natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
WEIR (H2) je menil, da je Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve po razsodbi objavila, da bo dovolila družbi Equitable Life ali njenim zastopnikom, da sami izračunajo znesek odškodnine, ki ga dolgujejo, namesto da jo prisili k plačilu dolgovane odškodnine na podlagi svojih izračunov.
Mr WEIR (H2) claimed that, after having issued adjudication, the FOS announced that it would allow Equitable Life or its agents to calculate the amount of redress that was due, instead of forcing it to pay the compensation due as a result of its own calculations.
Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve je v svojem memorandumu, ki ga je poslala odboru, navedla, da je „ večje aktuarsko podjetje izvajalo metodologijo izračuna v skladu z odločitvijo [Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve] na podlagi rednih stikov z aktuarjem Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve, hkrati pa je razvijalo svojo računsko tabelo za določitev izgub “ (WE 27
In its memorandum to the committee, the FOS indicates that " a major actuarial practice has implemented the calculation methodology consistent with [the FOS's] decision, following regular contact with an FOS actuary, whilst it was developing its loss assessment calculator " (WE 27
Razen tega se je WEIR (H2) pritožil, da „ Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve ... pritožnikom ni dovolila, da bi videli osnovo, na podlagi katere je družba Equitable Life izračunala svoje izgube, in je namesto tega navedla primere, ki jih ni nihče razumel ali preveril “.
Furthermore, Mr WEIR (H2) complained that " the FOS has ... refused to allow claimants to see the basis on which Equitable Life calculated their losses, giving instead examples which nobody can understand or verify ".
Menil je tudi, da so izračuni družbe Equitable Life temeljili na osnovnih vrednostih sklada namesto na dejanskih izplačilih.
According to him, Equitable Life's calculations were based on underlying fund values rather than actual payouts.
Zato obtožuje Službo varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve, da je „ ponudniku dovolila, da izbira med različnimi osnovami za izračun, namesto da bi zagovarjala doslednost “ (WEIR, H2).
He therefore accuses the FOS of " allowing the provider to cherry pick from among different bases of calculation, rather than arguing in any sort of consistent fashion " (Mr WEIR, H2).
WE-CONF 32 poleg tega podrobno opredeljuje te trditve in navaja, da formula, ki jo je Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve dovolila uporabiti družbi Equitable, ne bi bila pravična in bi bila lahko „ namerno oblikovana za zmanjšanje stroškov z odškodninami “.
WE-CONF 32 further specifies these allegations and claims that the formula that FOS has allowed Equitable to use would not be fair and may have been "deliberately designed to reduce the cost of compensation" .
YOUNG (WE 88) se je pritožil tudi glede metod, uporabljenih za izračun odškodnine.
Mr YOUNG (WE 88) also complained about the methods used for calculating redress.
Vendar se je pri izračunu odškodnine upoštevala primerjava s povprečnimi donosi številnih drugih ponudnikov pokojninskih produktov, vključno s tistimi, ki so po mnenju YOUNGA imeli v istem skladu za življenjsko zavarovanje s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice zavarovance s policami z zajamčenimi rentami in zavarovance s policami brez zajamčenih rent.
However, in calculating compensation, comparison was made with average returns from a number of other pension providers including those that also had mixed their GAR and non-GAR policyholders within the same with-profits fund according to Mr YOUNG.
Po njegovem mnenju „ to ni bil pravičen način za izračun odškodnine. ...
In his view therefore " this was not a fair way to calculate compensation. ...
Metoda(-e) ... [uporabljena(-e)] v nekaterih precedensih, je(so) že v osnovi pomanjkljiva(-e) “ (WE 88).
The method[s] ... [used] in some of the lead cases are fundamentally flawed " (WE 88).
