natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Obstajajo številne izjave, ki podpirajo trditev, da je slaba komunikacija med zakonodajalci Združenega kraljestva prispevala k položaju, ki je dovoljeval, da se vedno večje težave družbe ELAS niso pregledovale in so se razvile v krizo.
There are many statements which support the contention that communication weaknesses between the UK regulators contributed to a situation which allowed the growing problems at ELAS to go unchecked and develop into a crisis.
Vendar številne izjave v zvezi s tem kažejo, da se je položaj v Združenem kraljestvu od ustanovitve enotnega organa za finančne storitve izboljšal.
However, in this particular respect, a number of statements have suggested that the situation in the UK has improved since the creation of the single Financial Services Authority.
Obtožbe o zaroti med zakonodajalci in družbo ELAS in/ali o namerni goljufiji
Allegations of regulators' collusion with ELAS and/or deliberate fraud
Odbor ne verjame obtožbam
The committee is not persuaded by allegations
1 07 Glej del III, oddelek IV.1 (b) in (f). o namerni in koordinirani strategiji zarote med zakonodajalci Združenega kraljestva in vodstvom družbe ELAS, da bi se ovirala preiskava razlogov za krizo družbe ELAS, ali o namerni in koordinirani goljufiji, s katero bi se oškodovalo zavarovance družbe ELAS.
1 see Part III, Section IV.1 (b) and (f). of a deliberate and coordinated strategy of collusion between the UK regulators and the ELAS management, either of any obstruction of the investigation into the reasons for the ELAS crisis or of a deliberate and coordinated fraud at the expense of ELAS policyholders.
Odbor meni, da so se, potem ko je v družbi ELAS nastala kriza, kot so večkrat zatrdile številne strani, zakonodajalci Združenega kraljestva odzvali počasi in nekoliko zadržano ter preiskave družbe ELAS niso vedno vodili na povsem pregleden način, kar velja tudi za obveščanje javnosti o preiskavi, zlasti oškodovanih zavarovancev.
The committee is of the opinion that after the ELAS crisis had unfolded, as many parties have claimed , on a number of occasions, the UK regulators were slow, somewhat reticent and not always fully transparent in leading the ELAS investigation, as well as in reporting on it to the public, in particular to the policyholders concerned.
Shema za poravnavo
Compromise Scheme (CS)
Obstajajo številne in utemeljene izjave
There are numerous and compelling statements
1 08 Glej del III, oddelek IV.3 (e). , ki kažejo, da so se številni zavarovanci počutili, da so jih družba ELAS in zakonodajalci zavajali ali prevarali pri podpisovanju sheme za poravnavo in glasovanju v njeno korist.
1 see Part III, Section IV.3 (e). suggesting that a large number of policyholders felt misled or deceived by ELAS and the Regulators when subscribing to and voting in favour of the Compromise Scheme.
Odbor meni, da zavarovanci pri glasovanju v zvezi z shemo za poravnavo niso poznali vseh pravnih posledic svoje odločitve.
The committee believes that, when voting on the CS, policyholders were not fully aware of the legal consequences of their decision.
2 09 Glej del III, oddelek IV.3 od (b) do (d).
2 see Part III, Section IV.3 (b) to (d).
To je deloma posledica zapletenih pravnih informacij, ki so jih prejeli skupaj s predlogom o shemi za poravnavo, od družbe ELAS in organa za finančne storitve, ki so prav mogoče presegale razumevanje povprečnega zavarovanca.
This appears to be partly due to the complexity of the legal information supplied with the CS proposal, both by ELAS and the FSA, which may well have been beyond the understanding of the average policyholder.
Odbor tudi meni, da bi bilo treba zavarovance jasno opozoriti, da s soglasjem s shemo za poravnavo stabilnost skladov za življenjsko zavarovanje s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice nikakor ni bila dolgoročno zajamčena in je ostala povsem izpostavljena nihanjem na finančnih trgih ter da se lahko rast vrednosti polic, ki jih zagotavlja shema za poravnavo, izniči z nadaljnjim zniževanjem vrednosti polic.
