natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Direktiva določa, da morajo države članice zagotoviti, da imajo pristojni organi dovolj pooblastil in sredstev za opravljanje nadzornih funkcij (glej člen 10 tretje direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju).
The Directive prescribes that Member States must ensure that competent authorities have sufficient powers and means to carry out their supervisory functions (see Article 10 3LD).
Nasprotno s tem direktiva pristojnim organom dopušča odstopanje od uporabe pravil le v omejenem številu primerov in pod strogimi pogoji, vendar se zdi, da direktiva pristojnemu organu države članice nikjer ne daje takšne pravice odstopanja, kot jo določa oddelek 68 Zakona o zavarovalnicah iz leta 1982.
The Directive, by contrast, allows the competent authority to waive the application of rules only on a limited number of occasions and subject to stringent conditions but it seems that nowhere in the Directive is the competent authority of a Member State entrusted with such waiver powers as those prescribed by section 68 of the ICA 1982.
Preiskava mora zagotoviti, ali takšna pooblastila vključujejo tveganje popustljivega ali nedoslednega izvajanja, kar lahko koristi nekaterim zavarovalnicam, drugim pa ne, s čimer se lahko ogrozi uporaba usklajenih standardov.
The investigation must ascertain whether such powers entail the risk of being exercised in a lenient or inconsistent way that might have been beneficial to some companies but not to others, thereby possibly undermining the application of harmonised standards.
Razen tega se pojavlja vprašanje, ali bi se bilo mogoče škandalu družbe ELAS izogniti, če bi bila ta pooblastila omejena.
Moreover, the issue is whether the ELAS scandal would have been avoided, had those powers been constrained.
Oddelek 68 Zakona o zavarovalnicah iz leta 1982
Section 68 of the ICA 1982
Poglejmo oddelek 68 podrobneje.
Let us look at section 68 more closely.
V skladu z oddelkom 68 zakona lahko zunanji minister na zahtevo zavarovatelja ali z njegovim dovoljenjem in pod določenimi pogoji odstopa od uporabe pravil varnega in skrbnega poslovanja v zvezi z določeno zavarovalnico.
Under section 68 of the Act, the Secretary of State may, upon request or with the consent from an insurer and provided certain conditions are met, waive the application of prudential rules to that particular company.
Je ta diskrecijska pravica v skladu s tretjo direktivo o življenjskem zavarovanju?
Is this discretion compatible with the 3LD?
Oddelek 68 ima naslov „Pooblastilo za spremembo dela II v zvezi z določenimi podjetji“.
Section 68 is entitled “Power to modify Part II in relation to particular companies”.
Besedilo tega oddelka odobrava široka pooblastila ministrstva, da pri določenih podjetjih ne uporabi številnih oddelkov Zakona o zavarovalnicah in predpisov iz teh oddelkov (ali jih uporabi v spremenjeni obliki).
The wording of this section accords the Secretary of State generous powers not to apply to particular companies (or apply with modifications) a substantive number of sections of the ICA and regulations made under those sections.
V skladu z odstavkom (4) se lahko zunanji minister odloči, ali bo uporabil naslednje določbe:
According to paragraph (4), the Secretary of State may decide not to apply the following provisions:
„…oddelki 16 do 22, 23(1) in oddelki 25 do 36 tega zakona, določbe prepisov za namene katerega koli oddelka in določbe katerega koli predpisa o vrednotenju. […]”
“…sections 16 to 22, 23(1) and 25 to 36 of this Act, the provisions of regulations made for the purposes of any of those sections and the provisions of any valuation regulations. […]”
To široko področje uporabe določb lahko vpliva na uporabo številnih bonitetnih ureditev, vključno z, med drugim, predpisi o regulativnih poročilih, zahtevami glede zavarovalno-tehničnih rezervacij in zahtevami glede solventnosti, po presoji ministrstva.
