natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
ES 3 navaja, da bi bilo težko ugotoviti, ali so organi Združenega kraljestva resno kršili predpise Skupnosti v zvezi z družbo ELAS.
ES 3 states, that it would be difficult to establish that the breach of Community rules by the UK authorities in relation to ELAS was serious.
Le „ dejstvo, da organi niso pregledali in spremljali pozavarovalne pogodbe, ki jo je družba Equitable sklenila leta 1999 “, kar sta zlasti kritizirala Lord Penrose
Only the " authorities' failure to examine and monitor the reinsurance agreement entered into by Equitable in 1999 ", which was particularly criticized both by Lord PENROSE
WE 16. in Bairdovo poročilo
WE 16. and in the Baird report
WE 17. , je mogoče obravnavati kot napako pri spremljanju in „kot resno kršitev v smislu zadeve Francovich “ (ES 3
WE 17. may be considered to be a supervisory failure that " might be taken to constitute a serious breach for the purposes of Francovich " (ES 3
Page 108. ).
Page 108. ).
Podobno navaja v WE 71 odvetniška družba, ki je za družbo ELAS preučila koristi od možnih zahtevkov proti zakonodajalcem: „ Menimo, da obstaja možnost argumentiranega zahtevka s strani zavarovancev v zvezi s kršitvijo tretje direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju glede vprašanja možne previsoke vrednosti, pripisane pozavarovalni pogodbi v zavarovalno-tehničnih določbah družbe “ (WE 71).
A similar view is taken in WE 71 by the law firm who considered for ELAS the merits of possible claims against the regulators: " We consider there is a potentially arguable claim on the part of the policyholders for breach of the Third Life Directive, in respect of one limited issue, namely the arguably excessive value ascribed to the reinsurance treaty in the Society's technical provisions " (WE 71).
Kadar država članica Direktive ne prenese v nacionalno zakonodajo ali je upravni organ ne izvaja v praksi, mora biti izpolnjen tudi navedeni drugi pogoj za nastanek odgovornosti.
Where a Member State fails to transpose a Directive into national law, or an administrative authority fails to apply it in practice, the second condition for liability mentioned above must also be met.
Zato odgovornost nastane le, kadar vključuje rezultat, ki ga zahteva Direktiva, zagotavljanje pravic posameznikom in je na podlagi določb Direktive možno ugotoviti vsebino teh pravic.
Hence, liability arises only where the result prescribed by the Directive entails the grant of rights to individuals and it is possible to identify the content of those rights on the basis of the provisions of the Directive.
Ali je ta pogoj izpolnjen, je odvisno od razlage zakonodaje Skupnosti, zato je v skladu z ES 3 v izključni pristojnosti Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti.
Whether this condition is fulfilled is a matter of interpretation of Community law and therefore falls within the exclusive remit of the ECJ, according to ES 3.
V zvezi s tem se ES 3 sklicuje na zadevo C-222/02 Paul in drugi proti Zvezni republiki Nemčiji .
In this respect, ES 3 refers to Case C-222/02 Paul and Others v Bundesrepublik Deutschland .
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je v svoji sodbi z dne 12. oktobra 2004 pojasnilo nekaj vprašanj v zvezi z odgovornostjo nadzornih organov v bančnem sektorju v skladu z direktivami EU o tehnični uskladitvi na področju bančne zakonodaje.
In its judgment of 12 October 2004, the ECJ clarified some issues pertaining to the liability of supervisory authorities in the banking sector under the EU harmonisation directives on banking law.
Stran 101. ), kljub temu, da direktive
The Court held essentially that, although the Directives
Direktiva 94/19/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 30. maja 1994 o sistemih zajamčenih vlog, Prva direktiva Sveta 77/780/EGS z dne 12. decembra 1977 o usklajevanju zakonov in drugih predpisov o začetku opravljanja in opravljanju dejavnosti kreditnih institucij (UL L 322, 1977, str.
Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes, First Council Directive 77/780/EEC of 12 December 1977 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions (OJ 1977 L 322, p.
30); Direktiva Sveta 89/299/EGS z dne 17. aprila 1989 o lastnih virih sredstev kreditnih institucij (UL L 124, 1989, str.
30); Council Directive 89/299/EEC of 17 April 1989 on the own funds of credit institutions (OJ 1989 L 124, p.
16); Druga Direktiva Sveta 89/646/EGS z dne 15. decembra 1989 o usklajevanju zakonov in drugih predpisov o začetku opravljanja in opravljanju dejavnosti kreditnih institucij, ki spreminja Direktivo 77/780/EGS (UL L 386, 1989, str 1).
16); Second Council Directive 89/646/EEC of 15 December 1989 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions and amending Directive 77/780 (OJ 1989 L 386, p.
Razen tega je menilo, da je „ predpis nacionalne zakonodaje, ki določa, da mora nadzorni organ svoje funkcije izvajati le v javnem interesu, in ki posameznikom onemogoča vlaganje zahtevkov za odškodnino zaradi neustreznega nadzora, v skladu z direktivami EU o bančni zakonodaji “ (ES 3
It furthermore held that " a rule of national law which provides that a supervisory authority must fulfil its functions only in the public interest and which precludes individuals from claiming compensation for damage resulting from defective supervision is compatible with the EU banking law Directives " (ES 3
Stran 101. ).
Page 101. ).
Stran 105. ).
Page 105. ).
Vendar ES 3 poudarja, da ta sodba „ ne izključuje možnosti, da bi Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti zagotovilo pravice posameznikom na podlagi drugih, bolj specifičnih določb direktiv: pravice se lahko ... zagotovijo ... z navedbo obveznosti nadzora in spremljanja pristojnih nacionalnih organov ter obsega interesov, ki jih morajo omogočati, v določbah Skupnosti “ (ES 3
However, ES 3 points out that this judgement " does not preclude the possibility that the ECJ may derive individual rights on the basis of other, more specific, provisions of Directives: Implied rights may ... arise ... by specifying in Community provisions the supervisory and monitoring obligations of national competent authorities and the range of interests they are designed to benefit " (ES 3
Zdi se, da zahteve po nadzoru iz tretje direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju niso dovolj specifične, vendar bi bilo za oškodovane zavarovance družbe ELAS zelo težko utemeljiti drugi pogoj za nastanek odgovornosti na podlagi zadeve Francovich .
Since the supervisory requirements laid down in the Third Life Directive appear to lack this specificity, however, it would be more than difficult for aggrieved ELAS policyholders to establish the second condition for liability under Francovich .
Podobno izraža tudi nedavna sodba v zadevi, ki so jo podpisniki zavarovalne pogodbe pri Lloydu vložili proti vladi Združenega kraljestva (glej WE-FILE 24 in WE-FILE 25).
Another recent judgment in a case brought by underwriting names at Lloyd’s against the UK Government points into the same direction (see WE-FILE 24 and WE-FILE 25).
Od vlade Združenega kraljestva so zahtevali odškodnino za škodo podpisnikov zavarovalne pogodbe, ker vlada ni izvajala direktive o zavarovanju (73/239/EGS)
They claimed against Her Majesty's Government damages for losses incurred by the Names 'in consequence' of the Government's failure to implement Insurance Directive 73/239/EEC
Vlagatelji zahtevkov so trdili, da zaradi neizvajanja direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju v nacionalni zakonodaji Združenega kraljestva niso imeli koristi od rezultatov, ki jih določa direktiva med drugim v zvezi s pogoji, od katerih je bila odvisna odobritev zavarovalniških družb pri Lloydu, in njenim nadzorom; kategorijami poslov, ki jih lahko takšne družbe sklepajo; zahtevami glede tehničnih rezervacij in minimalnega kapitala takšnih družb; in preverjanjem takšnih zahtev.
