I preferred to wait because I thought it was a fish of April, the news that the action by Confedilizia 9370/09, was received by the Lazio Regional Administrative Court nullifying the DM July 23, 2009.
Among the reasons for the sentence, stands out in my opinion this passage:
But what is striking, nell''esame dell''intera each other, is that with clear abuse of power'impugnato the decree was not at all taken in order to ensure more effective protection against the risks associated all''uso dell''ascensore. The proof of the merits of the relief is in the same measure in which it is clear that the'obiettivo pursued by the Government is to "revive the'edilizia" and then deal with the crisis, it is currently going through, "" even "with the safety of technological systems all''interno buildings, and" they include the'ascensore "as" indispensable means of transport "."
The new legislation is then set to not fill obvious gaps nell''attuale security system, but for purposes of employment, that is to save jobs, without worrying about the serious impact that this policy has sull''economia families. The proof is in the fact that the previous Ministerial Decree of 26 October 2005, in response to reactions dell''opinione public has never been implemented or even repealed, so that the two measures currently live with identical content.
4. For the foregoing reasons the appeal must be upheld and, for'effetto must be annulled'impugnato measure. As for the legal costs, can disporsene the full compensation between the parties constituted.
Can I be 's acceptance of this reasoning, then the blame has been placed by the Ministry as the DM, however, in any case we managed to do in Italy' s yet another fool to "banana republic" where the end creating a situation of chaos, is satisfied for all satisfied no one and as always losers are the accident victims, and technicians who sign the half.
months have now that I start alarm on this decree and that I would have preferred other ways to make standard installations.
Another aspect to be reckoned with is to decide whether or not there is a danger after which we discuss how to solve it but you can not 'decide whether a situation is dangerous or not strokes of decrees and judgments, the situation is dangerous in this matter, is a technical issue and the safety factor must be a serious, well-considered, should not be underestimated nor overestimated to create business.
E 'was made a big mess with this ruling, also because the car was already in motion, began to look at the first risk analysis by the notified bodies, some owner according to the DM has already made certain choices and now?
However it should be noted that EN 81.80 is the norm and therefore the facilities are still inadequate outside the law.
and I will look forward 'to update you on this big mess.
0 comments:
Post a Comment