natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Če povzamemo, precej omejeno število irskih zavarovancev pri družbi ELAS je bilo upravičenih do odškodnine na podlagi obravnav takratne sheme irskega varuha človekovih pravic za zavarovalniško področje.
In summary, a very limited number of Irish ELAS policyholders appear to have been able to obtain compensation through adjudications of the Insurance Ombudsman of Ireland scheme in place at the time.
Vendar ni jasno, ali so zadeve, ki so bile rešene v korist zavarovancev, kakor koli povezane z obtožbami v zvezi z dogodki v družbi Equitable, ki jih preiskuje ta odbor.
It is uncertain, however, whether the cases found in favour of policyholders are in any way linked to the allegations made in connection with the events at Equitable that are investigated by this committee.
Poleg tega ni dokazov, ki bi odboru omogočili, da pojasni, zakaj je nekatere pritožbe irskih zavarovancev družbe ELAS obravnaval irski varuh človekovih pravic, druge pa služba varuha človekovih pravic Združenega kraljestva.
Furthermore, there is a lack of conclusive evidence that would make it possible for the committee to clearly determine for which reasons some complaints by Irish ELAS policyholders were treated by the IOI while others were referred to the UK FOS.
Na splošno se zaradi takratnega pomanjkanja jasnosti glede vprašanj pristojnosti in pravnih podlag za obravnavo pritožb ter ob upoštevanju pomanjkanja dokazov, da je majhno število odločitev v korist pritožnikov dejansko obravnavalo glavna vprašanja v zvezi z zadevo ELAS, zdi verjetno, da nekdanja shema irskega varuha človekovih pravic za zavarovalniško področje ni zadovoljiva smer za obravnavo skoraj 4000 irskih zavarovancev.
Overall, given the lack of clarity in both jurisdiction matters and legal bases for adjudicating complaints at the time and taking into account the lack of evidence that the small number of decisions in favour of the complainant indeed addressed the main issues of the ELAS affair, it appears that the former IOI scheme did not constitute a satisfactory avenue to redress for the approximately 4000 Irish policyholders.
Vendar je treba omeniti, da se je od takrat z ustanovitvijo Službe varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve ta položaj izboljšal.
It should be noted, however, that the situation has improved since with the establishment of the Financial Services Ombudsman.
V Nemčiji je varuh človekovih pravic za zavarovalniško področje ( Versicherungsombudsmann ) obstajal od oktobra 2001.
In Germany there has been an Ombudsman for the insurance sector ( Versicherungsombudsmann ) since October 2001.
V nasprotju s sistemom Združenega kraljestva in nedavno ustanovljeno službo irskega varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve nemška shema ni bila vzpostavljena z zakonom, ampak s prostovoljnim sporazumom zavarovalniške industrije, ki je prav tako odgovorna za njeno financiranje.
In contrast to the UK system and the recently established Irish Financial Services Ombudsman, the German scheme was not established by law but by voluntary agreement of the insurance industry, which is also responsible for its financing.
Iz tega sledi, da pristojnost in pooblastila varuha človekovih pravic niso opredeljeni z zakonom.
It follows that jurisdiction and powers of the ombudsman are not defined by law.
Shema je vzpostavljena v pravni obliki kot registrirano združenje ( eingetragener Verein ).
The scheme is set up in the legal form of a registered association ( eingetragener Verein ).
Večina zavarovalnic, ki delujejo v Nemčijo, je članic te sheme.
Most of the insurance undertakings operating in Germany are members of the scheme.
Vključujejo družbe, katerih registrirani urad je v drugi državi članici in imajo v Nemčiji podružnico ali agencijo.
They include undertakings whose registered office is in other countries and have set up branches or agencies in Germany.
Skupno je približno 95 % vseh podjetij z zavarovalniškega trga vključenih v shemo varuha človekovih pravic.
In total, approximately 95% of all business of the insurance market is covered by the ombudsman scheme.
