natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Vsak izvedbeni ukrep je v pojasnjevalnih opombah vključeval sklicevanje na direktivo, vendar ni vključeval tabele, ki bi prikazovala ujemanje določb iz nacionalnih izvedbenih ukrepov in določb direktive.
Each implementing measure included a reference to the Directive in the explanatory notes but did not include a table showing the correlation between provisions from national implementing measures and provisions from the Directive.
Poleg tega struktura in terminologija
Moreover, the structure and terminology
Zakonodaja Združenega kraljestva na primer uporablja izraza „dolgoročen posel“ in „splošen posel“ namesto izrazov iz direktive „življenjsko zavarovanje“ in „neživljenjsko zavarovanje“. , ki ju uporablja izvedbena zakonodaja Združenega kraljestva, nista vedno in nujno skladni s strukturo in terminologijo direktive.
For instance, UK legislation uses the terms ‘long-term business’ and ‘general business’ instead of the Directive’s ‘Life insurance’ and ‘Non-Life insurance’. used by UK implementing legislation does not always and necessarily coincide with that of the Directive.
Lahko bi sklepali, da je tak posreden prenos premalo jasen in ni najboljši način za vključevanje standardov EU v domačo zakonodajo.
It can be argued that this indirect transposition lacks clarity and may not be the best way of incorporating EU standards into domestic legislation.
Vendar to pomanjkanje jasnosti ni nujno razlog za neuspešno izpolnjevanje zahtev tretje direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju
However, this lack of clarity does not necessarily equate with failure to meet the requirements of the 3LD
Zakonodaja Skupnosti bi se kršila le, če bi bilo delovanje v nasprotju s pravno varnostjo ali puščalo posameznike in gospodarske udeležence v negotovosti glede njihovih pravic in obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz direktive.
It would be a breach of Community law only if it ran counter to legal certainty or left individuals and economic actors in a state of uncertainty as to their rights and obligations emanating from the Directive.
Sodna praksa Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti določa več posebnih zahtev: (a) bistveno je, da nacionalna zakonodaja zagotavlja, da bodo nacionalni organi učinkovito uporabljali celotno direktivo; (b) pravni položaj v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo mora biti dovolj natančen in jasen; ter (c) posamezniki morajo v celoti poznati vse svoje pravice in imeti možnost, da se sklicujejo nanje pred nacionalnimi sodišči, kadar je primerno. .
The case law of the ECJ lays down a number of specific requirements: (a) it is essential for national law to guarantee that the national authorities will effectively apply the Directive in full; (b) the legal position under national law should be sufficiently precise and clear; and (c) individuals must be made fully aware of all their rights and, where appropriate, be able to rely on them before the national courts. .
Vsi ključni členi so analizirani glede na predložene dokaze in na podoben način po naslednjih elementih:
Each of the key articles will be analyzed in light of the evidence received and in an analogous fashion, using the following format:
§ Številka in naslov člena
§ Number and title of the article
§ Povzetek ciljev
§ Summary of objectives
§ Besedilo člena
§ Text of the article
§ Podrobne pripombe k prenosu v zakonodajo Združenega kraljestva
§ Detailed comments on UK transposition
§ Povezava z zadevo ELAS
§ Link to the ELAS case
Ustrezni členi v prvi in drugi direktivi o življenjskem zavarovanju ter kodificirani direktivi, kadar so na voljo, so navedeni po vsakem posameznem členu.
Equivalent articles in the 1LD, 2LD and CD, where they exist, are referred to after each individual article.
Ključni členi tretje direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju: členi 8, 10, 18, 21, 25, 28 in 31
Key articles of the 3LD: Articles 8, 10, 18, 21, 25, 28 and 31
Člen 8 – Pristojni organi in predmet nadzora (člen 15 prve direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju in člen 10 kodificirane direktive)
Article 8 - Competent authorities and supervision (Articles 15 of 1LD and 10 of CD)
Povzetek ciljev
Summary of objectives
Člen 8 jasno določa, da je za finančni nadzor zavarovalnice pristojna izključno domača država članica.
