natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Varuh človekovih pravic v državi potrošnika – ta varuh človekovih pravic se obravnava kot najbližja shema – nato prenese zahtevek potrošnika varuhu človekovih pravic v državi B, ki je država članica, v kateri ima sedež ponudnik finančnih storitev.
The ombudsman in the country of the consumer – this ombudsman is referred to as the ‘nearest scheme’ – would then transfer the consumer’s claim to his counterpart in country B, country B being the Member State in which the financial services provider is located.
Dejansko gre za zelo preprost sistem, ki je namenjen pomoči potrošnikom pri izbiri najprimernejše sheme, ki bo pristojna in sposobna obravnavati čezmejni spor potrošnika.
So it is quite a simple system, which is intended to assist consumers in finding the most appropriate scheme which will be responsible and able to handle the consumer’s cross-border dispute.
To pomeni, da potrošniku ni treba poznati jezikov in biti obveščen o obstoju shem za čezmejno reševanje sporov v drugih državah članicah.
It means that the consumer does not have to know languages and does not have to be informed about the existence of cross-border resolution schemes in other Member States.
Poznati mora le varuha človekovih pravic v svoji državi.
He only has to know his own ombudsman. "
“ Opisal je tudi vlogo Komisije v zvezi z mrežo FIN-NET: „ Kot predstavniki Komisije smo koordinatorji te mreže, ... organiziramo njene praktične vidike, ... organiziramo, sklicujemo in vodimo sestanke ter izdajamo kratke zapisnike teh sestankov.
He also described the Commission's role with regard to FIN-NET: " We as the Commission, are the coordinators of this network, ... we organise the practical aspects ... we organise, convene and host the meetings and issue short minutes of these meetings.
Dodal je, da „ ni bilo poročil o zadevah, v katerih bi varuh človekovih pravic prekršil ureditev mreže FIN-NET in zadeve ne bi prenesel pristojni shemi, zato lahko utemeljeno verjamemo, da veljavna ureditev dejansko deluje.“
He added that " no cases have been reported to us where an ombudsman has breached the FIN-NET arrangements by not transferring a given case to the scheme responsible, so we have every reason to believe that the arrangements which are in place are in fact working ".
Tudi več drugih prič se je na splošno sklicevalo na mrežo FIN-NET.
A number of other witnesses also made reference to FIN-NET in general.
MAXWELL je navedel, da si mreža FIN-NET „ prizadeva za načine, ki bi pripomogli k ... uspešnejšemu sodelovanju.“ Poudaril je, da ta mreža ne temelji na dokumentih Evropske zakonodaje, ampak na prostovoljnem dogovoru o sodelovanju, ki „ se razvija, čeprav počasi “ (H4).
Mr MAXWELL stated that FIN-NET is " looking at ways to help ... cooperate more effectively ": He emphasised that it is not based on a piece of European law but rather a voluntary cooperation arrangement which " is developing, albeit slowly " (H4).
MERRIKS se na mrežo FIN-NET sklicuje v WE 56: „ Varuh človekovih pravic za finančne zadeve v Združenem kraljestvu je ustanovni član mreže FIN-NET. ...
Mr MERRIKS refers to FIN-NET in WE 56: " The UK Financial Ombudsman Service is a founder-member of FIN-NET. ...
Memorandum o soglasju mreže FIN-NET določa, da se pritožbe obravnavajo v shemi države članice, v kateri je imela sedež zadevna podružnica finančne institucije.
The FIN-NET memorandum of understanding provides for complaints to be handled by the scheme in the Member State where the relevant branch of the financial institution was situated.
Sedanji irski varuh človekovih pravic za finančne storitve Meade je v WE 62 v zvezi z mrežo FIN-NET navedel: „Sem ... podpisnik Memoranduma o soglasju o ... mreži FIN-NET.
In WE 62, the current Irish Financial Services Ombudsman Mr MEADE stated the following in relation to FIN-NET: " I am ... a signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding on ...
