natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
(3) Brez poseganja v splošne navedbe odstavka (1) zgoraj se višina dolgoročnih obveznosti določi v skladu z vsakim predpisom od 65 do 75 spodaj ter upošteva, med drugim, naslednje dejavnike: vse zagotovljene prejemke, vključno z zagotovljenimi odkupnimi vrednostmi, podeljene, priznane ali dodeljene bonuse, do katerih so zavarovanci že skupinsko ali posamezno upravičeni; vse možnosti, ki jih imajo zavarovanci na podlagi pogodbenih pogojev: stroške, vključno s provizijami; vse pravice iz pozavarovalnih pogodb v zvezi z dolgoročnim poslovanjem; diskrecijske dajatve in odbitke, če ne presegajo razumnih pričakovanj zavarovancev“.
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1) above, the amount of the long-term liabilities shall be determined in compliance with each of regulations 65 to 75 below and shall take into account, inter alia, the following factors: all guaranteed benefits, including guaranteed surrender values; vested, declared or allotted bonuses to which policyholders are already either collectively or individually contractually entitled; all options available to the policyholder under the terms of the contract; expenses, including commissions; any rights under contracts of reinsurance in respect of long-term business; discretionary charges and deductions, in so far as they do not exceed the reasonable expectations of policyholders”.
Načela iz predpisa 64 se zdijo v skladu z načeli, ki jih določa direktiva, z dodatnim sklicevanjem, ki ga direktiva ne vsebuje, na ustrezno upoštevanje razumnih pričakovanj zavarovancev.
The principles referred to in Regulation 64 appear to be in line with those prescribed by the Directive, with an additional reference, not mentioned by the Directive, to pay due regard to the reasonable expectations of policyholders.
Aktuarska načela so določena v dveh napotkih, ki sta ju pripravila fakulteta in inštitut, napotek 1 in napotek 8, oblikovana kot „standard za prakso“, kar pomeni, da ju morajo imenovani aktuarji dejansko upoštevati.
The “actuarial principles” are set out in two Guidance Notes prepared by the Faculty and the Institute, GN1 and GN8, which are designated as “practice standard”, meaning they are in effect mandatory for Appointed Actuaries.
Direktiva in zakonodaja Združenega kraljestva izrecno navajata, da mora smotrna zavarovalno-tehnična ocena pričakovanih obveznosti zavarovalnice upoštevati vse prihodnje obveznosti, ki jih določajo pogoji police za vsako veljavno pogodbo, vključno z zajamčenimi prejemki, bonusi in pogodbenimi možnostmi za zavarovance.
Both the Directive and UK legislation explicitly mention that a prudent prospective actuarial valuation of an assurance’s liabilities must take into account all future liabilities as determined by the policy conditions for each existing contract, including guaranteed benefits, bonuses and contractual options for policyholders.
Zato direktiva nadalje določa, da je znesek matematičnih rezervacij za pogodbo v katerem koli trenutku vsaj tako visok kakor vrednost, ki je takrat zagotovljena, če pogodba zagotavlja odkupno vrednost.
In turn, the Directive further specifies that, where the surrender value of a contract is guaranteed, the amount of the mathematical provision for the contract at any time must be as great as the value guaranteed at that time.
Zakonodaja Združenega kraljestva ne ponavlja te določbe, vendar vključuje poseben predpis o rezervah za možnosti zavarovancev, ki določa naslednje: „(1) Na podlagi smotrnih predpostavk se ustvarijo rezervacije za kritje vseh povišanj obveznosti, ki nastanejo, ker zavarovanci uveljavljajo možnosti iz svojih pogodb.
UK legislation does not replicate this provision but includes a specific Regulation on reserves for policyholders’ options, which provides as follows: “(1) Provision shall be made on prudent assumptions to cover any increase in liabilities caused by policyholders exercising options under their contracts.