The committee also believes that a clear warning should have informed policyholders that, by agreeing to the CS, the with-profits-fund's stability was by no means guaranteed in the long term and remained fully exposed to the fluctuations of financial markets and that the uplifts in policy values granted under the CS could possibly be wiped out by further cuts in policy values.
Trditve o zlorabi pri prodaji
Mis-selling allegations
Podanih je bilo veliko neposrednih in posrednih izjav, od katerih nekatere jasno podpirajo trditev, da je bila družba ELAS odgovorna za zlorabe pri prodaji in napačno prikazovanje dejstev zavarovancem in potencialnim strankam v Združenem kraljestvu , na Irskem, v Nemčiji in drugih državah članicah, kjer je delovala.
There have been many statements both direct and indirect, some of which clearly support the contention that ELAS was responsible for mis-selling and misrepresentation to policyholders and potential clients, in the UK, Ireland, Germany and in other Member States where it had operations.
Izstopajo zlasti izjave
In particular, there are statements
3 07 Glej del III, oddelek IV.2 (a) in IV.4 (a). , v katerih je navedeno, da je družba ELAS zavarovance in potencialne stranke napačno obveščala o več vprašanjih ter jih namerno ni opozorila na tveganje pri zajamčenih rentah, tudi potem ko je družba ELAS poiskala pravni nasvet o težavah z zajamčeno rento pri svojih odvetnikih in zakonodajalcih.
3 see Part III, Section IV.2 (a) and Section IV.4 (a). which suggest that ELAS misinformed policyholders and prospective customers on a number of issues, knowingly omitting to draw their attention to the GAR risk, even after ELAS had sought legal advice on the GAR problem with its solicitors and regulators.
Odbor pozdravlja direktivo o trženju finančnih storitev na daljavo iz leta 2002 (Direktiva 2002/65/ES o spremembi Direktive 97/7/ES), ki uspešno pojasnjuje pravne določbe za spodbujanje prodaje zavarovalnih polic zunaj države članice, v kateri ima družba sedež.
The committee welcomes the Distance-Selling Directive of 2002 (Directive 2002/65/EC, amending Directive 97/7/EC), which successfully seeks to clarify legal provisions for the facilitation of the selling of insurance policies outside the Member State in which the company is headquartered.
Odbor je poslušal nadaljnje obtožbe o zlorabi pri prodaji, ki so navajale, da je prodajno gradivo družbe ELAS zagotavljalo, da sklad za življenjsko zavarovanje s klavzulo o soudeležbi zavarovanca pri dobičku zavarovalnice izravnava nihanja dobička in osnovnih sredstev.
The committee has heard further mis-selling allegations, suggesting that ELAS sales material claimed that the with-profits fund was smoothing out fluctuations in earnings and asset values.
Poleg tega je bilo navedeno, da je družba ELAS izvajala agresivno politiko stalnega preprodajanja vrednostnih papirjev obstoječih zavarovalnih polic družbe ELAS za pridobitev novih naložbenih polic, ki so bile za družbo ELAS zelo ugodne, kar je omogočilo nove posle in provizije ter zahtevalo še manjše kapitalske rezerve, ki so bile jasno v nasprotju z interesi zavarovancev.
Furthermore, it was alleged that ELAS pursued an aggressive policy of churning existing ELAS policies towards newer investment policies which were highly profitable for ELAS, thus generating new business and commissions and requiring even smaller capital reserves, clearly contrary to policyholders' interests.
Obstajajo tudi izjave, ki podpirajo veliko drugih obtožb o zlorabi pri prodaji v drugih državah članicah, kjer je družba ELAS izvajala postopke prodaje, na primer privabljanje potencialnih strank s ponujanjem potencialnih naložb, ki naj bi imele posebne lastnosti, vendar dejansko niso obstajale, na primer trditve, da je bila irska ali mednarodna politika omejena in da je bila nemška politika podvržena nadzoru nemškega zakonodajalca na področju financ.
