natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Glede na pismo je ta odločitev temeljila na potrditvi Ministrstva Združenega kraljestva za gospodarstvo in finančne zadeve, da je bil v praksi za bonitetno ureditev odgovoren zakonodajalec Združenega kraljestva in da bi pritožbe o takšni ureditvi zato zadevale pravice ali dolžnosti v Združenem kraljestvu.
According to the letter, this decision was based on a confirmation by the UK Treasury that in practice all prudential regulation was undertaken by the UK regulator and that complaints about such regulation would therefore concern rights or obligations arising within the UK.
LAKE (H1) je menil, da je odločitev o vključitvi mednarodnih zavarovancev „diskrecijski ukrep in ne zakonski predpis“.
Mr LAKE (H1) was of the opinion that the decision to cover international policyholders was " a discretionary measure and not a legal prescription ".
Komisar je pozdravil dejanje parlamentarne varuhinje, „ker je na enotnem trgu nesprejemljivo, da bi bili zavarovanci, ki niso iz Združenega kraljestva, obravnavani drugače kot zavarovanci Združenega kraljestva“ (H8).
Commissioner McCREEVY welcomed the Parliamentary Ombudsman's undertaking " because, in a single market, it is not acceptable that non-UK policyholders would not receive the same treatment as UK policyholders " (H8).
Odškodninska shema Združenega kraljestva za finančne storitve
The UK Financial Services Compensation Scheme
Na spletni strani
The FSCS states on its website
http://www.fscs.org.uk/ odškodninske sheme za finančne storitve je navedeno, da shema vključuje le pritožbe zoper družbe, ki jih je zakonodajalec Združenega kraljestva odobril ob svetovanju.
http://www.fscs.org.uk/ that it can only consider claims against firms that were authorised by a UK regulator at the time the advice was given.
Splošno razumevanje prič, ki so bile zaslišane pred odborom, je, da odškodninska shema za finančne storitve načeloma ne bi vključevala odškodninskih zahtevkov strank tujih podružnic zavarovalnic Združenega kraljestva (glej na primer izjave TERTÁKA, H1; LAKA, H1; WEYERJA, H3; O'DEAJEVE, H4, STEFFENA, H6).
The common understanding of witnesses heard before the committee is such that the FSCS, in principle, would not cover claims for compensation from the customers of foreign branches of UK insurance undertakings (see, for instance, statements by Mr TERTÁK, H1; Mr LAKE, H1; Mr WEYER, H3; Ms O'DEA, H4, Mr STEFFEN, H6).
Po zahtevi irskih zavarovancev
Following requests from Irish policyholders
Glej na primer pismo s prilogami O'Broina z dne 8. marca 2006 (WE 3). so irski organi poskušali pridobiti informacije od organov Združenega kraljestva o tem, ali imajo irski zavarovanci v primeru nesolventnosti pravico do odškodnine.
See for instance letter with attachments by Mr O'Broin dated 8 March 2006 (WE 3). , the Irish authorities sought to obtain information from the UK authorities as to whether Irish policyholders would qualify for compensation in the event of insolvency.
Prejeti nasvet je vseboval dejstvo, da je položaj irskih zavarovancev glede pravice do odškodnine v okviru sheme zakonsko kompleksen in „ga je treba oceniti ... od primera do primera“ (O'DEAJEVA, H4).
The advice received was to the effect that the position of Irish policyholders regarding the right to compensation under the scheme is legally complex and "would need to be assessed ... on a case by case basis ."
Glede na to so police, ki so jih nemške stranke podpisale pred uvedbo odškodninske sheme za finančne storitve 1. decembra 2001 (kar velja za vse nemške police), zaščitene, če so bile podpisane z družbo, ki jo je odobrilo Združeno kraljestvo, ali z eno od njenih podružnic v EU in če so bile že zaščitene v okviru njenega predhodnika, Sklada za zaščito zavarovancev, ki je bil ustanovljen leta 1975.