LAKE (H1), BELLORD (H2) in WEIR (H2) so zlasti kritizirali odločitev Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve, da uporabi svojo diskrecijsko pravico in upošteva priporočilo družbe Equitable Life, da ne preiskuje tako imenovanih pritožb, povezanih s Penrosom (tj. pritožbe na podlagi ugotovitev Penrosovega poročila).
The decision by the FOS to use its discretion and follow Equitable Life's recommendation not to investigate at all so-called 'Penrose-related' complaints (i.e. complaints based on the findings of the Penrose report) was subject to particular criticism by Mr LAKE (H1), Mr BELLORD (H2) and Mr WEIR (H2).
V pričanju pred odborom je BELLORD (H2) poročal o svojih izkušnjah, ki jih je opisal kot tipične: „ Družbi Equitable sem se pritožil, da sem upravičen do odškodnine, ker so nekatera dejstva resnična.
In his testimony before the committee Mr BELLORD (H2) related his own experience, which he described as typical: " I complain to Equitable that, due to certain facts being true, I am entitled to compensation.
Moj zahtevek so zavrnili in me napotili na Službo varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve.
They reject my clam and I am referred to the FOS.
Penrosovo poročilo je potrdilo, da so dejstva, ki sem jih navedel, resnična.
Equitable complains to FOS that these facts are not true.
Družba Equitable se je pritožila Službi varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve, da ta dejstva niso resnična.
The FOS decides that any complaint based upon facts which the Penrose report says are true will be inadmissible and such complaints rejected ."
Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve se je odločila, da so vse pritožbe, ki temeljijo na dejstvih, za katera Penrosovo poročilo navaja, da so resnična, nedopustne in zavrnjene .“ Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve v WE 27
The FOS states in WE 27
Stran 3. navaja, da „ je edinstven sklop okoliščin ... pomenil utemeljene razloge, zakaj mora [Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve] uporabiti svojo diskrecijsko pravico“
Page 3. that " there was a unique combination of circumstances ... which constituted compelling reasons, why [the FOS] should exercise his discretion ".
Razlogi varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve za zavrnitev pritožb, povezanih s Penrosom, so navedeni v točki VI.1.b.). .
The reasons given by FOS for dismissing Penrose related complaints are mentioned under point VI.1.b.) above.
V ES 3 so v zvezi s tem naslednje pripombe: „ Kot kaže odločitev Penrosa, se lahko Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve odloči, da ne bo preiskovala delovnopravnih pritožb posameznih vlagateljev, če zadeva, v zvezi s katero je vložena pritožba, vpliva na veliko število vlagateljev in je potreben zakonodajni pristop.
ES 3 makes the following observations in this regard: " As the Penrose decision shows, FOS may decide not to investigate the grievances of particular investors if the matter complained of affects a large number of investors and calls for a regulatory approach.
Čeprav je lahko ta pristop glede na okoliščine upravičen, razkriva veliko vrzel v pravni zaščiti, ker zavarovanci v praksi nimajo veliko možnosti.
Although this approach may be justified in the circumstances, it reveals a significant gap in judicial protection because in practice there is a lack of alternatives for policyholders.
Opredelitev škode v preiskavi, kot jo je na primer opravil lord Penrose, ne pomeni konkretnih izboljšav za prizadete stranke.
The identification of mischiefs in an inquiry, such as that carried out by Lord Penrose, does not translate to concrete remedies for aggrieved consumers.
Pravdni spor je trd boj zaradi praktičnih težav in velikih stroškov transakcije, ker je materialno pravo nejasno in stranki v breme zaradi zahtev po pomembnosti, zanesljivosti in pravil v zvezi z dokaznim bremenom “ (ES 3
Litigation is an uphill struggle because of practical difficulties and high transaction costs, the substantive law is unclear and, because of the requirements of materiality, reliance and the rules pertaining to the onus of proof, it is loaded against the consumer " (ES 3
Stran 51. ).
Page 51. ).
