natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Na splošno iz študije družbe Wilde Sapte in spremne korelacijske tabele ni mogoče jasno zaključiti, ali je bil prenos neustrezen.
Overall, no clear-cut conclusion emerges from the Wilde Sapte study and the accompanying correlation table as to whether there is a lack of adequate transposition.
Kot je opisano spodaj, se zdi, da je bila Komisija zadovoljna z rezultati študije in s prenosom na splošno.
As discussed below, the Commission seemed satisfied with the results of the study and with transposition in general.
Pogoji za pridobitev dovoljenja: dobro in preudarno upravljanje, osebe, ki jih je treba obvestiti, in razkrivanje informacij
Conditions on obtaining authorisation: sound and prudent management; notifiable persons; disclosure of information;
V skladu s študijo ter členoma 7 in 14 tretje direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju „ je treba družbe upravljati v skladu z načeli dobrega in preudarnega upravljanja“ .
According to the study, and in compliance with articles 7 and 14 of the 3LD " companies must be managed in accordance with the principles of sound and prudent management ".
V študiji je navedeno, da izvedbene določbe Združenega kraljestva „ nalagajo vodjem nove odgovornosti, ki zahtevajo vzdrževanje sistema nadzora.
The study argues that the UK implementing provisions " place new requirements on directors which require the maintenance of a system of control ."
“ V zaključku pa so navedena očitna dejstva, in sicer, da „ je Ministrstvo za trgovino in industrijo pristojno za sprejemanje zakonodajnih ukrepov, če se družbe ne upravljajo dobro in preudarno “.
It concludes by stating the obvious, i.e., that "the DTI has powers to take regulatory actions if insurance companies are not soundly and prudently managed ".
V zvezi z osebami, ki jih je treba obvestiti, študija le še opiše člene iz izvedbenih določb Združenega kraljestva.
On notifiable persons the study does not add much other than describing the articles from the UK implementing provisions.
V zvezi z razkrivanjem informacij študija navaja, da izvedbene določbe Združenega kraljestva upoštevajo zahteve o obveščanju iz tretje direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju.
On disclosure of information, the study claims that the UK implementing provisions respect the higher information requirements contained in the 3LD.
Določbe se redko izvajajo v različnih aktih.
The provisions are sparsely implemented throughout different Acts.
Tehnične določbe, podrobna analiza
Technical provisions, detailed analysis
Študija kot edino razliko med tretjo direktivo o življenjskem zavarovanju in izvedbenimi določbami Združenega kraljestva navaja člen 22(1).
The study finds no divergences with the 3LD of the UK implementing provisions, other than Article 22(1).
Glej spodaj, „razlike“ spodaj.
See below, 'divergences'.
Ustanovitev podružnic
Establishment of branches
Študija podrobno obravnava postopke izdaje dovoljenja in obveščanja in vprašanje, kako je nameravalo Ministrstvo za trgovino in industrijo izpolniti zahteve v zvezi s tem.
The study goes into detail on authorization and notification procedures and on how the DTI intended to fulfil the requirements in this regard.
Iz besedila ni jasno, ali prenos ni bil ustrezen, Komisija pa je bila zadovoljna z danimi razlagami.
It is not clear from the text whether there is a lack of adequate transposition and the Commission seemed satisfied with the explanations given.
Pravila o varstvu javnega interesa
Rules protecting the general good
Študija opisuje, da svetovalni organi Združenega kraljestva niso pripravili seznama pogojev, ki naj bi zagotavljali varstvo javnega interesa.
The study describes how the UK advisory authorities did not prepare a list of conditions described as constituting the general good.
Namesto tega so pripravili nepopoln seznam, v katerem so navedli glavne zakone, ki urejajo zavarovalništvo v Združenem kraljestvu in se lahko uporabljajo za tuje zavarovalnice, ki poslujejo v Združenem kraljestvu.