(2) Kadar pogodba vključuje možnost, s katero lahko zavarovanec zavaruje zajamčeno gotovinsko izplačilo v dvanajstih mesecih od datuma vrednotenja, je rezervacija za to možnost takšna, da zagotovi, da vrednost, navedena v pogodbi, ni nižja od zneska, ki je potreben za zagotovitev izplačil, ki bi jih bilo treba izplačati, če se ta možnost uveljavi.“
(2) Where a contract includes an option whereby the policyholder could secure a guaranteed cash payment within twelve months following the valuation date, the provision for that option shall be such as to ensure that the value placed on the contract is not less than the amount required to provide for the payments that would have to be made if the option were exercised.”
Predpisi 65 do 75 predpisujejo bolj specifična merila za določanje višine obveznosti: Predpis 65 določa v skladu s tretjo direktivo o življenjskem zavarovanju, da je dolgoročne obveznosti načeloma treba določati ločeno za vsako pogodbo glede na izračun pričakovanj.
Regulations 65 to 75 prescribe more specific criteria on the determination of the amount of liabilities: Regulation 65 prescribes, in line with the 3LD that, in principle, long-term liabilities must be determined separately for each contract by a prospective calculation.
Predpis dovoljuje izredno uporabo ustreznih približevanj in posploševanj ter uporabo retrospektivne metode, pri čemer sta obe izjemi predmet enakih pogojev, kot jih določa direktiva.
The regulation allows the exceptional use of appropriate approximations and generalisation and the use of the retrospective method, subjecting both exceptions to the same conditions as those prescribed by the Directive.
Predpis določa, da se, kadar je to potrebno, prihranijo dodatni zneski za splošna tveganja, ki niso individuizirana, ter predpisuje tudi, da metoda izračuna ne sme biti predmet samovoljnih sprememb iz leta v leto.
The regulation prescribes that, where necessary, additional amounts must be set aside for general risks not individualised and also prescribes that the method of calculation must not be subject to arbitrary changes from year to year.
Predpis 69 o obrestnih merah, ki se uporabljajo pri izračunu sedanje vrednosti prihodnjih plačil zavarovalnice ali zavarovalnici, določa varne in skrbne standarde, enakovredne standardom, ki jih določa direktiva.
Regulation 69 on rates of interest to be used in calculating the present value of future payments by or to an insurance company sets out prudential standards equivalent to those laid down by the Directive.
Enako velja tudi za predpisa 68 in 71 o nadomestilih za stroške.
The same is true of Regulations 68 and 71 on allowances for expenses.
V skladu z direktivo domača zakonodaja zahteva, da družba pristojnim organom razkrije takšne informacije v okviru zahtevanih informacij za podporo vlogi za izdajo dovoljenja za delovanje.
In line with the Directive, domestic legislation requires the company to disclose such information to the competent authority as part of the requested information to support an application for an authorisation to operate.
Dodatne informacije o tem so na voljo v letnem aktuarskem poročilu o vrednotenju, ki je na zahtevo na voljo zavarovancem in delničarjem ter je odprto za javni pregled pri ustreznem registru podjetij (Companies House).
Further information on this is found in the actuary’s annual valuation report, which is available on request to policyholders and shareholders and open to public inspection at the appropriate Companies House.
Zahteva v zvezi s pravili za usklajevanje: Tretja direktiva o življenjskem zavarovanju državam članicam preprečuje, da bi od podjetij zahtevale, da svoja sredstva lokalizirajo v določeni državi članici.
Matching rule obligation : The 3LD prevents Member States from requiring companies to localise their assets in a particular Member State .
Prav tako domači državi članici omogoča, da dovoli sprostitev pravil v zvezi z lokalizacijo sredstev.
It also allows the home Member State to permit relaxations of the localisation of assets rules.
Zakonodaja Združenega kraljestva vključuje predpise, ki v določenih okoliščinah zahtevajo, da zavarovalnice na določenem mestu lokalizirajo del svojih sredstev ali vsa sredstva.