Podobno SCAWEN v WE 23
Similarly, Mr SCAWEN in WE 23
“ Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve to zavrača s sklicevanjem na „ zakonsko zahtevo po neodvisnosti delovanja Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve od delovanja Organa za finančne storitve “ in potrjuje, da „ uprava Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve ne poskuša vplivati na navidezne sodne odločbe, ki jih morajo sprejeti varuhi človekovih pravic, in ne posega vanje “ (WE 27
The FOS rejects this by referring to the " statutory requirement for the operational independence of FOS from the Financial Service Authority " and asserts that " the Board of FOS does not attempt to influence or interfere with quasi-judicial decisions that the ombudsmen are required to take " (WE 27
McELWEE (H3) je v zvezi z odnosom med Organom za finančne storitve in Službo varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve poudaril njuno „ dokaj ločeno funkcijo “. „ Organ za finančne storitve ne obravnava pritožb strank, varuh človekovih pravic pa ne obravnava političnih zadev.
Regarding the relationship between the FSA and the FOS, Mr McELWEE (H3) pointed out their " quite discrete function ": " The FSA does not handle consumer complaints and the Ombudsman does not handle policy matters ."
“ Organ za finančne storitve je v svojih dokazih, ki jih je predložil odboru (glej na primer WE-CONF 7
The FSA in its submissions to the committee (see for instance WE-CONF 7
Stran 2. ), poudaril tudi neodvisnost Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve, kar je poudaril tudi THOMSON v H2 in H8: „ Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve je neodvisen organ, ki se občasno ne strinja z družbo ELAS, občasno pa se seveda ne strinja tudi z zakonodajalcem, Organom za finančne storitve.
Page 2. ) also stressed the independence of the FOS as did Mr THOMSON in H2 and H8: " The FOS is an independent entity that, from time to time, disagrees with the Society and indeed, from time to time, disagrees with the Regulator, the FSA.
Ko so BAYLISSA (H5) vprašali, ali meni, da je Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve varovanec tega sektorja, je rekel „ da zagotovo meni, da običajno ni orodje tega sektorja .
Mr BAYLISS (H5), when asked whether in his opinion the FOS was a creature of industry, stated that " I certainly do not think that it is normally the tool of the industry .
V zvezi s tem obstajajo nenavadni primeri, vendar so ti primeri nastali zaradi preteklosti posameznika in ne institucije “.
There are odd examples of that, but it tends to be because of the history of the individual rather than the institution ".
Najbolj obsežna in izčrpna kritika, ki so jo izrazili zavarovanci v zvezi z delom Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve, je bila izražena v poročilu lorda NEILLA (WE 83).
The most extensive and comprehensive account of the criticism expressed by policyholders of the FOS's performance is contained in a report by Lord NEILL (WE 83).
Čeprav so nekatere točke, ki jih omenja, enake kot v prejšnjih odstavkih, je njegovo poročilo obravnavano ločeno.
Although some of the points he raises are equivalent to what is referred to in previous paragraphs, his review is considered separately below.
Mnenje lorda Neilla (WE 83)
Opinion of Lord Neill (WE 83)
Lord NEILL je v imenu akcijske skupine EMAG preveril „ naravo storitve, ki jo je [Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve] zagotovila zavarovancem [družbe ELAS], ki so vložili pritožbo “.
Lord NEILL reviewed on behalf of EMAG " the nature of the service provided by the [FOS] to [ELAS] complainant policyholders ".
Pri tem je preveril korespondenco v zvezi z zadevami 31 posameznikov, ki so vložili pritožbe pri Službi varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve in „ ki so povedali akcijski skupini EMAG, da so bili nezadovoljni z delom Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve “
In doing so he examined the correspondence relating to the cases of 31 individuals who lodged complaints to the FOS and " who told EMAG that they had been dissatisfied with the performance by the FOS ".
Zadeve so podrobno dokumentirane v Dodatkih 1–3 k temu mnenju (WE 83).
The cases are documented in detail in Appendices 1-3 to his opinion (WE 83).
