natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Po mnenju ALEXANDRA „morajo imeti zavarovanci možnost, da se sklicujejo na sistem kolektivne zaščite, ki zakonodajalcu omogoča, da vloži zahtevke v imenu zavarovancev proti družbam ali osebam, ter kolektivno pravico do tožbe, ki jo lahko uporabi skupina proti družbam ali osebam, ki kršijo zakonodajo EU o finančnih storitvah“ (WE-FILE 31).
In Mr ALEXANDER's view " policyholders should be able to rely on both a system of collective protection which allows the regulator to bring claims on behalf of policyholders against firms or persons and a collective right of legal action to be exercised by a class or group against firms or persons in breach of EU financial services law " (WE-FILE 31).
Po njegovem mnenju je treba zakonodajo EU spremeniti, tako da bi vlagateljem iz EU ali kupcem/vlagateljem, ki niso iz EU, v produkte finančnih storitev EU omogočila, da vložijo skupinsko tožbo na sodiščih držav članic za povrnitev izgube, ki je nastala zaradi kršenja zakonodaje EU o finančnih storitvah.
According to him, EU law should be amended to allow EU investors or non-EU purchasers/investors in EU financial services products to bring a type of group or class action in member state courts to recover losses arising from violations of EU financial services legislation.
ALEXANDER je opozoril na potrebo po določitvi enotnih postopkovnih zahtev za skupinske tožbe po celotni EU: „ Mislim, da bi želeli zagotoviti, da se lahko te zahteve postopkovno izvajajo na način, ki je do neke stopnje enoten na ravni EU; v nasprotnem primeru bi lahko ena država članica veljala za naklonjeno skupinskim tožbam in bi se v njej vlagale vse skupinske tožbe “ (WS 2). v nasprotnem primeru bi lahko ena država članica veljala za naklonjeno skupinskim tožbam in bi se v njej vlagale vse skupinske tožbe“ (WS 2).
Mr ALEXANDER pointed out the need to establish uniform procedural requirements for class action lawsuits across the EU: " I think you would want to make sure [that] procedurally it could be done in a way where it is somewhat uniform on an EU basis; otherwise one Member State might be seen as the class action haven, where all the class actions are brought " (WS 2).
Vendar poudarja, da bi bil „za države članice velik politični izziv, da bi sprejele spremembe v pravilnikih civilnih sodišč, [čeprav] bi se uporabljali le za zahtevke, ki temeljijo na pravicah zakonodaje EU“ (WE-FILE 31
However, he points out that it would be " a major challenge politically for member states to accept changes to their civil court rules [although] it would only apply to claims based on EU law rights " (WE-FILE 31
Vendar je ALEXANDER poudaril, da so skupinske tožbe v slogu Združenih držav pritegnile veliko negativne pozornosti v britanskih in evropskih medijih.
Mr ALEXANDER stressed that "US-style class action law suits have attracted much negative attention in the British and European media.
Opozoril je, da morajo biti skupinske tožbe v okviru EU zasnovane tako, da preprečujejo „ skrajne zlorabe “, ki se očitno dogajajo v ZDA: „ V Združenih državah lahko odvetniki zelo enostavno potrdijo, da gre za skupino, in dobijo le nekaj imenovanih zastopnikov, da se dogovorijo z banko tožene stranke, [tako] da vsem drugim ni treba veliko vložiti . ...
He warned that class action in an EU context should be designed in a way that avoids " extreme abuses " as they appear to occur in the US: " In the US it is so easy for lawyers to certify a class and just get a few named representatives to cut a deal with a defendant bank [so] that everyone else doesn't have much input. ...
Tako so v sistemu Združenih držav nekatere težave, ki se jim bi bilo treba izogniti“ (WS2).
So there are problems in the US system which you'd want to be careful to avoid " (WS2).