Institucije, ki so članice sheme, so navedene na spletni strani varuha človekovih pravic:
Institutions which are members of the scheme are listed on the Ombudsman’s website:
Zavarovalnice, ki so članice sheme varuha človekovih pravic, so sprejele pogodbene obveznosti, so pod pristojnostjo varuha človekovih pravic in morajo upoštevati postopkovna pravila, ki jih določa shema (glej ES 3
The insurance undertakings that are members of the ombudsman scheme have entered into contractual obligations, subjecting themselves to the jurisdiction of the ombudsman and the procedural rules promulgated under the scheme (see ES 3
Strani 70-74. ).
Pages 70-74. ).
Postopkovna pravila, ki jih je sprejel varuh človekovih pravic, določajo, da je varuh človekovih pravic pristojen za vse spore, nastale v zvezi z zavarovalnimi policami, ki jih zavarovanec sklene pri zavarovalnici, ki je članica sheme.
The procedural rules adopted by the ombudsman prescribe that the ombudsman shall have jurisdiction over any disputes that arise out of insurance contracts entered into between a consumer and an insurance undertaking that is a member of the scheme.
Potrošnik lahko vloži pritožbo v ustni ali pisni obliki in ne potrebuje zastopstva odvetnika.
The consumer may file the complaint in oral or written form and does not need to be represented by an attorney.
Da bi bila sprejemljiva, pritožba ne sme presegati vrednosti 50 000 EUR, ne sme zadevati uporabe aktuarskih načel, na sodišču ne sme biti nobene nerešene zadeve v zvezi s tem, prav tako pritožba ne sme biti zastarana.
In order to be admissible, a complaint shall not exceed a value of €50.000, it shall not be concerned with the application of actuarial principles, no lawsuit shall be pending with a court in the same matter and the claim shall not be time-barred.
Medtem ko ima varuh človekovih pravic daljnosežno diskrecijsko pravico pri postopku reševanja sporov, mora pri svojih odločitvah upoštevati statute in zakone.
While the ombudsman has far-reaching discretion in the settlement procedure, he is bound by statute and law in his decisions.
Če je vrednost pritožbe manjša od 5 000 EUR, izda odločitev, ki je zavezujoča za toženca, vendar ne za pritožnika, ki se lahko nato pritoži na sodišču.
If the value of a complaint is less than €5.000, he issues a decision which is binding for the defendant but not the complainant, who may subsequently appeal to the courts.
Če znesek presega 5 000 EUR, izda priporočilo, ki ni zavezujoče za nobeno stran.
If the value exceeds €5.000, he issues a recommendation which is not binding for either party.
Pritožnik nima nobenih stroškov, ne glede na izid postopkov.
The complainant does not incur any costs, irrespective of the outcome of the proceedings.
Odbor je bil obveščen, da družba ELAS ni bila članica nemške sheme varuha človekovih pravic (glej na primer ES 3
The committee was informed that ELAS was not a member of the German Ombudsman Scheme (see for instance ES 3
WEYER je v H3 predstavil izkušnje nemških zavarovancev družbe Equitable Life, ki so vzpostavili stik z nemškim varuhom človekovih pravic za zavarovalniško področje.
Mr WEYER in H3 reflected the experience made by German Equitable Life policyholders who approached the German Ombudsman for Insurance.
Izvedeli so, da „družba Equitable Life ni članica našega združenja“, poleg tega se jim je svetovalo, „naj vzpostavijo stik s Službo varuha človekovih pravic za finančne storitve v Združenem kraljestvu“ .
They were told that " Equitable Life is not a Member of our association" and advised to "approach the Financial Ombudsman Service in Great Britain ".
Jamstveni skladi
Guarantee funds
WEYER (H3) se je v svojih pripombah pred odborom skliceval na nemški sklad „Protektor AG“.
In his remarks before the committee, Mr WEYER (H3) made reference to a German fund called "Protektor AG".
V H6 ga je omenil tudi STEFFEN: „Verjetno veste, da v Nemčiji že več let uporabljamo zaščitno shemo, ki deluje dobro.
