natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
“ Na podlagi WE-Conf 11 je jasno, da Komisija nima dovolj sredstev na področju prenosa (zlasti jezikovnih zmogljivosti, saj prejeta izvedbena zakonodaja ni niti prevedena), zaradi česar je še bolj jasno, da lahko Komisija ustrezno spremlja prenos le, če ima na voljo več sredstev.
In WE-Conf 11, the lack of resources for the Commission in the area of transposition (especially linguistic capabilities, as the implementing legislation received is not even translated) becomes apparent, reinforcing the impression that the Commission can only perform adequate monitoring of transposition if it has more means at its disposal.
Glede sredstev je komisar McCREEVY v H8 opozoril „ na nekatere težave pri preverjanju evidence prenosa ter sedanje in pretekle težave.
On the issue of resources, Commissioner McCREEVY alludes in H8 " to some of the difficulties in checking the transposition record and the problems that there are and the problems there have been in the past.
Od nove Barrosove komisije in od mojega mandata se je Barossova komisija ukvarjala zlasti z boljšo ureditvijo.
Since the new Barroso Commission and since my tenure, better regulation has been the theme of the Barroso Commission.
To pomeni med drugim tudi boljšo ureditev, ki prihaja iz Evrope.
One of the things it means is better regulation coming from Europe .
Zato bi logično moralo biti na voljo več ljudi v celotnem sistemu, ki bi skrbeli za prenos direktiv, izvajanje, postopke za ugotavljanje kršitev itd.“
Therefore, logically, there should be more people available in the whole system to police the transposition of directives, the implementation, infringement proceedings, etc."
Rutinski pristop k prenosu
Transposition has elements of box-ticking
Na zaslišanju v Parlamentu je TERTAK priznal, da je bilo v zvezi z delovanjem vidikov enotnega trga oblikovanje, sprejetje in izvajanje novih direktiv o življenjskem zavarovanju izredno rutinsko, „ ker smo oblikovali nekaj novega in pomagali evropskim družbam pri prostem pretoku storitev, zlasti čez mejo.
Under questioning from Members, Mr. TERTAK admitted that, as regards the functioning of the single market aspects, it could only be that the creation, adoption and implementation of new life insurance directives was a box-ticking exercise " because we were creating something new, making it easier for the European companies to offer freedom of services, in particular, across frontiers.
Zato smo pregled izvajanja opravili kmalu po roku za izvajanje.
So we carried out the examination of implementation fairly soon after the deadline for implementation.
Zato skoraj po definiciji ni bilo nobenih izkušenj z uporabo novih ukrepov v praksi na tisti stopnji (...).
So, almost by definition, there was no experience of the practical application of the new measures at that stage (...).
Torej obstaja značilnost rutinskega pristopa, vendar je celotna stvar bolj zapletena. “
So, there is an element of box-ticking but there is much more to it as well ".
Med različnimi razpravami so člani izrazili mnenje, da se prenos izvaja zdaj statično in kratkoročno ter mora postati bolj dolgoročen, na primer z ocenjevanjem kakovosti dela zakonodaje v prvih nekaj letih izvajanja in ne le na začetku.
During the different debates, Members have raised the idea that transposition is currently a static and short-sighted exercise which needs to become more forward-looking, for example, by evaluating the quality of a piece of legislation across the first few years of its application and not just at the outset.
To je komisar McCREEVY omenil v H8: „Naša naloga je zagotoviti, da se pravila uporabljajo.
Reference was made to this by Commissioner McCREEVY in H8: "It is our job to make sure that the rules are applied.
Kako lahko torej najbolje dosežemo naš cilj?
So how can we best achieve our objective?
S sredstvi, ki jih imamo na voljo, skoraj ne moremo poslati skupin uradnikov, da poiščejo primere nepravilnega izvajanja v 25 – kmalu 27 – državah članicah.
With the resources at our disposal, we can hardly send out teams of officials looking for cases of incorrect application in our 25 – soon to be 27 – Member States.
Kar lahko storimo, in že delamo, pa je, da spodbujamo zakonodajalce in nadzornike držav članic, da so bolj dejavni in bolj povezani.
But what we can do, and are already doing, is to encourage the Member States’ regulators and supervisors to work more and more closely together.
Ko bo njihovo sodelovanje postalo tesnejše in rednejše, ko bodo izvajali medsebojne preglede, sprejemali protokole ali memorandume o soglasju za usklajeno uporabo posameznih direktiv in na splošno izvajali politiko nadzorne konvergence, bomo ugotovili, se bodo težave zaradi nepravilne uporabe zakonodaje Skupnosti ugotovile in rešile prej.“
As their cooperation becomes increasingly close and regular, as they carry out peer reviews, adopt protocols or memorandums of understanding for the coordinated application of specific directives and generally pursue a policy of supervisory convergence, we will find that problems of incorrect application of Community legislation will be picked up and solved at an earlier stage."