This broad scope of provisions potentially affects the application of a vast number of prudential regulations, including, amongst other things, regulations on regulatory returns, technical provision requirements and solvency requirements to the Secretary of State’s discretion.
Ministrstvo mora uporabiti svojo diskrecijsko pravico, da ne uporabi omenjenih določb na zahtevo zadevne zavarovalnice ali z njenim soglasjem, za kar mora pridobiti dovoljenje v obliki naloga.
The Secretary of State must exercise his discretion not to apply the referred provisions at the request or with the consent of the insurance company concerned and the authorization must take the form of an order.
Oddelek 68 nadalje določa, da lahko ministrstvo dovoljenje izda pod določenimi pogoji in ga kadar koli prekliče.
Section 68 goes on to stipulate that the Secretary of State may subject the authorization to specific conditions and may revoke it at any time.
Nobena druga formalnost ali standard ne ustreza uporabi pooblastil ministrstva, da sprejme odločitev glede neuporabe zadevnih določb v primeru določenih zavarovalnic.
No other formalities or standards qualify the exercise by the Secretary of State of the power to decide not to apply relevant provisions to particular insurance companies.
Tretja direktiva o življenjskem zavarovanju določa, da morajo države članice zagotoviti, da imajo pristojni organi zadostna pooblastila in sredstva za izvajanje nadzora, vendar pristojnim organom dopušča odstopanje od uporabe pravil le v omejenem številu primerov in pod strogimi pogoji
The 3LD prescribes that Member States must ensure that competent authorities have sufficient powers and means to carry out their supervisory functions but allows the competent authority to waive the application of rules only on a limited number of occasions and subject to stringent conditions
Razen člena 25 tretje direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju glej člen 21 tretje direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju v zvezi z odobritvijo drugih kategorij sredstev za kritje zavarovalno-tehničnih rezervacij ter člen 22 tretje direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju v zvezi z dovoljenjem za uveljavitev izjem k pravilom o razpršenosti naložb.
Apart from article 25 3LD itself, see Article 21 3LD relating to the authorisation of other categories of assets as cover for technical provisions, and Article 22 3LD relating to the authorisation to introduce exceptions to the rules on investment diversification.
Glede na člen 22 in na ravni Združenega kraljestva oddelek 68 Zakona o zavarovalnicah iz leta 1982 ima ministrstvo pooblastilo, da odstopi od uporabe predpisov za vrednotenje sredstev pri določenih družbah, čeprav izvajanje tega pooblastila ne ustreza standardom, ki jih predpisuje direktiva. .
Regarding Article 22, at UK level, according to section 68 of the ICA 1982, the Secretary of State has the power to waive the application of valuation of assets regulations to particular companies, although the exercise of that power is not qualified by the same standards prescribed by the Directive. .
Široka pooblastila v zvezi z odstopanjem, ki so določena v oddelku 68 Zakona o zavarovalnicah iz leta 1982, v direktivi niso omenjena.
The broad waiver powers prescribed by section 68 of the ICA 1982 are nowhere to be found in the Directive.
Omeniti je treba, da prejšnje opombe ne veljajo za ureditev, ki zdaj velja v Združenem kraljestvu.
It must be noted that the previous comments do not apply to the UK regime currently in force.
Zakon o finančnih storitvah in trgih iz leta 2000, ki je med drugim preklical Zakon o zavarovalnicah iz leta 1982, pooblašča zakonodajalca, zdaj Organ za finančne storitve, da odstopa od uporabe bonitetnih ureditev v primeru določenih podjetij.
The Financial and Services Market Act 2000, which has revoked, amongst other things, the ICA 1982, also authorizes the regulator, now the FSA, to waive the application of prudential regulations to particular companies.
Razlika med tem in oddelkom 68 Zakona o zavarovalnicah iz leta 1982 je, da sedanja pravila vključujejo strožje kvalifikacije in precej podrobnejše formalnosti za izvajanje diskrecijskih pravic, ki jih daje zakon, s strani Organa za finančne storitve.