Mr STEFFEN in H6 also alluded to this fund: " In Germany , you may perhaps know that for some years we have had a protection scheme which works well.
Shema za zavarovalniški sektor se imenuje ‚Protektor‘ in je bila na začetku zgolj prostovoljna shema nemške zavarovalniške dejavnosti z zajamčenimi 5 milijardami EUR.
For the life assurance sector, it is called ‘Protektor’ and was initially a purely voluntary scheme of the German insurance industry backed by guarantee of EUR 5 billion.
Ta prostovoljna shema je bila od takrat že postavljena na pravne temelje.
This voluntary scheme has since been placed on a legal footing.
Zato ni več prostovoljna, ampak zakonsko zavezujoča.
Hence it is no longer voluntary, but legally binding.
Njena naloga je prevzeti in ohranjati pogodbe zavarovalnic, ki se spopadajo s krizo.
Its task is to take over and continue contracts of crisis-stricken insurance companies.
To pomeni, da tu ne gre za izplačilo odškodnine v enkratnem znesku, ampak za ohranjanje polic.
That means: we are no longer talking here about compensation in the form of a one-off payment, we are talking about continuing policies.
Po mojem mnenju je ohranjanje polic najboljša oblika izravnave.
And in my opinion, keeping policies in operation is the best form of compensation.
Kot sem že omenil, se v zadevi družbe Equitable Life seveda uporabljajo britanska pravila.
Of course – I have already said this – the British rules are applicable to Equitable Life.
Zato je nemogoče, da bi nemške stranke, ki so police sklenile z britansko zavarovalnico, prejele odškodnino iz nemške zaščitne sheme.
It is not possible for German customers who have taken out British policies with a British insurer to get compensation from a German protection scheme.
Člani zaščitne sheme v Nemčiji so le nemške zavarovalnice, zato vanjo niso vključene tuje zavarovalnice, ki v Nemčiji nimajo registriranih uradov.
Only German insurers are members of this protection scheme in Germany , i.e. it does not include foreign insurance companies which do not have their registered offices in Germany .
Zato v tem primeru veljajo britanska pravila.“
Hence the British rules apply here ."
Na Irskem zdaj nimajo formalne odškodninske sheme (glej izjavo TROYEVE iz H4).
No formal compensation scheme is currently in place in Ireland (see statement of Ms TROY, H4).
Na kratko, zato irskim in nemškim zavarovancem v njihovih državah ni bilo na voljo nobenih izvensodnih odškodninskih postopkov, razen zahtevkov, ki so bili vloženi na irsko Službo varuha človekovih pravic na zavarovalniškem področju in naj bi bili obravnavani.
In summary, therefore, no non-judicial routes for redress seem to have been available to Irish and German policyholders in their respective home countries, apart from those complaints submitted to the Insurance Ombudsman of Ireland scheme, which seem to have been investigated.
Kar zadeva dostop zavarovancev, ki niso iz Združenega kraljestva, do odškodnin v Združenem kraljestvu, prejeti dokazi navajajo:
As regards access of non-UK policyholders to redress in the UK, the evidence received suggests the following:
Kot je opisano zgoraj, so nemški zakonodajalci na področju financ veliko zavarovancem iz Nemčije povedali, da je za bonitetni nadzor družbe Equitable Life odgovoren britanski zakonodajalec.
As outlined above, a number of policyholders from Germany who approached the German financial regulators were told that the British regulator would be responsible for prudential supervision of Equitable Life.
BaFin je odboru v H6 povedal, da je nemške pritožnike napotil na Organ za finančne storitve, ko je menil, da predmet pritožbe zadeva finančni nadzor.
BaFin told the committee in H6 that it referred German complainants to the FSA, when it considered that the subject of the complaint concerns financial supervision.
Organ za finančne storitve v WE-CONF 7 navaja, da „od irskih in nemških zavarovancev družbe Equitable Life ni prejel nobenih uradnih pritožb, čeprav je bil v stiku le z malo takšnih zavarovancev zlasti glede dostopa do odškodninske sheme za finančne storitve“.
