natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Primeri, ki so bili predloženi odboru in v katerih je organ za finančne storitve zavrnil obravnavo nekaterih vidikov pritožb, so zadevali opravljanje poslovnih zadev, za katere so na podlagi tretje direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju primarno odgovorni zakonodajalci domače države.
The cases presented to the committee, in which the FSA refused to deal with particular aspects of complaints, concerned conduct of business matters, for which the home State regulators were primarily responsible under the Third Life Directive.
Vendar pa tako kot v primeru zavarovancev iz Združenega kraljestva tudi protesti nemških in irskih zavarovancev pri organu za finančne storitve niso sprožili odškodninskih postopkov.
However, as was the case with UK policyholders, the representations made by German and Irish policyholders to the FSA did not result in redress.
(a) Odškodninska shema za finančne storitve
(a) Financial Services Compensation Scheme
Odškodninska shema Združenega kraljestva za finančne storitve oškodovancem družbe Equitable Life ni bila na voljo, ker družba nikoli ni bila razglašena za plačilno nesposobno.
The UK Financial Services Compensation Scheme was not available to Equitable Life victims, since the company was never declared insolvent.
Kljub temu odbor ugotavlja, da je dostop do odškodninskih skladov na voljo le vlagateljem, ki so podpisali police pri zavarovalnici v Združenem kraljestvu, ali če je vlagatelj sklenil polico pri hčerinski družbi v drugi državi članici, kadar tveganje ali obveznost obstaja v Združenem kraljestvu.
The committee notes, however, that access to the compensation fund is available only to investors having signed policies with an undertaking in the UK or, if the investor contracted with subsidiaries in other Member States, where the risk or commitment is situated in the UK.
Odbor meni, da drugi pogoj pomeni diskriminacijo na podlagi stalnega prebivališča, kar je nezdružljivo z zakonodajo Skupnosti.
The committee considers that the second condition amounts to discrimination on the basis of residence which is incompatible with Community law.
(b) Finančni varuh človekovih pravic Združenega kraljestva
(b) UK Financial Ombudsman
Več tisoč zavarovancev je vložilo pritožbe v zvezi z družbo Equitable Life pri službi finančnega varuha človekovih pravic
Several thousand policyholders lodged complaints about Equitable Life with the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS)
Glej del IV, oddelek IX, točko 4.a. , ki je več sto teh pritožb podprla in jim dodelila odškodnino.
See Part IV, Section IX point 4.a. , which upheld several hundred of those complaints with awards of compensation.
Glej del IV, oddelek VI, točko 1.c. , kažejo, da služba finančnega varuha človekovih pravic ni v vseh primerih zagotovila dovolj preglednega izračuna zneskov odškodnine, da bi jih lahko preverili pritožniki, ki menijo, da so bili zneski prenizki.
See Part IV, Section VI point 1.c. suggest that the FOS has not ensured in all cases that the amounts of compensation were calculated in a sufficiently transparent manner, so as to be verifiable by complainants who believed that the amounts were insufficient.
Številne izjave
Numerous statements
Glej del IV, oddelek VI, točko 1.b. kažejo, da je služba finančnega varuha človekovih pravic pri obravnavi pritožb svoje odločitve utemeljila ne le na zadevni vsebini posamezne pritožbe, ampak tudi na vplivu posameznih odločitev na preostale zavarovance vzajemnega sklada.
See Part IV, Section VI point 1.b. suggested that, in dealing with complaints, the FOS based its decisions not only on the respective merits of each complaint but also on the impact of its individual decisions on remaining policyholders of the mutual fund.
Dejstvo, da je služba finančnega varuha človekovih pravic zavrnila vsebinsko obravnavo pritožb na podlagi ugotovitev lorda Penrosa, je pokazalo precejšnjo vrzel na področju sodnega varstva in jasno pokazalo omejitve službe finančnega varuha človekovih pravic pri obravnavi pritožb, kadar ima njena obravnava mogoče regulativne posledice.