Instead, they prepared a non-exhaustive list outlining the principal enactments which regulate insurance business in the UK and which may apply to foreign insurers writing business in the UK.
To med drugim vključuje pravila o oglaševanju, razkritje povezav s strani posrednikov, zavajajoče informacije, prenehanje kritja (nobenih posebnih pravil), vprašanja jezika, izbira prava (prosta v Združenem kraljestvu), pravice do preklica (v zakonodaji Združenega kraljestva jih ni).
This includes, amongst other things, rules on advertising, disclosure of links by intermediaries, misleading information, cessation of cover (no specific rules), issues of language, choice of law (free in the UK) and cancellation rights (there are none in UK law).
Posebne razlike:
Specific divergences:
§ Člen 12
§ Article 12
§ Člen 13
§ Article 13
„ Izvedbena določba Združenega kraljestva ne določa, da mora nadzorni organ Združenega kraljestva obvestiti pristojni organ druge države članice “ v primeru odvzema dovoljenja druge države članice, kot zahteva direktiva.
"The UK implementing provision does not state that the UK supervisory authority must inform the competent authority of the other Member States " in the event of the withdrawal of authorisation of another Member State, as is required by the Directive.
§ Člen 14(2)
§ Article 14(2)
§ Člen 21(1)
§ Article 21(1)
Ta člen določa, da se kritno premoženje vrednoti brez dolgov, ki so nastali pri njihovem pridobivanju.
This article provides that assets covering technical provisions shall be valued net of any debts arising out of their acquisition.
Ta določba se ni v celoti izvajala.
This provision was not fully implemented.
Študija navaja, da je Ministrstvo za trgovino in industrijo zagotovilo informacije, da zakonodaja Združenega kraljestva že zagotavlja, da se obveznosti primerno krijejo s sredstvi.
The study says that it received information from the DTI saying that UK legislation already provides for liabilities to be properly covered by assets.
§ Člen 22(1)
§ Article 22(1)
Ta člen določa, da je treba kritno premoženje naložiti le v določenem odstotku v določena sredstva.
This article provides that assets covering technical provisions should be invested to no more than a specified percentage in specified assets.
Izvedbena zakonodaja Združenega kraljestva omejuje odstotek glede na znesek dolgoročnega posla in ne glede na zavarovalno-tehnične rezervacije.
The UK implementing legislation imposes the percentage restrictions by reference not to technical provisions but to long-term business amounts.
Študija navaja, da „ je pristojni organ menil, da tega pristopa ni treba spremeniti, ker so predpisi Združenega kraljestva v večini primerov bolj smotrni od pravil iz direktive “.
The study says "the competent authority felt that it was not necessary to change this approach because the UK rules are, in the majority of cases, more prudent than the rules set out in the Directives."
Praktična vprašanja, povezana z izvajanjem
Practical issues relating to implementation
Študija poudarja, da je bilo izvajanje „ v celoti doseženo s sekundarno zakonodajo “.
The study points out that implementation was " achieved wholly by subordinate legislation ".
Navaja, da „ je okvir v direktivah večinoma upošteval obstoječ regulativni sistem Združenega kraljestva.
It argues that " the framework in the Directives largely followed the existing UK regulatory system.
Zato ni bilo potrebe po bistvenih spremembah glede sloga pri nadzoru Združenega kraljestva. “
Consequently, there has been no need for substantial changes in the style of UK supervision. "
Študija navaja, da takrat „ Združenje britanskih zavarovalnic, Royal ali Lloyd's niso izrazili skrbi glede tehničnih razlik med direktivo in izvedbenimi določbami Združenega kraljestva “ .
The study says that, at the time, "no concern has been expressed by ABI, Royal or Lloyd's with regard to the technical divergences between the Directive and the UK implementing provisions."
Edine skrbi so bile povezane s tem, kako preveriti, kaj so določbe „o varstvu javnega interesa“.
The only concerns raised were in respect of how to ascertain what the 'general good' provisions are.