In WE-CONF 7, the FSA indicates that it " has received no official complaints from Irish and German Equitable Life policyholders, although it has corresponded with a small number of such policyholders, mainly regarding access to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme ".
Poleg tega je Organ za finančne storitve na splošno zavračal odgovornost, ker so bile prizadete stranke nemški zavarovanci, v tem primeru pa je odgovoren BaFin.
Apart from that, the FSA generally states that it is not responsible since the parties affected are German policyholders, in which case BaFin is responsible.
Ta postopek smo poimenovali ‚pingpong postopek‘, v več zadevah pa lahko dokažemo, da je Organ za finančne storitve zavarovance dejansko pošiljal nazaj“ (WEYER, H3).
We have called this the ping-pong process, and we can show in a number of cases that the FSA indeed referred cases back " (Mr WEYER, H3).
Predstavnik Komisije BEVERLY je glede stališča WEYERJA dejal, da „je s postopkom, ki ga je Weyer poimenoval ‚pingpong postopek‘, dejansko nekaj narobe, zato mu je treba posvetiti več pozornosti “ (H3).
Commenting on Mr WEYER's point, Mr BEVERLY from the Commission said that " things are clearly going wrong with what Mr Weyer referred to as the ping-pong procedure; that needs attention " (H3).
WEYER je poudaril, da „nemški zakonodajalec na področju življenjskega zavarovanja to direktivo razlaga tako, da ne prevzema odgovornosti in lahko ukrepa le na področju tako imenovanega sekundarnega zakonskega nadzora ter tako vse zadeve predaja Organu za finančne storitve“ (H3).
Mr WEYER stressed that " the German insurance regulator applies the directive in such a way that it does not consider itself to be responsible and only regards itself as capable of acting in the field of so-called secondary legal supervision and otherwise refers everything on to the FSA " (H3).
Dodal je, da „so v tem položaju, v katerem bi po njegovem osebnem prepričanju pristop Organa za finančne storitve vsekakor moral izzvati odziv, doživeli takojšno zavrnitev nemških zavarovancev s strani Organa za finančne storitve, ker so Nemci in je zato zanje odgovoren nemški regulativni sistem“.
He added that " in this situation, in which according to our personal logic of course an approach to the FSA should naturally get a response, our experience was unfortunately an outright rejection of German policyholders by the FSA on the grounds that they were Germans and therefore the German regulatory system was responsible for them ".
Lahko le potrdimo, da zdaj večini prizadetih, ki se srečujejo z revščino in katerih finančni položaj je povezan tudi s primerljivimi zdravstvenimi težavami ..., pojema sapa.
We can only ascertain that at this point most of those affected, who are now staring poverty in the face, and whose financial circumstances are also associated with comparable health problems ... have run out of steam.
Ne zanima jih več, ali je organ formalno odgovoren ali ne.“
They are no longer interested in whether an authority has formal responsibility or not. "
Kopije korespondence med nemškimi zavarovanci in Organom za finančne storitve, ki so jih odboru predložili nemški zavarovanci (WE 48, WE-CONF 1 in WE-CONF 10), zadevajo dve vprašanji:
The copies of correspondence between German policyholders the FSA, which were made available to the committee by German policyholders (WE 48, WE-CONF 1 and WE-CONF 10), concern two issues:
Najprej se je zavarovanka pritožila nad odločitvijo družbe Equitable Life, da ne bo več objavljala svojih poročil in računovodskih izkazov ter obvestila o letni skupščini delničarjev v nemškem jeziku, kar bi pomenilo diskriminacijo in neugoden položaj zavarovancev, ki ne govorijo angleško.
Firstly, one policyholder complained that Equitable Life has decided that it will no longer publish its report and accounts as well as notice of their Annual General Meeting in German language as this would discriminate against and disadvantage non English-speaking policyholders.
Najprej se je obrnila na družbo ELAS, ki ji je odgovorila, da so stroški prevajanja teh dokumentov po njenem mnenju nesorazmerni s koristmi.
