natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
"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.
Zrinka Odrčić, who became Head of the Safety at Work and Environment Department on 1/12/2006, and who, knowing that "CO2 is the primary source of danger in the work of a brewery", in spite of the obligation from the Article 23 
Zrinke Odrčić, koja je od 1.12.2006. postala rukovoditelj Odjela sigurnosti zaštite na radu i okoliša, te koja, znajući da je „CO2 prvi izvor opasnosti u radu pivovare“, usprkos obveze iz članka 23.
Of the Safety at work Act, which provides that carrying out internal supervision over implementation of the Rules of safety at work, did not carry out a single activity of supervision.." (all page 42), and for the V def. 
Zakona o zaštiti na radu, kojom je propisano provođenje unutarnjeg nadzora nad primjenom Pravila zaštite na radu, nije poduzela niti jednu radnju tog nadzora....“ (sve str.42), a i za V okr.
of the Safety at Work Act, i.e. by omitting to act according to taken obligations, he agreed to occurrence of any consequence which could derive from his omission (page 43). 
Zakona o zaštiti na radu tj. propuštanjem da postupi prema preuzetim obvezama, pristao na nastup svake posljedice koja iz njegovaog propusta može nastupiti (str.43).
Court rejected the defences of I to V def. and representative of the legal entity "Karlovačka pivovara" in the part where they decline any responsibility for the occurrence of the harmful consequence... (page 45). 
Sud nije prihvatio obrane I do V okr. te predstavnice pravne osobe „Karlovačke pivovare“ u onom dijelu gdje otklanjaju bilo kakvu odgovornost za nastup štetne posljedice......(str.45).
of the Safety at work Act, Ordinance on internal organisation and systematisation of work posts in Karlovačka pivovara and Employment contracts with "Karlovačka pivovara") all in positions stated in the judgement disposition, and III def. Zrinka Odrčić, also, based on Art. 23 
Zakona o zaštiti na radu, Pravilnika o unutarnjoj organizaciji i sistematizaciji radnih mjesta u „Karlovačkoj pivovari“ i Ugovora o radu s „Karlovačkom pivovarom“) svi u svojstvima naznačenim u izreci presude, a III okr.Zrinka Odrčić i temeljem čl.23.
Of the Safety at work Act, and omitted, after 25 November 2006 to carry out a revision of the danger assesment due to changed technology of operations, and contrary to provision of Article 12 and 13 
Zakona o zaštiti na radu, te propustili, nakon 25. studenog 2006.g. izvršiti reviziju procjene opasnostu zbog izmijenjene tehnologije rada, a protivno odredbi članka 12. i 13.
Of the Safety at Work Act, have all agreed to the consequences which could occur from their omission to act, due to this omission of I-V defendants on 23 February 2007, outside the factory premises, at the gorge of the Pivarski creek the level of oxygen in the air was decreased, and Zdravko Martinović, who walked with his dog along the Pivarski creek, lost consciousness and remained laying down, and later on died from hypoxic suffocation on 19 March 2007 in the General Hospital in Karlovac, and by that the court determined that I to V def. as responsible persons did not act according to the regulations and technical rules on protection measures and by that caused peril for the life and body of people causing the death of one person (al pages 46) and the very omission of I to V def. caused the occurrence of the dangerous situation in the area of Pivarski creek and surrounding area, and consequently to health impairment and death the injured Zdravko Martinović, which is confirmed by the records of on-site investigation from 3.3.2007. 
Zakona o zaštiti na radu, svi pristali na sve posljedice koje usljed njihovih propusta mogu nastupiti, zbog kojih propusta I do V okrivljenih je dana 23. veljače 2007., izvan kruga tvornice, u usjeku Pivarskog potoka bila smanjena koncentracijak kisika u zraku, pa je Zdravko Martinović, koji je s psom šetao uz Pivarski potok, izgubio svijest i ostao ležati, a potom 19. ožujka 2007.g. od posljedica hipoksičnog gušenja umro u Općoj bolnici u Karlovcu, pa je time, sud utvrdio da I do V okr. kao odgovorne osobe nisu postupali po propisma i tehničkim pravilima o zaštitnim mjerama te su time izazvali opasnost za život i tijelo ljudi uslijed čega je prouzročena smrt jedne osobe (sve str.46) pa da je upravo propustima I do V okr. došlo do stvaranja opasne situacije na području Pivarskog potoka i okolnog područja, te da je stoga došlo do oštećenja zdravlja i smrti oštećenog Zdravka Martinovića, a što potvrđuje i zapisnik o očevidu od 3.3.2007.g.