The difference between this and section 68 of the ICA 1982 is that current rules include stricter qualifications and much more detailed formalities for the exercise by the FSA of the discretion granted by the Act.
Te razlike kažejo očitno nezdružljivost med zakonodajo Združenega kraljestva in zahtevami tretje direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju, ki sproža resne dvome, ali je bil člen 25 tretje direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju pravilno prenesen v zakonodajo Združenega kraljestva.
These divergences show an apparent incompatibility between UK law and the requirements of the 3LD, which raises serious concerns as to whether Article 25 of the 3LD was correctly transposed into UK law.
Neuspela sprememba Zakona o zavarovalnicah iz leta 1982 se lahko razlaga kot pomanjkljiv prenos tretje direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju, ker bi bilo treba zakon spremeniti leta 1992, da bi izražal spremembe tretje direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju.
Failure to amend the ICA 1982 could be construed as tantamount to defective transposition of the 3LD, given that the Act should have been modified in 1992 to reflect the requirements of the 3LD.
Za sklep v zvezi s členom 25: zgoraj navedeni dokazi kažejo, da je družba ELAS uporabila dve računovodski tehniki za dosego minimalnega kapitala, ki je izpolnil zahteve zakonodajalcev, vendar niso kazali resničnega finančnega stanja družbe.
To conclude as regards Article 25: the evidence quoted beforehand suggests that ELAS used two accounting techniques to achieve solvency margins that satisfied the regulators’ requirements but which did not truly reflect the financial health of the company.
Na podlagi tega dokaza sledi, da zakonodajalec ni storil vsega za zagotavljanje, da bi imela družba ELAS ves čas zadosten minimalni kapital glede na svoje celotno poslovanje.
According to this evidence, it follows therefore that the regulator did not do its utmost to ensure that ELAS had an adequate solvency margin in respect of its entire business at all times.
a) je obravnaval minimalni kapital v zelo ozkem smislu, ker v analizi ni upošteval vnaprej vračunanih terminalnih bonusov.
a) took a very narrow view of solvency margins because it did not take into account accrued terminal bonuses in its analysis.
To je družbi ELAS omogočilo, da se je zakonito izognila ustvarjanju rezerv za diskrecijske bonuse kot obveznosti, ki zato niso bili vračunani v njen minimalni kapital.
This allowed ELAS legally to avoid having to reserve for discretionary bonuses as liabilities, which were therefore not computed in its solvency margin.
Družba ELAS je s tem, ko ji je bilo dovoljeno, da umetno izpolni svoje zahteve glede solventnosti, skrivala resnico pred zavarovanci in ogrozila svojo finančno sposobnost v prihodnosti.
By being allowed to meet its solvency requirements artificially, ELAS hid the truth from policyholders and endangered its future financial viability.
Zato so bila ogrožena razumna pričakovanja zavarovancev.
Therefore, PRE were also put at risk.
Iz tega sledi, da so zakonodajalci Združenega kraljestva sprejeli ukrepe, ki niso bili „ ustrezni in potrebni za preprečevanje ali odpravo vseh nepravilnosti, ki ogrožajo interese zavarovancev ” (člen 10), in niso zagotovili, da bi družba ELAS delovala skladno z zakonodajo Združenega kraljestva, tj. razumnimi pričakovanji zavarovancev;
It follows that UK regulators took measures that were not “ appropriate and necessary to prevent or remedy any irregularities prejudicial to the interests of the assured persons” (Article 10) and did not ensure that ELAS complied with UK law, i.e., PRE;
b) je družbi ELAS prepogosto odobril uporabo prihodnjih dobičkov in zilmerjevih rezerv kot implicitnih sredstev; to je zmanjšalo zanesljivost in resničnost minimalnega kapitala; zato je mogoče trditi, da se člen 25 ni spoštoval, ker zakonodajalci Združenega kraljestva niso izpolnili svoje obveznosti, da bi od družbe ELAS zahtevali „ ves čas ustrezen razpoložljiv minimalni kapital glede na njeno celotno poslovno dejavnost “.
b) authorized too frequently the use of future profits and Zillmerising by ELAS as part of the implicit assets; this diminished the reliability and truthfulness of the solvency margin; it could therefore be argued that Article 25 was not respected because the UK regulators did not fulfil their obligation to require from ELAS an “adequate available solvency margin in respect of its entire business at all times” .
