natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
V odgovoru zavarovancem, ki so zahtevali odškodnino, je Organ za finančne storitve poudaril, da „ni podlage, na kateri bi jim lahko ponudili ali morali ponuditi odškodnino“.
In response to policyholders who demanded redress, the FSA stressed that there is " no basis on which we could or should offer compensation ".
Enemu zavarovancu je tudi svetoval, da „imajo tuje države pooblastila in odgovornost v zvezi s posli, opravljanimi v njihovi pristojnosti, in da se mogoče irski organi zanimajo za nekatere zadeve, ki ga zadevajo“ (WE-CONF 20).
It also advised one policyholder that " host States have powers and responsibilities in relation to business carried out under their jurisdiction, and it may be that the Irish authorities have an interest in certain of the matters in which you might be interested " (WE-CONF 20).
Iz dokumenta WE-LIFE 33 je razvidno, da je organ za finančne storitve številnim irskim zavarovancem svetoval, naj vložijo pritožbo zoper službo varuha človekovih pravic Združenega kraljestva
From WE-FILE 33 it appears that a number of Irish policyholders were advised by the FSA to complain to the UK FOS
Vendar je iz dokazov, zbranih v odboru, razvidno, da je varuh človekovih pravic za finančne storitve obravnaval zgolj eno pritožbo irskih zavarovancev. .
However, from the evidence received by the committee is appears that - with (at least) one exception - complaints by Irish policyholders were not dealt with by the FOS (see below). .
Komisar McCREEVY je v H8 v zvezi z obravnavanjem čezmejnih pritožb s strani nacionalnih zakonodajalcev ugotovil: „Sporen vidik, ki se je pojavil pri krizi družbe ELAS, je obravnavanje pritožb s strani nacionalnih organov.
In H8, Commissioner McCREEVY drew the following conclusions with regard to the treatment and processing of cross-border complaints by national regulators: " One disturbing aspect to emerge from the Equitable affair is the treatment of complaints to the national authorities.
Pritožniki so bili napoteni od organa domače države, odgovornega za finančni nadzor, do tujega organa podružnice, odgovornega za pravila poslovanja, in nazaj.
Complainants have been sent back and forth between the home state authority, responsible for financial supervision, and the host authority of the branch, responsible for the conduct of business rules.
Na enotnem trgu to ni sprejemljivo.
This is unacceptable in our single market.
O zadevi smo razpravljali že z zakonodajalci, ki so se sestali v Evropskem odboru za zavarovanja in poklicne pokojnine.
We have already taken this up with the regulators meeting in the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Committee.
Na tem sestanku so nadzorniki dejali, da bodo revidirali pravila in postopke, ki jih morajo sami upoštevati pri čezmejni dejavnosti, in se usmerili k vprašanjem varstva potrošnikov, kot je obravnava čezmejnih pritožb.“
The supervisors meeting in the Committee of European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisors have announced that they are going to review the rules and procedures to be followed by supervisors in cross-border activity and plan to focus on consumer protection issues, such as the treatment of cross-border complaints ."
Pritožbe na službo varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve
Complaints to the FOS
Dokazi navajajo, da je nekaj irskih in nemških zavarovancev vložilo pritožbe na Službo varuha človekovih pravic Združenega kraljestva za finančne storitve.
Evidence suggests that some Irish and German policyholders have lodged complaints with the UK Financial Ombudsman Service.
Zakonodajalec Združenega kraljestva v WE-CONF 7
In WE-CONF 7
Predložila je le statistično tabelo z informacijami glede obravnave pritožb, povezanih z družbo ELAS, in navedla, da so bile zavrnjene ena nemška in dve irski pritožbi (WE 56).
He only provided a statistical table with information on the handling of ELAS related complaints, indicating that 1 'German' and 2 'Irish' complaints were 'rejected' (WE 56).
Odbor je zato od Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve zahteval informacije o natančnem številu pritožb, ki jih je prejela od nemških in irskih zavarovancev, informacije o tem, ali so te pritožbe zadevale police, sklenjene v Združenem kraljestvu ali v nemških in irskih podružnicah družbe Equitable Life, ter informacije o tem, kako je razsodila v zvezi s temi pritožbami.
The committee has therefore requested details from the FOS on the exact number of complaints he has received from German and Irish policyholders, information on whether these concerned policies taken out in the UK or from Equitable Life's German and Irish branches and his adjudications on them.
Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve ni odgovorila na ta vprašanja
In its reply
Glej WE 90. .
See WE 90. , the FOS failed to respond to these questions.