Zato „ morajo oblikovalci politike EU preučiti postopkovne mehanizme, ki so na voljo v jurisdikcijah EU, in predlagati pravno sredstvo skupinske tožbe, ki lahko potrdi skupino za civilno tožbo za izgube zaradi kršitve zakonodaje EU o finančnih storitvah in ki bi temeljila na širši zahtevi v skladu z angleškim pravom, ki omogoča skupinsko tožbo, če imajo upravičenci ‚skupna ali podobna vprašanja v zvezi z dejstvi ali zakonodajo‘ “ (WE-FILE 31
Hence, " EU policymakers should examine the procedural mechanisms in place in EU jurisdictions and propose a class action remedy that can certify the class for a civil action for losses arising from breach of EU financial services legislation based on the broader requirement under English law that allows for a group action if the claimants have ‘common or related issues of fact or law’ " (WE-FILE 31
Odbor se strinja, da bi bilo treba temeljito preučiti mogoče prednosti in slabosti uvedbe pravnega okvira z enotnimi postopkovnimi zahtevami za evropske čezmejne skupinske tožbe na področju finančnih storitev.
The committee agrees that it would be necessary for the possible advantages and disadvantages of introducing a legal framework with uniform procedural requirements for European cross-border class action lawsuits in financial services to be thoroughly examined.
Potreba po odškodnini za oškodovance družbe Equitable Life
The need to compensate Equitable Life victims
Opozoriti je treba, da oškodovanci družbe Equitable Life niso vlagatelji, ki bi želeli tvegati v pričakovanju privlačnih donosov.
It should be recalled that Equitable Life victims are not investors willing to take risks for the prospect of attractive returns.
Preudarno so varčevali denar za čas upokojitve pri zelo ugledni družbi ELAS, ki jih je prepričala, da je njihova naložba popolnoma varna.
Rather they prudently set aside money for their retirement with a highly reputable Society, which led them to believe that their investment was absolutely safe.
Ti zavarovanci so od vlade Združenega kraljestva upravičeno pričakovali temeljit in strog nadzor vseh ponudnikov finančnih storitev, ki ponujajo tako občutljive produkte, kot so življenjska zavarovanja in zasebne pokojnine, vključno z družbo Equitable Life.
These policyholders were entitled to expect from the UK Government thorough and rigorous supervision of all financial services providers that offer such sensitive products as life assurance and private pensions, including Equitable Life.
To je dejstvo zlasti glede na vedno bolj razširjeno smer razvoja med evropskimi vladami, ki temelji na demografskem gibanju, tj. da spodbujajo državljane, da se ne zanašajo na državne pokojnine, ampak se vključijo v zasebne pokojninske sisteme.
This holds true especially in the light of growing tendencies among European governments based on population trends to urge their citizens not to rely on state pensions but to purchase private schemes instead .
Eden od glavnih ciljev tretje direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju je, da s strogim nadzorom zagotovi „ ustrezno zaščito “
It is one of the major objectives of the Third Life Directive to ensure " adequate protection "
Glej na primer uvodni izjavi 2 in 4 Direktive. zavarovancev.
See for instance Recitals 2 and 4 of the Directive. of policyholders through rigorous supervision.
Kot je bilo razloženo v delih II in III tega poročila, zakonodajalci Združenega kraljestva z več vidikov niso uspešno nadzirali in spremljali finančne solidnosti družbe Equitable Life, vključno z njeno plačilno sposobnostjo, oblikovanjem ustreznih zavarovalno-tehničnih rezervacij in kritjem teh rezervacij z ustreznimi sredstvi, v skladu z zahtevami iz tretje direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju.
As was shown in Parts II and III of this report, the UK regulators failed in a number of respects to supervise and monitor the financial health of Equitable Life, including its state of solvency, the establishment of adequate technical provisions and the covering of those provisions by matching assets, according to the requirements laid down in the Third Life Directive.
