machine pre ce, who certifies compliance?

[Fulvio Romano]

It's a pretty classic situation, but it's the first time I've been there and I have some doubts.
machine of 1994, there is not, owned by x, always had ordinary maintenance. x fails and y buys the car.

according to federmacchine, x must make a certificate of conformity, but x no longer exists. y on the other hand, he is aware of the situation, he does not want to assert his right and would like to "replace" independently. is therefore addressed to a professional who certifies that the machine has never had substantial changes, which would be the case of replacing a couple of safeguards to adapt them to the state of art, but nothing more.

A report is basically made in accordance with Annex V of Tu81 which shows that all requirements are met.

Good. at this point who is it that emits the certificate of conformity? can y do it? or there is no need for certification and just the relationship?

 

[Fulvio Romano]

ah, a small detail, but just small-small and we can treat it separately.
the car, if it was built today, would be attached iv.

 

[gerod]

If x no longer exists, there will be no certification. It's something you see often when you buy machinery from a failure.
at this point you have the machine to adjust.
Article 70 c2 applies. but here it is not written that it serves the certification (it is one thing that consultants always ask the companies but the certification is only in case of sale, cession, etc.). In this case the machine is yours and the employer has the obligation to make it in accordance with all v. there is no written statement. do the risk assessment, make it compliant with all v and, I would recommend that I have seen article 18 c1 lit. z, to the applicable technical norms (you say you do security improvements and therefore do well).
then a nice relationship where you do the vdr and they say what was done. Perhaps those who do so should give you a statement/declaration that has performed "as a rule of art" (I would say "according to these rules") the following works (so one is also responsible for what he does).
then there are those who also do the juror certifications(1) ... but are we really in the country of the fools?
Note1: they often declare false because they do not even know what a machine is and cite directives, wrong norms!

 

[Fulvio Romano]

If x no longer exists, there will be no certification. It's something you see often when you buy machinery from a failure.
at this point you have the machine to adjust.
Article 70 c2 applies. but here it is not written that it serves the certification (it is one thing that consultants always ask the companies but the certification is only in case of sale, cession, etc.). In this case the machine is yours and the employer has the obligation to make it in accordance with all v. there is no written statement. do the risk assessment, make it compliant with all v and, I would recommend that I have seen article 18 c1 lit. z, to the applicable technical norms (you say you do security improvements and therefore do well).

Thank you.

then a nice relationship where you do the vdr and they say what was done. Perhaps those who do so should give you a statement/declaration that has performed "as a rule of art" (I would say "according to these rules") the following works (so one is also responsible for what he does).

we are at the levels "look, see this thread? Here, put it in this clamp here." So it's better if I mention the rules.

then there are those who also do the juror certifications(1) ... but are we really in the country of the fools?
Note1: they often declare false because they do not even know what a machine is and cite directives, wrong norms!

Please don't interfere.

 

[pollo]

a small detail, but just small considering that only gerod knows it: l'art 18, paragraph 1 letter z recital:
1. the employer, who exercises the activities referred to in Article 3, and the managers, who organize and direct the same activities according to the attributes and competences given to them, must:
...(c) to update preventive measures in relation to organizational and productive changes which are relevant to health and safety of work, or in relation to the degree of evolution of prevention and protection techniquesI would like to ask the Commissioner whether he is going to be able to do so. oppsss: I could then mark it there. Are we sure you just put a wire here and a barrier there to get a car there?

 

[Fulvio Romano]

a small detail, but just small considering that only gerod knows it: l'art 18, paragraph 1 letter z recital:
1. the employer, who exercises the activities referred to in Article 3, and the managers, who organize and direct the same activities according to the attributes and competences given to them, must:
...(c) to update preventive measures in relation to organizational and productive changes which are relevant to health and safety of work, or in relation to the degree of evolution of prevention and protection techniquesI would like to ask the Commissioner whether he is going to be able to do so. oppsss: I could then mark it there. Are we sure you just put a wire here and a barrier there to get a car there?

I think it's not fair how you write.
Here we talk about prevention measures in line with the state of the technique, not a redesign of the machine and consequent marking c.
organizational changes are the changes of the corporate fabric. In addition to less-trained resources, increased number of shifts, increased production by redistribution of activities.