Če prejmem pritožbo irskega državljana glede ponudnika finančnih storitev, ki je v pristojnosti zakonodajnega organa v drugi državi članici EGS, ki je primerljiv z zakonodajalcem na področju financ na Irskem, lahko to pritožbo posredujem v obravnavo shemi varuha človekovih pravic v ustrezni državi članici EGS.
If I receive a complaint from an Irish resident about a financial service provider regulated by a Regulatory Authority in another EEA member state, which is comparable to the Financial Regulator here, I may refer that complaint to the Ombudsman Scheme of the appropriate EEA member state to be dealt with there.
Če prejeta pritožba zadeva na primer ponudnika finančnih storitev Združenega kraljestva, ki deluje na Irskem, vendar je v pristojnosti Organa za finančne storitve v Združenem kraljestvu, se lahko ta pritožba predloži v obravnavo Organu za finančne storitve v Združenem kraljestvu ali obratno.“
For example, if a complaint is received about a UK financial service provider operating in Ireland but regulated by the Financial Services Authority in the UK, such a complaint may be referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service in the UK for investigation and vice versa ."
DUCOULOMBIER (H9) je odbor obvestil, da je v mrežo FIN-NET zdaj vključenih 49 shem Varuha človekovih pravic.
Mr DUCOULOMBIER (H9) informed the committee that at present 49 ombudsman schemes from 21 countries are members of FIN-NET.
Poudaril je, da trenutno ni zavezujočih predpisov, ki bi države članice zavezovali k vzpostavitvi shem za alternativno reševanje sporov.
He pointed out that there are currently no binding rules which oblige Member States to set up alternative dispute resolution schemes.
Poleg tega se v skladu z navedbo DUCOULOMBIERA (H9) njihove pristojnosti razlikujejo: „ Nekateri [varuhi človekovih pravic] imajo pristojnosti, ki so skoraj enake pristojnostim sodišč; izrekajo lahko sodbe, ki so zavezujoče za obe strani.
Secondly, the powers vary according to Mr DUCOULOMBIER (H9): " Some of [the ombudsmen] have almost court-like powers; they can render sentences which are binding on both parties.
Nekateri tega ne morejo narediti.
Some cannot do this.
Nekateri bodo le poskušali najti kompromis med stranema in ... predlagali prijateljsko rešitev, ... vendar ne morejo izreči nobenih ukrepov. ... "
Some will just try to find a bridge between the parties and ... propose an amicable solution ... but they cannot impose anything. ... "
Vendar obstoj mreže FIN-NET ni mogel zagotoviti, da bi imeli nekateri zavarovanci, zlasti nemški zavarovanci, ki so sklenili pogodbo s podružnico družbe ELAS v Nemčiji, dostop do Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve v Združenem kraljestvu ali svojega domačega varuha človekovih pravic na zavarovalniškem področju.
However, the existence of FIN-NET could not prevent certain policyholders, in particular German policyholders who concluded a contract with ELAS branch in Germany, not having access to either the UK Financial Ombudsman Service or their domestic Insurance Ombudsman.
Kot je poudarjeno v ES 3
As pointed out in ES 3
Stran 88. , „ temelji nemška shema varuha človekovih pravic na prostovoljnem sistemu, tako da ima varuh človekovih pravic sodno pristojnost le glede družb, ki so se shemi prostovoljno pridružile. ...
Page 88. , " the German ombudsman scheme is based on a voluntary system so that the ombudsman only has jurisdiction upon those undertakings which have voluntarily agreed to join the scheme. ...
Če odpre družba iz Združenega kraljestva podružnico v Nemčiji in se odloči, da se ne bo pridružila nemški shemi varuha človekovih pravic [kot družba ELAS], zavarovanec, ki je kupil polico prek podružnice, ne more vložiti pritožbe zaradi zlorabe pri prodaji zavarovalnega produkta pri nemškem varuhu človekovih pravic.
In a situation where a UK company opens a branch in Germany and decides not to join the German ombudsman scheme [like ELAS], a policyholder who purchased a policy through the branch would be unable to bring a complaint for mis-selling an insurance product to the German Ombudsman.