Kasneje razlaga, da „ se z vidika Združenega kraljestva zdi, da izvajanje direktiv izključno za tržne namene ni bistveno spremenilo obstoječih vzorcev čezmejnega trgovanja zavarovalnic Združenega kraljestva ali ga povečalo “.
It subsequently explains that "from the perspective of the UK it seems that, purely for commercial reasons, the implementation of the Directives has not substantially altered existing patters of, or increased, cross-border trade by UK insurance companies."
Drugo vprašanje je tudi, da „ se družbe Združenega kraljestva ne širijo v druge države članice, ker jih skrbi, da bodo imele pravne težave zaradi neskladnosti pogodbenega prava in potrebe po dolgoročnem poslovanju za zagotavljanje pogodb, ki za katere bo veljalo lokalno pravo tuje države “.
Another issue is that " UK companies are also deterred from expanding into other Member States because they are concerned that they may encounter legal problems in view of the non-harmonisation of contract law and the need in to long term business to provide contracts which will be subject to the local law of the host country."
Pregled študije
Review of the study
Komisija trdi (H1), da „ poročilo ter pregled poročila in izvedbene zakonodaje Združenega kraljestva s strani služb Komisije nista pokazala večjih vrzeli ali težav v zvezi z izvajanjem tretje direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju v Združenem kraljestvu “.
The Commission claims (H1) that "the report and the Commission services' examination of it and of the UK implementing legislation did not point to any major gaps or problems as regards the UK implementation of the third life directive."
Vendar je Komisija v WE 19 navedla, da „ je jasno iz dokumentov in naših stikov z upokojenim uradnikom, da so bile med izvajanjem študije opažene večje težave.
However, in WE 19, the Commission states that " it is clear from the papers and from our contacts with a retired official that major problems were encountered in the course of the execution of the study.
“ Komisija je ugotovila, da „ni bil izveden pisni pregled študije “, vendar je navedla, da lahko potrdi, da „ so uradniki, ki so bili takrat odgovorni za študijo, vseeno imeli dejavno vlogo pri spremljanju izdelave študije, čeprav niso preverjali celotnega dela svetovalcev v posameznih državah članicah “.
The Commission concludes that " no written review of the study was carried out " but it claims that it can confirm that " the officials then responsible for the study, while not checking all the work the consultants did in all the individual Member States, nevertheless played an active role in monitoring the production of the study ".
Komisar MCCREEVY je v H8 pojasnil, da je dala Komisija preiskovalnemu odboru na voljo poročila o študiji in svoje notranje dokumente, „ ki jasno kažejo, s kakšnimi težavami smo se srečevali “.
In H8, Commissioner MCCREEVY explains how the Commission has made available to the EQUI committee the study reports and the Commission’s internal papers “which show clearly the problems encountered.
WE-Conf 11 vsebuje mogoč dokaz za splošno slabo kakovost študije Wilde Sapte in dejstvo, da je Komisija poskušala storiti vse, da bi spremenila in izboljšala besedilo.
In WE-Conf 11, we find possible proof of the overall poor quality of the Wilde Sapte study and the fact that the Commission tried its best to obtain changes and improvements to the text.
Na tej podlagi se pojavi vprašanje o splošni kakovosti in takratnem upravljanju postopkov javnih naročil Komisije za te vrste zunanjih študij ter o tem, ali so se te prakse od takrat izboljšale.
This raises the question of the general quality and management of the Commission's procurement procedures for these kinds of external studies at the time and whether these practices have improved since then.
Glede na druge pisne in ustne dokaze je presenetljivo, kako redko so omenjeni direktive in vprašanje pravilnega/nepravilnega prenosa.
From other written and oral evidence, it is surprising to note how few times the directives and the issue of correct/incorrect transposition is mentioned.
Priče in drugi strokovnjaki (Penrose, Baird) se razumljivo vedno sklicujejo na zakonodajo Združenega kraljestva in zakonodajno prakso Združenega kraljestva.