 

[pollo]

I am not talking about organizational or productive changes, but about the evolution of standards.
In the last few years there are many cases in which, as a result of accidents with old wagons (previous to 1996), the employer is recognized the fault precisely because of this article, with the practical reason for not having installed the load limiter (obligatory only from the first directive, since 1996).
Therefore, Annex v is no longer enough.
the preventive measures also start from the design (it is in the recitals of the directive, as well as in 12100): It is also impossible to comply with certain requirements of the directive if not starting at the design level. and these requirements are then detailed in the harmonized product standards, to which you must adapt under letter z, and we return to dear babbo.

 

[Fulvio Romano]

I never cared for bridge trucks. but of machines yes. and also accidents.
the load limiter is a tool that buys, applies and protects your workers. There are no major analyses to be done, there are no risk of interference or combined risks, no need to mark the crane again and the cost is contained, this is of primary importance when analyzing an accident.
so if you decide not to install it you are deliberately deciding to expose your workers to a risk easily (this is the key concept) mitigateable.

vice versa we assume that I have a cutting machine of 1994 that has all security in wired logic, and I want to "age" putting a safety plc. I should do a full risk assessment, know how the machine was designed, redefine all safety functions, calculate and evaluate the performance level of the various chains and write accordingly the code of plc. and this is not easy. It's complicated, dangerous, and certainly not within the reach of the entrepreneur. So no expert would ever dream of saying that it was done.

Let us suppose, however, that in this cutting machine there is a small counter. I dismantle it by removing four screws and I find the blade that turns in beautiful exhibition. I then decide to remove the screws and mount a safety switch with mechanical delay for opening the door. This does not require me, nor allows me to mark the machine (it is not a substantial change), and with 150€ except my maintainer's fingers. Do I have to? My professional deontology tells me yes.

 

[pollo]

the logic of the omino in black is not "can be done for 500 heur", but "must be done".

replacing a wired logic with a programmable logic is considered substantial modification: In other words you have to mark ex novo (maybe you meant the same thing). The letter z has nothing to do with it.

I don't know what to tell you, I don't see how to insert the letter z (fixed or interlocked-temporized furniture etc. are both considered in the norms).

 

[Fulvio Romano]

the logic of the omino in black is not "can be done for 500 heur", but "must be done".

If by "omino in nero" you mean the asl inspector, loudly dissent. I don't know who you were dealing with, but my experience is totally different.

replacing a wired logic with a programmable logic is considered substantial modification: In other words you have to mark ex novo (maybe you meant the same thing). The letter z has nothing to do with it.

programmable logic is the last technological discovery to fulfill that function. I wanted to prove that this is not enough for entrepreneurs to be obliged to do as you wrote:

[...] It is our view (technical) that it is saying: to update it to the latest available technical standard, which if it is harmonized, gives presumption of conformity to the directive. [...]

However here the letter z has nothing to do with it.

I don't know what to tell you, I don't see how to insert the letter z (fixed or interlocked-temporized furniture etc. are both considered in the norms).

the Annex v basically says that it supervises its own machine park and if there is the possibility to do extraordinary maintenance to mitigate the risks detected (and you have to detect them for article 17) you are obliged to do so.

 

[pollo]

the black omino is the one with the ironic writing behind (the law is equal for all).
I found the school inspectors, so I don't know what to answer.

Wait a minute. I can't understand.
If I put a plc where I had programmable logic, I must mark the machine (on this I hope you agree). but marking the machine means that I refer the whole demonstration process that the res are satisfied. even that the electrical system complies with the current norms (brutally, if the cables are not well, you have to replace them), that the static and fatigue resistance is satisfied according to the current norms (if it is not, reinforcements, streams or you invent something to satisfy them), that the materials are fine (if you have asbestos, it is a little difficult to mark it there), etc. but this is part of what we once called design, except that now you find the machine already made.
the entrepreneur must do so, he must mark the machine as a manufacturer, otherwise he buys a machine with plc already in conformity with the directive.

You're right, letter z tells you you have to update it to the latest technical standard. the rest is my consideration: If I have a machine in accordance with a harmonized standard of type c, this is presumption of conformity to the directive (this is the directive itself), then updating it to the last norm gives me presumption of conformity (consecutio logic), then I have a machine that could be marked there (the last step is mine).