UK legislation does include regulations which, under particular circumstances, do require assurance undertakings to localise some or all of their assets in a particular place.
Prvič, predpis 31 iz Predpisov o zavarovalnicah iz leta 1994 določa, da je treba sredstva, ki krijejo obveznosti v šterlingih, hraniti v ES, sredstva, ki krijejo obveznosti v vseh ostalih valutah, pa je treba hraniti v ES ali v državi, iz katere je ta valuta.
Firstly, Regulation 31 of the Insurance Companies Regulations 1994 prescribes that the assets that cover liabilities in sterling must be held in the EC and the assets that cover liabilities in any other currency must be held in the EC or in the country of that currency.
Drugič, predpis 33 iz Predpisov o zavarovalnicah iz leta 1994 določa obveznosti za lokalizacijo nekaterih sredstev za podjetja, ki niso iz ES in katerih sedež ni v državi članici EFTA, v zvezi z njihovimi sredstvi, ki predstavljajo minimalni kapital Združenega kraljestva, ki se določa v oddelku 32(2)(b) zakona.
Secondly, Regulation 33 of the Insurance Companies Regulations 1994 prescribes some asset localisation obligations for non-EC companies, whose head office is not in an EFTA State, in respect of their assets representing a UK margin of solvency maintained under section 32(2)(b) of the Act.
Tretjič, oddelka 39 in 40 zakona v določenih okoliščinah podeljujeta ministrstvu pooblastilo, da od družbe iz Združenega kraljestva zahteva, da lokalizira sredstva ES v višini, ki je enaka celotnemu znesku ali določenemu deležu zneska njenih domačih obveznosti, ter da določi določeno obliko skrbništva nad tem zneskom.
Thirdly, sections 39 and 40 of the Act afford the Secretary of State, under certain circumstances, the power to require a UK company to localise in the EC assets equal to the whole or a specified proportion of the amount of its domestic liabilities and to impose some kind of custody over them.
Glede na oddelek 37(3) teh pooblastil ni mogoče izvajati, razen če družba ni izpolnila nekaterih obveznosti, ki jih mora ali bi jih morala, vključno z nezmožnostjo, da bi določila vrednost svojih obveznosti v skladu s predpisi.
According to section 37(3), those powers are not exercisable unless the company has failed to satisfy certain obligations to which it is or was subject, including the failure to determine the value of its liabilities in accordance with the regulations.
Predpis 27 določa, da mora imeti družba dovolj sredstev v določeni valuti, da krije obveznosti družbe v tej določeni valuti le, če obveznosti družbe v tej določeni valuti presegajo 5 % vseh obveznosti.
Regulation 27 prescribes that the company must hold sufficient assets in a particular currency to cover the company’s liabilities in that particular currency only if the company’s liabilities in that particular currency exceed 5% of its total liabilities.
V nasprotju s tem pa direktiva ne določa nobenega 5-odstotnega odstopanja, preden se sproži obveznost usklajevanja, vendar to ne pomeni oddaljevanja od obveznosti direktive po usklajevanju, ker direktiva državam članicam dovoljuje uvedbo izjem k tej obveznosti.
According to the Directive, by contrast, there is no 5% leeway before the matching obligation is triggered, but this is not a departure from the Directive’s matching obligation because the Directive itself allows Member States to introduce exceptions to that obligation.
Ta člen je v dveh vidikih povezan zadevo družbe ELAS: Prvič, utemeljitev „vsi posli“, ki je povezan z izbirnimi rezervami diskrecijskih bonusov, in drugič, vprašanje razumnih pričakovanj zavarovancev, ki se ponovno pojavlja.
There are two aspects connecting this article to the ELAS case: first, the ‘entire business’ argument, linked to the optional reserving of discretionary bonuses, and second, the issue of PRE, which appears once again.