The FOS's refusal to consider on their merits complaints based on the findings of Lord Penrose revealed a significant gap in judicial protection and made apparent the limitations of FOS in dealing with complaints, when his adjudication had possible regulatory implications.
Odbor je poslušal tudi trditve
The committee also heard submissions
Glej del IV, oddelek VI, točko 1.c. , da služba finančnega varuha človekovih pravic te odločitve ni sprejela neodvisno od regulativnih organov.
See Part IV, Section VI point 1.c. to the effect that the FOS did not take this decision independently from the regulatory authorities.
Veliko vlog, ki jih je prejel odbor
A large number of submissions made to the committee
Glej del IV, oddelek VI, točko 1.c. , kaže, da je obravnava nekaterih pritožb, ki jih je prejela služba finančnega varuha človekovih pravic, potekala s čezmernimi zamudami.
See Part IV, Section VI point 1.c. indicate that the treatment of certain complaints to the FOS suffered from excessive delays.
V nekaterih primerih je to povzročilo zastaranje pritožb za nadaljnje pravne postopke.
In some cases, this resulted in complainants being time-barred from taking subsequent legal action.
Odbor meni, da so takšne posledice nesprejemljive.
The committee finds such a consequence unacceptable.
37 Na splošno odbor meni, da služba finančnega varuha človekovih pravic ni ustrezen organ za odškodninske postopke na podlagi delovnopravnih pritožb večine zavarovancev družbe Equitable Life, ki so bili oškodovani zaradi krize družbe Equitable Life.
37 Overall, the committee believes that the FOS did not constitute an appropriate means of redress for the grievances of a vast majority of Equitable Life policyholders who suffered damage as a consequence of Equitable Life's crisis.
Odbor je zaskrbljen, da pričakovanja državljanov, da so sheme varuha človekovih pravic, kot je služba finančnega varuha človekovih pravic, učinkovita in uspešna alternativna možnost za sodne odškodninske postopke, vedno ne ustrezajo temu, kar takšne sheme dejansko zagotovijo.
The committee is concerned that the expectation on the part of citizens that ombudsman schemes, such as the FOS, constitute an effective and viable alternative to judicial redress does not always match the reality of what such systems actually deliver.
(c) Odškodninska shema
(c) Compromise Scheme
Vloge, ki jih je prejel odbor, kažejo, da je bil primarni cilj odškodninske sheme ureditve odpraviti pravne nejasnosti in obveznosti družbe Equitable Life ter s tem stabilizirati sklad.
Submissions made to the committee suggest that the primary aim of the Compromise Scheme of arrangement was to remove legal uncertainties and liabilities from Equitable Life and thereby stabilise the fund.
Shema kljub temu ni izboljšala položaja zavarovancev, ker se je zvišanje vrednosti polic, dodeljeno zavarovancem s policami, ki ne vključujejo zajamčene rente, izravnalo z znižanji, ki so se pojavila kmalu po tem, zavarovanci pa so se v zameno za to odpovedali pravici do zahtevkov.
The scheme, however, did not improve the situation of policyholders because the uplifts in policy values granted to non-GAR policyholders, who in exchange waived their right to pursue claims, were offset by cuts, which occurred soon thereafter.
Številne izjave
Numerous accounts
Glej del IV, oddelek IV, točko 2. , kažejo, da je družba, ko je predlagala shemo, morda vedela, da zvišanj vrednosti polic ne bo mogoče vzdrževati v običajnih razmerah.
See Part IV, Section IV point 2. suggest that the Society may have been aware at the time it proposed the scheme that the uplifts in policy values could not be sustained under normal circumstances.
Glej del IV, oddelek IV, točko 2.
See Part IV, Section IV point 2.
Odbor sklepa, da je bila praktična posledica sheme odvzem pravice vsem preostalim zavarovancem do vlaganja zahtevkov do družbe, pri čemer pa se ni preprečila rast njihovih izgub.
The committee concludes that the practical result of the scheme was to remove from all remaining policyholders the right to pursue claims against the Society, while not preventing their losses from increasing.
