natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Zato je njihov zahtevek veljaven le, „ če je družba ELAS odgovorna za implicirane predstavitve ali obljube potencialnim zavarovancem s policami brez zajamčenih rent ali če je izrecno naštela številne dejavnike pod naslovom ‚Dejavniki tveganja‘ v dokumentu o ključnih značilnostih, zaradi česar se obravnava, da je družba ELAS vsebinsko predstavila, da ne obstajajo nobena nadaljnja tveganja ali napačne navedbe po pravilih običajnega prava v zadevi Hedley Byrne proti Heller [1964] AC 465 “ (ES 3
Hence, they may only have a valid claim " if the Society had made any implied representations or promises to prospective non-GAR policyholders or by listing expressly a number of factors under the heading 'Risk Factors' in the key features document, the Society is taken to make an implied representation that no other risks existed or for a negligent misstatement and advice under the common law rule of Hedley Byrne v. Heller [1964] AC 465 " (ES 3
Stran 61. ).
Page 61. ).
To ni izrecno določeno in se ne more obravnavati kot implicitno določilo ali jamstvo.
It is not expressly laid down nor may be established as an implied term or warranty.
Informacije in predstavitve v dokumentu o ključnih značilnostih niso del police.
The information and representation contained in the Key Features document do not form part of the policy.
Namen izjav v tem dokumentu niso pogodbene obljube, ki bi jih družba ELAS dala zavarovancem “ (ES 3
The statements made therein are not intended by the parties to be contractual promises given by the Society " (ES 3
Stran 62. ).
Page 62. ).
Stran 17. . „ Nasprotno pa bi bila na splošno tožba v zvezi s pogodbo težko uspešna “ (ES 3
By contrast, in general, an action in contract would be difficult to succeed " (ES 3
Stran 17. ).
Page 17. ).
Kot je opisano v ES 3
As outlined in ES 3
Ta rok zastaranja velja za zahtevke v skladu z oddelkom 62 Zakona o finančnih storitvah in oddelka 2(1) Zakona o zavajanju iz leta 1967.
This limitation period applies to claims under section 62 FSA and section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967.
Vzrok za vložitev tožbe nastane, kadar zavarovanec najprej utrpi škodo.
The cause of action arises where a policyholder first sustains loss.
Tožba zaradi malomarnosti se lahko v skladu z običajnim pravom (malomarno svetovanje ali napačne navedbe) vloži šest let od nastanka vzroka za vložitev tožbe ali, če se to zgodi pozneje, tri leta od datuma, ko je imel tožnik potrebno znanje za vložitev tožbe za odškodnino v zvezi z zadevno škodo in pravico, da vloži takšno tožbo.
An action in negligence in common law (negligent advice or misstatement) is six years from when the cause of action accrued or, if later, three years from the date on which the plaintiff first had both the knowledge required for bringing an action for damages in respect of the relevant damage and a right to bring such an action.
V zvezi z družbo Equitable Life je treba povedati, da je kmalu po objavi Penrosovega poročila zaprosila za podaljšanje roka za pripravo odgovora na nekatere pritožbe na podlagi tega poročila.
In relation to Equitable Life it is to be noted that, shortly after the Penrose Report was published, the Society sought extra time to prepare its response to certain complaints arising out of it.
Zato je Organ za finančne storitve 10. maja 2004 izdal odločbo o odpovedi, s katero je družbo Equitable Life odvezal potrebe po preiskovanju pritožb o zadevah, ki nastanejo v običajnem časovnem razporedu, ki se uporablja v skladu s pravili Organa za finančne storitve.
For this reason, on 10 May 2004, the FSA issued a waiver dispensing Equitable Life from the need to investigate complaints about the matters arising within the standard timescale applicable under FSA rules.
Pogoj te odločbe o odpovedi je bil, da družba Equitable Life predloži „ pisno izjavo, da če se namerava sklicevati na Zakon o zastaranju iz leta 1980 kot obrambo za zahtevek upravičenega pritožnika na sodišču ali pri postopku pri varuhu človekovih pravic, za potrebe tega zakona ne bo upoštevala nobenega obdobja, v katerem so za zadevo upravičenega pritožnika veljale te usmeritve “.
