Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-22-Speech-3-171"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech⁶
dcterms:Date	"2005-06-22"^^xsd:date⁶
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Lloyd'i afäär⁶
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language⁶
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050622.19.3-171"⁶
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-06-22-Speech-3-172⁶
lpv:speaker	lp:Charlie McCreevy⁶
lpv:spoken text	". Mr President, the question of the regulation of Lloyd’s and the application of the First Non-Life Insurance Directive in the United Kingdom has been debated before in this Chamber. I refer to Oral Question B5-0010/2004 by Mr Perry, which was debated by Parliament on 12 February 2004, and to the answer given by the Commission on that occasion. The Commission has always expressed the greatest sympathy for the thousands of individuals – including the petitioners – who have suffered as a result of the Lloyd’s affair. The Commission’s views and concerns relating to the pre-2000 UK legislation were set out clearly in its letter of formal notice of December 2001, which is now a public document. The UK authorities informed the Commission that new legislation had been enacted to replace the former regime and answered further Commission questions relating to that new legislation. The Commission then announced that it was satisfied that those aspects of the regulatory and supervisory regime for Lloyd’s under examination were compatible with the requirements of the directive. The Commission has no doubt that once it had established the compatibility of the new regime for Lloyd’s it had no basis for continuing the infringement proceedings it had begun with the letter of formal notice in December 2001 in relation to the old regime. The Court of Justice’s jurisprudence on the purpose and conduct of infringement proceedings is quite clear. The Commission has always stressed to complainants that any action seeking damages for alleged incompatibility under the former regime must be undertaken exclusively before the United Kingdom courts. In order to help them in their litigation in the UK against the UK Government, the petitioners and many correspondents seem to seek a ruling from the Commission on the compatibility or incompatibility of the former Lloyd’s regime. However, only the Court of Justice can give such rulings. The Commission voiced its concerns in its 2001 letter of formal notice but this was only the first step in a long process of argument and counter-argument that might ultimately, if it had been continued, have led to a formal hearing and ruling at the Court of Justice. The Commission is fully aware that it is a subject of great regret to many that the legal proceedings begun with our letter were not pursued to their ultimate conclusion, but it has no doubt that its decision to discontinue the proceedings was the right one and was fully in conformity with the constant jurisprudence of the Court in the matter of infringement proceedings. I have taken note of the motion for a resolution tabled for the purpose of winding up tonight’s debate on this question. The Commission believes that the points addressed to it in Mr Perry’s report, to which the draft resolution makes reference, have all been answered. The Commission made its views on the UK authorities’ responses to the letter of formal notice public when it decided to close the infringement procedure. As to the access to documents retained by the Commission, I stress that these are governed by Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. The conditions for gaining access to these documents are set out in that regulation. As to the third question in Mr Perry’s report about possible shortcomings or omissions in the UK regime, I reiterate that the Commission raised a number of questions in its letters of formal notice. I stress, however, that these were only questions. Such questions do not, in themselves, constitute an opinion or judgement. The answers provided by the UK authorities satisfied the Commission and led it to decide that there were no grounds to pursue the infringement procedure."@en⁴
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the question of the regulation of Lloyd’s and the application of the First Non-Life Insurance Directive in the United Kingdom has been debated before in this Chamber. I refer to Oral Question B5-0010/2004 by Mr Perry, which was debated by Parliament on 12 February 2004, and to the answer given by the Commission on that occasion. The Commission has always expressed the greatest sympathy for the thousands of individuals – including the petitioners – who have suffered as a result of the Lloyd’s affair. The Commission’s views and concerns relating to the pre-2000 UK legislation were set out clearly in its letter of formal notice of December 2001, which is now a public document. The UK authorities informed the Commission that new legislation had been enacted to replace the former regime and answered further Commission questions relating to that new legislation. The Commission then announced that it was satisfied that those aspects of the regulatory and supervisory regime for Lloyd’s under examination were compatible with the requirements of the directive. The Commission has no doubt that once it had established the compatibility of the new regime for Lloyd’s it had no basis for continuing the infringement proceedings it had begun with the letter of formal notice in December 2001 in relation to the old regime. The Court of Justice’s jurisprudence on the purpose and conduct of infringement proceedings is quite clear. The Commission has always stressed to complainants that any action seeking damages for alleged incompatibility under the former regime must be undertaken exclusively before the United Kingdom courts. In order to help them in their litigation in the UK against the UK Government, the petitioners and many correspondents seem to seek a ruling from the Commission on the compatibility or incompatibility of the former Lloyd’s regime. However, only the Court of Justice can give such rulings. The Commission voiced its concerns in its 2001 letter of formal notice but this was only the first step in a long process of argument and counter-argument that might ultimately, if it had been continued, have led to a formal hearing and ruling at the Court of Justice. The Commission is fully aware that it is a subject of great regret to many that the legal proceedings begun with our letter were not pursued to their ultimate conclusion, but it has no doubt that its decision to discontinue the proceedings was the right one and was fully in conformity with the constant jurisprudence of the Court in the matter of infringement proceedings. I have taken note of the motion for a resolution tabled for the purpose of winding up tonight’s debate on this question. The Commission believes that the points addressed to it in Mr Perry’s report, to which the draft resolution makes reference, have all been answered. The Commission made its views on the UK authorities’ responses to the letter of formal notice public when it decided to close the infringement procedure. As to the access to documents retained by the Commission, I stress that these are governed by Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. The conditions for gaining access to these documents are set out in that regulation. As to the third question in Mr Perry’s report about possible shortcomings or omissions in the UK regime, I reiterate that the Commission raised a number of questions in its letters of formal notice. I stress, however, that these were only questions. Such questions do not, in themselves, constitute an opinion or judgement. The answers provided by the UK authorities satisfied the Commission and led it to decide that there were no grounds to pursue the infringement procedure."@cs¹ "Hr. formand, spørgsmålet om reguleringen af Lloyd’s og gennemførelsen af det første direktiv om forsikringsvirksomhed bortset fra livsforsikring er før blevet drøftet her i salen. Jeg henviser til spørgsmål til mundtlig besvarelse B5-0010/2004 af hr. Perry, som blev drøftet i Parlamentet den 12. februar 2004, og Kommissionens svar ved den lejlighed. Kommissionen har altid udtrykt den største sympati for de tusindvis af personer - herunder andragerne - som har lidt som følge af Lloyd’s-sagen. Kommissionens synspunkter og bekymringer vedrørende den britiske lovgivning før 2000 fremgår klart af åbningsskrivelsen af december 2001, som nu er et offentligt tilgængeligt dokument. De britiske myndigheder meddelte Kommissionen, at man havde vedtaget ny lovgivning som erstatning for den tidligere ordning og besvarede desuden Kommissionens spørgsmål vedrørende denne nye lovgivning. Kommissionen meddelte herefter, at den fandt det godtgjort, at disse aspekter af den undersøgte lovgivningsmæssige og tilsynsmæssige ordning for Lloyd’s var i overensstemmelse med direktivets krav. Kommissionen tvivler ikke på, at da den havde fastslået, at den nye ordning for Lloyd's var i overensstemmelse med lovgivningen, var der intet grundlag for at fortsætte overtrædelsesprocedurerne, som var indledt med åbningsskrivelsen af december 2001 angående den gamle ordning. Domstolens retspraksis vedrørende formålet og gennemførelsen af overtrædelsesprocedurerne ligger helt fast. Kommissionen har altid understreget over for klagere, at alle sagsanlæg for påstået manglende overensstemmelse under den tidligere ordning udelukkende skal anlægges ved de britiske domstole. For at hjælpe dem i deres søgsmål i Det Forenede Kongerige mod den britiske regering synes andragerne og mange brevskrivere at ønske en afgørelse fra Kommissionen vedrørende Lloyd's tidligere ordnings overensstemmelse med