natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Prvič je O'DEAJEVA navedla, da je IFSRA pritožbe posredoval prostovoljni shemi irskega varuha človekovih pravic na zavarovalniškem področju.
Firstly, Ms O'DEA indicated that IFSRA referred complainants to the voluntary Insurance Ombudsman of Ireland Scheme.
Razen tega je na zahtevo irskega ministra za podjetja, trgovino in zaposlovanje IFSRA „začela pregled vprašanj, ki so jih postavili irski zavarovanci, da bi ugotovila, kako je mogoče izboljšati njihov položaj“ (O'DEA, H4).
Furthermore, at the request of the then Irish Minister for Enterprise Trade and Employment, IFSRA " undertook a review of matters raised by Irish policyholders in order to identify how their position could be improved " (Ms O'DEA, H4).
Pregled ni ugotovil nobenih sredstev za izboljšanje položaja irskih zavarovancev.
The review did not identify any means of improving the situation of Irish policyholders.
TREACY (H4) je izjavil, „ da so predvsem poskušali zagotoviti čim več informacij : pripravili so pripombe v imenu zavarovancev in poiskali informacije iz različnih odškodninskih shem, pri družbi in zakonodajalcu Združenega kraljestva ter te informacije posredovali, kadar je bilo mogoče, zavarovancem osebno ali z objavo na spletni strani“ (TREACY, H4).
Mr TREACY (H4) stated that " we have tried essentially to provide as much information as we could: we made representations on policyholders' behalf and sought information from the various compensation schemes, the Society itself and the UK regulator and we passed on that information, where it was possible, to the policyholders both individually and by placing it on our website " (Mr TREACY, H4).
Sklenil je, da je „ bila njihova vloga omejena na zagotavljanje informacij in pomoč pri vzpostavljanju stikov “.
He concluded that " our role ... has ... been limited to the provision of information and assistance in making contacts ".
V zvezi s tem je bilo po mnenju O'DEAJEVE sodelovanje s strani organov Združenega kraljestva uspešno (H4).
In this respect, the cooperation received from the UK authorities was good, according to Ms O'DEA (H4).
Če povzamemo, je O'DEAJEVA (H4) poudarila, da si je IFSRA „ v okviru svojih pristojnosti močno prizadevala za pomoč oškodovanim potrošnikom na Irskem “.
Summarising, Ms O'DEA (H4) stressed that ISFRA " has made every effort ..., within the limits of [its] powers, to assist ... consumers affected in Ireland ".
Nekateri irski zavarovanci kljub temu menijo, da je bila raven pomoči, ki jim jo je zagotovil njihov nacionalni zakonodajalec na področju financ, nezadovoljiva (glej izpolnjene vprašalnike s prilogami k WE-FILE 33 in primer TROY, WE-FILE 4; DUGGAN WE-FILE 14; KNOWD, H2).
Many Irish policyholders, however, regarded the level of assistance provided by their national financial regulator as unsatisfactory (see in particular the completed questionnaires with annexes in WE-FILE 33 as well as Mr TROY, WE-FILE 4; Mr DUGGAN WE-FILE 14; Ms KNOWD, H2).
Nemški zakonodajalci na področju financ
German financial regulators
V Nemčiji je maja 2002 „Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht“ (BaFin) prevzel odgovornost „Bundesaufsichtsamt für das Versicherungswesen“ (BAV).
In Germany, the 'Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht' (BaFin) took over responsibility from the 'Bundesaufsichtsamt für das Versicherungswesen' (BAV) in May 2002.
Tako kot irski zakonodajalci je STEFFEN iz ustanove BaFin v H6 poudaril, da je finančni nadzor, vključno z nadzorom, opravljenim prek podružnic, edina odgovornost domače države članice.
Like the Irish regulators, Mr STEFFEN from BaFin stressed in H6 that financial supervision, including that of business carried on through branches, is the sole responsibility of the home Member State.