A condition of this waiver was that Equitable Life provided “ a written undertaking that, if it seeks to rely on the Limitation Act 1980 as a defence to any claim by an eligible complainant whether in Court or Ombudsman proceedings, it will not count for the purpose of that Act any period within which the eligible complainant’s case has been subject to this direction ”.
Organ za finančne storitve je najprej izdal odločbo o odpovedi do 30. junija 2004 in jo nato podaljšal do 30. septembra 2004.
The FSA originally granted the waiver until 30 June 2004, and subsequently extended it to 30 September 2004.
Čeprav je to v praksi pomenilo podaljšanje roka zastaranja za nekaj mesecev, je za veliko večino zavarovancev zdaj zadeva zastarala v skladu z zakonom.
Although this meant in practice a prolongation, by some months, of the limitation period, the overwhelming majority of policyholders would by now be time barred under the Act.
SCAWEN (H3) meni, da so zadeve vseh zavarovancev družbe ELAS zastarale konec leta 2006.
According to Mr SCAWEN (H3) all ELAS policyholders have been time barred since the end of 2006.
Sodni postopki
Court cases
Civilna tožba se lahko vloži pri okrajnem sodišču ali pri višjem sodišču, glede na okoliščine zadeve.
Civil legal action could be started in the county court or in the High Court, depending on the circumstances of the case.
Če je zahtevek 15 000 GBP ali manj, ga je treba vložiti pri okrajnem sodišču.
If the claim is for £15,000 or less, it must be started in the county court.
Če je zadeva preprosta, se okrajno sodišče odloči, da uporabi postopek v sporih majhne vrednosti in za zadevo se uporabijo ti postopki.
If the case is a simple one, the county court will decide to use the small claims procedure and will allocate the case to the ‘small claims track’.
V večini primerov sodišče ne odredi, da stroške odvetnikov plača stranka, ki izgubi v postopku majhne vrednosti.
In most cases, the court will not order solicitors’ costs to be paid by the losing party in a small claims case.
Če upravičenec najame odvetnika, mora sam plačati stroške.
If a claimant instructs a solicitor he/she will have to pay the costs.
Zato mora večina upravičencev reševati zahtevke majhne vrednosti brez pomoči odvetnika.
For this reason most claimants deal with a small claim without the help of a solicitor.
Če je zadeva vredna 5 000 GBP ali manj, se zanjo običajno uporabi postopek v sporih majhne vrednosti.
If the value of a case is £5,000 or less, it will generally be allocated to the small claims track.
WEIR (H2) in SCAWEN (H3) sta povedala, da so nekateri zavarovanci izbrali to možnost in vložili zahtevke v skladu s postopkom v sporih majhne vrednosti ali so družbi ELAS zagrozili, da bodo to storili.
Mr WEIR (H2) and Mr SCAWEN (H3) indicated that some policyholders have taken this choice and launched claims through the Small Claims Court or threatened ELAS to do so.
Vendar je opozoril, da je najvišja vrednost zahtevka v osnovi omejena na 5.000 GBP ter da so zato obravnavani zneski in morebitna odškodnina omejeni.
He recalled, however, that that the maximum value of the case is essentially restricted to £5,000 and that therefore the amounts involved, and thus possible compensation, would be limited.
Veliko večino zahtevkov zavarovancev bi moralo obravnavati višje sodišče.
A vast majority of policyholders' claims would have to be dealt with by the High Court.
Vendar so zavarovanci poudarili, da bi moral upravičenec plačati stroške tožene stranke, če bi se sodišče odločilo v korist družbe ELAS (LAKE, H1; WEIR, H2; SCAWEN; H3).
However, as policyholders pointed out, the claimant would have to meet the defendant's cost in the event that the Court decides in favour of the Society (Mr LAKE, H1; Mr WEIR, H2; Mr SCAWEN; H3).
V ES 3
In ES 3
Stran 51. je navedeno, da „je pravdni spor trd boj zaradi praktičnih težav in velikih stroškov transakcije, ker je materialno pravo nejasno in je stranki v breme zaradi zahtev po pomembnosti, zanesljivosti in pravilih v zvezi z dokaznim bremenom “.