You are right, the discussion was on Annex V and we slipped on letter z.
I agree with gerod, there is no "attestation" ex all.v (except the case of sales, disposals, etc)

 

[Fulvio Romano]

the black omino is the one with the ironic writing behind (the law is equal for all).
I found the school inspectors, so I don't know what to answer.

I still don't agree. The magistrates are not crazy. There is a rich literature of how used machines are concerned. if the ratio legis was what you say, federmacchine if it would dry up saying "cicci, since 1996 throw everything to the toilet and buy new machines. ah, and in 2006 again."

Wait a minute. I can't understand.
If I put a plc where I had programmable logic, I must mark the machine (on this I hope you agree). but marking the machine means that I refer the whole demonstration process that the res are satisfied. even that the electrical system complies with the current norms (brutally, if the cables are not well, you have to replace them), that the static and fatigue resistance is satisfied according to the current norms (if it is not, reinforcements, streams or you invent something to satisfy them), that the materials are fine (if you have asbestos, it is a little difficult to mark it there), etc. but this is part of what we once called design, except that now you find the machine already made.
the entrepreneur must do so, he must mark the machine as a manufacturer, otherwise he buys a machine with plc already in conformity with the directive.

I agree. and no law requires adaptation to the last technical norm of the whole machine park. n. 81, and neither d.lgs. 27 January 2010 n. 17.

the first decree in particular prescribes to "updating prevention measures [...] in relation to the degree of evolution of technique [...]"do not "project the machine according to the last technical norm."

 

[TETRASTORE]

It's a pretty classic situation, but it's the first time I've been there and I have some doubts.
machine of 1994, there is not, owned by x, always had ordinary maintenance. x fails and y buys the car.

according to federmacchine, x must make a certificate of conformity, but x no longer exists. y on the other hand, he is aware of the situation, he does not want to assert his right and would like to "replace" independently. is therefore addressed to a professional who certifies that the machine has never had substantial changes, which would be the case of replacing a couple of safeguards to adapt them to the state of art, but nothing more.

A report is basically made in accordance with Annex V of Tu81 which shows that all requirements are met.

Good. at this point who is it that emits the certificate of conformity? can y do it? or there is no need for certification and just the relationship?

is a machine built before 1996 therefore only a certificate of conformity of the seller is required in this case, presumably, identified in the banker.
the lack of delivery of such document makes the machinery not to norm therefore the sale is lawful only if the machinery is not used as instrumental good by the buyer, but only for its repair, by specialized companies, for the adaptation.
otherwise the contract is null and the seller must return the sums paid to the buyer.
In your case it seems that the latter has manifested the intention not to assert its rights and to keep the car.
Whereas it remains the possibility (even with the safety of the machine) to be sanctioned for having made a purchase without obligatory documentation, it is important to point out that in the unfortunate event of an accident, there would be heavy repercussions on the level of criminal liability both for the seller and for the buyer and for the latter there would also be the aggravating of having entered into a contract of purchase of a equipment that was aware of his non-compliance.

by law it is possible to sell used machinery without certification or documentation according to current regulations, only if:
1 - not used as instrumental goods (e.g. exposure to unfunctioning machine fairs)
2 - for demolition (specialized firms)
3 - for reconditioning (specialized firms)

any interventions for the safety of the machine by the buyer do not place it to the shelter of the sanctioning effects deriving from the lack of the certificate at the time of purchase as above and the machine cannot remain in the production departments until it is accompanied by the necessary documentation.

I think the most "clean" solution is to sell (with the commitment of repurchase) to a company authorized to refurbish, which can buy the machine without any certification of conformity and after having refurbished it, can sell it with the marking and the relative documentation.

 

[PIETRO2002]

is a machine built before 1996 therefore only a certificate of conformity of the seller is required in this case, presumably, identified in the banker.
the lack of delivery of such document makes the machinery not to norm therefore the sale is lawful only if the machinery is not used as instrumental good by the buyer, but only for its repair, by specialized companies, for the adaptation.
otherwise the contract is null and the seller must return the sums paid to the buyer.
In your case it seems that the latter has manifested the intention not to assert its rights and to keep the car.
Whereas it remains the possibility (even with the safety of the machine) to be sanctioned for having made a purchase without obligatory documentation, it is important to point out that in the unfortunate event of an accident, there would be heavy repercussions on the level of criminal liability both for the seller and for the buyer and for the latter there would also be the aggravating of having entered into a contract of purchase of a equipment that was aware of his non-compliance.

by law it is possible to sell used machinery without certification or documentation according to current regulations, only if:
1 - not used as instrumental goods (e.g. exposure to unfunctioning machine fairs)
2 - for demolition (specialized firms)
3 - for reconditioning (specialized firms)

any interventions for the safety of the machine by the buyer do not place it to the shelter of the sanctioning effects deriving from the lack of the certificate at the time of purchase as above and the machine cannot remain in the production departments until it is accompanied by the necessary documentation.