Povzetek zadev je v odstavku 150 mnenja (strani 54 do 72 WE 83). .
A summary of the cases can be found in Paragraph 150 of the opinion (pages 54 to 72 of WE 83).
Podrobno je obravnaval tudi odločitev Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve, da brez obravnave vsebine zavrne 50 zahtevkov, za katere je Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve menila, da so povezane s Penrosom.
He also considered in detail the FOS's decision to dismiss without consideration of their merits 50 claims characterised by the FOS as 'Penrose-related'.
Lord NEILL je pri določanju standardov, na podlagi katerih se oceni delo Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve, poleg „ zakonskih predpisov “ v Zakonu o finančnih storitvah in trgu ter „ pravili v skladu z zakonom “ upošteval tudi „ izjave Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve v knjižici ‚vaša pritožba in varuh človekovih pravic‘ ter sporočila Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve na spletni strani v zvezi s standardi, ki jih namerava ta služba izpolnjevati“ (WE 86
In determining the standards against which to assess the FOS's performance, Lord NEILL took account not only of the " statutory provisions " contained in the FSMA and " the rules made under the statute " but in addition also of " statements made by the FOS in its booklet 'your complaint and the ombudsman' and in FOS website communications as to the standards which it aims to meet (WE 86
Varuh človekovih pravic bo „ pri odločanju [upošteval] pravila naravne pravičnosti “, poleg tega pa bo „ vsaki strani dal možnost, da izrazi svoje pripombe o celotni zadevi druge strani “.
The Ombudsman will "[apply] the rules of natural justice in [his] decision making " and " give each side the opportunity to comment on the totality of the other side's case ".
Poleg tega bo „ naredil vse za zagotovitev enakih konkurenčnih pogojev ter da večje premoženje in sredstva na eni strani ne bodo povzročila neenakih možnosti “.
Furthermore, he will " do his best to ensure that there is a level playing field and that the superior wealth and resources of one side do not give rise to an inequality of arms ".
Svojo diskrecijsko pravico bo „ izvajal pošteno in ne poljubno ali samovoljno “.
Discretion vested in him will be " exercised fairly and not arbitrarily and capriciously ".
Posebna značilnost postopka je, da pritožniki ne potrebujejo odvetnika, Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve pa jim celo svetuje, da ga ne najamejo, ker v nasprotnem primeru običajno ne bodo dobili povrnjenih stroškov.
A specific feature of the procedure is that complainants do not need a lawyer and are even advised by the FOS that if they do instruct one, they will generally be unable to obtain reimbursement of fees.
Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve bo „ zagotovila, da pritožniki ne bodo prikrajšani zaradi pomanjkanja pravnega nasveta “ (glej WE 86
The FOS will " ensure that complainants are not disadvantaged by the lack of legal advice " (see WE 86
Stran 10. ). „ Ta organ je bil že v veliko primerih pristranski do finančne družbe, v tem primeru družbe EL “ (WE 83
It is a body which in many instances has displayed partiality towards the financial firm, in this case EL " (WE 83
V nekaterih primerih so uradniki brez posvetovanja z družbo EL našli svoje utemeljitve za zavrnitev pritožnika “ (WE 83
In some instances without any reference back to EL, they had come up with their own arguments to block the complainant " (WE 83
Stran 83. ).
Page 83. ).
Lord NEILL je ugotovil, da obstajajo „ neenaki konkurenčni pogoji “, ker je Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve v zvezi z roki „ veliko bolj popustljiva do družbe EL kot do pritožnikov “ (WE 86
Lord NEILL identifies an " unlevel playing field " as the FOS " tends to allow much more latitude to EL than it does to complainants " (WE 86
Stran 13. ) in ker je „ Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve pripravljena, da rešuje sporna vprašanja v korist družbe EL, tudi kadar se pritožnik sklicuje na potrjeno dejstvo in družba EL odgovarja z domnevami o tem, kaj bi se/se mora zgoditi “ (WE 83
Page 13. ) in terms of time limits and given " the willingness of the FOS to resolve disputed issues in favour of EL, even where the complainant relies on attested fact and EL replies with conjectures as to what would/must have happened " (WE 83
Stran 81. in WE 86
Page 81. and WE 86
Stran 13. ).