Page 51. it is noted that " litigation is an uphill struggle because of practical difficulties and high transaction costs, the substantive law is unclear and, because of requirements of materiality, reliance on the rules pertaining to the onus of proof, it is loaded against the consumer ".
SCAWEN (H3) je povedal, da morebitni stroški, ki bi nastali z vložitvijo zahtevka zoper družbo ELAS, presegajo finančna sredstva velike večine zavarovancev.
Mr SCAWEN (H3) suggested that the potential costs of pursuing a claim against the Society lie outside the financial resources of the overwhelming majority of policyholders.
Poleg tega je poudaril, da bi bilo težko najti odvetnike, ki bi razumeli zapletenost zadevnih določb na področju pokojnin.
In addition, he stressed that it would be difficult to find lawyers and barristers who understand the complexity of the relevant pension provisions.
Razen dejstva, da ne morem tvegati toliko denarja, ta pristop ni stroškovno učinkovit, ker je moj zahtevek vreden le 70 000 GBP (101 000 EUR). ...
Apart from the fact that I do not have that sort of risk money, as my claim is only of the order of £70,000, (EUR 101,000), it does not seem to be a cost effective approach. ...
Na podlagi podatkov, do katerih sem imel dostop, je bilo jasno, da bi bili stroški vložitve zahtevka zoper družbo ELAS do točke, ko bi bila z družbo ELAS dosežena izvensodna poravnava, od 56 000 GBP do 180 000 GBP, kar je povprečno 101 000 GBP.
With data that I have had access to it is clear that the costs of pursuing a claim against the Society to the point at which the Society settles out of court vary from £56,000 to £180,000, with an average of approximately £101,000.
Jasno je, da to presega finančna sredstva velike večine britanskih državljanov ne glede na to, da bi morda morali plačati enakovreden znesek še za odvetnike družbe ELAS, če bi izgubili ali bi se predali zaradi pritiskov in obremenjenosti s sodnim postopkom. “
Clearly this lies outside the financial resources of the overwhelming majority of British citizens, quite apart from the risks of paying an equivalent sum to the Society’s lawyers if they lose or give up under the stresses and strains of the legal process. "
SCAWEN meni, da pravni poklic v Združenem kraljestvu priznava to težavo in navaja poročilo
Mr SCAWEN suggests that the problem is recognised by the legal profession in the UK quoting from a report
DOSTOP DO SODIŠČA, končno poročilo visoko cenjenega lorda Woolfa, predsednika civilnega pritožbenega sodišča (Master of the Rolls); julij 1996; Končno poročilo lordu kanclerju o civilnem sodnem sistemu v Angliji in Walesu. o civilnem pravosodnem sistemu v Angliji in Walesu: „ Ugotovljeno je bilo, da so pomanjkljivosti ... sedanjega sistema, da je predrag in da stroški pogosto presegajo vrednost zahtevka; da se zadeve končujejo prepočasi in na preveč neenakopraven način: vplivni in premožni tožniki ter stranke, ki imajo premalo sredstev, niso dovolj enakopravni.
ACCESS TO JUSTICE Final Report by The Right Honourable the Lord Woolf, Master of the Rolls; July 1996; Final Report to the Lord Chancellor on the civil justice system in England and Wales. on the civil justice system in England and Wales: " The defects ... identified in our present system were that it is too expensive in that the costs often exceed the value of the claim; too slow in bringing cases to a conclusion and too unequal: there is a lack of equality between the powerful, wealthy litigant and the under-resourced litigant.
Sistem je preveč negotov: zaradi težavnega napovedovanja, koliko bo stal pravdni spor in kako dolgo bo trajal, se pri strankah pojavi strah pred neznanim; poleg tega pa je za mnoge tožnike sistem preveč nerazumljiv.
It is too uncertain: the difficulty of forecasting what litigation will cost and how long it will last induces the fear of the unknown; and it is incomprehensible to many litigants.