Witnesses and other experts (Penrose, Baird) understandably always make reference to UK law and UK regulatory practice.
Zato je težko ločiti vprašanje, ki je jasno povezano s samim prenosom, od zadev, ki so povezane z nadzorom in ureditvijo družbe ELAS.
It is therefore difficult to separate what is clearly an issue purely related to transposition from matters relating to supervision and regulation of ELAS.
Slednje se bolj podrobno obravnava v delu III o zakonodajnih praksah.
The emphasis on the latter is dealt with in much more detail in Part III on regulatory practice.
Za boljšo sistematizacijo preiskave se različni dokazi obravnavajo – kadar je mogoče – pod naslovi, ki zajemajo vsakega od ključnih členov tretje direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju.
In order to structure the investigation, the different pieces of evidence are placed - where possible - under headings which list each of the key articles of the 3LD.
Če se ne najde nobena posebna povezava s členom, se dokaz obravnava pod naslovom splošna vprašanja:
If no specific link is found to an article, the evidence is placed under a ‘general themes’ heading:
· Splošna vprašanja
· General themes
· Člen 8 – Bonitetni nadzor
· Article 8 - Prudential supervision
· Člen 10 – Pooblastila za nadzor in računovodska poročila
· Article 10 – Supervisory powers & accounting returns
· Člen 18 – Zavarovalno-tehnične rezervacije
· Article 18 – Technical provisions
· Člen 25 – Minimalni kapital
· Article 25 – Solvency margin
· Člen 28 – Javni interes
· Article 28 – General good
· Člen 31 – Informacije za zavarovance
· Article 31 – Information to policyholders
Splošna vprašanja
General themes
Nezadovoljivo izvajanje in izvrševanje druge in tretje direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju je neposreden vzrok za pomanjkljivosti v ureditvi družbe ELAS
The unsatisfactory implementation and execution of the 2LD and the 3LD gave rise directly to the weakness of regulation of ELAS
Tom LAKE iz Akcijske skupine zavarovancev družbe Equitable (EMAG) trdi da „ je bilo izvajanje in izvrševanje druge in tretje direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju nezadovoljivo ter je neposredno vplivalo na kakovost zakonodajnega pregleda družbe ELAS “(H1).
Mr. Tom LAKE, from the Equitable Members' Action Group (EMAG), claims that " the implementation and execution of the 2LD and the 3LD was unsatisfactory and that this directly affected the quality of the regulatory oversight of ELAS " (H1).
Meni, da se namen teh direktiv – ustreznega varstva zavarovancev – ni dosegel s pravno ureditvijo družbe ELAS v Združenem kraljestvu.
He argues that the aim of these directives - the adequate protection of policyholders - was not achieved by UK regulation of ELAS.
Resni dvomi o tem, da je bila katera od treh direktiv ES o življenjskem zavarovanju uspešno prenesena
Grave doubts that any of the 3 EC life directives were successfully transposed
JOSEPHS izjavlja v H2, da sta on in njegovo združenje (Združenje vlagateljev) „ močno dvomila, da je bila katera od treh direktiv ES o življenjskem zavarovanju uspešno prenesena v zakonodajno okolje Združenega kraljestva zaradi razlik v filozofiji med nameni Komisije in načinom, kako je sistem v Združenem kraljestvu dejansko deloval “.
Mr. JOSEPHS, in H2, declares that he and his association (Investors Association) " have grave doubts as to whether any of the three EC life directives could have been successfully transposed into the UK regulatory environment, given the differences of philosophy between the Commission's intentions and the way in which the UK system actually worked. "
Tudi zavarovanec KNOWD trdi v H2, „ da družba Equitable dolgo ni upoštevala predpisov EU “.
Ms KNOWD, a policyholder, also claims in H2 that " Equitable was non-compliant with EU-regulations over a sustained period of time".