According to them, policies signed by German customers before the creation of the FSCS on 1 December 2001 (which is the case for all German policies) are protected if they were signed with a UK authorised undertaking or one of their EU subsidiaries and if they already fell under the protection of its predecessor, the Policyholder Protection Fund, created in 1975.
Drugi pogoj je izpolnjen le (v primeru, da je „tveganje zavarovano zunaj Združenega kraljestva“
The second condition is only met (in case 'the protected risk is situated outside the UK'
Tj. zavarovanci z življenjskim zavarovanjem s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice, ki niso iz Združenega kraljestva. ), če so bile police podpisane z ustanovo v Združenem kraljestvu.
i.e. with profits policyholders resident outside the UK. ) if the policies were signed with an establishment in the UK.
Od leta 1997 je bila zaščita razširjena na police, ki so bile podpisane s podružnicami v državah EGP, vendar le če sta tveganje ali obveznost izhajala iz Združenega kraljestva.
From 1997 onward, protection was extended to policies that were signed with subsidiaries in EEA countries, but only if the risk or commitment is situated in the UK.
Zato police, ki so jih nerezidenti Združenega kraljestva sklenili s tujimi podružnicami in ki predstavljajo najbolj značilen položaj, ne bi bile zaščitene v skladu z informacijami, ki jih je predložil BaFin.
Hence, policies concluded with foreign branches by non UK residents, which represents the most typical situation, would not be protected according to the information received from BaFin.
STEFFEN (H6) navaja: „To se po letu 2002 ni znatno spremenilo, ker je merilo ostalo, da je bila pogodba dejansko podpisana v Veliki Britaniji ali da se je zavarovano tveganje nahajalo v Veliki Britaniji, tj. zavarovanec je moral živeti v Veliki Britaniji.
According to Mr STEFFEN (H6) " this did not change significantly after 2002, as the criterion was either that the contract had actually to have been signed in Britain or the insured risk still had to be located in Britain, i.e. the policyholder had to live in Britain.
Po naših ocenah to ne bi veljalo za večino strank v Nemčiji, o čemer pa nisem popolnoma prepričan.
In our estimation – and I cannot say this with absolute certainty – that would not apply to the great majority of customers in Germany .
V Bonnu smo se sestali z našimi britanskimi kolegi, da bi ugotovili, ali bi lahko med britansko odškodninsko shemo, ki je dejansko veljala za britanske stranke, in zaščito, ki je na voljo evropskim strankam, obstajala vrzel.
We had meetings in Bonn to discuss with our British colleagues whether there could be a gap between, on the one hand, the British compensation scheme, which basically applied to British customers, and the protection available to European customers.
Organ za finančne storitve ni izpodbijal naše ocene, da nemške stranke niso bile zaščitene, to zadevo pa smo obravnavali brez kakršnega koli pravnega sredstva. “
At all events the FSA did not contest our assessment that German customers were not protected, but we both considered this point without identifying any possible remedy ".
HOLMES se v WE 84
WE 84
Vendar je vprašanje dostopa do jamstvenih shem zavarovancem družbe ELAS v praksi le malo pomagalo, saj shema Združenega kraljestva ni bila nikoli uporabljena, ker je družba ELAS izpolnjevala obveznosti in je bila solventna.
However, the question of access to guarantee schemes has been of little practical relevance to ELAS victims, since the UK scheme has never come into play, given that the Society was neither at default nor insolvent.
Na kratko se zdi, da zavarovanci, ki niso iz Združenega kraljestva, na splošno niso imeli dostopa do dveh organov Združenega kraljestva, ki sta bila ustanovljena za obravnavo pritožbe v zvezi z zavarovanjem ali napakami zavarovalnic (Služba varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve in odškodninska shema za finančne storitve).