Article 8 clearly states that financial supervision of an insurance company shall be the sole responsibility of the home Member State.
Določa tudi, da organi tuje države obvestijo domače organe, če menijo, da dejavnosti zavarovalnice vplivajo na njen finančni položaj.
It also adds that the host authorities shall inform the home authorities if they believe the company's activities are affecting its financial situation.
Finančni nadzor vključuje preverjanje solventnosti ter oblikovanje zavarovalno-tehničnih rezervacij in sredstev, ki jih krijejo.
Financial supervision includes verification of solvency and the establishment of technical provisions and of the assets covering them.
Domače države članice prav tako zahtevajo, da vsaka zavarovalnica uporablja smotrne upravne in računovodske postopke ter ustrezne mehanizme notranjega nadzora.
Likewise, the home Member State requires every company to have sound administrative and accounting procedures and adequate internal control mechanisms.
Besedilo člena
Text of the article
Člen 15 Direktive 79/267/EGS se nadomesti z:
Article 15 of Directive 79/267/EEC shall be replaced by the following:
„Člen 15
'Article 15
Za finančni nadzor zavarovalnice, vključno s posli, ki jih opravlja preko podružnic ali iz naslova svobode opravljanja storitev, je pristojna izključno domača država članica.
The financial supervision of an assurance undertaking, including that of the business it carries on either through branches or under the freedom to provide services, shall be the sole responsibility of the home Member State .
Če imajo pristojni organi države članice obveznosti razlog, da menijo, da bi dejavnosti zavarovalnice lahko vplivale na njeno finančno trdnost, obvestijo pristojne organe domače države članice zavarovalnice.
If the competent authorities of the Member State of the commitment have reason to consider that the activities of an assurance undertaking might affect its financial soundness, they shall inform the competent authorities of the undertaking's home Member State .
Slednji presodijo, ali podjetje izpolnjuje načela o varnem in skrbnem poslovanju, določena v tej direktivi.
The latter authorities shall determine whether the undertaking is complying with the prudential principles laid down in this Directive.
Navedeni finančni nadzor celotnega poslovanja zavarovalnice vključuje preverjanje njene solventnosti, oblikovanja zavarovalno-tehničnih rezervacij, vključno z matematičnimi rezervacijami, ter sredstev, ki jih krijejo, v skladu z določenimi pravili ali praksami, ki veljajo v domači državi članici na podlagi predpisov, sprejetih na ravni Skupnosti.
That financial supervision shall include verification, with respect to the assurance undertaking's entire business, of its state of solvency, the establishment of technical provisions, including mathematical provisions, and of the assets covering them, in accordance with the rules laid down or practices followed in the home Member State pursuant to the provisions adopted at Community level.
Pristojni organi domače države članice zahtevajo, da vsaka zavarovalnica uporablja smotrne upravne in računovodske postopke ter ustrezne mehanizme notranjega nadzora.
The competent authorities of the home Member State shall require every assurance undertaking to have sound administrative and accounting procedures and adequate internal control mechanisms.'
Pripombe k določbam Združenega kraljestva
Comments on UK provisions
Vsi oddelki z naslovom „Pripombe k določbam Združenega kraljestva“ kot svoj glavni vir uporabljajo ES 1.
All sections entitled 'Comments on UK provisions' use as their primary source ES 1.
Zaradi prilagoditve načelu nadzora v domači državi je bilo spremenjeno področje uporabe dela II Zakona o zavarovalnicah iz leta 1982.
In order to adjust it to the principle of home country control the scope of application of Part II of the ICA 1982 was amended.
Glavna domača pravila, ki so prenesla člen 8 tretje direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju v zakonodajo Združenega kraljestva, so vključena v Predpise o zavarovalnicah (direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju) iz leta 1994 in Predpise o zavarovalnicah (sprememba) iz leta 1994.