Razen tega številne izjave
Several accounts
Glej del IV, oddelek IV, točko 3 (v zvezi z nastalimi izgubami, glej oddelek II, točko 2). kažejo, da je družba sama obravnavala več pritožb zavarovancev, ki niso bili vključeni v sporazum o poravnavi, s policami, ki ne vključujejo zajamčene rente, posamezno ali prek pregledov polic ter nekaterim ponudila določeno odškodnino.
See Part IV, Section IV point 3 (as regards the losses suffered, see Section II point 2). suggest furthermore that the Society itself dealt with a number of complaints by non-GAR policyholders who were not covered by the compromise agreement, either individually or through policy reviews, and offered them some compensation.
Zdi se, da je večina zavarovancev sprejela ponudbe, čeprav zneski niso izražali dejanskih izgub, ki so jih imeli zavarovanci zaradi krize družbe Equitable Life.
It appears that a majority of policyholders accepted the offers, although the amounts seem to have fallen short of reflecting the real losses suffered as a consequence of the crisis at Equitable Life.
(b) Parlamentarni varuh človekovih pravic Združenega kraljestva
(d) UK Parliamentary Ombudsman
Preiskava parlamentarnega varuha človekovih pravic Združenega kraljestva v zvezi s tem, ali so posamezniki doživeli krivico zaradi slabega upravljanja tistih, ki so bili odgovorni za ureditev družbe Equitable Life, dopolnjuje preiskavo Evropskega parlamenta.
The UK Parliamentary Ombudsman's investigation into whether individuals were caused injustice through maladministration on the part of those charged with the regulation of Equitable Life is complementary to the European Parliament's own inquiry.
Naloga tega odbora ni ugotavljati posamezno odgovornost oseb, ki delajo v vladi Združenega kraljestva, Irske ali Nemčije, ali regulativnih organov; ta zadeva mora biti predmet obravnave parlamentarnega varuha človekovih pravic Združenega kraljestva in kakršnih koli poznejših parlamentarnih ali pravnih postopkov v zadevnih državah članicah.
It is not a part of this Committee's mandate to attribute individual responsibility or liability amongst those involved in the UK, Irish or German Government, or regulatory authorities; this should be a matter for the UK Parliamentary Ombudsman and any subsequent parliamentary or legal proceedings in the respective Member States.
Po pojasnilu preiskava, ki jo izvaja parlamentarni varuh človekovih pravic Združenega kraljestva, zajema položaj vseh mednarodnih zavarovancev, ki trdijo, da so doživeli krivico zaradi slabega upravljanja bonitetne ureditve v družbi Equitable Life, vse ugotovitve in priporočila pa bodo prav tako obravnavala položaj teh zavarovancev.
Following clarification, the UK Parliamentary Ombudsman's investigation covers the position of all international policyholders who claim to have suffered injustice as a result of maladministration in the prudential regulation of Equitable Life and any findings and recommendations made will also address the position of such policyholders.
Varuh človekovih pravic ima možnost, da vladi Združenega kraljestva priporoči izplačilo odškodnine.
The Ombudsman has the possibility to recommend to the UK Government the payment of compensation.
(e) Zavarovanci iz drugih držav članic: Dostop do shem varuha človekovih pravic v Združenem kraljestvu in njihovi domači državi
(e) Policyholders from other Member States: Access to Ombudsman schemes in the UK and in their home State.
It appears
It appears
Zdi se, da je prišlo do zmede med zavarovanci, varuhom človekovih pravic in družbo ELAS glede tega, ali bi morala irski varuh človekovih pravic za zavarovalniško področje in Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve obravnavati določene pritožbe.
It appears that there has been some confusion among policyholders, ombudsmen and ELAS about whether the Irish IOI or the UK FOS would be competent to deal with certain complaints.
Prav tako irski varuh človekovih pravic za zavarovanja ni navedel, ali je katera od 15 odobrenih pritožb zadevala glavne obtožbe o zlorabah pri prodaji, ki jih je ugotovil odbor.