The claimants argued that, in failing to implement the Insurance Directive into domestic UK law, they had not had the benefit of the results prescribed by the Directive relating to, amongst other things, 'the conditions to which the authorisation of insurance undertakings at Lloyd's was to be subject, and monitoring of the same; the classes of business such undertakings are permitted to write; requirements as to the technical reserves and solvency margin of such undertakings; and the verification of such requirements'.
Višje sodišče Združenega kraljestva je ugotovilo, da so pravice, za katere so vlagatelji zahtevkov trdili, da jim jih je zagotovila Direktiva, dejansko prispevale k zahtevi po pravici do izvajanja direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju.
The UK High Court found that the rights which the claimants argued that they were granted by the Directive in fact amounted to a claim to the right to implementation of the Insurance Directive.
V nasprotju s tem sta zadevi Francovich in Brasserie du Pecheur predpostavili, da bi se morala direktiva prenesti v nacionalno zakonodajo, vendar se to ni zgodilo, in zahtevali, da bi se lahko opredelila pravica, ki bi jo bilo treba dodeliti vlagatelju zahtevka za doseganje rezultatov, ki jih zahteva direktiva.
In contrast to this matter, Francovich and Brasserie du Pecheur assumed that the Directive should have been but had not been transposed into national law and required that a right could be identified which should necessarily have been granted to the claimant to achieve the results required by the Directive.
V skladu s sodbo namen direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju ni bil zaščita tistih, ki so bili usmerjeni na način, ki so ga navedli podpisniki zavarovalne pogodbe, čeprav se lahko zavarovateljem dodelijo različne pravice, kot je pravica do ustanavljanja, ampak zaščita tistih, ki so jim zagotavljali svoje storitve in produkte.
According to the judgment, the purpose of the Insurance Directive was not to protect those who were regulated in the manner claimed by the names, although different rights might be granted to insurers, such as the right to establish, but to protect those to whom they supplied their services or products.
Ob upoštevanju značilnosti zadevnih določb je bil namen direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju spodbujanje vzpostavitve odprtega trga za zagotavljanje neposrednega zavarovanja in v zvezi s tem uskladitev obstoječih nacionalnih določb glede nadzora.
Having regard to the nature of the relevant provisions, the purpose of the Insurance Directive was to facilitate the development of an open market in the provision of direct insurance and, in that context, to harmonize existing national supervisory provisions.
Višje sodišče je sklenilo, da ti nameni nimajo povezave s pritožbo, ki so jo vložili člani zavarovalnice Lloyd's, in je zato zahtevek zavrnilo.
The High Court concluded that those purposes had nothing to do with the complaint that the Lloyd's names sought to pursue and therefore rejected the claim.
Končno mora v skladu z zadevo Francovich obstajati neposredna vzročna zveza med kršitvijo obveznosti države in škodo, ki so jo utrpeli oškodovanci.
Finally, under Francovich, there must be a direct causal link between the breach of the obligation resting on the State and the damage sustained by the injured party.
V skladu z ES 3 je „ največja ovira [za uspeh tožbe za odškodnino na podlagi zadeve Francovich] določitev vzročne zveze z vsako izgubo posameznih zavarovancev in izračunom odškodnine “ (ES 3
According to ES 3, " the greatest obstacle [for action in damages based on Francovich to succeed] would be to determine causation with any loss suffered by specific policyholders and the calculation of damages " (ES 3
Stran 108. ).
Page 108. ).
Odškodninska tožba na podlagi člena 235 in člena 288(2) Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti
Action for damages under Articles 235 and 288(2) ECT
Člen 288(2) Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti
Article 288(2) ECT
Člen 235: „Sodišče je pristojno v sporih glede nadomestila škode, ki ga predvideva drugi odstavek člena 288.“ določa, da Skupnost v primeru nepogodbene odgovornosti v skladu s splošnimi načeli, ki so skupna pravnim ureditvam držav članic, nadomesti kakršno koli škodo, ki so jo povzročile njene institucije ali njeni uslužbenci pri opravljanju svojih dolžnosti.