In summary, it appears that non-UK policyholders generally have no access to the two UK bodies designed to deal with insurance complaints or insurance undertaking failures (FOS and FSCS).
TERTÁK (H1) zato navaja, da „so zavarovanci družbe, ki niso iz Združenega kraljestva, jasno v neugodnem položaju“.
Mr TERTÁK (H1) therefore concluded that, " non UK Equitable Life Members are clearly in an unfavourable position ."
WEYER (H3) je dejal, da je sodno varstvo „dejansko edino priznano pravno sredstvo, ki je na voljo evropskim strankam“.
Mr WEYER (H3) suggested that court action would " really [be] the only recognisable legal remedy available to the European consumer ".
Združeno kraljestvo je navedlo, da ne bo oviralo dobrega predloga.
The UK has indicated that it would not stand in the way of a soundly based proposal.
Toda predlog direktive o zavarovalnih odškodninskih shemah je lahko le en del sistema, ki mora vključevati izboljšanje sodelovanja med domačimi in tujimi nadzorniki.
But any proposal for a Directive on insurance guarantee schemes can only be one part of a system that must include improved co-operation between home and host state supervisors. "
“ Podobno je navedel tudi STEFFEN iz BaFina: „Z velikim zanimanjem opazujemo nadaljnji razvoj razprav med evropskimi državami članicami o usklajenem pravnem okviru za zaščitne sheme v Evropski uniji ... in Nemčija pri prizadevanjih konstruktivno sodeluje“ (H6).
Similarly, Mr STEFFEN from BaFin said that " we watch with great interest the further development of discussions between the European Member States on a harmonised legal framework for protection schemes in the European Union ... and Germany is participating constructively in these efforts " (H6).
Kar zadeva tožbe proti zavarovalnicam, Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 44/2001 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvrševanju sodnih odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah na splošno določa, da se pristojnost izvaja v državi članici, v kateri ima toženec stalno prebivališče, ne glede na njegovo nacionalnost.
As far as possible court action against insurance providers is concerned, Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters provides in general that jurisdiction is exercised in the Member State in which the defendant is domiciled regardless of his or her nationality.
Oddelek 3 (členi 8 do 14) določa posebna pravila za zadeve, povezane z zavarovanjem.
Section 3 (Articles 8 to 14) lays down specific rules for matters relating to insurance.
Člen 9(1) določa: „Zavarovalnica s stalnim prebivališčem v državi članici je lahko tožena: (a) pred sodišči države članice, kjer ima stalno prebivališče; ali (b) v drugi državi članici v primeru tožb, ki jih vložijo zavarovalec ..., pred sodiščem kraja, kjer ima stalno prebivališče tožnik“.
Article 9 paragraph 1 stipulates that " an insurer domiciled in a Member State may be sued (a) in the courts of the Member State where he is domiciled, or (b) in another Member State , in the case of actions brought by the policyholder ... in the courts for the place where the plaintiff is domiciled ".
Zato bi irski/nemški zavarovanci, ki so sklenili police z družbo Equitable Life v Združenem kraljestvu, imeli možnost, da družbo tožijo v Združenem kraljestvu ali v državi, kjer imajo stalno prebivališče, kar bo najverjetneje Irska/Nemčija.
It follows that Irish/German policyholders, who have contracted with Equitable Life in the UK, would have the choice of suing the company either in the UK or in the country where they are domiciled, which will most likely be Ireland/Germany.
Vendar bi morali irski/nemški zavarovanci, ki so police sklenili pri podružnicah družbe Equitable Life na Irskem/v Nemčiji, družbo tožiti na Irskem/v Nemčiji (razen če imajo stalno prebivališče v drugi državi članici).
On the other hand, Irish/German policyholders who have contracted with Equitable Life's branches in Ireland/Germany would have to sue Equitable in Ireland/Germany (unless they are not domiciled in another Member State).
Velika večina irskih/nemških zavarovancev je police kupilo v podružnicah družbe ELAS na Irskem/v Nemčiji, zato bi družbo morali tožiti tam.