Kakovost poročil o izvajanju in pregled
Quality of the implementation reports and review
Člani so sprožili vprašanje, ali bi morala Komisija iz tega posebnega primera pridobiti nova spoznanja.
The issue of whether lessons should be sought by the Commission from this particular case was raised by Members.
Med H1 so vprašali tudi, ali je bil pregledan pregled študije o izvajanju.
They also asked during H1 whether a review of the review of the implementation studies had been done.
Komisija je na zaslišanju priznala, da „ ni bila zadovoljna z izvedbo študije v zvezi z nekaterimi državami “ (H1).
Under questioning, the Commission admitted it was " not satisfied with the conduct of the study in respect to certain countries " (H1).
Poskusila bo združiti celotno dokumentacijo iz zgodovinskih arhivov, da bo odbor obvestila, kje, pri katerih točkah in v zvezi s katero državo ni bila zadovoljna s študijo (WE-Conf 11).
It will undertake to compile a full dossier from the historical archives, in order to inform the committee as to where and on what points and in relation to which countries they were not satisfied with the study (WE-Conf 11).
BEVERLY je trdil, da je bila študija pregledana.
Mr. BEVERLY claims that a review of the study was undertaken.
Izjavil je, da „ je bila takrat študija natančno pregledana, saj smo takrat s strokovnjakom gotovo obravnavali težave “ (H1).
He said that " at the time the study was carefully reviewed, because we certainly raised problems with the consultant at that time " (H1).
Vendar se zdi, da so ti dokazi v nasprotju z navedbami v WE 19, kjer je Komisija navedla, da „ je jasno iz dokumentov in naših stikov z upokojenim uradnikom, da so bile med izvajanjem študije opažene večje težave.
However, this evidence seems to contradict what is said in WE 19, where the Commission states that " it is clear from the papers and from our contacts with a retired official that major problems were encountered in the course of the execution of the study.
Končni rezultat je bil, da je izboljšana različica vmesnega poročila postala končno poročilo, končni proračun pa je bil znižan za 50 %.
The final outcome was that an improved version of the interim report became the final report and the final budget was reduced by 50% ."
“ Komisija je ugotovila, da „ ni bil izveden pisni pregled študije “, vendar je navedla, da lahko potrdi, da „ so uradniki, ki so bili takrat odgovorni za študijo, vseeno imeli dejavno vlogo pri spremljanju izdelave študije, čeprav niso preverjali celotnega dela svetovalcev v posameznih državah članicah “.
The Commission concludes that " no written review of the study was carried out " but it claims that it can confirm that " the officials then responsible for the study, while not checking all the work of the consultants in all the individual Member States, nevertheless played an active role in monitoring the production of the study ".
Komisija je v WE 19 prav tako navedla, da „je jasno, da je odgovornost Združenega kraljestva za poročilo eden zanesljivejših vidikov študije“ .
Also in WE 19, the Commission states that " it is clear that the UK coverage of the report is one of the sounder aspects of the study ".
Zdi se, da te trditve podpirajo ugotovitve v WE Conf-11.
These assertions would seem to be corroborated in WE Conf-11.
Neobstoj določb o komitologiji
No comitology provisions
Komisija je na zaslišanju izjavila, da tretja direktiva o življenjskem zavarovanju ni predvidela postopka komitologije za izvajanje tehničnih podrobnosti.
Under questioning, the Commission stated that the 3LD did not foresee any comitology procedure for implementation of technical details.
Direktiva se je začela izvajati takoj, ko je prišla iz Parlamenta in Sveta ministrov, za tehnične podrobnosti pa ni bilo nobenega postopka komitologije.
The Directive was implemented straight as it came from the Parliament and the Council of Ministers and there was no comitology process for technical details.
Solventnost II je pomemben pregled
Solvency II is a major overhaul
Komisija je menila (H1), da „ bi morali opozoriti, da direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju vsebujejo zlasti minimalna pravila, zaradi česar države članice želijo včasih tem pravilom nekaj dodati (…).
The Commission believes (H1) that “w e should recall that the Insurance Directives contain mostly minimum rules, and that is the reason why Member States sometimes want to add on to those rules (…).
Pripravljamo projekt Solventnost II, ki je pomemben pregled zahtev glede solventnosti za zavarovalnice.