Razen tega WEYER v WE 85
Furthermore, Mr WEYER in WE 85
V zvezi z oglaševanjem se je STEFFEN skliceval na posredovanje ustanove BaFin kot odgovor na oglas družbe ELAS, ki je bil objavljen v nemških časopisih leta 2000 in je potencialnim zavarovancem obljubljal 13-odstotni donos: „ Z družbo smo razpravljali o tej zadevi, tako da smo spodbijali in kritizirali oglas, družba pa nam je zagotovila, da bo oglaševalsko akcijo takoj umaknila .
In connection with advertising, Mr STEFFEN referred to an intervention by BaFin in response to an advertisement by ELAS, which appeared in German newspapers in 2000, promising 13% return to prospective policyholders: " We ... discussed the matter with the Society, challenging and criticising the advert, and the Society gave us an assurance that it would immediately withdraw the advertising campaign.
Glavni razlog za naš poseg je bil, da smo verjeli in še vedno verjamemo, da je bila obljuba 13-odstotnega donosa leta 2000 zavajajoča, ker je izraz „donos“ namigoval, da je ta zajamčen. ...
The main reason for our intervention was that we believed, and still believe, that the promise of a 13% return in the year 2000 was misleading and that the term ‘return’ gave the impression that it was guaranteed. ...
V pogovorih s kolegi nismo mogli dobiti popolnega pojasnila glede tega vprašanja.“
It was not possible to get complete clarification of this question in the talks with my colleagues ".
BaFin je zagotovil kopije pisem, ki jih je BAV pošiljal nemški podružnici družbe ELAS v zvezi s spornim oglasom (glej WE-CONF 17).
BaFin provided copies of letters, which BAV had sent to ELAS' German branch concerning the controversial advertisement (see WE-CONF 17).
V prvem pismu z dne 12. aprila 2000 je BAV zahteval splošno razlago v zvezi z obljubljenim 13-odstotnim donosom.
In its first letter dated 12 April 2000, BAV asks for general explanations with regard to the promise of a 13% return.
BAV je 29. maja 2000 poslal še eno pismo, v katerem je izjavil, da pojasnila družbe ELAS niso bila zadovoljiva, in zahteval dokaz, da je bil 13-odstotni donos resnično zajamčen.
On 29 May 2000 BAV sent another letter, stating that the explanations given by ELAS had not been satisfactory and asking for proof that the 13% return was in fact guaranteed.
To vprašanje je bilo 31. julija 2000, ko je zgornji dom že razglasil svojo odločitev v zadevi Hyman, še vedno odprto in BAV je poslal dodatno pismo, v katerem je zaprosil družbo ELAS za pojasnitev, kateri elementi obljubljenega donosa so bili zajamčeni.
On 31 July 2000, at a time when the House of Lords had already handed down its judgement in the Hyman case, the issue was still pending and BAV sent another letter asking ELAS for clarification as to which elements of the promised return were guaranteed.
Pismo BAV z dne 10. oktobra odgovarja na pismo družbe ELAS z dne 21. septembra 2000, v katerem je slednja objavila, da je umaknila oglas, ki vsebuje sklicevanje na 13-odstotni donos.
The last letter by BAV dated 10 October 2000 responds to a letter by ELAS of 21 September 2000, in which the latter announced that it had withdrawn the advertisement containing the reference to 13%.
BAV je ugotovil, da je bil omenjeni oglas umaknjen, vendar je hkrati kritiziral nov oglas, ki ga je družba očitno objavila 21. septembra 2000 v časopisu „ Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung “: Prvič, BAV je ugotovil, da je bila izjava družbe ELAS, da jo regulirajo le britanski nadzorni organi, zavajajoča.
BAV took note that the said advertisement had been withdrawn but at the same time criticised a new advertisement, which the Society had apparently published on 21 September 2000 in the " Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung ": Firstly, BAV noted that the suggestion by ELAS that it was solely regulated by the British supervisory authorities was misleading.
Drugič, BAV je menil, da bi sklicevanje v novem oglasu na prejšnjo povprečno rast skladov za življenjsko zavarovanje s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice ustvarilo napačen občutek varnosti med potencialnimi strankami in povečalo pričakovanja, ki jih družba ne bi mogla uresničiti glede na svoje sedanje finančno stanje.
