natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Lord NEILL meni, da „ ni znano, na podlagi katerih dokazov “ je varuh človekovih pravic sprejel te odločitve, ker „ jih ni razkril “ (WE 83
Lord NEILL suggests that " it is not known upon what evidence " the Ombudsman made these decisions because " he did not disclose it " (WE 83
Strani 72 in 73. ).
Pages 72 and 73. ).
Pritožniki zato „ očitno ... niso mogli izraziti svojega mnenja o neznanih stališčih Organa za finančne storitve “ (lord NEILL, H11).
Complainants therefore " obviously ... could not comment on unknown opinions expressed by the FSA " (Lord NEILL, H11).
Trdi, da je odločitev Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve „ najosupljivejši primer pomanjkanja neodvisnosti “ Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve (WE 83
He contends that the FOS's decision " is the most striking example of an absence of independence " of the FOS (WE 83
Stran 74. ).
Page 74. ).
Lord NEILL v podkrepitev tej točki navaja notranjo elektronsko pošto Ministrstva za gospodarstvo in finančne zadeve, ki se sklicuje na izjavo Organa za finančne storitve, katere „ glavni namen “ je „ zagotovitev osnove Službi varuha človekovih pravic za finančne zadeve, na podlagi katere bo obravnavala pritožbe v zvezi s čezmernim dodeljevanjem “ (WE 86
Corroborating this point, Lord NEILL quotes from an internal Treasury e-mail which referred to a statement by the FSA " the main purpose " of which would be " to provide the FOS with a basis for considering complaints relating to over-allocation " (WE 86
Sklene, „ da bi lahko zavarovanci odločitev [Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve] upravičeno obravnavali kot odločitev, ki jo službi narekuje Organ za finančne storitve in ki ima uničujoče finančne posledice za več tisoč običajnih ljudi, ki so čakali na njegovo razsodbo “ (WE 86
He concludes that " the decision [by the FOS] could reasonably be regarded by policyholders as one dictated to the FOS by the FSA and as one with disastrous financial consequences for thousands of ordinary people who were waiting upon his ruling " (WE 86
Lord NEILL poudarja tudi, da odločitev Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve ni bila v skladu z izjavami na dan objave Penrosovega poročila in poznejšimi izjavami takratne sekretarke za finančne storitve na Ministrstvu za gospodarstvo in finančne zadeve Ruth Kelly
Lord NEILL also emphasised that the FOS's decision was inconsistent with statements made on the day of the publication of the Penrose report and afterwards by the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Ruth Kelly
V zvezi izjavami ministrstva o pripravljenosti varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve, da obravnava pritožbe, ki izhajajo iz Penrosovega poročila glej WE 83, strani 25–29. , ki je „ poslancem večkrat zagotovila, da je Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve pripravljena na obravnavo pritožb na podlagi Penrosovega poročila ter da ima za to ustrezna sredstva “ (WE 86
For ministerial statements concerning the availability of the FOS to handle complaints arising out of the Penrose report, see WE 83, pages 25-29. , who " repeatedly assured MPs that the FOS was standing ready to handle complaints based on the Penrose report and had the necessary resources to do so " (WE 86
Lord NEILL je tako sklenil: „ Zavarovanci, katerih zadeve sem preučil, bi lahko upravičeno sklepali, da storitev Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve ni izpolnjevala standardov, ki so jih upravičeno pričakovali (to so standardi, ki jih je služba sama razglasila in oglaševala). ...
Overall, Lord NEILL concluded in the following way: " The policyholders whose cases I have studied could reasonably conclude that the service provided by the Financial Ombudsman Service fell short of the standards which they were entitled to expect (these being the standards which the Service had itself proclaimed and advertised). ...