We are preparing "Solvency II" which is a major overhaul of the solvencies requirements for insurance companies.
Komisar McCREEVY je v H8 pojasnil Solventnost II: „Naša trenutna glavna prednostna naloga glede zavarovanj je projekt Solventnost II.
Commissioner McCREEVY in H8 comments on Solvency II: "Our current top insurance priority is the Solvency II project.
Cilj je omogočiti temeljno revizijo ureditve in nadzora na področju zavarovalništva v Evropski uniji.
The ambition is nothing less than to bring about a fundamental revision of insurance regulation and supervision in the European Union.
Trenutna ureditev solventnosti žal, tako kot nekateri izmed nas, kaže svoja leta.
The current solvency regime, like many of us, regrettably, is showing its age!
Zahteve o minimalnem kapitalu za zavarovalnice so bile na ravni EU prvič uvedene pred več kot 30 leti, metoda izračunavanja pa se od takrat ni bistveno spremenila.
Solvency margin requirements for insurers were first introduced at EU level over 30 years ago and the method of calculation has remained essentially unchanged since then.
Oblikovane so bile za zavarovalništvo in svet, ki ne obstajata več.
They were designed for an insurance industry and a world that no longer exist.
Direktive o zavarovanju določajo minimalne standarde, ki se lahko dopolnijo in so dopolnjeni na različne načine z dodatnimi pravili na nacionalni ravni.
Insurance directives set out minimum standards that can be and are supplemented in a variety of ways by additional rules at national level.
Tako nimamo nobene dejanske skupne podlage.“
We thus have no real common basis."
Glede vprašanja uporabe več predpisov namesto direktiv je McCREEVY izjavil, da „ želimo, da je direktiva Solventnost II čim bolj skladna in ne vsebuje odstopanj itd.
Speaking of the issue of using more regulations instead of directives, McCREEVY then goes on to say that "in the Solvency II directive we intend to have as much harmonisation as possible and not have all these derogations, etc.
Ker pa gredo te direktive skozi postopek Sveta ministrov in Evropski parlament, se stvari neizogibno dodajajo, zato se poruši skladnost.
However, as these directives go through the process of the Council Ministers and the European Parliament, inevitably things get added on and we do not have correct harmonisation.
Bodimo odkriti: ne obstaja veliko držav članic, ki bi z navdušenjem želele, da se Komisiji dodeli več neposrednih pristojnosti na teh področjih in da se ta odstopanja odpravijo.
Let us be very honest about it: not many Member States are jumping up and down asking for the Commission to be given more direct power in those areas and not to have these derogations.
To se ne dogaja na nobenem področju, zlasti ne na področju finančnih storitev.
It is not happening in any area, least of all the financial services.
Bodimo povsem odkriti glede tega.
Let us be brutally frank about it.
Celo v najbolj proevropskih državah ni ministrov, ne glede na njihovo politično prepričanje – sredinsko, desničarsko ali levičarsko – ki bi to želeli.
Even in the most pro-European countries I do not see any of the ministers, whatever their political persuasion – centre, right or left – wanting that.
Z njihovega vidika obstajajo zelo dobri razlogi, zakaj ne želijo iti v to smer, zato je to na splošno težka razprava.“
There are very good reasons from their perspective as to why they would not want to go in that direction, so it is a difficult argument altogether."
Izboljšane finančne informacije, vzporednost z družbo ENRON
Improved financial information, parallelisms with ENRON
Glede vprašanja o pomanjkanju informacij, ki se zagotovijo vlagateljem, je TERTAK (H1) odgovoril, da „ so se trenutne zahteve glede finančnih informacij in preglednosti v zadnjih letih izredno povečale in izboljšale. [...]
On the issue of the lack of information provided to investors, Mr TERTAK (H1) retorts that " presently financial information requirements and transparency requirements have tremendously increased and improved over the last years. [...]
Analize o tem, ali je bila praksa v Združenem kraljestvu takrat najboljša ali vsaj ne daleč od tiste na evropski ravni, še nismo izvedli.
We haven't made an analysis yet, whether or not the practice in the UK was at that time the best practice, or at least not very far from the European level.
Vendar je jasno nekaj: predhodni predpisi se ne smejo primerjati s sedanjimi, saj sedanji prepisi vedno vsebujejo vsa nova spoznanja, ki so bila sčasoma pridobljena.
But one thing is sure: do not compare early regulations with the present ones because the present regulations always contain all the lessons which have been acquired in the course of time.