I think the most "clean" solution is to sell (with the commitment of repurchase) to a company authorized to refurbish, which can buy the machine without any certification of conformity and after having refurbished it, can sell it with the marking and the relative documentation.

as usual clear explanation! Thank you!

 

[Fulvio Romano]

failure to deliver this document (compliance certificate) makes the machine not in accordance with

What norm?
I know that the machine is not normal, it is pre-ce.

by law it is possible to sell used machinery without certification or documentation according to current regulations, only if:
1 - not used as instrumental goods (e.g. exposure to unfunctioning machine fairs)
2 - for demolition (specialized firms)
3 - for reconditioning (specialized firms)

What law?

 

[stevie]

is a machine built before 1996 therefore only a certificate of conformity of the seller is required in this case, presumably, identified in the banker.
the lack of delivery of such document makes the machinery not to norm therefore the sale is lawful only if the machinery is not used as instrumental good by the buyer, but only for its repair, by specialized companies, for the adaptation.
otherwise the contract is null and the seller must return the sums paid to the buyer.
In your case it seems that the latter has manifested the intention not to assert its rights and to keep the car.
Whereas it remains the possibility (even with the safety of the machine) to be sanctioned for having made a purchase without obligatory documentation, it is important to point out that in the unfortunate event of an accident, there would be heavy repercussions on the level of criminal liability both for the seller and for the buyer and for the latter there would also be the aggravating of having entered into a contract of purchase of a equipment that was aware of his non-compliance.

by law it is possible to sell used machinery without certification or documentation according to current regulations, only if:
1 - not used as instrumental goods (e.g. exposure to unfunctioning machine fairs)
2 - for demolition (specialized firms)
3 - for reconditioning (specialized firms)

any interventions for the safety of the machine by the buyer do not place it to the shelter of the sanctioning effects deriving from the lack of the certificate at the time of purchase as above and the machine cannot remain in the production departments until it is accompanied by the necessary documentation.

I think the most "clean" solution is to sell (with the commitment of repurchase) to a company authorized to refurbish, which can buy the machine without any certification of conformity and after having refurbished it, can sell it with the marking and the relative documentation.

What I wanted to say, the safest and most correct thing is to find some company that produces similar machines, that if you withdraw it, in fact make it a more or less complete review by adapting it to the regulations in force and you see it with its beautiful declaration of conformity

even because at the present time the only ones allowed to make the declaration of conformity are the builders.. .non fantomatic "advice studies of something"

 

[stevie]

What norm?
I know that the machine is not normal, it is pre-ce.


What law?

lgs. n. 81/2008, establishes that "production, sale, rental and concession in use of work equipment, individual protection devices and plants are prohibited. non In accordance with the laws and regulations applicable to health and safety at work.

 

[TETRASTORE]

lgs. n. 81/2008

right (Art. 23 c.1 and c. 2).
to deepen, I refer to a pronouncement of the criminal case, sez. ii. 1 October 2013 n. 40590, in which it is stated that the ban finds a derogation where the sale is carried out for an exclusive repair of the machine in view of a future use, once restored and put to standard.. ..
Accordingly, it is forbidden to use machinery not as standard (ref. d.lgs. 81/08 all. v) with the consequence that a sale of products of this fact is, as a rule, prohibited according to the consequence and normality of the use of the machine in the production cycle, in the perspective of the passage of the industrial product to the next economic phase (use), according to the
supreme court where it is said that “....this last passage is not there (as in the case of the stationing of the machinery at a company specialized exclusively in the repair for standardization with well specified tasks that inhibit a subsequent use. .), the sale of a machinery cannot be considered prohibited as having a very limited purpose, without any forecast of use».

in practice confirming what was written in previous posts and that the machine used without certification can only be sold to specialized companies for revision (or demolition).