Art. 235: “The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction in disputes relating to compensation for damage provided for in the second paragraph of Article 288.” provides that in the case of non-contractual liability, the Community shall, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States, make good any damage caused by its institutions or by its servants in the performance of their duties.
Kadar prebivalci, družbe ali države članice utrpijo škodo zaradi napake osebja Evropske skupnosti, lahko odškodninske tožbe vložijo na Sodišču prve stopnje (posamezniki in družbe) ali Sodišču Evropskih skupnosti (države članice).
Where citizens, firms or Member States sustain damage by reason of fault committed by European Community staff, legal action for damages may be filed at the Court of First Instance (individuals and firms) or at the Court of Justice (Member States).
Ta odgovornost ni opredeljena, zato je odvisno od Sodišča, kako si razlaga njeno področje.
This liability is not specified and it has been a matter for the Court to interpret its ambit.
V skladu s tem morajo biti pred dodelitvijo odškodnine izpolnjeni naslednji pogoji:
Accordingly, the following conditions must be satisfied before an award of damages can be made:
· Ena od institucij Skupnosti ali član njenega osebja je pri opravljanju svojih funkcij storila nezakonito dejanje;
· There must be an unlawful act by a Community institution or by a member of its staff in the exercise of his functions;
· prišlo je do dejanske škode;
· Actual harm must have been suffered;
· obstaja vzročna zveza med dejanjem institucije Skupnosti in povzročeno škodo.
· There must be a causal link between the act of the Community Institution and the damage sustained.
Skupnost lahko prevzame odgovornost le, če je zadevna institucija očitno in resno presegla omejitve pri izvajanju svojih pooblastil.
The Community cannot incur liability unless the institution concerned has manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits to the exercise of its powers.
Glej združeni zadevi C-104/89 in C-37/90 ter zadevo C-352/98.
See joined Cases C-104/89 and C-37/90 and Case C-352/98).
Z odkritjem napake, ki je v podobnih okoliščinah upravni organ ob običajni skrbi in prizadevnosti ne bi storil, se bo potrdila ugotovitev, da je bilo ravnanje institucije Skupnosti nezakonito na način, ki povzroča njeno odgovornost.
A finding of an error which, in analogous circumstances, an administrative authority exercising ordinary care and diligence would not have committed will support the conclusion that the conduct of the Community institution was unlawful in such a way as to render the Community liable.
Glej zadevo T-178/98.
See Case T-178/98.
Oškodovani zavarovanci družbe ELAS bi lahko vložili odškodninsko tožbo v skladu s členom 288 na podlagi argumenta, da Komisija ni ustrezno izvajala funkcij in dolžnosti iz Pogodbe v zvezi z spremljanjem izvajanja zakonodaje Skupnosti (tj. tretje direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju v Združenem kraljestvu).
Aggrieved ELAS policyholders could lodge an action for damages under Article 288 based on the argument that the Commission failed to properly fulfil the functions and duties conferred to it by the Treaty in relation to monitoring the application of the EL law (i.e. the Third Life Directive in the UK).
Vendar se zdi takšna tožba le teoretična možnost, ker odbor med to preiskavo ni našel nobenih prepričljivih dokazov, da je to res (glej del II Poročila).
However, such action appears to constitute only a theoretical possibility, since the committee has found no conclusive evidence during this inquiry that that was the case (see part II of the Report).
Tudi če Komisija ne bi izpolnila svojih dolžnosti, bi bilo vprašljivo, ali ta napaka ustreza navedenemu pogoju nezakonitosti.
However, even if the Commission had failed in its duty, it would be questionable whether this failure would satisfy the condition of unlawfulness referred to above.