Zavarovanci, katerih zahtevki so bili povezani s Penrosom (v zvezi z dodeljevanjem in izplačevanjem previsokih bonusov), so bili upravičeno osupli, ker je glavni varuh človekovih pravic zavrnil njihove zahtevke brez obravnave vsebine, v zvezi s postopkom, s katerim je sprejel odločitev, in njegovo vsebino “ (WE 83
Policyholders who had Penrose-related claims (concerning the allocation and payment of excessive bonuses) had good reason to be dismayed by the Chief Ombudsman's dismissal of their claims without considering their merits, both as regards the process by which he reached his decision and as to its content " (WE 83
Stran 84. ).
Page 84. ).
Glavni varuh človekovih pravic MERRICKS je o prvotnem odzivu na poročilo lorda NEILLA povedal (WE 87): „ Lord Neill je pregledal le 30 zadev od skupnih 8 000.
Chief Ombudsman Mr MERRICKS had the following to say in his initial reaction to Lord NEILL's report (WE 87): " Lord Neill examined only 30 cases of the 8,000 that we have completed.
Teh 30 zadev je zbrala akcijska skupina, ki je svoje člane prosila, naj navedejo primere z nezadovoljivimi rezultati.
These 30 cases were solicited by the Action Group which asked its members for instances where they believed they had had unsatisfactory outcomes.
To je bil zato popolnoma nereprezentativen vzorec za posploševanje.
This was therefore an entirely unrepresentative sample from which to draw any generalisations.
Podobno bi lahko opozorili na številne stranke, ki so se zahvalile zaradi načina obravnave pritožb v zvezi z družbo Equitable. ...
We could equally point to the very many consumers who have expressed gratitude for the way we have handled their complaints about Equitable. ...
V okoliščinah, v katerih veliko ljudi izgubi svoj denar po tuji krivdi, so vedno nekateri nezadovoljni, poleg tega pa poveličujejo in izkrivljajo svojo zaskrbljenost v zvezi z javnimi institucijami, da si zagotovijo odškodnino iz katerega koli naslova.
In an episode in which very many people have lost money not through their own fault, there will always be those who remain dissatisfied, and they are likely to magnify and distort their concerns about public institutions in order to secure redress for themselves from whatever source they can.
Na svoj položaj poskušajo opozoriti celo z neupravičenimi kritikami.
They may even be tempted to launch unjustified criticisms in order to draw attention to their plight.
Poročilo lorda Neilla, ki ga je sponzorirala in naročila akcijska skupina ter ki se osredotoča na nereprezentativen vzorec zadev, je treba obravnavati v tem smislu.“
Lord Neill's report, paid for and commissioned by the Action Group and focussing on a tiny unrepresentative sample of cases, should be seen in this context."
Odbor je nato od Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve prejel še en odgovor, v katerem „ služba zavrača glavne točke mnenja in ustnih dokazov lorda Neilla “ (WE 90).
The committee later received another response by the FOS in which it " rejects the main points which Lord Neill made in his opinion and oral evidence " (WE 90).
Poleg tega kritizira dejstvo, da „ lord Neill ni želel prejeti informacij od Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve ali dovoliti Službi varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve, da pove svoje mnenje o ‚dejstvih v poročilu pred njegovo objavo, “
Furthermore, it criticises the fact that " Lord Neill declined to receive information from FOS or to allow FOS to comment on the 'facts' in his report before it was published "
V zvezi s tem poročilo lorda Neilla navaja naslednje: „Z organom za finančne storitve in Službo varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve nisem imel stikov, razen 11. januarja 2007, ko mi je glavni varuh človekovih pravic poslal pismo, v katerem mi je ponudil kakršno koli pomoč, ki bi jo potreboval pri razumevanju postopkov Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve ali drugih vidikih njenega dela.
In this respect Lord Neill's report states the following: " As regards the FSA and the FOS, I have had no communications with these authorities save that on 11 January 2007 the Chief Ombudsman wrote to offer me any assistance I needed in understanding the procedures of the FOS or other aspects of the way they work.
