natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
"Karlovačka pivovara" has asked for a training from the Institute for Research and Safety Development d.d. from Zagreb, to be held for Slaven Siladić, Zrinka Odrčić, Marija Tufeković and Marinko Kovačević.
„Karlovačka pivovara“ od Zavoda za istraživanje i razvoj sigurnosti d.d. iz Zagreba za Slavena Siladića, Zrinku Odrčić, Mariju Tufeković i Marinka Kovačevića tražila je obrazovanje za ovlaštenike.
Deems that findings of the expert for safety at work are unclear, incomplete and contradictory.
Smatra nalaz vještakinje zaštite na radu nejasnim, nepotpunim i proturječnim.
Namely, the expert Šijaković has not correctly taken into account the statement of witnesses Marić and Šantek that one of the ways to safely dispose and neutralise CO2 is its draining away into the sewage.
Naime, vještakinja Šijaković nije na ispravan način cijenila iskaz svjedoka Marića i Šanteka da je jedan od načina sigurnog zbrinjavanja i neutraliziranje CO2 ispuštanjem u kanalizaciju.
Does not know if "Karlovačka pivovara" performed any calculations, estimates or projections in relation to the daily production of CO2 in the fermentation section, and its draining into the sewage to be neutralises that way, in order to get correct data on ... the amount of CO2 that will be neutralised or, safely disposed of, as it was described.
Ne zna da li je „Karlovačka pivovara“ izvršila kakve izračune, procjene ili predviđanja u odnosu na dnevno proizvedenu količinu CO2 koja se proizvodi u pogonu fermentacije, a potom ispušta u kanalizaciju i time neutralizira da bi dobila točan podatak o tome ... koja količina CO2 će se neutralizirati odnosno, sigurno zbrinuti na opisan način.
Part of the findings and opinion of the expert Šijaković where she comments that in the area of safety at work a chaotic state was in place in "Karlovačka pivovara" is deemed inappropriate.
Dio nalaza i mišljenja vještakinje Šijaković gdje je komentirala da je u području zaštite na radu u „Karlovačkoj pivovari“ anarhično stanje smatra neprimjerenim.
Deems that the fact that a two year deadline expired from the last danger assessment does not mean that danger assessment ceased to exist, because this is not provided by any law or act.
Smatra da okolnost da je istekao rok od dvije godine od izrade posljednje procjene opasnosti ne znači da procjena opasnosti i dalje ne egzistira, jer tako nešto nije propisano ni jednim zakonom niti jednim aktom.
CO2 in Ordinances and laws is not defined as dangerous work material.
CO2 u pravilnicima i zakonima nije naznačen kao opasna radna tvar.
From the Danger assessment carried out in 2007 and in relation to Karlovačka pivovara it is recorded that a small danger exists of chemical harm.
Iz Procjene opasnosti koja je učinjena 2007. u odnosu na Karlovačku pivovaru evidentirano je da postoji mala opasnost od kemijskih štetnosti.
CPA refused evidence motion for repeated hearing of the expert Zvonko Rumenjak, or, for performing a new engineering expertise as well as on site investigation in "Karlovačka pivovara" at the location where late Zdravko Martinović was hurt, because the circumstances to be determined by such evidence were already determined in this criminal procedure" (page 8, chapter 2 and page 21, chapter 3 of the judgement)
ZKP-a odbio dokazni prijedlog za ponovnim ispitivanjem vještaka Zvonka Rumenjaka, odnosno, provođenjem novog strojarskog vještačenja kao i provođenja očevida na licu mjesta u „Karlovačkoj pivovari“ na mjestu stradavanja pokojnog Zdravka Martinovića, jer okolnosti koje bi se utvrđivale tim dokazima su već utvrđene u ovom kaznenom postupku“ (str.8. odl.2. i str.21. odl.3. presude).
if by removal of the CO2 liquification device the technology of operation of "Karlovačka pivovara" was changed and if as a consequence the I, II and IV defendant were obligated to make a revision of the danger assessment of such changed technology of operation; and that it is disputable if the CO2 released from the sewage shaft of "Karlovačka pivovara" towards Pivovarski creek, caused health impairment and death of the injured party Zdravko Martinović; and if on this concrete case of health impairment and death of Zdravko Martinović, provisions of the Workplace safety Act can be applied (because it is beyond doubt that Zdravko Martinović was not an employee of "Karlovačka pivovara" d.o.o. and that at the moment of the accident he was outside of "Karlovačka pivovara" premises. (all page 22 of the judgement).