The vast majority of Irish/German policyholders have purchased their policies from ELAS branches in Ireland/Germany, so they would have to sue the Society there.
Člen 32 konsolidirane direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju določa pravila o tem, katera zakonodaja se uporablja za zavarovalne pogodbe.
Article 32 of the consolidated Life Assurance Directive lays down rules as to which law is applicable to the insurance contracts.
Pogodbe za življenjsko zavarovanje ustrezno ureja zakonodaja države članice obveznosti, tj. država članica, kjer ima zavarovanec svoje stalno prebivališče.
Accordingly, a life assurance contract is governed by the law of the Member State of the commitment, i.e. the Member State where the policyholder has his habitual residence.
Stranke si lahko, če to dovoljuje zakonodaja te države članice, izberejo zakonodajo druge države.
Where the law of that State so allows, the parties may choose the law of another country.
Če je zavarovanec fizična oseba in ima stalno prebivališče v državi članici, katere državljanstva nima, lahko stranke izberejo pravo države članice, katere državljan je.
In any event, where the policyholder is a natural person and has his habitual residence in a Member State other than the State of his nationality, the parties may choose the law of the State of which he is a national.
Vendar navedena pravila ne omejujejo uporabe pravnih predpisov pristojnega sodišča, ko so ti obvezni, ne glede na zakonodajo, ki se sicer uporablja pri pogodbi.
However, the above rules do not restrict the application of the rules of the law of the forum in a situation where those rules are mandatory, irrespective of the law otherwise applicable to the contract.
ES 3
By way of example, ES 3
Strani 68 do 70. kot primer navaja izbiro zakonodaje za nemške zavarovance pri vlaganju zahtevkov proti družbi ELAS: „ Vlaganje zahtevkov nemških zavarovancev po britanski zakonodaji na nemškem sodišču temelji na načelih zasebnega mednarodnega prava.
Pages 68 to 70. examines the choice of law for German policyholders in pursuing claims against the Society: " Whether German policyholders can invoke claims under English law in a German court depends on principles of private international law.
Za različne vrste zahtevkov, ki jih želijo vložiti zavarovanci, se uporabljajo različna pravila.
Different rules apply depending on the type of claim that the policyholder wishes to pursue. "
“ Kar zadeva pogodbena pravna sredstva, ES 3 ugotavlja, da „je v primeru nemških zavarovancev, ki so pogodbe sklenili z družbo Equitable Life, zakonodaja, ki ureja pogodbe in mogoče neizpolnjevanje obveznosti iz pogodbe, nemška zakonodaja.
As regards contractual remedies, ES 3 concludes that " in the case of a German policyholder concluding a contract with Equitable Life, the default law that governs the contract and possible breaches of obligations arising under the contract is German law.
Stranke lahko izberejo drugo zakonodajo, vendar je njihova izbira omejena.
The parties may choose another law but their choice is restricted.
Angleško zakonodajo lahko izbere državljan Združenega kraljestva, če ima stalno prebivališče v Nemčiji. ...
English law may be elected if a UK national has his/her habitual residence in Germany . ...
Če družba Equitable Life zavarovalnih dejavnosti v Nemčiji ni izvajala prek hčerinskih družb ali podružnic ali zastopnikov, lahko stranke pogodbe izberejo katero koli zakonodajo, če ima zavarovanec stalno prebivališče v Nemčiji “.
[If] Equitable Life has pursued the activity of insurance in Germany neither through subsidiaries or branches nor through agents, the parties to the contract can choose any law if the policyholder has his/her habitual residence in Germany ."
ES 3 v zvezi z odškodninskimi pravnimi sredstvi navaja, da „ima zavarovanec, ki ima stalno prebivališče v Nemčiji (in ima tam tudi svoja sredstva) in je doživel finančno izgubo zaradi nepoštenih dejanj družbe Equitable Life ali enega od zaposlenih, možnost, da uporabi pravna sredstva nemške ali angleške zakonodaje“.