Predvsem njegova organizacija je preveč razdrobljena, ker ni osebe, ki bi bila odgovorna za upravljanje civilnega pravosodja; poleg tega je preveč kontradiktoren, ker zadeve vodijo stranke, ne sodišča in sodna pravila, stranke ga prepogosto ne upoštevajo, sodišče pa ne uveljavi “(WE 23
Above all it is too fragmented in the way it is organised, since there is no-one with clear overall responsibility for the administration of civil justice; and too adversarial as cases are run by the parties, not by the courts and the rules of court, all too often, are ignored by the parties and not enforced by the court “ (WE 23
Stran 22. ).
Page 22. ).
WE 23 vključuje pismo, ki ga je odvetniška družba poslala Organu za finančne storitve kot odgovor na posvetovalni dokument.
WE 23 includes a letter sent by a law firm to the FSA in answer to a consultation paper.
Navaja naslednje: „ Tožba, vložena pri višjem sodišču v zvezi z zlorabami pri prodaji finančnih storitev, lahko do začetka sojenja stane od 30 000 GBP do 150 000 GBP.
It notes the following: " A lawsuit in the High Court concerning a financial services mis-sale, which is defended up to the point of trial, can cost anything from £30,000 to £150,000.
Le malo poslovnih strank in še manj zasebnih strank si lahko privošči tak izdatek. ...
Few business clients, and even fewer private clients, can afford this kind of outlay. ...
Negotovost v zvezi z rezultatom in tveganje, da bi morale stranke plačati še stroške druge strani, sta pomemben odvračilni dejavnik. “
The uncertainty of the outcome and the risk of paying the other side’s costs are a significant disincentive. "
„ Ta pristop je povprečnemu zavarovancu v Združenem kraljestvu večinoma nedostopen, razen majhnemu številu sorazmerno premožnih pritožnikov, “ je ugotovil SCAWEN (H3).
" Apart from a small number of relatively wealthy claimants, this approach is more or less closed to the average policyholder in the UK ", Mr SCAWEN (H3) concluded.
Dokazi, ki sta jih predložila akcijska skupina EMAG (H1) in WEIR (H2), kažejo, da je le malo posameznikov in skupin z neto vrednostjo sprožilo sodne postopke ali zagrozilo, da jih bodo sprožili zoper družbo ELAS.
The evidence obtained from both EMAG (H1) and Mr WEIR (H2) suggests that only a few high net-worth individuals and groups have issued court proceedings or threatened to do so against ELAS.
Seveda je odbor poskušal pridobiti dokaze v zvezi s številnimi sodnimi postopki, ki so jih sprožili zavarovanci zoper družbo ELAS in dosežene rezultate.
Naturally, the committee sought to obtain evidence as to the number of court cases issued by policyholders against ELAS and the outcome achieved.
Zato je vzpostavil stik z več pričami in jih pozval, naj mu predložijo sodne listine in sodbe.
It therefore contacted several witnesses asking them to make available court documents and judgements.
V odgovor je dobil izvod zahtevka za odpoved in odškodnino za napačno razlago in/ali kršitev zakonsko določene dolžnosti z dne 13. maja 2002, ki ga je predložil zavarovanec, ki je leta 2002 vložil več kot 850 000 GBP in ki je bil večkrat v celoti izplačan pred zaslišanjem (glej WE-CONF 15).
In response, it received a copy of one claim for rescission and damages for misinterpretation and/or breach of statutory duty issued on 13 May 2002 by a policyholder who had invested more than £850.000 in 2002, which was reportedly settled in full before the hearing (see WE-CONF 15).
Razen tega dokumenta ni bil predložen noben pisni dokaz o sodnih postopkih, ki so jih vložili zavarovanci.
Apart from this document, no written evidence on court cases initiated by policyholders was received.
BAIN (H8) je poročal o zadevi, v kateri je družba ELAS pritožniku, pri katerem so se pri prodaji pokojninske police s prihodki iz črpanja sredstev domnevno pojavile zlorabe, ponudila odškodnino 522 GBP.
Mr BAIN (H8) reported a case where a complainant, who had allegedly been mis-sold an income drawdown pension policy was offered a compensation of £522 by ELAS.