da li je izmiještanjem uređaja za ukapljivanje CO2 promijenjena tehnologija rada „Karlovačke pivovare“ te da li su zbog toga I, II i IV okr. bili dužni izvršiti reviziju procjene opasnosti tako izmijenjene tehnologije rada; te da je sporno da li je CO2 ispuštan iz kanalizacijskog otvora „Karlovačke pivovare“ prema Pivarskom potoku izazvao oštećenje zdravlja i smrt oštećenog Zdravka Martinovića; te da li se u ovom konkretnom slučaju oštećenja zdravlja i smrti Zdravka Martinovića može primijeniti odredbe Zakona o zaštiti na radu (jer je nesporno da Zdravko Martinović nije bio zaposlenik „Karlovačke pivovare“ d.o.o. te da se u času stradavanja nalazio izvan kruga „Karlovačke pivovare“ (sve str.22. presude).
The first instance Court does not accept the position of the defendants' defence that, in this concrete case (of health impairment and death of Zdravko Martinović) The Safety at Work Act cannot be applied (regardless of the fact that Zdravko Martinović was not an employee of "Karlovačka pivovara" and that in the moment of distress he was outside of "Karlovačka pivovara" premises) because, taking into account provisions of Article 44, paragraph 1, Article 46, paragraph 1 and Article 47, paragraph 1, item 2
Prvostupanjski sud ne prihvaća stav obrane okrivljenika da se, u ovom konkretnom slučaju (oštećenja zdravlja i smrti Zdravka Martinovića) ne može primijeniti odredbe Zakona o zaštiti na radu (bez obzira što Zdravko Martinović nije bio zaposlenik „Karlovačke pivovare“ te što se u času stradavanja nalazio izvan kruga „Karlovačke pivovare“) jer je, s obzirom na odredbe članka 44. stavak 1., članka 46. stavak 1. i članka 47. stavak 1. točka 2.
"an obligation is laid upon the employer to take care of the living environment and not solely the working environment (page 23 of the Judgment)
„propisana obveza poslodavca da brine i o životnom okolišu a ne isključivo o radnom okolišu (str.23. presude).
Kovačević did not receive a formal decision on their appointment as authorised persons for the employer (page 23-26 of the judgement)
Kovačević nisu dobili formalnu odluku o tome da su imenovani ovlaštenicima poslodavca (str.23-26 presude).
"from the findings and opinions of the expert for engineering, Belas, Bsc and expert toxicologist
„iz nalaza i mišljenja vještaka za strojarstvo dipl.ing.Davora Belasa i vještaka toksikologa mr.sci.
(page 535-543 of the case file), and the recordings of the investigation and expertise of Damir Belas, Bsc. it is clear that the collection pipe which drains away the impure CO2, is bent under the roof surface in a way that it leads to the eastern part of the building where, it bends once more and descends into the ground, ending in its lower part, buried in the ground, leading underground to the collection point, and finally it is connected to the sewage system from the overflow section of the sludge sink (page
(list 535-542 spisa), te snimke očevida i vještačenja ing.Damira Belasa proizlazi da je sabirna cijev koja odvodi nečisti CO2, ispod površine krova savinuta tako da vodi prema istočnom dijelu zgrade gdje se, opet savinuta, spušta prema tlu, te, u svom donjem dijelu, završava ukopana u zemlju, te da pod zemljom vodi u sabirnicu, a na koncu je iz preljevnog dijela taložnice spojena u kanalizacijski sistem (str.
