guide to marking

[pollo]

...but the state allows this...

In fact, the state takes over what is said by the European community, in which entrepreneurs are stronger than professionals.
Hi.

 

[gerod]

then how can a company certify a machine as compliant if it does not have certified technical skills? and I talk about technical skills, not practical (in which maybe they are very good).
but the state allows this...

It's not like that.
who certifies without drafting the ftc declares the false and the thing is punishable (look at the sanctions of the Legislative Decree. which will transpose the machinery directive.
The problem is, until an accident happens, everything is fine.
Therefore, the brigand manufacturers are there (I believe 90% of the manufacturers) because they do the manual + the ddc and subsequent marking.
The rest? Perhaps a part of ftc is also made, but the risk analysis, that is optional and instead it is the "sine qua non" to be able to issue certification.

that professionals are "zero" is clear.

 

[pollo]

We expect to see the transposition to speak of sanctions, because in the directive I do not think there are any indications about it (maybe I am mistaken). The problem is that the institutional bodies involved only in cases of complaints or accidents before the technical file was delivered, and therefore too late.
Hi.

 

[gerod]

And no!!!
I am sorry to contradict you, but I would invite you to read the transposition (not yet published in Gu but signed by the Council of Ministers on 22 January 2010).

I got a news qui.
go to see the pdf and article 15 that quoto.
It's an informal text, but I assume it's the final one.
transposition can be integrated!

art. 15 - sanctions

1. except that the fact does not constitute a crime, the manufacturer or his agent who imposes on the
market or commission machines that do not comply with the requirements set out in the Annex i of this decree is punished by the administrative fine of 4,000 euros to 24,000 euros.
the same penalty is subject to anyone who makes changes to equipment equipped with the prescribed CE marking, which involve non-compliance with the same requirements.
2. Except that the fact does not constitute a crime, the manufacturer of a quasi-machine or its authorised representative who contravenes the prescriptions referred to in Article 10 of this decree is punished by the administrative sanction of the pecuniary from 3,000 euros to 18,000 euros.
3. Without prejudice to the application of paragraphs 1 and 2, the manufacturer or its authorised representative who, at the request of the supervisory authority referred to in Article 6, omits to exhibit the documentation referred to in the annex thereto of this decree is punished by the administrative fine of 2,000
euro to 12.000 euros.
4. the manufacturer or his agent who puts on the market or puts in service machines that, although complying with the requirements set out in Annex i, are without the declaration of conformity referred to in the Annex ii is punished by the administrative fine of EUR 2,000 to EUR 12,000.
5. except that the fact does not constitute a crime, anyone who affixes or makes marks, signs and inscriptions that can mislead the third parties about the meaning or graphic symbol, or both, of the marking that is limited the visibility and readability is punished with the administrative sanction of the pecuniary 1.000 euros to 6.000 euros.
6. anyone who promotes advertising for machines that do not comply with the requirements of this legislative decree is punished by the administrative fine of 1.000 euro to 6.000
euro.
7. the sanctions referred to in this Article shall apply if 10 percent of turnover connected with all machines or almost-machines for which the infringement is established is between the minimum and
the maximum penalty to be applied or is lower than the minimum. if 10 percent of such turnover is higher than the maximum penalty to be applied, its minimum and maximum amounts
are redefined by multiplying them by increasing whole figures until the condition of the previous period has been verified. the penalty is determined according to the criteria referred to in Article 11 of Law No 689 of 24 November 1981, taking into account, in particular, the danger connected with the non-conformity detected. in any case the penalty applied cannot exceed the maximum amount of 150,000 euros.
8. the person responsible for the infringements referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be obliged to repay the costs incurred for the implementation of the verification procedures on machines or quasi-machines. with subsequent decree of the Minister of Economic Development, adopted in agreement with the Minister of Economy and Finance, to be issued within ninety days from the date of entry into force of this decree, are defined the criteria for determining the relative amounts that, paid to the entry of the
State budget, are reassigned to the relevant expenditure chapters aimed at supporting these charges.
9. the sanctions referred to in this Article shall be imposed by the competent Directorate-General for the Ministry of Economic Development. the sums resulting from such sanctions are paid upon entry
of the state budget to be reassigned, within the limits provided for in Article 2, paragraph 1, letter c), last period, of Law 7 July 2009, n. 88, with decrees of the Minister of the Economy and Finance, to the relevant chapters of the state of forecasting of the expenditure of the same ministry
of economic development.

 

[pollo]

I agree with you on what is written in that decree, but as far as I can see, until it is published in gu, it cannot be considered an official document, although with a high degree of reliability: It has happened too often that already signed decrees were distorted before their publication.
So, if you allow me to be cautious, I expect the publication in Gu (maybe it is identical to the one already signed, but it is another story).
Hi.

 

[gerod]

Of course, until the publication in which nothing can be said.
however the transposition is not always done in the letter and with the same structure! !
the simple fact that d. lgs. replace the dpr459 with the exception of Article 11 is a nice envelope. Maybe it was better to copy/paste and amen!