Navedla je le, da „je le v primeru ene irske pritožbe izdala začasno odločbo. ...
It only indicated that " there is one Irish complaint where the FOS has made a provisional decision. ...
Ta del pritožbe je mogoče [poudarek] v pristojnosti Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve.
No German complaint has been made to FOS where we consider that even part of the complaint maybe within FOS jurisdiction. "
Na Službo varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve ni bila vložena nobena nemška pritožba, kjer bi bil vsaj en del pritožbe v njeni pristojnosti “.
As regards the territorial jurisdiction of the FOS in general, the committee has obtained the following information from policyholders.
Kar zadeva splošno krajevno pristojnost Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve, je odbor od zavarovancev dobil naslednje informacije: WEYER (H3) je povedal, da je Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve nemškim zavarovancem povedala, da do njenih storitev nimajo dostopa: „ Od Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve smo ... prejeli neuradne informacije, ki so glede prizadetih nemških strank pojasnile, da nemški zavarovanci po njenem razumevanju pravnega statusa nimajo pravice do pritožbe, zlasti če so pogodbe sklenili na suverenem ozemlju Zvezne republike Nemčije.
Mr WEYER (H3) said that the FOS told German policyholders that they would not have access to its services: " We ... received informal information from the Financial Ombudsman Service which made it clear in respect of German affected parties that, according to its understanding of the legal position, German policyholders had no claims, in particular if they concluded their contract on the sovereign territory of the Federal Republic of Germany ."
“ Podobno kažejo odgovori irskih zavarovancev na vprašalnik odbora, češ da pritožbe irskih zavarovancev načeloma ne sodijo v pristojnost varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve.
Similarly, the responses by Irish policyholders to the committee's questionnaire indicate that the FOS generally considered complaints by Irish policyholders to fall outside its jurisdiction.
Nasprotno je irska zavarovanka KNOWDOVA v H2 povedala, da je po zavrnitvi obravnave pritožbe s strani Službe varuha človekovih pravic na zavarovalniškem področju maja 2003 pritožbo vložila na Službo varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve.
On the other hand, Irish policyholder Ms KNOWD said in H2 that after her complaint to the Irish Insurance Ombudsman was rejected, she lodged a complaint with the FOS in May 2003.
Varuh človekovih pravic za finančne storitve je najprej zavrnil pritožbo.
The FOS first rejected the complaint.
KNOWDOVA je navedla, da je prestala „18-mesečni epski boj“ , pri čemer je bila domnevno priča oviranju in zavlačevanju s strani družbe ELAS, dokler se novembra 2004 ni izkazalo, da „je upravičena do uporabe storitve Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve“ (KNOWDOVA, H2).
Ms KNOWD stated that she then had to go through an " epic 18-month struggle " allegedly facing obstructions and delaying tactics by ELAS until it was clear in November 2004 that she finally was " entitled to avail to the FOS services " (Ms KNOWD, H2).
KNOWDOVA je v WE-CONF 28 citirala pismo varuha človekovih pravic Robertsa iz novembra 2004, v katerem Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve dejansko priznava, da je pristojna za obravnavo njene pritožbe: „ Zdi se mi, da ... je pri odločanju, ali je pritožba v krajevni pristojnosti Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve, najprej treba ugotoviti, ali je bil ukrep ali opustitev ukrepanja, ki je povzročila vložitev pritožbe, dejansko izvedena v Združenem kraljestvu, in sicer s strani družbe, ki deluje na stalnem sedežu poslovanja v Združenem kraljestvu .
In WE-CONF 28, Ms KNOWD quotes from a letter of November 2004 by " Mr Roberts, Ombudsman " in which the FOS apparently confirmed that it had jurisdiction over her complaint: " It seems to me that ... in deciding whether a complaint falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the [FOS] the primary consideration should be whether the act or omission that gave rise to the complaint was in fact carried out in the UK by a firm operating from a permanent place of business in the United Kingdom.
Družba Equitable Life ima takšen stalen sedež poslovanja in tam tudi deluje.
Equitable Life does have such a permanent place of business and operates from it. "
“ KNOWDOVA ni navedla, ali je Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve sprejela odločitev o njeni pritožbi.
Ms KNOWD did not specify whether the FOS has taken a decision on her complaint.
Irski finančni organi so odbor obvestili, da so poskušali ugotoviti, ali so irski in nemški zavarovanci imeli dostop do Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve.
The Irish financial authorities informed the committee that they tried to clarify whether Irish and German policyholders had access to the FOS.
Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve na spletni strani navaja, da „pokriva le družbe, ki ponujajo finančne produkte in storitve v Združenem kraljestvu ali zunaj njega“ .
The FOS states on its website that it only " cover[s] firms that provide financial products and services in or from the UK ".
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/ To je potrdil TERTÁK (H1), ki je dejal, da Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve ne obravnava pritožb zavarovancev, ki so pogodbe podpisali s podružnicami družbe Equitable Life, ker produkt ni bil ponujan v Združenem kraljestvu ali zunaj njega.
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/ This was confirmed by Mr TERTÁK (H1) who stated that the FOS does not consider claims from policyholders who contracted with Equitable's EU branches, since the product was not provided in or from the UK.
Zakonodajalci Združenega kraljestva v H4 niso obravnavali krajevne pristojnosti Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve, večkrat pa so se le sklicevali na memorandum, ki ga je služba predložila odboru in v katerem je navedeno, da ne bo ničesar dodala.
The UK regulators in H4 did not comment on the FOS territorial jurisdiction but only made reference, on a number of occasions, to the memorandum, which the FOS submitted to the committee, stating that they had " nothing to add " to it.
Vendar lahko obravnava tudi pritožbe v skladu z obvezno sodno pristojnostjo glede dejavnosti, ki jih ustanova izvaja v drugih državah članicah EU, če (a) je dejavnost usmerjena k Združenemu kraljestvu in (b) če so upravne pogodbe sklenjene na podlagi zakonodaje Anglije, Walesa, Škotske ali Severne Irske.
However, it may also consider complaints pursuant to the compulsory jurisdiction about activities carried on from an establishment elsewhere in the EU if (a) the activity is directed at the UK , and (b) governing contracts are made under the law of England and Wales , Scotland or Northern Ireland . "
“ Dokument navaja tudi, da „takšne pritožbe niso v pristojnosti Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve, če sta prodaja irskih polic družbe Equitable Life in zagotavljanje informacij v zvezi s temi policami pred nakupom in po njem potekali z Irske.
The paper goes on to say that " insofar as the selling of Equitable Life’s Irish policies and the provision of information relating to those polices before and after their purchase was carried on from the Irish Republic, complaints about such matters fall outside the jurisdiction of FOS.
Medtem ko bi vlagatelji Irske lahko vložili pritožbe proti družbi Equitable Life, ki je v pristojnosti Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve, je malo verjetno, da bi običajni pritožniki to dejansko storili.
While it might be possible for Irish Republic investors to make certain complaints against Equitable Life that do fall within the jurisdiction of FOS, it is unlikely that normal complaints would do so.
Položaj nemških polic družbe Equitable Life je podoben.
The position as regards Equitable Life’s German policies is similar.
Udeležba tuje podružnice ne pomeni vedno, da storitev dejansko ni bila vodena iz Združenega kraljestva.
The involvement of a foreign branch does not always mean that the service was not actually provided from the UK .
Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve mora obravnavati dejanski položaj, vendar ni pristojna, če je bila storitev dejansko opravljana zunaj Združenega kraljestva“.
FOS has to look at the facts of the situation; but if the service was actually provided from outside the UK , FOS does not have jurisdiction ".
Po drugi strani je „varuh človekovih pravic izrazil mnenje, da ni pristojen za obravnavo pritožb, ki so jih na Službo varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve naslovili zavarovanci podružnic družbe Equitable Life na otoku Guernsey in v Dubaju, kar temelji na njegovem razumevanju obsega vloge, ki jo je imela družba Equitable Life v Združenem kraljestvu pri poslovanju podružnic na otoku Guernsey in v Dubaju.
On the other hand, " the ombudsman has expressed his view that he does have jurisdiction to consider complaints that have been made to FOS by Equitable Life Guernsey and Dubai branch policyholders, based on his understanding of the extent of the role that was played by Equitable Life in the UK in the Guernsey and Dubai branch businesses.
Ti zavarovanci vključujejo državljane različnih držav, ki niso rezidenti Združenega kraljestva“ (WE 27
These policyholders include nationals of a variety of countries who are not resident in the UK " (WE 27
ES 3 navaja: „ Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve ne preiskuje pritožb zavarovancev, ki so produkte kupili v podružnicah družbe Združenega kraljestva, ustanovljenih zunaj Združenega kraljestva, kar zadeva tam pridobljene storitve, prodajo ali nasvete.
ES 3 concludes as follows: " FOS does not investigate complaints from policyholders who bought products from branches of UK firms established outside the UK as regards services, sales or advice obtained there.