bestemmelserne. Det er imidlertid kun Domstolen, der kan træffe sådanne afgørelser. Kommissionen gav i åbningsskrivelsen fra 2001 udtryk for sin bekymring, men dette var kun første skridt i en lang procedure med argumenter og modargumenter, der i sidste instans, hvis den var fortsat, kunne have ført til en formel sag og afgørelse fra Domstolen. Kommissionen er fuldt ud klar over, at mange beklager, at den juridiske procedure, vi indledte med vores åbningsskrivelse, ikke blev ført til ende, men vi er sikre på, at vores beslutning om at afbryde proceduren var den rigtige og i fuld overensstemmelse med Domstolens faste retspraksis inden for traktatbrudsprocedurer. Jeg har taget beslutningsforslaget, der har til formål at afrunde aftenens forhandling om dette spørgsmål, til efterretning. Efter Kommissionens opfattelse er alle de spørgsmål, som den blev stillet i hr. Perrys betænkning, hvortil der henvises i beslutningsforslaget, blevet besvaret. Kommissionen offentliggjorde sine synspunkter om de britiske myndigheders reaktion på åbningsskrivelsen, da den besluttede at afslutte traktatbrudsproceduren. Jeg understreger, at adgangen til dokumenter i Kommissionens varetægt er omfattet af forordning (EF) nr. 1049/2001. Betingelserne for at få adgang til disse dokumenter er fastlagt i denne forordning. Hvad angår det tredje spørgsmål i hr. Perrys betænkning om mulige mangler eller udeladelser i den britiske ordning, gentager jet, at Kommissionen tog en række spørgsmål op i sin åbningsskrivelse. Jeg vil imidlertid understrege, at der kun var tale om spørgsmål. Sådanne spørgsmål udgør ikke i sig selv et synspunkt eller en bedømmelse. Kommissionen var tilfreds med de britiske myndigheders svar og fandt på dette grundlag ikke anledning til at fortsætte traktatbrudsproceduren."@da² ". Herr Präsident! Über die Frage der Regulierung von Lloyd’s und die Anwendung der ersten Richtlinie über Versicherungen mit Ausnahme der Lebensversicherungen im Vereinigten Königreich wurde schon einmal hier in diesem Parlament diskutiert. Ich beziehe mich da auf die Mündliche Anfrage B5-0010/2004 von Herrn Perry, die vom Parlament am 12. Februar 2004 erörtert wurde, und die damalige Antwort der Kommission. Die Kommission hat gegenüber den Tausenden Privatanlegern – einschließlich Petenten –, die aufgrund der Lloyd’s-Affäre hohe Verluste erlitten haben, immer ihr größtes Mitgefühl zum Ausdruck gebracht. Sie hat ihre Ansichten und Besorgnis über die britische Gesetzeslage, die vor dem Jahre 2000 bestand, in dem Fristsetzungsschreiben vom Dezember 2001 klar und deutlich dargelegt, das nunmehr auch öffentlich zugänglich ist. Die britischen Behörden teilten der Kommission mit, dass das alte System durch neue Rechtsvorschriften ersetzt worden war, und beantworteten weitere Fragen der Kommission zu den neuen Vorschriften. Daraufhin erklärte die Kommission, dass die Aspekte des Regulierungs- und Überwachungssystems für Lloyd’s, die Gegenstand der Untersuchung waren, den Anforderungen der Richtlinie entsprechen würden. Die Kommission hat keinen Zweifel daran, dass die Grundlage für die Fortführung des Vertragsverletzungsverfahrens, das sie mit dem Fristsetzungsschreiben vom Dezember 2001 in Hinblick auf das alte System eingeleitet hatte, entfallen war, nachdem sie zu der Feststellung gelangt war, dass das neue System für Lloyd’s den Anforderungen der Richtlinie entsprach. Die Rechtsprechung des Gerichthofs zum Zweck und zur Einleitung von Vertragsverletzungsverfahren ist recht eindeutig. Die Kommission hat die Beschwerdeführer stets darauf hingewiesen, dass jegliche Entschädigungsklagen wegen der Unvereinbarkeit des alten Systems mit der EU-Richtlinie ausschließlich bei den britischen Gerichten eingereicht werden müssen. Um Unterstützung für ihr Gerichtsverfahren im Vereinigten Königreich gegen die britische Regierung zu erhalten, verlangen die Petenten und viele Korrespondenten anscheinend, dass die Kommission darüber richtet, ob das alte System für Lloyd’s dem Gemeinschaftsrecht entsprochen hat oder nicht. Darüber kann jedoch nur der Gerichtshof ein Urteil fällen. Die Kommission brachte zwar ihre Bedenken in ihrem Fristsetzungsschreiben vom Dezember 2001 zum Ausdruck, doch dies stellte nur den ersten Schritt in einem langen Prozess der Argumente und Gegenargumente dar, der letztendlich – wäre er denn fortgesetzt worden – zu einer offiziellen Anhörung beim Gerichtshof und einer Urteilsverkündung hätte führen können. Die Kommission ist sich vollkommen darüber im Klaren, dass es viele sehr bedauerlich finden, dass die Verfahren, die durch unser Schreiben eingeleitet wurden, nicht zum endgültigen Abschluss gebracht wurden. Sie zweifelt jedoch keineswegs daran, dass ihre Entscheidung, die Verfahren abzubrechen, richtig war sowie voll und ganz der ständigen Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofs bei Vertragsverletzungsverfahren entsprochen hat. Ich habe den Entschließungsantrag zur Kenntnis genommen, mit dem die heutige Aussprache zu dieser Frage abgeschlossen werden soll. Die Kommission ist der Auffassung, dass sie sich zu allen Fragen, die im Bericht Perry an sie gerichtet waren und die sich auch im Entschließungsantrag wiederfinden, geäußert hat. So machte die Kommission ihre Stellungnahme zur Antwort der britischen Behörden auf das Fristsetzungsschreiben öffentlich, nachdem sie sich zum Abbruch des Vertragsverletzungsverfahrens entschlossen hatte. Was den Zugang zu den Dokumenten der Kommission betrifft, möchte ich hervorheben, dass diese unter die Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1049/2001 fallen. Darin sind die Bedingungen für den Zugang zu diesen Dokumenten niedergelegt. In Bezug auf die dritte Frage im Bericht Perry, bei der es um mögliche Mängel und Versäumnisse im britischen System geht, möchte ich noch einmal darauf hinweisen, dass die Fristsetzungsschreiben der Kommission mehrere Fragen enthielten. Ich betone jedoch, dass es sich hierbei lediglich um Fragen handelte. Solche Fragen sind an sich noch nicht als eine Stellungnahme oder ein Urteil zu werten. Die Kommission war mit den Antworten der britischen Behörden zufrieden, und daher gelangte sie zu dem Schluss, dass die Gründe für ein Vertragsverletzungsverfahren entfallen waren."@de⁹ "Κύριε Πρόεδρε, το ζήτημα της ρύθμισης των Lloyd’s και η εφαρμογή της πρώτης οδηγίας για τις ασφάλειες πλην των ασφαλειών ζωής στο Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο έχει συζητηθεί πάλι σε αυτή την αίθουσα. Αναφέρομαι στην προφορική ερώτηση B5-0010/2004 του κ. Perry, η οποία συζητήθηκε από το Κοινοβούλιο στις 12 Φεβρουαρίου 2004, και στην απάντηση που δόθηκε από την Επιτροπή σε αυτή την περίπτωση. Η Επιτροπή ανέκαθεν εξέφραζε την αμέριστη συμπάθειά της για τα χιλιάδες άτομα –περιλαμβανομένων των αναφερόντων– που υπέφεραν ως αποτέλεσμα της υπόθεσης των Lloyd’s. Οι απόψεις και οι ανησυχίες της Επιτροπής σχετικά με την προ του 2000 νομοθεσία του Ηνωμένου Βασιλείου υπήρξαν σαφείς στην προειδοποιητική επιστολή της τον Δεκέμβριο του 2001, η οποία αποτελεί πλέον δημόσιο έγγραφο. Οι αρχές του Ηνωμένου Βασιλείου πληροφόρησαν την Επιτροπή ότι θεσπίστηκε νέα νομοθεσία για την αντικατάσταση του πρότερου καθεστώτος και απάντησαν σε περαιτέρω ερωτήσεις της Επιτροπής σχετικά με την εν λόγω νέα νομοθεσία. Η Επιτροπή ανακοίνωσε τότε ότι αυτές οι πτυχές του υπό εξέταση ρυθμιστικού και εποπτικού συστήματος των Lloyd’s ήταν συμβατές με τις απαιτήσεις της οδηγίας. Η Επιτροπή δεν έχει ουδεμία αμφιβολία ότι εφόσον επαλήθευσε τη συμβατότητα του νέου καθεστώτος των Lloyd’s δεν είχε πλέον έρεισμα για τη συνέχιση της διαδικασίας επί παραβάσει την οποία είχε κινήσει με την προειδοποιητική επιστολή τον Δεκέμβριο του 2001 σε σχέση με το παλαιό καθεστώς. Η νομολογία του Δικαστηρίου για τον σκοπό και τη διεξαγωγή της διαδικασίας επί παραβάσει είναι αρκετά σαφής. Η Επιτροπή ανέκαθεν τόνιζε στους καταγγέλλοντες ότι οιαδήποτε δίωξη με σκοπό την αποζημίωση για εικαζόμενη ασυμβατότητα σύμφωνα με το πρότερο καθεστώς πρέπει να ασκηθεί αποκλειστικά ενώπιον των δικαστηρίων του Ηνωμένου Βασιλείου. Προκειμένου να τους βοηθήσουμε στην αντιδικία τους στο Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο με τη βρετανική κυβέρνηση, οι αναφέροντες και πολλοί αποστολείς επιστολών φαίνεται ότι επιζητούν μια απόφαση της Επιτροπής για τη συμβατότητα ή την ασυμβατότητα του πρότερου καθεστώτος των Lloyd’s. Εντούτοις, μόνο το Δικαστήριο μπορεί να εκδώσει τέτοιες αποφάσεις. Η Επιτροπή εξέφρασε τις ανησυχίες της στην προειδοποιητική επιστολή της του 2001 αλλά αυτό ήταν μόνο το πρώτο βήμα σε μια μακρά διαδικασία συζητήσεων επί συζητήσεων, η οποία ενδεχομένως τελικά, εάν είχε συνεχιστεί, να είχε οδηγήσει σε επίσημη ακρόαση και απόφαση του Δικαστηρίου. Η Επιτροπή έχει πλήρη επίγνωση ότι είναι ένα θέμα μεγάλης απογοήτευσης για πολλούς ότι οι νομικές διαδικασίες που άρχισαν με την προειδοποιητική επιστολή μας δεν οδηγήθηκαν στην τελική τους κατάληξη, αλλά δεν έχει ουδεμία αμφιβολία ότι η απόφασή της να διακόψει τις διαδικασίες ήταν η σωστή και συμφωνούσε πλήρως με την πάγια νομολογία του Δικαστηρίου στο ζήτημα της διαδικασίας επί παραβάσει. Έλαβα υπόψη την πρόταση ψηφίσματος που υπεβλήθη προκειμένου να κλείσει η αποψινή συζήτηση γι’ αυτό το ζήτημα. Η Επιτροπή πιστεύει ότι τα θέματα τα οποία της έθεσε η έκθεση του κ. Perry, στην οποία έκανε αναφορά το σχέδιο ψηφίσματος, έχουν όλα απαντηθεί. Η Επιτροπή δημοσιοποίησε τις απόψεις της για τις απαντήσεις των βρετανικών αρχών στην προειδοποιητική επιστολή όταν αποφάσισε να περατώσει τη διαδικασία επί παραβάσει. Όσον αφορά την πρόσβαση στα έγγραφα που τηρεί η Επιτροπή, τονίζω ότι διέπεται από τον κανονισμό (ΕΚ) 1049/2001. Οι όροι για την απόκτηση πρόσβασης σε αυτά τα έγγραφα καθορίζονται σε αυτόν τον κανονισμό. Ως προς το τρίτο ερώτημα της έκθεσης του κ. Perry σχετικά με πιθανές ατέλειες ή παραλείψεις στο βρετανικό καθεστώς, επαναλαμβάνω ότι η Επιτροπή ήγειρε αρκετά ερωτήματα στις προειδοποιητικές επιστολές της. Τονίζω, εντούτοις, ότι αυτά ήταν μόνο ερωτήματα. Τέτοιου είδους ερωτήματα δεν συνιστούν, από μόνα τους, γνωμοδότηση ή απόφαση. Οι απαντήσεις που παρασχέθηκαν από τις βρετανικές αρχές ικανοποίησαν την Επιτροπή και την οδήγησαν να αποφασίσει ότι δεν υπήρχε έρεισμα για τη συνέχιση της διαδικασίας επί παραβάσει."