Furthermore it is stated that Brigita Brezinščak Bsc., employee of the Public Health Institute, examined the waste water flow from the sludge shaft situated in the fermentation building, to the final output in Pivarski creek (to the accident site) and that the findings were recorded and photographed and video taped on the date of investigation 2 March 2007, and according to the records and sketch made by Brigita Brezinščak Bsc. (page 579-582 of the file) it is clear that:
Dalje se navodi da je dipl.ing.Brigita Brezinščak, djelatnica Zavoda za javno zdravstvo, izvršila ispitivanje toka otpadnih voda od taložnog okna smještenog uz zgradu fermentacije, pa do konačnog ispusta u Pivarski potok (do mjesta nesreće) te da su navedena utvrđenja evidentirana i fotodokumentacijom te snimkom očevida dana 2. ožujka 2007.godine, te da prema zapisniku i skici dipl.ing.Brigite Brezinščak (list 579-582 spisa) proizlazi da su:
"technical and waste waters lead from the fermentation building to be connected through the sludge sink to the manhole RO1 of the mixed sewage channel and further to the object in the sewage marked as OBJ1" and that the:
„tehnološke i otpadne vode od objekta fermentora spojene preko Taložnice na reviziono okno RO 1 kanala nove mješovite kanalizacije i dalje do objekta na kanalizaciji označenog kao OBJ 1“, te da je:
"from the statement of the witness Enes Zaimović and the Report Recording by a CCTV camera of the precipitation sewage and the Report detailed recording of the overflow shaft junction "MP" and "RO 11 A-RO 11" it is clear that:
„iz iskaza svjedoka Enesa Zaimovića i Izvješća Snimka CCTV kamerom oborinske kanalizacije i Izvješća Detaljne snimke čvora preljevnih okana „MP“ i „RO 11 A-RO 11“ proizlazi da je:
"by examination and recording of the state of precipitation sewage an opening was found between precipitation and mixed sewage.
„pregledom i snimanjem stanja oborinske kanalizacije pronađen otvor između oborinske i mješovite kanalizacije.
Opening, concrete pipe, of size 0,15x0.30m is located between manhole RO11A situated on the mixed sewage and manhole RO11 situated on the precipitation sewage flowing in Grabica creek." ... and that:
Otvor, betonska cijev, je veličine 0,15 x 0,30 m i nalazi se između revizionog okna RO11A koji se nalazi na mješovitoj kanalizaciji i revizionog okna RO11 koji se nalazi na oborinskoj kanalizaciji koja ističe u potok Grabicu.“,... te da tako:
"there is an overflow from mixed to precipitation sewage when the inflow of water is drained towards the Grabica creek"; and that from records of on site investigation 1 and 2 from March 2007, and that the expert Davor Belas Bsc after examining project documents, found that the drainage pipe for impure CO2 should have been directed into the atmosphere; and that from compatible statements of witnesses it is clear that the pipe for draining out impure CO2 indeed was directed upwards, but later on removed; and that from the statement of the witness Nikola Devčić it is clear he instructed the worker Aleksandar Mačečević to remove the pipe (page 30 of the Judgement), and that from the statement of the witness Aleksandar Mačečević it is clear that the pipe was moved several times, finally to be connected to the sewage system (page 31);
„dolazi do prijelaza između mješovite u oborinsku kanalizaciju kada se dotok vode odvodi prema potoku Grabici“; a da iz zapisnika o očevidu od 1. i 2. ožujka 2007.g., te da je vještak dipl.ing.Davor Belas nakon uvida u projektnu dokumentaciju, našao da je cijev za odvodnju nečistog CO2 trebala biti usmjerena u atmosferu; a da iz suglasnih iskaza svjedoka proizlazi da je cijev za odvodnju nečistog CO2 i bila usmjerena u zrak, ali da je kasnije izmještena; te da iz iskaza svjedoka Nikole Devčića proizlazi da je on dao nalog radniku Aleksandru Mačečeviću da izmijesti predmetnu cijev (str.30 presude), a da iz iskaza svjedoka Aleksandra Mačečevića proizlazi da je cijev nekoliko puta premještana da bi na kraju bila spojena u kanalizaciju (str.31);
"the statement of the witness Franjo Plavšić, finding and opinion of forensic medicine expert Josip Škavić, MD and expert toxicologists Zdravko Kovačić, Bsc. and Ines Gmajnički the Court determines the characteristics of the CO2, stating that CO2 is heavier than air, thus the concentration of CO2 is higher in lower than higher altitudes, so, CO2 in higher concentration causes danger for health.