Page 13. ).
Poleg tega je povedal, da je Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve naredila zelo malo za preprečitev neenakih možnosti pritožnika in družbe, ker je zagotavljala, da pritožnik ni prikrajšan zaradi predložitve zadeve brez nasvetov odvetnikov, računovodij in aktuarjev (glej WE 83
He also suggests that FOS has done little to avoid an 'inequality of arms' between complainant and firm by ensuring that the former suffers no disadvantage from presenting a case without the advice of lawyers, accountants and actuaries (see WE 83
Stran 81. ).
Page 81. ).
Lord NEILL je ugotovil, da so bila načela naravne pravičnosti kršena v „ primerih, v katerih je Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve upoštevala dokumente, za katere posamezen pritožnik ni vedel, in se zato ni mogel sklicevati nanje “ (WE 83
As regards the principles of natural justice, Lord NEILL found that they had been breached in " instances where the FOS took account of documents which a particular complainant had not seen and could not address " (WE 83
Stran 72. ).
Page 72. ).
Poleg tega lord NEILL navaja, da „ so bile za veliko pregledanih zadev značilne nesprejemljive zamude pri sprejetju končne odločitve s strani Službe varuha človekovih pravic, pri čemer so nekatere zadeve potekale več kot pet let “ (WE 86
Moreover, Lord NEILL states that " many of the cases examined have involved unacceptable delay on the part of the FOS in reaching a final decision, with some going on for more than five years " (WE 86
Stran 11. ), in da „ so imele zamude pri obdelavi pritožb škodljive posledice “, ker „ so pritožniki izgubili zaupanje v sistem in so dobili občutek, da Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve zavlačuje postopek “ (WE 83
Page 11. ) and that " the delays in processing complaints had a corrosive effect " as " complainants lost confidence in the system and began to feel that the FOS was stalling " (WE 83
Nazadnje je omenil „ odnos uradnikov Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve, za katere so pritožniki menili, da so nekoristni, nepotrebno prepirljivi ali celo agresivni, “ ter „ splošno neučinkovitost Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve in pomanjkanje zaskrbljenosti zaradi posameznih zadev “ (glej WE 83
Finally, he denounces " attitudes on the part of FOS officials which the complainants felt were unhelpful, unnecessarily argumentative or even aggressive " as well as " the general inefficiency of the FOS and the lack of concern with the fact of individual cases " (see WE 83
Strani 83 in 84. ).
Pages 83 and 84. ).
Celo nekateri pritožniki, katerih zadeve so bile potrjene, so bili nezadovoljni zaradi „nejasnega dodeljevanja finančnih sredstev“.
Even some complainants whose cases were upheld seem to have been dissatisfied, due to the 'obscurity of financial awards'.
Lord NEILL meni, da „ je veliko pritožnikov imelo težave z razumevanjem, na kakšen način se izračunajo dodeljena sredstva, ali pa tega sploh niso razumeli “.
According to Lord NEILL, " many complainants described the difficulty - if not the impossibility - of understanding how awards are calculated ".
V precedensu ge.
For instance in the Mrs E lead case, a complex and sophisticated system was " designed by accountant Deloittes on the instructions of EL " to calculate compensation. "
E je na primer „ računovodja Deloittes po navodilih družbe EL oblikoval “ zapleten in kompleksen sistem za izračun odškodnine. „ Veliko pritožnikov ni moglo ponoviti izračuna, ker niso imeli na voljo osnovnih podatkov, [poleg tega] pa so menili, da je popolnoma nepravično, da ne morejo preveriti, ali je družba EL ponudila ‚pravo‘ vsoto “ (WE 86
Many complainants cannot rework the figures because the necessary raw data has been withheld from them [and] find it completely unfair to leave them in a position where they cannot verify what is asserted by EL to be the 'correct' figure " (WE 86
Stran 75. ).