There are also statements to support a range of other mis-selling allegations in the other Member States where ELAS had sales operations, for example tempting prospective customers by holding out the potential investments to have specific qualities which did not actually exist, for example, the claims that Irish or international policies were ring-fenced, and that German policies were subject to the German Financial Regulator's control.
Malomarnost zakonodajalca pri nadzoru poslovanja
Negligence in regulators' Conduct of Business (CoB) supervision
Odbor meni, da se je zakonodajalec Združenega kraljestva na navedeno prodajno in tržno prakso družbe ELAS odzval pozno, če se je sploh odzval.
The committee believes that the UK CoB regulators reacted late, if at all, in relation to the above mentioned ELAS sales and marketing practices.
Zakonodajalci, ki so nadzirali poslovanje, so se pozno odzvali tudi v drugih državah članicah, deloma zato ker še niso delovale ustrezne nadzorne strukture in ker so pričakovali, da se bodo lahko oprli na učinkovitost regulativnega nadzora Združenega kraljestva.
CoB regulators in the other Member States concerned also reacted late, partly because appropriate supervisory structures were not yet in place and partly because they expected to rely on the efficiency of UK regulatory supervision.
Vendar se zdi, da se je nadzor poslovanja irskih in nemških zakonodajalcev zapoznelo izboljšali, ko so težave družbe ELAS postale splošno znane.
However, it seems that once the problems surrounding ELAS had become commonly known or brought to their attention, Irish and German regulators' CoB supervision belatedly improved.
Na splošno slišane in predložene izjave jasno navajajo, da se je v zadnjih petih letih regulativni nadzor življenjskega zavarovanja v zadevnih državah članicah izboljšal, zlasti tam, kjer samostojni organ za zavarovalni nadzor zdaj pokriva bonitetni nadzor in nadzor poslovanja.
In general terms, the statements heard and submitted strongly suggest that regulatory supervision of life insurance in the Member States affected has improved in the past five years, in particular where a single insurance supervisory authority now covers both prudential and CoB supervision.
Slaba komunikacija med tujimi zakonodajalci in zakonodajalcem Združenega kraljestva
Communication failures between UK and foreign regulators
Veliko izjav podpira trditev, da je bila od devetdesetih let 20. stoletja do leta 2002 komunikacija o družbi ELAS med zakonodajalci Združenega kraljestva, Irske in Nemčije ter drugimi zakonodajalci nezadovoljiva, če ne celo očitno pomanjkljiva.
Many accounts supported the claim that communications between the UK, Irish, German and other regulators in relation to ELAS were unsatisfactory, if not clearly deficient, throughout the 1990s and up to 2002.
Odbor zlasti meni, da je bila komunikacija, če je sploh obstajala, povsem nezadostna za obravnavanje tako pomembnega vprašanja, kot je kriza družbe ELAS, ki ima očitne čezmejne posledice.
In particular, the committee considers that the communications, if any, which took place were totally insufficient to deal with such an important issue as the ELAS crisis with obvious cross-border implications.
Odbor je trdno prepričan, da je bila razlaga odgovornosti domače/tuje države pri nadzorovanju življenjskih zavarovalnic s strani zakonodajalca veliko preveč pasivna, pri čemer sta se zanašali druga na drugo.
The committee firmly believes that the regulators' interpretation of the home/host country responsibilities in supervising life assurance companies was far too passive, with one tending to rely on the other.
Veliko izjav potrjuje, da je takšno ravnanje prispevalo k dodatni oslabitvi regulativnega okolja in povzročilo, da so bili zlasti tuji zavarovanci spregledani, tuji zakonodajalci na Irskem in v Nemčiji pa so bili le gledalci z malo nadzora nad zavarovalnimi posli na svojem ozemlju in še manj v drugih državah članicah.
As confirmed by a number of statements, this behaviour itself contributed to a further weakening of the regulatory environment and led in particular to non-UK policyholders falling between two stools and the host regulator in Ireland and Germany appearing to be mere bystanders with little control over the insurance business being done in their territory, let alone in other Member States.
