natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Vendar se je 12. avgusta 2003 na spletni strani družbe pojavilo sporočilo: "Bodite prosim pozorni, da polic, sklenjenih z družbami Equitable International, Equitable Germany in Equitable Ireland, ne ureja organ za finančne storitve".
However, Equitable's website (on 12 August 2003) included the following statement 'Please note that policies with Equitable International, Equitable Germany and Equitable Ireland are not regulated by the FSA'.
Glede na to, da se sporočilo nanaša na police in ne podružnice kot take, ni jasno, zakaj naj organ za finančne storitve ne bi bil pristojen za ureditev Equitable Ireland, saj ne gre za ločen pravni subjekt...".
While this statement refers to 'policies' rather than the branch itself, it is not clear how it can be said that the FSA is not responsible for the regulation of Equitable Ireland given the fact that it is not a separate legal entity and the provisions of the Directive ... ".
V zvezi z obravnavo pritožb zavarovancev je irski zakonodajalec na področju financ navedel, da na splošno ni imel pooblastila za obravnavo pritožb ter jih je zato poslal irskemu varuhu človekovih pravic na zavarovalniškem področju.
As regards the treatment of policyholders' complaints, the Irish financial regulator indicated that in general it did not have the power to adjudicate on them and therefore referred complainants to the Insurance Ombudsman of Ireland.
V nasprotju s tem ima nemški zakonodajalec takšna pooblastila in je sprejel pritožbe glede družbe ELAS.
By contrast, the German regulator does have such powers and received complaints about ELAS.
Kljub temu večina pritožb domnevno zadeva vprašanja bonitetnega nadzora, zato jih nemški zakonodajalec ni obravnaval.
However, most complaints purportedly concerned matters of prudential supervision, and were therefore not dealt with by the German regulator.
Dokazi kažejo, da je nemški zakonodajalec pritožnikom, kadar predmet pritožbe očitno ne spada na področje njegove pristojnosti, svetoval, naj vzpostavijo stik z Organom za finančne storitve, medtem ko je irski zakonodajalec pritožnike običajno usmeril k irskemu varuhu človekovih pravic na zavarovalniškem področju.
Evidence shows that, where the matters complained about clearly fell outside its remit, the German regulator advised complainants to contact the FSA, whereas the Irish regulator generally referred complainants to the Irish Insurance Ombudsman.
Nemški zakonodajalec ni izdal nobenih prepričljivih dokazov, ki bi kazali, ali (seveda v zvezi s poslovanjem) je prejel pritožbe o zlorabi pri prodaji v zvezi z vprašanjem zajamčenih rent ter kako so bile obravnavane.
No conclusive evidence could be obtained form the German regulator as to whether (clearly conduct of business related) mis-selling complaints in connection with the GAR issue were received and how these were treated.
Glede na to, da nemški zakonodajalec ni verjel, da je družba ELAS kršila nemška pravila o poslovanju, je treba predvidevati, da bi bile vse takšne pritožbe zavrnjene.
Given that the German regulator did not believe that ELAS had breached any German conduct of business rules, it must be assumed that any such complaints would have been rejected.
V splošnih izjavah s stališča potrošnikov je WESTPHAL trdil, da so „ čezmejne pritožbe [...] pogosto zavrnjene s strani nadzornega organa države potrošnika “, pri čemer pritožniku navedejo, da „ je za to odgovoren nadzornik domače države izvajalca “ (WS2).
Commenting in general terms from the perspective of consumers, Mr WESTPHAL claimed that " cross-border complaints are often rejected by the supervisory authority of the country of the consumer " telling the complainant that " the home country supervisor of the provider would be responsible " (WS2).