No information could be obtained from the IOI as to whether the 15 cases decided in favour of the complainant concerned the main mis-selling allegations identified by the committee.
Na splošno gradivo, ki je na voljo odboru, kaže, da nekdanja shema irskega varuha človekovih pravic za zavarovanja ni bila primeren naslov za odškodninske postopke približno 4000 irskih zavarovancev pri družbi ELAS.
Overall, material available to the committee suggests that the former IOI scheme did not constitute an adequate avenue to redress for the approximately 4000 Irish ELAS policyholders.
Vendar je treba omeniti, da se je od takrat z ustanovitvijo varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve ta položaj izboljšal ; ob tem se zastavlja vprašanje, zakaj ta služba ni bila vzpostavljena že prej.
It should be noted, however, that the situation has since improved with the establishment of the Financial Services Ombudsman; this begs the question why this service was not established at an earlier stage.
Pred oktobrom 2001 v Nemčiji ni bilo nobene sheme varuha človekovih pravic za zavarovanja.
There was no Ombudsman scheme for insurance in place in Germany prior to October 2001.
Poleg tega Versicherungsombudsman, ustanovljen oktobra leta 2001, ni pristojen za obravnavo pritožb v zvezi z družbo Equitable Life, ker družba nikoli ni bila članica sheme, pristojnost varuha človekovih pravic pa je pogojena s tem članstvom.
Furthermore, the Versicherungsombudsmann, established in October 2001, is not competent to deal with complaints about Equitable Life because the Society has never been a member of the scheme and the ombudsman’s jurisdiction is contingent on such membership.
Načeloma zavarovanci družbe Equitable Life, ki so sklenili police pri podružnicah družbe na Irskem, v Nemčiji in drugih državah članicah, niso imeli dostopa do službe finančnega varuha človekovih pravic Združenega kraljestva, ker ta ni pristojna za pritožbe v zvezi s storitvami, ki jih družbe iz Združenega kraljestva izvajajo za podružnice v drugih državah članicah.
In principle, Equitable Life policyholders who purchased policies from the Society's branches in Ireland, Germany and other EU Member States did not have access to the UK Financial Ombudsman Service because the FOS's jurisdiction does not cover complaints about services provided by UK firms from branches in other Member States.
Vendar je odbor seznanjen
The committee is aware
Glej del IV, oddelek IX, točko 4.b. , da je služba finančnega varuha človekovih pravic kljub temu obravnavala nekaj pritožb irskih zavarovancev.
See Part IV, Section IX point 4.b. , however, that a few complaints from Irish policyholders were nevertheless treated by the FOS.
Čeprav ni jasno, na kakšni podlagi je služba finančnega varuha človekovih pravic menila, da je pristojna za te pritožbe.
It remains unclear on which basis exactly the FOS considered that complaints fell under its jurisdiction.
Odbor meni, da je takrat med zavarovanci, regulativnimi organi in samo službo finančnega človekovih pravic pristojna za nekatere pritožbe irskih zavarovancev.
The committee is inclined to believe that there was confusion at the time among policyholders, regulatory authorities and the FOS itself about whether certain complaints by Irish policyholders would fall under the FOS's jurisdiction.
Nasprotno pa je zanimivo, da služba finančnega varuha človekovih pravic ni sprejela nobenih pritožb zavarovancev iz drugih držav članic, vključno z Nemčijo.
It is remarkable that, by contrast, the FOS appears not to have accepted any complaints from policyholders from other Member States, including Germany.
Na splošno se zdi,
Overall, it appears
Glej del IV, oddelek IX, točka 4. da zavarovanci, ki niso državljani Združenega kraljestva, niso imeli dostopa do ustreznih nesodnih odškodninskih shem v Združenem kraljestvu.
See Part IV, Section IX point 4. that non-UK policyholders did not have access to appropriate non-judicial redress schemes in the UK.
Zato so v še slabšem položaju kot zavarovanci iz Združenega kraljestva.