Komisija bi morala biti bolj dejavna
The Commission should have been more proactive
Peter SCAWEN iz ELTA meni v H3, da bi morala biti vloga Komisije pri upravljanju izvajanja zakonodaje EU „ dejavna.
In H3, Peter SCAWEN from ELTA, believes that, in terms of the role of the Commission in policing the implementation of EU law, it " is to be proactive.
Menim, da je bila napaka v Združenem kraljestvu, da je oddelek pasivno čakal na dogodke v upanju, da se bodo stvari same izboljšale.
I think the failure in the UK was that it was a passive department waiting on events, hoping, fingers crossed, that things might get better.
Mislim, da se je zgodilo prav to.
I think that is what took place.
Menim, da so vsi vedeli, kaj se dogaja, vendar niso vedeli, kaj storiti v zvezi s tem“.
I believe they were very well aware but had no idea what to do about it. "
Zdi se, da govori SCAWEN o organih Združenega kraljestva in ne o Komisiji.
It seems that Mr SCAWEN is referring to the UK authorities and not the Commission.
Tretja direktiva o življenjskem zavarovanju se je pravilno izvajala, zakonodaja Združenega kraljestva pa je že bila usklajena z večjim delom te direktive
3LD was correctly implemented and UK law already complied with most of it
McELWEE meni v H3, da je Združeno kraljestvo „ pravilno izvajalo direktivo .
Mr MCELWEE in H3 is of the view that the UK “ implemented the directive correctly.
Doslej še nisem videl ničesar, kar bi kazalo, da se je direktiva na kakšnem področju izvajala v celoti nepravilno“.
I have not yet seen anything that suggests to me that there was any egregious manner in which it was not properly implemented”.
Clive MAXWELL iz HMT trdi v H4, da so bile „ tretja direktiva o življenjskem zavarovanju in njene predhodnice pravilno prenesene v domačo zakonodajo Združenega kraljestva .
Clive MAXWELL, from HMT, claims in H4 that " the Third Life Directive and its predecessors were correctly transposed into UK domestic law.
Dejansko je bila obstoječa zakonodaja Združenega kraljestva v veliki meri že usklajena z določbami, ki jih zahteva direktiva“.
In fact, the pre-existing UK law already complied to a large extent with the provisions required by the directive ".
MAXWELL je nato naštel dele zakonodaje, prek katerih je bila tretja direktiva o življenjskem zavarovanju prenesena v zakonodajo Združenega kraljestva, to so predpisi o zavarovalnicah (tretja direktiva o življenjskem zavarovanju) iz leta 1994 in predpisi o zavarovalnicah (Izkazi in izjave ) iz leta 1994.
Mr MAXWELL then listed the pieces of legislation through which the 3LD was transposed into UK law, that is, the Insurance Companies (Third Insurance Directives) Regulations of 1994, the Insurance Companies Regulations of 1994 and the Insurance Companies (Accounts and Statements) Regulations of 1994.
Razen tega je David STRACHAN iz FSA med H4 izjavil, „ da je Združeno kraljestvo dosledno presegalo uradne zahteve tretje direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju pri izvajanju naknadnih shem za nadomestilo vlagateljem in shem varuha človekovih pravic “.
In addition, during H4, David STRACHAN of the FSA claimed that " the UK consistently went beyond the formal requirements of the Third Life Directive in implementing successive investor compensation and ombudsman schemes".
Vlada Združenega kraljestva, odgovorna za prenos
The UK Government responsible for transposition
MAXWELL je v H4 pojasnil, „ da je vlada Združenega kraljestva pravno odgovorna za pravilen prenos direktiv v Združenem kraljestvu . [...]
Mr MAXWELL, in H4, clarified that " the UK Government is responsible as a matter of law for the correct transposition of directives in the UK . [...]
V zvezi s pravilnim prenosom evropskih direktiv v Združenem kraljestvu je na podlagi evropske zakonodaje končno odgovorna za ta prenos država članica“.
With respect to the correct transposition of European directives in the UK , it is ultimately for the Member State to be responsible for that as a matter of European law."