With reference to tort law remedies, ES 3 states that " in the case of a policyholder with his/her habitual residence in Germany (and therefore his/her assets in Germany) who has suffered financial loss due to the tortuous acts of Equitable Life or one of its employees, the policyholder has the choice whether to pursue remedies under German or English law. "
STEFFE je dejal, da „te pravne rešitve ne more kritizirati, saj gre za varstvo potrošnikov v najboljši obliki“ .
Mr STEFFEN (H6) commented that he " cannot make any criticism of this legal solution, it is consumer protection in the best sense ".
Meni, da je dejstvo, da se zavarovancem, ki niso iz Združenega kraljestva, ob pojavu težave „ni treba zadovoljiti z britansko zakonodajo“, zanje ugodno.
He regards the fact that non-UK policyholders when a problem arises " do not have to contend with British law " as an advantage for them.
WEYER (H3) pa je izrazil dvom o sposobnosti nemških regionalnih sodišč, da obravnavajo morebitne zadeve, vložene zoper družbo ELAS: „ Tu bi rad tudi omenil, da bomo to zelo težko izvedli, ker je gradivo zelo kompleksno.
Mr WEYER (H3), however, expressed doubt as to the ability of the German regional courts to assess possible cases brought against ELAS: " I would also mention here that this would be particularly difficult for us because the material is highly complex.
Z nemškega stališča se ukvarjamo z zadevami, ki imajo mednarodne pravne posledice.
From a German point of view, we are dealing with matters that have international legal implications.
Poleg tega je treba pojasniti vprašanja aktuarske ocene, regulativne zakonodaje in zavarovalniškega pogodbenega prava, razpoložljivi dokazi pa so zlasti iz Združenega kraljestva in zato v angleškem jeziku.
In addition, questions of actuarial expertise, regulatory law and insurance contract law need to be clarified, and the evidence in our possession is predominantly from the United Kingdom , hence in English.
Predvidevamo, da bi bilo povprečno regionalno sodišče, ki je običajno pristojno v takšnih zadevah, zelo preobremenjeno.
We assume that an average regional court, which would normally have jurisdiction in such cases, would be largely overstretched by such matters.
V zvezi s tem je pomemben dejavnik za nemško stranko tudi tveganje visokih pravnih stroškov. “
The legal expenses risk is also a formidable factor for the German consumer in this respect. "
Odbor se je seznanil z zadevo, ki je bila na nemškem sodišču vložena zoper družbo ELAS.
The committee has become aware of a case brought against ELAS before a German court.
STEFFEN je v H6 odboru povedal: „Nemški odvetnik mi je pisal v zvezi s pomočjo nemškega zakonodajalca v sodni zadevi. ...
Mr STEFFEN told the committee in H6 that " a German lawyer wrote to me seeking assistance from the German regulator in a court case. ...
Mislim, da je zadevalo postopke na regionalnem sodišču v Düsseldorfu.
I think it related to proceedings in the Düsseldorf Regional Court .
Do sedaj smo menili, da smo dobro zaščiteni kot nemški nadzorni organ, ker menimo, da ni vloga zakonodajalca, da vodi pogajanja v posameznih primerih med strankami pogodbe.
Up to now we have felt that we are well covered as a German supervisory authority, because we do not think that it can be the role of the regulator to conduct negotiations in individual cases between parties to a contract.
Slišal sem, da se pogajanja nadaljujejo, in tudi, da se pogaja in razpravlja o dejanski poravnavi ter zneskih poravnav, kar pa je moje subjektivno mnenje.
I hear that these negotiations are continuing and I also hear – but that is my subjective impression – that indeed concrete settlements and settlement sums are being negotiated and discussed in the case.