Člen 28 – Javni interes (člen 33 kodificirane direktive)
Article 28 - General good (Article 33 of CD)
Nadzor tako imenovanih pravil poslovanja (tj. pogodbeni pogoji in prakse, ki vplivajo na stranke, ki sklepajo police) je drugo področje odgovornosti zakonodajalcev, ki jih imenujejo države članice.
The supervision of so-called "conduct of business" rules (i.e. contractual terms and practices affecting the consumer taking out a policy) is another field of responsibility of regulators appointed by Member States.
Ta člen državam članicam nalaga obveznost, da zavarovancem preprečijo sklepanje polic pri zavarovalnicah v okoliščinah, ki so v nasprotju z „javnim interesom“.
This article places on the Member State the commitment to prevent a policyholder from concluding a contract with an assurance company in circumstances that would be contrary to the “general good”.
Določba ne opredeli natančno pomena ali področja uporabe „javnega interesa“ ter njegovo opredelitev prepušča posamezni državi članici v skladu z njeno domačo zakonodajo.
The provision does not define the meaning or scope of the “general good”, leaving its definition to each Member State according to its domestic legislation.
Država članica obveznosti ne sme zavarovalcu preprečiti, da bi sklenil pogodbo z zavarovalnico, ki ima dovoljenje pod pogoji člena 6 Direktive 79/267/EGS, dokler to ni v nasprotju s predpisi, ki ščitijo javni interes v državi članici obveznosti
The Member State of the commitment shall not prevent a policy-holder from concluding a contract with an assurance undertaking authorized under the conditions of Article 6 of Directive 79/267/EEC, as long as that does not conflict with legal provisions protecting the general good in the Member State of the commitment.
Kot vsak domač pravni sistem tudi pravni sistem Združenega kraljestva vključuje odprt seznam določb, namenjenih varovanju javnega interesa, ki se včasih razlikuje in lahko vpliva na naravo zavarovalniških produktov, uporabljenih pogodbenih dokumentov, trženja in oglaševanja teh produktov ter bolj na splošno na pogoje, pod katerimi je treba izvajati zavarovalniške dejavnosti v državi članici obveznosti.
As with any domestic legal system, the UK legal system includes an open-ended list of provisions aimed at protecting the general good, which varies from time to time and may affect the nature of the assurance products, the contract documents used, the marketing and advertising of those products and, more generally, the conditions under which the insurance business must be carried on in the Member State of the commitment.
Seveda mora biti takšna zakonodaja, da je združljiva s pravom Skupnosti, namenjena varovanju interesov, ki niso varovani že s pravili domače države članice, uporabljati pa jo je treba brez razlikovanja za vse družbe, ki delujejo v zadevni državi članici, ter mora biti objektivno potrebna in sorazmerna z zadanimi cilji.
Of course, to be compatible with Community law, such legislation must be aimed at protecting interests which are not already safeguarded by the rules of the home Member State , it must be applied without discrimination to all undertakings operating in that Member State and must be objectively necessary and in proportion to the objective pursued.
Svetovalni organi Združenega kraljestva niso pripravili seznama pogojev, opisanih kot sestavnega dela javnega interesa.
The UK advisory authorities did not prepared a list of conditions described as constituting the general good.
Namesto tega so pripravili krajši seznam, v katerem so določili glavne zakone, ki urejajo zavarovalništvo v Združenem kraljestvu.
Instead, they prepared a non-exhaustive list outlining the principal enactments which regulate insurance business in the UK .