The core domestic rules that transposed Article 8 of the 3LD into UK legislation are included in the Insurance Companies (Third Insurance Directives) Regulations 1994 and the Insurance Companies (Amendment) Regulations 1994.
Določbe, ki omejujejo nadzorna pooblastila ministrstva za družbe ES, ki imajo sedež v državi članici, ki ni Združeno kraljestvo, in izvajajo dejavnosti v Združenem kraljestvu prek podružnice ali z opravljanjem čezmejnih storitev, so v Predpisih o zavarovalnicah (direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju) iz leta 1994.
The provisions that limit the UK Secretary of State’s supervisory power over EC companies with their head office in a Member State other than the UK who carry on activities in the UK either via the establishment of a branch or through the cross-border provision of services are found in the Insurance Companies (Third Insurance Directives) Regulations 1994.
Predpis 13 je vstavil odstavek 1A v oddelek 15 Zakona o zavarovalnicah iz leta 1982, ki v osnovi izključuje družbe ES iz uporabe dela II zakona, če te družbe opravljajo zavarovalne posle prek podružnice in so izpolnjevale zahteve iz dela I Priloge 2F k zakonu.
Regulation 13 inserted paragraph 1A into section 15 of the ICA 1982, which basically excludes EC companies from the application of Part II of the Act in so far as those companies are carrying on insurance business through a branch and have complied with the requirements specified in Part I of Schedule 2F to the Act.
Predpis 45 je vstavil Prilogo 2F v Zakon o zavarovalnicah iz leta 1982.
Regulation 45 inserted Schedule 2F into the ICA 1982.
Ministrstvo ima preostale pristojnosti, da za zaščito zavarovancev določi zahteve, kar vključuje pravico, da izvaja „ukrepe, ki so primerni“.
The Secretary of State has residual power to impose requirements for the protection of policyholders, which includes the right to take “any action as appears to him to be appropriate”.
Načeloma lahko ministrstvo ta pooblastila izvaja le za družbe iz Združenega kraljestva ali družbe, ki niso iz ES.
In principle, the Secretary of State can only exercise this power over UK or non-EC companies.
Vendar lahko v nekaterih okoliščinah to pooblastilo izvaja za družbe ES, ki delujejo na ozemlju Združenega kraljestva.
However, in certain circumstances it can exercise this power over EC companies operating on UK territory.
Pogoji za izvajanje tega pooblastila za družbe ES so določeni v odstavku 15 Priloge 2F k zakonu.
The conditions for the exercise of this power over EC companies are spelled out in paragraph 15 of Schedule 2F to the Act.
V skladu z direktivo ti pogoji določajo, da lahko ministrstvo te pristojnosti izvaja za družbe ES le, če tako zahteva nadzorni organ domače države članice družbe.
In line with the Directive, those conditions establish that the Secretary of State can exercise those powers over EC companies only if the supervisory authority of the company’s home Member State has so requested.
Odstavek 16 Priloge 2F določa, kaj lahko ministrstvo naredi, če družba ES ne izpolnjuje določb zakonodaje, ki se uporablja za njene dejavnosti zavarovanja v Združenem kraljestvu.
Paragraph 16 of Schedule 2F prescribes what the Secretary of State can do when an EC company fails to comply with any provision of law applicable to its insurance activities in the UK .
V skladu s tem odstavkom je prvi korak, da obvesti nadzorni organ v domači državi članici (odstavek 16(2)).
According to this paragraph, the first step is to notify the supervisory authority in the home Member State (16(2)).
Če družba še naprej ravna v nasprotju z zadevno določbo, odstavek 16(3) ministrstvu omogoča, da po obvestitvi nadzornega organa domače države članice družbi odredi, da preneha opravljati zavarovalne posle ali zagotavljati zavarovanje.
If the company persists in contravening the provision in question, paragraph 16(3) allows the Secretary of State, after informing the supervisory authority of the home Member State , to direct the company to cease carrying on insurance business or providing insurance.