Odbor zato podpira delo za preučitev možnosti prihodnjega regulativnega nadzora družb na ravni skupine, da se pojasnijo regulativne odgovornosti.
The committee therefore supports work to examine the possibility of future regulatory supervision of companies at group level, in order to clarify regulatory responsibilities.
Izjave in gradivo, ki so bili predloženi odboru, so upravičili mnenje, da se je komunikacija med zakonodajalci na področju zavarovanja od leta 2004 izboljšala zaradi njihovega tesnejšega sodelovanja na podlagi novega omrežja evropskih zakonodajalcev, tj. odbora evropskih zavarovalnih in pokojninskih nadzornikov, katerega cilj je večja učinkovitost čezmejnega nadzora in regulativnih ukrepov , vendar prepozno, da bi zavarovancem družbe ELAS pomagala na začetku krize .
Statements and material provided to the committee give it reasons to believe that the communication between insurance regulators has improved since 2004 due to the closer cooperation of regulators within the newly created CEIOPS network of European regulators, which aims at a higher performance in cross-border supervision and regulatory action but too late to assist ELAS policy holders in the lead-in to the crisis.
Odbor vseeno meni, da je prisotno tveganje, da domači in tudi tuji nadzorniki ne bi nadzorovali pravil poslovanja, ker bi oboji menili, da vsak izvaja svoja pravila, kadar tuja država organov domače države ne obvešča o „ splošnih dobrih “ pravilih.
However, the committee considers that where the host State notifies no "general good" rules to the home State authority, there is an inherent risk that neither the home nor the host supervisor looks at conduct of business rules because each would think that the other was enforcing its own rules.
Odbor je na splošno sklenil, da je bilo več truda vloženega v razvoj notranjega trga finančnih storitev kot v zagotavljanje zadostnega varstva potrošnikov.
Overall, the committee concluded that the development of the internal market in financial services was pursued ahead of concerns about ensuring that sufficient consumer safeguards were in place.
DEL IV – PRAVNA SREDSTVA
PART IV - REMEDIES
o statusu zahtevkov in ustreznosti pravnih sredstev, ki so na voljo zavarovancem
on the status of claims and adequacy of remedies available to policy holders
KAZALO DEL IV
INDEX PART IV
Prizadeti zavarovanci
Policyholders affected
Celotne izgube
Collective losses
Posamezne izgube
Individual losses
Pritožbe zakonodajalcem Združenega kraljestva in uradne preiskave
Complaints to the UK regulators and official investigations
Pritožbe na Organ za finančne storitve
Complaints to the FSA
Bairdovo poročilo
The Baird Report
Penrosovo poročilo
The Penrose Report
Ukrepi družbe ELAS v zvezi z oškodovanimi zavarovanci
Actions by ELAS in relation to aggrieved policyholders
Civilne tožbe proti nekdanjim direktorjem in revizorjem
Litigation against former directors and auditors
Odškodninska shema
The Compromise Scheme
Pritožbe družbi ELAS in „pregledi polic“
Complaints to ELAS and 'Policy Reviews'
Zahtevki proti družbi ELAS zaradi zlorab pri prodaji
Claims against ELAS for mis-selling
Nesodni – Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve Združenega kraljestva
Non-judicial - the UK Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS)
b) Obravnava pritožb glede družbe Equitable Life
b) Treatment of Equitable Life complaints
c) Kritike zavarovancev zaradi načina obravnave pritožb pri Službi varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve
c) Policyholders' criticism of the FOS's handling of complaints
Sodni postopki
Judicial - court proceedings
a) Pravne podlage Združenega kraljestva za zahtevke proti družbi ELAS
a) UK legal bases for claims against ELAS
b) Rok zastaranja
b) Limitation period
c) Sodne zadeve
c) Court cases
Zahtevki proti zakonodajalcu Združenega kraljestva
Claims against the UK regulator
Nesodni – Parlamentarna varuhinja človekovih pravic Združenega kraljestva