BAIN je povedal, da je družba ELAS privolila, da pritožniku izplača 81 907 GBP, potem ko je ta zagrozil, da bo vložil tožbo.
After he threatened ELAS with legal action, the Society agreed to pay him £81,907, according to Mr BAIN.
Podobno je LAKE (H1) povedal, da so zadeve vedno dosegle poravnavo na račun „ sporazumov o tajnosti, ki so prepovedovali nadaljnje razprave o pogojih poravnave “ (LAKE, H1).
Likewise, Mr LAKE (H1) stated that cases were always settled at the cost of " gagging agreements which prohibit any wider discussions of the terms of the settlement " (Mr LAKE, H1).
SCAWEN je to potrdil in povedal, da so, „ kolikor mu je znano, glede vseh teh zadev dosegli izvensodno poravnavo, preden so prišle do sodišč, poleg tega pa so bile sklenjene stroge klavzule o zaupnosti “ (WE 23/2
Mr SCAWEN confirmed this, stating that " t o the best of my knowledge all of these cases have been settled out of court, prior to trial under very strict confidentiality clauses " (WE 23/2
Drug zavarovanec je povedal naslednje: „ Najpomembneje v zvezi z ... zadevami je, da jih sodišče ni nikoli obravnavalo, ker so bili zavarovanci dan prej v celoti izplačani na podlagi sporazuma o zaupnosti.
Another policyholder put it the following way: " T he point about all ... cases is that they were never heard by the court because they were always settled in full the day before with a confidentiality agreement.
Potem ko je bila ponujena razumna ponudba, sodišče tožniku ni dovolilo, da bi prišel na sodišče, in bi mu lahko celo naložilo, da mora plačati stroške.
Once a 'reasonable offer' has been made, the court would not allow the plaintiff to have their day in court and could even award costs against them.
Zato je bilo zelo težko razbrati resnico.
So it is very hard to see the truth.
Strategija družbe Equitable je bila prestrašiti potencialne tožnike z grožnjo, da bodo nastali visoki sodni stroški, ki bi jih morale plačati stranke, če bi izgubile.
Equitable’s strategy has been to scare away potential litigants by threatening to run up high legal costs which they would have to pay if they lost.
Drugič, nikoli niso dovolili, da bi zadeva prišla na sodišče, ker so vedeli, da bodo izgubili in da bi s tem spodbudili vložitev zahtevkov drugih strank ter bi bili prisiljeni, da razkrijejo dokaze, za katere bi raje videli, da ne pridejo v javnost “ (WE-CONF- 12).
Secondly, they would never allow a case to get into court because they know they would lose and that would encourage others to launch a claim as well as forcing disclosure of evidence they would prefer did not come into public view " (WE-CONF- 12).
Zato odbor nima podatkov o natančnem številu zadev, ki so jih vložili zavarovanci zoper družbo ELAS v preteklosti.
Thus, the committee lacks information about the exact number of cases initiated by policyholders against ELAS in the past.
Dokazi kažejo, da sodbe ni bilo, ker so glede zadev običajno dosegli izvensodno poravnavo s klavzulami o zaupnosti.
Evidence seems to suggest that there has not been any judgement because cases were usually settled out-of-court under confidentiality clauses.
SCAWEN (H3) je v zvezi z zadevami, ki še niso bile rešene, povedal, da skupina rentnikov z življenjskim zavarovanjem s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice toži družbo ELAS.
As regards ongoing cases, the committee was made aware by Mr SCAWEN (H3) that a group of with-profits annuitants is currently pursuing claims against the Society.
Pojasnil je, da je skupina razvila mehanizem, s katerim se upravičenci „ vzajemno zavarujejo “, če ena zadeva ali več zadev ne bi bilo uspešnih, in da se zahtevek vloži le s pomočjo odvetniške družbe, ki je pripravljena delati brezplačno, če zahtevek ni uspešen.
He explained that the group has developed a mechanism by which the claimants " mutually insure " each other if one or more of the cases failed and that the claim was only made possible by a law firm which was willing to take on the case on a 'no win, no fee' basis.
Poleg tega je bil odbor obveščen, da je irski zavarovanec sprožil pravdni spor in da eno zadevo obravnava nemško sodišče (glej spodaj).