Po njegovem mnenju bi moral imeti organ države potrošnika jasno odgovornost za obravnavo pritožb, ne glede na to, ali predmet pritožbe spada na področje njegove odgovornosti za nadzor, ker se ne more pričakovati, da se bo potrošnik lahko obrnil na zakonodajni organ v drugi državi članici in (morda) v tujem jeziku (glej WE-FILE 28
In his view, the authority of the country of the consumer should have a clear responsibility for dealing with complaints, irrespective of whether or not the matters complained about fall under its supervisory responsibility, because the consumer could not be expected to address regulatory authorities in another Member State and (possibly) in a foreign language (see WE-FILE 28
Zato WESTPHAL meni, da mora organ domače države potrošnika, če se pritožba nanaša na bonitetni nadzor, sprejeti pritožbo, jo posredovati zakonodajalcu za bonitetne zadeve in jo poskušati rešiti v sodelovanju s tem zakonodajalcem.
Thus, if a complaint relates to prudential supervision, the authority of the consumer's home country should take it up, bring it to the attention of the prudential regulator and attempt to resolve it in cooperation with that regulator, according to Mr WESTPHAL.
Razen tega dokazi, ki jih je prejel odbor, kažejo, da je bil v zvezi z družbo Equitable Life vsaj en primer, ko je nemški zakonodajalec pritožbo razlagal kot vprašanje finančnega nadzora, medtem ko je zakonodajalec Združenega kraljestva isto pritožbo obravnaval kot vprašanje poslovanja.
In addition, evidence received by the committee suggests that, in relation to Equitable Life, there was at least one case where a complaint was interpreted by the German regulator as concerning a financial supervision issue, while the UK regulator regarded the same complaint as conduct of business related.
Pritožnika se je tako pošiljalo od domačega zakonodajalca k tujemu.
The complainant was therefore referred forth and back between home and host regulator.
Medtem ko se zdi, da omenjeni primer dejansko zadeva vprašanje poslovanja, je treba omeniti, da obstaja „ sivo območje med bonitetnim nadzorom in nadzorom poslovanja “ (WE-CONF 18
While the case mentioned indeed appears to concern a conduct of business issue, it must be noted that there exists a " grey area between prudential and conduct of business supervision " (WE-CONF 18
Stran 8. ), za katerega se zdi, da je organom domače in tuje države omogočil medsebojno podajanje odgovornosti za obravnavo pritožb.
Page 8. ) which seems to have allowed home and host state authorities to shift responsibility for dealing with complaints on to one another.
HOLMES to izrazi tako (WE 84
Mr HOLMES puts it the following way (WE 84
Strani 27-28. ): „ V zvezi z razdelitvijo zakonodajnih pristojnosti dokazi, ki jih je slišal preiskovalni odbor, razkrivajo težave potrošnikov pri določanju, katera pravila veljajo za njihove police ter kateri nacionalni zakonodajalec je pristojen za njihove pritožbe .
Pages 27-28. ): " As regards the division of regulatory competence, the evidence heard by the Committee of Inquiry reveals the difficulties for consumers in determining what rules are applicable to their contracts, and which national regulator is competent to hear their complaints.
Zaradi negotovosti obstaja tveganje zakonodajnega podajanja odgovornosti v čezmejnih primerih, pri katerih vsak nacionalni zakonodajalec poskuša dodeliti odgovornost drugemu; razdelitev pristojnosti deluje v teoriji, vendar ostaja negotovo, ali je tudi v praksi učinkovita.“
Given the uncertainties, there may be a risk of regulatory 'ping-pong' in cross-border situations in which each national regulator attempts to assign responsibility to the other; the division of competence works in theory but it is unclear whether it operates effectively in practice ".
Končno je treba omeniti, da se zdi, da so se irski in nemški zakonodajalci odzvali na številna poizvedovanja in prošnje zavarovancev za dostop do informacij.
Finally, it must be noted that both Irish and German regulators appear to have responded to numerous queries and requests for information from policyholders.
Obstajajo prepričljivi dokazi, ki kažejo, da so dejavno poskušali pridobiti informacije od zakonodajalca Združenega kraljestva ter jih posredovati irskim in nemškim zavarovancem.
There is convincing evidence indicating that they proactively sought to obtain information from the UK regulator and passed it on to Irish and German policyholders.