Če bi zakonodajalci Združenega kraljestva pravilno uporabili določbe direktive, bi zelo verjetno dosegli cilj in „zagotovili ustrezno zaščito zavarovancev“ ter tako preprečili krizo družbe Equitable Life, ki je povzročila velike izgube zavarovancev.
Had the UK regulators correctly applied the provisions of the Directive, they would most likely have achieved its objective to 'ensure adequate protection of policyholders' and thus have avoided the crisis at Equitable Life, which caused substantial losses to policyholders.
Kot se kaže v tem delu poročila, ustreznih pravnih sredstev, s katerimi bi se oškodovanim zavarovancem povrnile izgube v skladu z zakonodajo Združenega kraljestva ali zakonodajo EU, ni bilo na voljo.
As this part of the report illustrates, there have been no adequate remedies available for aggrieved policyholders to recuperate their losses either under UK or EU law.
Kar zadeva zakonodajo EU, glede na sodbe v primerljivih zadevah ni zelo verjetno, da bi bila odškodninska tožba proti Združenemu kraljestvu v skladu z zadevo Francovich uspešna.
As regards EU law, it is questionable, given the judgments in comparable cases, if an action in damages against the UK under Francovich would be successful.
Prav tako zavarovanci nimajo stvarnih pričakovanj glede uspešnega uveljavljanja svojih zahtevkov proti zakonodajalcu v skladu s pravnim sistemom Združenega kraljestva za zakonodajno obveznost, ker bi morali dokazati zlorabo službenega položaja, kar je dejansko nemogoče.
Likewise, it would be difficult for policyholders successfully to pursue their claims against the regulator under the UK legal regime for regulatory liability because they would have to prove misfeasance.
Na drugi strani bi lahko sedanja preiskava parlamentarne varuhinje človekovih pravic Združenega kraljestva o tem, ali je bila posameznikom povzročena krivica zaradi nepravilnosti zakonodajalca Združenega kraljestva za bonitetne zadeve, dosegla priporočilo za plačilo odškodnine.
On the other hand, the current investigation by the UK Parliamentary Ombudsman into whether individuals were caused injustice through maladministration on the part of UK prudential regulators could result in a recommendation to pay compensation.
Vendar je pristojnost varuhinje človekovih pravic omejena v smislu časovnega obdobja in vključenih regulativnih organov.
However, the Ombudsman's remit is limited in terms of both the time period and regulatory authorities covered.
Njene pristojnosti in naloge izključujejo zlasti vprašanje, ali je regulativna ureditev Združenega kraljestva takrat izpolnjevala zahteve zakonodaje EU.
In particular, her terms of reference exclude the question of whether the UK regulatory regime at the time met the requirements of EU law.
Glede na navedeno meni odbor, da je primerno vladi Združenega kraljestva odločno priporočiti, da oblikuje ustrezno shemo za izplačilo celotne odškodnine oškodovancem družbe Equitable Life v Združenem kraljestvu in tujini, ker ni zaščitila zavarovancev v skladu z zakonodajo EU.
In light of the above, the committee considers it appropriate to recommend strongly to the UK Government to devise an appropriate scheme with a view to provide full compensation for Equitable Life victims both within the UK and abroad for its failure to protect policyholders in accordance with EU legislation.
Ker izvedljivih nadomestnih možnosti ni na voljo, meni odbor, da je obveznost vlade Združenega kraljestva, da prevzame odgovornost za napake in zagotovi odškodnino za krivice državljanov.
In the absence of viable alternatives, the committee sees it as an obligation of the UK Government to assume responsibility for its failures and provide redress for citizens' grievances.
Odbor verjame, da se mora to zgoditi zdaj, da se ta zadeva konča in zagotovi nadomestilo za številne oškodovance.
The committee believes that this must happen now, in order to put an end to this affair and secure relief for the many victims.
SKLEPI DEL IV – PRAVNA SREDSTVA
Conclusions PART IV - REMEDIES
V celoti je bilo zaradi dogodkov z družbo ELAS prizadetih 1,5 milijona zavarovancev.