„iskaza svjedoka Franje Plavšića, nalaza i mišljenja vještaka sudske medicine dr.Josipa Škavića i vještaka toksikologa dipl.ing.Zdravka Kovačića i Ines Gmajnički“ sud utvrđuje karakteristike CO2, navodeći da je CO2 plin teži od zraka,pa je koncentracija CO2 veća na nižoj visini a manja na višoj, pa CO2 u povećanoj koncentraciji izaziva opasnost za zdravlje.
"the defence of all defendants denied the fact that health impairment of Zdravko Martinović was caused by CO2 coming out of the precipitation sewage output", but the Court based on statements of he witnesses Desanka Martinović, Želimir Požar, Kata Curman, Jasna Pletikosa, MD, Miljenko Gvožđak, Nedjeljko Mihalić and Goran Martinović, and related to the findings and opinions of the toxicologist Ines Gmajnički Msc , concludes that all persons who were present on the site, where Zdravko Martinović was found that critical evening, suffered same consequences as the injured party (page 35 and 36) and it is undoubtedly so that:
„obrana svih okrivljenika osporavala činjenicu da je do oštećenja zdravlja Zdravka Martinovića došlo zbog CO2 koji je izlazio iz ispusta oborinske kanalizacije“, ali sud, temeljem iskaza svjedoka Desanke Martinović, Želimira Požara, Kate Curman, dr.Jasne Pletikose, Miljenka Gvožđaka, Nedjeljka Mihalića te Gorana Martinovića a u vezi nalaza i mišljenja vještaka toksikologa mr.sci.Ines Gmajnički i, zaključuje da su sve osobe koje su se kritične večeri našle na mjestu pronalaska oštećenog Zdravka Martinovića trpile iste posljedice kao i oštećenik (str.35 i 36), a da je nedvojbeno da je:
"CO2 following the creek bed came to the concrete watering hole, of the pool where the injured Zdravko Martinović was found with a dog", and that in the evening of 23/02/2007, he was found unconscious by the concrete pool, and the next morning the dead dog was found in the pool, and in the creek bed a dead duck, and that all results:
„CO2 koritom potoka došao do betonskog pojilišta, bazena gdje se nalazi oštećeni Zdravko Martinović sa psom“, te je uvečer 23.2.2007., uz betonski bazen pronađen bez svijesti, Zdravko Martinović, a drugo jutro u bazenu uginuli pas, a u koritu potoka uginula patka, a da svi rezultati:
"indicate that health impairment of Zdravko Martinović, death of the dog and the duck could occur due to hypoxia after inhaling CO2", and "health impairment of the injured Zdravko Martinović occurred on 23/02/2007 and was of such volume that it resulted with death on 19 March 2007" and "by 23 February 2007 the health status of injured Zdravko Martinović..was not such..to lead to health impairment and consequent death on 19 March 2007" and at the site of distress of the injured Zdravko Martinović no other factor than the CO2 was found that could cause such damage of health of the named person which resulted with his death, and the death of two animal species", therefore, the Court found that:
„ukazuju da je do oštećenja zdravlja Zdravka Martinovića i uginuća psa i patke moglo doći zbog hipoksije nakon udahnuća CO2“, a „oštećenje zdravlja oštećenog Zdravka Martinovića nastupilo je 23.2.2007. i bilo je takvog opsega da je došlo do smrtnog ishoda 19. ožujka 2007. godine“ a „do dana 23. veljače 2007. zdravstveno stanje oštećenog Zdravka Martinovića...nije bilo takvo ....da bi dovelo do oštećenja zdravlja i kasnijeg smrtnog ishoda 19. ožujka 2007. godine“ a na mjestu stradavanja oštećenog Zdravka Martinovića nije utvrđen niti jedan drugi čimbenik osim CO2 koji bi izazvao takvo oštećenje zdravlja imenovanog koje je rezultiralo njegovom smrću, kao i uginućem dvije životinjske vrste“, pa je stoga, sud našao utvrđenim:
"the defence of defendants I to VI .. completely denied that CO2 was a dangerous matter because this was not provided in any legal or other act, they stated that no legal or other act provides what to do with CO2 produced in the fermentation process, the term safe disposal of CO2 produced in the fermentation process is not provided for nowhere", and that:
„obrana I do VI okrivljenog,...u cijelosti osporavala da je CO2 opasna tvar jer to nije propisano niti jednim zakonskim propisom ili drugim aktom, naveli su da niti jednim zakonskim propisom ili drugim aktom nije propisano što činiti s CO2 koji nastaje u postupku fermentacije, nigdje nije propisan ni termin sigurno zbrinjavanje CO2 nastalog u postupku fermentacije“, te da je:
"the defence of all defendants denied that the removal of the CO2 liquification installation presents the change of technology of operation of Karlovačka pivovara..." (page 37) and that the expert Ana Šijaković states:
„obrana svih okrivljenika osporavala da uklanjanje uređaja za ukapljivanje CO2 predstavlja izmjenu tehnologije rada Karlovačke pivovare....“ (str.37) te da i vještakinja Ana Šijaković navodi:
"illustratively mentioned the definition of dangerous matters given by the National Rescue and Protection Directorate in its "instructions for emergency situations" (page 38).