Kljub temu mednarodni zavarovanci dejansko niso mogli dobiti odškodnine za škodo, ki so jo imeli, prek svojih zadevnih nacionalnih organov za finančne storitve.
In essence, however, international policyholders were not able to get redress for their grievances through their respective national financial services authorities.
Številni zavarovanci so poskušali dobiti odškodnino prek zadevnih nacionalnih shem varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve.
A number of policyholders tried to obtain redress through their respective national Ombudsman schemes.
V zvezi s položajem na Irskem MEADE v WE 62 razloži, da je bil na zakonski podlagi iz Zakona o centralni banki in Organu za finančne storitve iz leta 2004 ustanovljen Urad varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve ter je začel delovati 1. aprila 2005.
As regards the situation in Ireland, Mr MEADE explains in WE 62 that the Office of Financial Services Ombudsman (FSO) was established on a statutory basis under the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority Act of 2004 and began operations on 1 April 2005.
Varuh človekovih pravic za finančne storitve je neodvisen organ, ki je pristojen za preiskovanje, posredovanje in obravnavo pritožb o delovanju „izvajalcev reguliranih finančnih storitev“, vključno z zagotavljanjem finančnih storitev, ponudbo za izvajanje takšne storitve ali zavrnitvijo izvajanja ali neuspehom pri njenem izvajanju.
The Financial Services Ombudsman is an independent officer with the power to investigate, mediate and adjudicate on complaints about the conduct of ‘regulated financial services providers’ involving the provision of a financial service, an offer to provide such a service or a refusal or a failure to provide such a service.
Njegova pristojnost ni omejena na izvajalce finančnih storitev, ki imajo dovoljenje za delovanje na Irskem.
His jurisdiction is not restricted to financial services providers authorised in Ireland.
Zato lahko preiskuje tudi pritožbe „ o izvajalcih finančnih storitev, katerih poslovanje je predmet ureditve organa, ki v državi EGS opravlja funkcije, primerljive s funkcijami banke ali regulativnega organa “ (glej ES 3).
Thus, he may also investigate complaints “ about financial services providers whose business is subject to regulation by an authority that performs functions in an EEA country that are comparable to the functions performed by the Bank or the Regulatory Authority ” (See ES 3).
Pritožbe bi obravnaval le, ko je pritožnik izkoristil vse možnosti notranjega pritožbenega postopka izvajalca.
He would only consider complaints when the complainant has availed of the internal complaints procedure of his provider before.
Pritožb o zadevi, ki se je zgodila šest let pred vlogo pritožbe, in zadev, ki so bile (ali so) predmet sodnih postopkov na sodišču, ni mogoče preiskati.
Complaints on matters which occurred six years before the complaint is made and matters which were (or are) subject to legal proceedings before a court or tribunal cannot be investigated.
Varuh človekovih pravic ima številna pooblastila.
The Ombudsman has extensive powers.
Med drugim lahko izvajalce finančnih storitev usmerja k „ plačevanju odškodnine pritožniku za vse izgube, stroške ali neprijetnosti, ki jih je imel pritožnik zaradi poslovanja, glede katerega se pritožuje “ (glej ES 3
Among other things, he can direct the financial services provider to “ pay an amount of compensation to the complainant for any loss, expense or inconvenience sustained by the complainant as a result of the conduct complained of ” (see ES 3
Stran 86. ).
Page 86. ).
Višina odškodnine, ki jo lahko podeli, je omejena na 250 000 EUR.
The amount of compensation he can award is limited to €250,000.
Odločitve Urada varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve so zavezujoče za pritožnika in izvajalca finančnih storitev, ki se zoper nje lahko pritožita le na višjem sodišču.
The FSO’s decisions are binding on both parties subject only to an appeal by either the complainant or the financial service provider to the High Court.
MEADE je v WE 63 navedel, da je vse od ustanovitve zakonsko predpisana Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve prejela 7 pritožb o družbi Equitable Life.
Mr MEADE indicated in WE 63 that since its establishment, the statutory Financial Services Ombudsman has received 7 complaints on Equitable Life.