Odstavek 16(4) pa ministrstvu omogoča, da družbi odredi, da preneha opravljati zavarovalne posle tudi brez obvestitve nadzornega organa domače države članice, če meni, da je treba takšne ukrepe nujno sprejeti.
Finally, paragraph 16(4) allows the Secretary of State to direct the company to cease carrying on insurance business even without informing the supervisory authority of the home Member State , if he considers such measures should be taken as a matter of urgency.
Ministrstvo mora družbo vedno pisno obvestiti o razlogih za sprejetje takšnega ukrepa.
The Secretary of State must always inform the company in writing of the reasons for adopting such a measure.
Določbe, ki razširjajo nadzorna pooblastila ministrstva na celotno poslovanje (v Skupnosti) družb s sedežem v Združenem kraljestvu, so vključene v Predpise o zavarovalnicah (sprememba) iz leta 1994.
The provisions that expand the Secretary of State’s supervisory power over the entire business (within the Community) of those companies with a head office in the UK are included in the Insurance Companies (Amendment) Regulations 1994.
Predpis 4 spreminja oddelek 15 Zakona o zavarovalnicah iz leta 1982, pri čemer vključuje „vse družbe Združenega kraljestva, ki poslujejo v državi članici, ki ni Združeno kraljestvo“.
Regulation 4 amends section 15 of the ICA 1982, including “all UK companies which carry on business in a Member State other than the United Kingdom ”.
Področje pristojnosti nadzornih organov Združenega kraljestva za zavarovalnice s sedežem v Združenem kraljestvu je dovolj široko v skladu z zahtevami direktive.
The scope of competence of the UK supervisory authorities over insurance undertakings whose head office is in the UK is broad enough, in line with the requirements of the Directive.
Ministrstvo ima pooblastila za preverjanje solventnosti zavarovalnice, oblikovanja zavarovalno-tehničnih rezervacij in sredstev, ki jih krijejo, glede na celotno poslovanje zavarovalnice.
The Secretary of State has powers to verify the assurance undertaking’s state of solvency, the establishment of technical provisions and the assets covering them with respect to the assurance undertaking’s entire business.
Zahteva, da „vsaka zavarovalnica uporablja smotrne upravne in računovodske postopke ter ustrezne mehanizme notranjega nadzora“, je bila v domačo zakonodajo prenesena s predpisom 5 Predpisov o zavarovalnicah (direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju) iz leta 1994, ki spreminja oddelek 5 Zakona o zavarovalnicah iz leta 1982 o pogojih, ki jih mora zavarovalnica izpolnjevati za pridobitev dovoljenja za delovanje.
The requirement for assurance undertakings to have “sound administrative and accounting procedures and adequate internal control mechanisms” has been transposed into domestic legislation by Regulation 5 of the Insurance Companies (Third Insurance Directives) Regulations 1994, which amends section 5 of the ICA 1982 on the conditions to be met by the assurance undertaking to obtain an authorisation to operate.
Predpis 5 v oddelek 5 Zakona vstavlja pododdelek (1A), ki preprečuje, da bi ministrstvo izdalo dovoljenje, če meni, da vlagatelj ne izpolnjuje ali ne bo izpolnjeval meril „dobrega in preudarnega upravljanja“.
Regulation 5 inserts sub section (1A) into section 5 of the Act, which prevents the Secretary of State from issuing an authorisation when it appears to him that the applicant does not or will not fulfil the criteria of “sound and prudent management”.
Predpis vstavlja tudi celotno prilogo k zakonu, ki razlaga pomen „dobrega in preudarnega upravljanja“.
The Regulation also inserts an entire schedule to the Act which develops the meaning of “sound and prudent management”.
Priloga določa, da mora družba, ki posluje dobro in preudarno, med drugim vzdrževati „ustrezne računovodske in druge evidence svojega poslovanja“ ter uporabljati „ustrezne sisteme nadzora svojega poslovanja in evidenc“.