V primerjavi s pravno tradicijo drugje po Evropi je zakonodaja Združenega kraljestva manj odvisna od omejitev pogodbene avtonomije pogodbenic kot sredstva za varstvo javnega interesa.
In comparison with continental legal traditions, UK law tends to rely less on restrictions of the contractual autonomy of the parties as a means to protect the general good.
Ne glede na ta pristop Združeno kraljestvo vključuje številne določbe, ki so namenjene varovanju javnih interesov.
Notwithstanding this approach, the UK does include a large number of provisions aimed at protecting the general good.
Te so vključene v del III Zakona o zavarovalnicah iz leta 1982 o poslovanju zavarovalnic, vključno z določbami, ki omejujejo obliko in vsebino oglaševanja zavarovalniških produktov, in določbami, ki urejajo vrsto informacij, ki jih morajo zavarovalnice ali posredniške agencije zagotoviti zavarovancem, preden ti sklenejo zavarovalno polico.
These are included in Part III of the ICA 1982 on conduct of insurance business including provisions limiting the form and content of insurance advertising and provisions regulating the type of information that insurance companies or intermediaries must provide to policyholders before they enter into an insurance contract.
Tu se pojavlja vprašanje, ali zakonodajalci v Združenem kraljestvu, na Irskem, v Nemčiji in drugih državah niso izpolnili svoje pravne obveznosti podpreti javni interes, tako da bi družbi ELAS preprečili zlorabe pri prodaji njenih polic.
The issue here is whether the regulators in the UK, Ireland, Germany and other countries did not fulfil their legal duty to uphold the general good by preventing ELAS from mis-selling its policies.
Ker je vprašanje domačih/tujih odgovornosti večinoma vprašanje izvajanja in zadeva odnose med zakonodajalci Združenega kraljestva in zakonodajalci drugih držav članic, se je bolje sklicevati na del III o zakonodajnih ukrepih in del IV o vprašanjih odškodnine.
As the issue of home/host responsibilities is mainly one of implementation and concerns the relation between the UK regulators and those from other Member States, it is preferable to refer to Part III on Regulatory Action and Part IV on Redress issues.
Očitno je za nadaljevanje preiskave v tej smeri treba najprej dokazati, ali je prišlo do zlorab pri prodaji, z drugimi besedami, ali so se police družbe ELAS prodajale v okoliščinah, nasprotnih javnemu interesu.
Obviously, in order to pursue this line of investigation, it is necessary first to prove whether mis-selling did indeed take place, in other words, whether there were any circumstances contrary to the general good under which ELAS policies were sold.
V zvezi z upravljanjem pravil za poslovanje v Združenem kraljestvu LAKE v H1 omogoča vpogled v dejstvo, da so bile informacije za zavarovance, ki jih zahteva tretja direktiva o življenjskem zavarovanju, pod nadzorom zakonodajalca s področja poslovanja, ki je bil takrat v Združenem kraljestvu ločen od zakonodajalca za bonitetne zadeve, ter da je ta pravna razdelitev med ureditvijo poslovanja in bonitetnimi ureditvami škodovala zavarovancem družbe ELAS.
In terms of how conduct of business rules were managed in the UK, Mr. LAKE gives some insight in H1 that the policyholder information required by the 3LD came under the control of the conduct of business regulator, which was separate from the prudential regulator at the time in the UK, and that this legal division of responsibilities between business and prudential was prejudicial to ELAS policyholders.
Vendar je David STRACHAN iz Organa za finančne storitve zavrnil to trditev v H4 z besedami, da „se je tretja direktiva o življenjskem zavarovanju izvajala na način, ki je zagotovil jasnost v zvezi z zadevnimi obveznostmi domačih in tujih zakonodajalcev [...]
However, David STRACHAN from the FSA refutes this claim in H4, saying that " the Third Life Directive has been implemented in a way that has ensured clarity as to the respective responsibilities of the home and host regulators [...]