Secondly, BAV considered that, the reference in the new advertisements to previous average growth of the with-profits fund would create a false sense of security among potential clients and raise expectations that the Society would not be able to meet given its 'current financial situation'.
Zato je družbi ELAS ukazal, naj umakne zadevni oglas in prekine vsako tovrstno oglaševanje.
It therefore ordered ELAS to withdraw the advertisement concerned and to stop any equivalent advertising.
SCHNEITER je, medtem ko je odboru podajal dokaze v imenu švicarskega zakonodajalca, izjavil, da podjetje, ki je regulirano, v Švici „ ne bi nikoli objavilo oglasa, kot je bil objavljen v časopisu Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, ker bi zelo dobro vedel, da takšni produkti v Švici niso niti dovoljeni.
Mr SCHNEITER, whilst giving evidence to the committee on behalf of the Swiss regulator stated that a company regulated in Switzerland " would never publish an advert such as appeared in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung because he would know very well that such products are not even allowed in Switzerland .
Takšnih oglasov ni bilo“ .
There has not been any such advertising ".
V korespondenci, ki smo jo našli v naših evidencah, je Organ za finančne storitve jasno poudaril, da se nemške stranke obravnavajo povsem enako kot vse druge stranke, kar pomeni zmanjšanje pravic glede soudeležbe pri dobičku zavarovalnice.
In the correspondence, which we have found in our records, the FSA made it clear that German customers would be treated in exactly the same way as all other customers here, that is to say there was a reduction in with-profits entitlements.
V naši dokumentaciji obstaja nekaj korespondence v zvezi z razpravami med nemškim nadzornim organom in Organom za finančne storitve, zato predvidevam, ... da so obstajali vzporedni pogovori na višji ravni ter da je nemški zakonodajalec takrat prejel vse potrebne informacije Organa za finančne storitve“ (H6).
There is some correspondence regarding these discussions between the German supervisory authority and the FSA in our files, and I assume ... that there were accompanying talks [which] were conducted at a high level and that the German regulator received all the necessary information from the FSA at that time " (H6).
STEFFEN je v H6 izjavil, da odboru ne more dati na voljo korespondence, ker „ so nam naši britanski kolegi jasno povedali, da teh zaupnih dokumentov ni mogoče posredovati naprej “.
Mr STEFFEN said in H6 that he cannot make the correspondence available to the committee because " our British colleagues ... made it clear that these confidential documents might not be passed on ".
Pozneje sta BaFin (glej WE-CONF 17) in FSA (glej WE-CONF 9) poslala kopije pisem, ki sta si jih izmenjala BAV in Organ za finančne storitve.
Later on, however BaFin (see WE-CONF 17) and FSA (see WE-CONF 9) provided copies of letters exchanged between BAV and the FSA.
Prva izmenjava julija in avgusta 2000 je zadevala posledice odločitve zgornjega doma, medtem ko se je druga izmenjava decembra 2000 in januarja 2001 sklicevala na neuspeh družbe, da bi našla kupca.
The first exchange during July and August 2000 concerned the implications of the judgement by the House of Lords, while the second during December 2000 and January 2001 referred to the failure of the Society to find a buyer.
STEFFEN meni (H6), da daje člen 17 nemškega ustavnega zakona vsem državljanom pravico do peticije proti organom oblasti in zahteva, da nanje odgovorijo.
According to Mr STEFFEN (H6), Article 17 of the German Constitution Law gives every citizen the right to petition authorities and obliges the authorities to respond.
BaFin v pisni izjavi Odboru (WE 21
BaFin indicates in its written statement to the committee (WE 21
Stran 2. ) izjavlja, da je od leta 2000 od nemških zavarovancev prejel 65 poizvedb in pritožb v zvezi z družbo Equitable Life.
Page 2. ) that it has received 65 queries and complaints concerning Equitable Life from German policyholders since 2000.