Tudi družba Enron je prinesla nova spoznanja, ko se ni nihče zavedal, vendar se je pojavil nekdo in povzročil, da se je v Združenih državah spremenilo veliko predpisov glede zahtev o poročanju in dolžnosti revizorjev, podobno pa se bodo nekatere spremembe zgodile tudi v Evropi.“
Surely also Enron has brought a lesson, as nobody was aware, but somebody turned out and it happened that a lot of regulations concerning reporting requirements, auditors' duties, all this has been changed in the US and similarly some changes will come also in Europe."
Filozofija tretje življenjske direktive: minimalna usklajenost, vzajemno priznavanje in nadzor v domači državi, vendar tuja država lahko uporabi pravila za varstvo javnega interesa
Philosophy of 3LD: minimum harmonisation, mutual recognition and home country control but host country can apply general good rules
Alan BEVERLY je v H3 povzel splošno filozofijo, na kateri temelji tretja direktiva o življenjskem zavarovanju.
Alan BEVERLY, in H3, summarizes the overall philosophy underpinning the 3LD.
Navedel je da „ je bil ustvarjen vtis (…), da tuja država, v kateri je podružnica, nima nobene vloge.
According to him “ the impression has been created (…) that the host country, the country of the branch, has no possible role whatsoever.
To ni povsem pravilno.
That is not strictly accurate.
V veliki meri drži, da direktive, zlasti tretje direktive, določajo minimalno podlago za usklajenost, in sicer minimalno usklajenost zavarovalnega prava v državah članicah “ .
It is quite true that the directives and, in particular, the third directives, set out a minimum basis of harmonisation, that is the minimum harmonisation of insurance law across the Member States ”.
Minimalna uskladitev je „podlaga za medsebojno priznavanje in nadzor v domači državi – to je sistem evropskih potnih listov.
This minimum harmonisation is the “ basis for mutual recognition and home country control – that is the European Passport system .”
“ Kar zadeva podružnice, lahko za družbe, ki želijo ustvariti podružnico, veljajo „ obvezna pravila, ki jih je treba v javnem interesu uporabiti v državi, v kateri je podružnica.
As far as branches are concerned, the undertaking wishing to create a branch in another country can be subjected to “ the obligatory rules that are to be applied in the country where the branch is situated on the basis of the general good.
To je politična izbira, ki jo mora sprejeti država, v kateri je podružnica, in ki jo je treba še vedno upoštevati, saj lahko zavarovalnici, ki je podružnico ustanovila, pove, kakšna so lokalna pravila, ki jih je treba upoštevati.
That is a political choice up to the country hosting the branch, but it is not completely eliminated from the picture, it is able to tell the insurance undertaking establishing the branch what the local rules are that must be respected. ”
“ Ta koncept javnega interesa je opredeljen v členu 40(4) kodificirane direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju.
This concept of the general good is dealt with in Article 40(4) of the codified life directive.
V skladu z njim ima država, v kateri je podružnica, znaten nadzor nad ureditvijo prodaje in načinom obveščanja zavarovancev.
According to it, the country of the branch has considerable control over the selling arrangements and the way in which information must be provided to policyholders.
V poznejšem dokumentu o zadevah domačih/tujih držav, ki ga je pripravila Komisija (WE 41), so ta vprašanja razširjena: „domača država članica je odgovorna za finančni nadzor.
In a subsequent paper on home/host issues prepared by the Commission (WE 41), these issues are expanded: " the home Member State is responsible for financial supervision.
Vendar ima tudi bolj splošno odgovornost glede ravnanja zavarovalnic, ki jih pooblašča, ter je dejansko odgovorna za zagotavljanje, da zavarovalnice upoštevajo določbe javnem interesu, ki obstajajo v različnih tujih državah članicah, v katerih posluje.
But it also bears a more general responsibility for the conduct of the insurers it authorises and is ultimately responsible for ensuring compliance by the insurer with the provisions relating to the general good existing in the various host Member States in which it carries on its business.
Država članica, v kateri je podružnica ali v kateri se zagotavljajo čezmejne storitve, je tudi pomembna, zlasti kar zadeva preverjanje skladnosti z lokalnimi določbami, ki se uporabljajo za pogodbe za življenjska zavarovanja in ki želijo zaščititi javni interes.
The Member State where a branch is established or into which cross-frontier services are provided also has a role to play, particularly as regards checking compliance with local provisions applicable to insurance contracts which aim to protect the general good.
Ta država ni prikrajšana za vsa sredstva za spremljanje poslovanja zavarovalnic iz drugih držav članic in lahko zahteva uporabo lastnih pravil poslovanja, ki jo utemeljuje javni interes.
It is not deprived of all means of monitoring the insurance business carried out by insurers from other Member States and can require the application of its own conduct of business rules justified by the general good.