Overall, about 1.5 million policyholders were affected by the events at Equitable Life.
Večina je bila državljanov Združenega kraljestva.
The vast majority of them were UK residents.
Prizadetih pa je bilo tudi veliko zavarovancev iz drugih 14 držav članic EU, zlasti približno 8 000 irskih in 4 000 nemških državljanov.
Nevertheless, a significant number of policyholders from 14 other EU Member States were affected, in particular approximately 8 000 Irish and 4 000 German citizens.
Tako je bilo zaradi krize družbe ELAS prizadetih veliko evropskih državljanov.
Thus, a large number of European citizens have suffered as a result of the crisis at Equitable Life.
Pisne in ustne predstavitve pred odborom
The written and oral presentations made to the committee
Glej del IV, oddelek II, točki 1 in 3. navajajo, da ima zaradi krize družbe ELAS finančne težave veliko posameznih upokojencev in varčevalcev.
See Part IV, Section II points 1 and 3. suggest that the crisis at ELAS has caused financial hardship to many individual pensioners and savers.
Dokazi tudi kažejo, da je veliko zavarovancev poleg finančne izgube doživelo hud stres v zvezi z vprašanji dostopnosti do odškodninskega postopka in pravne pomoči.
Evidence also shows that many policyholders have suffered considerable worry and distress in relation to issues surrounding the availability of redress and access to justice, in addition to their financial losses.
Na podlagi dokazov, predloženih odboru, ni mogoče natančno oceniti celotne izgube zavarovancev.
The collective losses incurred by policyholders cannot be quantified precisely on the basis of submissions made to the committee.
Glej del IV, oddelek II, točka 2.
See Part IV, Section II point 2.
Zmanjšanje vrednosti zavarovalnih polic 16. julija 2001 je znašalo okoli 4 milijarde funtov.
The cut in policy values intimated on 16 July 2001 equalled around £4 billion.
Vendar je nekaj nasprotujočih si dokazov vzbudilo dvom o tem, kateri del zmanjšanja se lahko pripiše slabemu upravljanju družbe ELAS in kateri del je bil posledica zunanjih dejavnikov, kot je slaba učinkovitost finančnih trgov v tistem času.
However, there has been conflicting evidence as to which part of the cut can be attributed to mismanagement of the Society and which part was rather a consequence of external factors, such as the weak performance of financial markets at the time.
Praksa družbe ELAS, da je v devetdesetih letih 20. stoletja plačevala čezmerne bonuse, in stroški plačevanja za zajamčene rente so bili glavni vzroki za zmanjšanje vrednosti zavarovalnih polic.
However, the Society's practice of paying excessive bonuses throughout the 1990s, together with the cost of paying for GAR appear to have been major causes for the reduction in policy values.
Pri odpravljanju posledic krize so bile možnosti vlaganja družbe ELAS precej omejene, kar je imelo dodatne finančne posledice za zavarovance.
In the aftermath of the crisis, the investment options of ELAS were severely constrained with further financial repercussions for the policyholders.
V izjavah, predloženih odboru,
Statements made to the committee
Glej del IV, oddelek II, točka 3. je bilo izpostavljeno dejstvo, da so bile različne skupine zavarovancev zaradi krize prizadete različno.
See Part IV, Section II point 3. have highlighted the fact that various classes of policyholders were affected by the crisis to differing degrees.
Vendar se je izkazalo, da je bilo nekaj skupin najbolj prizadetih: zavarovanci, ki niso imeli zajamčene rente in so se družbi pridružili v obdobju med poznimi devetdesetimi leti 20. stoletja in letom 2000, ker prej niso dobili znatnega bonusa družbe ELAS, rentniki z življenjskim zavarovanjem s klavzulo o soudeležbi zavarovanca pri dobičku zavarovalnice, ki so doživeli znatno zmanjšanje plačil rente in niso imeli možnosti, da zavarovalne police prenesejo drugam, zavarovanci iz držav članic razen Združenega kraljestva, na primer iz Irske in Nemčije, so bili ne glede na pogoje iz zavarovalne police družbe ELAS v zelo težkem položaju.