@el¹⁰ ". Señor Presidente, la cuestión de la reglamentación de Lloyd y la aplicación de la Primera Directiva sobre la actividad del seguro directo distinto del seguro de vida en el Reino Unido se ha debatido en esta Cámara con anterioridad. Me refiero a la pregunta oral B5-0010/2004 formulada por el señor Perry, que el Parlamento debatió el 12 de febrero de 2004, y a la respuesta dada por la Comisión en aquella ocasión. La Comisión siempre ha expresado su mayor simpatía por los miles de personas –incluidos los peticionarios– damnificadas a causa del asunto Lloyd. Las opiniones y preocupaciones de la Comisión respecto a la legislación del Reino Unido anterior al año 2000 quedaron claramente reflejadas en su carta de notificación formal de diciembre de 2001, que ahora es un documento público. Las autoridades del Reino Unido informaron a la Comisión de que se había promulgado un nuevo instrumento legislativo para sustituir el régimen anterior y respondieron a las preguntas subsiguientes de la Comisión en relación con esta nueva legislación. Entonces la Comisión anunció que estaba satisfecha, dado que aquellos aspectos de la reglamentación y supervisión de Lloyd que eran objeto de examen eran compatibles con los requisitos de la directiva. La Comisión no tiene ninguna duda de que una vez establecida la compatibilidad del nuevo régimen de Lloyd no había motivos para seguir con los procedimientos de infracción que había iniciado con la carta de notificación formal en diciembre de 2001 en relación con el régimen antiguo. La jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia sobre la finalidad y conducción de los procedimientos de infracción es bastante clara. La Comisión siempre ha subrayado a los demandantes que cualquier reclamación de daños y perjuicios por supuesta incompatibilidad bajo el régimen anterior debe presentarse exclusivamente ante los tribunales del Reino Unido. Con el fin de ayudarles en su litigio en el Reino Unido contra el Gobierno de este país, los peticionarios y corresponsales quieren por lo visto que la Comisión se pronuncie sobre la compatibilidad o incompatibilidad del régimen anterior de Lloyd. No obstante, el Tribunal de Justicia es el único que puede pronunciarse al respecto. La Comisión hizo públicas sus preocupaciones en su carta de notificación formal de 2001, pero este no fue más que el primer paso de un largo proceso de argumentación y contraargumentación que, si hubiera continuado, habría podido conducir a una vista formal y una sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia. La Comisión es plenamente consciente de que para muchos es causa de profundo malestar que los procedimientos judiciales iniciados con nuestra carta no se llevaran a su última conclusión, pero no cabe duda de que su decisión de suspender los procedimientos fue correcta y era totalmente conforme con la jurisprudencia constante del Tribunal en materia de procedimientos de infracción. He tomado nota de la propuesta de resolución presentada para concluir el debate de esta noche sobre esta cuestión. La Comisión cree que todos los puntos que se han tratado a este respecto en el informe del señor Perry, a los que hace referencia el proyecto de resolución, han sido todos contestados. La Comisión hizo pública su opinión sobre las respuestas de las autoridades del Reino Unido a la carta de notificación formal cuando decidió cerrar el procedimiento de infracción. Respecto al acceso a los documentos retenidos por la Comisión, subrayo que este se rige por el Reglamento (CE) nº 1049/2001. Las condiciones del acceso a estos documentos están establecidas en ese reglamento. En cuanto a la tercera cuestión incluida en el informe del señor Perry sobre posibles deficiencias u omisiones en el régimen del Reino Unido, reitero que la Comisión planteó una serie de preguntas en sus cartas de notificación formal. No obstante, subrayo que se trataba únicamente de preguntas. Dichas preguntas no constituyen en sí mismas una opinión o un juicio. Las respuestas dadas por las autoridades del Reino Unido bastaron a la Comisión y la indujeron a decidir que no había motivos para proseguir el procedimiento de infracción."@es²⁰ "Mr President, the question of the regulation of Lloyd’s and the application of the First Non-Life Insurance Directive in the United Kingdom has been debated before in this Chamber. I refer to Oral Question B5-0010/2004 by Mr Perry, which was debated by Parliament on 12 February 2004, and to the answer given by the Commission on that occasion. The Commission has always expressed the greatest sympathy for the thousands of individuals – including the petitioners – who have suffered as a result of the Lloyd’s affair. The Commission’s views and concerns relating to the pre-2000 UK legislation were set out clearly in its letter of formal notice of December 2001, which is now a public document. The UK authorities informed the Commission that new legislation had been enacted to replace the former regime and answered further Commission questions relating to that new legislation. The Commission then announced that it was satisfied that those aspects of the regulatory and supervisory regime for Lloyd’s under examination were compatible with the requirements of the directive. The Commission has no doubt that once it had established the compatibility of the new regime for Lloyd’s it had no basis for continuing the infringement proceedings it had begun with the letter of formal notice in December 2001 in relation to the old regime. The Court of Justice’s jurisprudence on the purpose and conduct of infringement proceedings is quite clear. The Commission has always stressed to complainants that any action seeking damages for alleged incompatibility under the former regime must be undertaken exclusively before the United Kingdom courts. In order to help them in their litigation in the UK against the UK Government, the petitioners and many correspondents seem to seek a ruling from the Commission on the compatibility or incompatibility of the former Lloyd’s regime. However, only the Court of Justice can give such rulings. The Commission voiced its concerns in its 2001 letter of formal notice but this was only the first step in a long process of argument and counter-argument that might ultimately, if it had been continued, have led to a formal hearing and ruling at the Court of Justice. The Commission is fully aware that it is a subject of great regret to many that the legal proceedings begun with our letter were not pursued to their ultimate conclusion, but it has no doubt that its decision to discontinue the proceedings was the right one and was fully in conformity with the constant jurisprudence of the Court in the matter of infringement proceedings. I have taken note of the motion for a resolution tabled for the purpose of winding up tonight’s debate on this question. The Commission believes that the points addressed to it in Mr Perry’s report, to which the draft resolution makes reference, have all been answered. The Commission made its views on the UK authorities’ responses to the letter of formal notice public when it decided to close the infringement procedure. As to the access to documents retained by the Commission, I stress that these are governed by Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. The conditions for gaining access to these documents are set out in that regulation. As to the third question in Mr Perry’s report about possible shortcomings or omissions in the UK regime, I reiterate that the Commission raised a number of questions in its letters of formal notice. I stress, however, that these were only questions. Such questions do not, in themselves, constitute an opinion or judgement. The answers provided by the UK authorities satisfied the Commission and led it to decide that there were no grounds to pursue the infringement procedure."@et⁵ ". Arvoisa puhemies, Lloyd’sia koskevasta lainsäädännöstä ja muun ensivakuutusliikkeen kuin henkivakuutusliikkeen harjoittamisesta annetun ensimmäisen direktiivin täytäntöönpanosta Yhdistyneessä kuningaskunnassa on keskusteltu aiemminkin parlamentissa. Viittaan jäsen Perryn suulliseen kysymykseen B5-0010/2004 , josta keskusteltiin parlamentissa 12. helmikuuta 2004, ja komission silloin antamaan vastaukseen. Komissio on aina ilmaissut mitä suurimman myötätuntonsa niitä tuhansia ihmisiä kohtaan – vetoomusten tekijät mukaan lukien – jotka ovat kärsineet Lloyd’sin tapauksen vuoksi. Yhdistyneen kuningaskunnan vuotta 2000 edeltävää lainsäädäntöä koskevat komission näkemykset ja huolet tulevat selvästi ilmi sen joulukuussa 2001 laatimasta virallisesta ilmoituksesta, joka on nyt julkinen asiakirja. Yhdistyneen kuningaskunnan viranomaiset ilmoittivat komissiolle, että vanha lainsäädäntö oli korvattu uudella, ja vastasivat komission muihin tuota uutta lainsäädäntöä koskeviin kysymyksiin. Komissio totesi silloin olevansa vakuuttunut, että tutkinnan kohteena olleet sääntely- ja valvontajärjestelmän osat olivat direktiivin vaatimusten mukaisia. Komissiolla ei ole epäilystäkään siitä, että kun se oli todennut uuden Lloyd’sia koskevan järjestelmän olevan direktiivin mukainen, sillä ei enää ollut perusteita jatkaa rikkomismenettelyä, jonka se oli aloittanut joulukuussa 2001 vanhaa järjestelmää koskevalla virallisella ilmoituksellaan. Yhteisöjen tuomioistuimen rikkomismenettelyn tarkoitusta ja toimeenpanoa koskeva oikeuskäytäntö on hyvin selvä. Komissio