Therefore, they find themselves in an even more unfavourable position than UK policyholders.
Zaradi pomanjkanja jasnosti glede tega, na koga lahko zavarovanci naslovijo pritožbo, če sploh na koga, je zavarovanec, ki ni državljan Združenega kraljestva, pritožbo predložil celo Evropskemu varuhu človekovih pravic, ki pa pri tem nima nobenih pristojnosti.
This lack of clarity about whom, if anyone, policyholders could address even led one non-UK national to submit a complaint to the European Ombudsman, who had no standing in the matter.
Odbor ugotavlja
The committee notes
Glej del IV, oddelek X, točko 3.a. precejšnje vrzeli v sistemu mreže FIN-NET, ki je v osnovi prostovoljni sistem.
See Part IV, Section X point 3.a. significant gaps within the FIN-NET system, which is fundamentally a voluntary system.
Te vrzeli so sprva nastale zaradi dejstva, da mreža tudi po več letih delovanja še vedno ne vključuje vseh držav članic EU in vseh finančnih storitev.
These gaps arise firstly from the fact that the network, even after several years of operation, does not cover all EU Member States and financial services.
Drugič, pooblastila in pristojnosti teh shem za alternativno poravnavo sporov, ki spadajo v mrežo FIN-NET, se zelo razlikujejo.
Secondly, the powers and competences of those ADR schemes which are members of FIN-NET vary considerably.
Nazadnje, merila, ki se uporabljajo za določitev pristojnosti različnih članov mreže FIN-NET, se razlikujejo in niso vedno povezana med seboj, da bi oblikovala usklajen sistem.
Finally, criteria used to determine the jurisdiction of different FIN-NET members are diverse and do not always interact to form a coherent system.
Mreža FIN-NET na primer ni mogla pomagati nemškim zavarovancem pri zavarovalnici Equitable, katerih pritožbe so bile zunaj pristojnosti, ki temelji na članstvu, nemškega varuha človekovih pravic in zunaj ozemeljske pristojnosti varuha človekovih pravic Združenega kraljestva.
For example, FIN-NET was of no assistance to German Equitable policyholders whose complaints fell outside the membership-based jurisdiction of the German and the territorial jurisdiction of the UK Ombudsman.
Zaradi teh vrzeli je verjetno, da se bodo zgodili drugi podobni čezmejni primeri ali se bodo morda zgodili, pri katerih ne bo nobenih možnosti za dostop do izvensodne poravnave spora.
In light of these gaps, it is probable that other similar cross border situations will arise, or may have arisen, in which there is a total lack of access to out-of-court dispute settlement.
Odbor ugotavlja, da je kriza družbe ELAS pomagala Komisiji, da je prepoznala takšne težave v mreži FIN-NET in je poskušala najti zadovoljive rešitve za prihodnost.
The committee notes that the ELAS crisis has helped the Commission identify such problems within FIN-NET and attempt to find satisfactory solutions for the future.
Odbor meni, da so takšne vrzeli pri dostopu potrošnikov do odškodninskih postopkov povsem nesprejemljive na notranjem trgu, ki ga zaznamuje hitrorastoč obseg čezmejnih finančnih storitev.
The committee considers such gaps in access to consumer redress wholly unacceptable in an internal market characterised by rapidly increasing volumes of financial services provided across borders.
Težave, podobne težavam v zvezi z družbo Equitable Life, ogrožajo zaupanje potrošnikov v evropski trg finančnih storitev.
Problems such as those which have arisen in the context of Equitable Life undermine consumer confidence in Europe's financial services market.
Potrošniki morajo biti upravičeni do enake ravni varstva pri dostopu do shem izvensodnih odškodninskih postopkov ne glede na to, ali kupujejo finančne produkte domačih ali tujih izvajalcev.
Consumers must benefit from the same level of protection through access to out-of-court redress schemes, irrespective of whether they purchase financial products from domestic or foreign providers.
Neskladnosti v zvezi s tem ovirajo odpiranje čezmejnih storitev za prebivalstvo, ki je nedvomno ključ za odpiranje celotnega potenciala notranjega trga.