Razen tega bi lahko trdili, da je pravilno izvajanje zakonodaje EU predvsem odgovornost držav članic.
Moreover, one may take the view that the correct application of EU legislation is primarily the responsibility of Member States.
Če bi bila prvotno odgovorna država članica in bi bilo razumno, da odškodnino izplača država članica in ne Skupnost, bi moral vlagatelj zahtevka odškodnino zahtevati na nacionalnih sodiščih, preden bi lahko Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti nadalje obravnavalo njegov zahtevek.
If the Member State is to be considered primarily liable so that it would be reasonable for it rather than the Community to pay compensation, then the applicant would have to pursue his remedy in the national courts before the ECJ can further entertain his claim.
Glej zadeve 5, 7, 13-24/66, zadevo 96/71.
See Cases 5, 7, 13-24/66, Case 96/71).
Evropska komisija je 1. februarja 2001 vzpostavila mrežo za izvensodne pritožbene postopke v zvezi s finančnimi storitvami, da bi družbam in potrošnikom pomagala pri hitrem in učinkovitem reševanju sporov na notranjem trgu z izogibanjem, kadar je mogoče, dolgotrajnim in dragim tožbam.
On 1 February 2001, the European Commission launched an out-of-court complaints network for financial services to help businesses and consumers resolve disputes in the internal market rapidly and efficiently by avoiding, where possible, lengthy and expensive legal action.
Ta mreža, imenovana FIN-NET, je bila oblikovana zlasti za spodbujanje izvensodnega reševanja sporov potrošnikov, kadar ima ponudnik storitve sedež v drugi državi članici EU, kot je država članica, v kateri ima potrošnik stalno prebivališče.
This network, called FIN-NET, has been designed particularly to facilitate the out-of-court resolution of consumer disputes when the service provider is established in an EU Member State other than that where the consumer lives.
Danes združuje mreža različne nacionalne sheme, ki pokrivajo zlasti finančne storitve (npr. sheme varuhov človekovih pravic na področju bančništva in zavarovalništva) ali obravnavajo spore potrošnikov na splošno.
Today the network brings together different national schemes which either cover financial services in particular (e.g. banking and insurance ombudsmen schemes) or handle consumer disputes in general.
Vključene sheme so se pridružile prostovoljnemu Memorandumu o soglasju
Participating schemes have signed up to a voluntary Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)
Memorandum o soglasju o mreži čezmejnih izvensodnih pritožb za finančne storitve v Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru. .
Memorandum of Understanding on a Cross-Border Out-of-Court Complaints Network for Financial Services in the European Economic Area. .
Memorandum določa podrobne smernice, ki morajo urejati sodelovanje v primerih čezmejnih pritožb.
The memorandum lays down detailed guidelines which should govern cooperation in cases of cross-border complaints.
Vendar njegove določbe za stranke niso pravno zavezujoče, zato iz njih ne izhajajo nobene zakonite pravice ali obveznosti.
However, its provisions are not legally binding on the Parties and it does not therefore create any legal rights or obligations.
Mrežo FIN-NET dopolnjuje EEJ-NET (Evropsko izvensodno omrežje), ki vzpostavlja splošnejše omrežje mehanizmov za alternativno reševanje sporov, ki jih države članice sporočijo Komisiji ob uporabi glavnih načel iz Priporočila Komisije 98/257/ES.
FIN-NET complements the EEJ-NET (European Extra-Judicial Network), which establishes a more general network of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (ADRs) notified to the Commission by Member States as applying core principles contained in Commission Recommendation 98/257/EC.
Smernice za sodelovanje so določene v odstavku 6 Memoranduma o soglasju.
Guidelines for cooperation are laid down in paragraph 6 of the MoU.
V skladu z odstavkoma 6(1) in 6(2) Memoranduma o soglasju bo najbližja shema, tj. organ za reševanje sporov za ustrezni sektor finančnih storitev v državi stalnega prebivališča, „ potrošniku zagotovila vse potrebne in ustrezne informacije o mreži za pritožbene postopke in ustrezni shemi.