S tem se je mogoče izogniti sicer zapletenemu položaju, v katerem bi bili zavarovanci predmet različnih varstvenih ukrepov v zvezi s poslovanjem“.
This avoids an otherwise confusing situation in which policyholders would be subject to different conduct of business protections".
V osnovi zakonodajalci navajajo dve vrsti obtožb proti družbi ELAS;
Fundamentally, policyholders have been making two types of allegations against ELAS:
§ zlorabe pri prodaji z zavestnim prikazovanjem neresničnih dejstev o finančnem stanju družbe, zlasti v zvezi s tveganji glede zajamčenih rent;
§ mis-selling, by knowingly misrepresenting facts about the company's financial position, especially in relation to the GAR risks;
§ opustitev (mogoče na podlagi prevare), ker niso usmerili pozornosti na tveganja zajamčenih rent, kadar je bilo to tveganje zadeva, ki bi jo bilo treba razkriti obstoječim zavarovancem in potencialnim zavarovancem.
§ omission (possibly based on deceit), by failing to draw attention to the GAR risks, when that risk was a matter to be disclosed to existing and prospective policyholders.
Obstaja več dokazov, ki kažejo na to:
There are several pieces of evidence that point to this, viz.:
Druge obtožbe vključujejo:
Other allegations include:
§ Obtožbe stalnega preprodajanja vrednostnih papirjev v zvezi s policami zavarovancev
§ Allegations of 'churning' policyholders' contracts
§ Trditve o slabi komunikaciji med zakonodajalci Združenega kraljestva
§ Claims of communication failure between UK regulators
§ Vprašanja o komunikaciji med tujimi zakonodajalci in zakonodajalci Združenega kraljestva
§ Issues on communications between UK and foreign regulators
§ Trditve o zavajajočem oglaševanju na nemškem in irskem trgu.
§ Claims of misleading advertising on the German and Irish market.
Za natančnejše podrobnosti glej del III o zakonodajnih ukrepih in del IV o vprašanjih odškodnine.
For in-depth detail, see Part III on Regulatory Action and Part IV on Redress issues.
Člen 31 – Informacije za zavarovance (člen 36 kodificirane direktive) in Priloga II (Priloga III kodificirane direktive)
Article 31 - Information for policyholders (Article 36 of CD) and Annex II (Annex III of CD)
Ta člen navaja, da je treba informacije iz Priloge II k direktivi sporočiti zavarovancu, pri čemer je treba od zavarovalnic zahtevati, da izdajo dodatne informacije, če je to potrebno, da zavarovanci ustrezno razumejo osnovne elemente obveznosti.
This article states that the information listed in Annex II of the Directive must be communicated to the policyholder, with the possibility to require companies to give additional information if it is necessary for a proper understanding by the policyholder of the essential elements of the commitment.
Člen 31
A rticle 31
Pred sklenitvijo pogodbe o zavarovanju je treba zavarovalcu sporočiti najmanj informacije, naštete v točki A Priloge II.
Before the assurance contract is concluded, at least the information listed in point A of Annex II shall be communicated to the policy-holder.
Zavarovalec je v času trajanja pogodbe obveščen o vseh spremembah informacij, naštetih v točki B Priloge II.
The policy-holder shall be kept informed throughout the term of the contract of any change concerning the information listed in point B of Annex II.
Država članica obveznosti lahko od zavarovalnic zahteva, da poleg informacij, naštetih v Prilogi II, pošljejo še druge informacije, če je to potrebno, da zavarovalec pravilno razume bistvene elemente obveznosti.
The Member State of the commitment may require assurance undertakings to furnish information in addition to that listed in Annex II only if it is necessary for a proper understanding by the policy-holder of the essential elements of the commitment.
Podrobna pravila za izvajanje tega člena in Priloge II določi država članica obveznosti
The detailed rules for implementing this Article and Annex II shall be laid down by the Member State of the commitment.