Vendar vam ne morem povedati, kakšen bo izid teh pogajanj. “
I cannot tell you, however, what the outcome will be ".
Odbor ni prejel nobenih informacij o tem, ali so še kakšni drugi irski zavarovanci vložili tožbo zoper družbo Equitable Life.
No information has been made available to the committee as to whether any other Irish policyholders have brought court cases against Equitable Life.
ES 3
As far as claims against supervisory authorities are concerned, ES 3
Strani 108 in 109. ugotavlja, da Uredba (ES) št. 44/2001 na področju vlaganja zahtevkov zoper nadzorne organe ne velja.
Pages 108 and 109. specifies that Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 does not apply.
Zato bi bil odškodninski postopek proti organom Združenega kraljestva predmet angleške zakonodaje in bi se moral začeti pred sodišči Združenega kraljestva: „ To izraža splošno načelo teritorialnosti, ki velja v zadevah s področja javnega prava.
Therefore an action in damages against UK authorities would be subject to English law and would have to be brought before UK courts: " This reflects the general principle of territoriality which applies in matters of public law.
Zato zahtevke zoper regulativne organe Združenega kraljestva ureja angleška zakonodaja, ki mora določati, ali lahko zavarovanec, ki ni iz Združenega kraljestva, prejme odškodnino in pod kakšnimi pogoji.
Thus, claims against the UK regulatory authorities are governed by English law which is responsible for determining whether and under which conditions a non-UK policyholder can recover losses.
Vendar je treba glede tega vedeti, da so države članice zavezane s temeljnim načelom nediskriminacije na podlagi nacionalnosti iz člena 12 ES in bi bila tako drugačna obravnava zavarovancev, ki niso rezidenti Združenega kraljestva, lahko neposredna diskriminacija na podlagi nacionalnosti “ (ES 3).
It should be noted however in this context that Member States are bound by the fundamental principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality laid down in Article 12 EC and thus, differential treatment against policy holders who are not resident in the UK would be liable to be indirect discrimination on grounds of nationality " (ES 3).
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, je več prič poudarilo zakonske ovire in finančna tveganja pri vlaganju zahtevkov zoper zakonodajalca Združenega kraljestva, celo za državljane Združenega kraljestva.
As stated above, several witnesses highlighted the legal hurdles and financial risks involved in pursuing claims against the UK regulator, even for UK citizens.
Glede državljanov Združenega kraljestva je bilo navedeno, da „ je pravno okolje v Združenem kraljestvu za večino neznano in veliko bolj tvegano kot njihovo domače pravno okolje“ (glej LAKE, H1).
In respect of non-UK citizens it was stated that " the legal environment in the UK is not only unfamiliar to most [of them] but also considerably riskier than their home legal environment " (see Mr LAKE, H1).
Dokazi navajajo, da noben zavarovanec, ki ni iz Združenega kraljestva, ni vložil tožbe zoper zakonodajalca Združenega kraljestva.
Evidence suggests that no non-UK policyholders have taken legal action against the UK regulator.
X Možna pravna sredstva za oškodovance družbe ELAS v zakonodaji EU
X Potential remedies for ELAS victims under EU law
Ta del obravnava pravna sredstva, ki so na voljo zavarovancem na podlagi zakonodaje EU.
This part deals with remedies available to policyholders under EU law.
Prvič, preiskuje, ali sekundarna zakonodaja, kot je na primer tretja direktiva o življenjskem zavarovanju, predvideva mehanizme odškodnine.
Firstly, it investigates, whether secondary law, such as for instance the Third Life Directives 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.
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.
Končno, odbor pregleda mehanizme za usklajevanje na ravni EU, kot je mreža FIN-NET, ki je bila ustanovljena, da bi olajšala obravnavo pritožb čezmejnih potrošnikov.
Finally, the committee looks at coordination mechanisms at EU level, such as FIN-NET, which was established to facilitate the treatment of cross-border consumer complaints.