on aina korostanut kantelijoille, että ainoastaan Yhdistyneen kuningaskunnan omissa tuomioistuimissa on mahdollista nostaa kanteita, joissa haetaan korvauksia sen perusteella, ettei vanha lainsäädäntö väitetysti ollut direktiivin mukainen. Näyttää siltä, että monet vetoomusten esittäjät ja yhteydenottajat haluavat komissiolta päätöksen siitä, oliko entinen Lloyd’sia koskeva järjestelmä direktiivin mukainen vai ei, saadakseen siitä tukea Yhdistyneessä kuningaskunnassa tapahtuviin oikeudenkäynteihinsä maan hallitusta vastaan. On kuitenkin niin, että ainoastaan yhteisöjen tuomioistuin voi antaa sellaisen päätöksen. Komissio ilmaisi vuoden 2001 virallisessa ilmoituksessaan huolensa tietyistä kysymyksistä, mutta se oli vain ensimmäinen askel pitkässä prosessissa, jossa olisi esitetty perusteluja puolesta ja vastaan ja joka olisi mahdollisesti, jos sitä olisi jatkettu, voinut johtaa viralliseen yhteisöjen tuomioistuimen käsittelyyn ja tuomioon. Komissio on täysin tietoinen siitä, että monien mielestä on hyvin valitettavaa, ettei virallisella ilmoituksellamme aloitettua menettelyä jatkettu loppuun saakka. Komissio on kuitenkin varma, että päätös keskeyttää menettely oli oikea ja kunnioitti täysin tuomioistuimen rikkomismenettelyä koskevaa johdonmukaista oikeuskäytäntöä. Olen pannut merkille päätöslauselmaesityksen, joka on jätetty tämäniltaisen aihetta koskevan keskustelun päätteeksi. Komission mielestä kaikkiin kysymyksiin, jotka sille esitettiin Perryn mietinnössä ja joihin päätöslauselmaesityksessä viitataan, on jo vastattu. Päättäessään keskeyttää rikkomismenettelyn komissio ilmaisi julkisesti kantansa vastauksiin, jotka Yhdistyneen kuningaskunnan hallitus antoi komission viralliseen ilmoitukseen. Komission hallussa olevien asiakirjojen saamisesta yleisön tutustuttavaksi korostan, että tätä asiaa koskee asetus (EY) N:o 1049/2001. Ehdot näihin asiakirjoihin tutustumiselle on säädetty tuossa asetuksessa. Kolmas kysymys, joka esitettiin Perryn mietinnössä, koski mahdollisia puutteita ja laiminlyöntejä direktiivien täytäntöönpanossa ja soveltamisessa Yhdistyneessä kuningaskunnassa. Siihen vastaan jälleen, että komissio esitti tiettyjä kysymyksiä virallisessa ilmoituksessaan. Korostan kuitenkin, että nämä olivat vain kysymyksiä, eivätkä sellaiset kysymykset itsessään ole mielipiteen tai päätöksen ilmaisuja. Yhdistyneen kuningaskunnan hallituksen antamat vastaukset olivat komission mielestä tyydyttäviä ja se päätti niiden johdosta, ettei enää ollut syytä jatkaa rikkomismenettelyä."@fi⁷ "Monsieur le Président, la question de la réglementation de la Lloyd’s et de l’application de la première directive sur l’assurance non-vie au Royaume-Uni a été débattue devant cette Assemblée. Je fais référence ici à la question orale B5-0010/2004 de M. Perry, qui a fait l’objet d’un débat au Parlement le 12 février 2004 et à laquelle la Commission a répondu ce jour-là. La Commission a toujours exprimé sa plus grande sympathie pour les milliers de personnes - dont les pétitionnaires - ayant subi des dommages à la suite de l’affaire Lloyd’s. Les positions et préoccupations de la Commission vis-à-vis de la législation britannique avant 2000 ont été exprimées clairement dans sa lettre de mise en demeure du 20 décembre 2001, qui est désormais un document public. Les autorités britanniques ont informé la Commission qu’une nouvelle législation avait été adoptée en remplacement de l’ancien régime et ont en outre répondu aux autres questions posées par la Commission concernant cette nouvelle législation. La Commission a ensuite annoncé que les aspects du régime réglementaire et prudentiel de la Lloyd’s soumis à examen satisfaisaient aux exigences de la directive. La Commission a la certitude qu’une fois la compatibilité du nouveau régime de la Lloyd’s établie, elle n’avait plus de motif de poursuivre la procédure d’infraction engagée en décembre 2001 par la lettre de mise en demeure concernant l’ancien régime. La jurisprudence de la Cour de justice relative à l’objet et à la conduite de procédures d’infraction est assez claire. La Commission a toujours répété aux plaignants que toute action en dommages et intérêts pour incompatibilité présumée de l’ancien régime devait être exclusivement formée devant les tribunaux britanniques. Afin de les aider dans le litige qui les oppose au gouvernement britannique, les pétitionnaires et de nombreux correspondants semblent attendre de la Commission qu’elle statue sur la compatibilité ou l’incompatibilité de l’ancien régime de la Lloyd’s. Cependant, seule la Cour de justice est compétente en cette matière. La Commission a exprimé ses préoccupations dans sa lettre de mise en demeure de 2001, mais ce ne fut que la première étape d’un long processus d’argumentation et de contre-argumentation qui, s’il s’était poursuivi, aurait finalement pu conduire à une audition formelle et à une décision de la Cour de justice. La Commission sait parfaitement que nombreux sont ceux qui regrettent que la procédure entamée par notre lettre n’ait pas été poursuivie jusqu’à sa conclusion, mais elle a la certitude que sa décision de clore la procédure d’infraction était bonne et totalement conforme à la jurisprudence constante de la Cour dans ce type d’affaires. J’ai pris acte de la proposition de résolution déposée en conclusion du débat de ce soir sur cette question. La Commission estime que les questions qui lui avaient été adressées dans le rapport Perry et auxquelles fait référence la proposition de résolution ont toutes reçu une réponse. La Commission a fait connaître sa position sur les réponses des autorités britanniques à sa lettre de mise en demeure en décidant de clore la procédure d’infraction. En ce qui concerne l’accès aux documents détenus par la Commission, je tiens à dire que cette conduite est régie par le règlement (CE) n° 1049/2001 qui fixe les conditions d’accès à ces documents. En ce qui concerne la troisième question du rapport Perry concernant d’éventuelles lacunes ou omissions dans le régime britannique, je répète que la Commission a posé plusieurs questions à cet égard dans ses lettres de mise en demeure. Je souligne toutefois qu’il ne s’agissait que de questions. Ces questions ne constituent pas une opinion ou un jugement. Les réponses fournies par les autorités britanniques ont satisfait la Commission et l’ont amenée à décider qu’il n’y avait plus aucun motif de poursuivre la procédure d’infraction."@fr⁸ "Mr President, the question of the regulation of Lloyd’s and the application of the First Non-Life Insurance Directive in the United Kingdom has been debated before in this Chamber. I refer to Oral Question B5-0010/2004 by Mr Perry, which was debated by Parliament on 12 February 2004, and to the answer given by the Commission on that occasion. The Commission has always expressed the greatest sympathy for the thousands of individuals – including the petitioners – who have suffered as a result of the Lloyd’s affair. The Commission’s views and concerns relating to the pre-2000 UK legislation were set out clearly in its letter of formal notice of December 2001, which is now a public document. The UK authorities informed the Commission that new legislation had been enacted to replace the former regime and answered further Commission questions relating to that new legislation. The Commission then announced that it was satisfied that those aspects of the regulatory and supervisory regime for Lloyd’s under examination were compatible with the requirements of the directive. The Commission has no doubt that once it had established the compatibility of the new regime for Lloyd’s it had no basis for continuing the infringement proceedings it had begun with the letter of formal notice in December 2001 in relation to the old regime. The Court of Justice’s jurisprudence on the purpose and conduct of infringement proceedings is quite clear. The Commission has always stressed to complainants that any action seeking damages for alleged incompatibility under the former regime must be undertaken exclusively before the United Kingdom courts. In order to help them in their litigation in the UK against the UK Government, the petitioners and many correspondents seem to seek a ruling from the Commission on the compatibility or incompatibility of the former Lloyd’s regime. However, only the Court of Justice can give such rulings. The Commission voiced its concerns in its 2001 letter of formal notice but this was only the first step in a long process of argument and counter-argument that might ultimately, if it had been continued, have led to a formal hearing and ruling at the Court of Justice. The Commission is fully aware that it is a subject of great regret to many that the legal proceedings begun with our letter were not pursued to their ultimate conclusion, but it has no doubt that its decision to discontinue the proceedings was the right one and was fully in conformity with the constant jurisprudence of the Court in the matter of infringement proceedings. I have taken note of the motion for a resolution tabled for the purpose of winding up tonight’s debate on this question. The Commission believes that the points addressed to it in Mr Perry’s report, to which the draft resolution makes reference, have all been answered. The Commission made its views on the UK authorities’ responses to the letter of formal notice public when it decided to close the infringement procedure. As to the access to documents retained by the Commission, I stress that these are governed by Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. The conditions for gaining access to these documents are set out in that regulation. As to the third question in Mr Perry’s report about possible shortcomings or omissions in the UK regime, I reiterate that the Commission raised a number of questions in its letters of formal notice. I stress, however, that these were only questions. Such questions do not, in themselves, constitute an opinion or judgement. The answers provided by the UK authorities satisfied the Commission and led it to decide that there were no grounds to pursue the infringement procedure."