In addition, the committee was informed that one Irish policyholder has commenced litigation and that another case is said to be pending before a German court (see below).
Na kratko, začetek sodnih postopkov proti družbi ELAS v skladu z oddelkom 62 Zakona o finančnih storitvah iz leta 1986 o zavajanju ali malomarnem svetovanju je bil v teoriji mogoč način, da oškodovani zavarovanci dobijo odškodnino.
In summary, the launch of court proceedings against ELAS under Section 62 of the Financial Services Act 1986 or for misrepresentation or for negligent advice was, in theory, a possible route for aggrieved policyholders to obtain redress.
V praksi pa posredni dokazi kažejo, da se je le nekaj premožnih zavarovancev odločilo za to pot in tako doseglo poravnavo z družbo ELAS, medtem ko povprečen zavarovanec zaradi velikih finančnih tveganj ni tožil družbe ELAS.
In practice, however, circumstantial evidence suggests that only few affluent policyholders took this route and consequently reached settlements with the Society, whereas the significant financial risks under the UK legal system prevented the average policyholder from suing the Society.
Poleg tega so zadeve praktično vseh oškodovanih zavarovancev zdaj že zastarale v skladu z Zakonom Združenega kraljestva o zastaranju, ker so se glavni dogodki v družbi ELAS zgodili v letih 1998–2000.
Furthermore, since the main events at ELAS date back to 1998-2000, virtually all aggrieved policyholders are by now time barred under the UK Limitations Act.
Zato je bila v praksi za veliko večino zavarovancev Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve edini vir civilnega pravosodja.
In practice, therefore, for the vast majority of policyholders, the Financial Ombudsman Service had been the only source of civil justice.
Oškodovani zavarovanci bi lahko zahtevke teoretično utemeljili s trditvijo, da zakonodajalec Združenega kraljestva ni ščitil zavarovancev z izvajanjem nadzora nad računovodenjem in praksami oblikovanja rezervacij ter finančnim položajem družbe Equitable Life v skladu z zakonodajo Združenega kraljestva.
Aggrieved policyholders could, in theory, base their claims on alleged failure of the UK Regulator to protect policyholders by exercising supervision of accounting and provisioning practices and the financial situation of Equitable Life in accordance with UK law.
Pritožbe, da regulativni organi Združenega kraljestva niso izvajali bonitetnega nadzora, je veliko prič predložilo ustno (glej na primer LAKE, H1; WEIR, H2; BELLORD, H2; JOSEPHS, H2; KWANTES, H7; SEYMOUR, H7; BRAITHWAITE, H11) in pisno (glej na primer WE 4, WE 7, WE 8, WE 14, WE 15, WE 36, WE 44, WE 51, WE 52).
The allegation that the UK regulatory authorities failed in respect of prudential supervision has been put forward by numerous witnesses orally (see for instance Mr LAKE, H1; Mr WEIR, H2; Mr BELLORD, H2; Mr JOSEPHS, H2, Ms KWANTES, H7, Mr SEYMOUR H7, Mr BRAITHWAITE, H11) and in writing (see for instance WE 4, WE 7, WE 8, WE 14, WE 15, WE 36, WE 44, WE 51, WE 52).
Te pritožbe zajema del III tega poročila.
These are covered in Part III of this report.
Nekatere priče so navedle, da zakonodajalec ni le opustil izvajanja nadzora, ampak je tudi zavajal zavarovance, ki so se nanj obrnili v zvezi z družbo Equitable Life.
Some witnesses suggested that the regulator not only failed to fulfil its supervisory functions but also misled policyholders who had approached them in relation to Equitable Life.
VINALL je v WE 43 na primer navedel, da se je na začetku leta 2001 obrnil na Organ za finančne storitve, ko so težave glede solventnosti družbe ELAS postale očitne in so o njih obsežno poročali tiskani mediji po vsem Združenem kraljestvu.
Mr VINALL, for instance, claims in WE 43 that he contacted the FSA in early 2001 at a time when the solvency problems faced by ELAS became apparent and were widely reported in the press throughout the UK.