Tudi britanski varuh človekovih pravic bo zavrnil obravnavo pritožbe, ker police ni prodala družba s sedežem v Združenem kraljestvu.
The British ombudsman will also refuse to investigate the complaint because the policy was not sold by a company established in the UK .
Zato zavarovanec nima dostopa do sistema za izvensodno reševanje sporov “ (ES 3
As a result, the policyholder is left out with no access to an out-of-court dispute settlement system " (ES 3
Stran 88. ).
Page 88. ).
Podobno je menil nadaljeval DUCOULOMBIER (H9), ki je navedel poseben primer: „ Gre za primer osebe s stalnim prebivališčem v Nemčiji, ki je kupila eno od shem družbe Equitable Life in vložila pritožbo.
A similar note was struck by Mr DUCOULOMBIER (H9), who referred to a specific case: " There was one person based in Germany who had bought one of these Equitable Life schemes and had lodged a complaint.
Ker je bila v Nemčiji, je pritožbo najprej vložila pri enem od več nemških varuhov človekovih pravic.
Since she was in Germany , she first of all lodged a complaint with one of the many German ombudsmen.
Prejela je negativen odgovor, ker nemški varuh človekovih pravic ni imel sodne pristojnosti.
She was given a negative reply because that German ombudsman did not have jurisdiction.
Potem se je obrnila na varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve v Združenem kraljestvu, ki jo je obvestil, da [tudi] ta varuh ... nima sodne pristojnosti v tej zadevi.
So she then turned to the Financial Services Ombudsman in the UK and was told that the Financial Services Ombudsman in the UK ... had no jurisdiction in this case [either].
To je bilo za nas razumljivo zelo neprijetno, ker je pomenilo, da ima naša mreža nekaj pomanjkljivosti.
This was obviously quite disturbing for us because it meant that our network had some gaps.
Zadevna pritožba glede družbe Equitable Life, katero je vložila ta oseba, ki se je potem obrnila na Komisijo, nam je pomagala ugotoviti, na katerih področjih lahko našo mrežo izboljšamo.“
This particular Equitable Life complaint lodged by this particular person, who then turned to the Commission, helped us to identify where we can improve our network ".
Še vedno obstajajo nekatere težave“ (DUCOULOMBIER).
There are still some gaps " (Mr DUCOULOMBIER).
Podobno je v ES 3
Similarly, ES 3
Stran 87. ugotovljeno, da „ lahko različne strukture in predpisi o pristojnosti nacionalnih izvensodnih sistemov povzročajo pomanjkljivosti, zaradi katerih so čezmejni potrošniki finančnih produktov na slabšem kot domači potrošniki.
Page 87. concludes that " the varying structures and rules of jurisdiction of the national out-of-court systems may create loopholes that place cross-border consumers of financial products at a disadvantage vis-à-vis domestic consumers ".
“ MERRICKS meni v WE 56 podobno: „ Očitno je, da je pri zagotavljanju odškodninskih shem v različnih državah članicah veliko razlik. ... "
Mr MERRICKS strikes a similar note in WE 56: " It is noticeable that there are a number of gaps in provision of redress schemes in the different Member States. ... "
MEADE v WE 68 meni, da je „ mreža FIN-NET zelo uporaben način za izmenjavo informacij in zagotovitev, da se pritožbe obravnavajo na vseevropski ravni,“ vendar bi jo „ [oviral] položaj, da je v nasprotju z Irsko in Združenim kraljestvom večina shem prostovoljnih ter zato nimajo zakonskih pooblastil za pregon kot shemi na Irskem in v Združenem kraljestvu .“
Mr MEADE in WE 68 expresses the opinion that " FIN-NET is a very useful method for exchanging information and for ensuring that complaints can be dealt with on a European-wide basis ", but that it would " [suffer] from the situation that unlike in Ireland, and in the UK most of the Schemes are voluntary and therefore do not have the statutory powers of enforcement which the Irish and UK Schemes have ".
„ Odločeni smo, da te razlike odpravimo.
" We are determined to address these gaps.