The schedule specifies that for a company to be regarded as conducting its business in a sound and prudent manner it has to maintain, amongst other things, “adequate accounting and other records of its business” and “adequate systems of controls of its business and records”.
Poleg tega opredeljuje pomen teh dveh standardov.
It then goes on to specify the meaning of these two standards.
Odstavek 6A Priloge 6 k Predpisom o zavarovalnicah (Izkazi in izjave) iz leta 1983, kakor so bili spremenjeni, določa, da mora potrdilo direktorjev, ki ga zahteva predpis 26(a), v obliki seznama navajati tudi vse objavljene smernice, s katerimi so skladni sistemi nadzora, ki ga je vzpostavila in uporabljala družba za svoje poslovanje.
Paragraph 6A of Schedule 6 to the Insurance Companies (Accounts and Statements) Regulations 1983, as amended, stipulates that the certificate by Directors required by Regulation 26(a) must also state, by way of a list, any published guidance with which the systems of control established and maintained by the company in respect of its business comply.
Povezava z zadevo ELAS
Link to the ELAS case
Trije elementi tega člena so povezani s primerom ELAS.
There are three elements of this article linked to the ELAS case.
Prvič, obveznost zakonodajalcev, da nadzorujejo družbo kot celoto, tj. da vedno upoštevajo njeno „celotno poslovanje“; drugič, zahteva, da zavarovalnica „uporablja smotrne upravne in računovodske postopke ter ustrezne mehanizme notranjega nadzora“; tretjič, obveznost organov tuje države, da obveščajo domače organe o nastalih težavah.
First, the obligation of regulators to supervise the company as a whole, i.e., always to take account of its 'entire business'; secondly, the requirement to have 'sound administrative and accounting procedures and adequate internal control mechanisms'; thirdly, the obligation of the host authorities to inform the home authorities when problems arise.
Nadzor „celotnega poslovanja“ in razumna pričakovanja zavarovancev
Supervision of the 'entire business' and PRE
Po tej ugotovitvi je smiselno analizirati več predloženih dokazov, ki dokazujejo, da organi Združenega kraljestva (domača država članica) niso pravilno nadzirali zavarovalnice, ker niso dovolj upoštevali pojma „celotnega poslovanja“ ali ga preprosto prezrli.
Having established this, it is pertinent to analyze the numerous pieces of evidence received which claim that the UK authorities (the home Member State) did not correctly supervise the company because they did not sufficiently take into account or simply disregarded the idea of the ‘entire business’.
Upoštevati je treba tudi dokaze, ki zavračajo te trditve.
Evidence refuting these claims also needs to be considered.
Lord Penrose (WE 16)
First of all, Lord Penrose (WE 16)
„... obrazci in izjave, ki se zahtevajo v postopku letnega poročanja, niso bili nikoli namenjeni za pridobivanje informacij, pomembnih za regulativno ukrepanje, razen v zvezi s solventnostjo .
"...the forms and statements required in the annual reporting process were not designed at any time to elicit information relevant to regulatory intervention, except in respect of solvency.
V skladu z eno od razlag lahko ti bonusi štejejo kot sestavni del „celotnega poslovanja“ zavarovalnice (to je neposredno povezano z utemeljitvami v zvezi s členom 18 o zavarovalno-tehničnih rezervacijah).
These bonuses might be considered, according to one interpretation, as an integral part of the company's ‘entire business’ (this is directly linked to the arguments relating to Article 18 on Technical Provisions).
Pomen teh bonusov in njihove povezave z vprašanjem polic z zajamčenimi rentami je podrobno razloženo v delu I (Uvod) in delu III (zakonodajna vprašanja).
The importance of these bonuses and their link to the GAR issue is explained at length in Part I (Introduction) and Part III (Regulatory issues).
Zakonodaja Združenega kraljestva vključuje navedbo, ki je direktiva ne omenja, da je treba ustrezno upoštevati razumna pričakovanja zavarovancev.
UK law includes a reference, not mentioned by the Directive, to pay due regard to the reasonable expectations of policyholders (PRE).