Vendar mora biti sprejemljivo, da mora vsak primer nepravilnosti po prodaji s strani ponudnika v Združenem kraljestvu obravnavati Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve.
Is should however be accepted that any instance of post-sale maladministration attributable to the provider in the UK should be covered by FOS.
Iz navedenega sledi, da bi zavarovanec, ki je rezident Nemčije ali Irske, moral spadati v shemo Službe varuha človekovih pravic Združenega kraljestva za finančne storitve, če je polico kupil neposredno od družbe ELAS, vendar to ne velja, če je polico sklenil v podružnici družbe ELAS, ki je v njegovi državi prebivališča, če njegova pritožba zadeva prodajo police.
It follows from the above that, a policyholder resident in Germany or Ireland would be covered by the UK FOS scheme if he bought a policy directly from ELAS but would not be so covered if he bought a policy through a branch of ELAS located in his State of residence, insofar as his complaint related to the sale of the policy.
V zvezi s takšnimi pritožbami lahko zavarovance obravnava služba varuha za človekove pravice tuje države, kar je odvisno od pravil, ki urejajo njegovo krajevno pristojnost. “
In relation to such complaints, the policyholder may or may not be covered by the Ombudsman of the host State depending on the rules which govern its territorial jurisdiction ."
ES 3 se sklicuje na dodatni vidik vprašanja pristojnosti Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve z razlikovanjem med pritožbami glede poslovanja in pritožbami, ki zadevajo domneve kršitve bonitetnih pravil: „ Pristojnost nacionalne službe varuha človekovih pravic mora biti usklajena s področjem uporabe pravil, na katera se sklicuje pritožba.
ES 3 refers to an additional aspect of the question of FOS jurisdiction by distinguishing between complaints about conduct of business and complaints which relate to alleged breaches of prudential rules: " The jurisdiction of a national Ombudsman should be co-terminous with the scope of application of the rules to which the complaint relates.
Če pritožba zadeva domnevno kršitev pravil poslovanja, mora biti za preiskavo pritožbe pristojna služba varuha človekovih pravic tuje države, ker veljajo pravila poslovanja tuje države.
Thus, if the complaint relates to the alleged breach of the conduct of business rules, it should be the responsibility of the Ombudsman of the host State to examine the complaint since it is the conduct of business rules of the host State which apply.
Če v nasprotju z navedenim pritožba zadeva domnevno kršitev bonitetnih pravil, mora biti za preiskavo pristojna Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve, ker [mora družba ELAS v Združenem kraljestvu delovati v skladu z bonitetnimi pravili], kar pomeni v skladu z direktivo o življenjskem zavarovanju" (ES 3
If, by contrast, the complaint relates the alleged breach of a prudential rule, responsibility to investigate it should lie with the FOS since [ELAS is subject to the prudential rules in the UK ] under the Life Directive " (ES 3
Stran 14. ).
Page 14. ).
Iz prejetih dokazov je razvidno, da Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve običajno ne obravnava pritožb glede domnevnih kršitev bonitetnih pravil, tudi če to ne bi bilo načeloma izključeno s statutom službe, ki navaja, da njena obvezna sodna pristojnost zajema vse pritožbe glede dejavnosti iz Zakona o finančnih storitvah in trgih.
From the evidence obtained, however, it appears that the FOS does not normally concern itself with complaints about alleged breaches of prudential rules, even if this would not be precluded, in principle, by the FOS's statute, which states that the FOS's compulsory jurisdiction extends to any complaint relating to an activity regulated under the Financial Services and Markets Act.
Ker je večina zavarovancev, ki niso iz Združenega kraljestva, sklenila police v podružnicah zunaj Združenega kraljestva, niso imeli pravice zahtevati odškodnino.
In essence, since most non-UK policyholders have purchased their policies from ELAS branches outside the UK, the vast majority of them were excluded from this avenue to redress.
Čeprav dokazi navajajo, da Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve ni sprejela nobene nemške pritožbe, je obravnavala vsaj eno pritožbo irskega zavarovanca.
While evidence suggests that no German complaint was accepted by the FOS, the latter appears to have dealt with at least one complaint from an Irish policyholder.
Vendar je nejasno, na kakšni podlagi je Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve končno odločila, ali so irske pritožbe v njeni pristojnosti
It is not clear, however, on which basis the FOS decided whether or not an Irish complaint fell under its jurisdiction.
Odločitev o pristojnosti je bila sprejeta dolgo časa po vložitvi nekaterih pritožb, tj. v primeru KNOWDOVE 18. mesecev (glej H2). .