So nesprejemljive, poleg tega pa je nesprejemljivo, da prihaja do položajev, v katerih potrošniki nimajo možnosti izvensodnega reševanja sporov glede finančnih storitev, “ je menil DUCOULOMBIER (H9).
They are unacceptable and it is unacceptable that there are situations in which the consumer is not getting out-of-court redress in financial services ", said Mr DUCOULOMBIER (H9).
Komisar McCREEVY je potrdil, da „ nadalje razvijamo sistem FIN-NET “ (H8).
Commissioner McCREEVY confirmed that " we are ... further developing the FIN-NET system " (H8).
To dejansko pomeni, da Komisija zdaj pripravlja „ vprašalnik za države članice, ki jih bo spodbudil, da na njihovem ozemlju zagotovijo ustrezne sheme za alternativno reševanje sporov glede finančnih storitev za odpravo vseh razlik, vsaj v geografskem smislu, med državami članicami “ (DUCOULOMBIER, H9).
In concrete terms, the Commission is currently preparing a " questionnaire, which we will address to the Member States with a view to encouraging them to ensure that, within their respective territories, there are proper alternative dispute resolution schemes for financial services so that there will be no gaps, at least geographically speaking, between the Member States " (Mr DUCOULOMBIER, H9).
To je potrdila MERRICKSOVA izjava v WE 56: „ Nedavno je mreža FIN-NET Komisijo pozvala, da izda vprašalnik za nacionalne zakonodajalce glede opredelitve in področja delovanja njihovih lokalnih shem za izvensodno reševanje sporov na finančnem področju.
This is confirmed by Mr MERRICKS' statement in WE 56: " Very recently, FIN-NET has asked the Commission to issue a questionnaire to national regulators about the identity and coverage of their local financial out-of court schemes.
Cilj vprašalnikov je, da zbrane informacije nacionalne zakonodajne organe spodbudijo k zmanjševanju razlik v mreži z ustanavljanjem novih ali izboljšanjem sedanjih shem.
The intention is that the information gathered may encourage national regulatory bodies to fill gaps in the network – by establishing new or improving existing schemes. "
“ DUCOULOMBIER (H9) je razen tega navedel, da namerava Komisija mreži FIN-NET v prihodnosti zagotoviti „ veliko pomembnejšo vlogo pri pomoči Komisiji v zvezi z oblikovanjem njene politike, “ ker „ so privilegirani opazovalci dejanskega stanja finančnih storitev iz zornega kota potrošnikov “ in „ nam [pomagajo] ugotavljati izvore težav. “
Mr DUCOULOMBIER (H9) stated furthermore that in the future the Commission intends to give FIN-NET a " much more prominent role in assisting the Commission to shape its policy ", since " they are privileged observers of the financial services realities from the consumers' angle " and " [help] us to identify where there are problems ".
ES 3 v zvezi z mrežo FIN-NET ugotavlja: „ Nobenega dvoma ni, da je mreža FIN-NET učinkovit mehanizem za izboljšanje varstva interesov potrošnikov glede čezmejnega kupovanja finančnih produktov, vendar se ne more izogniti vsem težavam.
ES 3 concludes in relation to FIN-NET as follows: " There is no doubt that the FIN-NET constitutes an effective mechanism to enhance the protection of consumers’ interests relating to cross-border shopping of financial products, but it is not problem-free.
Še naprej je potrebno prizadevanje na evropski ravni, da bi zagotovili učinkovito varstvo interesov potrošnikov, ki se vključujejo v čezmejne transakcije .“
Work still needs to be done at European level to ensure that the interests of consumers who engage in cross-border transactions are protected effectively ."
To pomeni, da med pričami verjetno obstaja soglasje, da je mreža FIN-NET potencialno uporabna in lahko pomaga pri usmerjanju potrošnikov k shemi, ki je pristojna za obravnavo njihove pritožbe v čezmejnih primerih.
In summary, there appears to be consensus among witnesses that FIN-NET is a potentially useful network, which may help to direct consumers to the scheme which is competent for dealing with their complaint in cross-border situations.