Odgovoril sem 18. januarja 2007, ko sem se zahvalil za njegovo ponudbo, vendar sem povedal, da ne potrebujem pomoči v zvezi z navedenimi temami“ (WE 83, strani 84 in 85). ter trdi, da sklepi in kritika lorda Neilla „ temeljijo na napačnih predvidevanjih “.
I replied on 18 January 2007 thanking him for his offer but saying that I needed no assistance on the topics mentioned " (WE 83, pages 84 and 85). and claims that Lord Neill's conclusions and criticisms are " based on false assumptions ".
Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve je kot primer navedla oba primera „ nepravilnega predvidevanja “
Two " incorrect assumptions " are mentioned by the FOS as examples
„ Lord Neill v odstavku 85 pravi: ‚da bi [glavni varuh človekovih pravic] verjetno prejel izvod [Penrosovega] poročila kmalu potem, ko ga je 23. decembra 2003 dobilo v roke Ministrstvo za gospodarske in finančne storitve‘.
" In paragraph 85 Lord Neill says - “it is likely that [the chief ombudsman] will have been supplied with a copy of the [Penrose] Report shortly after it came into the hands of the Treasury on 23 December 2003”.
Dejansko glavni varuh človekovih pravic in nihče drug pri Službi varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve ni videl Penrosovega poročila vse do marca 2004.
In fact, neither the chief ombudsman nor anyone at FOS saw the Penrose Report until March 2004.
Lord Neill v odstavku 98(7) pravi, da glavni varuh človekovih pravic pritožnikom ni zagotovil dokazov Organa za finančne storitve, predloženih lordu Penrosu v skladu z ‚maxwellizacijo‘, za katere je lord Neill menil, da so jih glavni varuhi prejeli.
In paragraph 98(7) Lord Neill says that the chief ombudsman failed to make available to complainants the FSA’s “Maxwellisation submission to Lord Penrose”, which Lord Neill assumed the chief ombudsman had received.
Dejansko glavni varuh človekovih pravic in nihče drug pri Službi varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve ni videl tega dokumenta“ (WE 90). .
In fact, neither the chief ombudsman nor anyone at FOS has ever seen this document " (WE 90). .
Vendar je mogoče predvidevati, da glavne ugotovitve lorda Neilla ne bi bile veliko drugačne, če se ti dve domnevni napaki ne bi zgodili.
It can be assumed, however, that if the two supposed errors had not occurred this would not have fundamentally altered Lord Neill's main conclusions.
Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve je poudarila tudi, da je resnično neodvisna in da lord Neill ni predložil dokazov o nasprotnem, „ ker ti dokazi nikoli niso obstajali “ (WE 90).
The FOS also underlined that it is truly independent and that Lord Neill failed to produce evidence to the contrary, " because there is none " (WE 90).
Nazadnje je Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve poudarila, da „ če bi bil postopek varuha človekovih pravic tako pomanjkljiv, kot sta napačno trdila lord Neill in akcijska skupina EMAG, bi lahko na tej podlagi akcijska skupina EMAG sprožila postopek presoje ustavnosti in višje sodišče pozvala, naj razveljavi odločitve varuha človekovih pravic.
Finally, the FOS pointed out that " if the ombudsman process had been as flawed as Lord Neill and EMAG have wrongly suggested, that would have been grounds for EMAG to take judicial review proceedings and ask the High Court to overturn the ombudsman’s decisions.
Pomembno je, da akcijska skupina EMAG tega ni storila “ (WE 90).
Significantly, EMAG did not do so " (WE 90).
Dokazi v povzetku kažejo, da so nekateri zavarovanci, ki so trdili, da so se pri prodaji polic pojavile zlorabe, dobili odškodnino s pomočjo Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve, drugi pa ne.
In summary, evidence shows that some policyholders who alleged that they were mis-sold policies were able to obtain redress through the FOS, while others were not.
