Gender equality in life insurance

[EN]This project is going to study the implications of the gender of an individual in the rate-setting process of life insurance. In order to do so there is a review of the continuous changes that have taken place in the national and European legislation following the enactment of the Directive 2004/113/EC, as well as its consequences from the prohibition to differentiate the premiums and benefits on the grounds of gender. In this area, the evolution of the Spanish insurance sector and the influence of the new legislation are examined. Furthermore, there is an analysis of the differences between men and women, which to some extent have a direct impact in the management and development of the life insurance companies. Finally, methods to calculate the premium and the benefits are proposed with the purpose of preventing the restrictions imposed by the Directive 2004/113/EC. In order to check the repercussions of the use of unisex tables a comparison is made between the premiums obtained for a whole life insurance by allocating the same weighing to the actuarial male and female mortality tables and those that would result if the distinction by gender were allowed.

La igualdad de género en el seguro de enfermedad

El presente trabajo tiene como objetivo estudiar la relevancia del uso del sexo a la hora de tarificar y calcular prestaciones en el seguro de salud en base a la promulgación de la Directiva 2004/113/CE, que prohíbe su utilización al considerarlo discriminatorio. Se analiza el valor de la variable sexo como indicador del perfil de riesgo de los consumidores en el seguro de enfermedad, haciendo hincapié en el ámbito del gasto obstétrico, en las primas de las mujeres en edad de embarazo y en el empleo de factores alternativos razonables que determinen el riesgo. Se estudian a su vez los efectos y consecuencias de la Directiva 2004/113/CE y la sentencia Test-Achats en el ámbito asegurador, así como el impacto producido concretamente en la tarificación y suscripción de los seguros de salud en España, analizando la evolución del sector durante el periodo de implantación de dichos documentos.

Statistics as a basis for discrimination in the insurance business

The European Court of Justice has held that as from 21 December 2012 insurers may no longer charge men and women differently on the basis of scientific evidence that is statistically linked to their sex, effectively prohibiting the use of sex as a factor in the calculation of premiums and benefits for the purposes of insurance and related financial services throughout the European Union. This ruling marks a sharp turn away from the traditional view that insurers should be allowed to apply just about any risk assessment criterion, so long as it is sustained by the findings of actuarial science. The naïveté behind the assumption that insurers’ recourse to statistical data and probabilistic analysis, given their scientific nature, would suffice to keep them out of harm’s way was exposed. In this article I look at the flaws of this assumption and question whether this judicial decision, whilst constituting a most welcome landmark in the pursuit of equality between men and women, has nonetheless gone too far by saying too little on the million dollar question of what separates admissible criteria of differentiation from inadmissible forms of discrimination.

The European Court of Justice and process-oriented review. Research Paper in Law, 01/2012

Structuralism is a theory of U.S. constitutional adjudication according to which courts should seek to improve the decision-making process of the political branches of government so as to render it more democratic.1 In words of John Hart Ely, courts should exercise their judicial-review powers as a ‘representation-reinforcing’ mechanism.2 Structuralism advocates that courts must eliminate the elements of the political decision-making process that are at odds with the structure set out by the authors of the U.S. Constitution. The advantage of this approach, U.S. scholars posit, lies in the fact that it does not require courts to second-guess the policy decisions adopted by the political branches of government. Instead, they limit themselves to enforcing the constitutional structure within which those decisions must be adopted. Of course, this theory of constitutional adjudication, like all theories, has its shortcomings. For example, detractors of structuralism argue that it is difficult, if not impossible, to draw the dividing line between ‘substantive’ and ‘structural’ matters.3 In particular, they claim that, when identifying the ‘structure’ set out by the authors of the U.S. Constitution, courts necessarily base their determinations not on purely structural principles, but on a set of substantive values, evaluating concepts such as democracy, liberty and equality. 4 Without claiming that structuralism should be embraced by the ECJ as the leading theory of judicial review, the purpose of my contribution is to explore how recent case-law reveals that the ECJ has also striven to develop guiding principles which aim to improve the way in which the political institutions of the EU adopt their decisions. In those cases, the ECJ decided not to second-guess the appropriateness of the policy choices made by the EU legislator. Instead, it preferred to examine whether, in reaching an outcome, the EU political institutions had followed the procedural steps mandated by the authors of the Treaties. Stated simply, I argue that judicial deference in relation to ‘substantive outcomes’ has been counterbalanced by a strict ‘process review’. To that effect, I would like to discuss three recent rulings of the ECJ, delivered after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, where an EU policy measure was challenged indirectly, i.e. via the preliminary reference procedure, namely Vodafone, Volker und Markus Schecke and Test-Achats.5 Whilst in the former case the ECJ ruled that the questions raised by the referring court disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of the challenged act, in the latter cases the challenged provisions of an EU act were declared invalid.

A Novel Range Test

In a range test, one party holds a ciphertext and needs to test whether the message encrypted in the ciphertext is within a certain interval range. In this paper, a range test protocol is proposed, where the party holding the ciphertext asks another party holding the private key of the encryption algorithm to help him. These two parties run the protocol to implement the test. The test returns TRUE if and only if the encrypted message is within the certain interval range. If the two parties do not conspire, no information about the encrypted message is revealed from the test except what can be deduced from the test result. Advantages of the new protocol over the existing related techniques are that it achieves correctness, soundness, °exibility, high e±ciency and privacy simultaneously.