Zadevale so obtožbe o „ zlorabi pri prodaji in dejstvo, da ljudje niso bili ustrezno obveščeni “ (WE 68).
They concerned allegations of “mis-selling and the fact that people were not properly informed” (WE 68).
Vendar se nobena od teh pritožb ni preiskala, ker „ jih ne zadeva pravilo šestih let in so bile poleg tega predmet [odškodninske] sheme ureditve“ (WE 68).
However, none of these complaints was investigated since “they fell outside the six year rule and furthermore they had been subject to the [compromise] scheme of arrangement” (WE 68).
Glavni dogodki v družbi Equitable Life so potekali pred ustanovitvijo zakonsko predpisane sheme.
The main events at Equitable Life took place before the establishment of the statutory scheme.
Takrat je pritožbe v zvezi z zavarovalnicami, ki so bile članice sheme, vključno z družbo ELAS, obravnavala prostovoljna shema irskega varuha človekovih pravic na zavarovalniškem področju.
At that time, the voluntary Insurance Ombudsman of Ireland (IOI) scheme dealt with complaints concerning insurance providers, which were members of the scheme, including ELAS.
Vendar zavarovanci niso mogli utemeljiti svojih izjav s pisnimi dokazi v odgovor na zahtevo odbora, zaradi česar se zdi, da niso pravilno razumeli resničnih razlogov, zakaj je irski varuh človekovih pravic za zavarovalniško področje zavrnil njihovo pritožbo.
However, the policyholders were not able to substantiate their statements by written evidence in response to a request by the committee and they rather appear to have misperceived the reasons for the IOI to reject their complaint.
O’Deajeva je v (H4) izjavila, da je Ministrstvo za podjetja, trgovino in zaposlovanje, takratni zakonodajalec na področju financ, pritožbe v zvezi z družbo Equitable Life posredoval irskemu varuhu človekovih pravic za zavarovalniško področje.
Ms O’Dea (H4) said that the Department of Enterprise, Trade & Employment, financial regulator at the time, referred complainants about Equitable Life to the IOI.
Kot navaja WE 68, je irski varuh človekovih pravic za zavarovalniško področje prejel skupno 79 pritožb v zvezi z družbo Equitable Life.
According to WE 68, the IOI received a total of 79 complaints related to Equitable Life.
Kadar je bila pritožba ustreznejša za Službo varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve Združenega kraljestva, se je pritožniku svetovalo, da vzpostavi stik s to službo, poleg tega je prejel vse ustrezne podrobnosti“ (WE 68).
Where a complaint was more appropriate to the Financial Ombudsman Service of the UK, the complainant was advised that he should contact that office and was given the necessary details ” (WE 68).
MEADE je še dodal: " kadar je bila polica v Združenem kraljsetvu prodana zakonodajalcu, je bila zanjo odgovorna služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve Združenega kraljestva", medtem ko " je o pritožbi o prodani polici na Irskem odločal irski varuh človekovih pravic za zavarovalniško področje ".
Later, Mr MEADE specified that " where a policy was sold in the UK to a policyholder, that was the responsibility of the Financial Ombudsman Service in the UK " whereas " a complaint regarding a policy sold in Ireland ... was decided on by the IOI ".
Glede na WE 68 je bilo od 79 prejetih zadev „ 14 ...naslovljenih na Službo varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve v Združenem kraljestvu ali Zavarovalniško združenje Irske“ .
According to WE 68, of the 79 cases received “ 14 ... were referred either to the Financial Ombudsman Service in the UK or to the Insurance Federation of Ireland ”.
Razen tega je izjavil, da „ ne ve za dodeljene odškodnine, če obstajajo, ki bi jih v posameznih primerih dodelila Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve [v Združenem kraljestvu]“ (glej WE 68).
He stated furthermore that he is “ not aware of compensation awards, if any, made in individual cases by the [ UK ] FOS " (see WE 68).