V zvezi s tem, ali so bili zneski dodeljene odškodnine primerni in pravični glede na resnične izgube, ki so jih utrpeli zavarovanci zaradi dogajanj v družbi Equitable, obstajajo različna stališča.
There are conflicting views about whether the amounts of compensation awarded were appropriate and just in that they reflected the real losses policyholders had suffered due to the events at Equitable.
Kaže, da Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve ni mogla ali ni bila pripravljena v vseh primerih zagotoviti, da bi bili zneski odškodnine izračunani dovolj pregledno, da bi jih lahko pritožniki preverili.
It appears that the FOS has not been able or willing to ensure in all cases that the amounts of compensation were calculated in a manner transparent enough to enable them to be verified by complainants.
Odločitev Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve, da brez obravnave vsebine zavrne pritožbe na podlagi ugotovitev lorda Penrosa, je pokazala precejšnjo vrzel na področju sodnega varstva in jasno pokazala omejitve Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve pri obravnavi pritožb, kadar bi lahko imela njena razsodba zakonodajne posledice.
The FOS's decision to dismiss, without considering their merits, complaints based on the findings of Lord Penrose revealed a significant gap in judicial protection and made apparent the limitations of the FOS, when dealing with complaints, where his adjudications might have regulatory implications.
Dokazi kažejo, da Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve ni sprejela te odločitve neodvisno od zakonodajalca v Združenem kraljestvu, ki je jasno izrazil svoje stališče, da Penrosovo poročilo ni bila podlaga za vložitev zahtevkov v zvezi z zlorabami pri prodaji.
Evidence suggests that the FOS did not take this decision independently from the UK regulator, who had apparently expressed the view that the Penrose report did not give rise to mis-selling claims.
Obstajajo prepričljivi dokazi, da so bili zavarovanci globoko razočarani zaradi te odločitve, ne nazadnje ker so jih izjave ministrstva zavajale, da bo Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve obravnavala pritožbe, ki izhajajo iz Penrosovega poročila.
There is overwhelming evidence that policyholders were deeply disappointed by the decision, not least because they had been led to believe by ministerial statements that the FOS would be available to handle complaints arising out of the Penrose report.
Zaradi te odločitve Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve celotni kategoriji pritožnikov, ki so vložili potencialno veljavne zahtevke v zvezi z izplačevanjem previsokih bonusov, ni preostalo nič drugega kot drage in tvegane tožbe.
As a consequence of the FOS's decision, a whole category of complainants who had potentially valid claims in relation to over-bonusing was left without alternative to costly and risky litigation.
Nekateri dokazi kažejo, da Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve pri obravnavi pritožb svojih odločitev ni sprejela le na podlagi zadevne vsebine posamezne pritožbe, ampak je upoštevala tudi druge politične cilje, ne le varstvo vlagateljev.
There is some evidence to suggest that, in dealing with complaints, the FOS did not only base its decisions on the respective merits of each complaint but also took into account policy objectives other than investor protection.
Prejeti dokazi jasno kažejo, da je bila Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve zaskrbljena zaradi vpliva svojih odločitev na ostale zavarovance vzajemnega sklada.
It is clear from the evidence received that the FOS has been concerned about the impact of its decisions on remaining policyholders of the mutual fund.
Kaže, da so ti pomisleki vplivali na njene odločitve (o tem, ali naj obravnava pritožbo ali ne, odobri pritožbo ali ne in po potrebi o znesku dolgovane odškodnine).
Its decisions (on whether or not to consider a complaint, on whether or not to uphold a complaint and, if applicable, on the amount of compensation due) appear to have been influenced by these considerations.
Zato bi bil lahko cilj zaščite posameznih zavarovancev z dodelitvijo ustrezne odškodnine v nekaterih primerih ogrožen zaradi konkurenčnih ciljev.
Hence, the objective of protecting individual policyholders by rewarding appropriate redress may have been compromised in some instances by competing objectives.