Zavrnil je obravnavo večine pritožb, ker zadevajo predvsem vprašanja finančnega nadzora, ki ne spada na področje njegovih pristojnosti.
It refused to deal with most of them as they predominantly concerned questions of financial supervision, which do not fall within its competence.
BaFin bi raziskal le pritožbe, ki nemški civilni zakonodaji očitajo nasprotja.
BaFin would only investigate complaints that allege contraventions of German civil law.
Z drugimi besedami, kot zdaj razumemo – predvidevam, da je bilo tudi takrat tako, družba Equitable Life ni prekršila nobenega nemškega zakona, vsaj ne, da bi bili mi s tem seznanjeni“ (STEFFEN, H6).
In other words, our current understanding is – and I assume that was also the understanding at the time – that Equitable Life has not broken any German laws, at least we have no knowledge of any such matters " (Mr STEFFEN, H6).
Dve pritožbi, ki ju je podprl nemški zakonodajalec, nista zadevali vprašanj, ki bi bila neposredno povezana s krizo družbe ELAS.
The two complaints it upheld did not concern issues, which were directly related to Equitable Life's crisis.
BaFin odboru ni povedal, ali je prejel pritožbe o zlorabi pri prodaji na podlagi dejstva, da družba zavarovancev ni seznanila s tveganjem zajamčenih rent, ter o tem, ali so se takšne pritožbe raziskale.
BaFin did not indicate to the committee whether it has received complaints that allege mis-selling on the grounds that policyholders were not informed by the Society of the GAR risk and whether or not such complaints would have been investigated.
Zavarovanec SCHÄFER je v WE 10 odbor obvestil, da se je pritožil ustanovi BaFin, da se je pri prodaji njegove pokojninske police zgodila zloraba, ker ga družba Equitable Life ni obvestila, da bo njegova naložba v skupnem skladu s policami z zajamčenimi obrestnimi merami.
One policyholder, Mr SCHÄFER, informed the committee in WE 10 that he complained to BaFin, alleging that he was mis-sold his pension as he was not made aware by Equitable Life that his investment would be in a common pool with Guaranteed Interest Rate (GIR) policies.
Meni, da je to negativno vplivalo na njegovo naložbo.
He argues that the latter have negatively affected his investment.
Iz njegove korespondence z nemškimi organi (WE-CONF 1 in WE-CONF 10) je razvidno, da je BaFin zavrnil obravnavo pritožbe, ker naj bi ta zadevala finančni nadzor, zanj pa je odgovoren zakonodajalec Združenega kraljestva, zato ga je napotil na Organ za finančne storitve.
From his correspondence with the German authorities (WE-CONF 1 and WE-CONF 10) it appears that BaFin refused to deal with the complaint, arguing that his complaint would concern 'financial supervision', for which the UK regulator would be responsible and referred him to the FSA.
Organ za finančne storitve mu je nato povedal, naj zadevo predloži nemškemu zakonodajalcu, ker„ je zakonodajalec tuje države odgovoren za finančno svetovanje v Nemčiji in mora presoditi, ali je pritožba upravičena“ (glej WE-FILE 18).
The FSA in turn told him to take the case to the German regulator, because " the host State regulator is responsible for financial advice given in Germany and should be able to adjudicate on whether you have a valid complaint " (see WE-FILE 18).
STEFFEN je v H6 razložil, da BaFin, ko prejme nemške pritožbe, ki v osnovi spadajo pod pristojnost organa za finančne storitve, nemškega potrošnika obvesti glede pristojnosti organa za finančne storitve in mu sporoči, ali lahko pripravi svoje pripombe.
Mr STEFFEN explained in H6 that when BaFin receives German complaints which essentially fall within the remit of the FSA, it informs the German customer on the competence of the FSA and also tells him where he (or she) can make his (or her) representation.
WEYER (H4) je izjavil, da dokler pritožbe jasno zadevajo vprašanja bonitetnega nadzora, je stališče nemškega zakonodajalca v zvezi s tem v skladu z določbami tretje direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju: „ BaFin v strogem smislu stori, kar največ lahko v okviru direktiv.