Dokazi, ki jih je predložila KNOWDOVA v WE-CONF 28 in kažejo na zmedo med zavarovanci, varuhom človekovih pravic in družbo ELAS glede tega, ali bi morala irski varuh človekovih pravic za zavarovalniško področje in Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve obravnavati določene pritožbe.
Evidence submitted by Ms KNOWD in WE-CONF 28 and in H2 illustrates that there had been some confusion among policyholders, ombudsmen and ELAS about whether the IOI and FOS should deal with certain complaints.
V H2 je KNOWDOVA, ki v WE 33 trdi, da je polico kupila pri dublinški podružnici družbe ELAS, zatrdila, da je bila njena pritožba irskemu varuhu človekovih pravic „ zavrnjena na podlagi dejstva, da je zunaj pristojnosti varuha “.
Ms KNOWD who indicates in WE 33 that she had purchased her policy from ELAS Dublin branch claimed that her complaint to the Irish Ombudsman was “ rejected on the basis of being outside her jurisdiction ” (H2).
To je v nasprotju z izjavo MEADEJA, ki je zatrdil, da naj bi irski varuh človekovih pravic obravnaval pritožbe o policah družbe ELES, prodanih na Irskem.
This contrasts with Mr MEADE's statement above, who declared that the IOI would have dealt with complaints about ELAS policies sold in Ireland.
Kljub temu se je KNOWDOVA odločila, da zaprosi ELAS za „ potrditev pisma za Službo varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve “, vendar ji je družba ELAS odgovorila, da „ varuh človekovih pravic Združenega kraljestva ni pristojen za obravnavo irskih pritožnikov “.
Nevertheless, Ms KNOWD decided to ask ELAS for " a signing-off letter for the FOS " but was told in return by ELAS that " the UK Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction to deal with Irish complainants ".
Ko je vztrajala, je družba ELAS vendarle izdala potrdilno pismo, vendar jo je še naprej odvračala od pritožbe na Službo varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve, tokrat z izjavo, „ da vprašanje, ali je Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve pristojna za irske police, še zdaleč ni pojasnjeno, ... [je] zapleteno in potrebnega bo veliko časa, da se ga razreši“ (glej WE-CONF 28).
When she insisted, ELAS appears to have issued the signing-off letter but continued to discourage her from complaining to the FOS, this time stating " that the question of whether the FOS has jurisdiction over Irish policies is far from clear, ... [is] complex and take[s] a considerable time to resolve " (see WE-CONF 28).
Končno je po 18 mesecih njeno pritožbo sprejela Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve (glej spodaj).
Eventually, after 18 months, her complaint was admitted by the FOS (see below).
Preostalih 65 primerov je obravnaval irski varuh človekovih pravic za zavarovalniško področje.
The remaining 65 cases were dealt with by the IOI.
Pritožbe so zadevale številna vprašanja, kot so obtožbe o zlorabi pri prodaji, uporaba prilagoditev tržne vrednosti, ravni bonusov, zneskov za poravnavo in odkupnih vrednosti (glej WE 63).
The complaints concerned a variety of issues such as allegations of mis-selling, the application of market value adjustments, bonus rates, settlement amounts and surrender values (see WE 63).
MEADE ni mogel natančno določiti, koliko pritožnikov se je pritožilo, da niso bili obveščeni o obstoju tveganj v zvezi z zajamčenimi rentami, ko so kupovali police zavarovalnice: „ Naši dokumenti niso vsebovali podrobnih analiz v zvezi z obstojem zajamčenih rent “ (WE 68).
Mr MEADE could not specify how many of the complainants alleged that they were not informed about the existence of the GAR-related risks when they bought their policies: " Our files do not contain detailed analyses regarding the existence of GAR " (WE 68).
Podobno izjavlja, da bi bilo, „ ker so nekateri od teh dokumentov starejši od šest let, težko količinsko določiti, koliko jih je navedlo, da so bila njihova sredstva vložena v omejen irski sklad “ (WE 68).