@hu¹¹ "Signor Presidente, il Parlamento europeo ha già affrontato le questioni del regime di regolamentazione per i e dell’applicazione nel Regno Unito della prima direttiva sull’assicurazione diversa dall’assicurazione sulla vita durante la discussione del 12 febbraio 2004 in merito all’interrogazione orale B5-0010/2004 presentata dall’onorevole Perry e a cui la Commissione ha fornito risposta in quella stessa occasione. La Commissione ha sempre manifestato la massima solidarietà per le migliaia di persone – tra cui i firmatari della petizione – che hanno sofferto a causa del caso . La Commissione ha espresso con chiarezza le proprie posizioni e preoccupazioni in merito alla legislazione britannica anteriore al 2000 nella lettera di messa in mora del dicembre 2001, che nel frattempo è diventata documento pubblico. Le autorità del Regno Unito hanno comunicato alla Commissione che sono state approvate nuove disposizioni di legge che sostituiscono la normativa precedentemente in vigore e hanno risposto ad altre domande sollevate dalla Commissione sulle nuove disposizioni. La Commissione ha quindi replicato a sua volta dichiarando di prendere atto con soddisfazione che gli aspetti del regime di regolamentazione e sorveglianza per i che erano al vaglio erano compatibili con i requisiti fissati dalla direttiva. Per la Commissione è del tutto evidente che, una volta affermata la compatibilità del nuovo regime per i non sussisteva più alcuna ragione che giustificasse il perdurare delle procedure d’infrazione che aveva avviato con la lettera di messa in mora del dicembre 2001 in relazione alla normativa precedente. La giurisprudenza in materia della Corte di giustizia e l’ delle procedure d’infrazione sono molto chiare. La Commissione ha sempre fatto presente a chi presenta ricorso che qualsiasi azione volta a chiedere il risarcimento di danni per presunta incompatibilità sulla base della normativa precedente è di esclusiva competenza dei tribunali del Regno Unito. Per ottenere un aiuto nelle cause intentate nel Regno Unito contro il governo di quel paese, i firmatari e molti corrispondenti sembrano chiedere ora alla Commissione di pronunciarsi sulla compatibilità o sull’incompatibilità della vecchia normativa per i . Ma una simile sentenza può venire soltanto dalla Corte di giustizia. La Commissione ha espresso le sue preoccupazioni nella lettera di messa in mora del 2001, la quale però è stata solo il primo passo di un lungo contraddittorio che, se continuato, avrebbe potuto portare a un’audizione formale e a una sentenza da parte della Corte di giustizia. La Commissione è assolutamente consapevole del fatto che il mancato completamento dei procedimenti giudiziari iniziati con la nostra lettera costituisce, per molte persone, motivo di profondo rammarico; è tuttavia certa che la sua decisione di interrompere le procedure fosse giusta e del tutto conforme alla giurisprudenza costante della Corte in materia di procedure d’infrazione. Ho preso nota della proposta di risoluzione presentata allo scopo di sollecitare la discussione di stasera su questo tema. La Commissione ritiene che i punti sollevati nella relazione dell’onorevole Perry, cui la proposta di risoluzione si richiama, abbiano ricevuto tutti risposta. La Commissione ha reso note le sue posizioni sulle risposte date dalle autorità del Regno Unito alla sua lettera di messa in mora quando ha deciso di chiudere la procedura d’infrazione. Quanto all’accesso ai documenti in possesso della Commissione, desidero sottolineare che ad essi si applica il regolamento (CE) n. 1049/2001. Le condizioni per avere accesso a quei documenti sono previste dal testo in questione. In risposta alla terza domanda contenuta nella relazione dell’onorevole Perry, su possibili mancanze o omissioni nella normativa del Regno Unito, ribadisco che la Commissione ha sollevato una serie di interrogativi nelle sue lettere di messa in mora. Tengo a sottolineare, però, che si trattava semplicemente di domande, le quali, di per sé, non rappresentano né un’opinione né un giudizio. Le risposte fornite dalle autorità britanniche hanno soddisfatto la Commissione e l’hanno indotta a ritenere che non vi fossero più motivi per portare avanti la procedura d’infrazione."@it¹² "Mr President, the question of the regulation of Lloyd’s and the application of the First Non-Life Insurance Directive in the United Kingdom has been debated before in this Chamber. I refer to Oral Question B5-0010/2004 by Mr Perry, which was debated by Parliament on 12 February 2004, and to the answer given by the Commission on that occasion. The Commission has always expressed the greatest sympathy for the thousands of individuals – including the petitioners – who have suffered as a result of the Lloyd’s affair. The Commission’s views and concerns relating to the pre-2000 UK legislation were set out clearly in its letter of formal notice of December 2001, which is now a public document. The UK authorities informed the Commission that new legislation had been enacted to replace the former regime and answered further Commission questions relating to that new legislation. The Commission then announced that it was satisfied that those aspects of the regulatory and supervisory regime for Lloyd’s under examination were compatible with the requirements of the directive. The Commission has no doubt that once it had established the compatibility of the new regime for Lloyd’s it had no basis for continuing the infringement proceedings it had begun with the letter of formal notice in December 2001 in relation to the old regime. The Court of Justice’s jurisprudence on the purpose and conduct of infringement proceedings is quite clear. The Commission has always stressed to complainants that any action seeking damages for alleged incompatibility under the former regime must be undertaken exclusively before the United Kingdom courts. In order to help them in their litigation in the UK against the UK Government, the petitioners and many correspondents seem to seek a ruling from the Commission on the compatibility or incompatibility of the former Lloyd’s regime. However, only the Court of Justice can give such rulings. The Commission voiced its concerns in its 2001 letter of formal notice but this was only the first step in a long process of argument and counter-argument that might ultimately, if it had been continued, have led to a formal hearing and ruling at the Court of Justice. The Commission is fully aware that it is a subject of great regret to many that the legal proceedings begun with our letter were not pursued to their ultimate conclusion, but it has no doubt that its decision to discontinue the proceedings was the right one and was fully in conformity with the constant jurisprudence of the Court in the matter of infringement proceedings. I have taken note of the motion for a resolution tabled for the purpose of winding up tonight’s debate on this question. The Commission believes that the points addressed to it in Mr Perry’s report, to which the draft resolution makes reference, have all been answered. The Commission made its views on the UK authorities’ responses to the letter of formal notice public when it decided to close the infringement procedure. As to the access to documents retained by the Commission, I stress that these are governed by Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. The conditions for gaining access to these documents are set out in that regulation. As to the third question in Mr Perry’s report about possible shortcomings or omissions in the UK regime, I reiterate that the Commission raised a number of questions in its letters of formal notice. I stress, however, that these were only questions. Such questions do not, in themselves, constitute an opinion or judgement. The answers provided by the UK authorities satisfied the Commission and led it to decide that there were no grounds to pursue the infringement procedure."@lt¹⁴ "Mr President, the question of the regulation of Lloyd’s and the application of the First Non-Life Insurance Directive in the United Kingdom has been debated before in this Chamber. I refer to Oral Question B5-0010/2004 by Mr Perry, which was debated by Parliament on 12 February 2004, and to the answer given by the Commission on that occasion. The Commission has always expressed the greatest sympathy for the thousands of individuals – including the petitioners – who have suffered as a result of the Lloyd’s affair. The Commission’s views and concerns relating to the pre-2000 UK legislation were set out clearly in its letter of formal notice of December 2001, which is now a public document. The UK authorities informed the Commission that new legislation had been enacted to replace the former regime and answered further Commission questions relating to that new legislation. The Commission then announced that it was satisfied that those aspects of the regulatory and supervisory regime for Lloyd’s under examination were compatible with the requirements of the directive. The Commission has no doubt that once it had established the compatibility of the new regime for Lloyd’s it had no basis for continuing the infringement proceedings it had begun with the letter of formal notice in December 2001 in relation to the old regime. The Court of Justice’s jurisprudence on the purpose and conduct of infringement proceedings is quite clear. The Commission has always stressed to complainants that any action seeking damages for alleged incompatibility under the former