Discrepancies in this respect hinder the opening up of cross-border retail, which is arguably the key to unlocking the full potential of the internal market.
Po mnenju odbora je povsem nesprejemljivo, da je EU, medtem ko je z zavezujočim pravom na podlagi načel Pogodbe ali sekundarne zakonodaje odprla svoje trge finančnih storitev, vprašanja v zvezi z odškodninskimi postopki potrošnikov obravnavala le z nezavezujočimi akti, kot so priporočila in memorandumi o soglasju.
The committee considers it wholly unsatisfactory that, while the Union has opened up its markets in financial services using black letter law, be it through Treaty principles or secondary legislation, issues related to consumer redress have been addressed with mere soft law instruments, such as Recommendations and Memoranda of Understanding.
Glej Priporočilo Komisije št. 98/257/ES z dne 30. marca 1998 o načelih, ki veljajo za organe, pristojne za izvensodno reševanje potrošniških sporov (OJ L 115, 17.4.1998, str.
See Commission Recommendation 98/257/EC of 30 March 1998 on the principles applicable to the bodies responsible for out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes (OJ L 115, 17.4.1998, p.
DEL V – VLOGA KOMISIJE
PART V - ROLE OF THE COMMISSION
o sistematičnih pomanjkljivostih spremljanja izvajanja zakonodaje EU s strani Komisije z vidika krize družbe Equitable Life Assurance Society
on systematic weaknesses in the Commission’s monitoring of implementation of EU law in the light of the crisis of the Equitable Life Assurance Society
KAZALO DEL V
INDEX PART V
Izvajanje zakonodaje EU – splošno ozadje
I. The implementation of EU legislation - general background
Direktive in obveznosti držav članic: sodna praksa Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti
Directives and Member States’ obligations: ECJ jurisprudence
Obveznosti Evropske komisije v skladu s Pogodbo
The European Commission's obligation under the Treaty
Spremljanje izvajanja s strani Evropske komisije v praksi
The European Commission's monitoring of implementation in practice
Postopki za ugotavljanje kršitev
Infringement procedures
Potreba po zagotavljanju celovitega pristopa k izvajanju
The need to ensure a comprehensive approach to implementation
V delu II tega poročila (glej točko II.2.1) je bilo že veliko povedanega o vlogi Komisije pri spremljanju izvajanja tretje direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju in drugih zadevnih direktiv.
Much has been said already in Part II of this Report (see there Point II.2.1) on the Commission's role in monitoring the implementation of the 3LD and other related directives.
Ta del analizira, ali je imelo spremljanje izvajanja s strani Komisije na splošno ali zlasti v zvezi z zadevo ELAS sistematične pomanjkljivosti.
This part will be devoted to analysing whether there have been systematic weaknesses in the Commission's monitoring of implementation in general and with regard to the ELAS case in particular.
Za pravilni odziv na mandat Komisije je treba najprej opredeliti, kako odbor razume pravilno izvajanje zakonodaje Skupnosti, in pojasniti ustrezno terminologijo.
In order respond to its mandate, it is necessary to begin by defining the committee's understanding of proper implementation of Community legislation and clarifying the relevant terminology.
Tako določen koncept in terminologija nista le podlaga za naknadno analizo v tem delu, ampak se uporabljata v celotnem poročilu.
The concept and terminology thus established will not only serve as basis for the subsequent analysis undertaken in this part but applies throughout the entire report.
To je zlasti pomembno za del II, v katerem sta preučena izvajanje direktiv o zavarovanju in njegovo spremljanje, ter tudi za dela III in IV tega poročila.
This is of particular relevance to Part II, where the implementation of the insurance directives and its monitoring by the EC are examined, and also to Parts III and IV of the report.
Prav tako je treba opozoriti na dolžnosti in odgovornosti različnih udeležencev v skladu z zakonodajo EU.
It is also necessary to recall the duties and responsibilities of the various actors according to EU law.