Utemeljitev „vsi posli“ in izbirne rezerve diskrecijskih bonusov
Entire business' argument and optional reserving of discretionary bonuses
V skladu s členom 18 bi moralo Združeno kraljestvo zagotoviti, da je družba Equitable Life zagotovila dovolj zavarovalno-tehničnih rezervacij, vključno z matematičnimi rezervacijami, za vse svoje posle na podlagi dovolj smotrne zavarovalno-tehnične ocene pričakovanj (ta člen zato ponavlja zahtevo „vsi posli“, ki je že izrecno omenjena v členu 8).
Article 18 required the UK to ensure that Equitable Life established sufficient technical provisions, including mathematical provisions, in respect of its entire business, using a sufficiently prudent prospective actuarial valuation (this article therefore reiterates the ‘entire business’ requirement, already mentioned explicitly in Article 8).
Direktiva in zakonodaja Združenega kraljestva ne opredelita podrobneje pomena smotrne ocene, ki ostaja odvisen od zavarovalno-tehnične presoje.
Neither the Directive nor UK legislation elaborate any further on the meaning of "prudent valuation", which is left for actuarial judgement.
To je pomembna točka glede na to, da je družba ELAS ustvarjala rezerve za bonuse namestnega delovanja
This is an important point, given that what ELAS did was to build up reserves for reversionary bonuses
WE 79 trdi, da družba ELAS ni niti ustvarjala dovolj smotrnih rezerv za prihodnje zajamčene bonuse, do katerih so bili imetniki naložbenih polic pogodbeno upravičeni, niti ni v teh pogodbah določila ustreznih rezervacij za ta jamstva (kot so police z zajamčenimi rentami). (že navedeni bonusi, ki so pogodbeni prejemki), vendar ni ustvarila rezerv za prihodnje bonuse namestnega delovanja in terminalne bonuse, ki se dodelijo na željo zavarovalnice.
WE 79 claims that ELAS did not even reserve prudently enough for future guaranteed bonuses to which holders of investment policies were contractually entitled nor did they make proper provision for guarantees in the contracts (such as GARs). (those already declared bonuses which are contractual benefits) but did not reserve for future reversionary bonuses and terminal bonuses, which are given at the discretion of the insurance company.
Glede na prejete dokaze je prav to pomanjkanje rezerv eden od razlogov za krizo podjetja
According to some of the evidence received, this lack of reserving was one of the reasons for the company's downfall
Odločitev zgornjega doma v primeru Hyman ( družba Equitable Life Assurance Society proti Hyman [2000] 3 WLR 529.) je bil dogodek, ki je sprožil krizo družbe ELAS.
The ruling of the House of Lords on the Hyman case ( Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Hyman [2000] 3 WLR 529.) was the event that sparked ELAS’ misfortune.
Zgornji dom je odločil, da družba ELAS na podlagi svojega akta o ustanovitvi ni imela diskrecijske pravice za sprejetje polic z diferenciranimi bonusi glede na to, ali se je zavarovanec z možnostjo zajamčenih rent odločil, da se mu prejemki izplačujejo v obliki zajamčenih stopenj namesto veljavnih stopenj.
The House of Lords ruled that ELAS did not have discretion under its articles of association to adopt a differential bonus policy according to whether a policy holder with a guaranteed annuity rate option (GAR) decided to take benefits at guaranteed rates rather than current rates.
To je pomenilo, da družba ELAS ni mogla zmanjšati višine končnih bonusov, ki so se izplačevali zavarovancem z zajamčenimi rentami, ter jim izplačati obljubljene rente.
This meant that ELAS could not reduce the size of the final bonuses paid to its GAR policyholders and had to pay them what had been promised.
Vendar pa družba ELAS ni imela denarja, da bi to storila: družba skozi leta ni ustvarila ustreznih rezerv za končne bonuse in obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz zajamčenih rent, ampak je povečevala primanjkljaj sredstev.