regime must be undertaken exclusively before the United Kingdom courts. In order to help them in their litigation in the UK against the UK Government, the petitioners and many correspondents seem to seek a ruling from the Commission on the compatibility or incompatibility of the former Lloyd’s regime. However, only the Court of Justice can give such rulings. The Commission voiced its concerns in its 2001 letter of formal notice but this was only the first step in a long process of argument and counter-argument that might ultimately, if it had been continued, have led to a formal hearing and ruling at the Court of Justice. The Commission is fully aware that it is a subject of great regret to many that the legal proceedings begun with our letter were not pursued to their ultimate conclusion, but it has no doubt that its decision to discontinue the proceedings was the right one and was fully in conformity with the constant jurisprudence of the Court in the matter of infringement proceedings. I have taken note of the motion for a resolution tabled for the purpose of winding up tonight’s debate on this question. The Commission believes that the points addressed to it in Mr Perry’s report, to which the draft resolution makes reference, have all been answered. The Commission made its views on the UK authorities’ responses to the letter of formal notice public when it decided to close the infringement procedure. As to the access to documents retained by the Commission, I stress that these are governed by Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. The conditions for gaining access to these documents are set out in that regulation. As to the third question in Mr Perry’s report about possible shortcomings or omissions in the UK regime, I reiterate that the Commission raised a number of questions in its letters of formal notice. I stress, however, that these were only questions. Such questions do not, in themselves, constitute an opinion or judgement. The answers provided by the UK authorities satisfied the Commission and led it to decide that there were no grounds to pursue the infringement procedure."@lv¹³ "Mr President, the question of the regulation of Lloyd’s and the application of the First Non-Life Insurance Directive in the United Kingdom has been debated before in this Chamber. I refer to Oral Question B5-0010/2004 by Mr Perry, which was debated by Parliament on 12 February 2004, and to the answer given by the Commission on that occasion. The Commission has always expressed the greatest sympathy for the thousands of individuals – including the petitioners – who have suffered as a result of the Lloyd’s affair. The Commission’s views and concerns relating to the pre-2000 UK legislation were set out clearly in its letter of formal notice of December 2001, which is now a public document. The UK authorities informed the Commission that new legislation had been enacted to replace the former regime and answered further Commission questions relating to that new legislation. The Commission then announced that it was satisfied that those aspects of the regulatory and supervisory regime for Lloyd’s under examination were compatible with the requirements of the directive. The Commission has no doubt that once it had established the compatibility of the new regime for Lloyd’s it had no basis for continuing the infringement proceedings it had begun with the letter of formal notice in December 2001 in relation to the old regime. The Court of Justice’s jurisprudence on the purpose and conduct of infringement proceedings is quite clear. The Commission has always stressed to complainants that any action seeking damages for alleged incompatibility under the former regime must be undertaken exclusively before the United Kingdom courts. In order to help them in their litigation in the UK against the UK Government, the petitioners and many correspondents seem to seek a ruling from the Commission on the compatibility or incompatibility of the former Lloyd’s regime. However, only the Court of Justice can give such rulings. The Commission voiced its concerns in its 2001 letter of formal notice but this was only the first step in a long process of argument and counter-argument that might ultimately, if it had been continued, have led to a formal hearing and ruling at the Court of Justice. The Commission is fully aware that it is a subject of great regret to many that the legal proceedings begun with our letter were not pursued to their ultimate conclusion, but it has no doubt that its decision to discontinue the proceedings was the right one and was fully in conformity with the constant jurisprudence of the Court in the matter of infringement proceedings. I have taken note of the motion for a resolution tabled for the purpose of winding up tonight’s debate on this question. The Commission believes that the points addressed to it in Mr Perry’s report, to which the draft resolution makes reference, have all been answered. The Commission made its views on the UK authorities’ responses to the letter of formal notice public when it decided to close the infringement procedure. As to the access to documents retained by the Commission, I stress that these are governed by Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. The conditions for gaining access to these documents are set out in that regulation. As to the third question in Mr Perry’s report about possible shortcomings or omissions in the UK regime, I reiterate that the Commission raised a number of questions in its letters of formal notice. I stress, however, that these were only questions. Such questions do not, in themselves, constitute an opinion or judgement. The answers provided by the UK authorities satisfied the Commission and led it to decide that there were no grounds to pursue the infringement procedure."@mt¹⁵ "Mijnheer de Voorzitter, er is al eerder in dit Parlement gedebatteerd over de regulering van Lloyd’s en de tenuitvoerlegging van de eerste richtlijn betreffende niet-levensverzekeringen in het Verenigd Koninkrijk. Ik verwijs naar mondelinge vraag B5-0010/2004 van de heer Perry, waarover het Parlement op 12 februari 2004 een debat heeft gevoerd, en naar het antwoord dat de Commissie bij die gelegenheid heeft gegeven. De Commissie heeft altijd haar zeer diepe medeleven betuigd met de duizenden mensen – met inbegrip van de rekwestranten – die schade hebben geleden als gevolg van de Lloyd’s-affaire. De Commissie heeft haar standpunten en zorgen over de Britse wetgeving vóór 2000 helder uiteengezet in haar aanmaningsbrief van december 2001, die nu een openbaar document is. De Britse autoriteiten deelden de Commissie mee dat er nieuwe wetgeving was vastgesteld ter vervanging van de eerdere regelingen en beantwoordden aanvullende vragen van de Commissie over die nieuwe wetgeving. De Commissie heeft vervolgens verklaard dat zij ervan overtuigd was dat die onderdelen van het regelgevings- en toezichtskader voor Lloyd’s die aan een onderzoek waren onderworpen, in overeenstemming waren met de vereisten van de richtlijn. Het lijdt voor de Commissie geen twijfel dat zij, zodra zij eenmaal had vastgesteld dat de nieuwe regeling voor Lloyd’s aan de eisen voldeed, geen enkele reden had om de inbreukprocedure voort te zetten die zij in gang had gezet met haar aanmaningsbrief van december 2001 in verband met de oude regeling. De jurisprudentie van het Hof van Justitie over het doel en de uitvoering van inbreukprocedures laat aan duidelijkheid niets te wensen over. De Commissie heeft tegenover reclamanten altijd benadrukt dat wanneer men stappen wilde ondernemen om schadevergoeding te krijgen omdat binnen de oude regeling sprake zou zijn van strijdigheid met de richtlijn, men zich hiervoor uitsluitend tot de Britse rechter diende te wenden. Het lijkt erop dat de rekwestranten en vele anderen die geschreven hebben, een uitspraak willen van de Commissie over de vraag of de oude regeling van Lloyd’s al dan niet in strijd was met de richtlijn, als steuntje in de rug bij hun rechtszaak in het VK tegen de Britse regering. Een dergelijke uitspraak kan echter alleen door het Hof van Justitie worden gedaan. De Commissie heeft in haar aanmaningsbrief van 2001 uiting gegeven aan haar zorgen, maar dit was slechts de eerste stap in een lang proces van argumenten en tegenargumenten dat uiteindelijk, als het zou zijn voortgezet, wellicht had kunnen leiden tot een formele hoorzitting en een uitspraak van het Hof van Justitie. De Commissie beseft terdege dat velen het ten zeerste betreuren dat de gerechtelijke procedure die wij met onze brief in gang hebben gezet niet tot het einde toe is voortgezet, maar het staat voor de Commissie vast dat haar besluit het proces te beëindigen juist was en dat het volkomen in overeenstemming was met de consequente jurisprudentie van het Hof ten aanzien van inbreukprocedures. Ik heb nota genomen van de ontwerpresolutie die is ingediend tot besluit van het debat van vanavond over dit vraagstuk. De Commissie is van mening dat zij alle punten heeft beantwoord die haar zijn voorgelegd in het verslag van de heer Perry, waarnaar in de ontwerpresolutie verwezen wordt. De Commissie heeft haar standpunten over de antwoorden van de Britse regering bekendgemaakt toen zij besloot de inbreukprocedure stop te zetten. Wat betreft de toegang tot documenten die door de Commissie zijn achtergehouden, wil ik onderstrepen dat Verordening (EG) nr. 1049/2001 daarop van toepassing is. De voorwaarden voor het verkrijgen van toegang tot deze documenten worden in die verordening uiteengezet. Op de derde vraag in het verslag van de heer Perry, over mogelijke tekortkomingen of omissies in het Britse stelsel, zou ik nogmaals willen antwoorden dat de Commissie in haar aanmaningsbrief een aantal vragen heeft gesteld. Ik benadruk echter dat dit niet meer dan vragen waren. Dergelijke vragen houden op zich niet een standpunt of oordeel in. De antwoorden van de Britse autoriteiten hebben de Commissie tevredengesteld en geleid tot de beslissing dat er geen gronden waren om de inbreukprocedure voort te zetten."