Mr WEYER (H4) said that, as far as complaints clearly concern questions of prudential supervision, the German regulator's stance on the issue was in compliance with the provisions of the Third Life Directive: " BaFin strictly speaking does exactly the maximum it can do within the framework of the directives.
Brez dvoma boste razumeli, da nismo mogli brez težav preveriti, ker govorimo o britanski zaščitni shemi in torej o britanskih pravilih za takšno shemo.
You will no doubt understand that we could not verify this easily because we are talking about a British protection scheme here and hence about British rules for such a scheme.
Kljub temu smo to preverili, da bi videli, ali so mogoči kakršni koli zahtevki, ter bi te informacije posredovali nemškim potrošnikom“ (STEFFEN, H6).
We nevertheless checked to see whether any claims were possible, and we would have passed on any such information to the German customers " (Mr STEFFEN, H6).
Zakonodajalci na področju financ v drugih državah članicah
Financial regulators in other Member States
SEYMOUR je v H7 odboru povedal o podobnih izkušnjah zavarovancev iz drugih držav članic, ki so vzpostavili stik z zadevnimi nacionalnimi zakonodajalci: „Prejel sem pisma ljudi iz Španije, Francije in Nemčije, ki so se pritoževali, da so bili oškodovani.
Mr SEYMOUR told the committee in H7 about similar experiences made by policyholders resident in other Member States, who contacted their respective national regulators: " I have received letters from people in Spain , France and Germany complaining about suffering due to losses.
Poznam španskega zavarovanca, ki je pisal domačemu zakonodajalcu, ta pa mu je podobno odgovoril, da je to stvar Združenega kraljestva.
I know that the Spanish policyholders had written to their regulator, who had similarly replied that it was a UK issue.
Kot je Komisija poudarila v WE 41 in WE-CONF 18, imajo zakonodajalci tuje države, zunaj osrednjega bonitetnega območja, na podlagi tretje direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju precejšnjo vlogo, zlasti v zvezi s poslovanjem na svojem ozemlju.
As the Commission pointed out in both WE 41 and WE-CONF 18, host state regulators do have, outside the core prudential area, a considerable role according to the 3LD, in particular as regards the rules governing the conduct of business on its territory.
Prav tako imajo vlogo pri pomoči pritožnikom in usmerjanju njihovih pritožb na ustrezne organe.
They also have a role in assisting complainants and helping them to direct their complaints to the appropriate destination.
Komisija v WE-CONF 18 ugotavlja
The Commission notes in WE-CONF 18
Stran 7. , da so nekatere priče, zaslišane pred odborom, „ ustvarile vtis, da je bila tuja država članica le gledalec in ni imela pomembne vloge pri odločanju ali nadzoru poslovanja zavarovalnice na svojem ozemlju “.
Page 7. that " the impression was being created " by some witnesses heard before the committee " that the host member State ... was a mere bystander and had no real say or control over the insurance business being done in its territory ".
Podobno je WESTPHAL v WS2 izjavil, da „ ima nacionalni nadzor pogosto preveč pasivno vlogo pri spremljanju in izvajanju“ ter da “nadzor v nekaterih državah članicah ne bo postal aktiven, če ne bo dosežena kritična masa pritožb“.
Similarly, Mr. WESTPHAL in WS2 stated that " national supervision often plays a too passive role in the monitoring and enforcement process" and that "unless a 'critical mass' of complaints is reached, supervision will not get active in some Member States. "
V WE-FILE 28 je določil, da BaFin, razen če prejme vsaj 50 pritožb, navadno ne bi razmišljal o „ morebitnem ukrepanju “ (WE-FILE 28
In WE-FILE 28 he specified that unless it receives at least 50 complaints BaFin would usually "[not] consider possible action " (WE-FILE 28
Dokazi dejansko kažejo, da so nekateri zakonodajalci tujih držav prevzeli nekoliko pasivno vlogo pri izvajanju pravil poslovanja.