„ilustrativno naznačila definiciju opasnih tvari koju je dala Državna uprava za zaštitu i spašavanje u svojim „uputama u izvanrednim situacijama“ (str.38).
The Court states that: witnesses prof.
Sud navodi da su: svjedoci prof.
"the Court found that Karlovačka pivovara, after removing the CO2 liquification installation, has not carried out safe disposal of CO2 from the fermentation process, although this product was the primary cause of danger in the operations of breweries" (page 39).
„sud utvrdio da Karlovačka pivovara, nakon uklanjanja uređaja za ukapljivanje CO2, nije provela sigurno zbrinjavanje CO2 iz postupka fermentacije, iako je taj produkt prvi izvor opasnosti u radu pivovara“ (str.39).
Further, from the findings and oppinion of the engineering experts Zvonko Rumenjak Bsc. and Davor Belas Bsc., who, at the main hearing on 13 March 2008 stated that from 26/11/2006:
Dalje, iz nalaza i mišljenja vještaka za strojarstvo dipl.ing.Zvonka Rumenjaka i dipl.ing.Davora Belasa, koji je, na glavnoj raspravi 13. ožujka 2008.g., naveo da se od 26.11.2006.:
"there was a significant change in technology" the court found:
„radi o značajnoj promjeni u tehnologiji“ sud je utvrdio:
"that after removing the liquification installation for the CO2 produced in the fermentation process, the total produced quantity of CO2 was drained away through the pipeline for impure CO2 drainage which was connected to the sewage system of Karlovačka pivovara and further on to precipitation sewage exiting into the Pivarski creek- Grabica creek (pages 39 and 40); as from the expertise made by Bsc. for security
„da se nakon izmještanja stroja za ukapljivanje CO2 nastalog u postupku fermentacije, sveukupno proizvedena količina CO2 odvodila kroz cjevovod za odvodnju nečistog CO2 koji je bio spojen na kanalizacijski sustav Karlovačke pivovare i koji je spojen s oborinskom kanalizacijom koja izlazi u Pivarski potok - potok Grabica (str.39. i 40.); a kako iz vještačenja dipl.ing.sig.
Ana Šijaković it is clear that the technology of beer production presents the basic business activity of "Karlovačka pivovara" which means that:
Ane Šijaković proizlazi da tehnologija proizvodnje piva predstavlja temeljnu djelatnost „Karlovačke pivovare“, to onda:
After the removal of the CO2 liquification device in November 2006, no new technology of CO2 disposal in the scope of safety of work was created", and taking into account the provision of the Article 13
Nakon izmještanja uređaja za ukapljivanje CO2 u studenom 2006. nije izrađena nova tehnologija zbrinjavanja CO2 u smislu zaštite na radu“, a uzimajući u obzir odredbu članka 13.