@nl³ "Mr President, the question of the regulation of Lloyd’s and the application of the First Non-Life Insurance Directive in the United Kingdom has been debated before in this Chamber. I refer to Oral Question B5-0010/2004 by Mr Perry, which was debated by Parliament on 12 February 2004, and to the answer given by the Commission on that occasion. The Commission has always expressed the greatest sympathy for the thousands of individuals – including the petitioners – who have suffered as a result of the Lloyd’s affair. The Commission’s views and concerns relating to the pre-2000 UK legislation were set out clearly in its letter of formal notice of December 2001, which is now a public document. The UK authorities informed the Commission that new legislation had been enacted to replace the former regime and answered further Commission questions relating to that new legislation. The Commission then announced that it was satisfied that those aspects of the regulatory and supervisory regime for Lloyd’s under examination were compatible with the requirements of the directive. The Commission has no doubt that once it had established the compatibility of the new regime for Lloyd’s it had no basis for continuing the infringement proceedings it had begun with the letter of formal notice in December 2001 in relation to the old regime. The Court of Justice’s jurisprudence on the purpose and conduct of infringement proceedings is quite clear. The Commission has always stressed to complainants that any action seeking damages for alleged incompatibility under the former regime must be undertaken exclusively before the United Kingdom courts. In order to help them in their litigation in the UK against the UK Government, the petitioners and many correspondents seem to seek a ruling from the Commission on the compatibility or incompatibility of the former Lloyd’s regime. However, only the Court of Justice can give such rulings. The Commission voiced its concerns in its 2001 letter of formal notice but this was only the first step in a long process of argument and counter-argument that might ultimately, if it had been continued, have led to a formal hearing and ruling at the Court of Justice. The Commission is fully aware that it is a subject of great regret to many that the legal proceedings begun with our letter were not pursued to their ultimate conclusion, but it has no doubt that its decision to discontinue the proceedings was the right one and was fully in conformity with the constant jurisprudence of the Court in the matter of infringement proceedings. I have taken note of the motion for a resolution tabled for the purpose of winding up tonight’s debate on this question. The Commission believes that the points addressed to it in Mr Perry’s report, to which the draft resolution makes reference, have all been answered. The Commission made its views on the UK authorities’ responses to the letter of formal notice public when it decided to close the infringement procedure. As to the access to documents retained by the Commission, I stress that these are governed by Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. The conditions for gaining access to these documents are set out in that regulation. As to the third question in Mr Perry’s report about possible shortcomings or omissions in the UK regime, I reiterate that the Commission raised a number of questions in its letters of formal notice. I stress, however, that these were only questions. Such questions do not, in themselves, constitute an opinion or judgement. The answers provided by the UK authorities satisfied the Commission and led it to decide that there were no grounds to pursue the infringement procedure."@pl¹⁶ "Senhor Presidente, a questão da regulamentação da Lloyd’s e da aplicação da Primeira Directiva relativa à coordenação das disposições legislativas, regulamentares e administrativas respeitantes ao acesso à actividade de seguro directo não vida e ao seu exercício no Reino Unido já foi debatida nesta Câmara. Remeto para a pergunta oral B5-0010/2004 da autoria do senhor deputado Perry, a qual foi discutida pelo Parlamento em 12 de Fevereiro de 2004, e para a resposta dada pela Comissão nessa ocasião. A Comissão sempre tem manifestado o maior dos pesares pelos milhares de indivíduos – incluindo os peticionários – que sofreram em resultado do caso Lloyd’s. Os pontos de vista da Comissão e as preocupações relacionadas com a legislação do Reino Unido anterior a 2000 foram expostos de forma muito clara na sua carta de notificação datada de Dezembro de 2001, que é hoje um documento público. As autoridades do Reino Unido informaram a Comissão de que havia sido aprovada nova legislação para substituir o regime antigo e responderam ainda a outras perguntas da Comissão relacionadas com a nova legislação. A Comissão anunciou então que se regozijava pelo facto de os aspectos do regime regulamentar e de supervisão da Lloyd’s em análise serem compatíveis com as exigências da directiva. A Comissão não tem dúvidas de que, uma vez estabelecida a compatibilidade do novo regime da Lloyd’s, deixou de ter fundamento manter o processo por incumprimento a que dera início com a carta de notificação em Dezembro de 2001 relativo ao velho regime. A Jurisprudência do Tribunal de Justiça sobre o propósito e condução dos processos por incumprimento é absolutamente clara. A Comissão sempre sublinhou aos queixosos que qualquer acção relacionada com danos por alegada incompatibilidade verificada durante o anterior regime deveria ser instaurada exclusivamente junto dos tribunais do Reino Unido. A fim de os ajudar no seu processo de litígio, no Reino Unido, contra o Governo do Reino Unido, os peticionários e muitos correspondentes parecem solicitar à Comissão uma decisão sobre a compatibilidade ou incompatibilidade do anterior regime da Lloyd’s. Todavia, só o Tribunal de Justiça pode emitir tais decisões. A Comissão manifestou as suas preocupações na sua carta de notificação em 2001, mas esse foi apenas o primeiro passo num longo processo de argumentação e contra argumentação que, em última análise, poderia, se tivesse continuado, ter conduzido a uma audiência formal e decisão do Tribunal de Justiça. A Comissão sabe perfeitamente que, para muitos, é motivo de grande pesar o facto de os procedimentos legais iniciados com a nossa carta não terem sido levados até às últimas consequências, mas não tem dúvidas de que a sua decisão de retirar o processo foi não só certa como absolutamente conforme à constante jurisprudência do Tribunal em matéria de processos por incumprimento. Tomei nota da proposta de resolução apresentada com o objectivo de encerrar o debate desta noite sobre esta matéria. A Comissão considera que as questões que lhe são dirigidas no relatório do senhor deputado Perry, às quais a proposta de resolução faz referência, receberam, todas elas, resposta. A Comissão deu a conhecer publicamente os seus pontos de vista sobre as respostas das autoridades do Reino Unido à carta de notificação quando decidiu encerrar o processo por incumprimento. Quanto ao acesso a documentos que estão na posse da Comissão, saliento que estes são regulados pelo Regulamento (CE) No 1049/2001. As condições para aceder aos referidos documentos estão definidas nesse regulamento. No que toca à terceira questão do relatório Perry sobre possíveis deficiências ou omissões no regime do Reino Unido, reitero que a Comissão levantou uma série de questões na sua carta de notificação. Sublinho, no entanto, que não passaram de perguntas, sendo que estas não constituem, em si, uma opinião ou uma decisão. A Comissão considerou satisfatórias as respostas dadas pelas autoridades do Reino Unido, o que a levou a decidir que não se justificava manter o processo por incumprimento."@pt¹⁷ "Mr President, the question of the regulation of Lloyd’s and the application of the First Non-Life Insurance Directive in the United Kingdom has been debated before in this Chamber. I refer to Oral Question B5-0010/2004 by Mr Perry, which was debated by Parliament on 12 February 2004, and to the answer given by the Commission on that occasion. The Commission has always expressed the greatest sympathy for the thousands of individuals – including the petitioners – who have suffered as a result of the Lloyd’s affair. The Commission’s views and concerns relating to the pre-2000 UK legislation were set out clearly in its letter of formal notice of December 2001, which is now a public document. The UK authorities informed the Commission that new legislation had been enacted to replace the former regime and answered further Commission questions relating to that new legislation. The Commission then announced that it was satisfied that those aspects of the regulatory and supervisory regime for Lloyd’s under examination were compatible with the requirements of the directive. The Commission has no doubt that once it had established the compatibility of the new regime for Lloyd’s it had no basis for continuing the infringement proceedings it had begun with the letter of formal notice in December 2001 in relation to the old regime. The Court of Justice’s jurisprudence on the purpose and conduct of infringement proceedings is quite clear. The Commission has always stressed to complainants that any action seeking damages for alleged incompatibility under the former regime must be undertaken exclusively before the United Kingdom courts. In order to help them in their litigation in the UK against the UK Government, the petitioners and many correspondents seem to