Zakonodajalec Združenega kraljestva je trdil, da razumnih pričakovanj zavarovancev v zvezi s končnimi bonusi ni ustvarila praksa družbe ELAS na področju bonusov.
The UK regulator claimed that PRE in respect of terminal bonuses was not created by the society's bonus practice.
To je bilo povedano lordu Penrosu (WE 16)
This is what Lord Penrose was told (WE 16)
„Vladni oddelek za zavarovalniško statistiko in Ministrstvo za gospodarstvo in finančne zadeve sta za preiskavo povedala, da so vladni oddelek in zakonodajalci vseskozi priznavali pomembnost končnih bonusov, vendar praksa družbe na področju bonusov ni ustvarila razumnih pričakovanj zavarovancev v zvezi s končnimi bonusi.
"GAD and the Treasury have told the inquiry that the relevance of terminal bonus was always recognised by GAD and the regulators but that PRE in respect of terminal bonus was not created by the Society's bonus practice.
Poudarjajo zapise, ki kažejo, da končni bonusi niso bili zajamčeni.
They point to the notes which stated that a terminal bonus was not guaranteed.
Vendar sta Vladni oddelek za zavarovalniško statistiko in Ministrstvo za gospodarstvo in finančne zadeve tudi priznala, da razumna pričakovanja zavarovancev niso bila omejena le na zajamčene prejemke.
However, GAD and the Treasury also recognise that PRE was not restricted to guaranteed benefits.
Za ugotovitev, da bi imeli zavarovanci razumna pričakovanja za prejem določenega zneska bonusov, ni nujno stališče, da bi se razumna pričakovanja vseeno ustvarila.
It is not necessary to conclude that policyholders would have reasonable expectations of receiving a precise amount of bonus to take the view that reasonable expectations would still have been created .
Položaja, ko družba ne bi mogla izplačati vrednosti polic brez dviga tržne vrednosti ali medgeneracijskih prenosov, zavarovanci družbe ne bi razumeli na podlagi informacij, ki so jih bile zagotovljene, ter družbi ne bi sporočili svojih razumnih pričakovanj “ (odst.
A position where the Society could not afford to honour the policy values without rising market values or inter-generational transfers would not have been understood by the Society's policyholders on the information provided to them, and would not have informed their reasonable expectations ." (par.
220, poglavje 18, WE 16). .
220, chapter 18, WE 16). .
Vendar Penrose zavrača te utemeljitve, ki ga niso prepričale, in trdi, da razumna pričakovanja zavarovancev dejansko izhajajo iz prakse družbe na področju končnih bonusov (z drugimi besedami, zavarovanci so imeli razumna pričakovanja, da so upravičeni ali da bodo prejeli diskrecijske bonuse poleg pogodbenih prejemkov).
However, unconvinced by these arguments, he refutes them and argues that PRE did indeed arise by reason of the Society's terminal bonus practice (in other words, that policyholders had reasonable expectations that they were entitled or would receive discretionary bonuses in addition to contractual benefits).
Holmes podpira to tezo v WE 84: „Varstvo razumnih pričakovanj zavarovancev na podlagi zakonodaje Združenega kraljestva je bilo izjemno pomembno, ker se je v osemdesetih in devetdesetih letih 20. stoletja bilanca prejemkov, ki jih je zagotavljala ELAS na podlagi svojih polic, premaknila od zajamčenih prejemkov k nezajamčenim končnim bonusom. [...]
Holmes, in WE 84, supports this thesis: "The protection of PRE under UK law was of great importance because of the shift in the 1980's and 90's in the balance of benefits provided by ELAS under its policies away from guaranteed benefits to un-guaranteed terminal (later final) bonus. [...]
Ker zajamčeni prejemki ustrezajo opredelitvi obveznosti na podlagi nacionalne zakonodaje in zakonodaje Skupnosti
Whereas guaranteed benefits qualified as 'liabilities' under national an Community law