Of the Ordinance on danger assessment which provides that the revision of the danger assessment is done, also, in cases of work process changes which influence safety and health of employees" so, the Court, "based on the facts explained by experts Belas and Rumenjak and Ana Šijaković that, after 25/11/2006 change of technology of operations occurred, takes a position that:
Pravilnika o izradi procjene opasnosti kojom je propisano da se revizija procjene opasnosti obavlja i u slučaju izmjena u procesu rada koje utječu na sigurnost i zdravlje zaposlenika“ pa sud, temeljem činjenice koju su obrazložili vještaci Belas i Rumenjak te Ana Šijaković da je, nakon 25.11.2006., došlo do izmjene tehnologije rada, zauzima stav da je:
"a revision of the danger assessment should have been carried out after the removal of CO2 liquification device" although the Court itself states that:
„trebalo izvršiti reviziju procjene opasnosti nakon izmještanje uređaja za ukapljivanje CO2“ iako i sam sud navodi da:
"by assessment of danger the employer identifies all dangers, harmfulness and risks in the activities it carries out...related to dangers...for the safety and health of employees", but the Court deems that the danger assessment (which is "the starting point for execution and implementation of the Safety at Work Act) should include, also, harmful consequences related to the safety...of the living environment which is endangered by the activities of the employer" (all page 40)
„procjenom opasnosti poslodavac utvrđuje sve opasnosti, štetnosti i rizike u djelatnosti koju obavlja.......glede opasnosti ....... za sigurnost i za zdravlje zaposlenika“, ali sud smatra da procjena opasnosti (koja predstavlja „polazište za primjenu i provedbu Zakona o zaštiti na radu) treba obuhvatiti i one štetne posljedice vezane za sigurnost ........životnog okoliša koji je ugrožen djelatnošću poslodavca“ (sve str.40).
"the defences of defendants deny any personal responsibility related to obligations they have in the situation when the CO2 liquification installation is removed", but that the expert Ana Šijaković states that the employer is obligated to take care of the equipment, meaning the impure CO2 drainage pipeline as well, and that the same expert states that in Karlovačka pivovara the obligation for taking care of equipment was under the competence of the Technical Sector Manager I def.
„obrane okrivljenika osporavaju bilo kakvu njihovu osobnu odgovornost glede obveza koje imaju u situaciji kada se izmješta uređaj za ukapljivanje CO2“, ali da vještakinja Ana Šijaković navodi da je poslodavac dužan voditi brigu i skrbiti o sredstvima rada, što znači i o cjevovodu za odvodnju nečistog CO2, pa da ista vještakinja navodi da je u „Karlovačkoj pivovari“ obveza vođenja brige o sredstvima rada data u domenu direktora Tehničkog sektora I okr.
Gabor Ligeti, Head of Technical Services Department II def.
Gabora Ligetija, rukovoditelja Odjela tehničkih usluga II okr.
Slaven Siladić and Head of the Beer Production Department IV def. Marija Tufeković, and that I, II and IV def. know that CO2 should be disposed safely, and that they know that the total produced quantity of CO2 from 26/11/2006 was no longer being disposed by liquification, and that they, in spite of that fact did not perform a single action to organise CO2 disposal in an alternative, appropriate and harmless way, and that they, although obligated to perform supervision of danger sources, did nothing, and since the I, II and IV def. were authorised by the employers for issues of safety at work, and by that responsible persons, who were obligated to, prior to CO2 disposal technology change, plan, prepare and carry out the work process in such a way to ensure the most effective protection of workers, but environment as well, the I, II and IV def. violated the provision of Article 44 paragraph 1
Slavena Siladića i rukovoditeljice Odjela proizvodnje piva IV okr.Marije Tufeković, te da I, II i IV okr. znaju da se CO2 treba zbrinuti na siguran način, da isti znaju da se ukupno proizvedena količina CO2 od 26.11.2006. više ne zbrinjava ukapljivanjem, a da oni, unatoč toj činjenici ne poduzimaju niti jednu radnju da bi organizirali zbrinjavanje CO2 na neki drugi odgovarajući neškodljiv način, te da oni, iako su dužni vršiti nadzor nad izvorom opasnosti, ne čine ništa, pa kako su I, II i IV okr. ovlaštenici poslodavca za pitanja zaštite na radu, a time i odgovorne osobe, koje su bile dužne prije promjene tehnologije zbrinjavanja CO2 proces rada tako planirati, pripremati i provoditi da se osigura što djelotvornija zaštita radnika ali i zaštita okoliša, to su I, II i IV okr. prekršili odredbu članka 44. stavak 1.