parlament tudi nima pristojnosti za dodelitev odškodnine vlagateljem peticij, ki so utrpeli izgubo zaradi nepravilnega prenosa zakonodaje EU.
Similarly, the European Parliament does not have the power to award compensation to petitioners who have suffered loss as a consequence of incorrect transposition of EU law.
V primeru družbe Equitable Life je Evropski parlament dejansko prejel več peticij, v katerih je med drugim navedeno, da so bili zavarovanci prizadeti, ker vlada Združenega kraljestva ni zadovoljivo zakonodajno uredila ali nadzorovala družbe ELAS v skladu z ustrezno zakonodajo Skupnosti na področju zavarovanj (glej WE 14 in WE 15).
In the case of Equitable Life, the European Parliament indeed received a number of petitions, in which it is alleged, among other things, that policyholders have suffered due to the failure of the UK Government to regulate or supervise ELAS in a satisfactory way in accordance with the relevant Community insurance legislation (see WE 14 and WE 15).
Odbor je peticije razglasil za sprejemljive in Evropsko komisijo pozval, naj komentira različna vprašanja, ki so jih sprožili vlagatelji peticij.
The committee declared the petitions admissible and asked the European Commission to comment on the various issues raised by the petitioners.
Razen tega so bili vlagatelji peticij pozvani, da svoje zadeve predstavijo odboru na njegovi seji 13. septembra 2005.
The petitioners were furthermore invited to present their case to the committee at its meeting of 13 September 2005.
V svoji predstavitvi pred odborom (WE 44) so avtorji peticije 0029/2005 odbor pozvali, „ da institucije Skupnosti vključi v zagotavljanje popravnih ukrepov in pravnih sredstev“ in „ [Komisijo] pozove k določitvi dejstev, ki bi vlagateljem pomagala pri doseganju odškodnin “.
In their address to the committee (WE 44), the authors of petition 0029/2005 asked the committee " to engage the institutions of the Community in obtaining correction and remedy " and " to invite [the Commission] to establish the facts, which would be helpful to investors in recovering their losses ".
Vlagatelji peticij so prav tako navedli, da lahko Komisija „ utemeljeno ukrepa proti vladi Združenega kraljestva na Sodišču Evropskih skupnosti “.
Petitioners also suggested that the Commission " has grounds to act against the UK Government at the European Court of Justice ".
Kljub temu je Komisija v pisni izjavi, poslani Odboru za peticije
The Commission, however, in its written submission to the Petitions Committee
Evropska komisija: Obvestilo članom z dne 22. junija 2005 o peticijah 0611/2004 in 0029/2005. , jasno dokazala, da je njena vloga „ zagotavljanje, da Združeno kraljestvo zdaj deluje v skladu z ustrezno zakonodajo EU “, ter da se „ ne more izreči o vsebini in izvajanju nekdanje zakonodajne ureditve, ki je bila zamenjana “.
European Commission: Notice to Members of 22 June 2005 concerning petitions 0611/2004 and 0029/2005. , made it clear that it is its role " to make sure that the UK is currently in conformity with the relevant EU legislation " and that it " cannot make any pronouncement on the content and application of the former regulatory regime which has now been replaced ".