But ELAS had no money to do so: it had not properly reserved for final bonuses and GAR liabilities throughout the years, creating an ever-growing asset shortfall.
Ustrezne rezerve bi lahko preprečile ali zmanjšale obseg krize. .
Proper reserving might have avoided or reduced the extent of the catastrophe. .
Direktiva zahteva le, da prihodnje obveznosti vključujejo, razen vseh zajamčenih prejemkov, bonuse, do katerih so zavarovanci že skupinsko ali posamezno upravičeni, ne glede na to, kako so ti bonusi opisani – podeljeni, priznani ali dodeljeni.
The Directive only requires that future liabilities include, apart from all guaranteed benefits, bonuses to which policyholders are already either collectively or individually entitled, however those bonuses are described - vested, declared or allotted.
Niti predpisi Združenega kraljestva niti direktiva ne zahtevajo dodatnih zavarovalno-tehničnih rezerv, zlasti za prihodnje bonuse namestnega delovanja in terminalne bonuse, ki se dodeljujejo na željo zavarovalnice namesto na podlagi pogodbenih obveznosti.
Neither UK regulations nor the Directive require the establishment of additional technical reserves especially for future reversionary bonuses and terminal bonuses which are given at the discretion of the insurance company rather than as the result of a contractual obligation.
Tretja direktiva o življenjskem zavarovanju (oddelek 1.D) omogoča, da se zakonodajalec države članice odloči glede zahteve v zvezi z ustvarjanjem rezerv za te diskrecijske prihodnje bonuse (ustvarjanje rezerv za „prihodnje bonuse vseh vrst“) .
The 3LD leaves open as an option (section 1.D) for the Member State regulator the requirement to reserve for these discretionary future bonuses (reserving of “future bonuses of all kinds”) .
Nicholas BELLORD trdi, da je bilo to namerno, ko navaja (H2), da „ je bilo pri pripravi osnutka tretje direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju ugotovljeno, da so bile predlagane strožje zahteve glede rezerv ter da je delegacija Združenega kraljestva te strožje zahteve podprla .
Nicholas BELLORD claims that this was deliberate, as he states (H2) that " w hen it came to the third life directive being drafted, it was found that stricter reserving requirements were being proposed and the UK delegation was supporting these stricter requirements.
Vendar je Ministrstvo za gospodarstvo in finančne zadeve, zakonodajalec, ugotovilo, da lahko ta direktiva, če gre v nadaljnji postopek v takšni obliki, kot je bila zasnovana, razkrije resnico o družbi Equitable, in so zato zavrnili to zamisel, tako da so rezerve določili za izbirne (…).
However, the Treasury, the regulators, realised that, if this directive went ahead as drafted, it might reveal the truth about Equitable and therefore they scotched the idea by making the reserving optional (…).
Tako je obstajala možnost za pripravo ustreznih rezerv, vendar zakonodajalci Združenega kraljestva te možnosti namenoma niso izkoristili “.
So the option existed to have proper reserving but the UK regulators deliberately did not take advantage of that option."
Razen tega druga razlaga (WE Conf 11) trdi, da zahteva direktive po zadostnih zavarovalno-tehničnih rezervacijah v zvezi s vsemi posli pomeni točno to brez vsakega dvoma, tj. zavarovalno-tehnične rezervacije je treba izračunati ne le v zvezi s pogodbenimi prejemki, ampak tudi s prihodnjimi bonusi namestnega delovanja in terminalnimi bonusi.
In addition, another interpretation (WE Conf 11) argues that when the Directive requires sufficient technical provisions in respect of its entire business, that is exactly what it means without any ambiguity, i.e., the technical provisions need to be calculated not only in respect of its contractual benefits but also of its future reversionary bonuses and terminal bonuses.