Non-judicial - the UK Parliamentary Ombudsman
Odškodninska shema Združenega kraljestva za finančne storitve in odločitev, da se družba ELAS ne zapre
The UK Financial Services Compensation Scheme and the decision not to close ELAS
Položaj zavarovancev, ki niso iz Združenega kraljestva
The position of non-UK policyholders
Poslovanje družbe Equitable Life na Irskem in v Nemčiji
Equitable Life's business in Ireland and Germany
Pritožbe zavarovancev, ki niso iz Združenega kraljestva
Grievances of non-UK policyholders
a) Spodbude za vlaganja pri družbi ELAS
a) Motivations for investing with ELAS
b) Oglaševanje družbe ELAS
b) ELAS advertising
c) Obtožbe zlorabe pri prodaji
c) Allegations of mis-selling
d) Obtožbe diskriminatorne obravnave
d) Allegations of discriminatory treatment
e) Politika obveščanja družbe ELAS
e) ELAS information policy
Dostop do odškodnine v državi članici obveznosti
Access to redress in the Member State of commitment
a) Nadzorni organi v državi članici obveznosti
a) Supervisory authorities in the Member State of commitment
(b) Sheme varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve
b) Financial Ombudsman schemes
c) Zajamčeni skladi
c) Guarantee funds
Dostop do odškodnine v Združenem kraljestvu
Access to redress in the United Kingdom
a) Pritožbe na Organ za finančne storitve
a) Complaints to the FSA
a) Pritožbe na Službo varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve
b) Complaints to the FOS
c) Parlamentarna varuhinja človekovih pravic Združenega kraljestva
c) The UK Parliamentary Ombudsman
d) Odškodninska shema Združenega kraljestva za finančne storitve
d) The UK Financial Services Compensation Scheme
Možna pravna sredstva za oškodovance družbe ELAS v zakonodaji EU
X. Potential remedies for ELAS victims under EU law
Tretja direktiva o življenjskem zavarovanju
The Third Life Directive
Primarna zakonodaja EU
Primary EU law
a) Pravica do peticij in pritožb Evropski komisiji
a) The right to petition and complaints to the European Commission
b) Zakonodajna obveznost iz zakonodaje EU
b) Regulatory liability under EU law
c) Odškodninska tožba na podlagi člena 235 in člena 288(2) Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti
c) Action for damages under Articles 235 and 288(2) ECT
Mehanizmi za usklajevanje na ravni EU
Coordination mechanisms at EU level
Zadeva za evropsko skupinsko tožbo
The case for a European class action lawsuit
Potreba po odškodnini za oškodovance družbe ELAS
The need to compensate ELAS victims
V tem poglavju poročila odbor preverja škodo ali izgubo, ki so jo imeli zavarovanci zaradi krize družbe Equitable Life Assurance Society (ELAS).
Under this section of the report, the committee examines the damage or loss caused to policyholders as a consequence of the crisis of the Equitable Life Assurance Society (ELAS).
Prav tako določa in ocenjuje ukrepe, ki so na voljo zavarovancem za pridobitev odškodnine, kot to zahteva alineja 4 sklepa Evropskega parlamenta o ustanovitvi preiskovalnega odbora.
It also identifies and assesses actions available to policyholders for obtaining redress, such as required under indent 4 of the European Parliament Decision setting up the Committee of Inquiry.
V zvezi z odškodninami odbor zaradi zapletenosti vprašanja in pomanjkanja dostopa do zadevnih podatkov ne poskuša določiti točnih zneskov, ampak raje poskuša pridobiti sliko obsega škode po velikosti in položaja, v katerem so zavarovanci zaradi krize družbe ELAS.
As regards damages, the committee does not, in view of the complexity of the issue and a lack of access to relevant data, attempt to identify exact numbers but rather tries to obtain a picture of the orders of magnitude involved and of the kind of situations in which policyholders find themselves as a consequence of the ELAS crisis.
Odbor je v zvezi s tem prejel številne pisne in ustne dokaze oškodovanih zavarovancev.
The committee has received ample written and oral evidence from aggrieved policyholders to this effect.
