machine pre ce, who certifies compliance?

[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).

Here too, the title of the sentence is: " sale of a machinery without the necessary safety conditions: if it is ceded to be repaired there is no violation. "

in practice (I read the whole sentence, and thank you for having reported it because very interesting) this sentence treats a completely different case. Guy sells a car declared not safe (it does not comply with the requirements of Annex V) and is therefore fined. Guy defends himself saying "I know it's not safe, but caio told me he didn't put it in service like this, he gives it sempronio that he must first make substantial changes, look, there's also written on the contract".

and in fact the cassation eventually gave reason to the guy and removed the fine.
But I said this car has all the security conditions. until two months ago it was used without any problem.details here:

Cassazione Penale, Sez. 3, 01 ottobre 2013, n. 40590 - Repertorio Salute

Vendita di un macchinario privo delle necessarie condizioni di sicurezza: se è ceduto per essere riparato non c'è violazione.

www.repertoriosalute.it

e qui:

Attrezzature non a norma vendita concessa solo se… – Studio ASQ Latina

www.studioasq.it

 

[gerod]

you must ensure the safety of the machinery (or equipment in the broad sense used in Legislative Decree 81/08). if it is safe, stop. just enter the dvr update. Everything else is boring. The important thing is that I'm sure. It is not the piece of paper that hurts you (maybe the judge without the piece of paper goes to wedding ... but we are technical and we can assert ourselves! )
art. 18 c.1 lit. z had been cited by the undersigned because it refers to art. 2087 of the cc. you must always improve your system when you have to improve. If you're right, keep it. then also accredia had reiterated, for those who wanted to certify their system of health and safety according to 18001 (now 45001), that they would still require adjustments to the machinery (read this circular on which I feed some perplexity).
Hi.

 

[TETRASTORE]

He's right. @gerod, I think we have seen in a series of conjectures affecting more in legal terms than in practical terms by affecting psychological terrorism .
once you have secured the machine, if you have done limited interventions you can make a simple relationship, if you have made substantial changes that do not significantly change the original functionality of the machine you must attest compliance only for the interested parties, if you have completely overturned the machine (but I don't think) at this point you no longer refer to the missing original document but to the new certification of conformity for the whole machine. in the first two cases, however, remains the sword of damocles of the lack of certification that was to provide the seller, but this is a problem that could be brought up only in case of serious injury.

 

[PIETRO2002]

He's right. @gerod, I think we have seen in a series of conjectures which are more relevant to the legal profile than on the practical one by venting psychological terrorism .
once you have secured the machine, if you have done limited interventions you can make a simple relationship, if you have made substantial changes that do not significantly change the original functionality of the machine you must attest compliance only for the interested parties, if you have completely overturned the machine (but I don't think) at this point you no longer refer to the missing original document but to the new certification of conformity for the whole machine. in the first two cases, however, remains the sword of damocles of the lack of certification that was to provide the seller, but this is a problem that could be brought up only in case of serious injury.

We have to exhume the azzeccagarbugli, of manzoniana memory! :