She had previously raised her concerns with the Society, who replied stating that the costs involved in translating these documents are, in its view, disproportionate to the benefits.
Organ za finančne storitve je odgovoril: „Vaša pritožba po našem mnenju zadeva način poslovanja družbe ELAS v Nemčiji in ne kakšnega vidika bonitetne ali finančne ureditve družbe. ...
The FSA replied that " in our view, your complaint relates to the way in which Equitable has conducted its business within Germany rather than to any aspect of the company's prudential or financial regulation. ...
To pomeni, da nemška pravila določajo do kakšnih informacij ste upravičeni, za redno izvajanje takšnih pravil pa je odgovoren nemški zakonodajalec. ...
This means that it will be for German rules to specify what information you are entitled to receive and routine enforcement of such rules falls to the German regulator. ...
Tuja država ukrepa le, kadar gre za sistemsko neizpolnjevanje zahtev tuje države s strani družbe. ...
The host state only intervenes where there is a systemic failure by a firm to comply with the requirements of the host State. ...
Po našem mnenju pravila BaFina ne zahtevajo prevoda dokumentov, ki ste jih omenili.
Our present understanding is that the rules of BaFin do not require translation of the documents you have mentioned.
To pomeni, da nismo seznanjeni z nobenim sistemskim neizpolnjevanjem nemških zahtev s strani družbe ELAS“ (WE 48).
It follows that we are not aware of any systemic failure by Equitable to comply with German requirements " (WE 48).
Drugi del korespondence zadeva pritožbo, na katero se sklicuje tudi točka IX tega poročila.
The second piece of correspondence concerns a complaint, which is also referred to under point IX.
Iz njegove korespondence z nemškimi organi (WE-CONF 1 in WE-CONF 10) je razvidno, da je BaFin zavrnil obravnavo pritožbe, ker naj bi ta zadevala finančni nadzor, zanj pa je odgovoren zakonodajalec Združenega kraljestva, zato ga je napotil na Organ za finančne storitve.
From his correspondence with the German authorities (WE-CONF 1 and WE-CONF 10), it appears that BaFin refused to deal with the complaint, arguing that his complaint concerned 'financial supervision', for which the UK regulator would be responsible and referred him to the FSA.
Ta je v odgovoru pritožniku trdil nasprotno: „Zakonodajalec tuje države je odgovoren za finančno svetovanje v Nemčiji in mora presoditi, ali je vaša pritožba upravičena“ (WE 48, WE-CONF 1 in WE-CONF 10).
The FSA, in its reply to the complainant, argued to the contrary: " The host State regulator is responsible for financial advice given in Germany and should be able to adjudicate on whether you have a valid complaint " (WE 48, WE-CONF 1 and WE-CONF 10).
Omenjena korespondenca zadeva pritožbe, ki dejansko zadevajo vprašanja poslovanja, zato jih morajo obravnavati tuji zakonodajalci.
The above correspondence appears to relate to complaints, which do indeed raise conduct of business issues and would therefore have to be dealt with by the host state regulators.
SEYMOUR je v H7, kjer komentira zavrnitev obravnave zadev, kot je jezik poročanja o finančnem položaju, s strani Organa za finančne storitve, izrazil drugačno stališče.
Mr SEYMOUR in H7, commenting on the FSA's refusal to deal with issues such as the language of financial reporting, expressed a different view.
Najprej je navedel, da „je družba ELAS v svojem prodajnem gradivu stalno poudarjala, da je bila zakonsko urejena le v Združenem kraljestvu“ (glej WE 52
Firstly he claimed that " ELAS stated repeatedly in its sales material that it was only regulated in the UK " (see WE 52
Priloga E k WE vsebuje kopijo izjave družbe ELAS, kjer je navedeno, da je družbo ELAS zakonsko urejal Organ za zasebne naložbe, ki je bil takrat zakonodajalec Združenega kraljestva na področju poslovanja. ).
Annex E of WE contains a copy of an ELAS statement, claiming that ELAS is regulated by the Personal Investment Authority, the UK conduct of business regulator at the time. ).