The decision on jurisdiction appears to have been taken a long time after some of the complaints were lodged, e.g. 18 months in the case of Ms KNOWD (see H2).
Hkrati je bilo med zavarovanci in zadevnimi ustanovami o tem vprašanju veliko nejasnosti.
At the time, there seems to have been confusion about this issue, not only among policyholders but also among the institutions concerned.
Po navedenem celo irski organi, ki so se obrnili na Službo varuha človekovih pravic Združenega kraljestva za finančne storitve, da bi raziskali, ali imajo irski zavarovanci pravico do odškodnine, „niso dobili pojasnila, ali so irski zavarovanci družbe Equitable Life zlasti v njeni pristojnosti“.
As noted above, even the Irish authorities, who had contacted the UK Financial Ombudsman Service with a view to exploring whether Irish policyholders would have recourse to it were " not able to get clarification on whether Irish policyholders of Equitable Life fall specifically under the jurisdiction of the UK Financial Services Ombudsman ".
Parlamentarna varuhinja človekovih pravic Združenega kraljestva
The UK Parliamentary Ombudsman
Kot je že navedeno, parlamentarna varuhinja človekovih pravic Združenega kraljestva zdaj izvaja preiskavo, da bi „ ugotovila, ali so posamezniki v obdobju pred decembrom 2001 doživeli krivico zaradi nepravilnosti s strani javnih organov, odgovornih za bonitetno ureditev družbe Equitable Life Assurance Society in/ali vladnega oddelka za zavarovalniško statistiko; ter priporočila ustrezno odškodnino za kakršno koli storjeno krivico “ (WE 12
As mentioned above, the UK Parliamentary Ombudsman is currently carrying out an investigation " to determine whether individuals were caused injustice through maladministration in the period prior to December 2001 on the part of the public bodies responsible for the prudential regulation of the Equitable Life Assurance Society and/or the Government's Actuary Department; and to recommend appropriate redress for any injustice so caused " (WE 12
Opozoriti je treba, da njena preiskava zajema le obdobje do 1. decembra 2001, ker Organ za finančne storitve, ki je bil tega dne ustanovljen kot edini zakonodajalec, ne spada pod njeno pristojnost.
It is important to note that her investigation only covers the period up to 1 December 2001, as the FSA, which was established as the sole regulator from that date, is not a body within her jurisdiction.
Prav tako lahko varuhinja človekovih pravic preiskuje le ukrepe tistih, ki so odgovorni za bonitetno ureditev družbe ELAS, ne more pa obravnavati pritožb glede vprašanj poslovanja ali trženja.
Likewise, the Ombudsman can only inquire into the actions of those charged with the prudential regulation of ELAS, while she cannot consider complaints about the conduct of business or marketing issues.
Pritožbe na Službo parlamentarne varuhinje človekovih pravic Združenega kraljestva mora vložiti poslanec spodnjega doma britanskega parlamenta.
Complaints to the UK Parliamentary Ombudsman have to be referred by a Member of the UK House of Commons.
LAKE (H1) tako navaja, da „je Služba parlamentarne varuhinje človekovih pravic Združenega kraljestva kot zadeva pravnega izvajanja prek poslancev dostopna le državljanom Velike Britanije“.
According to Mr LAKE (H1) therefore, " the UK Parliamentary Ombudsman is not, as a matter of legal implementation, available to other than subjects of the British Crown through their Member of Parliament ".
Kot je poudaril SEYMOUR, se zato „državljan Skupnosti zunaj Združenega kraljestva ne more pritožiti na Službo parlamentarne varuhinje človekovih pravic Združenega kraljestva“ (H7).
Therefore, as Mr SEYMOUR pointed out, " a Community citizen from outside the UK cannot appeal to the UK Parliamentary Ombudsman " (H7).
Prvotno stališče urada varuhinje, kot je izraženo v pismu akcijski skupini EMAG, je bilo, da mednarodni zavarovanci (ki so sklenili police v podružnicah družbe ELAS zunaj Združenega kraljestva) ne bodo vključeni v preiskavo (WE 14
The original position taken by the Ombudsman's office as expressed in its letter to EMAG was such that international policyholders (who have contacted with ELAS' branches outside the UK) would not be covered by the investigation (WE 14
Stran 42. ).
Page 42. ).
Vendar je parlamentarna varuhinja po prejetju pravnega nasveta spremenila mnenje.
However, the Parliamentary Ombudsman reversed this position after having obtained legal advice.
Urad varuhinje v pismu
In a letter