Končno, obstajajo trdni dokazi, da številni pritožniki na splošno niso bili zadovoljni s storitvami Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve, in so med drugim trdili, da je bila pristranska do družbe ELAS.
Finally, there is strong evidence that a number of complainants were dissatisfied with the service provided to them by the FOS in general, claiming, among other things, that it displayed partial behaviour towards ELAS.
Kaže, da obstaja splošno mnenje, da so imeli nekateri prizadeti zavarovanci različne izgube zaradi zamud, ki so nastale, ko je Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve obravnavala njihove pritožbe.
There seems to be consensus that some aggrieved policyholders have suffered in various ways from the delays, which occurred in the treatment of their complaints through the FOS.
V nekaterih primerih pritožniki niso več mogli vložiti tožbe, ker je njihova zadeva zastarala.
In some cases, complainants became time barred form taking legal action as a consequence.
Te zamude so ovirale prizadevanje zavarovancev, da dobijo odškodnino, ne glede na vzroke zanje.
Whichever reason there was for the delays, they constituted an obstacle in policyholders' efforts to obtain redress.
Na splošno velja, da Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve ni ustrezen organ za odškodninske postopke na podlagi delovnopravnih pritožb zavarovancev družbe Equitable Life, ki so bili oškodovani zaradi krize družbe Equitable Life, čeprav je dodelila odškodnino omejenemu številu zavarovancev.
Overall, although it awarded compensation to a limited number of policyholders, the FOS cannot be said, in general, to have constituted an appropriate means of redress for the grievances of those Equitable Life policyholders who suffered injustice as a consequence of Equitable Life's crisis.
Čeprav je vprašljivo, ali bi bila Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve sposobna ali primerna ustanova za iskanje splošne rešitve, se je zaradi pomanjkanja izvensodnih možnosti veliko prizadetih zavarovancev znašlo v nezavidljivem položaju.
While it is questionable whether the FOS would have the capacity, or indeed be the appropriate institution, to seek a generic solution, the lack of out-of-court alternatives left many aggrieved policyholders in an entirely unsatisfactory situation.
Civilni sodni postopki pred sodišči Združenega kraljestva
Judicial - civil proceedings before UK courts
Zavarovanci so imeli možnost, da pri angleških sodiščih vložijo tožbo zoper družbo ELAS, če njihova zadeva v skladu z Zakonom Združenega kraljestva o zastaranju (glej spodaj) še ni zastarala.
Policyholders had the possibility of pursuing the Society through the English courts, provided that they are not time barred under the UK Limitations Act (see below).
Poleg tega niso smeli biti vključeni v odškodninsko shemo ali na kakršen koli drug način sprejeti odškodnino od družbe ELAS, ki je izključevala vložitev tožbe.
Furthermore, they were required not to be covered by the Compromise Scheme or otherwise have accepted an offer of compensation from the Society that ruled out legal action.
Strani 54 do 64. zajema pregled zakonodaje Združenega kraljestva, na podlagi katere lahko zavarovanci utemeljijo morebitne zahtevke zoper družbo ELAS.
Pages 54 to 64. provides an overview of UK legislation, on which policyholders might base possible claims against ELAS.
Povzetek pravne podlage:
The legal background may be summarised as follows:
· Oddelek 62 Zakona o finančnih storitvah iz leta 1986 zagotavlja civilno pravico do tožbe, kadar vlagatelj utrpi izgube, ker pooblaščena oseba krši nekatera pravila.
· Section 62 of the Financial Services Act 1986 provides a civil right of action where an investor has suffered loss as a result of a breach by an authorised person of certain rules.
Dejansko je družbo Equitable pooblastila organizacija LAUTRO in so zanjo veljala njena pravila.
At the material time, Equitable was authorised by LAUTRO and subject to its rules.