Page 75. ).
Lord NEILL meni, da „ to vključuje nenavadno spremembo dokaznega bremena.
According to Lord NEILL, " this involves an extraordinary reversal of the burden of proof.
Nobeno sodišče ne bi dovolilo, da se tožnik sam znajde v položaju, v katerem ne ve, na kakšen način so bila izračunana sredstva, dodeljena v njegovo korist.
No court would allow a litigant in person to be left in such a position of ignorance in relation to the calculation of an award made in his or her favour.
Prav tako ne bi nobeno sodišče prepustilo nadzora nad svojim dodeljevanjem sredstev, tako kot to počne Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve “ (WE 86
Nor would any court fail to police its own awards in the manner in which the FOS does " (WE 86
Stran 12. ).
Page 12. ).
V zvezi z navedenim je lord NEILL izrazil svojo kritiko, ker „ je namesto določitve dodeljenih sredstev Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve zahtevala, da družba EL sama oblikuje ponudbo, [kar] je družbi EL omogočilo, da postavi pogoje, ki so popolnoma v njeno korist “, kot so klavzule o zaupnosti ali izjave, da so bile ponudbe oblikovane brez priznanja odgovornosti.
In close connection to the above, Lord NEILL criticises that " instead of making awards itself, the FOS has put pressure on EL to make an offer, [which] has enabled EL to impose conditions which are designed wholly for its own advantage ", such as confidentiality clauses or statements that offers were made without admission of liability.
Lord NEILL je najprej kritiziral postopek, ki je pripeljal do sprejetja odločitve varuha človekovih pravic.
Firstly, Lord NEILL criticises the process leading to the Ombudsman's decision.
Povedal je, da je Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve 50 pritožnikom poslala pismo družbe EL, o katerem naj bi izrazili svoje mnenje in v katerem je bil pozvan, da izvede nekatera pooblastila za zavrnitev (kar je dejansko pomenilo zahtevek o črtanju zadev), pri čemer pa služba ni jasno opredelila pooblastil, katerih izvajanje je obravnavala.
According to him, the FOS had sent to the 50 complainants for comment a letter by EL urging him to exercise certain powers to dismiss (which in fact amounted to an application to strike out the cases) without clearly identifying to them the powers whose exercise he was considering.
Zato brez pomoči odvetnikov „ pritožniki niso nikoli imeli poštenih možnosti, da proti njim vložijo tožbo “ (WE 86
Therefore, without the help of lawyers, " complainants never had a fair opportunity to address the case against them " (WE 86
Lord NEILL meni, da je to „ tipičen primer kršitve naravne pravičnosti s strani Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve “ (WE 83
Lord NEILL regards this as " the major example of the breach of natural justice by the FOS " (WE 83
Drugič, lord NEILL v zvezi z odločitvijo varuha človekovih pravic opozarja, da je bil eden od razlogov, ki jih je navedel za zavrnitev pritožb, „ možnost, da bi lahko, če bi bila rešitev odobrena “, to pomenilo „ mrtvo točko “, ker „ bi bila potrebna obsežna shema prerazporeditve vrednosti sklada “, ki „ bi jo moral izvajati nenaklonjen Organ za finančne storitve “ (WE 83
Secondly, as regards the Ombudsman's decision itself, Lord NEILL recalls that one of the reasons he stated for dismissing the complaints was that " there was a possibility that if relief were to be granted " it could result in a " stalemate " because "some major scheme of rearrangement of fund values would be necessary " which " would have to be implemented by an unwilling FSA " (WE 83
Stran 41. ).
Page 41. ).