However, it appears that several groups were particularly disadvantaged: firstly those non-GAR policyholders who joined between the late 1990s and 2000, as they had not previously benefited from the Society's excessive bonus allocation; secondly, with-profits annuitants who suffered severe reductions in their annuity payments without having the possibility to transfer policies to another provider; thirdly, policyholders from Member States other than the United Kingdom, such as Ireland and Germany, were put in a particularly difficult position, irrespective of the terms of their policy with ELAS.
Izjave pred odborom so pokazale, da je imelo veliko žrtev krize družbe ELAS velike težave, ker niso vedeli, kakšni postopki so jim na voljo ali kam naj se obrnejo za pridobitev informacij, vložitev pritožbe ter zahtevka za odškodnino.
Statements made to the committee have shown that many of the victims of the ELAS crisis had great difficulty in knowing what route to take or who to apply to in trying to obtain information, make a complaint and obtain redress.
Mnoge so različne agencije dejansko pošiljale na različne naslove.
Many were literally passed from pillar to post by various agencies.
Drugi so jasno veliko pričakovali od sistemov alternativnega reševanja sporov, vendar bi bilo verjetno bolje, da bi zahtevke za odškodnino vložili na tradicionalnih sodiščih, če bi lahko krili finančne stroške.
Others clearly had huge expectations of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) systems when they might have been better advised to have pursued a claim through the traditional courts, if they could have afforded the financial cost.
Gradivo, predstavljeno odboru, skratka kaže vzorec nejasnosti in velikega razlikovanja pri obravnavanju.
In short, the material presented to the committee shows a pattern of confusion and much inequality of treatment.
Poznejši sklepi in priporočila o stanju zahtevkov, ustreznosti pravnih sredstev, ki so na voljo zavarovancem, in dostopu do sodnih ter nesodnih pravnih sredstev se zdaj preiskujejo po vrsti.
Subsequent conclusions and recommendations on the status of claims and adequacy of remedies available to policyholders and access to judicial and non-judicial remedies are now examined in turn.
(a) Civilna tožba družbe ELAS
(a) Litigation by ELAS
Poskus družbe ELAS, da izgubo pokrije s civilno tožbo proti nekdanjim direktorjem in revizorjem, zavarovancem ni pomagal do odškodnin.
Equitable Life's attempt to recover losses by litigation against its former directors and auditors did not result in redress for policyholders.
Nezmožnost celo bogatega vlagatelja, da bi se postopek v zvezi z zahtevkom končal, dokazuje, kako visoki so stroški in kako negotovo je zatekanje k pravnim sredstvom za pridobitev odškodnine v Združenem kraljestvu.
This inability of even a well funded litigant to be able to pursue a claim to its conclusion highlights the high costs and the uncertainty generated by recourse to judicial means of redress in the UK.
(b) Civilni postopki proti družbi ELAS
(b) Civil Proceedings against ELAS
Začetek sodnih postopkov proti družbi ELAS (v oddelku 62 Zakona o finančnih storitvah iz leta 1986 o zavajajočih informacijah ali malomarnem svetovanju) je bil v teoriji mogoč način, da oškodovani zavarovanci dobijo odškodnino.
The launch of court proceedings against ELAS (under Section 62 of the Financial Services Act 1986 or for misrepresentation or for negligent advice) was, in theory, a possible route for aggrieved policyholders to obtain redress.
Kot navajajo dokazi, predloženi odboru
However, in practice, as submissions to the committee
Glej del IV, oddelek VI, točko 2.c. , pa je v praksi le nekaj bogatih zavarovancev izbralo ta način ali grozilo s tožbo prek pravnih svetovalcev in se na koncu pred sojenjem s strogimi klavzulami o varovanju tajnosti pogodilo z družbo ELAS.