 

[Fulvio Romano]

right (Art. 23 c.1 and c. 2).
to deepen, I refer to a pronouncement of the criminal case, sez. ii. 1 October 2013 n. 40590, in which it is stated that the ban finds a derogation where the sale is carried out for an exclusive repair of the machine in view of a future use, once restored and put to standard.. ..
Accordingly, it is forbidden to use machinery not as standard (ref. d.lgs. 81/08 all. v) with the consequence that a sale of products of this fact is, as a rule, prohibited according to the consequence and normality of the use of the machine in the production cycle, in the perspective of the passage of the industrial product to the next economic phase (use), according to the
supreme court where it is said that “....this last passage is not there (as in the case of the stationing of the machinery at a company specialized exclusively in the repair for standardization with well specified tasks that inhibit a subsequent use. .), the sale of a machinery cannot be considered prohibited as having a very limited purpose, without any forecast of use».

in practice confirming what was written in previous posts and that the machine used without certification can only be sold to specialized companies for revision (or demolition).

I think we're out of context.
all of you quoted includes machines "not to norm", but this is not the point. any machine becomes "non-standard" when one of the rules according to which it was designed is repealed or updated. If the ratio legis was this would mean that I buy a new machine, marked there, and next year I have to throw it away or return it to the manufacturer because not "as a rule".

here we talk about a different context. a machine built in 1994 and perfectly working until two months ago. question, was it lawful to use it? I bought it, it works, the risk assessment pursuant to art.17 tu81 tells me that I can use it safely, what would be the law that tells me that I have to throw it away?

two months ago I fail, the car is bought by my auditorium doing the same job. How by magic does the machine become "not normal"? here we are forgetting that one of the foundations of 2006/42/ce (which here does not apply, but still gives important guidelines) is that safety is inherent in the machine, and not formal according to the presence of documents. So if a car was safe two months ago, why shouldn't it be today?

But how do I know if she's specific in my company?

lgs. n. 81/2008, establishes that "production, sale, rental and concession in use of work equipment, individual protection devices and plants are prohibited. non In accordance with the laws and regulations applicable to health and safety at work.

Right. What are the laws? d.lsg 81/08. That is not all because the machine directive speaks of "marketing". and the machine was put on the market in 1994, when the machine directive did not exist.
d.lsg 81/08 says that I have to do an analysis according to the requirements of Annex v. I do it, and I find that in my business context the use of this machine is perfectly safe. certain today modern machines have a few extra shortcomings, inserting them does not entail substantial change, add them, what is the problem?

here <https://www.confindustriabergamo.it...isciplina-delle-macchine-usate-edizione-2005-> you can find the 2011 edition of the guide bookcase for used machines. here the life cycle of the machine is very clear:therefore with certificate of conformity that machine can be used. on this point we agree or believe that what has been said by federmacchine is contrary to the legislation in force (I point out that the judgment of the Court of Cassation cited by @terastore is next to 2011, so if isocontextual has more value)?

If we agree on this, then we find ourselves in the following situation:
- safe car
- material impossibility that a failed subject emits a declaration of conformity
- unavailability of any manufacturer to put his hands on that machine (marking it is non-economic under all points of view)
- availability (economic and skills) of the buyer to satisfy the non-analysis of the seller.

what would be the ratio legis that in the absence of a piece of paper forces me to throw away the car?

 

[Fulvio Romano]

lgs. n. 81/2008, establishes that "production, sale, rental and concession in use of work equipment, individual protection devices and plants are prohibited. non In accordance with the laws and regulations applicable to health and safety at work.

Article 23 paragraph 1 of the abovementioned article is entitled "obligations of manufacturers and suppliers". He's telling you that as an employer, you have to make sure that the manufacturer or his representative has complied with all the rules in force. This is the first marketing, and this is sacred. but not applicable in my case.

the paragraph 2 of the same article instead says that "in case of financial lease of goods subject to procedures of certification to conformity [quindi non prima immissione, NdF], the same shall be accompanied, by the applicant, by the relevant documentation. " therefore the answer to all applicable rules is obviously less because it is not more than first input.

My original question is this. the "concedent" no longer exists. Can I replace him in doing the same thing? If not, what would be the reason, since it appears purely of a hollow nature?