Potem je poudaril, da direktiva o življenjskem zavarovanju „ne navaja, da je poslovanje ... zadeva, s katero se mora ukvarjati lokalni zakonodajalec, v členu 15 pa posebej omenja zahtevo po ‚nadzoru poslov zavarovalnic s sedežem na njihovem ozemlju, vključno s posli, izvajanimi zunaj tega ozemlja“.
Secondly he stressed that the Life Directive " does not state that conduct of business is ... a matter for the local regulator, and specifically mentions in Article 15 the requirement in terms of 'the supervision of business of assurance undertakings with head offices within their territories, including business carried on outside those territories' ".
Po njegovem mnenju mora zato zakonodajalec Združenega kraljestva prevzeti odgovornost za obravnavo pritožb.
Therefore, in his view, the UK regulator should have taken responsibility for dealing with the complaints.
STRACHAN (H4) v nasprotju s tem poudarja, da „Organ za finančne storitve ne ... določa svojih pravil poslovanja podružnicam ustanov Združenega kraljestva iz Evropskega gospodarskega prostora, ki opravljajo posle z zavarovanci tam, kjer je podružnica.
By contrast, Mr STRACHAN (H4) points out that " The FSA does not ... impose its conduct of business rules on EEA branches of UK institutions doing business with policyholders where the branch is located.
V skladu s tretjo direktivo o življenjskem zavarovanju lahko zakonodajalec teh podružnic, v tem primeru tuji zakonodajalec, uporablja svoja pravila“.
Consistent with the Third Life Directive, it falls to the regulator of those branches – the host regulator in this case – to apply its own rules ".
Odbor je prejel tudi dokaze nemškega državljana, ki se je na Organ za finančne storitve pritožil glede ponudnikov finančnih storitev Združenega kraljestva, razen družbe Equitable Life, ki so storitve ponujali prek podružnic v državah članicah EU (glej WE-FILE 21 KREGEJA).
The committee also received submissions by a German citizen who had complained to the FSA about UK financial service providers other than Equitable Life, offering services via branches in EU Member States (see WE-FILE 21 by Mr KREGE).
Imel je enake izkušnje z Organom za finančne storitve in organi tuje države članice, ki so zavrnili obravnavo njegovih pritožb.
He reported similar experiences in that both the FSA and host Member State authorities refused to deal with his complaints.
Irski zavarovanci so pisali tudi zakonodajalcu Združenega kraljestva na področju financ in izrazili zaskrbljenost ter zahtevali odškodnino, ko se je kriza začela razpletati.
Irish policyholders also wrote to the UK financial regulator, expressing concern and demanding redress after the crisis had begun to unfold.
Organ za finančne storitve je svojo korespondenco z irskimi zavarovanci predložil v WE-CONF 20.
The FSA made available its correspondence with Irish policyholders in WE-CONF 20.
Organ za finančne storitve se je običajno odzval tako, da je navedel splošne informacije o zadevah, kot so sodba zgornjega doma, možnost prodaje dela družbe Equitable Life Halifaxu in kompromisna rešitev.
The FSA typically responded by providing general information about issues such as the House of Lords judgement, the prospect of a sale of part of the Equitable to Halifax and the Compromise Scheme.
Poudaril je, da družba ELAS ostaja solventna in da bo Organ za finančne storitve „še naprej spremljal delovanje družbe“.
It pointed out that ELAS remained solvent and that the FSA would " continue to monitor operations of Equitable ".
V nekaterih primerih je Organ za finančne storitve zavarovancem priporočil, „naj ne sprejmejo kakšnih prenagljenih odločitev“ , in poudaril, da „bi s prekinitvijo ali prenosom polic s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice pred datumom iz pogodbe lahko povzročili zmanjšanje vrednosti polic“ (WE-CONF 20).
In some instances, the FSA recommended to policyholders " that [they] do not make any hasty decisions " and pointed out that " surrendering or transferring with-profits policies at points other than on contractual dates may result in policy values being reduced " (WE-CONF 20).