seek a ruling from the Commission on the compatibility or incompatibility of the former Lloyd’s regime. However, only the Court of Justice can give such rulings. The Commission voiced its concerns in its 2001 letter of formal notice but this was only the first step in a long process of argument and counter-argument that might ultimately, if it had been continued, have led to a formal hearing and ruling at the Court of Justice. The Commission is fully aware that it is a subject of great regret to many that the legal proceedings begun with our letter were not pursued to their ultimate conclusion, but it has no doubt that its decision to discontinue the proceedings was the right one and was fully in conformity with the constant jurisprudence of the Court in the matter of infringement proceedings. I have taken note of the motion for a resolution tabled for the purpose of winding up tonight’s debate on this question. The Commission believes that the points addressed to it in Mr Perry’s report, to which the draft resolution makes reference, have all been answered. The Commission made its views on the UK authorities’ responses to the letter of formal notice public when it decided to close the infringement procedure. As to the access to documents retained by the Commission, I stress that these are governed by Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. The conditions for gaining access to these documents are set out in that regulation. As to the third question in Mr Perry’s report about possible shortcomings or omissions in the UK regime, I reiterate that the Commission raised a number of questions in its letters of formal notice. I stress, however, that these were only questions. Such questions do not, in themselves, constitute an opinion or judgement. The answers provided by the UK authorities satisfied the Commission and led it to decide that there were no grounds to pursue the infringement procedure."@sk¹⁸ "Mr President, the question of the regulation of Lloyd’s and the application of the First Non-Life Insurance Directive in the United Kingdom has been debated before in this Chamber. I refer to Oral Question B5-0010/2004 by Mr Perry, which was debated by Parliament on 12 February 2004, and to the answer given by the Commission on that occasion. The Commission has always expressed the greatest sympathy for the thousands of individuals – including the petitioners – who have suffered as a result of the Lloyd’s affair. The Commission’s views and concerns relating to the pre-2000 UK legislation were set out clearly in its letter of formal notice of December 2001, which is now a public document. The UK authorities informed the Commission that new legislation had been enacted to replace the former regime and answered further Commission questions relating to that new legislation. The Commission then announced that it was satisfied that those aspects of the regulatory and supervisory regime for Lloyd’s under examination were compatible with the requirements of the directive. The Commission has no doubt that once it had established the compatibility of the new regime for Lloyd’s it had no basis for continuing the infringement proceedings it had begun with the letter of formal notice in December 2001 in relation to the old regime. The Court of Justice’s jurisprudence on the purpose and conduct of infringement proceedings is quite clear. The Commission has always stressed to complainants that any action seeking damages for alleged incompatibility under the former regime must be undertaken exclusively before the United Kingdom courts. In order to help them in their litigation in the UK against the UK Government, the petitioners and many correspondents seem to seek a ruling from the Commission on the compatibility or incompatibility of the former Lloyd’s regime. However, only the Court of Justice can give such rulings. The Commission voiced its concerns in its 2001 letter of formal notice but this was only the first step in a long process of argument and counter-argument that might ultimately, if it had been continued, have led to a formal hearing and ruling at the Court of Justice. The Commission is fully aware that it is a subject of great regret to many that the legal proceedings begun with our letter were not pursued to their ultimate conclusion, but it has no doubt that its decision to discontinue the proceedings was the right one and was fully in conformity with the constant jurisprudence of the Court in the matter of infringement proceedings. I have taken note of the motion for a resolution tabled for the purpose of winding up tonight’s debate on this question. The Commission believes that the points addressed to it in Mr Perry’s report, to which the draft resolution makes reference, have all been answered. The Commission made its views on the UK authorities’ responses to the letter of formal notice public when it decided to close the infringement procedure. As to the access to documents retained by the Commission, I stress that these are governed by Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. The conditions for gaining access to these documents are set out in that regulation. As to the third question in Mr Perry’s report about possible shortcomings or omissions in the UK regime, I reiterate that the Commission raised a number of questions in its letters of formal notice. I stress, however, that these were only questions. Such questions do not, in themselves, constitute an opinion or judgement. The answers provided by the UK authorities satisfied the Commission and led it to decide that there were no grounds to pursue the infringement procedure."@sl¹⁹ ". Herr talman! Frågan om regleringen av Lloyd’s och tillämpningen av det första direktivet om annan försäkring än livförsäkring i Förenade kungariket har debatterats förut i parlamentet. Jag hänvisar till den muntliga frågan B5-0010/2004 från Roy Perry som debatterades av parlamentet den 12 februari 2004 och till det svar som gavs av kommissionen vid det tillfället. Kommissionen har alltid uttryckt den största sympati för de tusentals enskilda – inklusive framställarna – som har lidit förluster till följd av Lloyd’s-affären. Kommissionen framförde tydligt sin uppfattning och oro när det gäller lagstiftningen i Förenade kungariket före 2000 i sin formella underrättelse i december 2001 som nu är ett offentligt dokument. Myndigheterna i Förenade kungariket informerade kommissionen om att ny lagstiftning hade antagits för att ersätta den tidigare och svarade på ytterligare frågor från kommissionen om denna nya lagstiftning. Kommissionen tillkännagav därefter att den var övertygad om att de aspekter på den reglerande och övervakande lagstiftningen för Lloyd’s som granskades stod i överensstämmelse med villkoren i direktivet. Kommissionen tvivlar inte på att den, när den väl hade fastställt överensstämmelsen i den nya lagstiftningen för Lloyd’s, inte hade någon grund för att fortsätta med det överträdelseförfarande som den hade inlett med den formella underrättelsen i december 2001 avseende den gamla lagstiftningen. EG-domstolens rättspraxis när det gäller syftet med och genomförandet av överträdelseförfaranden är otvetydig. Kommissionen har alltid framhållit för klagande att varje åtgärd som syftar till att erhålla skadestånd för påstådd brist på överensstämmelse under den gamla lagstiftningen måste vidtas enbart inför domstolar i Förenade kungariket. För att få hjälp i sin rättstvist i Förenade kungariket mot regeringen i Förenade kungariket tycks framställarna och många brevskrivare söka få ett avgörande från kommissionen om överensstämmelsen eller bristen på överensstämmelse i den tidigare lagstiftningen för Lloyd’s. Men endast EG-domstolen kan fälla sådana avgöranden. Kommissionen gav uttryck för sin oro i sin formella underrättelse 2001, men detta var bara det första steget i ett långt förfarande med argument och motargument som till sist, om det hade fullföljts, hade kunnat leda till ett formellt förhör och avgörande i EG-domstolen. Kommissionen är väl medveten om att många anser att det är mycket beklagligt att de rättsliga åtgärder som påbörjades med vårt brev inte drevs till ett slutligt avgörande, men den tvivlar inte på att dess beslut att avbryta åtgärderna var det rätta och stod helt i överensstämmelse med EG-domstolens konstanta rättspraxis i fråga om överträdelseförfaranden. Jag har noterat förslaget till resolution som lagts fram i syfte att avsluta kvällens debatt i den här frågan. Kommissionen anser att alla de punkter som ägnades åt frågan i Roy Perrys betänkande, vilket resolutionsförslaget innehåller en hänvisning till, har besvarats. När kommissionen beslutade att avsluta överträdelseförfarandet offentliggjorde den sina synpunkter på svaren som myndigheterna i Förenade kungariket lämnat på den formella underrättelsen. När det gäller tillgång till dokumenten som kvarhölls av kommissionen framhåller jag att dessa regleras i förordning (EG) nr 1049/2001. Villkoren för att få tillgång till dessa dokument framställs i den förordningen. När det gäller den tredje frågan i Roy Perrys betänkande om eventuella brister eller utelämnanden i Förenade kungarikets lagstiftning upprepar jag att kommissionen väckte en rad frågor i sin formella underrättelse. Jag framhåller dock att det bara var frågor. Sådana frågor utgör inte i sig en mening eller bedömning. Svaren som lämnades av myndigheterna i Förenade kungariket övertygade kommissionen och gjorde att den beslutade att det inte fanns skäl att fortsätta med överträdelseförfarandet."@sv²¹
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Charlie McCreevy,"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,11,10,13,4} "EN"¹⁰ "Lloyd"¹² "Member of the Commission"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,11,13,4} "iter"¹² "μέλος της Επιτροπής."¹⁰