See Part IV, Section VI point 2.c. suggest, only a few affluent policyholders took this route or threatened through legal advisors to do so and consequently reached settlements with the Society prior to trial under strict confidentiality clauses.
Visoki stroški in tveganja v pravnem sistemu Združenega kraljestva so povprečnemu zavarovancu preprečili vložitev tožbe proti družbi ELAS, zato so se morali opreti na storitve finančnega varuha človekovih pravic, kar je bil edini način za pridobitev odškodnine.
The high costs and risks under the UK legal system prevented the average policyholder from suing the Society, and these consequently had to rely on the FOS as the only possible route to redress.
Odbor meni, da je to očitno nepravično.
The committee is of the opinion that this is clearly unfair.
(c) Postopki proti nadzornim organom
(c) Proceedings against the supervisory authorities
Mnenje strokovnjaka
Expert advice
Glej del IV, oddelek VII, točko 2. , ki ga je naročil odbor, je, da nadzorni organ po zakonodaji Združenega kraljestva, kar pa ne velja za večino drugih držav članic, ne more odgovarjati za malomarnost, razen v primeru kaznivega dejanja zlorabe uradnega položaja, ki zahteva element nepoštenosti.
See Part IV, Section VII point 2. commissioned by the committee indicates that under UK law, unlike in most other EU countries, a supervisory authority may not be held liable in negligence but only under the tort of misfeasance in public office, requiring an element of bad faith.
O tem elementu je mogoče govoriti le, kadar organ protipravno izvaja svoje pristojnosti, pri čemer želi namerno škodovati tožniku, ali z nepremišljeno brezskrbnostjo do takšnega morebitnega škodovanja.
This element would be satisfied only where the authority had exercised its powers unlawfully, specifically intending to injure the plaintiff, or with reckless indifference to the possibility of such injury.
Razpoložljivo gradivo navaja, da v primeru družbe ELAS te zahteve niso bile izpolnjene, posledično pa obstaja resen dvom o tem, ali bi bili prizadeti zavarovanci po zakonodaji Združenega kraljestva uspešni pri zahtevi, da odgovornost za izgubo prevzamejo regulativni organi.
Available material suggests that such requirements were not made out in the case of ELAS, with the consequence that there are serious doubts as to whether aggrieved policyholders would be successful in holding the regulatory authorities liable for their losses under UK law.
(d) Položaj in obravnavanje zavarovancev iz drugih držav članic
(d) Situation and treatment of policyholders from other Member States
Odbor se je seznanil z dvomi Komisije v zvezi z jasnostjo pojmov svobode opravljanja storitev, odgovornosti zakonodajalcev za malomarnost in „ javnega interesa “ ter se strinja, da razlike pri razlagi takšnih pojmov „ resno spodkopavajo delovanje mehanizmov iz tretje direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju “ .
The committee notes the doubts expressed by the Commission concerning the clarity of the concepts of freedom to provide services, the liability of regulators for negligence and the "general good" and agrees that differences of interpretation concerning such concepts " seriously undermine the workings of the machinery set up by the Third Life Directives ".
Obrazložitveno sporočilo o svobodi opravljanja storitev in javnem interesu v zavarovalniškem sektorju, 2000/C 43/03, 16. februar 2000.
Interpretative Communication on Freedom to provide services and the general good in the insurance sector, 2000/C 43/03, 16 February 2000.
Družba ELAS je imela podružnice na Irskem (od leta 1991 do leta 2001) in v Nemčiji (od leta 1992 do leta 2001), svoje produkte pa je prodala približno 8 000 irskim in 4 000 nemškim strankam.
Equitable Life operated branches in Ireland (from 1991 to 2001) and Germany (from 1992 to 2001) and sold its products to approximately 8000 Irish and 4000 German customers.
Nekateri dokazi
Some submissions