Zavarovanci s policami brez zajamčenih rent bi imeli vzrok za vložitev tožbe, če (1) bi morala družba ELAS v skladu s pravili LAUTRO potencialnim zavarovancem razkriti obstoj tveganja v zvezi z zajamčenimi rentami, (2) če družba ELAS ne bi razkrila tveganja in (3) če bi se zavarovanec oprl na nerazkrivanje podatkov.
A non-GAR policyholder would have a cause of action if (1) under LAUTRO rules, the Society was required to disclose the existence of the GAR risk to prospective policyholders, (2) the Society failed to disclose the risk and (3) the policyholder relied on the non-disclosure.
Končno (4), zavarovanec mora dokazati, da bi zavrnil polico družbe Equitable Life, če bi vedel za tveganje.
Finally (4), the policyholder must show that he or she would have declined to take the policy offered by Equitable Life if the risk had been disclosed.
V ES 3
ES 3
Strani 55 in 60. je navedeno, da „ je morala družba ELAS [v skladu s pravili LAUTRO] potencialnim zavarovancem razkriti obstoj tveganja v zvezi z zajamčenimi rentami “.
Pages 55 and 60. contends that " ELAS was required [under LAUTRO rules] to disclose the existence of the GAR risk to prospective policyholders ".
Poleg tega navaja, da je „ zelo sporno, da družba ELAS ni razkrila tveganja, ker v gradivu, ki ga je razširjala družba ELAS, to tveganje ni bilo posebej omenjeno “.
It furthermore states that " it is highly arguable that the Society failed to disclose the risk since in material circulated by the Society, there was no specific reference to it ".
Vendar je v zvezi s tem ključna določitev, kdaj je tveganje glede zajamčene rente postalo bistveno in bi ga bilo zato treba razkriti.
A key question, however, in this respect would be to determine the point in time when the GAR risk became material and therefore gave rise to an obligation to disclose.
Težje bi bilo določiti vprašanja zaupanja in povzročitve, za kar je odgovoren zavarovanec (ES 3
Issues of reliance and causation would be more difficult to establish and the onus lies with the policyholder (ES 3
Strani 54 do 60. ).
Pages 54 to 60. ).
· Zavarovanec s polico brez zajamčenih rent bi lahko na podlagi Zakona o zavajanju iz leta 1967 ali običajnega prava uveljavljal pravno sredstvo zaradi zavajanja.
· A non-GAR policyholder could also have a remedy for misrepresentation arising under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 or under common law.
Zahtevek se lahko vloži, (1) če je družba Equitable zavarovancem vsebinsko predstavila dejstva v zvezi z bonusi ali dohodki njihovega deleža v skladu za življenjsko zavarovanje s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice, (2) če je bila predstavitev napačna, (3) če ni nobenega dokaza, da je imela družba Equitable Life utemeljen razlog, da verjame, da so bila predstavljena dejstva resnična, in je to tudi verjela, (4) če so zavarovanci zaradi predstavitve sklenili pogodbo, in nazadnje, (5) če obstaja vzrok, tj. če zavarovanec ne bi sklenil zavarovanja pri družbi, če ne bi bil seznanjen s predstavitvijo.
In order to establish a claim, (1) there must be a material representation of facts made by Equitable to policyholders in relation to bonuses or returns on their share of the with-profits fund, (2) the representation must be untrue, (3) there must be no proof that Equitable Life had reasonable grounds to believe and did believe that the facts represented were true and (4) there must be reliance on the representation such that it induced the policyholder to enter into the contract, Finally (5), there must be causation, i.e. that the policyholder would not have taken out a policy with Equitable if the representation had not been made to him.
Police družbe ELAS niso vsebovale nobenih posebnih pogojev, ki bi obravnavali morebiten vpliv polic, ki vključujejo zajamčene rente, na dohodek zavarovancev s policami brez zajamčenih rent.
The Society's policies did not have any express terms dealing with the existence and possible effect of the GAR policies on the returns of non-GAR policyholders.