Evidence indeed suggests that some host state regulators have taken a rather passive attitude in the enforcement of conduct of business rules.
Irski zakonodajalec, na primer, takrat ni objavil nobenih pravil o poslovanju.
For instance, the Irish regulator at the time had not notified any conduct of business rules.
V teh okoliščinah Komisija vidi „ nevarnost, da ne bi niti domači niti tuji zakonodajalci pregledali pravil za poslovanje, ker bi vsak menil, da drug izvaja svoja pravila “ (WE-CONF 18
In these circumstances, the Commission sees a " danger that neither the home nor the host supervisor would look at conduct of business rules because each thought that the other was enforcing its rules " (WE-CONF 18
Nemčija je imela zadevna pravila ter jih je sporočila organom Združenega kraljestva, vendar je nemški zakonodajalec postal dejaven le enkrat, in sicer v zvezi z oglaševalsko akcijo družbe ELAS.
In Germany relevant rules were in place and notified to the UK authorities, but the German regulator became active only once in relation to an advertising campaign by ELAS.
Nemški zakonodajalec meni, da družba Equitable Life ni kršila nobenih nemških pravil, čeprav so obtožbe o zlorabi pri prodaji proti nemški podružnici družbe ELAS dejansko enake obtožbam, ki so jih delno uspešno vložili zavarovanci v Združenem kraljestvu.
The German regulator considered that Equitable Life did not breach any German rules, although the allegations of mis-selling against ELAS' German branch are in fact the same as the ones which were, in part, pursued successfully by policyholders in the UK.
Prav tako se zdi, da določbe o poslovanju v tretji direktivi o življenjskem zavarovanju ne odpravljajo dvoma in negotovosti, kot je Komisija priznala v sporočilu o svobodi opravljanja storitev in javnem interesu v zavarovalniškem sektorju
It also appears that the provisions on conduct of business in the Third Life Directive leave room for doubt and uncertainty as the Commission has acknowledged in its Communication on freedom to provide services and the general good in the insurance sector
Obrazložitveno sporočilo Komisije o svobodi opravljanja storitev in javnem interesu v zavarovalniškem sektorju [Uradni list C 43, 16.02.2000]. : „Med stiki s številnimi gospodarskimi akterji je Komisija ugotovila, da je razlaga področja uporabe direktiv o zavarovanju negotova. ...
Interpretative communication of the Commission concerning the freedom to provide services and the general good of the insurance sector [Official Journal C 43 of 16.02.2000]. : " In the course of contacts with numerous economic agents the Commission has come to realise that uncertainty surrounds the interpretation of the scope ... of the Insurance Directives. ...
Položaj, v katerem so lahko zavarovalnice, še zdaleč ni jasen, zato se srečujejo s precejšnjo negotovostjo v zvezi z ureditvami, ki veljajo zanje v različnih državah članicah, in v zvezi z vsebino produktov, ki jih želijo dati na trg.
The situation in which insurance companies find themselves is far from clear and they thus face considerable uncertainty both as regards the arrangements applicable to them in the different Member States and as regards the content of the products they wish to offer.
Stran 25. , sporočilo Komisije temelji na težavah, s katerimi se srečujejo zavarovalnice, „ vendar je možnost za nejasnost s strani potrošnikov še vedno bolj izrazita .
Page 25. , the Commission's Communication dwells on the difficulties faced by insurance companies, " but the potential for confusion on the part of consumers is still more pronounced.
Iz notranjega poročila irskega zakonodajalca o družbi Equitable Life Assurance Society (ELAS) je razvidno, da so bile določbe tretje direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju dvoumne tudi za zakonodajalce: "Kot kaže, bo organ za finančne storitve še naprej pristojen za nadzor irske podružnice družbe Equitable .
See document enclosed as Appendix G by Mr O'Broin to completed questionnaire (WE-FILE 33). indicates that the provisions of the Third Life Directive gave rise to confusion even among regulators at the time: " Responsibility for the supervision of the Irish branch of Equitable would appear to have rested with the FSA.