Kljub temu mreža FIN-NET ni koristna, kadar nobena od shem njenih članov nima sodne pristojnosti za posamezno pritožbo.
However, FIN-NET is of no relevance when none of its member schemes has jurisdiction over a particular complaint.
Dokazi, predloženi odboru, so pokazali, da so takšen položaj povzročile sedanje razlike med shemami članov mreže FIN-NET glede opredelitev sodnih pristojnosti.
Evidence presented to the committee has revealed that the current differences between FIN-NET member schemes in terms of definitions of jurisdictions have lead to such situations.
Pritožbe nemških zavarovancev, ki so sklenili pogodbo s podružnico družbe ELAS v Nemčiji, na primer niso sodile na področje pristojnosti varuha človekovih pravic v Nemčiji in Združenem kraljestvu.
For instance, complaints by German policyholders, who contracted with ELAS branch in Germany, fell outside the jurisdiction of both the German and the UK ombudsman.
Razen tega v nekaterih državah članicah varuhi človekovih pravic nimajo zadostnih pooblastil za izrekanje sodb; v drugih državah sheme za reševanje sporov ne obstajajo ali se niso priključile mreži FIN-NET.
Furthermore, in some Member States, ombudsmen do not have sufficient powers to adjudicate; in others, dispute resolution schemes do not exist or they have not become members of FIN-NET.
Te razlike glede varstva potrošnikov so nesprejemljive na notranjem trgu, ki ga zaznamuje hitro rastoč obseg čezmejnih finančnih storitev.
These gaps in consumer protection are unacceptable in an internal market, which is characterised by rapidly increasing volumes of financial services provided across borders.
Potrošniki morajo biti upravičeni do enake ravni varstva prek dostopa do shem izvensodnih odškodninskih postopkov ne glede na to, ali kupujejo finančne produkte domačih ali tujih ponudnikov, ker čezmejne težave, kot so tiste v primeru družbe Equitable Life, zmanjšujejo zaupanje potrošnikov v evropski trg finančnih storitev.
Consumers must benefit from the same level of protection through access to out-of-court redress schemes irrespective of whether they purchase financial products from domestic or foreign providers, not least because cross-border problems, such as those which have arisen in the context of Equitable Life undermine consumer confidence in Europe's financial services market.
Odbor ugotavlja, da je Komisija začela obravnavati to vprašanje.
The committee notes that the Commission is beginning to address the issue.
Vendar si je treba dodatno prizadevati za odpravo neravnotežja med zavezujočimi dokumenti, ki omogočajo družbam za finančne storitve poslovanje po celotni Evropi, in nezavezujočimi instrumenti, ki želijo vzpostaviti sistem shem za čezmejne odškodninske postopke.
However, more needs to be done to rectify the imbalance between hard law which makes it possible for financial services companies to trade across Europe on the one hand and soft instruments which intend to create a system of cross-border redress schemes on the other.
V zvezi s tem in ob upoštevanju dejstva, da so pravne poti pogosto preveč zapletene in drage za navadne državljane, se zdi primerno načrtovati zakonodajo EU z zavezujočimi ukrepi, ki bi države članice zavezali k zagotavljanju ustreznih zakonitih shem za alternativno reševanje sporov na svojem ozemlju.
In this regard and given the fact that legal routes are often too complex and expensive to be pursued by ordinary citizens, it seems appropriate to envisage EU legislation with binding measures that would oblige Member States to ensure that there are proper statutory alternative dispute resolution schemes within their territories.
Sodna pristojnost teh shem mora ustrezati področju uporabe predpisov, s katerimi je povezana pritožba.
The jurisdiction of these schemes should be co-terminous with the scope of application of the rules to which the complaint relates.
Organi držav članic Evropskega gospodarskega prostora (Norveška, Islandija in Lihtenštajn) in držav kandidatk EU ter Evropska komisija sodelujejo v odboru kot opazovalci.
The authorities of the European Economic Area Member States (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) and EU candidate countries, as well as the European Commission, participate in CEIOPS as observers.
Odbor opravlja naloge odbora na tretji stopnji v sektorju za zavarovanje in poklicne pokojnine.