(pages 480-482 of the file), statement of witness Čepelak on oxygen concentration at the outlet of precipitation sewage into the Pivarski creek (page 47) so, the court found that I to V def. as responsible persons, due to their omissions and inactivity, caused the occurrence of such harmful consequence, and that they acted with the form of culpability identified as indirect intention because: 
(list 480-482 spisa), iskaz svjedoka Čepelaka o koncentraciji kisika na ispustu oborinske kanalizacije u Pivarski potok (str.47) pa je sud utvrdio da su upravo I do V okr., kao odgovorne osobe, zbog svih svojih propusta i nečinjenja, izazvali nastup ovakve štetne posljedice, te da su postupali s oblikom krivnje koji se naziva neizravna namjera jer:
"I, II, IV and V defendants neither as authorised persons by employers for the area of safety at work, did not carry out a single check in order to determine where the impure CO2 drainage pipe is located and ends, to which 26/11/2006 the total quantity of produced CO2 in the process of fermentation was directed, nor did they ensure alternative safe way to dispose CO2 before the CO2 liquification installation removal" (page 47), and that in spite of the CO2 liquification installation was removed, the production (beer) was continued by which the complete daily production of CO2 was poured into the sewage system, more correctly to the channel for precipitation and waste waters drainage, outside of the factory premises to Pivarski creek (Grabica Creek) where on 23 February 2007, due to the release of a large quantity of CO2 in the gorge of the creek, health impairment and later on death of Zdravko Martinović occurred. 
„ I, II i IV i V okrivljenici ni kao ovlaštenici poslodavca za područje zaštite na radu nisu izvršili niti jednu provjeru da bi utvrdili gdje se nalazi i gdje završava cijev za odvodnju nečistog CO2 u koju je od 26.11.2006.g. odlazio sveukupno proizveden CO2 u pogonu fermentacije niti su osigurali da se na drugi način sigurno zbrine CO2 prije izmiještanja stroja za ukapljivanje CO2“ (str.47), te da je unatoč izmiještanju stroja za ukapljivanje CO2, proizvodnja (pive) nastavljena čime je cjelokupno dnevno proizvedna količina CO2 istjecala u kanalizacijski sustav, točnije kanal za odvodnju oborinskih i otpadnih voda van kruga tvornice do Pivarskog potoka (potoka Grabica) gdje je dana 23. veljače 2007 godine zbog ispuštanja velike količine CO2 u usjeku potoka, došlo do oštećenja zdravlja i kasnije smrti Zdravka Martinovića.
And by agreeing to the continuation of production, with no checks of the CO2, being the primary source of danger in brewery production and harmful for life and health of people, is no longer being liquified, I to V def. agreed to the occurrence of any harmful consequence that may arise due to their omissions and with such behaviour, I to V def., as responsible persons, the Court identifies al subjective and objective characteristics of the criminal offence from the Article 271 paragraph 2. 
Te je upravo takvim pristajanjem na nastavak proizvodnje, bez ikakve provjere što se CO2, koji je prvi izvor opasnosti u radu pivovare i štetan za život i zdravlje ljudi, više ne ukapljuje, I do V okr. pristali na nastup svake štetne posljedice koja može nastupiti zbog njihovih propusta pa je u tako utvrđenom ponašanju, I do V okr., kao odgovornih osoba, sud utvrdio sva subjektiva i objektivna obilježja kaznenog djela iz članka 271. stavak 2.
of CC and the Court for this crime found them guilty (al page 48) 
KZ te ih je sud za to djelo proglasio krivim (sve str.48).
Karlovac, the Court states that it is undoubtedly determined that I to V def., as responsible persons in Karlovačka pivovara, in position from the deposition of judgement, omitted to act in accordance with regulations and technical rules on protection measures and thus caused danger for life and body of people which led to the death of one person (page 48), and: 
Karlovac, sud navodi da je nedvojbeno utvrđeno da su I do V okr., kao odgovorne osobe Karlovačke pivovare, u svojstvu iz izreke presude, propustili postupati po propisima i tehničkim pravilima o zaštitnim mjerama i time izazvali opasnost za život i tijelo ljudi usljed čega je prouzročena smrt jedne osobe (str.48), te :
"the employer "Karlovačka pivovara" according to the Article 44 paragraph 1 
„poslodavac „Karlovačka pivovara“ prema članku 44. stavak 1.