Likewise, he stated that " as some of these files are more than six years old they are no longer kept in line with the six year Companies Act requirements , it would be difficult to quantify how many indicated that they were invested in a ring-fenced Irish fund " (WE 68).
Zato ni jasno, koliko od teh 65 zadev, ki jih je obravnaval irski varuh človekovih pravic za zavarovalniško področje, je pomembnih v smislu glavnih obtožb o zlorabi pri prodaji iz točke IX 2 c.).
Thus it is not clear how many of the 65 cases considered by the IOI are of relevance in terms of the main mis-selling allegations referred to under point IX 2 c.)
Od preostalih 72 zadev jih je bilo 13 zavezanih odškodninski shemi ureditve, 15 pa jih to ni zadevalo.
Of the remaining 72 cases, 13 were bound by the compromise scheme of arrangement and 15 fell outside the terms of reference.
Razen tega „ je bilo predloženih 7 zadev v zvezi s pojasnitvijo, ki se niso nadalje obravnavale, medtem ko se 4 druge zadeve niso obravnavale, ker pritožnik ni predložil dovolj informacij “ (WE 68).
Furthermore, " 7 cases regarding clarification arose and were not pursued further, and 4 other cases were not pursued because of a lack of information being supplied by the complainant " (WE 68).
Odločitve so bile sprejete le v zvezi s preostalimi 33 zadevami, od katerih jih je bilo 15 odločenih „ v korist pritožnika “ (WE 68), kar predstavlja 17 % vseh predloženih pritožb.
Decisions were only issued on the remaining 33 cases, 15 of which " in favour of the complainant " (WE 68), which represents 17% of all complaints submitted.
MEADE ni nakazal, ali so te zadeve zadevale glavne obtožbe o zlorabi pri prodaji iz točke IX 2 c.), ki so jih predložili oškodovanci družbe ELAS.
Again, Mr MEADE did not indicate, whether these cases concerned the main mis-selling allegations referred to under point IX 2 c.), which were put forward by ELAS victims.
Ena pritožba je bila zavrnjena, ker je bil zavarovanec krit s sporazumnim dogovorom.
One complaint was rejected because the policyholder was covered by the compromise agreement.
Druga pritožba ni bila sprejeta, ker je vrednost zahtevka presegala 160.000 EUR.
Another complaint was not admitted because the value of the claim exceeded €160.000
Irski varuh človekovih pravic je tudi zavrnil obravnavo pritožbe, ki se sklicuje na njegovo "absolutno diskrecijsko pravico" do opredeljevanja, ali pritožba spada v njegovo pristojnost ter predlaga, naj namesto tega zadeve, o katerih se pritožujejo, obravnava sodišče
The IOI however, also refused to deal with the complaint making reference to its " absolute discretion" to determine whether a complaint falls within its terms of reference and suggesting that the matters complained about should be dealt with by a court instead.
Četrto zavrnjeno pritožbo je vložila KNOWDOVA, omenjena v prejšnjem odstavku. .
The fourth rejected complaint is the one submitted by Ms KNOWD, which is referred to in a previous paragraph.
Prav tako ni jasno, na podlagi katerih pravnih zahtev je irski varuh človekovih pravic za zavarovalniško področje ocenil pritožbe o zlorabi pri prodaji: MEADE je v WE 68 ponudil naslednji odgovor na pisno vprašanje odbora: „ Ko so bile prejete pritožbe, se pravila o poslovanju še niso uporabljala.
It is also unclear on the basis of which legal requirements the IOI assessed mis-selling complaints: Mr MEADE in WE 68 provided the following answer to the committee's written question: " At the time the complaints were received, the conduct of business rules [were] not in operation.
Kljub temu je irski varuh človekovih pravic za zavarovalniško področje te pritožbe pregledal s praktičnega vidika in preučil, ali so pritožniki prejeli ustrezno gradivo v zvezi s produktom ... “
However, the Insurance Ombudsman of Ireland looked at those complaints from a practical view and considered whether the complainants had been given all of the relevant material regarding the product... ".