Fragmentaren prenos ne vpliva na kakovost prenosa
Fragmented transposition does not affect the quality of transposition
Na vprašanje člana (H4), ali je imel prenos v različne zakone in predpise kakršen koli pravni ali drugačen pomen glede resnosti, s katero so bile Direktiva in druge direktive prenesle v zakonodajo Združenega kraljestva, je Clive MAXWELL odgovoril z jasnim ne: „ zakonodaja je zakonodaja: ni pomembno, če je nekaj zajeto v zakon parlamenta ali v predpis parlamenta ali v pravilnik Organa za finančne zadeve.
Responding to a Member's question (H4) on whether if transposition into different acts and regulations has any legal or other significance as to the seriousness with which the Directive and other directives were transposed into UK law, Clive MAXWELL responded with a clear no: " the law is the law: it does not matter whether something is covered in an act of parliament or in a regulation of parliament or, for that matter, the FSA’s rule book.
Še vedno ima pravno veljavo in je še vedno veljaven način za prenos direktive.[...]
It still has legal force and it is still a very valid way of transposing the directive.[...]
Menim, da ima veliko držav članic sistem za prenos direktiv v različne zakonodajne instrumente, ki je odvisen od nacionalnih ureditev. [...]
I think that many Member States have a system of transposing directives into a range of different legislative instruments depending on their national arrangements. [...]
Dejansko je to odvisno od nacionalnih ureditev in tradicije ter od tega, kako države urejajo ta prenos“.
It depends, of course, on their national arrangements and traditions and how they regulate."
Direktive so le podlaga
The directives are just a baseline
Martin McELWEE je v H3 nasprotno od drugih prič in izjavlja, „ da so direktive določile potrebo podlago za predpis ter v skladu z naravo direktive v primerjavi s predpisom omogočajo, da države članice same najdejo najustreznejši način za doseganje rezultatov, ki jih zahtevajo določbe direktive.
Martin McELWEE, in H3, takes a contrary view to other witnesses and states that " the directives necessarily laid down a baseline for regulation and, consistent with the nature of a directive as opposed to a regulation, they leave it to Member States to find the most appropriate means to achieve the results required by the directive’s provisions.
Direktive so dejansko manj predpisujoče kot predpisi, zato se včasih pojavljajo dvomi glede njihovega pravilnega izvajanja “.
Directives are necessarily less prescriptive than regulations, which is why doubts as to their correct implementation sometimes arise. ”
S tem stališčem se je v H4 strinjal tudi Clive MAXWELL iz HMT: „ Tretja direktiva o življenjskem zavarovanju je bila tako kot njene predhodnice direktiva, ki je zahtevala minimalno usklajevanje . [...]
This view was reinforced by Clive MAXWELL from HMT in H4: " The Third Life Directive, like its predecessors, was a minimum harmonisation directive. [...]
Od držav članic se je zahtevalo, da v domačo zakonodajo vnesejo minimalne standarde iz direktive, vendar lahko to storijo na podlagi domačega političnega pristopa.
Member States were required to implement in domestic legislation the minimum standards the directive contained but could do so within the context of their domestic policy approach.
Namen direktive ni bil, da države članice ustvarijo identične domače ureditve“.
It was not the intention that Member States create identical domestic regimes. "
Direktive ne zahtevajo ureditve brez napak
Directives do not require a zero-failure regime
McELWEE je v H3 prav tako zavrnil govorico, da je direktiva zahtevala ali celo določala ureditev brez napak: „Tako ureditev bi bilo težko doseči, vendar menim, da bi to bilo vsaj teoretično mogoče.
In H3, Mr MCELWEE also dispels the myth that the directives require, or even imply, a zero-failure regime: “ It would be difficult to construct such a regime but I suspect that it could be done, at least in theory.
Svoboda pri oglaševanju za spodbujanje inovativnosti
Freedom with publicity, designed to stimulate innovation