Lord Penrose (WE 16) potrjuje to točko, ko pravi, da je bil zakonodajalec usmerjen izrecno na minimalni kapital in ni upošteval vračunanih terminalnih bonusov, katerih posledica je bila, da mora nadzor vključevati preverjanje vsega poslovanja podjetja in ne le stanja kapitala (glej tudi podobne utemeljitve v oddelku o členu 8).
Lord Penrose (WE 16) reinforces this point when he says that the regulator was focused exclusively on solvency margins and took no account of accrued terminal bonus, with the implication that supervision should include verification of a company's entire business and not just its state of solvency (see also similar arguments in the section on Article 8).
Glede na različne dele navedenih dokazov je utemeljitev naslednja: res je, da mnenje iz oddelka 1.D od zakonodajalca ne zahteva, da zahteva ustvarjanje rezerv za prihodnje bonuse vseh vrst (npr. diskrecijske bonuse); vendar so diskrecijski bonusi še vedno celosten del vsega poslovanja podjetja, in sicer: obstaja možnost, ki organov Združenega kraljestva ne razbremeni tega, da bi storili čim več za spoštovanje vsebine in cilja direktive.
According to the various pieces of evidence mentioned above, the line of reasoning goes as follows: it is true that the option contained in section 1.D does not force the regulator to require reserving of “future bonuses of all kinds” (e.g., discretionary bonuses); however, discretionary bonuses are still an integral part of the company's ‘entire business’, viz.: the option exists does not exonerate the UK authorities from doing their utmost to respect the letter and the aim of the directive.
Dokaz, ki ga je prejel odbor, določa, da brez upoštevanja vračunanih terminalnih bonusov (diskrecijskih bonusov) v splošni analizi finančnega stanja podjetja in z osredotočanjem izrecno na minimalni kapital, zakonodajalec ne upošteva obveznega koncepta „vsega poslovanja“ in morda ni upošteval vsebine in cilja člena 18.
Evidence received by the committee suggests that by not taking into account accrued terminal bonuses (discretionary bonuses) in its overall analysis of the financial health of the company and by focusing exclusively on solvency margins, the regulator disregarded the obligatory concept of ‘entire business’ and, possibly, did not respect the letter and the aim of Article 18.
Lord Penrose jasno izjavlja (WE 16): direktiva „je zahtevala, da se ustvarijo smotrne rezerve za končne bonuse, ali da se te realno upoštevajo.
Lord Penrose states clearly (WE 16): the Directive "required prudent reserving for, or some realistic account to be taken of, final bonus.
To bi izpostavilo pomanjkljivost družbe veliko prej in bi spodbudilo popravne ukrepe.
This would have exposed the weakness of the Society at a much earlier stage and would have prompted corrective action.
Ministrstvo za trgovino in industrijo te priložnosti ni izkoristilo (…).
DTI did not take that opportunity (…).
Predpisi Združenega kraljestva o izvajanju direktive položaja niso spreminjali.“
The UK regulations implementing the Directive left the position as it had been previously."
Utemeljitev razumna pričakovanja zavarovancev in rezerve za diskrecijske bonuse
PRE argument and the reserving of discretionary bonuses
Kot je bilo navedeno v oddelkih v zvezi s členoma 8 in 10, zakonodaja Združenega kraljestva sega prek direktive, tako da vključuje sklicevanje, ki določa, da je treba pri določanju višine dolgoročnih obveznosti ustrezno upoštevati razumna pričakovanja zavarovancev.
As was mentioned in the sections relating to Articles 8 and 10, UK law goes beyond the Directive by including a reference to pay due regard to the reasonable expectations of policyholders (PRE) when determining the amount of long-term liabilities.
V zadevi družbe ELAS je ena od utemeljitev ta, da je bil eden od vidikov razumnih pričakovanj zavarovancev, da so resnično pričakovali, da bodo prejemali diskrecijske bonuse poleg pogodbenih prejemkov.
In the context of the ELAS case, one line of argument has it that one of aspect of PRE was that they did indeed expect to receive discretionary bonuses in addition to contractual benefits.