CEIOPS performs the functions of the Level 3 Committee for the insurance and occupational pensions sectors.
Niso enako urejena po celotni EU.
They tend not to be EU-wide.
Sodna pristojnost, nacionalni organi in zakonita pričakovanja potrošnikov so v EU zelo različna.
Variations in jurisdiction, national authorities and legitimate consumer expectations across the EU, are considerable.
Včasih člani odbora CEIOPS nimajo nobene določene vloge.
Sometimes CEIOPS members have no role provided for them.
Pogosto ima takšno vlogo, ki je lahko celo izključna, drug nacionalni organ.
Often another national body has, even exclusively.
Usklajeno ukrepanje je težavno, kadar je v posamezni državi sploh dovoljeno.
Harmonised action is difficult, where it is permitted nationally at all.
Vendar na splošno velja, da člani odbora CEIOPS združujejo svoja prizadevanja, kadar jih lahko, kot sem že povedal.
Nevertheless, generally speaking, where CEIOPS members can combine their efforts, they will do so, as I have outlined.
Odbor CEIOPS priznava, da je treba narediti več.
CEIOPS recognises that there is more to do.
Naše delo je po svoji naravi stalno in vedno bolj obsežno.
Our work is by its very nature ongoing and growing.
Popolnoma se nameravamo še bolj poglobiti v postopke pritožb potrošnikov po celotni EU“ (H7).
We fully intend to go into greater depth on consumer complaints processes across the EU " (H7).
Zato je najboljši odgovor, ki ga lahko dam, da se dejansko zavedamo obstoja mreže FIN-NET, vendar se zaradi prevelike zaposlenosti s projektom Solventnost II nismo veliko ukvarjali z njo.
So the best answer I can give you is that of course we are aware that FIN-NET is there, but due to our preoccupation with Solvency II we have not spent much time on it.
Vendar se bomo pozneje še vrnili k temu“ (BJERRE-NIELSEN, H7).
But we will come back to that at a later stage " (Mr BJERRE-NIELSEN, H7).
Med preiskavo odbora je postalo očitno, da so stroški in tveganja, povezani s tožbami posameznikov proti ponudnikom finančnih storitev, velikokrat nesorazmerni v primerjavi s sorazmerno majhnimi vrednostmi škode, ki jo je treba povrniti.
As became apparent in the course of the committee's investigation, the costs and risks involved with litigation by individuals against financial services providers are in many cases disproportionate, when compared to the relatively small amounts of damage to be recovered.
ALEXANDER je v WS navedel, da „veliko vlagateljev in potrošnikov ni nujno izgubilo večjih zneskov denarja v absolutnem smislu v primerjavi s stroški odvetnika.“
As Mr ALEXANDER stated in WS " many investors and consumers, when they lose money, it may not be in absolute terms a great amount as far as going and getting a lawyer involved ".
Poleg tega je navedel, da „obstajajo pri finančnih storitvah potrošniki, katerim so bili naložbeni produkti prodani na podoben način, ali ... da je bil postopek prodaje na podoben način neuspešen“ (WS2).
Furthermore, he indicated that " in financial services you have consumers who have been sold investment products in a similar way, or ... there was a similar type of failing in the sales process " (WS2).
Zato domnevne zlorabe ponudnikov finančnih storitev pri prodaji pogosto prizadenejo veliko število potrošnikov, katerim so bili prodani podobni produkti na podoben način in ki imajo zato podobne pravne zahtevke.
Thus, alleged mis-selling by financial services providers often affect large numbers of consumers who have been sold similar products in similar ways, and therefore have similar legal claims.
ALEXANDER je menil, da je „koncept skupinske tožbe primeren zlasti pri finančnih storitvah, ker omogoča potrošnikom in vlagateljem, da združijo zahtevke, če so podobni glede dejstev in pravnega zahtevka“ (WS2).
Mr ALEXANDER considered that " the class action concept is particularly appropriate in financial services because it does allow consumers and investors to pool their claims together, if they are similar regarding their factual content and legal claim .