Of the Safety at Work Act has a duty to plan, prepare and carry out the work process in a way that will ensure protection of workers and effective protection of the environment, which in concrete case was not done.. equally so, it has been undeniably determined in the proceedings that the employer Karlovačka pivovara acted contrary to the provision of Article 43 paragraph 2 
Zakona o zaštiti na radu ima dužnost takvog planiranja, pripremanja i provođenja procesa rada kojom će se osigurati zaštita radnika i djelotvorno zaštita okoliša a što u konkretnom slučaju nije učinjeno....jednako tako nesporno je u postupku utvrđeno da je poslodavac Karlovačka pivovara postupila protivno odredbi članka 43. stavak 2.
Of the Safety at Work Act, because it did not ensure that the equipment is in good condition at all times... according to the Article 23 paragraph 1 lines 2 and 3 
Zakona o zaštiti na radu jer nije osigurala da sredstva rada u svakom trenutku budu u ispravnom stanju....prema članku 23. stavak 1. alineja 2. i 3.
During the proceeding it has been determined that the employer Karlovačka pivovara omitted to act according to this legal obligation.. 
Tijekom postupka je utvrđeno da je poslodavac Karlovačka pivovara propustila postupiti po ovoj propisanoj zakonskoj obvezi .....
from the findings and opinions of the safety at work expert Ana Šijaković Bsc., it is clear that in the Danger assessment of the Karlovačka pivovara, as the basic act of the employer in the area of safety at work, changes of technology of safe disposal of CO2 were not elaborated, given the fact that the CO2 liquification device was removed and following these changes of the technological process, informed the company who drafted this act. 
iz nalaza i mišljenja vještaka zaštite na radu dipl.ing.sig.Ane Šijaković proizlazi da u Procjeni opasnosti Karlovačke pivovare, kao temeljnom aktu poslodavca iz područja zaštite na radu, nisu razrađene promjene tehnologije sigurnog zbrinjavanja CO2 s obzirom na činjenicu da je uklonjen uređaj za ukapljivanje CO2 i nisu sljedom tih izmjena tehnološkog procesa, obavijestile tvrtku koja je izrađivala taj akt.
Consequently, on 23 February 2007, danger occurred for the life of people causing the death of one person... 
Zbog toga je dana 23. veljače 2007. nastupila opasnost za život ljudi usljed čega je jedna osoba smrtno stradala....
Provided by Article 3 
Odredbom članka 3.
Legal entity will be punished for criminal offences provided by the Criminal Code and other Codes which regulate criminal offences... 
Pravna osoba kaznit će se za kaznena djela propisana kaznenim zakonikom i drugim zakonima u kojima su propisana kaznena djela.....
criminal offences of responsible persons in this concrete case the obligation of "Karlovačka pivovara" is violated to organise its work in a way to ensure effective protection of the environment... provision of Article 5. 
kazenim djelima odgovornih osoba u ovom konkretnom slučaju povrijeđena je obveza „Karlovačke pivovare da svoj rad organizira na način da se osigura djelotvorna zaštita okoliša.....odredbom članka 5.
"the Court found that the responsible persons of the Company "Karlovačka pivovara" , namely, I, II, III, IV and V def. were found guilty, therefore, the legal entity Karlovačka pivovara was found guilty for committing the criminal offence from Article 271 paragraph 2 
„sud našao utvrđenim da su odgovorne osobe trgovačkog društva „Karlovačka pivovara“ i to I, II, III, IV i V okr., proglašeni krivima to je i pravna osoba Karlovačka pivovara proglašena krivom da je počinila kazneno djelo iz članka 271. stavak 2.
of ALLECO" (all page 49) 
ZOPOKD“ (sve str.49).
(page 50 and 51), and for the VI defendant Company "Karlovačka pivovara" d.o.o. the Court appreciated the information of competent authorities on assets and equity of the company, so for the criminal offence from Article 271 paragraph 2 
(str.50. i 51.), a za VI okrivljenu TD „Karlovačka pivovara“ d.o.o. sud je cijenio podatke nadležnih tijela o imovini i temeljnom kapitalu društva, pa je za kazneno djelo iz članka 271. stavak 2.
of ALLECO, VI def. 
ZOPOKD, VI okr.
of ALLECO in accordance with Article 52 paragraph 1 
ZOPOKD-a u vezi članka 52. stavak 1.