Poročilo nato obravnava nekatere odgovore zakonodajalca Združenega kraljestva in družbe same v zvezi s krizo družbe Equitable Life, ki so bili pomembni za oškodovane zavarovance.
The report subsequently deals with some of the responses by the UK Regulator and the Society itself to Equitable Life's crisis, which were relevant to aggrieved policyholders.
Naslednji oddelki določajo poti do odškodnine, ki je na voljo zavarovancem na podlagi zakonodaje Združenega kraljestva.
The following sections identify the routes of redress available to policyholders under UK law.
Najprej so analizirane možnosti, ki jih imajo zavarovanci, da od družbe zahtevajo odškodnino.
Firstly, the possibilities open to policyholders to claim damages from the Society are analysed.
Navedena pravna sredstva vključujejo sodne postopke na sodišču in nesodna pravna sredstva, kot so alternativne sheme za poravnavo sporov.
The remedies referred to include both judicial procedures before the courts and non-judicial remedies such as alternative dispute settlement schemes.
Drugič, poročilo preverja načine, kako lahko zavarovanci pridobijo odškodnino od vlade prek sodišča in alternativnih sredstev.
Secondly, the report examines ways for policyholders to obtain compensation from government both through the courts and by alternative means.
Poročilo pregleda načine za pridobitev odškodnine v zakonodaji Združenega kraljestva na podlagi informacij, prejetih v ustni ali pisni obliki, s strani prič in po raziskavi, ki jo opravi odbor.
The routes to redress under UK law are scrutinized on the basis of information received orally and in writing from witnesses and following research undertaken by the committee.
Poročilo se prav tako sklicuje na izkušnje oškodovanih zavarovancev pri prizadevanjih za pridobitev odškodnine.
The report also makes reference to the experiences of aggrieved policyholders in their efforts to obtain compensation.
Naslednji deli tega oddelka obravnavajo položaj zavarovancev, ki so sklenili police pri podružnicah družbe ELAS v državah članicah, ki niso Združeno kraljestvo, zlasti na Irskem in v Nemčiji.
The following parts of this section deal with the situation of policyholders who purchased their policies from ELAS branches established in EU Member States other than the UK, particularly Ireland and Germany.
Po določitvi posameznih krivic, ki so jih utrpeli ti zavarovanci, poročilo obravnava ukrepe, ki so jih v zvezi z družbo ELAS sprejeli zadevni zakonodajalci na področju financ na Irskem in v Nemčiji, ter ocenjuje položaj zavarovancev, ki niso iz Združenega kraljestva, glede dostopa do odškodnin v njihovi državi in v Združenem kraljestvu.
After identifying the particular grievances of these policyholders, the report looks at actions undertaken in relation to ELAS by the respective financial regulators in Ireland and Germany and assesses the situation of non-UK policyholders as regards access to redress in both their own country and in the UK.
Oškodovani zavarovanci in zakonodajalci iz obeh držav so odboru predložili ustne in pisne dokaze.
Oral and written evidence has been presented to the committee by aggrieved policyholders and regulators from both countries.
Zadnji del tega oddelka obravnava pravna sredstva, ki so na voljo zavarovancem na podlagi zakonodaje EU.
The last part of this section deals with remedies available to policyholders under EU law.
Prvič, preiskuje, ali sekundarna zakonodaja, kot na primer tretja direktiva o življenjskem zavarovanju, predvideva mehanizme odškodnine.
Firstly, it investigates whether secondary law, such as for instance the Third Life Directive itself provide for redress mechanisms.
Drugič, poročilo se osredotoča na sistem sodnega varstva na podlagi primarne zakonodaje EU v zvezi z izgubo in škodo, ki je bila povzročena posameznikom s kršenjem zakonodaje Skupnosti in za katero so odgovorne države članice v skladu z merili Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti.
Secondly, the report focuses on the system of judicial protection under primary EU law with regard to loss and damage caused to individuals by breaches of Community law for which Member States can be held responsible according to criteria developed by the European Court of Justice.