Direktiva lahko deluje nemoteno le, če domače države in tuje države dobro sodelujejo.
The Directive can only work smoothly if there is good co-operation between home and host State authorities.
Okoliščine, v katerih organ tuje države napoti oškodovane zavarovance na organ domače države, potem pa jih ta spet napoti nazaj, njihovega primera pa ne pregleda nobena stran, niso zadovoljive.“
It is not a satisfactory situation where aggrieved policyholders are referred by the host State authority to the home State authority and are then sent back by the home to the host authority, and thus find themselves unable to have their case examined by either."
Dokazi iz študije o izvajanju (WE 20)
Evidence from implementation study (WE 20)
Študijo, ki zajema prenos tretje direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju in tretje direktive o neživljenjskem zavarovanju s strani držav članic, je izvedla odvetniška družba Wilde Sapte.
The study covering the transposition by the Member States of both the 3LD and the third non-life directive was carried out by the UK law firm Wilde Sapte.
Končno poročilo je bilo predloženo službam Komisije 14. novembra 1995.
The final report was presented to the Commission services on 14 November 1995.
Študija ni zajemala vseh takratnih 12 držav članic, saj sta bili Grčija in Španija v zamudi z izvajanjem.
The study did not cover all the then 12 Member States as Greece and Spain were late with implementation.
Študija je razdeljena na tri dele: prvi del obravnava natančno analizo v 7 posebnih poglavjih, ki jih je določila Komisija, drugi zajema posebne razlike med direktivo in izvedbeno zakonodajo Združenega kraljestva, tretji del pa zajema praktična vprašanja v zvezi z izvajanjem.
The study is divided into three parts: one detailed analysis under 7 specific headings specified by the Commission, another one on specific divergences between the directive and UK implementing legislation, and a third section with practical issues arising in relation to implementation.
Povzetek tem, ki izhajajo iz študije
Summary of themes arising from the study
Na splošno lahko rečemo, da študija o izvajanju ne pove veliko o kakovosti prenosa.
In general it can be argued that the implementation study does not say much about the quality of transposition.
Prvič, besedilo je precej kratko, nejasno in nenatančno.
Firstly, the text itself is quite short, vague and imprecise.
Drugič, izvedbene določbe, ki v zakonodajo prenašajo tretjo direktivo o življenjskem zavarovanju, so razpršene v 3 različnih izvedbenih aktih Združenega kraljestva, zato je težko dobiti jasno sliko.
Secondly, as the implementing provisions transposing the 3LD are spread out in 3 different UK implementing acts, it is difficult to obtain a coherent picture.
Poleg tega študija kaže, da nekatere določbe direktive preprosto niso bile prenesene v zakonodajo, ker so organi Združenega kraljestva menili, da so že zajete v veljavni zakonodaji Združenega kraljestva, kar je še dodatno otežilo stvari.
Additionally, the study shows how some of the directive’s provisions were simply not transposed as they were considered by the UK authorities as being covered already by existent UK law, complicating matters still further.
Študiji je bila dodana natančna korelacijska tabela
The study was accompanied by a detailed correlation table
Na voljo na zahtevo zainteresiranih strani (na voljo le v pisni obliki). (do 300 strani), ki za vsak člen direktive določa ustrezen člen v izvedbenih določbah Združenega kraljestva.
Available to interested parties on demand (available in paper version only). (up to 300 pages), simply specifying for each article of the directive the matching article in the UK implementing provisions.
Za preverjanje ravni skladnosti in kakovosti prenosa v zakonodajo Združenega kraljestva je bilo treba preveriti vsako izvedbeno določbo Združenega kraljestva.
In order to verify the level of coherence and quality of UK transposition, it has been necessary to check each and every one of the UK implementing provisions.
Ta naloga je bila izvedena ob pomoči študije strokovnjakov o prenosu (ES 1), ki jo je naročil preiskovalni odbor.
This task has been performed with the help of the experts’ study on transposition (ES 1) commissioned by the EQUI Committee.
Ta študija, ki je bila financirana s proračunskimi sredstvi odbora za strokovno pomoč, ne obravnava le prenosa, temveč ga poskuša primerjati tudi s prenosom tretjih direktiv o življenjskem zavarovanju v drugih državah članicah (glej del II „Podrobnosti prenosa“ za natančnejšo analizo prenosa v Združenem kraljestvu za vsak člen posebej).
This study, financed from the committee’s expertise budget, not only focuses on UK transposition but also tries to make a comparison with other Member States’ transposition of the 3LD (See Part II.1 ‘Transposition in detail’ for a more precise article-by-article analysis of UK transposition).