According to paragraphs 6(1) and 6(2) of the MoU, the nearest scheme, i.e. the dispute settlement body for the appropriate financial services sector in the consumer’s country of residence, " will give to the consumer all the necessary and appropriate information about the complaints network and about the competent scheme.
Kadar je primerno, bo najbližja shema potrošnika opomnila, da je pritožbe priporočljivo najprej vložiti neposredno pri ponudniku finančnih storitev, ker je to pogosto pogoj, ki ga je treba izpolniti, preden lahko organi za reševanje sporov sprejmejo pritožbe.
Where appropriate, the nearest scheme will remind the consumer of the advisability of first addressing complaints to the financial services provider directly, since this is often a precondition which must be fulfilled before dispute settlement bodies are able to take on board complaints.
Najbližja shema bo potrošnika tudi opozorila, da lahko obstaja časovna omejitev za vložitev pritožbe v pristojni shemi in kakršne koli tožbe na sodiščih.
The nearest scheme will also warn the consumer that there may be a time limit for submitting the complaint to the competent scheme and possible time limits for any legal actions before the courts ".
Končno določa odstavek 6(4) Memoranduma o soglasju, da je treba te smernice obravnavati kot osnovni postopek sodelovanja v omrežju in da se lahko stranke vedno sporazumejo o alternativnem načinu sodelovanja za učinkovitejše reševanje spora.
Finally paragraph 6(4) the MoU provides that these guidelines should be regarded as the basic cooperation procedure in the network and that Parties can always agree to an alternative method of cooperation in the interest of settling the dispute more efficiently.
Odstavek 7 daje potrošniku možnost izbire jezika, ki ga želi uporabljati pri stikih s pristojno shemo.
Paragraph 7 gives the consumer the possibility to choose the language in his dealings with the competent scheme.
Potrošnik lahko uporablja običajni delovni jezik pristojne sheme ali v njenem okviru deluje v jeziku svoje pogodbe s ponudnikom finančnih storitev ali jeziku, ki ga običajno uporablja pri svojih stikih s ponudnikom finančnih storitev.
He may either use the usual working language of the competent scheme or otherwise deal with it in the language either of his contract with the financial services supplier or in which he normally dealt with the financial services supplier.
Odstavek 8 določa smernice za izmenjavo informacij med vključenimi shemami in Komisijo ter med pristojno in najbližjo shemo.
Paragraph 8 lays down guidelines for the exchange of information both between participating schemes and the Commission and between the competent scheme and the nearest scheme.
V zvezi z najbližjo shemo je v odstavku 8(3) navedeno: „ Najbližja shema v okviru svojih možnosti pristojni shemi zagotavlja informacije o ustreznih obveznih predpisih o varstvu potrošnikov, veljavnih v državi stalnega prebivališča potrošnika.
As regards the latter, paragraph 8(3) states the following: " Within the framework of its possibilities the nearest scheme provides the competent scheme with information on appropriate mandatory consumer protection rules in force in the consumer’s country of residence.
Pristojna shema mora za te informacije zaprositi s posebno pisno zahtevo, ki vključuje dejanska vprašanja v zvezi z zadevnim primerom.
The competent scheme should ask this information with a specific written request which includes concrete questions concerning the particular case.
Na takšne zahteve po informacijah iz drugih shem je treba odgovoriti čim hitreje. “
Such requests for information from other schemes will be replied to as swiftly as possible. "
DUCOULOMBIER iz sekretariata mreže Evropske komisije FIN-NET je v H9 na kratko pojasnil način delovanja mreže: „ Osnovno načelo mreže je zelo preprosto.
Mr DUCOULOMBIER from the European Commission's FIN-NET Secretariat in H9 explained the network's modus operandi in a nutshell: " The basic principle of the network is quite simple.